13846: Simidor: a further reply to Bob Corbett (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: karioka9@arczip.com

Bob, If this list existed 200 years ago, we would be in the history
books! :)

[Corbett adds:  But, Daniel, our archive would have about 1 million posts.
Could you see me telling Dessalines:  Sorry, Jacques, that post is a
personal attack, you'll have to revise....]

--------------

Ours is like the chicken vs. the egg argument.  You say, why not take a
chance right now with the Constitution and the law?  The Constitution
and the law say that Aristide should be impeached for any combination
of the illegal, criminal, arbitrary and corrupt acts catalogued in
Anonymous' post, #13782.  Indeed, why not impeach Aristide for the
crime of having sought to alienate 10% of the country to the Dominican
government unconstitutionally, that is without the consent of the
people or the consent of his own bogus parliament?

The answer is because Lavalas refuses to submit itself to the rule of
law.  Haiti is a democracy in name only.  Some will say there is no
blood flowing in the streets.  If you listen to Alfred Micanor's
threats, not yet. Lavalas is a weak dictatorship, one that George W.
Bush and the OAS are sitting on top of.  But it's a dictatorship
nonetheless.

Too bad the people did not rise up successfully at the beginning of
Soulouque's and Duvalier's reigns (to name the two worse in a long
list of villains), and do for them as they freely did onto others.  On
the other hand, the irate masses did get their hands on Vilbrun
Guillaume, and look what came out of that.  There is no perfect
solution, and I don't hear anybody in the opposition advocating this
level of violence.

So far, the movement against Lavalas is a democratic, non-violent form
of mass mobilization.  People are calling for Aristide to step down,
precisely because his government violates the Constitution and the
law.  To the question "why not start now," the answer is because those
in power won't allow it.  You cannot impeach them, because they
control the courts.  You cannot outvote them, because they control the
elections.  You cannot pressure them to act differently, because this
is the way they maximize their power and wealth.

It seems to me, Bob, ethically speaking, that when people are faced
with a grievous wrong, the moral imperative is to correct it.  You
don't say, well, let's leave things the way they are because we don't
have a replacement yet.  The first order of things is to put an end to
the injustice.  The next imperative is to create a state of justice,
so that injustice cannot occur again.  In that order.

Daniel Simidor
------- End of forwarded message -------