PEEPER NAH CRY FUH GADGET!

Jun 21, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

I will on Monday resume my series on the child soldier phenomenon. For today I wish to also break with a short-lived tradition and reply to one of my critics.

Some time ago, I took the decision to refrain from replying to letter writers who simply express an opinion about my articles. I think such responses need to be encouraged and even if the person is generally ignorant of the topic about which he is replying, it is useful and necessary to allow him that liberty of responding.

I have found, however, that much of the responses are factually incorrect. (Whether this is because of deliberate misrepresentation or simply due to the regurgitation of gossip is best determined by those that commit the errors.)

Emile Mervin writes a whole lot. I think I understand why. But it is surprising considering where he lives that he should write so often from an uninformed position, especially when he treats some of the things originating in the rumor mill as facts without seeking to establish their authenticity.

Arguments and opinions based on false premises must be countered by first correcting the misperceptions. This I intend to do without attempting to win Mervin over to any specific side. I do not believe that he intends to be so wooed.

In a letter published in yesterday’s newspaper, he comes across like some of the talk show hosts we used to have at one time in this country who could make a drizzle seem like a thunderstorm.

These talk shows hosts had a way of inflaming an already bad situation by taking small incidents and twisting them out of proportion and context.

Mervin should avoid falling into that trap. He dabbles in exaggeration, myth and fantasy. For example, answering his own question as to what evidence exists against Roger Khan he says that while fleeing the Joint Services en route to Suriname, Khan unveiled his role in financing the extra judicial killings of dangerous criminals.

Since he likes to write so much, I would like him to produce the source of his information where Khan is alleged to have indicated that he financed extra judicial killings of dangerous criminals.

As far as what Khan said goes, the facts would reveal that Khan admitted to assisting the authorities with intelligence that he gathered using his own resources. Khan never said he killed anybody or he financed the killing of anyone.

But of course if you listen only to the spin that was placed on that statement by anti-government forces you can understand why Mervin would interpret things the way he does.

Mervin further went on to state that the United States went one step further and revealed that Khan was responsible for about 200 deaths.

Now, Mervin lives in the United States but I am sure he cannot produce a scrap of evidence where the United States made such a claim. He is therefore premising his arguments on gaffe.

Mervin then goes on in the same vein about some high tech laptop. We will all know in due course, would we not? We would know whether Khan ever bought from any store in Florida any laptop capable of doing the things that people think Khan did with it.

I have my own opinion and I have stated it in these columns. I have said that if the technology exists to allow someone to sit with a laptop and wirelessly tap into telephone conversations of others, then such technology would be restricted to the United States security and intelligence sectors and would not be made available to third parties.

After all, United States federal officials are not at liberty to tap the phones of US citizens without following certain legal procedures. So why would the US allow third country parties to do the same using US developed technology? This is my opinion.

When Khan’s case starts in October, all that has been said in the depositions will be put to the test and more facts will emerge.

In closing I want to say I share Mervin’s abhorrence of extra-judicial killings. But there is one incident that resonates in my mind. There was a fellow that was creating terror in Guyana during the crime wave.

He was said to have been linked to the Buxton prison escapee gang and he liked to rape women. He was nicknamed Inspector Gadget.

One day he was found dead in an alley. It was said he was shot dead by two unknown men. I did not hear too many persons protest this extra-judicial killing. In fact, from what I understand, most people were glad that this manic killer met his end, unlawful as this end was.

And while the Peeper does not support such vigilante style killing, I must confess I did not shed a tear for Inspector Gadget. In fact, to tell you the truth, I even felt a little relieved that this criminal would no longer pose a threat to our women.

This is the reality, Emile, that you will find in Guyana. The vast majority of Guyanese who lived during that period were not protesting too much when the criminals were being killed.

They were relieved that the threat was neutralized and not much worried about the means used. They should have been because the ends never justify the means.

I accept, however, that I have not the moral standing to be making such a point about the ends and the means. After all, I did not give a hang about who executed Inspector Gadget. I still don’t. Do you Emile?