21855: Vilaire: Re: 21815: Simidor on Arrest of So Ann (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Vilaire@aol.com

Daniel Simidor writes:

"Sò Ann was arrested in the middle of the night?  Well, well, maybe the
Haitian National Police feared that with a warning she would, like any able mambo,
use her “pwen disparèt” to melt into the background?"

Simidor, it is NOT the Haitian National Police that arrested Sò Ann. Twenty
(20) U.S Marines did by ransacking the house, detonating grenades and
decapitating the family dog.


"Some Lavalas incorrigibles are complaining there was no mandate for her
arrest.  But of course there was one: people had been clamoring for weeks for Sò
Ann to be brought to justice."

Simidor, it's not just "Lavalas incorrigibles" who are complaining about this
blatant violation of the rule of law. Many who decried similar acts under
Lavalas are raising their voices. Yes, there are still some people --
unfortunately not very many human rights organizations -- for whom respect for civil
liberties and the Constitution means something. The mere fact that "people had
been clamoring for weeks" for Sò Ann's arrest is not synonymous with an arrest
warrant. But, for the sake of argument let's accept that a real warrant was
issued. If so, judicial authorities -- especially, your can't-do-no-wrong, Mr.
Gousse -- need to answer the following questions:
-Why was it carried out by U.S marines who, surprise, surprise, did so with
disproportionate force?
-Why did they arrest everyone at the house, including a minor as young as 5-6
years old?
-Why did the Marines put hoods over their heads?
-For what was Sò Ann arrested? There's a major discrepancy here: U.S Marines
say they had to arrest her because she constituted a danger to the forces of
occupation whereas you claim "The public outcry in P.au.P is that she was the
intermediate between Aristide and various gangs in Belair, Delmas and Cité
Soleil." Well, what's the deally yo?

Simidor continues:
"Some silly  goose (no minister of mine) will be clamoring next for her
release, supposedly because the law says she must be brought in front of her
natural judges within 48 hours.  As if Lavalas ever bothered with such niceties."

Many of us protested and cried foul when Lavalas jettisoned those "niceties"
and we need to do so now with equal fervor. There's nothing silly about
demanding those in positions of power to respect the Constitution -- whether under
Lavalas, Latortue-Alexandre or an occupation. Well, there's the problem: a
military occupation. It would indeed be silly to expect a force of occupation,
whose very status is illegal and a violation of the country's Constitution, to be
bothered with such niceties.

While on the subject of occupation: Why is it that no one is talking about
the wanton, mercenary, outrageous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the
occupants? Tèt Kole ti Peyizan and Batay Ouvriye (for those who care, these are
anti-Lavalas outfits) have both sent out appeals asking for help in the face of
consistent persecution from the gentlemen in uniforms. Are we to wait until
pictures à la Iraq emerge before we let out a collective shout of "Anmwe!"?

Marx-Vilaire