“Dad of Altantuya must bring the case to World Court!” – mendela at 18: 23.21.

Reporters asked Altantuya’s father Dr Setev Shariibuu Setev whether he would be taking the matter up with the World Court as a last resort.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the International Criminal Court (ICC) established in 2002 has no such jurisdiction over private crimes.

ICC was founded upon the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Jurisdiction clearly spelled out there covers only areas like genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which, if committed by private individuals (such as Hitler’s henchmen in Nuremberg trials, Japanese generals in Tokyo Trials, Saddam Hussein) were/are committed under the banner of their nation states or party organisation in terms of large-scale atrocity against any body or group of peoples.

The other point is whilst Mongolia is one of the countries having ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, Malaysia has not.

Meanwhile Altantuya’s family has sued the three accused for her murder and the Malaysian government, seeking RM100 million in damages over her death. There is also a threat of Mongolian government severing diplomatic ties with Malaysia.

Other than that there’s nothing much Altantuya’s family could do except to approach international human rights organisation.

Dr Setev Shariibuu Setev has left two questions for Malaysians to ask:

1. who arranged the visa issue for Altantuya Shaariibuu when she visited France?

2. Who was accompanying or attending the trip to France with Altantuya Shaariibuu and what did they do there?

Well if the answers are not obtainable in Malaysia, they might – in France.

LKS uses words like “even more imperative” in light of Abdul Razak Baginda’s acquittal of the charge of abetment. Now why would he use such words as “more imperative”? What is the connection between the words “even more imperative” on one hand and Abdul Razak Baginda’s acquittal on the other? It must be a rational connection if LKS were not to be taken as someone fast and loose in his choice of words. What is the implied assumption behind what he said that we can ascertain if LKS’s assumption is rational or irrational?

· even if it were true that Azilah and Sirul were guilty – and I am not saying at this juncture that they are less some people here may accuse me of denigrating or being sheer ignorant of the time honoured legal principle and presumption that ‘a person is innocent till proven guilty’ – it is the nature of their job and training under the Special Force, “Tindakan Khas”, that they will act on instructions of a “superior” in the chain of command than initate missions on their own on a random opportunity basis without motives;

· so if upon that premise Razak Baginda was not, as per finding of the Court, responsible for the instructing and ordering ‘ who higher up did??????

Now LKS may be accused of not knowing what he said only if the above two implicit assumptions underpinning his choice of words are irrational or invalid.

Is there anything so unreasonable or unfair in LKS’s implicit assumptions?? You tell me again!

My guess is that LKS – like many other Malaysians disquieted by the conduct of investigation and outcome of the trial – makes this fundamental asumption, that:-

And …”lest”instead of “less” (Ooops!)

Link to the above The Malaysia Insider Report discussed may be accessed here:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/11612-razak-baginda-saved-by-his-affidavit

“…When Obama was accused a Muslim, when he was accused a racist etc. was there a Royal Commission formed to clear his name?”… imranj78 asked, as if this kind of accusations – which, according to Obama, was drawn only from his having lived, when young, in Indonesia, and once attended a school that was mostly Muslims for a few years – and which even the McCain camp dissociates from, could rightfully be compared and treated at the same level and accorded the same serious concerns as that of Altantuya’s murder case, with all its shortcomings in investigations relating to it.

When one uses a grape to compare with durian as basis of argument, no meaningful exchange can be expected to ensue from trying to respond to such an argument.

“Yes, declarations are what they are. It does not matter first, second and what the purpose was when you made them. Their truth will have to be examined. If you are the accused making these declarations, you will have to be examined in open court and cross examined as to their truth and accuracy.”

I have not followed the trial closely as reported in newspapers when it was going on. Hopwever from secondary report of The Malaysian Insider, and even Mainstream papers as far as the reportage of verdict is concerned, and its basis, it seems that Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit of Baginda (tendered for bail) which contents unrebutted/uncontradicted, according to judge, exculpated him. What can be expected done of Prosecution proceeded another direction and did not focus on or seek to cross examine the first Affidavit?

“….well I am NOT here to argue about …”

imranj78, what you have done is to try bring the Altantuya’s case to same level as Obama’s by saying both are are smeared by rumours/hearsays, mocking LKS call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) as if his call proceeds only on basis of rumours/hearsays (as defined by you), which is NOT the case because (1) the circumstances surrounding these so called rumours/hearsay eg Bala SD1 & 23 are not exactly the same stature as rumours of Obama being a muslim and (2) LKS’s call for RCI is based not just on the alleged rumours and hearsay of Bala/RPK but wider considerations of the perceived anomalies in the conduct of investigations and court case in striking departure from the ordinary.

It seems to me that you have selectively defined LKS’s call being based on narrower parameters that what they really are and used your own d efinition of the narrow parameters to discredit his call, which essentially shows either:

1. you lack understanding or knowledge of the bigger picture of the existence of anomalies stated; or

2. deliberately choose to ignore these, and to define LKS’s call as being based on narrow parameters of rumours/hearsays just so to discredit his call, engaging in what is esentialy a dishonest argument, which of course is easier facilitated by your unsual better command odf English….. :)

If LKS calls for a RCI based on reasons (say) a, b,c, d and e in combination, and a detractor of his frames/defines his reason for calling so as being based (narrowly) on only (say) reason (a) [ie rumours/hearsay] without taking into consideration the balance of total considerations b, c, d and e taken into consideration and proceed further to ridicule reason a. as being a sufficient justification by pointing out by comparison another example (rumours pertaining to Obama) where no RCI was called or it would be ridiculous to do so by reason of a. alone, what has such a detractor done?

He has committed unwittingly (in such a case, an act of lack of understanding) or deliberately (in this case an act of dishonest argument) committed more than one facllacies of reasoning and argument…….

1st fallacy is that of Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue in order to draw a different conclusion based on the narrower premises presented.

This variation of this kind of fallacy is sometimes called “contextomy,” a practice of “quoting out of context”, sometimes also referred to false attribution in which a other parts supporting an argument are not taken into consideration and severed from its surrounding context in such a way as to deliberately distort its intended purport.

Quoting out of context is often a means to set up what is called “straw man” arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not actually held by an opponent (LKS), but which may be attributed to him and ridiculed by reason of it bearing superficial similarity to another instance of Obama’s case where the attribution on narrower premises (just rumours/hearsays) is justifiably discredited for calling a RCI.

The 2nd fallacy is assuming that something (as in a rumour/hearsay) is necessarily true/false because it has not yet been proven false/true or prevented from being proven true/false.

There are other fallacies : but I shall stop here for the time being….