anonymous, you appear to very intelligent, therefore i expect you to be able to think the following:
i am not claiming that aristid is a saint or that he has never involved in any act of coruption( i do not have the facts to make such a claim of affirmation/negation) however i can reasonably assume the folowing: had the united states had substancial incriminating evidences against
aristid, they would have reavealed them already.
restropectively, when they came to posess incriminating evidences against noriega of panama, the united states subsequently presented them and demanded his arrest.
perhaps, you have not been aware of the following of this:
after the coup d'etat, jesse helmes, an extremely conservative senator from the deep south who had benefited greatly from
racist ideoligies in the american south, had argued that aristid was proven to be insane by his psychiatrist.
as it turned out, with the application of freedom information act, this thing was made up by the cia.
now if they can make up stories in an attempt to achive a aprticular goal, then, imagine what they would do with substancial incriminating evidences.
what you have conveniently left in your drug-accounts is the following:
one of the tweo people being tried for drug-related offenses in the united states that were close to the lavalas government, one names aristid as a direct beneficiary whereas the other denies aristid's involvement.
now let's think for a minute: who has more incentive to lie, a man who will get leniency for cooperating with the authorities by revealing what they pre-wanted to hear or a man who would lie to remain loyal to another man (atistid) who is no longer in power?
what would accam's razor suggest in such a situation, anonymous?
