NOTE-WORTHY: Another view of Invictus
Published:Monday | May 24, 2010 | 12:00 AM
I am more than surprised, indeed frightened, that a former high ranking officer of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) would recommend in your publication of May 21, the poem Invictus by William Henley to law-abiding Jamaicans, "especially at this time".
This poem has been tainted by the fact that many people associate it with the infamous Timothy McVeigh - the Oklahoma Bomber. It is said that as he was being led to his execution, he was reciting this poem, and to those who see him as martyr - right-wing extremists - Invictus has been sanctified.
Is there something in the theory that a country has more to fear from the forces delegated by the Government to "protect" it, than from the confirmed lawbreakers?
Dennis Stephens
Kingston 6
Lewin's foot in mouth
Our people are so easily led, afraid to seek out facts and verify information for themselves. I think Bruce Golding said that the police constable broke the law by revealing the information in the wiretaps to unauthorised persons when he gave the information to the United States in relation to the Christopher Coke affairs.
Now, here comes Hardley Lewin seeking another five minutes of fame. The order for the wiretaps was signed from 2006/7 by the then justice minister, A.J. Nicholson. Perfectly legal - but the information was to be released to whom the court order specified. All that had to be done was to apply to a judge to vary the order to allow it to be given to the US authorities. Is not me say so, a so the law say!
I, however, disagree with the Golding administration's asking about the identity of the constable. In the circumstances, that should remain anonymous. Two wrongs won't make a right!
Geoege Hall
Legal principles
I thought the logical legal principles of most civilised jurisprudence would require the subject of an arrest warrant to first respect the authority of the courts by surrendering pursuant to the warrant, and that his failure to do so would bar any and all court actions on his behalf while he remains a fugitive.
This would seem consistent with the accepted principle that a fugitive can be tried in absentia.
It really defies logic that any court in the land could legally accept an action on behalf of a fugitive while he refuses to respect the judicial authority of the said courts. And, why was the matter set down for further hearing on May 31 instead of being summarily dismissed?
Also, if a prime minister admits to acting outside of the scope of his prime-ministerial 'cloak of immunity', would the PM now be open to an indictment by the US grand jury on obstruction of justice charges?
After all, such a grand jury could rationally construe the prime minister's action as purely designed to circumvent the ongoing proceeding of the said grand jury.
Ananymouse
Kingston 2