Reason for not allowing the case to be handled by the courts...evidence obtained through wiretap....for a wiretap to be approved it has to go through the courts and also through cabinet hahahaha....for a small corrupt country like Jamaica, where some members of cabinet need to be tapped..is that really doable?
Then again was the evidence obtained through taped conversation of him corresponding with someone in Ja or was he talking to someone in the States....
Reason for not allowing the case to be handled by the courts...evidence obtained through wiretap....for a wiretap to be approved it has to go through the courts and also through cabinet hahahaha....for a small corrupt country like Jamaica, where some members of cabinet need to be tapped..is that really doable?
Then again was the evidence obtained through taped conversation of him corresponding with someone in Ja or was he talking to someone in the States....
COLLEAGUE columnist Ken Chaplin's excellent Tuesday column, "Dudus, US Govt, interception of information", in explaining that Prime Minister Golding was acting on solid ground in refusing the extradition based on evidence gathered through a breach of Dudus's constitutional right -- his phone was tapped without the required judicial authorisation -- wrote, "The law... requires that for intercepted communication to be admissible in any criminal proceedings, it must have been obtained, disclosed and used in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Golding said that this was not done."
The article further states, "The Act shows that the proper procedure, which requires an authorised officer to apply ex parte (without the other side being present) to a judge in Chambers for a warrant to intercept information in the course of transmission by means of a public or private telecommunication network, was not followed."
Most systems of checks and balances are never instituted nor do they evolve because man is, after all, an incorruptible unit of society. Rather, it tends in the opposite direction. Man is corruptible and hence our legal and justice systems, as those which ought to occupy the highest of a society's ideals, must reflect the superior nature of the system to circumvent possible attempts by corrupt man to outwit it.
In between perception of an action, the nature of the community's information flow, solid information and just plain gossip, Jamaica is little more than a small fishing village where often it is not so much that a good haul was not made than it is the size of the fish story. The Jamaican saying, "If supp'n nuh go so, it nearly go so" is as authentic Jamaican as it is dangerous in the strict legal sense.
On the ladder of justice, that is, from the time the police begin to investigate a wrong to conviction or non-guilt in the highest court of the land, it is in vogue to commit the police to the worst accusations of corruption and direct criminal involvement, while in polite company the argument goes 180 degrees in favour of accepting that members of the judiciary are, unlike the rest of us, incorruptible. Well, leave the polite gathering for a while and hit the streets.
There it is the view of the little man and woman at street level that not one single level of Jamaican society is free from corruption. There may be individuals within each segment of the various branches making up a society who are clean to a fault, like, say, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Ken Baugh, but these persons tend not to represent the general behaviour of the output of the majority.
Now I have absolutely no evidence that members of the judiciary are corrupt. In the past I have had individuals telling me stories and providing me with "dangerous" anecdotes on certain high officials but very few, if any, are ever prepared to step forward and defend the allegations.
To me, one part of the problem that has cropped up with the understanding of the extradition treaty is, which parts of it are, prior to granting an extradition request, legally determinable in Jamaica and by what process? On the other side, which conditions of the treaty is it that empowers the Americans the right to render us speechless, that is, we must just sign and give up the person without further ado?
I have never been one of those who believe that the prime minister should never have involved himself in the delicate matter of the Dudus extradition request. Hell, whether the prime minister wanted to or not, he was involved.
He was involved as one of only a handful of politicians to declare our politics as much too close to criminality. The others are Dr Peter Phillips and Heather Robinson of the PNP. Once Golding adopted the mantle of "new and different" from his brief sojourn in the NDM, the party he founded, once he re-entered the ranks of the "same old, same old" JLP in 2002 and later claimed its leadership after steering himself into West Kingston and Tivoli Gardens, too many items were lined up not to have him involved.
Of the 26 extradition requests received since he became prime minister, he has had no occasion (except for Dudus) to go full frontal in supporting any other person's "constitutional right". So the very fact that he has come out in such strong support of Dudus, it ought to mean that he has taken legal advice from the highest levels before committing himself and is convinced that his legs are sturdy.
If, based on the treaty, it was determined that the American outfit which obtained evidence did so by the illegal wiretaps of phones, must we surmise that all the Americans say they have on Dudus is a file of telephone transcripts and the actual recordings? We would be naïve to believe that.
If I am a bad man and weeks before I steal a car I engage in telephone conversations with a fellow felon and those conversations are illegally obtained, what would happen if the police who recorded the conversations used them to nab me in the act of stealing the car? Would the fact that the telephone conversations were illegally obtained make the stealing of the car any less criminal?
We must bear in mind that the Americans are not under any romantic illusions about what sectors of our society are corrupt. From their own experiences, they have long recognised that at the end of the day a president like, say, the late Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton (with Monica Lewinsky), and most other people are all humans under the skin and especially under the covers. Far from being perfect, what America has that is the envy of the purists among us is the workable synergy which springs from the lateral and horizontal push-pull of checks and balances, with each level having probing tentacles on the other.
I am certain that the Americans must have known of the breach, so the question to be asked is why did not the investigating entity abide by the conditions of the Act and apply to a judge in Chambers for authorisation for a wiretap or a series of wiretaps? It is my belief that they acted outside of the specific provision because there is not a single layer of the local system which they trust. Not a policeman, not a judge.
All power seeks out other sources of power for power's ultimate survival. The man running an organised car-stealing ring will seek out the "area leader" and maybe a friendly "supe". The man doing drugs needs the supe and the "area leader". The "area leader" needs the politician if only for the politician's powerful connections right up to the top of the ladder, and the politician needs the preacher. The preacher needs the area leader if even to save his soul, but in the interim, a hefty donation to the church's coffers will not hurt.
After a while it is difficult to tell the difference between the allegedly tainted one and the potentially tainted one who stands in judgement of him.
observemark@gmail.com
_________________________
FORMER President - F.A.A.B.A.C.B(Fans Association Against the Baseless Attack on Captain Burrel)
COLLEAGUE columnist Ken Chaplin's excellent Tuesday column, "Dudus, US Govt, interception of information", in explaining that Prime Minister Golding was acting on solid ground in refusing the extradition based on evidence gathered through a breach of Dudus's constitutional right -- his phone was tapped without the required judicial authorisation -- wrote, "The law... requires that for intercepted communication to be admissible in any criminal proceedings, it must have been obtained, disclosed and used in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Golding said that this was not done."
The article further states, "The Act shows that the proper procedure, which requires an authorised officer to apply ex parte (without the other side being present) to a judge in Chambers for a warrant to intercept information in the course of transmission by means of a public or private telecommunication network, was not followed."
Most systems of checks and balances are never instituted nor do they evolve because man is, after all, an incorruptible unit of society. Rather, it tends in the opposite direction. Man is corruptible and hence our legal and justice systems, as those which ought to occupy the highest of a society's ideals, must reflect the superior nature of the system to circumvent possible attempts by corrupt man to outwit it.
In between perception of an action, the nature of the community's information flow, solid information and just plain gossip, Jamaica is little more than a small fishing village where often it is not so much that a good haul was not made than it is the size of the fish story. The Jamaican saying, "If supp'n nuh go so, it nearly go so" is as authentic Jamaican as it is dangerous in the strict legal sense.
On the ladder of justice, that is, from the time the police begin to investigate a wrong to conviction or non-guilt in the highest court of the land, it is in vogue to commit the police to the worst accusations of corruption and direct criminal involvement, while in polite company the argument goes 180 degrees in favour of accepting that members of the judiciary are, unlike the rest of us, incorruptible. Well, leave the polite gathering for a while and hit the streets.
There it is the view of the little man and woman at street level that not one single level of Jamaican society is free from corruption. There may be individuals within each segment of the various branches making up a society who are clean to a fault, like, say, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Ken Baugh, but these persons tend not to represent the general behaviour of the output of the majority.
Now I have absolutely no evidence that members of the judiciary are corrupt. In the past I have had individuals telling me stories and providing me with "dangerous" anecdotes on certain high officials but very few, if any, are ever prepared to step forward and defend the allegations.
To me, one part of the problem that has cropped up with the understanding of the extradition treaty is, which parts of it are, prior to granting an extradition request, legally determinable in Jamaica and by what process? On the other side, which conditions of the treaty is it that empowers the Americans the right to render us speechless, that is, we must just sign and give up the person without further ado?
I have never been one of those who believe that the prime minister should never have involved himself in the delicate matter of the Dudus extradition request. Hell, whether the prime minister wanted to or not, he was involved.
He was involved as one of only a handful of politicians to declare our politics as much too close to criminality. The others are Dr Peter Phillips and Heather Robinson of the PNP. Once Golding adopted the mantle of "new and different" from his brief sojourn in the NDM, the party he founded, once he re-entered the ranks of the "same old, same old" JLP in 2002 and later claimed its leadership after steering himself into West Kingston and Tivoli Gardens, too many items were lined up not to have him involved.
Of the 26 extradition requests received since he became prime minister, he has had no occasion (except for Dudus) to go full frontal in supporting any other person's "constitutional right". So the very fact that he has come out in such strong support of Dudus, it ought to mean that he has taken legal advice from the highest levels before committing himself and is convinced that his legs are sturdy.
If, based on the treaty, it was determined that the American outfit which obtained evidence did so by the illegal wiretaps of phones, must we surmise that all the Americans say they have on Dudus is a file of telephone transcripts and the actual recordings? We would be naïve to believe that.
If I am a bad man and weeks before I steal a car I engage in telephone conversations with a fellow felon and those conversations are illegally obtained, what would happen if the police who recorded the conversations used them to nab me in the act of stealing the car? Would the fact that the telephone conversations were illegally obtained make the stealing of the car any less criminal?
We must bear in mind that the Americans are not under any romantic illusions about what sectors of our society are corrupt. From their own experiences, they have long recognised that at the end of the day a president like, say, the late Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton (with Monica Lewinsky), and most other people are all humans under the skin and especially under the covers. Far from being perfect, what America has that is the envy of the purists among us is the workable synergy which springs from the lateral and horizontal push-pull of checks and balances, with each level having probing tentacles on the other.
I am certain that the Americans must have known of the breach, so the question to be asked is why did not the investigating entity abide by the conditions of the Act and apply to a judge in Chambers for authorisation for a wiretap or a series of wiretaps? It is my belief that they acted outside of the specific provision because there is not a single layer of the local system which they trust. Not a policeman, not a judge.
All power seeks out other sources of power for power's ultimate survival. The man running an organised car-stealing ring will seek out the "area leader" and maybe a friendly "supe". The man doing drugs needs the supe and the "area leader". The "area leader" needs the politician if only for the politician's powerful connections right up to the top of the ladder, and the politician needs the preacher. The preacher needs the area leader if even to save his soul, but in the interim, a hefty donation to the church's coffers will not hurt.
After a while it is difficult to tell the difference between the allegedly tainted one and the potentially tainted one who stands in judgement of him.
observemark@gmail.com
Mi a tell unnu, it betta unu lef dem ting ya off a football forum. Football is one institution inna Jamaica where we have tried, diligently, to divest the politics from people's everyday enjoyment.
From time the war bruk out a stadium in the Tivoli/ Arnett Gardens match way back when, we have tried and tried and tried and while it no perfect, by an large man an man can go watch football now anywhere inna Jamaica in relative peace.
Please, mi a beg unnu, lef the politics otta dis ting.
Most of u guys are miising the key issue here. Did the previous persons being expidited by the current government had constitutional rites?
I dont have a problem with the PM defending a citizen of Jamaica but it cant be a selected few.
Zilla, NO one is missing anything. Its crystal clear! Everyone who has been extradited to the USA (from JA)has had the right to a court hearing to make sure there is enough evidence from the US and everything is on the up and up, sometimes it goes on for months, maybe years.
What is unprecedented in this case, is that Bruce has refused to sign off on the grounds of inadmissible evidence - a decision that shoudl have been left to the court.
There could be any number of reasons why the PM may decide not to sign off - I believe there were other previous cases where the PM ( Portia) did not sign off, but obviously for different reasons.
So, Bruce is really not the final defender of Dudu's or anyone else's constitutional rights.
Ric, Lighten up star. The case has nothing to do with pilitics/football. Its just that man an man too lazy to post in the correct section of the forum, or better yet the man them enjoy the views and opinions of their fellow ites in the RBZ discussion section.
Plus its definitely a teachable moment for all of us - the workings of the US/JA extradition treaty.
but do the ites really believe the USA ah guh thru all this effort just for Dudus Coke. There has to be more to this story.
And is Golding protecting Dudus or himself??
What do you think, JT?
Duppy know who fi frighten. In the overall scheme of things, Dudus is a small fry. Clearly they want to make an example of him and, if the JA govt.gets exposed in the process, so be it.
Who isnt tired of the corruption/violence? The gun-running charge is especially troubling.
But look at Mexico, the whole northern part of the country is under seige by the Narco-terrorist who bring in drugs to the US by the trailer-load. From time to time they too have issues with extraditing their citizens to the USA.
You would think the US effort there would be more military-like.
Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 1728
Loc: NYC, NY, USA
Offline
Originally Posted By: Carver2
'Dudus' backlash • US blasts JA over extradition delay
US blasts JA over ‘Dudus’, drugs
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
THE US State Department yesterday blasted Jamaica for its indecision in the extradition request for Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to face drug trafficking charges in America, saying that it brought into question the island's commitment to law enforcement co-operation and highlighted the potential depth of corruption in the Government.
"Jamaica's processing of the extradition request has been subjected to unprecedented delays, unexplained disclosure of law enforcement information to the press, and unfounded allegations questioning the US' compliance with the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) and Jamaican law," said the State Department in its annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report released yesterday.
According to the report, until August 2009, the extradition treaty between Washington and Kingston had been actively and successfully used to extradite suspected criminals from Jamaica. Extradition requests, it said, were routinely and timely processed by Jamaican political and judicial authorities.
"The Government of Jamaica's unusual handling of the August request for the extradition of a high-profile Jamaican crime lord, with reported ties to the ruling Jamaica Labour Party, which currently holds a majority in Parliament, on alleged drug and firearms trafficking charges marked a dramatic change in Kingston's previous co-operation on extradition, including a temporary suspension in the processing of all other pending requests and raises serious questions about the Government's commitment to combating transnational crime," the State Department said.
"The high-profile suspect resides in and essentially controls the Kingston neighbourhood known as Tivoli Gardens, a key constituency for the Jamaica Labour Party," said the report.
The US also labelled Jamaica as the Caribbean's largest supplier of marijuana to the United States as well as a transshipment point for cocaine entering South America.
"The Government of Jamaica's ambitious anti-corruption and anti-crime legislative agendas announced in 2007 remain stalled in Parliament," said the report.
"Five anti-crime proposals under consideration as part of an extensive agenda to address the widespread crime challenges have yet to be debated by Parliament," added Washington, which noted that Jamaica is a party to the 1988 United Nations Drug Convention.
At the same time, the US said drug-related arrests were relatively stagnant at 6,346 arrests for 2009, while drug seizure levels showed a dramatic decrease with approximately nine metric tonnes of marijuana seized, compared to nearly 32 metric tonnes in 2008.
While pointing out that Jamaica does not facilitate or encourage illicit production or distribution of narcotic or psychotropic drugs or other controlled substances or the laundering of proceeds from illegal drug transactions, the US said pervasive public corruption continued to undermine efforts against drug-related and other crimes. Public corruption, it added, plays a major role in the safe passage of drugs and drug proceeds through Jamaica.
"For the first time, corruption ranked first to crime and violence as the area of greatest concern for Jamaicans. It remains the major barrier to improving counter-narcotics efforts," the Americans said, adding that Jamaica's delay in processing the extradition request for Coke "highlights the potential depth of corruption in the Government".
The State Department also noted that a bill creating an Anti-Corruption Special Prosecutor remains stuck in Parliament despite having the requisite legislative majority needed for passage.
"There has not been legislative action to create a National Anti-corruption Agency, which could satisfy the Inter- American Convention against Corruption's requirements," the State Department said.
US consulate workers shot dead in Mexico as drugs war escalates
Suspected Mexican drug cartel assassins have shot dead a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband as they drove home with their baby from a children's birthday party.
By Tom Leonard in New York Published: 9:03PM GMT 15 Mar 2010 Previous 2 of 2 Images Next Police hold baby of couple who were killed in a drive-by shooting in Mexico
A policewoman holds a baby who survived the attack on an American couple Photo: REUTERS scene where three US Consulate staffers were killed in Ciudad Juarez
The scene where three US Consulate staffers were killed in Ciudad Juarez Photo: AFP/GETTY
Gunmen also shot dead a Mexican man married to another member of the US consulate in the notoriously violent border city of Ciudad Juarez, wounding their two young children, in co-ordinated attacks that could signify a major escalation in the country's savage drugs war.
President Obama said he was "outraged" by the murders and promised to "work tirelessly" with the Mexican government to bring the killers to justice. FBI agents were already in Juarez yesterday to offer assistance in the investigation.
One possibility is that the attacks were carried out in retaliation for the recent extradition of several Mexican drug lords to stand trial in the US.
The victims were killed in broad daylight on busy roads in the city, the epicentre of the violence between cartels fighting over Mexico's lucrative drug routes.
Lesley Enriquez, 35, who was four months pregnant, and her husband, Arthur Redelfs, 34, a detention officer in the neighbouring Texan city of El Paso, were driving home from the house of another US consulate worker on Saturday afternoon.
Witnesses said the couple tried to elude their pursuers as they headed towards the bridge that leads into the US but were halted at an intersection when a burst of high-calibre bullets sent their car veering into oncoming traffic.
Police found the couple dead from bullet wounds to the head and neck, while their baby daughter sat crying but unharmed in the back seat.
Minutes earlier, Salcido Ceniceros, 37, who had been returning home from the same party, was shot dead in his car in another part of the city.
His children, aged four and seven, were injured and taken to hospital. Their mother, who worked at the consulate, had been following behind in a separate car.
Reuben Redelfs, the brother of Mr Redelfs, told the El Paso Times that his brother and his wife had "unblemished records ... and were not involved in anything wrong whatsoever".
Larry Nance, a former Drug Enforcement Administration official and family friend, said Mr Redelfs was "just a great kid, a very sweet guy".
Investigators believe the killings were carried out by a gang called Los Aztecas, which has links to the Juarez drug cartel.
Officials have yet to comment on a motive. The cartels usually avoid targeting Americans unless they are involved with rival gangs but US diplomats along the border have recently reported an increase in threats.
Miss Enriquez's job involved helping American citizens and she had no involvement in counter-narcotics, said officials.
Security experts have long warned that the savage battle for control of Mexico's lucrative drug routes to the US would increasingly spill over into America.
It is very rare for US government employees to be attacked although grenades were thrown at the consulate in the north Mexico city of Monterrey two years ago.
The US State Department has asked staff in six consulates along the border to send their dependants home for safety and warned Americans against unnecessary travel to several parts of Mexico.
It also warned Americans to delay "unnecessary travel" to several parts of Mexico because of increasing violence.
Nearly 50 people died in apparent drug gang violence at the weekend and more than 2,500 were killed just in Juarez last year.
