No to Dudus extradition, no to US demands

[ReggaeMike]

Barrack man, cho you kno mi did guh good school.
When a boatload of M16s reaches our shores, who should we extradite, the Haitians or the US officials that flooded Haiti with illegal guns in order to overthrow Aristide?

We should extradite the Haitians. The Haitians should extradite said US officials. After all the US officials in that scenario did not send or allow the guns through with the intention that they arrive in Jamaica. The Haitians though who pass it on definitely do.

As common people, our only interest should how can Jamaica benefit while both leaders (Bruce and Barack)arbitrarily play their games.We have denied at least one extradition request before, it wasn't even challenged.Dudus appears meaty enough for us to make demands.
Bruce will likely be held accountable...comes election time.


Blessed

Wha..????

Rockman, you sure you not confusing our position (Jamaica) and their position (US position)? How is Jamaica going to make demands off Dudus? Dudus have secret fi Obama? Nah man. The US want him and want to put him on trial, so he can't have any secrets for them otherwise powerful people would have moved to quash any indictment long ago. Dudus however seem to have nuff secret for nuff orange and green men, so if anything is the US can make a lot of demands. We can't even make demands based on the fact that the Americans want him, because if we don't hand him over eventually and the US decide that they REALLY want him, they will simply take him. They've done it before in countries that have far more significance to the US than Jamaica does - Mexico; 1990. A doctor, who was involved in the murder of a DEA agent investigating drug traffickers in cooperation with local police, was kidnapped from Mexico and flown to El Paso, Texas. Being brought before a federal court, the first ruling was that the kidnapping violated the US-Mexican extradition treaty and that the doctor (Alvarez) should be sent home. This was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court which decided by 6-3 in 1992 that the kidnapping did not prohibit his trial in the US. US officials later said the ruling wasn't a "green light" (after a lot of negative reaction to the ruling in Latin America) but that they were "not prepared categorically to rule out unilateral action." and that in some "extreme cases" such abductions could be carried and justified as matters of "self defence".

So we can go on fooling ourselves that we have some kind of leverage in this situation. We don't. All they need to do is link Dudus' activities with the murder of American citizens and presto! they have "self-defence" cause for coming in and forcibly abducting him. Or they could link money from the drug and gun deals with some minor terrorist and we all know where that will lead.

If that ever happened, all the politicians who are either defending him or remaining silent as lambs about him would have the foundation disappear from beneath their feet as though they were standing on quicksand, because they could then be linked to terrorist activities.

Furthermore it was only a few years ago that the US told Britain (yes, that Britain, the same one with far more power than Jamaica and which is a much closer and more influential friend of the US than Jamaica) that the US can "kidnap" British citizens wanted for crimes in the US. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece

Also read these for the Alvarez case:

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-right...ia-10-4-b.html

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...e-mexico-plans

[Muadib]

Why are we going down all these fanciful roads ?

The US has been instructed on what they need to do to get Dudus.. operate within the Law.. simple.

Not sure what all the excitement is about...

The law is not a shackle ??

In case y'all did not get the memo... Course Change..

[Mosiah]

one wonders if such instructions were ever given to other republics.

[Muadib]

The Law is there for all to follow.. especially the Minister of Justice..

[Assasin]

Another man who just a chat.

I guess Dudus sell paper. What a day when it over?

[Muadib]

5 years time we can sip a Latte on Ocean Blvd and reminisce about it...

[ReggaeMike]

Why are we going down all these fanciful roads ?

The US has been instructed on what they need to do to get Dudus.. operate within the Law.. simple.

Not sure what all the excitement is about...

The law is not a shackle ??

In case y'all did not get the memo... Course Change..

That's funny, because the US Supreme Court basically said the same thing in 1992: Treaties and laws notwithstanding, we can nab anyone we want provided there is sufficient justification.

Why are we going down all these fanciful roads ?

I'm sure Senor Alvarez thought his case would have been fanciful too had anyone told him about it before he got nabbed.

[Muadib]

Ah si yuh looking excitement... recession have people idle and bored aprantly..

[Willi]

US law does not apply in Jamaica.

[Rockman]

Our relationship to the US regarding extradition mirrors that of other countries(and gun murders I should add), as such we do have more leverage. We do have a BIG problem with gun related crimes,serious demands have to be made in order to have any chance of addressing the issue(straight to the heart).
Bringing unwanted attention to an extradition(controversial) treaty that has been overwelmingly successful suggests the US wants Dudus, well how bad?
70% of illegal guns in Jamaica came from the US is striking.


Blessed

[ReggaeMike]

US law does not apply in Jamaica.

So are you saying US law applied in Mexico when they abducted Alvarez and the Supreme Court said it was okey-dokey? US law doesn't have to apply in Jamaica, as long as US law enforcement doesn't violate US laws if a suspect is being put on trial in the US then that is all that matter and their Supreme Court said as much. Now if US law enforcement agents violated foreign laws to put a suspect on trial in the same foreign country then that would be different matter.

[ReggaeMike]

Our relationship to the US regarding extradition mirrors that of other countries(and gun murders I should add), as such we do have more leverage.

If our relationship mirrors that of other countries how do we have more leverage? Mexico in the 1990s had an extradition treaty with the US and the UK has had one with the US since the 1930s (and in fact that treaty served as our extradition treaty with the US until the 1960s I think and Seaga got a new one in the 1980s). If the US outright tells the UK that it has the right to abduct their citizens if they are suspected of crimes in the US, what possible kind of leverage could Jamaica have?

We do have a BIG problem with gun related crimes,serious demands have to be made in order to have any chance of addressing the issue(straight to the heart).
Bringing unwanted attention to an extradition(controversial) treaty that has been overwelmingly successful suggests the US wants Dudus, well how bad?
70% of illegal guns in Jamaica came from the US is striking.


Blessed

Unwanted attention? Who says the Americans care? I've yet to see any media report suggesting that they have been downplaying any of the treaties and America has never,ever been embarrassed about being the source of illegal guns and the largest market for illegal drugs. As far as the US government is concerned they see themselves as attempting to stop it - after all Dudus was indicted for drug-dealing AND gun-running (transporting illegal guns from the US to Jamaica). Why would they feel embarrassed about the fact that 70% of illegal guns in Jamaica came from the US when any blind man can see that the Dudus indictment is an attempt to stem it? And the extradition treaty is only controversial in Jamaica and even then only among some people. Not one US journalist has to my knowledge described the treaty as controversial and outside of a few Americans and some Jamaicans, nobody else really gives a damn about the treaty.

Remember this is not Eagle Claw or Iran-Contra scandals. This is the US requesting the extradition of a person who is suspected of being a drug- and gun-runner. There is no way that they will feel that this affair is bringing unwanted attention (unlike those covert and at times illicit actions), it isn't even like the affair has threatened to expose their intelligence assets since the wire-tap was quite legal and they didn't steal the wire-tap recordings but had it handed to them on silver platter by a Jamaican constable.

[Baddaz]

cho, mi cyaan bodda... just plain bull********************...

[Willi]

OH, I understand US assumption of the American exceptionalism, but they still would be in violation of local laws.

If is bullyrhygin bizniz, then we would need to have other powerful countervailing friendships.

[Muadib]

Mi hear Drivah and Vincent Chang are very good friends..