US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

**andronian2** · 03-14-2010, 08:02 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Letting the courts decide (or not getting involved in the first place) would be a good way to wash your hands of this mess if you're a PM. </div></div>

This talk about letting the courts decide got me thinking. On the surface, there <span style="font-weight: bold">seems</span> to be some deference to judicial independence, but I think this is all a plan to send off Dudus, to the States. Implicit in this push by some, it seems to me, is the assumption that the courts will rule in favour of the US. Opponents of the government would rejoice on scoring some political points, and even those allies of the government will get to say " see, the PM stood up against the mighty Uncle Sam, he did his best, but the courts have decided and we have to respect the independence of the court." And in this way, as the poster said above, the government would wash its hands of the matter.

But would the court decide in the US's favour? I cannot think of any court on the face of this earth that conducts its affairs with the utmost integrity that would rule for the US in <span style="font-weight: bold">this particular circumstance</span>. The court would be asked to decide if evidence obtained by illegal means by a foreign power, without the consent of Jamaican authorities (law enforcement or a Jamaican judge with jurisdiction on these matters) should be acceptable in this extradition request. For a judge with integrity, the answer is an unqualified NO! Unless there are some who have reason to believe that the court will rule - <span style="font-weight: bold">in violation of the constitution</span>. I would go as far as to say that any judge who rules against the Attorney General in this matter should not only be removed from the bench, but prosecuted on corruption charges.

I'm wondering, why is this so hard for the PNP to understand, or is because they are more interested in political grandstanding? And the PSOJ ought to know better; their latest outburst smacks of hypocrisy. We should note here, that if things were reversed and this was an extradition request made by Jamaica to the US, with <span style="font-weight: bold">illegally obtained evidence</span>, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, would probably put this document in a 'safe place' - in the event that he runs out of toilet paper. In American jurisprudence, this request would have been easily shot down under the Exclusionary Rules of the Bill of Rights. And Jamaica, with it's laws derived from the British legal system (on which many of America's legal principles are also based, BTW) has its version of the "Exclusionary Rules".

Moreover, according to the Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the US, it is the Attorneys General of both countries who have the responsibility of reviewing extradition requests, not the courts. So, the attorney General of JA is acting well within the terms of the extradition treaty. </div></div>

There is obviously a question of whether what the US has done to acquire evidence amounts to spying.
Especially in view of the Observer's claim that Tivoli Gardens iw under satellite and other surveillance which may or may not fall under the MLAT.

404 - Jamaica Observer

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/US-has-Dudus-surveillance_7485113

However, if a court would be unlikely to rule that such evidence is permissible it begs the question of why the PM wouldn't let the court rule rather than give the appearance of subverting the process (even if it is not so in fact).
Obviously, I don't know the contents and provisions of the treaty but if you can get the same results with less controversy, why not?

**Dyoll_73** · 03-14-2010, 12:29 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... if a court would be unlikely to rule that such evidence is permissible it begs the question of why the PM wouldn't let the court rule rather than give the appearance of subverting the process (even if it is not so in fact). </div></div>

While it's not only the PNP that is calling for the court to decide, if the PM should go that route, it would be the equivalent of being kicked around by the Opposition, especially by big mouths such as Peter Phillips and Portia Simpson, and it will further weaken him. He should stand his ground, especially since he is right. What he should communicate effectively to the people is that it's the Attorney General who has authority on this matter <span style="font-weight: bold">according to the Extradition Treaty</span>, not the courts, and that everything is done in accordance with the treaty. The appearance of subversion would only be something contrived by those seeking to score political points.

**mountaingal** · 03-14-2010, 02:14 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... if a court would be unlikely to rule that such evidence is permissible it begs the question of why the PM wouldn't let the court rule rather than give the appearance of subverting the process (even if it is not so in fact). </div></div>

While it's not only the PNP that is calling for the court to decide, if the PM should go that route, it would be the equivalent of being kicked around by the Opposition, especially by big mouths such as Peter Phillips and Portia Simpson, and it will further weaken him. He should stand his ground, especially since he is right. What he should communicate effectively to the people is that it's the Attorney General who has authority on this matter <span style="font-weight: bold">according to the Extradition Treaty</span>, not the courts, and that everything is done in accordance with the treaty. The appearance of subversion would only be something contrived by those seeking to score political points. </div></div>
but if the PM is standing firm in order to show the Opposition he wont be kicked around by them, then doesnt it reduce the PM to petty political point scoring - in other words, the same thing you say the opposition is trying to do?

true political leadership i think takes stands on issues in the broader interest of the people and not the party. id be interested in whether the broader jamaican masses are behind the PM, and if they are, that should be his motivation for standing firm, and not to score points against political opponents.

i agree in principle that if the PM already has a good basis in law for refusing the extradition, then he should stand his ground, but not for a petty reason than to look strong to the opposition.

i also feel, though, that if people in the country start to become anxious that their access to the US is becoming negatively affected by the governments stance, then i think the PM needs to regroup and figure a way out of this. it may be that he does have to assure the people that the extradition has nothing to do with US actions. or maybe he needs to be seen to try to negotiate something with the US.

unless, of course, this IS all about petty party politics...

**evanovitch** · 03-14-2010, 04:26 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Letting the courts decide (or not getting involved in the first place) would be a good way to wash your hands of this mess if you're a PM. </div></div>

Separation of system don't mean total separation of power.. .coo fi US weh di Constitution stipulates it n nuffhistory deh bout of eida ignoring court decisions r pak it wid party adherents

**andronian2** · 03-14-2010, 06:40 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

If the PM viewed the way the evidence was acquired as a matter of national security (or breach thereof) I could see where he might have been willing to draw a line in the sand.
It seems unlikely that any country would extradite one of its citizens to a foreign country for trial based on evidence that was obtained by spying.

However, there seems to be some disagreement about what kind of surveillance falls under the MLAT.
The treaty may allow for some information gathering and there may have been instances in which past administrations extradited individuals based on evidence so obtained.

My current assessment is that the impasse is due to a combination of factors including the questionable legality of the evidence *and* the possible social/political implications of extraditing the Tivoli don.
I don't think the motives involved are one-sided at all.
On the one hand the government might feel that 'di US a faas likl tumuch inna wi bizniz' but in the Dudus case it also hits close to home.

**evanovitch** · 03-14-2010, 07:56 PM

'Dudus' dispute heading to UN?

'Dudus' dispute heading to UN?

<span style="font-weight: bold">Kingston, Washington exploring possibility of int'l mediation on extradition request Experts fear worsening of diplomatic relations </span>

BY DESMOND ALLEN Executive Editor - Operations Investigative Coverage Unit [email protected]

Sunday, March 14, 2010

THE Jamaican and United States governments were at the weekend weighing expert advice that they subject their extradition dispute over Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to international mediation, possibly involving the United Nations (UN).

Impeccable Sunday Observer sources said the suggestion was floated in Kingston and that Washington had indicated it was willing to explore mediation as an option.

"While the Golding administration remains adamant that it cannot act outside of Jamaican law, it has made it clear to the Americans that it wants the dispute resolved with its long-time ally," said the high-level source who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.

The US is demanding that Coke, the Tivoli Gardens strongman, be handed over to face trial on an indictment by the grand jury for the Southern District of New York, on two counts of alleged conspiracy to, inter alia, distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics, specifically cocaine; and conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a licence.

But the prime minister has said the evidence presented by the Americans had not satisfied the Government that there was enough to convict Coke in a Jamaican court for those offences, as required by the Extradition Treaty.

Jamaica also expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the US came in possession of intercepted information on Coke, saying it was done in breach of the island's Interception of Communications Act. To sign the extradition request would therefore be a violation of Coke's constitutional right to freedom of expression.

But critics have lashed Golding, suggesting that he was protecting Coke, who resides in the prime minister's West Kingston constituency, because of his alleged links to the ruling Jamaica Labour Party.

In the meantime, relations between Jamaica and the US remain tense, with advisors suggesting that it could further deteriorate, as there was little prospect of a resolution, if both sides stuck to their guns.

Asked about the likelihood of the US accepting mediation, the source said the State Department did not initially warm to the idea and was still insisting that its extradition request be taken before the Jamaican courts for a decision. But it said it would explore the option.

"Jamaica's willingness to put the issue to mediation was at least an indication to the US that we want to see the matter resolved in a mutually satisfactory way," the source said.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding was said to be listening to his advisors who had outlined several options that were available to him, including mediation, before he made his next move.

The advisors themselves were apparently not pressing Golding to take the matter through the Jamaican courts, arguing that its ruling was not binding on the US under the 1993 Extradition Treaty and subsequent Memorandum of Understanding signed and ratified by both countries.

"The Jamaican Government is of the view that this is a matter in which both parties have an obligation to sit and amicably resolve the issues through negotiations as two sovereign states to a bilateral treaty," the source said.

"Placing the matter in the Jamaican courts would not address the issues and would not be binding on the US under the treaty and the MOUs. The issues which have arisen in this extradition request, if not addressed, will almost certainly arise in future extradition requests," he said.

The high-level source insisted that even if the various procedural obstacles were overcome, "a court judgement, while persuasive, would not be binding on the US".

"The issue would still remain until it is resolved in a conclusive way," he said. "The domestic court is not an arena to resolve what is essentially obligations under international law between two sovereign states and their relations internationally."

He said the Jamaican administration was confident that it had a case that could stand scrutiny at any level of mediation, including the secretary general of the UN Ban Ki-Moon; the Washington-based Organisation of American States; the European Union, a third country or some person or similar body with international standing.

Such mediation would determine the legitimacy of the US assertions that it acted in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Extradition Treaty and the Memorandum of Understanding. "This decision would be a strong factor which any minister (of justice) would take into account when considering whether to sign the authority to proceed or not," said the source.

<span style="font-style: italic">Read tomorrow's Observer for a blow by blow account of how the Christopher

'Dudus' Coke extradition story unfolded.</span>

**evanovitch** · 03-14-2010, 08:29 PM

Miller stands alone - 'Dudus' divides Church

Miller stands alone - 'Dudus' divides Church
Published: Sunday | March 14, 2010
Miller
Lovelette Brooks, News Editor

One of Jamaica's most popular religious leaders sides with the Government on the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke issue saying there is no fodder for the courts of the land to consider regarding the United States' extradition request.

The oft-controversial and colourful Al Miller of Fellowship Tabernacle and head of the Government's National Transformation Programme, said that Prime Minister Bruce Golding is correct in his stance on a matter of "principle of the law".

<span style="font-weight: bold">Accusing the Church and the private sector of "getting sentimental to the point of overlooking justice", Miller argues that Jamaicans must not allow the pending conviction to "cloud our judgement!" </span>

In a letter to The Sunday Gleaner, he affirms his support for the Golding position.

"We ought not, on this point, to vilify the PM (prime minister) by narrow thinking rooted in our fears or partisan outlook ... ."

"We should commend his courage to stand, and pray that it is an indication of his commitment to 'principle', which will always protect and be directed to all citizens, regardless of colour, politics or station in life," Miller wrote.

But, while Miller sides with Golding, he stands against his own religious affiliate, the Full Gospel Ministries (FGM).

Bishop Rowan Edwards of Lighthouse Assembly and president of The Jamaica Association of Full Gospel Churches said that the Coke extradition request has its place in the court of law.

'The court must make the final decision," he said bluntly, criticising Prime Minister Bruce Golding for not approaching the matter in a "wholistic way", and said that his swipe against the US in the House of Representatives recently was unfortunate.

Spoke frankly

Responding in Parliament to the annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, recently released by the US Department of State, Golding spoke frankly: "I know that perhaps it is politically expedient to say it is Coke. Or it could have been Matthews Lane strongman 'Zekes' (Donald Phipps), or it could be any of these. I am not defending the wrongdoing of any person, but if I have to pay a political price for it, I am going to uphold a position that constitutional rights do not begin at Liguanea."

Liguanea is the base of the US Embassy in St Andrew.

Edwards' position is in keeping with that of the wider umbrella group - the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC) - which represents 95 per cent of denominations operating in the island.

Reverend Peter Garth, speaking on behalf of the JCC, said Friday that the matter should go before the courts, agreeing with the position put forward by the Private Sector Organisation (PSOJ) of Jamaica earlier last week.

"This issue is neither a JLP (Jamaica Labour Party) nor PNP (People's National Party) matter. It is something that affects the entire country. All the influential groups in the island should have been consulted - the PSOJ, the Church, and the Bar Association.

"The PM, perhaps, acted alone. He should have consulted the best legal minds on both sides, and should not have said the US erred; allow someone else to say it," Bishop Edwards said in an interview with The Sunday Gleaner, adding that "the US can and has the intent to harm Jamaica".

Miller adamant

But Miller is adamant in his stance that the extradition request should only be sent to court if there is "ambiguity".

"Let us not panic over what the USA or others may do; let us choose to do right. They, too, must do justly, and if not, we must guide them."

Referring to the highly publicised extradition request as a "national crisis", Miller suggests that the country should use the Dudus scenario as a platform to bring about social and economic changes in several spheres of the society.

"Let us as a nation take the opportunity to responsibly tackle and overcome the root that has created 'Dudus', 'Bulbie', 'Andem' - among others - crime and violence, 'garrisonisation', 'donmanship', tribalism ...

"Our problems continue because those with the authority either do not know how, or often lack the will and/or humility to ask for help. Let us not allow the Christopher Coke extradition to further divide us, but [let us use it] to look at ourselves and galvanise around a 'cause', a common enemy to fight 'negative international perception'. Let us unite and show the world who we really are as Jamaicans," reads a section of Miller's letter.

Biblical principle

While he stoutly defends the PM's position, Miller drew on biblical principles, claiming that no nation should make it necessary for another nation to judge its citizens.

"A citizen should be judged by their 'own' nation and not be given to another, particularly if they are domiciled in their own country. Interesting to note, I have discovered that Mr Coke has not been to the US since as a child. All accusations against him are alleged to have taken place while he is in Jamaica."

Last year, the United States issued an extradition request for Coke for trafficking drugs and guns between Jamaica and the US.

Yesterday, the attorney representing Coke, Tom Tavares-Finson, said he could not comment on the matter.

- [email protected]

**evanovitch** · 03-14-2010, 08:31 PM

United States vs its 'backyard' - Washington always wins

United States vs its 'backyard' - Washington always wins
Published: Sunday | March 14, 2010 0
Howard Campbell, Gleaner Writer

THE FACE-off between Washington and Kingston over reputed Tivoli Gardens enforcer Christopher 'Dudus' Coke has revived memories of similar clashes between the United States and countries in this region.

These include the ongoing battle in Honduras, where the US appears to be using every diplomatic weapon at its disposal to express its displeasure at the interim government's refusal to restore ousted president Manuel Zelaya to power.

In Jamaica, the Government's refusal to sign an extradition order that would place Coke in the hands of US law enforcement has put the administration of Prime Minister Bruce Golding in hot water with Washington.

Coke was named last year by US authorities as leader of the infamous Shower Posse, a gang his father, Lester Lloyd 'Jim Brown' Coke, once led.

Dudus is wanted for alleged drug and gun-running between Jamaica and the US.

But the minister of justice has so far refused to sign the extradition request based on what the Government says were "abnormal procedures" in the US request.

This is not the first time the US has had problems getting persons with alleged criminal ties extradited from Jamaica.

Vivian Blake, reputed founder of the Shower Posse, eluded capture for six years before cutting a deal with the 'Feds' in 2000, and did prison time in the US.

Others extradited

Drug traffickers Lebert Ramcharan and Donovan 'Plucky' Williams were arrested by US and Jamaican narcotics agents in 2004.

They were ordered extradited three years later by local courts to the US, where they received lengthy prison sentences.

Other Caribbean territories, including tiny St Kitts, The Bahamas, as well as Colombia in South America, have had similar run-ins with US officials.

In the case of St Kitts, it took 10 years before the Americans got hold of Kittitian nationals Glenroy Matthew and Noel 'Zambo' Heath, who were named as international drug traffickers by the US in the early 1990s.

Matthew and Heath exhausted their extradition rights before finally surrendering to US agents in St Kitts in 2006. They are currently serving lengthy prison sentences in the states.

Another Kittitian drug lord, Charles 'Little Nut' Miller, was a key member of the Shower Posse. After living in the US Witness Protection Programme, Miller fled to his homeland in the mid-1990s and ran a lucrative cocaine trade between St Kitts and Colombia.

A rise in criminality on the islands was blamed on Miller's illicit activities and prompted the government of prime minister Denzil Douglas to work with US authorities to get him extradited.

In 2000, after five years on the run, Miller surrendered to US agents. He is currently imprisoned in that country.

Trans-shipment point

The twin-island state of St Kitts-Nevis has long been a trans-shipment point for drug traffickers.

Under a 1996 extradition treaty, US agents can physically arrest reputed fugitives in St Kitts once the courts there (in St Kitts) rule against them.

The Bahamas was another active space for the notorious 'Cocaine Cowboys' who operated out of Colombia and Miami during the 1970s and 1980s.

In recent years, the Bahamian government has extradited several nationals wanted in the US for trafficking narcotics.

But in January, The Bahamas denied another extradition request by the US for Viktor Kozeny, a Czech-born financier who has lived there since 1995.

Kozeny is wanted in the US on charges of plotting to bribe officials in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan in the late 1990s to get favourable treatment on oil deals.

US authorities have been trying to get him extradited since 2005. However, The Bahamas Court of Appeal ruled that he cannot be extradited to stand trial in the US because bribing foreign officials is not a local crime and he is not subject to American anti-bribery laws.

The notorious narcotics trade that flourished in Colombia during the 1970s and 1980s is largely responsible for the American government signing aggressive extradition treaties with Caribbean governments.

For many years, leaders of the infamous Colombian cartels, including Carlos Lehder and Pablo Escobar, used the region as a route for getting their illegal products into Miami.

Because Colombia had no extradition clause in its newly crafted 1991 constitution, drug dealers were able to elude US authorities, but that changed in 1997 when the extradition law was reinstated.

Since 2001, more than 200 persons once tied to the Colombian narcotics trade have been extradited to the US. They include Gilberto Rodriquez Orejuela, a founder of the feared Cali Cartel, who was given a 36-year prison sentence in Miami in 2006.

In Honduras, officials last week claimed that the US had taken away the diplomatic and tourist visas of 16 interim government officials.

Presidential spokeswoman Marcia de Villeda claimed Washington revoked the visas of 14 Supreme Court judges, the foreign relations secretary and the country's attorney general.

Honduran interim President Roberto Micheletti also claimed that his US diplomatic and tourist visas had been revoked, and linked Washington's move to the June 28 coup, which ousted Zelaya.

Sign of pressure

Micheletti said he had anticipated the action and called it "a sign of the pressure that the US government is exerting on our country" to restore Zelaya.

That is a similar story to the one told by students of Haitian history who claim the United States led and organised the 'revolution' which forced Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile.

Aristide, a former slum preacher, was beloved by many of Haiti's poor, but opposition to his rule grew during his second presidential term after he was accused of masterminding assaults on opponents, allowing drug-fuelled corruption, and breaking promises to help the poor.

With the US openly showing its opposition to Aristide, he was ousted and 'forced' into exile in Africa, giving the US victory in that theatre.

Years earlier, 1989, in Panama, US forces invaded and arrested President Manuel Noriega.

At that time, the US claimed that its former allay was involved in drug trafficking, racketeering and money laundering.

That came just over a year after a Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations concluded that "the saga of Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures for the United States."

Extradition

<span style="font-style: italic">Extradition is the formal surrender of a person by a country to another for prosecution or punishment.
Extradition to or from Jamaica is a creature of the Extradition Act.
Jamaica has extradition treaties with many countries around the world and the justice minister may, from time to time, by order, compile and publish in the Gazette a list of foreign states with which extradition treaties or agreements binding on Jamaica are in force.
International </span>

**evanovitch** · 03-14-2010, 08:35 PM

Feeding Dudus’ company

Feeding Dudus’ company
Article Published: Sunday, March 14th, 2010
Jamaica Sunday Herald

There are more signs that the Jamaican Government is providing economic assistance to Incomparable Limited, a company in which alleged drug lord Christopher ‘Dudus Coke’ is a shareholder. The company has a lease agreement for a Urban Development Company (UDC) quarry in St Catherine.

Details of the lease agreement were unavailable at press time. But chairman Wayne Chen promised to check and provide details to the Sunday Herald. Chen also said no contracts were awarded to the company under his watch.

“No contracts have been awarded by the UDC to Incomparable Limited since I became chairman. However, I should note that Incomparable Limited holds a lease for a quarry in St. Catherine on lands owned by the UDC that was awarded before I joined the board,” Chen said in response to questions from the Sunday Herald.

The lease agreement is in addition to over $100 million in contracts to the company by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) government since taking over local and central governments between 2002 and 2007.

<span style="font-style: italic">There have been suggestions over the past weeks that the revocation of Chen’s US visa by the US authorities could perhaps be linked to contracts awarded to Incomparable Limited by the state agency, chaired by Chen.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">C</span><span style="font-weight: bold">hen in response to this suggestion stated, “I have no information to suggest any such connection.”</span>

Party leader Prime Minister Bruce Golding has defended his government’s recalcitrance in extraditing Coke to the US on the grounds that part of the evidence was gathered illegally.

Americans frustrated

Until recently, the United States was pleased with the cooperation it was getting from Jamaica over the extradition of persons accused of serious crimes, reported the Economist. In a recently published article the Economist pointed out that “the Jamaican authorities were responding promptly to requests and, last year, sent 15 suspects to the United States.

But the case of Christopher “Dudus” Coke seems to be different.”

According to the article, “The American authorities have become frustrated at what they see as foot-dragging by Jamaica’s government over their request last August for the extradition of a man they say is the leader of an “international criminal organisation.”

A “Gang Threat Assessment Survey” conducted by the Jamaican government last year, reckoned there were 268 criminal groups in Jamaica, earning cash from extortion, selling cannabis, transporting cocaine, contract killings, prostitution and international cybercrime. Many of them are merely small-time thugs.

But the United States Justice Department has put Coke on its “world’s most dangerous” list, accusing him of directing drug deals as far away as New York.

Home patch

According the Economist article, Coke’s home patch is Tivoli Gardens, a tough inner-city garrison close to the waterfront. It is the core of the Kingston Western parliamentary seat, held since 2005 by the prime minister, Bruce Golding, and for 43 years before that by Eddie Seaga, his predecessor as leader of the JLP.

Two of Coke’s brothers and a sister have been shot dead over the years, either by gangland killers or in shoot-outs with police. His father, Lester Coke, was a leader of the infamous Shower Posse — the gang, which, according to the American indictment, his son now runs. It was widely blamed in the 1980s for more than 1,000 murders in Jamaica and America.

Coke senior died in a mysterious fire in his prison cell in 1992, while awaiting extradition to America on drugs and murder charges. It was the day of the funeral for another son, Mark, who had been shot dead three weeks earlier. Mr. Seaga, then opposition leader, marched alongside party colleagues in the funeral cortège describing the deceased as a protector, the Economist article stated.

**evanovitch** · 03-15-2010, 06:02 AM

Another side of the 'Dudus' affair

Another side of the 'Dudus' affair
Published: Monday | March 15, 2010
Reverend Al Miller

<span style="font-weight: bold">The following is the full text of Reverend Al Miller's letter to The Gleaner on the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke extradition case.</span>
A successful life must be lived by a commitment to values and principles and not by preferences or emotional responses.

A fundamental divine principle to guide human interaction is "love thy neighbour as you love yourself", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Another fundamental divine principle to guide societies is, "do not perverse justice or show partiality; follow justice and justice alone (Deuteronomy 16:19)."

Let us not panic over what the United States or others may do; let us choose to do right. They too must do justly, and if not, we must guide them.

Fear for our 'skin' must not override the 'principle of justice'. No matter what the US may do, let justice reign; there is a just God who will defend us when we stand for justice as a principle. We must all guard against allowing intimidation and fear to grip us to the extent that we sacrifice right principles and justice for personal safety. It is this view that has allowed the 'donmanship and extortion' culture to dominate our nation. Let us not perpetuate it in any form but rather have the courage to correct it.

Another opportunity

This national crisis has created another opportunity to tackle the monster that has been strangling the nation for years. Our major problem is not the extradition of 'Dudus', but the conditions that have created and permitted a 'Dudus' and all that is perceived that he represents to flourish. There is a human tendency to ship away the problems we create rather than deal with them. This is precisely what the US and Britain have done with their 'deportee' policy; let us not be guilty of the same practices. Why do they deport our citizens? It is upon the principle that the country deals with its problem citizens. The principle is applied when it suits them.

The biblical principle, as I observe it, is that a citizen should be judged by their 'own' nation and not be given to another, particularly if they are domiciled in their own country. What a strong principled nation should be saying to the US and the rest of the world is, 'if a citizen has done wrong, give us the evidence and he/she will be dealt with appropriately to maintain the principle of justice'. No nation should make it necessary for another nation to judge its citizens domiciled within its borders. Interesting to note, I have discovered that Mr Coke has not been to the US since as a child. All accusations against him are alleged to have taken place whilst he is in Jamaica.

Crime committed anywhere is an attack on the principle of law, order and justice; hence it is against us all, regardless of where the offender is domiciled. However, in our desire for justice we cannot act unjustly. No society can afford unjust justice. We cannot break the law to obey the law. Every citizen must be assured justice and the observation of their Constitutional rights, even when they have done wrong. We cannot wrongly address their wrong. The principle of justice and justice only must govern our actions. The first responsibility of the Government is to ensure justice for all.

How does this apply in the Dudus scenario? Yes, it is possible that social and political considerations are involved; but we must rise above that, and stand only on principle if we are to act justly. The prime minister has clearly stated the known violation of the Jamaican law that impinges on the constitutional right of a citizen. As PM and Government (which includes the Opposition), it is their responsibility to uphold justice for each citizen; not to do so would be criminal, unjust and make them untrustworthy leaders.

We ought not, on this point, vilify the PM, by narrow thinking rooted in our fears or partisan outlook. We should commend his courage to stand, and pray that it is an indication of his heart's commitment to 'principle', which will always protect and be directed to all citizens, regardless of colour, politics or station in life. Let us not assume motive to the principled position of the PM. If his heart is not pure, time will reveal.

Tackle, overcome

Let us as a nation take the opportunity to responsibly tackle and overcome the root that has created Dudus, 'Bulbie', 'Andem', among others. Crime and violence, 'garrisonisation', 'donmanship', tribalism, etc. are not difficult to deal with as many would have us believe, if there is the strong will. All of the above can be brought under control in short order. Nothing is difficult when you know how and have the authority to act.

Our problems continue because those with the authority either do not know how, or often lack the will and/or humility to ask for help. Let us not allow the Christopher Coke extradition to further divide us, but to look at ourselves and galvanise around a 'cause', a common enemy to fight - 'negative international perception'. Let us unite and show the world who we really are as Jamaicans.

Reverend Al Miller

<span style="font-style: italic">Let us not allow the Christopher Coke extradition to further divide us, but to look at ourselves and galvanise around a 'cause', a common enemy to fight - 'negative international perception'.</span>

**evanovitch** · 03-15-2010, 06:10 AM

The 'Dudus stick'

The 'Dudus stick'
Published: Monday | March 15, 2010 \\

Garth Rattray

Some Jamaicans may recall a little song about impending harsh punishment from their mother whenever they were caught doing something wrong, or getting into trouble. It went something like this "Yes now, Spanish Town, mamma ah go beat yuh with the ddstick". Well, it appears that we may be beaten with the 'Dudus stick' by the United States (US) government. The 'beating'' already began in the scathing criticism of the Jamaican Government in Volume one of the 2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.

The report drags us over the coals for being the Caribbean's largest source of marijuana for the United States, and for cocaine trafficking, before it quickly goes into our delays in extradition requests. It blames party politics, a lack of commitment to anti-crime measures and law enforcement cooperation, along with corruption, for the delays. It quotes our world-renowned murder rate, and highlights crimes including rape, guns-for-drugs and even the lottery scam. It also concludes that, daily, Jamaicans are losing confidence in the Government's ability to protect them, and that, among other things, multinational cooperation would be very helpful.

Toe-to-toe with the US

In spite of the overwhelming mismatch, our prime minister (PM) has decided to stand toe-to-toe with the United States government in defence of the constitutional rights of one of our citizens. That's commendable, but this particular citizen just happens to be an integral figure in the prime minister's constituency and essential to the stability in downtown Kingston. As for that citizen's other attributes, repute and alleged disrepute, without hard evidence, in this extremely serious matter, they are hearsay and speculative.

The prime minister was quoted as saying, "I'm not defending the wrongdoing of any person, but I will say this: If I have to pay a political price for it, I'm going to hold a position that constitutional rights do not begin at Liguanea. That's not where they start." Although it sounds courageous and honourable, several things about that statement trouble me. The 'price' may be much more than a political one for the PM; it may be a national one that affects us all. Furthermore, I think that the issues raised regarding the compliance of the extradition request with the evidence-sharing Mutual Assistance Criminal Matters Act (versus the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) and, more recently, assertions of illegally obtained evidence, should be sorted out by an independent party, because the entire affair is legally complicated and too close to (the PM's) 'home'.

No defence for common man

I would love to see our government defend everyone's human and constitutional rights, but this is not the practice. I believe that if an ordinary Jamaican (like me) were to be indicted by the US, I can't imagine the Government going out on a limb and jeopardising relations with the US for me. And, if this were a People's National Party administration, such a government would not defend that particular citizen so robustly - that's politics for you.

If politicians were so very concerned about the constitutional and human rights of every citizen, they would have done everything within the law to ensure that we were safe from the rampant, oppressive criminality that we experience daily in Jamaica. They would see to the needs of the poor and disenfran-chised, and liberate dependent 'garrison' communities. They would be concerned about the innumerable human-rights violations and injustices that occur across the island. They would address the many other allegations contained in the US report relating to half-hearted anti-crime measures, and the trade in illicit items in and out of our shores.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Feedback may be sent to [email protected] or [email protected].

**Dyoll_73** · 03-15-2010, 10:10 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... if the PM is standing firm in order to show the Opposition he wont be kicked around by them, then doesnt it reduce the PM to petty political point scoring - in other words, the same thing you say the opposition is trying to do?

true political leadership i think takes stands on issues in the broader interest of the people and not the party. </div></div>

This is disingenuous. Consulting with and even accommodating the Opposition is one thing; to have them call the shots is another matter. Elections have consequences. What they are doing is grandstanding, pure and simple. The PM has firm legal footing on which to stand, and has stated publicly his support for the Attorney General's stance, but here you are reducing his decision to "petty political point scoring."

**mountaingal** · 03-15-2010, 10:40 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... if the PM is standing firm in order to show the Opposition he wont be kicked around by them, then doesnt it reduce the PM to petty political point scoring - in other words, the same thing you say the opposition is trying to do?

true political leadership i think takes stands on issues in the broader interest of the people and not the party. </div></div>

This is disingenuous. Consulting with and even accommodating the Opposition is one thing; to have them call the shots is another matter. Elections have consequences. What they are doing is grandstanding, pure and simple. The PM has firm legal footing on which to stand, and has stated publicly his support for the Attorney General's stance, but here you are reducing his decision to "petty political point scoring." </div></div>

sorry, my friend, i'd say the reduction to petty political point scoring started with your earlier comment, and in fact, continues in your response above. who cares if the opposition is grandstanding? that's what they do in parliamentary democracies, even here in canada. if the PM's position is firm, let it be firm in the national interest, and not in party interest.

**evanovitch** · 03-15-2010, 02:45 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let it be firm in the national interest, and not in party interest. </div></div>

isn't this too late wen it come to Ja...the peculiarity of our politics is that that both parties were BORN OF Trade Unions...so those who chooose to become poltician r conditioned from birth to not think of service to the country but service to the party so as to be able to get a wuk wid di country aka political office

sad aint it

**evanovitch** · 03-15-2010, 02:54 PM

Can the great United States be wrong?

Can the great United States be wrong?

Chris Burns

Monday, March 15, 2010

Yes, absolutely, the US can be wrong, and even President Barack Obama acknowledges this, as he seeks to restore America's image and credibility around the world. However, Obama's acknowledgement notwithstanding, as a society and like other societies, America is fallible. The truth is that for decades industrialised societies successfully propagated the myth that governmental fallibility was exclusively a Third-World phenomenon. But this is not so anymore. With the advent of technology and popularity of social networking sites, people know what is going on around the world, in real time.

That aside, no one expects the United States to be all things to all men. It would be rather silly to hold such a view. And although the US stands as a beacon of hope for many and continues to extend lifelines to several millions around the world who come to her shores, it does not convert to infallibility, nor does it mean that America's actions are always above reproach. It does not mean that the United States' intentions and activities are always incontestable or right, and if history is anything to go by, Uncle Sam may still need to submit, in humble contrition, for some of its past transgressions and mistakes.

Mistakes such as its handling of the "noble experiment", its decades-old, one-directional supply side war on drugs, the Tuskegee project, segregation, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, ignoring the genocide in Darfur and the clumsy management of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, to name a few. Besides, as advanced as the US justice system is said to be, hundreds continue to be wrongfully convicted throughout the US. According to the non-profit group, the Innocence Project, well over 249 defendants, previously convicted of serious crimes, obtained exoneration after the fact, based on DNA testing. There can be no telling what the outcome would have been, had the Innocence Project not taken up these cases to defend the rights of these individuals to a fair trial.

In the mid-1900s, in an attempt to reduce crime and corruption, improve health, solve social problems and reduce the tax burden created by prison and poor houses, President Herbert Hoover initiated the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors. It was not long afterwards that most of the liquor production, sale and trafficking fell into the hands of gangsters and a carnival of murders and other violent crimes which included mob-style executions sprang up all over the country.

From as far back as in 1954, when Dwight D Eisenhower was president, the United States has been fighting the so-called "war on drugs" and for good reasons. Drug-trafficking and abuse come with enormous economic, political and social costs. However, like "the noble experiment" and after billions of dollars (US$22 billion in 2009), authorities have not managed to curb America's appetite for drugs sufficiently to cripple the supply chain. The United States' war on drugs started mainly as a fight against marijuana, but the suppression has triggered increases in demand for crack-cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc, and with them, increases in the outward flows of high-powered weapons from the US to other countries already facing social problems.

To underscore a possible admission of failure in respect to marijuana, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that "raiding medical marijuana facilities would be the lowest priority for US law enforcement agents", a move Kurt Gardinier, spokesman for the marijuana project, hailed as "one of the most significant changes in Federal drug policy in the last 30 years". The American Medical Association recommended that Congress reclassify marijuana as a drug with possible medical benefits. Significantly too, a 2009 Gallup Poll found 44 per cent of Americans supporting legalisation of the use of marijuana. According to a USA Today news report, "At least 14 states this year, some deeply conservative and Republican-leaning, will consider legalising marijuana for medical purposes or lessening penalties for small amounts for personal use."

The historical overview is deliberate, as it shows how failures of US domestic and foreign policies may affect governments and people all over the world. Here in Jamaica, instead of drafting modern laws to deal with the legal cultivation and conversion of marijuana for medicinal purposes, we are busy kowtowing to Uncle Sam, by burning down and arresting citizens who grow marijuana to satisfy America's insatiable appetite. We are doing all these things as 14 states, including Washington State, already have medical marijuana laws, and 13 have decriminalisation laws on the books. My prediction is that America will become the largest producer and exporter of medical marijuana products and Jamaica will end up being the largest importer. Are we nuts?

This brings me to the current controversy surrounding the extradition request from the US State Department for the Jamaican Government to hand over Christopher Coke to stand trial in US federal courts in New York for alleged drugs and gun-running. Insofar as the extradition proceedings for Christopher "Dudus" Coke are concerned, one should not cut off one's nose to spite one's face. I disagree with the prime minister's pugilistic and overarching involvement in the matter and I remain unpersuaded by his attempts to colour his involvement purely altruistic. Somehow, it is hard to see our prime minister defending another Jamaican faced with similar or a lesser charge as staunchly as he has done in this instance. If Mr Golding believes US

law-enforcement personnel breached Jamaica's wiretapping laws while gathering evidence against Mr Coke, then the breach is a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate.

This does not mean that anything is intrinsically wrong with protecting the constitutional rights of every Jamaican citizen. While none of this intends to exculpate the defendant of any alleged wrongdoing, it is hard to accept and equally difficult to fathom our misplaced willingness to cower under fear of economic reprisal from Uncle Sam - all this without regard to blatant acts of injustice or bullying. And as if this isn't bad enough, one needs only to listen to some of the preposterous arguments coming from certain people - educated people - who ought to know better as they defend our obsequious mentality and childlike proclivity to "crawl up into our little shells" every time Uncle Sam orders us to.

We need to tame our eagerness to genuflect to Uncle Sam. This unbridled eagerness to acquiesce is patently backward, to say the least, as no amount of foreign aid or largesse should motivate us to violate the spirit of our political independence or to derogate from the principles on which we attained that sovereignty. While standing for principles is not always popular for those who believe life and life's circumstances are always "positional", we have to create a different mentality - one that appreciates and values common sense, but instructs and advises us to stand for something and discourages us not fall for everything, however enticing.

[email protected]

US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads