re: "Ordinary People My Ass!!"

TOWNIE 76 at Op-For ("Fair Specimens of Citizen Soldiers...") had high praise for Prince Harry's statement.

Money quote(s):

"Prince Harry, the third in line to the throne of the United Kingdom, who many believe to be a dullard, uttered perhaps the best line about those who serve Queen and Country. I have serious doubt, that other than McCain and Webb who both have sons who have served, any American public official could be quite so eloquent."

Read the whole thing here.

12/19

re: "DSK: "Monetary Union is like a Marriage" "

Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner ("The one and only.") pulled back a little of the wizard of EUz's curtain.

Money quote(s):

"the attempt by a large slice of the British establishment to bamboozle the UK into the euro"

The "project" has its adherents and proponents throughout Europe, in every nation, regardless of whether it will be of ultimate benefit to their particular nation. That's the nature of a transnationalist movement, after all.

(The British, for all their own economic and financial woes, now seem positively brilliant for retaining their own currency.)

"The question now is how much further the EU’s elite will try to go without that agreement."

The real question isn't how much further they'll try, but how far they'll get away with it.

9/24

re: "Crawford @Telegraph (Again): Non-MTS"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") shared some of his other writing.

Money quote(s):

"From good if over-optimistic or even naive intentions you can end up in a hopeless place, where no good move is available. This is why the eurozone problem is so difficult for our top policy-makers."

Bonus quote:

"(A) Scary Thought about FCO consular work: what would HMG do if Greece's money system crashed during peak holiday season, leaving a million Brits stranded there with cash machines not working?

The FCO mind boggles."

CAA earnestly hopes someone or several someones back in the (U.S.) Bureau of Consular Affairs (i.e., the CA "mother ship") is "thinking the unthinkable" about the Eurozone and doing a little bit of contingency planning.

11/4

re: "Heresy In Old Blighty"

Rand Simberg at Tranterrestrial Musings mourned the passing of one of "the Rights of Englishmen."

Money quote(s):

"The right to self defense is a fundamental Anglospheric human right, going back to the Magna Carta. It is only in the last few decades that it has been abandoned in the place of its birth. It is shameful."

And so it goes. There are reasons why this is so, just as there are reasons why "the Rights of Englishmen" linger still in places where no one thinks of themselves as English (and hasn't for generations).

8/10

re: "The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain"

Paul Weston at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.") breaks this down by generational cohort.

Money quote(s):

"Poor old Britain is in a terrible state. Whilst the recent obscenity of a Labour government is mostly to blame for this, they were not alone in the cultural and racial war which has been waged against the British people over the last half-century. Such has been the all-encompassing assault on who we once were that it is now hard to find any social group which has not been betrayed."

Read the whole thing.

7/12

re: "The British Ambassador To Tehran Experiences a 1979 Flashback"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") provides some professional insight into Amb. Chilcott's remarks.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he embassy staff assumed they would have sufficient warning of a 'serious' mob attack, as opposed to a 'normal' rock-and-bottle throwing demonstration, and that they could send the non-essential staff and dependents home where they would be safely out of the way. Stop me if you've heard this one before."

This is, IIRC, known to students of behavioral conditioning as "operant conditioning." Career intelligence officers know if for something somewhat different, but the goal is similar: condition your target to expect certain situations and conditions to play out a certain way. It's a form of intelligence deception, and the Iranians are good at it.

"Going to the windows is a very bad practice. I hope British embassies have technical means for seeing what's happening outside without needing to expose staff to bullets and flying glass."

U.S. foreign service staff know better than to run to windows when they hear scary noises outside; not to say someone won't do it anyway, but they've been trained not to do so.

Historically, the majority of casualties in an embassy attack have come from flying glass, particularly when blast effects shatter a window. However the majority of fatalities have come from catastrophic structural collapse.

"I am guessing that the residential compound was less well protected against mob attack than was the embassy office building. Bottom line: the non-essential staff and dependents were "rounded up" - i.e., captured and held hostage - unlike the staff who were locked down in the embassy. That's enough to make a reasonable man ask whether foreign missions in unstable places shouldn't protect their residential compounds to the exact same degree they do their office buildings."

Clearly, they've read our playbook and know that Western embassies put the emphasis of their security measures at their working facilities rather than their residences. And have adjusted their offensive strategies against them accordingly. We can expect to see this happen again.

12/5

re: "Tehran's embassies: Targets of popular rage since 1829"

Uri Friedman at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") put the Iranian attack on the British embassy in its proper historical context.

Money quote(s):

"The storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday capped a week of diplomatic wrangling over the United Kingdom's decision to slap new sanctions on Iran in response to its nuclear program."

Just in case anyone actually believes this was the unsanctioned action of a "spontaneous mob," here's a link to some information that bears on that subject.

(Of course, if you equate, as I do, the term "spontaneous mob" to "state-sponsored assault team," then only the "unsanctioned" part of the above should be any bother.)

"(E)mbassy storming is a recurring phenomenon in Tehran, though Iran certainly isn't the only country to experience such attacks. The most infamous incident, of course, involves young Islamic revolutionaries seizing the U.S. embassy in 1979 and taking 63 Americans hostage for 444 days to demand that the United States hand over the recently ousted Shah. But there are other examples."

In addition to some post-Revolutionary examples, there's also this:

"Tehran also witnessed what may be the earliest instance of an embassy assault (if an earlier example comes to mind, please share it with us). In January 1829, Alexander Griboyedov, a famous Russian playwright tasked with imposing a humiliating peace treaty on the Persians, was murdered along with nearly his entire staff when a furious mob stormed the Russian embassy in Tehran following a series of disputes between Griboyedov and the Shah."

In addition to Britain closing its Tehran embassy and order Iran's diplomats out of London, France's mission will also be going on some sort of Ordered Departure.

11/29

re: "DIPLOMAT Articles on All and Sundry"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") provides a nice block of excerpts from his recent article at DIPLOMAT, "Diplomatic Drafting and Wikileaks."

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Wikileaks document dump exists in a category of its own.

The material is so powerful precisely because it blows away Assange’s banal anti-Americanism. Yes, it’s horribly embarrassing for Washington that all these cables have leaked. Confidences have been ruined. Sources endangered. In terms of writing style the cables often err on the dense and overlong side.

However, far from exposing the dark side of American/Western policies they show as never before the strengths and values of the Western Anglosphere diplomatic method. The documents uncover mile after mile of sensible, balanced, practical, timely and reasonable analysis and comment by American diplomats, often with amusing extra insights and personal touches..." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Which is nice of him to have said. One tries, after all.

"The UK has of its own free will (at least as expressed through Parliament when ratifying the Lisbon Treaty) accepted EU voting rules which allow this to happen, just as the Treaty also provides a procedure to enable a Member State to leave the Union and get back all its sovereignty once again.

Nonetheless, as the eurozone crisis gathers momentum, the existential question of sovereignty is coming back to the fore even in placid, postmodern Europe. What claims, if any, do (say) Greeks have on (say) German resources and hard work by virtue of EU ‘solidarity’? What claims do eurozone members have on (say) the UK, smugly watching the disarray from across the Channel? Tricky."

These are not exactly idle questions nowadays.

11/3

re: "Foreign Policy Technique"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("This website makes available to the general public interesting episodes and insights from Charles Crawford's eventful diplomatic career, and aims to explain in a open-minded, reasonable way how diplomacy works in practice.") tells you more of what you need to understand about diplomatic realities and engagement.

Money quote(s):

"Over at Commentator is my latest piece on UK engagement with Libya, in which I argue that what happened in recent years was principled, smart and mainly effective."

The following is a short passage from the longer excerpt he provided.

"there are only two basic choices available to democracies when it comes to dealing with odious regimes: Isolation, or Engagement. And that both can have perverse consequences, because it is impossible to deal with perverse regimes without some perverse outcomes"

Pithy, and to the point.

"(T)aking for granted that a 'Western' democratic system with a strong legal system is just 'better' than a cruel torturing dictatorship. What should the democracy do about the dictatorship?

One option is to do nothing. Faraway wicked foreigners oppress each other - what's new?

That option is in fact quite often used, even if there is a busy pretence of 'doing something'. Saudi Arabia is the classic example of a system which in most respects imposes odious unfair apartheid-like restrictions on its citizens, and which we studiously treat as a 'factor of stability'. Communist China used to be far worse, murdering millions. As did the USSR.

In all these cases the hard fact that these systems are powerful, ruthless and/or rich compels a certain caution. But does the fact that we 'tolerate' (say) the Saudi system demolish any claim by us to moral superiority? Double standards, they shriek.

No. Any good policy has to be realistic as well as consistent. If you can't stop all killers, it's right to stop those you can stop. To that extent there is solid intellectual and moral territory between 'double standards' and 'no standards'." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

You can only do what you can do; which doesn't mean you can't do anything, just that you can't do everything.

"The default position of Western democracies these days is that change should be 'peaceful'. The implication of this position (never discussed) is that enslaved people are better off if their slave-drivers reform slavery gradually, rather than get abruptly toppled even at the cost of many human lives. Slave-drivers need dialogue! A lot of dubious moral philosophy lurking behind that proposition.

What if we think that there are possibilities for more or less peaceful change? Egypt in some ways is a good current example. NB South Africa is always presented as a triumph for peaceful change but of course wasn't.

Libya might have been too, had the Gaddafi elite not reverted to stupidity instead of using its new improved relations with Western democracies to negotiate ." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

We tend to forget, at a distance of more than two centuries, just how bloody our own two revolutions (if you count the American Civil War as a second revolution, the one that liberated the rest of us) were. For the British, their bloody revolutions are even more distant, with less dramatic (to us) conclusions.

"In each individual case the options range far and wide, as does the prospect of getting allies and building successful coalitions for change.

Let's not forget too that Western political leaders' main focus is what their voters want. And voters (with rare exceptions) do not put changing the ways of revolting foreign regimes far up their priorities list. Or much taxpayers' money to be spent on the problem."

Some voters. Others are quite willing for their government to very meddlesome, with the treasure and blood coming from their fellow citizens.

"So in the real world of foreign policy it makes no sense to take a stark 'no compromise' position of substance with dictatorships. They exist, they have UN and other votes, they can export trouble, they probably have Ambassadors in London. Your aircraft may need to fly over their territory, or they may agree with you on various international technical issues. It's complicated.

You almost always end up with some form of 'engagement'. But the fact of matter-of-fact exchanges and opportunistically looking for areas to build some common ground is not the same thing as having a policy of Engagement aimed at deliberately using a range of options (openly or otherwise) to bring out reforms." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

In the real world, you make compromises. You make the best ones you can, but they're still compromises. Americans were cautioned early in their history against going abroad in search of dragons needing slaying.

Which doesn't mean you don't ever take fire and branch overseas to put an end to some odious regime which takes the ill-considered trouble of making themselves your enemy, just that you don't go looking for trouble.

(Which doesn't exactly jibe with this new-fangled "responsibility to protect" doctrine begin shopped around currently.)

"My point today is simple. British foreign policy and leadership can make positive changes in unpropitious foreign situations. But simply wanting to make a difference does not get results. Making that happen requires a powerful combination of strong policy determination, operational nimbleness and fine professional technique, an area where the FCO obviously declined under Labour. Plus some money." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Airbrush out the specifically British elements in that last and you've got some bood advice worthy of wide application by a democracy seeking to use its diplomatic strengths wisely and justly.

re: "Why Doesn’t The United Kingdom Own Argentina?"

Paul Hair at Big Peace takes a non-post-Modern look at an international flashpoint.


Money quote(s):


"I understand why Argentina does it: the U.K. seems militarily weak as demonstrated by its performance in Libya and by other reports of its deterioration. And when a state that is unencumbered by political correctness and principles, such as Argentina, sees an opportunity to take advantage of another nation, it is going to do so. Furthermore, even if the U.K. has the capabilities to fight back, history tells us that it will only minimally do so. In fact, the only reason Argentina exists today is that the U.K. didn’t do what it should have done in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

By this analysis, if the U.K., by Argentine analysis, can't or won't make it either too expensive for the Argies to take and/or hold the Falklands, they'll make another attempt to do just that.

"(A) combination of self-hatred and cowling to internationalism has brought the U.K. to its knees. Even worse, the same self-hatred and submission to internationalism infects the U.S. as well. Hence, ten years after Islamic thugs attacked the U.S. we still haven’t beaten them. Actually, we aren’t even comfortable with the term “victory” any longer."

When was it, exactly, that the term "exit strategy" replaced "victory"?

I don't recall precisely, at least in terms of a time and date, but philosophically it marked the time when those who made (and those who accepted) that change determined that victory was no longer an option.

"(T)here is a heavy price to pay for self-hatred. And the civilians of the U.K. and U.S.—the people ultimately responsible for the policy of voluntary defeat—have yet to see the full consequences of their actions. The West paid a price in the 20th century for allowing the enemy Axis powers to flourish. So too is the U.K. paying a price for not conquering Argentina . . . and so too will the U.S. pay a price for not conquering its enemies."

re: "Creeping competencies, or incompetent creeps?"

Melanie Phillips at The Spectator (UK) clearly believes this to be mere theatre.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he British government is shocked – shocked! – that the European Union’s foreign service is attempting to usurp the role and authority of British diplomats."

Not a bug. A feature.

"Foreign Secretary William Hague has ordered British ambassadors around the world to fight off what he believes are attempts by the EU foreign service to usurp their positions"

He's just now figuring this out?

I know that the British are even less likely than we Americans to put an actual professional diplomat in charge of their foreign ministry (we've done it precisely once), but one of the flaws of the Westminster parliamentary model is that it limits such appointments to elected politicians. At least in the U.S. we can cast a somewhat wider net than that for such appointments.

"What’s with the surprise all of a sudden? The thermonuclear row over the Lisbon Treaty, which enshrined the EU constitution and thus effectively created the EU Superstate of Bureaucratiya, was all about the fact that henceforth the EU would indeed speak on behalf of member states through its foreign service – indeed, that it would usurp virtually every self-governing function of Britain and other EU member states.

The whole point about the Lisbon Treaty was that it would finally destroy Britain as an independently governed country."

Not just Britain. The whole point of the "European Project" to the de-nationalization of Europe's nationalities. The aim or goal of the EU (and the "European Project" of which it is a phase) is to avoid a repeat of conflagrations and devastation brought to Europe by World Wars I & II.

As if the nationalism of, for instance, Monaco, Finland, San Marino, and Malta is as much a threat as that of Germany, Italy, and Russia was when their nationalism was harnessed to national socialism, fascism, and communism, respectively.

The logic, it fails me.

_____

Please visit Melanie Phillips at her new home.

re: "Diplomats: Loyal to Whom/What?"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") self-quotes from DIPLOMAT magazine.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Libya case has given rise to a spectacular number of high profile diplomatic changes of side, with one Libyan ambassador after another announcing support for the opposition forces struggling to bring down the Gaddafi regime.

Whereas host governments might or might not commend the high principle shown by such a defection, unwelcome problems quickly arise if some diplomats in an embassy switch sides but others don’t. Who is running the local Libyan embassy for the purpose of carrying on routine diplomatic business? Who gets invited to which functions? Does a Libyan diplomat who has announced a switch of loyalty still get diplomatic immunity? What about the official embassy car?

What if the uprising fails and Gaddafi wins – must we throw these people out of the Libyan Embassy?"

From a perspective of diplomatic visa issuance (and cancellation), what happens when a Libyan diplomat defects from his embassy, thus invalidating his legal reason for being present in your country?

"Could a worst-case scenario unfold, namely a de facto or even de jure partition of Libya, with unfathomable complications for Libya’s diplomatic representation at the UN and around the world? In short, the Libya drama exemplifies the greatest challenge to any diplomat’s loyalty to his/her country: what to do if the country slumps into civil war or even disappears altogether?

This problem was faced in acute form by Soviet diplomats when the USSR disintegrated in 1991. They had represented one massive state – what to do when the 15 former Soviet republics had each become a new country? For most diplomats born and raised in Russia, the choice was simple: stick with the new Russian Foreign Ministry.

But those diplomats born and raised elsewhere in the Soviet Union had a painful choice. Better to stay on in powerful Moscow as a Russian diplomat, or return to one’s home republic and hope for a role in the nascent and disorganised Foreign Ministry there? If the latter, would they be trusted by the new leadership?

Many chose to stick with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Thus in 1995 when Russia and Ukraine were haggling over the fate of the Black Sea Fleet, the negotiating team representing Russia included plenty of ethnic Ukrainian expert diplomats."

Which didn't work out so well for Ukraine.

He concludes with an excellent question.

"Could we see a tumultuous test of British diplomatic loyalties in the coming years if Scotland holds a referendum and opts for independence? Recent SNP gains show the country may well be heading in this direction.

Will the FCO’s sizeable tartan army of Scottish diplomats vote to stay in London representing a reduced UK or will they go north en masse to help Scotland set up its new diplomatic service?

In either case, who will trust them?"

Are they trusted now?

A related question attaches to those European diplomats who leave their own service for the EU's External Action Service. Does anyone trust them now? Will anyone trust them afterwards?

re: "Quick Takes, June 16, 2011"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shares some quick takes.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: He Did WHAT?! Remember, gentle readers, the war over the Falkland Islands? You remember that Argentina seized the British Islands in 1982 and the Brits, plucky critters that they are, seized them back? Since taking office, one of the foremost elements of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been egregiously insulting our allies, and none more stupidly and regularly than the British. Last June, he backed an Argentinian call for “negotiations” over the islands (read: for forcing the British to give them to Argentina). And now, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of insulting the Queen with a clumsy toast, he has again backed a similar resolution. Oh yes, Argentina is more and more allying itself with our declared enemies in the region, so it’s a cinch that Mr. Obama would support them. Go here for the story."

&

"ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Smart Diplomacy Division. I was shocked, shocked! when I discovered that Mr. Obama and the State Department were—how should I put it? Naïve? Foolish? Abysmally stupid?—in their approach to Egypt and their assumption that everything would be just fine, because after all, the Muslim Brotherhood are really just a bunch of moderates who long for democracy. Right. Not so much. Go here to the Washington Post, which speaks of the current and ongoing battle for the future of Egyptian culture. Will Egypt continue to be a reasonably secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy with all that implies? “There is going to be a battle between two visions for Egypt,” the article quotes. Indeed. And the Islamists are heavy favorites as they will have no hesitation in murdering anyone who disagrees with them. Smart diplomacy indeed."

re: "More Foreign Policy Insanity"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") is unable to embrace the absurdity.

Money quote(s):

"There must be some reason, but I doubt if it’s a good one."

re: "Obama takes Argentina’s side in Falklands dispute."

Moe Lane at Redstate ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill, is the most often cited right of center blog in the media, and is widely considered one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right") explores the motivations.

re: "Douglas Murray: 'Will They Actually Prosecute and Outlaw Seditious Behavior?' "

Secure Freedom Radio at Big Peace relays some good news from across the pond.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he British government has changed their modus operandi when dealing with subversive organizations. They are cutting off access and funding to groups that either support violence against the British government or foreign governments, while supporting organizations that follow British law and norms as well as speak out against violence towards foreign governments. But Douglas questions if the government, “will they actually prosecute and outlaw seditious behavior,” which is the only truly effective way to combat such an enemy."

re: "The march of Ruritania"

Richard at EU Referendum ("To discuss issues related to the UK's position in Europe and the world") relayed some Royal Wedding-related commentary.

Money quote(s):

" "The Edwardian braid and sashes worn by Princes and Dukes emphasised that our Armed Forces are shrunken remnants – lots of big hats, not many planes, ships or soldiers", writes Peter Hitchens. "Never have they looked so laughably Ruritanian".

And more or less the same point is made by Booker as he writes of politicians hiding their plans to put French jets on Royal Navy carriers. The Royal Navy won't be flying Anglo-US Joint Strike Fighters, but providing a platform for French Rafales as part of an EU force, he tells us."

I remarked to the Madame-at-Arms, when we watched some of the wedding pageantry (CAA is partial to all things protocol-y), that the two princes in their honorary colonels get-up looked like kids wearing their great-uncle's uniforms.

(Which is unfair to both of the gentlemen, being qualified and serving officers in their own rights.)

"Thus does Booker write that the magnificent military pageantry of the royal wedding coincided, sadly, with yet another humiliating instance of the precipitate decline in Britain's military power. Soon, all we will have is lots of big hats, as we hand over operational control over our few remaining assets to an Anglo-French consortium, where the one operational carrier that we will have will be used as a platform for French aircraft.

The point that must be emphasised again and again is that this has always been the plan, ever since 1996, under the last Tory government. The carriers have always been earmarked for a joint Anglo-French project. Their purpose has been to serve as the main Anglo-French contribution to the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed by Tony Blair at Helsinki in 1999.

That is what makes our pageantry and the military splendour a hollow charade. It had some meaning when it was a reflection of our power and status, but when we have more admirals than ships, more generals than battalions, and our sad little navee goes to sea with iPods and EU flags, earmarked to further EU grandiosity, then the splendour takes on a Ruritanian character. It is all show and no substance.

That is what it has come down to. That is why there can be no pride in watching a celebration of something that no longer exists - just overwhelming sadness. We have sold the substance of Great Britain on the altar of European integration."

Color me Euro-skeptical. And I like Europe. I've served there in and out of uniform as both soldier and diplomat. But I've always felt that the EU was a bit of a put-on, for show, and not really serious. Unfortunately, lots of European governments seem to feel the same way about NATO and defense in general.

re: "You Can Have a Welfare State, or You Can Have Open Borders, But ."

Kenneth Anderson at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") shows how Europe's experience parallels our own.

Money quote(s):

"This opinion piece addresses the same general concern as that book, updated to today: immigration and borders in Europe. In many ways, after all, at least alongside the sovereign debt crisis in Europe is the startling re-introduction of border controls in Continental Europe, and a call by Sarkozy and Berlusconi for a revision of the famous Schengen agreement removing border controls among twenty-two European states (not including the UK and Ireland)."

Be sure to read the quoted passages from the cited article. One slice of that:

"The Schengen agreements, signed in 1985 and 1990, permit
passport-free travel within 22 continental countries of the European Union (Britain and Ireland are among the exceptions), as well as non-Union signatories. Along with the euro, Schengen is Europe’s symbol, a milestone in its integration — on a continent long hemmed in by nationalism and bureaucracy, an Italian can travel to Paris without showing papers or changing money. And it’s growing: the European Parliament this week voted overwhelmingly to recommend extending Schengen to the European Union’s two newest members, Bulgaria and Romania."

JO - Justice Minister correct in Coke's extradition case

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Justice Minister correct in Coke's extradition case


Ken Chaplin


Tuesday, April 06, 2010


Investigations carried out by this writer have established beyond all reasonable doubt that while the Jamaican Supreme Court judge authorised the interception of conversations by Christopher Coke which helped the US grand jury to indict him on charges of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a licence, the information was illegally forwarded to US authorities in clear violation of the extradition treaty.

Read the whole column here.

Snippet(s):

"The communication was illegally passed on to US authorities by a member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force who worked in the intercept facility in Kingston. The facility was established in 2004 by Jamaica, the United Kingdom and the USA to gather and share intelligence. The court order is always subject to the condition that the intercepted information must only be disclosed to a class of people authorised by the judge to receive such information. In no instance has any order ever been made authorising the disclosure of the information to a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government. The people who are usually authorised to receive such information are the commissioner of police and the assistant commissioner, the head of the Military Intelligence Unit and the superintendent of police in charge of the interception. The law has to be strictly followed and no mutual understandings arrived at between Jamaica and United States law enforcement authorities will do."

"The violation by the police constable represents a dangerous precedent. It is a straightforward case and the US government has an obligation to provide the government of Jamaica with all relevant information in order that it may determine when, where and how the communication was intercepted and whether or not it was done under the authority of a valid warrant. My understanding is that the police constable is now living in the USA. He should be tracked down and steps taken to have him extradited to face criminal charges as the offence he committed is an extraditable one. But this is unlikely to happen as it appears that he was a double agent. The police constable, tagged John Doe by the Americans to hide his identity is scheduled to give evidence at the trial of Coke in the USA if Coke is extradited."

&

"(T)he ball is now in the court of the Americans to make a fresh request based on legally obtained evidence to have Coke extradited and given a fair trial in the USA. The impasse between Jamaica and the USA over this matter should never have occurred. It has led to tense diplomatic relations between the two countries with the prospect of deterioration."

JO - Grappling with broad-brush deportation

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Grappling with broad-brush deportation

Monday, March 08, 2010

WE are told in yesterday's Sunday Observer that more than 12,000 people were deported to Jamaica over the last four years. Many, many thousands more have been deported over the last two decades.

Read the whole editorial here.

Snippet(s):

"Talk never stops about deportations and the consequential difficulties for the Jamaican society. Invariably, Jamaicans focus on the perceived worsening of their country's crime problem as a result of hardcore criminal deportees from the United States, Britain and elsewhere entering the local underworld."

"(S)ince the passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in the United States, even unpaid fees for traffic offences can become grounds for deportation of non-US citizens, including green card holders."

&

"We would expect that the authorities in North America and Britain -- from whence the bulk of Jamaican deportees originate -- have long had to cope with such anti-social behaviour as a direct result of deportation-induced broken homes and families."