“Witter on the warpath… public defender to launch investigation into role played by prime minister, police commissioner, chief of staff of JDF and others into 2010 Tivoli Gardens massacre” was what I was hoping that today’s Sunday Gleaner headline (September 18)really said.
Instead the Public Defender is supposedly on the warpath about an anonymous officer of HEART telling the Sunday Gleaner that some employers prefer to employ brownings. In the article the Public Defender hinted that he has the power to compel HEART to give the names of those employers. I hope he does get the names so it can be determined whether this matter is really just a sensational Gleaner headline trying to outsell the competition or a problem that requires not only the intervention of the Public Defender but the rest of civil society in order to stamp out an ugly racist practice.
But what about the Public Defender using the same powers to compel the prime minister to tell about his role in last year’s security forces massacre of innocent civilians in Tivoli Gardens and its environs. The prime minister would have had discussions with the police commissioner about the so-called attack on the state; the prime minster would have persuaded his cabinet to declare a state of emergency; the prime minister would have had discussions with the chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force about its deployment into west Kingston; the prime minister as head of the National Defence Board would surely have met with the Board to consider the parameters of the operations. Once the operations began one would have expected the prime minister to ask for reports from the heads of the security forces (whether directly or through his minister of national security) in terms of what was happening on the ground. Surely the prime minister would have had a special interest in the matter in terms of being the political representative for the area. Indeed, it is my understanding that from the very beginning residents got messages through to the prime minister about the massacres taking place. Did the prime minister do anything about these direct reports to him? If he did nothing was this criminal negligence or complicity with murder?
In response to Mr. Edward Seaga claiming that the prime minister was at some point trying, unsuccessfully, to get the army to leave the area, Colonel Rocky Meade made it plain that the army would never disobey an order from the prime minister. The implications of this is clear: the prime minister, who is also the minister of defence, not sanctioned the deployment of the army, but gave no orders as Mr. Seaga suggested for it to pull back. This suggests that he has taken full responsibility for their conduct (as he should) and the public record supports that. He has at no time expressed any concern about their conduct or about the sufferings of the people he politically represents in parliament. Indeed, the prime went so far as to tell the people of Tivoli that what happened could not have been avoided!
Questions to Public Defender, Ear Witter
Do you, Mr. Witter believe this, that bloodshed was unavoidable? Don’t you think it is your duty according to the powers vested in you under the Public Defenders’ Act to investigate the truth of this allegation? Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin has testified that there was intelligence gathering on the activities of Coke. Shouldn’t you Mr. Witter appraise yourself of this intelligence in order to assess why Mr. Coke could not have been arrested in a more efficient way? Or was Tivoli Gardens to be the sacrificial lamb to appease higher powers and save Mr. Golding’s career?
And what about the police commissioner? How could the police commissioner have congratulated the security forces on a professional job in the middle of accusations that residents were being summarily executed by the men he commanded? I’m sure that in the statements collected by your office, residents would have told you that security force personnel taunted them with the claim that they were sent to kill dem off. Was that the professional instruction given by their commanders?
The chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force has similar questions to answer. Were instructions given to JDF snipers to shoot innocent civilians as they scampered about to save their lives -- sometimes for just trying to get to the hospital? On what basis for did US surveillance planes fly into Jamaica from Guantanamo Bay to be part of the operations? Were they there to assist JDF helicopters in dropping incendiary devices on civilians? Certainly the prime minister and head of the JDF must be compelled to answer these questions.
As you know very well Mr. Witter, the Tivoli Committee of which I am a member wrote to you asking that you use your powers (similar to that possessed by the Contractor General) to launch an investigation into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the operations. Such an investigation would not be in conflict with a Commission of Enquiry but a very needed complement.
Unfortunately, you have not only refused to meet with us but insist that your preferred course of action is through a Commission of Enquiry. Allow me to state publicly what we told you privately. Apart from the question of whether the government has the desire for another commission of enquiry so soon after the last fiasco (same goes for civil society especially now that general elections are being hyped), a commission of enquiry ultimately makes recommendations which the government is not bound to accept. The terms of reference and the appointment of commissioners is ultimately the sole prerogative of the government as was demonstrated in the last commission of enquiry. If history is to be our guide, another commission of enquiry is bound to end up as a white wash as others have been, and ultimately 73 or 200 people would have been killed without anyone being held accountable.
As it currently stands your office is the only one that has the potential independence and mandate to carry out the kind of investigation that would make a difference in determining whether those who had command responsibility for last year’s carnage should face criminal charges – or what is defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as crimes against humanity.
And as for the ICC, it should be clear to everyone by now that the real reason why neither PNP nor JLP government saw fit to ratify the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, is precisely so that in situations such as what happened last year, those who have command responsibility for crimes against the people can be further shielded from legal scrutiny at the international level.
It would be truly sad that that your office turns out to be just another cog to facilitate impunity for state crimes against the people.
How ironic it is that white British progressives saw the necessity to agitate for Governor John Eyre to be put on trial for his role in the 1865 massacre, but in 2011 independent Jamaica, people are more exercised about sensational browning stories than the murder of black Jamaicans by a black Jamaican government, even if lead by a browning.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Open Letter to Cordel Green -- Broadcasting Commission CEO
A broader look at what is payola
Dear Cordel Green,
Two weeks in a row I see favourable press reviews of you and the Broadcasting Commission in the Gleaner written by one of my favourite Gleaner writers Mr Mel Cooke. I am a fan of the serious poems that Mel writes and interviewed him on my radio programme “Looking Back Looking Forward” some years ago. This programme by the way was broadcast on Sundays on Newstalk 93 FM for four years and was the number one listened to programme at that station and on radio during that slot until I was summarily fired at your instigation.
However, it is the subject of payola that forced me to take up pen (I will come back to the firing in a moment) because that seems to be the next crusade being undertaken by you and the Broadcasting Commission. Let me first declare that I have no knowledge about payola, it probably exists, it can’t be a good thing, but I wonder how much knowledge you yourself have of it, and assuming that you have knowledge, I call upon you to share it with the public, and have the broadest possible discussion before you march off to the holy land. In fact this call for an open discussion is dictated by having been a victim of one of your self-righteous crusades against Ragashanti -- in other words your indiscriminate slash and burn method to protect public morality.
The problem here is that while it is convenient to see payola in terms of paying for musical air time, what about payola where a well-paid public administrator such as yourself (paid by taxpayers hard earned money) uses his power to force media owners to do things at his will. And here I’m talking about the hiring and firing of radio talk show hosts that you don’t care for?
Firing -- first case in point. I will not revisit your firing of Ragashanti, he is better able to speak for himself, but because I happened to disagree with how you handled the Ragashanti matter your knee jerk response was to have me fired from Newstalk. You were invited by me to discuss the matter along with Raga (though separately) and after agreeing to be on the programme, you called to cancel a couple hours before based upon an alleged meeting you forgot about. Within minutes after the interview began with Raga you were nevertheless able to call the General Manager away from a moment of relaxation she was enjoying to complain about the criticisms that were being raised about your handling of the matter. (What about that meeting your supposed to be in Mr Green?)
This call precipitated my firing within less than 24 hours. What power and influence were you using when you made that call? Why was it so urgent to call instead of following your own protocol and write a letter to make your complaint? I don’t gamble but I will bet you publicly that you subsequently wrote no letter of complaint because the General Manager, as Mr Bruce Golding famously said, was a very convenient "lubricated conduit". Do you therefore like Pilate wash your hands of the whole matter as if you had nothing to do with it?
Hiring – second case in point: On two occasions I was about to be hired by Bess FM and then things went cold. When I enquired I was informed, and on at least one of the occasions by the owner of the station himself, that he had to consult with the Broadcasting Commission as to whether I could be hired or not?
I have no direct knowledge as to what transpired between the owner and the Broadcasting Commission (you certainly would know) but given today’s Sunday Gleaner article where there is a suggestion that radio DJs (and I’m not a DJ by any means) might come under some kind scrutiny for potential conflict of interest, it is not far fetched to believe that grateful media owners (grateful for getting a licence from the powerful Broadcasting Commission for example) might believe it necessary or convenient or prudent to consult with you on everything including whom to hire and fire what they might eat for lunch? Of course we know that you would never advise people what to eat for lunch but it’s interesting that some media owners should have that impression.
So what other indirect or not so subtle powers of persuasion does the Broadcasting Commission have? Could the $32 million dollars of taxpayers’ money that is given to the Commission from the national budget and earmarked for “public education” be a source of subtle influence wielding. After all, in these tight financial times media houses competing for scarce and shrinking advertising dollars would be most grateful for any dollar that the Commission spends with them. (Bess FM I’m sure is grateful for those dollars that you have spent with them). Would they be willing to do your bidding by a wink or a nod? This is certainly not payola as commonly defined but in reality is it any different?
The Press Association of Jamaica, along with others who consider themselves liberals or as having a social conscience, may chose to be deaf, dumb and blind to the implications of what has happened in my case, but there is no denying that part of your mission, by casting such a wide net is political censorship. Those who dare to criticise the Broadcasting Commission and in my case also, being described as "too anti-establishment" are fair game. There are varying degrees of anti-establishment persons in the media, and I have no doubt that your radar is well attuned to send them a message, or fix them, even if by a phone call or a nod or maybe a wink. Nothing can be proved. Or outrightly threatening to yank their licence. There is no way you can deny that political censorship was the ultimate consequence in my case. I’ll allow Raga to argue his case.
Finally, one of the disappointments of this government is that they did not follow through on their pre-election promise that individuals appointed to public jobs such as yours, should before being appointed, be subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny so that we may know beforehand about agendas, real or apparent. And the worst choice that could possibly be made is someone who can’t take public criticism. That is the one of the main ingredients of the imperial censor.
Sincerely,
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Dear Cordel Green,
Two weeks in a row I see favourable press reviews of you and the Broadcasting Commission in the Gleaner written by one of my favourite Gleaner writers Mr Mel Cooke. I am a fan of the serious poems that Mel writes and interviewed him on my radio programme “Looking Back Looking Forward” some years ago. This programme by the way was broadcast on Sundays on Newstalk 93 FM for four years and was the number one listened to programme at that station and on radio during that slot until I was summarily fired at your instigation.
However, it is the subject of payola that forced me to take up pen (I will come back to the firing in a moment) because that seems to be the next crusade being undertaken by you and the Broadcasting Commission. Let me first declare that I have no knowledge about payola, it probably exists, it can’t be a good thing, but I wonder how much knowledge you yourself have of it, and assuming that you have knowledge, I call upon you to share it with the public, and have the broadest possible discussion before you march off to the holy land. In fact this call for an open discussion is dictated by having been a victim of one of your self-righteous crusades against Ragashanti -- in other words your indiscriminate slash and burn method to protect public morality.
The problem here is that while it is convenient to see payola in terms of paying for musical air time, what about payola where a well-paid public administrator such as yourself (paid by taxpayers hard earned money) uses his power to force media owners to do things at his will. And here I’m talking about the hiring and firing of radio talk show hosts that you don’t care for?
Firing -- first case in point. I will not revisit your firing of Ragashanti, he is better able to speak for himself, but because I happened to disagree with how you handled the Ragashanti matter your knee jerk response was to have me fired from Newstalk. You were invited by me to discuss the matter along with Raga (though separately) and after agreeing to be on the programme, you called to cancel a couple hours before based upon an alleged meeting you forgot about. Within minutes after the interview began with Raga you were nevertheless able to call the General Manager away from a moment of relaxation she was enjoying to complain about the criticisms that were being raised about your handling of the matter. (What about that meeting your supposed to be in Mr Green?)
This call precipitated my firing within less than 24 hours. What power and influence were you using when you made that call? Why was it so urgent to call instead of following your own protocol and write a letter to make your complaint? I don’t gamble but I will bet you publicly that you subsequently wrote no letter of complaint because the General Manager, as Mr Bruce Golding famously said, was a very convenient "lubricated conduit". Do you therefore like Pilate wash your hands of the whole matter as if you had nothing to do with it?
Hiring – second case in point: On two occasions I was about to be hired by Bess FM and then things went cold. When I enquired I was informed, and on at least one of the occasions by the owner of the station himself, that he had to consult with the Broadcasting Commission as to whether I could be hired or not?
I have no direct knowledge as to what transpired between the owner and the Broadcasting Commission (you certainly would know) but given today’s Sunday Gleaner article where there is a suggestion that radio DJs (and I’m not a DJ by any means) might come under some kind scrutiny for potential conflict of interest, it is not far fetched to believe that grateful media owners (grateful for getting a licence from the powerful Broadcasting Commission for example) might believe it necessary or convenient or prudent to consult with you on everything including whom to hire and fire what they might eat for lunch? Of course we know that you would never advise people what to eat for lunch but it’s interesting that some media owners should have that impression.
So what other indirect or not so subtle powers of persuasion does the Broadcasting Commission have? Could the $32 million dollars of taxpayers’ money that is given to the Commission from the national budget and earmarked for “public education” be a source of subtle influence wielding. After all, in these tight financial times media houses competing for scarce and shrinking advertising dollars would be most grateful for any dollar that the Commission spends with them. (Bess FM I’m sure is grateful for those dollars that you have spent with them). Would they be willing to do your bidding by a wink or a nod? This is certainly not payola as commonly defined but in reality is it any different?
The Press Association of Jamaica, along with others who consider themselves liberals or as having a social conscience, may chose to be deaf, dumb and blind to the implications of what has happened in my case, but there is no denying that part of your mission, by casting such a wide net is political censorship. Those who dare to criticise the Broadcasting Commission and in my case also, being described as "too anti-establishment" are fair game. There are varying degrees of anti-establishment persons in the media, and I have no doubt that your radar is well attuned to send them a message, or fix them, even if by a phone call or a nod or maybe a wink. Nothing can be proved. Or outrightly threatening to yank their licence. There is no way you can deny that political censorship was the ultimate consequence in my case. I’ll allow Raga to argue his case.
Finally, one of the disappointments of this government is that they did not follow through on their pre-election promise that individuals appointed to public jobs such as yours, should before being appointed, be subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny so that we may know beforehand about agendas, real or apparent. And the worst choice that could possibly be made is someone who can’t take public criticism. That is the one of the main ingredients of the imperial censor.
Sincerely,
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Friday, July 22, 2011
The NDM's foolish call for a state of emergency:
It is time to investigate those commanded murder in west Kingston.
With the 2010 State of Emergency to dismantle the Shower Posse resulting in the murder of over 74 people, four thousand detained for no good reason, and a new military garrison established in Tivoli, it is shocking to see that the best that the National Democratic Movement (NDM) can come up with is to call for another state of emergency. This call(in response to gruesome murders in Spanish Town) betrays a complete lack of ideas about solving social problems that is also typical of both the PNP and the JLP.
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice is instead demanding that those who had command responsibility for the West Kingston operations, starting with the prime minister, the police commissioner, and the head of the JDF, be investigated for crimes against humanity, or criminal negligence, at least, according to Jamaican law.
Is there any part of the state machinery that has the power to carry out such an investigation? We believe that under the Public Defender Act (similar to the Contractor General Act) the Public Defender does have the power carry out such an investigation.
We demand to know why the Public Defender has so far failed to use his powers to investigate those who had command responsibility. Such an investigation should run parallel to any other forensic investigation which he might be carrying out, and complementary to any hoped-for Commission of Enquriy.
To refuse to act decisively is another glaring example of how the state protects itself and perpetuates the circle of impunity for state crimes against the people.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
With the 2010 State of Emergency to dismantle the Shower Posse resulting in the murder of over 74 people, four thousand detained for no good reason, and a new military garrison established in Tivoli, it is shocking to see that the best that the National Democratic Movement (NDM) can come up with is to call for another state of emergency. This call(in response to gruesome murders in Spanish Town) betrays a complete lack of ideas about solving social problems that is also typical of both the PNP and the JLP.
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice is instead demanding that those who had command responsibility for the West Kingston operations, starting with the prime minister, the police commissioner, and the head of the JDF, be investigated for crimes against humanity, or criminal negligence, at least, according to Jamaican law.
Is there any part of the state machinery that has the power to carry out such an investigation? We believe that under the Public Defender Act (similar to the Contractor General Act) the Public Defender does have the power carry out such an investigation.
We demand to know why the Public Defender has so far failed to use his powers to investigate those who had command responsibility. Such an investigation should run parallel to any other forensic investigation which he might be carrying out, and complementary to any hoped-for Commission of Enquriy.
To refuse to act decisively is another glaring example of how the state protects itself and perpetuates the circle of impunity for state crimes against the people.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The state must end its mandatory vaccination programme now!
Let Kerrome Forrest not die in vain
A happy, healthy, one year old boy, Kerrome Forrest, is now dead after receiving his state mandated MMR vaccine. He died less than 24 hours after receiving the vaccine.
So what is the response of the state? According to Dr Karen Lewis-Bell, Director of Family Health Services in the Ministry of Health and Environment “we have to do a thorough investigation” and while this is being done “a hold on the use of that vaccine” will be implemented. Dr Lewis-Bell declined to say what vaccine this is but we already know that it is the MMR vaccine --- mumps, measles, rubella -- childhood diseases which in themselves are not life threatening.
What is also not clear is whether it is a “hold” on that batch of vaccines (assuming it can be traced) or the entire MMR programme. In either case we believe that Dr Lewis-Bell and the Ministry of Health should stop playing GOD and initiate a public discussion about the safety of vaccines, and explain why parents should not have the right to chose whether to vaccinate their children or not.
But it is clear that unless pushed the MOH is not going to have such a public discussion because they have their own agenda (perhaps a special relationship with the pharmaceutical companies?) of pushing mandatory vaccines which have nothing to do with public health. Dr Lewis-Bell confirms this when she admits that though the “child had visited the health centre and received a vaccine” there is “no evidence to say that it is the vaccine that has caused the death of this child." Is Dr Lewis-Bell suggesting that the child died from unnatural causes?
Well, a postmortem was peformed on Monday June 29 and a cause of death could not be determined, except that lab tests will now be done on organ tissues. (The results are due in a month's time!) It is doubtful that the good public health doctor would be saying that there is no evidence if it were a bullet that had slammed into the head of this healthy child.
And why say that there is no evidence that the vaccine caused the death when usage of these vaccines has been suspended? The answer we believe is that Dr Lewis-Bell is confident that the vaccine will be ruled out by the government pathologist as the cause of death, and the programme will be resumed. No different from government pathologists assisting the police when examining the bodies of young men shot by them. It is called the circle of impunity.
The Ministry of Health working in tandem with the Ministry of Education is engaging in a form of genocide against Jamaican children by this mindless, unnecessary, and oppressive mandatory vaccination programme. The Health Act mandates vaccinations and threatens parents and principals with fines/jail time and expulsion from schools which contradicts the Education Act which makes public education mandatory.
The truth is that the MOH and health professionals can make no guarantee about the safety of vaccinations. Is there any health professional who can absolutely guarantee the safety of any of these vaccines and support that guarantee by putting up a bond in case of damage? In the case of damage to children, who should the parents sue: the government which mandates these vaccinations or the pharmaceutical companies?
It therefore stands to reason that in the absence of such guarantees parents should have the right to make a choice and the Health Act mandating vaccinations is therefore an oppressive and unconstitutional violation of the right to ‘life, liberty, and security of the person, freedom of conscience, and not to be subject to cruel and inhuman treatment’
It is time for the state to stop burying its head in the sand and recognize a growing epidemic of autism among Jamaican children, which is recognized world wide, as being linked to vaccines.
Let Kerrome Forrest no die in vain: It is time to reject mandatory vaccinations and have an intelligent public discussion about the harm being done to children. The state must be mandated to facilitate this discussion because of its already poor record in protecting the rights of children.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
482-2907
NB: Immediately after posting the above it was discovered that Dr Karen Lewis Bell lied when she said that the vaccine had been put on hold. There was no directive given to any of Jamaica's health centres to put the vaccine on hold. Just goes to show that as far as the state is concerned Kerrome Forrest is just a statistic and the state will continue its fascist-like policy of forcing healthy children to be vaccinated and to accept the risk of permanent damage or death. Is it farfetched to say that this sounds like attempted genocide?
Lloyd D'Aguilar
A happy, healthy, one year old boy, Kerrome Forrest, is now dead after receiving his state mandated MMR vaccine. He died less than 24 hours after receiving the vaccine.
So what is the response of the state? According to Dr Karen Lewis-Bell, Director of Family Health Services in the Ministry of Health and Environment “we have to do a thorough investigation” and while this is being done “a hold on the use of that vaccine” will be implemented. Dr Lewis-Bell declined to say what vaccine this is but we already know that it is the MMR vaccine --- mumps, measles, rubella -- childhood diseases which in themselves are not life threatening.
What is also not clear is whether it is a “hold” on that batch of vaccines (assuming it can be traced) or the entire MMR programme. In either case we believe that Dr Lewis-Bell and the Ministry of Health should stop playing GOD and initiate a public discussion about the safety of vaccines, and explain why parents should not have the right to chose whether to vaccinate their children or not.
But it is clear that unless pushed the MOH is not going to have such a public discussion because they have their own agenda (perhaps a special relationship with the pharmaceutical companies?) of pushing mandatory vaccines which have nothing to do with public health. Dr Lewis-Bell confirms this when she admits that though the “child had visited the health centre and received a vaccine” there is “no evidence to say that it is the vaccine that has caused the death of this child." Is Dr Lewis-Bell suggesting that the child died from unnatural causes?
Well, a postmortem was peformed on Monday June 29 and a cause of death could not be determined, except that lab tests will now be done on organ tissues. (The results are due in a month's time!) It is doubtful that the good public health doctor would be saying that there is no evidence if it were a bullet that had slammed into the head of this healthy child.
And why say that there is no evidence that the vaccine caused the death when usage of these vaccines has been suspended? The answer we believe is that Dr Lewis-Bell is confident that the vaccine will be ruled out by the government pathologist as the cause of death, and the programme will be resumed. No different from government pathologists assisting the police when examining the bodies of young men shot by them. It is called the circle of impunity.
The Ministry of Health working in tandem with the Ministry of Education is engaging in a form of genocide against Jamaican children by this mindless, unnecessary, and oppressive mandatory vaccination programme. The Health Act mandates vaccinations and threatens parents and principals with fines/jail time and expulsion from schools which contradicts the Education Act which makes public education mandatory.
The truth is that the MOH and health professionals can make no guarantee about the safety of vaccinations. Is there any health professional who can absolutely guarantee the safety of any of these vaccines and support that guarantee by putting up a bond in case of damage? In the case of damage to children, who should the parents sue: the government which mandates these vaccinations or the pharmaceutical companies?
It therefore stands to reason that in the absence of such guarantees parents should have the right to make a choice and the Health Act mandating vaccinations is therefore an oppressive and unconstitutional violation of the right to ‘life, liberty, and security of the person, freedom of conscience, and not to be subject to cruel and inhuman treatment’
It is time for the state to stop burying its head in the sand and recognize a growing epidemic of autism among Jamaican children, which is recognized world wide, as being linked to vaccines.
Let Kerrome Forrest no die in vain: It is time to reject mandatory vaccinations and have an intelligent public discussion about the harm being done to children. The state must be mandated to facilitate this discussion because of its already poor record in protecting the rights of children.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
482-2907
NB: Immediately after posting the above it was discovered that Dr Karen Lewis Bell lied when she said that the vaccine had been put on hold. There was no directive given to any of Jamaica's health centres to put the vaccine on hold. Just goes to show that as far as the state is concerned Kerrome Forrest is just a statistic and the state will continue its fascist-like policy of forcing healthy children to be vaccinated and to accept the risk of permanent damage or death. Is it farfetched to say that this sounds like attempted genocide?
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Thursday, June 23, 2011
A comment on the Dudus/Manat Report:: The expected whitewash
Dear Dickie Crawford,
Since everyone knew that this would be a charade and a whitewash (and a great TV soap opera as it turned out) why do we all seem so worked up over the fact that Golding paid for and got what he wanted? In 2001 Seaga refused to play ball with the then Commission of Enquiry because he felt it would be a waste of time. It turned out that he was correct. In 2011 the PNP played ball because they felt that the Enquiry would what: uncover the truth?
Since no one insisted, certainly not KD Knight, nor Patrick Atkinson, that the Commission dig deeper in terms of finding out who paid the US$60,000 to Manat and Phelps -- where else was a smoking gun to be found? Golding and Vaz must be having a good laugh at how timid were Knight and Atkinson on this crucial matter. This was a far more serious matter than any banter about being a pathological liar.
So the question still remains: Did Coke pay Manat and Phelps? I once interviewed Dr Christopher Walker who said he had proof that Coke paid the money. Why did no one try to get him to provide the evidence he had?
On the other hand, who was the mystery JLP donor? If attention had been paid to cracking this nut – perhaps the $80 million plus would have been worth it. But the ball was dropped big time where this was concerned. Bull dogs Knight and Atkinson, and the PNP were of no use. They turned out to be pussy cats.
I must also say that the PNP has a challenge on its hands in terms of refuting the Commissioners’ argument that the turning over of the contents of Coke’s wiretap to the US was not a breach of the Interception of Communications Act. I’m still waiting on the PNP’s analysis. In the PNP’s mind the Phillips MOUs were OK but not everyone sees it that way. Phillips still needs to answer why he felt there was no need to tell anyone about them.
Give the Commissioners credit for underlining the potential for abuse in these MOUs. So have Coke’s lawyers in New York . Judges don’t investigate and so any request to tap Dickie Crawford’s phone could be accepted at face value by the judge (rubber stamped the NY lawyers called it) and no one will be the wiser because this is all secret stuff. This matter cannot be just swept under the carpet unless one is hopelessly naïve.
Finally, I hear no one demanding to know why a PNP government and the security forces conspired to turn over Coke’s wiretap evidence to the US while refusing to use it try him here in Jamaica for violating the country’s laws against illegal trafficking in guns and drugs. SOMETHING IS EXTREMELY STRANGE WHERE THIS IS CONCERNED AND ANSWERS MUST BE DEMANDED.
Finally, any government Commission of Enquiry into the crimes against humanity committed in Tivoli and other parts of west Kingston will be an equal fiasco. Both parties are quite happy that it was the Shower Posse that was dismantled rather than horrific crimes committed against innocent civilians.
These two parties are a total failure where justice for the Jamaican people is concerned. Organizations which seek to offer an alternative cannot just let such crucial matters pass by without engaging in more incisive analysis.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
Since everyone knew that this would be a charade and a whitewash (and a great TV soap opera as it turned out) why do we all seem so worked up over the fact that Golding paid for and got what he wanted? In 2001 Seaga refused to play ball with the then Commission of Enquiry because he felt it would be a waste of time. It turned out that he was correct. In 2011 the PNP played ball because they felt that the Enquiry would what: uncover the truth?
Since no one insisted, certainly not KD Knight, nor Patrick Atkinson, that the Commission dig deeper in terms of finding out who paid the US$60,000 to Manat and Phelps -- where else was a smoking gun to be found? Golding and Vaz must be having a good laugh at how timid were Knight and Atkinson on this crucial matter. This was a far more serious matter than any banter about being a pathological liar.
So the question still remains: Did Coke pay Manat and Phelps? I once interviewed Dr Christopher Walker who said he had proof that Coke paid the money. Why did no one try to get him to provide the evidence he had?
On the other hand, who was the mystery JLP donor? If attention had been paid to cracking this nut – perhaps the $80 million plus would have been worth it. But the ball was dropped big time where this was concerned. Bull dogs Knight and Atkinson, and the PNP were of no use. They turned out to be pussy cats.
I must also say that the PNP has a challenge on its hands in terms of refuting the Commissioners’ argument that the turning over of the contents of Coke’s wiretap to the US was not a breach of the Interception of Communications Act. I’m still waiting on the PNP’s analysis. In the PNP’s mind the Phillips MOUs were OK but not everyone sees it that way. Phillips still needs to answer why he felt there was no need to tell anyone about them.
Give the Commissioners credit for underlining the potential for abuse in these MOUs. So have Coke’s lawyers in New York . Judges don’t investigate and so any request to tap Dickie Crawford’s phone could be accepted at face value by the judge (rubber stamped the NY lawyers called it) and no one will be the wiser because this is all secret stuff. This matter cannot be just swept under the carpet unless one is hopelessly naïve.
Finally, I hear no one demanding to know why a PNP government and the security forces conspired to turn over Coke’s wiretap evidence to the US while refusing to use it try him here in Jamaica for violating the country’s laws against illegal trafficking in guns and drugs. SOMETHING IS EXTREMELY STRANGE WHERE THIS IS CONCERNED AND ANSWERS MUST BE DEMANDED.
Finally, any government Commission of Enquiry into the crimes against humanity committed in Tivoli and other parts of west Kingston will be an equal fiasco. Both parties are quite happy that it was the Shower Posse that was dismantled rather than horrific crimes committed against innocent civilians.
These two parties are a total failure where justice for the Jamaican people is concerned. Organizations which seek to offer an alternative cannot just let such crucial matters pass by without engaging in more incisive analysis.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Who will prosecute the State?
The Emil George Commission of Enquiry is reportedly recommending that the position of Attorney General be separated from the Justice Ministry and that it be a non-cabinet post.
If it is conceived that this newly separated Attorney General's office will still remains the Government’s chief legal advisor as it presently is, then this is just another game of musical chairs.
A more effective reform of this corrupt and oppressive state machinery would be to create an Attorney General’s Office or a Special Prosecutor, not to legally advise or defend the State (there is already a Solicitor General), but specifically for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by the State. Crimes such as those committed in Tivoli last year --- beginning with an investigation of the prime minister, the police commissioner and the head of the JDF for crimes against humanity --- or criminal negligence according to our local law. It goes without saying that this Attorney General/Special Prosecutor should not be answerable to the DPP. But don’t hold your breath.
The state protects the state and that is the root of so much of the injustice which exists in this country.
For example, politicians from both tribes may have corruptly benefited from the FINSAC debacle but nothing will ever come of it because Audley Shaw is more interested in scoring academic points (not even political points) against Omar Davies rather than going after corruption. What a waste and abuse of taxpayers’ money.
Millions of dollars have being spent on the Dudus Enquiry, the Finsac Enquiry, and even the 2001 Enquiry, all of which resulted in no public official ever being held accountable for anything.
Isn't it obvious that what is missing is that the State refuses to seriously go after its own crimes and abuse of power. And sadly, so-called civil society is politically disarmed and confused about about how to deal with state violence and state corruption.
As for the Emil Georges, until there is a proper accounting and punishment for the crimes committed in Tivoli (not to mention the cloudy stench of corruption that swirls over the head of the entire system), please spare us another charade of state reforms. We have had enough of that.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
If it is conceived that this newly separated Attorney General's office will still remains the Government’s chief legal advisor as it presently is, then this is just another game of musical chairs.
A more effective reform of this corrupt and oppressive state machinery would be to create an Attorney General’s Office or a Special Prosecutor, not to legally advise or defend the State (there is already a Solicitor General), but specifically for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by the State. Crimes such as those committed in Tivoli last year --- beginning with an investigation of the prime minister, the police commissioner and the head of the JDF for crimes against humanity --- or criminal negligence according to our local law. It goes without saying that this Attorney General/Special Prosecutor should not be answerable to the DPP. But don’t hold your breath.
The state protects the state and that is the root of so much of the injustice which exists in this country.
For example, politicians from both tribes may have corruptly benefited from the FINSAC debacle but nothing will ever come of it because Audley Shaw is more interested in scoring academic points (not even political points) against Omar Davies rather than going after corruption. What a waste and abuse of taxpayers’ money.
Millions of dollars have being spent on the Dudus Enquiry, the Finsac Enquiry, and even the 2001 Enquiry, all of which resulted in no public official ever being held accountable for anything.
Isn't it obvious that what is missing is that the State refuses to seriously go after its own crimes and abuse of power. And sadly, so-called civil society is politically disarmed and confused about about how to deal with state violence and state corruption.
As for the Emil Georges, until there is a proper accounting and punishment for the crimes committed in Tivoli (not to mention the cloudy stench of corruption that swirls over the head of the entire system), please spare us another charade of state reforms. We have had enough of that.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sinister role played by the Gleaner in Tivoli massacre
Dear Editor,
I would like to strenuously object to your continued mischief in regard to the facts of what happened in Tivoli in May 2010. I challenge you to prove that Coke’s “private militia” which gathered “in his Tivoli redoubt to resist the security forces and challenge the State” had anything to do with the overwhelming majority of the 73 residents who were killed by the security forces. This is what you suggest in your June 13 editorial when you write about a "fight that left 74 persons dead, among them a soldier."
The evidence so far is that these killings were the result of cold-blooded executions by the security forces and had nothing to do with this so-called resistance. Some of this testimony has been carried in your own newspaper but obviously you chose to conveniently ignore it.
By creating the false impression of any serious ‘resistance and challenge to the State’ you are complicit in providing a false defence to the charge of crimes against humanity having been committed by the security forces. May I also remind you, that if this charge were to be accepted by the International Criminal Court, which I hope it will, the prime minister, the police commissioner and then head of the JDF would be prime candidates to be charged for such crimes because of their pivotal roles in orchestrating this massacre.
It is most unfortunate that a newspaper that is so piously preaching against political gangs is blind to murder by the same gangs and criminals working for the State. But then again you were egging them on in 2010 with the same false arguments to teach Tivoli a lesson -- weren’t you?
Lloyd D'Aguilar
I would like to strenuously object to your continued mischief in regard to the facts of what happened in Tivoli in May 2010. I challenge you to prove that Coke’s “private militia” which gathered “in his Tivoli redoubt to resist the security forces and challenge the State” had anything to do with the overwhelming majority of the 73 residents who were killed by the security forces. This is what you suggest in your June 13 editorial when you write about a "fight that left 74 persons dead, among them a soldier."
The evidence so far is that these killings were the result of cold-blooded executions by the security forces and had nothing to do with this so-called resistance. Some of this testimony has been carried in your own newspaper but obviously you chose to conveniently ignore it.
By creating the false impression of any serious ‘resistance and challenge to the State’ you are complicit in providing a false defence to the charge of crimes against humanity having been committed by the security forces. May I also remind you, that if this charge were to be accepted by the International Criminal Court, which I hope it will, the prime minister, the police commissioner and then head of the JDF would be prime candidates to be charged for such crimes because of their pivotal roles in orchestrating this massacre.
It is most unfortunate that a newspaper that is so piously preaching against political gangs is blind to murder by the same gangs and criminals working for the State. But then again you were egging them on in 2010 with the same false arguments to teach Tivoli a lesson -- weren’t you?
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)