a1166: Toussaint, the Senate and the Dominique murder: Chamberlain comments (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

> kevin pina <kpinbox@hotmail.com> wrote:


> If there is evidence linking one to a crime does the judiciary have any
> obligation of disclosing it to any other body prior to issuing a mandate
> for commencement a trial? What protections are in place for one accused
> of a crime prior to being placed on trial? If evidence is not bound to be

> deemed credible prior to a trial does that mean that an individual
accused
> of a crime is assumed guilty and therefore must prove their innocence?

> I am confused by the judiciary's lack of disclosure of the evidence.
> Might they be able to ask for review of the evidence by a credible and
> mutually acceptable "non-belligerent" body such as the world court?


This is a smokescreen of legal technicalities apparently aimed at
exculpating Sen. Dany Toussaint  from any part in the Jean Dominique
murder.  It should not fool any of us.

The plain fact is that anyone who has suggested Toussaint might be
involved in this killing (or even that he should be questioned about it)
has received threats of violence or death from his supporters (who
else might they be?).  And, when the Senate finally summoned up the
courage to meet to consider lifting his parliamentary immunity,
Toussaint arrived in the chamber surrounded by armed thugs.  Not
surprisingly, the Senate did not lift his immunity.  Who reasonably
would dare?  Yet this action, in total contempt for the institution of
parliament, seems not to figure anywhere in our legal enquirer's
concerns.  Can he explain why it doesn't?  Is it of no importance?
If so, why is it of no importance?  To the frightened members of the
Senate (even though of course they timidly, and safely after the event,
set up a token enquiry as to why Toussaint had brought his thugs
along), this was the main issue, not the legal questions that have
been presented above to divert our attention from the thuggery
and abuse of parliament.

It seems yet another example of Lavalas supporters adopting the
familiar tactics used by the apologists for both the military dictatorship
and the Duvaliers.

As Guy Antoine pointed out, Haiti needs urgently to get to grips with
a few realities:  Is Neptune competent?  Does he stand a chance of
getting the country out of the present mess?  Not "does he have a
US passport?" A fair number of the country's leading politicians
(both government and opposition) have sought and obtained US or
Canadian citizenship (there are certainly one or two in each cabinet).
This is the case in many countries in the region.  It's a fact of the
tradition of emigration.

But if you have no other defence or have nothing to offer, you fall back
on calling foul about passports or ignoring Toussaint's thuggery.
There is no end to the delaying tactics that can be used in legal
battles by both government and opposition over minor constitutional
points while seven million Haitians sink deeper into poverty.

Haiti urgently needs political compromises, but no deal should be
made with those who readily use violence to gain their ends,
such as Tousasaint (whether or not he is involved in
the Dominique murder, though Judge Gassant says he is but has
unfortunately been obliged to flee the country after constant threats
-- I wonder who from?... and anyway been pushed out of his job by
the government -- I wonder why?).  Or with advocates of violence
such as René Civil and Paul Raymond (also defended recently by
our legal correspondent), who have warrants out for their arrest
which the police are simply too frightened to execute.

Sadly, those who complain with justification about the international
community's overkill attitude to Aristide and the US sheltering of
Toto Constant are very happy to turn a blind eye to men of violence
like Toussaint, Civil and Raymond who are playing a large part in
destroying any hope of a political solution.  Can these Corbetteers
explain why they are so keen on defending them?

        Greg Chamberlain

_______________________________

> (Washington Post, 4 March 02)

> Popular Haitian Lawmaker Worries U.S. Onetime Ally, a Suspect In
Journalist's Death, Is Also Rival of Aristide
> By Scott Wilson

> PORT-AU-PRINCE -- The rule prohibiting guns on the floor
> of the Haitian Senate has always seemed like a reasonable nod
> toward civility in a country that has known little in recent
> years. But on Jan. 31 a squad of at least a half-dozen gun-toting
> men appeared in the austere chamber escorting one of its members,
> a charismatic former military man named Dany Toussaint.

> No one stepped forward to remind Toussaint of the no-guns rule.
> Nor did anyone suggest that the armed entourage might intimidate
> his fellow senators, who on that day were scheduled to decide
> whether Toussaint should stand trial for his allegedly central
> role in Haiti's most audacious political killing in a decade. For
> that to happen, the Senate would have to lift the immunity
> Toussaint enjoys as a lawmaker.

> Instead, the Senate sent the matter back to the magistrate
> prosecuting the case with a request for more evidence tying
> Toussaint to the April 2000 slaying of Jean Dominique, arguably
> Haiti's most influential journalist at the time. The magistrate,
> however, had fled the country, claiming he had received death
> threats from Toussaint's men.