Rather than feel vindicated, the President should feel vilified

Mar 16, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

A SN article: “President: I had confidential info David Clarke was not serving in the best interest of the army” (March 10), revealed more about the President than it did about the retired Army Major, David Clarke, who now sits confined as a guest of the US Government on charges of trafficking in narcotics.

Why would the President go public only now and say he feels a sense of vindication as word has gotten out that Clarke was charged with narcotics smuggling into the United States, when Clarke should have been court-martialled on charges of subversive activities unbecoming a ranking military officer in Guyana?

After all, the President said he had ‘confidential information’ long before Clarke left Guyana and got caught in America so, instead of feeling a backhanded sense of vindication, shouldn’t he be feeling a profound sense of guilt for failing to fearlessly execute his responsibilities as the Commander-in-Chief of the security forces in Guyana?

Did the compromised politics of his presidency blur his judgment to exercise his authority and power as National Security Minister?

The same is also true of his dealing with the Roger Khan saga. Khan was the one who went public talking about his conversations with US officials linking Clarke to criminal elements, the details of which were even carried in the free media; yet Khan is the same person who was named as a major narcotics smuggler by the US in a narcotics report on Guyana, and the Guyana Government did absolutely nothing to investigate Khan and his business empire.

Even after Khan fled to Suriname and blurted out his extra-judicial killings role to save the PPP Government from collapsing at the hands of criminal elements, the Government did not seek to extradite him to answer charges on conspiracy to commit multiple murders. If the President feels vindicated he got rid of Clarke, he likely feels vindicated he didn’t get rid of Khan before his services were no longer needed.

Following the 2002-2004 crime spree, many of us have been trying to put together the pieces of the jig-saw puzzle involving criminality and politics.

Though the Government kept claiming the PNC was associated with criminals, and many of us wanted to believe the charges, it never arrested a single PNC official.

Then we noticed that there was a not so subtle double standard being nurtured by the Jagdeo administration when it came to criminality: criminals with guns injuring and killing people should be severely punished – even by death – while criminals doing drugs and money laundering should be allowed to roam ‘Scot-free’.

And even though government said it does not discriminate, many of us wondered if this obvious double standard on crimes was ever cited by so-called Freedom Fighters as a form of discrimination practised by the Government, hence their misadventure into dangerous crimes to effect changes, even if this meant a change of government?

With his talk of feeling vindicated because Clarke was busted on drugs charges in America, the President has opened himself to serious questioning from Guyanese everywhere about his sense of responsibility, honesty and fairness in dealing with criminality in Guyana.

When asked sometime back about whether he knew of Khan or Khan’s extra-judicial operations, I think the President’s response was no! (The Head of the Presidential Secretariat reportedly said he knew Khan did business with the Government, but did not approve of Khan purchasing any spy equipment).

When asked his opinion

on Khan’s conspiracy charges in America, the President also reportedly said that if Khan did the crime he should face the consequences, so we are all wondering why Khan never faced the consequences in Guyana where he was strongly suspected of being involved in drugs, money laundering and, by his own confession, conspiring to commit multiple murders?

Let me close by saying that the President can feel all the vindication he wants about Clarke’s narcotics charges in America but, at the end of the day, his vindication is undermined by his conspicuous lack of leadership and sense of responsibility, honesty and fairness in dealing with criminality in Guyana.

Had he done his job as President in this area, we wouldn’t have an ironic case where both Clarke and Khan are sitting in the United States preparing to face narcotics charges.

Clarke should have been court-martialled (even though the President is now saying he doesn’t know if Clarke was ever prosecuted), and Khan should have been arrested for drug smuggling and money laundering long before there was a Phantom Squad!

The President may feel vindicated because of what happened to Clarke in America, but since over 200 lives were reportedly lost in the 2002–2004 crime spree, he deserves vilification for failing to do his sworn duty to uphold the law, mete out justice and never discriminate against anyone or on any issue.

Emile Mervin

 

---

---