Dubai court orders Indian man to pay Rs 18 lakh blood money after 2 women die in accident
Two 48-year-old men, one Indian and one Bangladeshi, have been ordered to pay a total of approximately Rs 90,018,436 (AED 400,000) for causing the death of two Saudi women in a road accident here in July.
According to a newspaper report, the two men have been ordered by a court here to pay the blood money to the family of the victims who were killed in a car accident in the Al-Barsha area of Dubai on July 3.
“Dubai Traffic Court was told the men, one from Bangladesh and the other from India, both 48, drove their cars recklessly on the day of the incident,” The National report said, adding that both women died shortly after the collision.
Four other members of the family were moderately injured.
According to the report, the Bangladeshi man stopped his car in the middle of the main road and started reversing.
“The Indian, who was in another car, failed to see the vehicle and rammed into it. Both cars then hit a third car, with a family from Saudi Arabia inside,” said the report.
The report says the drivers were referred to court on charges of causing wrongful death, causing injuries, and damaging one another’s cars.
The court found them guilty.
"The court cancelled the Bangladeshi’s license for three months, and ordered him to cough up a 10,000 dirhams fine and 320,000 dirhams in blood money."
“The driver from India was fined AED 2,000 (approximately Rs 45,092) and ordered to pay AED 80,000 (approximately Rs 18,03,683) in blood money."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
