|
THE FOLLOWING IS THE FALLACY UPON WHICH THE GNBISTS HAVE ARGUED TO FORCEFULLY CRUSH THE VOICE OF REASON THROUGH THE COURAGEOUS MOUTH OF HAITIAN PEOPLE: "IF ONE STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RECENT COUP-D'ETAT, THEN ONE MUST BE A CHIMERE". FOR INSTANCE, I AM FAR FROM BEING A BAD PERSON AND EVEN FARTHER FROM BEING A GULLIBLE IRRATIONAL MAN, YET I AM AGAINST THE RECENT COUP-D'ETAT. WHY? BECAUSE IT HAS UNDERMINED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A VERY NASCENT DEMOCRACY AND SENT A DISTURBING MESSAGE_ THAT IS ONE MAY USE VIOLENCE TO OBTAIN POLITICAL GOALS. IN FACT, AFTER REFERING TO THE REBELS AS FREEDOM-FIGHTERS, THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT IS CONSEQUENTLY STRIPPED OF ANY POTENTIAL MORAL SUPERIORITY OVER ITS PREDECESSOR. WHY? IT IS BECAUSE THAT THERE CANNOT BE NO ETHICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COP-KILLERS OF YESTERDAY AND THOSE OF TODAY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRINCIPLE OF ETHICAL INVARIANCE DEMANDS THAT THE SAME SITUATIONS AND ACTS BE JUDGED BY THE SAME MORAL STANDARDS_ WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE THAT HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE USE OF VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL GOALS CANNOT, AT LEAST ON A MORAL BASIS, CRITICIZE THE SAME METHOD BY OTHERS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHILE MR LATORTUE MAY USE ANY LEGAL MEANS TO PROTECT HIS GOVERNMENT, HE MAY NOT, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, REVILE THE ALLEGED USE OF VIOLENCE BY "RATPAKAKA" FOR THE LATTER IS ONLY DUPLICATING WHAT THE FORMER HAD PREVIOUSLY REVERED IN OTHERS( CHAMBLAIN AND GUY PHILLIPPE). WHAT ABOUT MR JEAN JUSTE? BECAUSE STANDING AGAINST THE COUP-D'ETAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY BAD CHARACTER AND VICE VERSA, YOUR ACCUSATIONS ARE DEFAMATORY RATHER THAN FACTUAL. IF THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT HAS HAD, AT LEAST A MINIMAL RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, MR JEAN JUSTE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN PRISON TODAY. WHY? IN A COUNTRY OF LAW, INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT INCARCERATED ON HEARSAYS, BUT INVESTIGATED WITHOUT BEING MOLESTED. LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCES AGAINST MR JEAN JUSTE OBJECTIVELY WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HIS ASSOCIATION WITH MR ARISTID. HOW DID HE GET IN PRISON? HE WAS ATTENDING A FUNERAL WHEN A MOB OF ANGRY INDIVIDUALS ASSAULTED HIM ON THE ALLEGED PREMISE THAT HE ORDERED THE ASSASSINATION OF MR ROCHE. THE POLICE CAME AND ARRESTED MR JEAN JUSTE SOLELY ON THAT PREMISE, WICH IS A BLATENT VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, A WOULD-BE-SAD SITUATION HAD IT NOT BEEN HAITI_ WE SEEM TO HAVE BECOME SO CONDITIONED TO STATE-SPONSORED ABUSE OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS THAT IT NO LONGER AROUSES EMOTIONS IN US WETHER ONE IS NAMED L'ESPERANCE OR GERARD GOURGES. THE EXCUSES THAT LED TO MR JEAN JUSTE'S ARREST WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHABLE HAD IT NOT BEEN SO PATHETICALLY SERIOUS_ THE INDIVIDUAL ARRESTED IN THE COWARDLY EXECUTION OF MR ROCHE, MADE AN APOSTERI-DECLARATION ACCUSING MR JEAN JUSTE OF BEING THE INTELLECTUAL AUTHOR MR ROCHE'S ASSASSINATION, PROBABLY UPON BEING ASKED OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WITH A SAVAGED SLAP : POU KI MOUN WAP TRAVAY? SE PE "JAN JIS" KI PATRON OU ? I REMEMBER THAT THE SAME ACCUSATION WAS MADE AGAINST MR K-PLUM WITH THE ARSON OF A CARREFOUR STREET-MARKET, BUT NO BARRONS OF TABARRE HAD ATTEMPTED TO ARREST HIM SOLELY ON THE ACCUSATIONS OF A DESPERATE CRIMINAL. WHAT IS VERY WRONG WITH THE INCARCERATION OF MR JEAN JUSTE IS THAT THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES THAT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF FREEING HIM ON HIS OWN RECOGNIZANCE_ THERE IS NO PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND HE IS NOT A FLIGHT-RISK FOR HE HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE NATIONAL LEADERHIP OF HIS PARTY, THEREBY MAKING HIM A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE SUBGECTED HIM TO AN IVESTIGATIVE PROCESS, SEARCHES AND EVEN SURVEILLANCES, BUT INCARSERATION IS IN BLATENT VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CASE IS BUILT ON THE ACCUSATIONS OF A DESPERATE CRIMINAL. ONE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A GENIUS TO REALIZE THE FOLLOWING: IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS CAPABLE OF TORTURING AND EXECUTING AN INNOCENT FAMILY-MAN THEN FABRICATING A STORY TO IMPLICATE ANOTHER INNOCENT MAN IN AN ATTEMPT TO RECEIVE LENIENCY BECOMES READILY CONCEIVABLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AUTHORITIES WILL BLINDLY WELCOME SUCH AN ACCUSATION IF NOT DEMAND IT. FIRSLY,THERE IS A SELF-SERVING MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE CONFESSED CRIMINAL; AND SECONDLY THERE IS A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT_ REMEMBER THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO CHARGE MR JEAN JUSTE FOR CRIMINAL INTENT_ POLICE-SEARCH OF HIS HOME HAD TURNED NO GUNS NOR HUGE SUM OF CASH. WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SOLID CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST MR JEAN JUSTE? THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE MOST JUSTIFIABLE: REGULAR MEETINGS WITH THE ACTUAL AUTHOR OF THE CRIME AGAINST MR ROCHE, TRANSFER OF CASH, WRITTEN NOTES OF DIRECTIONS AND SO ON. SO FAR NONE HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE STATE HAS NO CASE BUT A MERE ACCUSATION FROM A DESPERATE THUG WHO HAS MURDERED HIS VICTIM IN COLD BLOOD AFTER BEING REFUSED OF A DEMANDED RANSOM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ACCUSATION IS THAT POLITICAL ASSASSINATION DOES NOT GENERALLY COME IN THE FORM OF ABDUCTION, TORTURE. WHY? BECAUSE, IT IS TOO RISKY_THE ABDUCTED MAY BE RESCUED AND LATER HELP THE POLICE TRACE THE SOURCE OF INTELLECTUAL AUTHORSHIP. WITHOUT FANATICISM, THE REASONS FOR MR JEAN JUSTE'S INCARCERATION BECOME READILY UNDERSTANDABLE_ TO KEEP HIM OFF THE UPCOMIMG ELECTIONS AND TO MAKE HIM A VICTIM OF THE NEW REALITY, THAT IS THE CRIMINILAZATION OF BEING AN OUTSPOKEN LAVALAS-SUPPORTER. WHY DOES HIS INCARCERATION FIT TOO WELL INTO THE PUZZLE FOR IT TO BE A COINCIDENCE? THE REGULATIONS OF THE ELECTORAL CODE STIPULATE THAT A CANDIDATE MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT DURING HIS APPLICATION PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE SUREST WAY TO KEEP MR JUSTE OFF THE ELECTIONS ? THE ANSWER IS TOO OBVIOUS TO EVEN MENTION OR NEGATED BY MERE COINCIDENCE. REMEMBER, "OCCAM'S RAZOR" AND SIGMUND FREUD'S " SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR"? AND IF THAT IS THE CASE _AS MOST RATIONAL AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST OBSERVERS WOULD AGREE_ THEN THE LAVALAS PARTY'S DEMAND FOR THE RELEASE OF MR JEAN JUSTE HAS AN UNDENIABLE MORAL WORTH. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE IT A CRUSADE TO WARN THE PUBLIC ABOUT ELECTING CROOKS_ THE IMPLICIT MESSAGE IS THIS: "PEOPLE, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE LAVALAS PARTY BECAUSE THEY ARE CROOKS". WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE HEADLINES ON THE METROPOLE-SITE ABOUT MR JEAN JUSTE'S INCARCERATION ARE FOLLOWED BY NOTHING BUT THE BARONS OF TABARRE WITHOUT ANY ELABORATION ABOUT THE ENTITLED CASE? BECAUSE THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE IS A SMEARING CAMPAIN AGAINST A POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WILL MORE THAN LIKELY WIN IN A FAIR RACE. WITH THIS SMEARING CAMPAIN AS A BACK-UP PLAN IN CASE OF AN EARLY RELEASE, THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING NO CHANCE IN ALLOWING A LAVALAS-COMEBACK. I AM AFRAID THAT, IF RELEASED BEFORE THE ELECTIONS, MR JEAN JUSTE MAY BE ASSASSINATED. IN FACT, THE KILLERS OF NATIONAL HERO ANTOINE IZMERY HAVE LET LOOSE TO CONTINUE ON WHAT THEY DO BEST, NEYTRALIZING THE CHOICES OF THE PEOPLE. I DO NOT MIND HAVING MR ARISTID IMPEACHED BY HIS PEERS IF FOUND GUILTY IN AN IMPARTIAL COURT OF LAW; BUT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED THE LIKES OF CHAMBLAIN TO DETERMINE THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY. FOR INSTANCE, I WAS SO DISGUSTED WITH A FRONT-PAGE STORY OF CHAMBLAIN PRESIDING OVER A TRIAL IN THE NORTH OF HAITI THAT I, IN THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE, HAD BECOME ASHAMED FOR A COUPLE MINUTES OF MY HAITIAN ORIGINS. THINK ABOUT THIS SHORT CONVERSATION BETWEEN "SOPHISTICATED FOLLY" AND "ALIENATED REASON". S.F : MR ARISTIDE IS SOCIAL PATH AND THAT HE HAS TRANSFORMED THE CENTRAL PENITENTIARY INTO A POLITICAL DETENTION CENTER. A.R : I DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE OF THE CLAUSES IN YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE, BUT I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; BUT I DEMONSTRATE THE MUTUAL EXCLUSIVENES OF YOUR STATEMENT, ALOW ME TO ASK YOU THIS SIMPLE QUESTION: WHY DID NOT THE ALLEGED PSYCHOPATH KILL OUTSPOKEN BUSINESSMAN "X" AND OUTSPOKEN POLITICIAN "Y"? S.F : ... BECAUSE THEY HAD INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION. KILLING THEM WOULD HAVE CAUSED AN INTERNATIONAL OUTRAGE! A.R : NOW, LET ME PUT YOUR STATEMENT INTO ITS EQUIVALENT CONTIDIONAL FORM_ "IF MR ARISTIDE( ALLEGED PSYCHOPATH) REFRAINS FROM ASSASSINATING POLITICAL OPPONENT "X", THEN "X" MUST BE PROTECTED FROM SUCH ASSASSINATION DUE TO INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION"; WOULD YOU AGGRE? S.F: OF COURSE! A.R: WE ALL KNOW FROM TAKING BASIC LOGICS THAT A STATEMENT HAS THE SAME TRUTH-VALUE AS ITS CONTRAPOSITIVE. WOULD YOU YOU AGREE? S.F: I HAVE MAXED LOGICS IN HIGH SCHOOL. OF COURSE, THEY WILL THE SAME TRUTH-VALUE! A.R: FINE! MR SOPHISTICATED FOLLY; AS YOU KNOW, THE CONTRAPOSITIVE OF THE CONDITIONAL FORM IS THE FOLLOWING: "IF POLITICAL OPPONENT "X" DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY DUE TO A LACK OF INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION, THEN MR ARISTID( ALLEGED PSYCHOPATH) WILL NOT REFRAIN FROM ASSASSINATING HIM/HER_ WHICH MUST HAVE THE TRUTH-VALUE AS THE CONDITIONAL FORM OF YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE. NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM WHICH YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO A "POLITICAL DETENTION CENTER" IS CROWED? S.F: IT IS SO CROWDED THAT DETAINEES CAN BARELY MOVE WITHOUT BUMPING INTO ANOTHER ONE! A.R: CAN YOU NAME AT LEAST 10 DETAINEES BY NAME? S.F: MR A, MR B, MRS W AND... A.R: YOU CAN BARELY NAME FOUR DETAINEES AS IMFORMED AS YOU ARE ABOUT INTERNAL POLITICS. NOW IF ONE HAS TO BE KNOWN NATIONALLY FIRST BEFORE ATTAINING INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION, THEN YOUR INABILITY TO MENTION FOUR DETAINEES BY NAME SUGGESTS THAT THE BULK OF THE PRISONERS ARE NOT KNOWN INTERNATIONALLY, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE DOES NOT ENJOY INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITY; BUT DOES NOT THAT CONTRADICT THE CONTRAPOSITIVE OF YOUR STATEMENT, AND IT TURN CONTRADICTS YOUR STATEMENT AS WELL TROUGH THE LOGICAL PROCESS OF TRANSITIVITY( IF A TO B, AND B TO C, THEN A TO C)? YOU SEE, THE CLAUSES IN YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENTS ARE MUTUALLY EXLUSIVE_ IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY TRUE. S.F: BUT... (SHOCKED AND DUMBFOUNDED, AND SPPECHLESS) A.R: ARE THE DIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH AN MUTUAL EXCLUSIVENESS? IF MR ARISTID IS PSYCHOAPTH, THEN THE REBELS' BREAK-IN AND FREEING OF THE PRISONERS IS IMMORAL AND A SOCIAL INJUSTICE( REMEMBER, IT CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY BE TRUE THAT THE PRISONS HOLD PREDOMINANTLY POLITICAL DETAINEES). IF THE PRISONS WERE TRANSFORMED INTO POLITICAL DETENTION CENTERS, THEN THE ACCUSATIONS OF KIILINGS AND SYSTEMATIC ASSASSINATIONS ARE FALSE WHICH IN TURN NEGATE THE JUSTIFICATIOS FOR THE COUP-D'ETAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. P.S : AJANE, THIS SHORT EXCHANGE IS CALLED REACHING A CONLCUSION THROUGH SEMANTIC DISSECTION KNOWN AS " THE SOCRATIC METHOD".
| 
The Fallacious Ground Of The Opposition: