From: abdoukarim sanneh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:39:41 AM
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited

Dr Jaiteh
I show the signs coming and warning for your early intervention but to no avail. Please let decency prevail. I am calling for both to be delist if such insults will continue!
 
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:20:49 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I must20say it is sad to see the two of you opting to take this path.
> That said I am still convinced that you all have much better things to
> bring to the Gambia-l.
>
>
> Malanding
>
>
>
> Muhammed Lamin Touray wrote:
> >
> > "Ok because the constitution of the Gambia has enshrined my right to
> > freedom of speech means=2 0that I can stand and insult your mother, your
> > father, and every one in your family! Or write and publish lies about
> > you and your family. *Or write on Gambian newspapers that Muhammed
> > Lamin Touray is a “fxxxing bxxxxxrd!” his mum was this and that! Would
> > you regard as exercising my constitutional right to freedom of speech
> > and expression.*
> >
> > Certainly, ML Touray you will not agree with anyone that this is
> > legalised by my constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, by
> > your interpretation of this constitutional provision, I have every
> > right to swear at your parents or write malicious stories about your
> > family and publish them on newspapers. This is because, as you are
> > interpreting there is no limit to my constitutional right to freedom
> > of speech and expression under section 25 of the Gambian constitution.
> >
> > Surely, this cannot be right. I don9t know about you M L Touray, but
> > if you were to write that about me I would certainly not agree with
> > you that you have such an unlimited right to freedom to commit libel
> > or slander against me." Yanks
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Malanding Jaiteh <[log in to unmask]>
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 8:58:46 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> >
> > M L Touray,
> > I am sure something is wrong somewhere but what warrants such an
> > out-burst?
> > Malanding
> >
> >
> > Muhammed Lamin Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > Yankuba Darbo, are you not that sick little kid from Kafuta found
> > fucking your mother in 1999 and fathered a babe girl???? Is she your
> > sister or daughter? We are interested to know how you referred to
> > her: a daughter or a sister????? You are so sick that no sane person
> > should entertain conversation with you. The media houses in the Gambia
> > were fully aware of your dim-witted manners, but decided not to
> > publish your sacrilegious act for the sake of the good people of the
> >=2 0Gambia. She has just recently turned 10 years; I only hope that you
> > are paying her school fees and providing her needs. We need to remind
> > you about the responsibilities of parenthood, because your sickness is
> > so severe that you don’t know anything about human decency.
> > > I know your mom misses you so much, because your father could not
> > ; take the embarrassment and died miserably a few years ago. She is
> > waiting for you! I think you need to regularize relations with your
> > mom by marrying her. You do that, mother fucker.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
> > > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:08:32 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> > >
> > > ML Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > “Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or
> > is it what you tried to defend above?�
> >=2 0>
> > > ML Touray next time you want to know my definition of legal
> > positivism, you better ask for me than try to lie about my definition
> > of legal positivism!
> > >
> > > My definition of legal positivism which I would make it simple to
> > prevent you from misquoting me again is the “study of man made
> > lawsâA C�. And if you call that outdated then you must be outdated as well!
> > >
> > > As for your claim about my labelling of the Gambian people as
> > subjects of the law, I think your troubles of reconciling with your
> > colonial history has mislead you into objecting to every terminology
> > once used by the colonial imperialist against our people. However,
> > whether you know it or not when Austin used the term ‘subjects’ he
> > did not envisage such a distinction as you are misinterpreting, he
> > only meant subjects of the law, which include both the colonial
> > imperialists as well as their African subjects. So ease off the
> > rhetoric ML Touray, the Gambians are indeed subjects of the Gambian
> > law and not the sovereign as you are misinterpreting.
> > >
> > > This is because you seemed confused about the meanings of the
> > sections, you have quoted from the 199 7 constitution of the Gambia .
> > >
> > > You quoted that subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states that: “/The
> > Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from
> > whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name
> > and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to
> > be exercised in20accordance with this Constitution/
> > >
> > > Yet you misinterpreted that to mean that “(1) the Gambian people
> > constitute the sovereign authority, not the president or any other
> > organ of government;�
> > >
> > > That begs me to question how is the president excluded from the
> > “Gambian people� or that of any organ of the government. In fact
> > ML Touray, you are very confused! You gave a complete opposite
> > interpretation to what this section of the constitution is stating.
> > >
> > > This section is merely explaining that any executive body in the
> > Gambia by virtue of this section must derive its authority from the
> > Gambian people and it is for the welfare and prosperity of the Gambian
> > people that it should exercise its powers. That seems completely
> > different to what you are claiming that the Gambian people h ave the
> > executive power and authority, whilst the president and the government
> > are non existent. That is the worst constitutional interpretation
> > I’ve ever heard!
> > >
> > > You further analysed that the /“(2) the Constitution is the
> > supreme law of the Gambia ; (3) and the Constitution legalizes free
> > spee ch and expression. I conclude from this premise that the arrest,
> > detention, prosecution, conviction and sentence of the six journalists
> > are illegal. This is the crux of my contentions with UDP’s ill
> > conceived statement�./
> > >
> > > Ok because the constitution of the Gambia has enshrined my right to
> > freedom of speech means that I can stand and insult your mother, your
> > father, and every one in your family! Or write and publish lies about
> > you and your family. Or write on Gambian newspapers that Muhammed
> > Lamin Touray is a “fxxxing bxxxxxrd!� his mum was this and that!
> > Would you regard as exercising my constitutional right to freedom of
> > speech and expression.
> > >
> > > Certainly, ML Touray you will not agree with anyone that this is
> > legalised by my constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, by
& gt; > your interpretation of this constitutional provision, I have every
> > right to swear at your parents or write malicious stories about your
> > family and publish them on newspapers. This is because, as you are
> > interpreting there is no limit to my constitutional right to freedom
> > of speech and expression under section 25 of the Gambian constitution.
> > >
> & gt; > Surely, this cannot be right. I don’t know about you M L Touray,
> > but if you were to write that about me I would certainly not agree
> > with you that you have such an unlimited right to freedom to commit
> > libel or slander against me.
> > >
> > > Therefore, every freedom right of a man has a limit. Where is that
> > limit? They said it is where it reaches the other man’s freedom for
> > something. That is to say; my freedom to free speech ends at where
> > your freedom to privacy begins.
> > >
> > > However, it is difficult to tell or draw these limits, so where you
> > would be claiming that I crossed the borderline, I would be claiming
> > that I’m still within my bounds. How do we resolve this? You would
> > agree with me that we need a third party’s opinion or judgement. To
> > get that third pa rty opinion, we needed someone that both of us can
> > trust. If that trusted third party made a judgement in my favour
> > though you can disagree with his judgement but you cannot say that he
> > is not a trustworthy person. Imagine you won’t be saying that if he
> > had made a favourable decision towards your favour. So therefore
> > natural justice require t hat you don’t start calling him an evil man!
> > >
> > > From my analysis the courts are the 3^rd party here, we entrusted
> > this courts to make just decisions between me and you, him and her,
> > you and others, us and the government, etc. We need to keep the
> > sanctity of that trust, we cannot let that trust be undermined. The
> > consequence of undermining that trust will be to have no courts. A
> > society without a court system, even if it has a constitution, it
> > constitution will be open to abuse. This is because, where you would
> > be interpreting the constitution to suit your interest, I would be
> > interpreting it to suit my interest. Without a trusted third party,
> > the weaker among us either physically or financially would always be
> > the looser, a sort of jungle justice.
> > >
> > > The Gambian court has interpreted the law in relation to the charges=2 0
> > brought against the six journalists, though we can express our dissent
> > against the sentencing handed by the court, we cannot begin to
> > challenge or undermine the court, as untrusting, lying or illegal, as
> > you are stupidly calling, M L Touray.
> > >
> > > What would have been your reaction had the court acquitted the
> > journalists from the charges ?
> > >
> > > Even Mr Lamin Camara who represented the six journalists did not
> > share your ill advised thoughts that you peddling here. This is
> > because Mr Camara, just like the UDP statement and the rest of the
> > Gambia , do not want to undermine the sanctity of their courts system.
> > If the Americans can still trust the rulings of their courts, even
> > though the same courts once used to find slavery as lawful and
> > sentence people for challenging slavery to worst punishment; the
> > Gambian courts have nothing to lose in trusting the legitimacy of the
> > rulings of their, even is they agree with its ruling.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if I’m correct about the case, the six journalists
> > still have a right of appeal against the decision of the High Court
> > and are appealing as I put these thoughts into words. Therefore, it
> > will be inappropriate=2 0for the UDP to start making statements
> > describing the High Court judgement as illegal or unlawful.
> > > Simply because, the UDP is not the supreme court of the Gambia to
> > make that decision that the High Court had made an illegal decision
> > nor is it appropriate for an opposition party vying to become the next
> > government to start challenging or undermining the judiciaryC3€™s
> > powers to make judgement based on its opinion of the law.
> > >
> > > So, you’re damned wrong M L Touray to label the UDP’s statement
> > as ill-conceived. You can write whatever nonsense you want to write
> > but will never justified your charges that the UDP’s statement is
> > wrong, inappropriate of ill-conceived.
> > >
> > > And I hope you don’t share that dementia with Halifa, Sidia and
> > the rest of PDOIS Mbai faals!
> > >
> > > I blatantly refused to comment on the rest your stupidity expressed
> > in your email!
> > >
> > > Nemesis Yanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:56:45 -0700
> > > From: [log in to unmask] < ;mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > >
> > >
> > > Yanks wrote,
> > >
> > >
> > > /[Now tell me where in this pas sage did I qualify that this was the
> > definition of legal positivism? And even if I did, how can this
> > position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> > states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> > society? Or that the sovereign states are bound by the laws of their
> > predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> > here is a big no. /
> > >
> > > /ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position
> > of legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your
> > words?] Yanks/
> > >
> > >
> > > Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or is
> > it what you tried to defend above? You also need to clarify what you
> > mean by “their subjects in a political society,� because it
> > appears that you are de fending imperialism. European imperialists used
> > to call the peoples of their colonies “subjects.� Gambians are no
> > longer subjects, we are sovereign people! I hope you understand the
> > distinction between “subjects� and “sovereign people,� if not
> > there will be no need to continue this conversation. I n 1997, the
> > people of the Gambia overwhelmingly ratified the 1997 Republican
> > Constitution as the supreme law of the land; in essence, it means that
> > the Gambian people constitute the sovereign power, not the elected
> > representatives. Any law that contravenes the Constitution is null and
> > void, thus the draconian media laws imposed on the national assembly
> > and used to “persecute� and sentence the six journalists are
> > illegal, simply because they contradict the 1997 Republican Constitution.
> > >
> > >
> > > The following quotes from the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia
> > support this position.
> > >
> > >
> > > Subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /The Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia
> > from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in20whose
> > name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are
> > to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution /
> > >
> > > */ /*
> > >
> > > Subsection Chapter 2, subsection 4 (Supremacy of the Constitution)
> > states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /This constitution is the supreme Law of The Gambia and an y other
> > law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution
> > shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void./
> > >
> > >
> > > Subsection 25 (Freedom of Speech) states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /(1) //Every person shall have the right to-/
> > >
> > > /(a) //Freedom of speech and expression, which shall
> > include freedom of the press and other media;/
> > >
> > > /(b) //Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which
> > shall include academic;/
> > >
> > > /(c) //Freedom to practice any religion and to manifest
> > such practice;/
> > >
> > > /(d) //Freedom of association, which shall include freedom
> > to form and join associations and unions, including political parties
> > and trade unions;/
> > >
> > > /(e) //Freedom to petition the Executive for redress of
=0 A> > grievances and to resort to the Courts for protection of his or her
> > rights. /
> > >
> > >
> > > These quotes above show that (1) the Gambian people constitute the
> > sovereign authority, not the president or any other organ of
> > government; (2) the Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia; (3)
> > and the Constitution legalizes free speech and expression. I conclude
> > from this premise that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction
> > and sentence of the six journalists are illegal. This is the crux of
> > my contentions with UDP’s ill conceived statement.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here you go again; what do the Nazis War Crime Tribunal, the Iraq
> > war, and World War II have to do with injustice in the Gambia? You
> > seem to confuse national law and international law. We are talking
> > about Gambian citizens who exercised their constitutional right of
> > free speech and expression and found themselves convicted and
> > sentenced for it. Remember that no one is saying that “everything in
> > this world is just, except the Gambia.�* *I think you are the damn
> > fool for trying to defend the indefensible.
> > >
> > > The fact that segregation laws existed in the US or20that Mandela
> > decided to setup a Truth and Reconciliation instead of a tribunal, do
> > not in any way justify the travesty of justice in the Gambia.
> > Furthermore, I don’t care whether China, Saudi Arabia, UK, or US are
> > democracies; I care about entrenched rights of Gambians being trampled
> > on by Jammeh and his thugs. Conscientious and informed Chinese,
> ; > Saudis, and others, like their Gambians counterparts are everyday
> > fighting for their human rights and justice. You and UDP may continue
> > legitimizing blatant injustice and think that conscious people would
> > listen to your nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself for making
> > a bunch of irresponsible statements here.
> > >
> > > The following quote of yours shows your true nature:
> > >
> > > /[Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> > such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral can it be to tax the
> > dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> > in the UK.] Yanks/
> > >
> > > Who are you to judge the Inheritance Tax law of the United Kingdom
> > as immoral? Do you even know the reason for the inheritance tax laws?
> > The US has a similar law but only less than one percent of the
> > population is affected by it. You need to think before you lip. Moral
> > relativists would sue you at Jammeh’s kangaroo court for your
> > cultural insensitivity. Moreover, morality of UK Inheritance Tax has
> > nothing to do with the illegal conviction of the journalists.
> > >
> > > /[It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in
> > the Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not
> > kill each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means
> > that Gambians are obeying that bad law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they
> > would be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you
> > start challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.]
> > Yanks/
> > >
> > > Are you saying that Gambians are blood tasty killers who are only
> > restrained by Jammeh’s laws from killing one another? Are you saying
> > that without Jammeh’s laws Gambians would be killing one other? Or
> > are you saying that Jammeh and his government are licensed to kill,
> > torture, detain, and harass Gambians so as to restrain us from
> > annihilating one other? This paragraph of yours still needs
> > clarification. Gambians are well known for our tolerance,
> > peacef ulness, and civility. Jammeh and thugs exploit this peaceful
> > nature of Gambians and effectively instituted a police state and
> > overthrow our Constitution.
> > > I hope you are not speaking for the UDP. The party needs to distance
> > itself from your irresponsible statements here. You don’t seem to
> > know what you are talking about. I am done with this topic, for I ha ve
> > already made my point clear for conscience readers. My conviction is
> > that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment
> > of the six gallant journalists are illegal and immoral.
> > >
> > > ML Touray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
> > > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43:52 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > >
> > > M L Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > “/I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is
> > that your definition of the philosophy is primordial. Contemporary
> > scholars of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while
> > earlier versions do not.� /
> > >
> > > If I remember very well, this was what I stated in my email of the
> > 13 August 2009, which you misinterpreted as my definition of legal
> > positivism, just as you twisted the UDP passage. This was what I stated:
> > >
> > > /“the position of the legal positivists, which John Austin, one of
> > the proponents of that school of jurisprudence, explained about
> > positivism of law and the sovereign powers. He accepted that the
> > sovereign might not be a person who by divine or natural right could
> > tell us what we ought to obey, but he is identified by the fact that
> > he is obeyed and his commands are in fact what we call laws.
> > Therefore, he stated that the sovereign is he who receives habitual
> > obedience within a political society. He further added that the
> > sovereign could not be bound by laws promulgated by previous
> > sovereigns and his powers to make laws could not be limited�./
> > >
> > >
> > > Now tell me where in this passage did I qualify that this was the
> > definition of legal p ositivism? And even if I did, how can this
> > position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> > states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> > society? Or that the sovereign states are bound by the laws of their
> > predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> > here is a big no.
> > >
> > > > > > ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position
> > of legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your
> > words?
> > >
> > >
> > > As for your claim that based on my:
> > >
> > > /“definition, the primordial definition, apartheid laws and
> > Mandela’s 27 years of incarceration would be legal because they were
> > formed by a sovereign nation. In the same vein, the holocaust would be
> > considered legal because it was formed by a sovereign nation.� /ML
> > Touray
> > >
> > > Firstly, I rebut your claim that what I explained above is my
> > definition of legal positivism and it does not sanction the laws of
> > the Nazis or that of the apartheid regime of South Africa as morally
> > justifiable laws.
> > >
> > > Secondly, what you faile d to understand is that no philosopher will
> > support your supposition that the laws of the Nazis were not legal in
> > the context of the German law, at the time of Hitler. What was argued
> > later, was that they were morally unlawful laws, that ought not to
> > have been enforced.
> > >
> > > Even that justification, was not without its critics. The war trials
>20> of the Nazis war criminals in Nuremburg and Tokyo was criticised by J.
> > N Shklar, as a pretence of legalism, which was a mere sham. She stated
> > that “it would have been more frank to recognise them as the
> > elimination of enemies, justified on political grounds.�
> > >
> > > And she indeed has a point. Even not just from the political
> > perspective, but on the legal perspective, which is that it
> > contradicts the legal doctrine that law cannot have retrospective
> > effect. The Nazis argued that they acted within the laws of their land
> > at the time, but it was adjudicated that those were bad laws and the
> > good laws which were existing at the time of the trial could sentence
> > them for those crime. That was a retrospective application of the law.
> > Just like making a law today to persecute those who took part in the
> > slave trade!
> ; > >
> > > From the political perspective, it was only the Nazis who were
> > prosecuted for the Holocaust, but the Americans were not prosecuted
> > for using the nuclear bomb on the two Japanese cities, or for their
> > part in the slavery, which were as brutal as the holocaust? And if the
> > trials had further set a legal precedent, why was George Bush and Tony
> > ; Blair not prosecuted for the fake war in Iraq , and why has no Israeli
> > ever been prosecuted for the killings of innocent Palestinians?
> > >
> > > But it seems that the effect of that tribunals’ legal precedent is
> > mainly for Africa and Africans, with the exception of certain Baltic
> > States . It cannot apply to the US soldier, as the tribunal lacks
> > jurisdiction of the US soldiers. Do you have an answer to this
> > discrimination? This is a question you can’t answer.
> > >
> > > Therefore, you will be a damned fool to think that every thing in
> > this world is just, except the Gambia .
> > >
> > > You further mentioned Nelson Mandela and the apartheid laws. Do you
> > even know a similar law existed in the mighty United States called
> > Segregation? Mandela was a legal scholar, shortly after his release,
> > he did not=2 0set up a tribunal to prosecute the apartheid regime, but
> > set up a truth and reconciliation commission. We cannot ponder on the
> > legitimacy of the law locked him for such a long time, as no one was
> > tried for its crimes; just like no one was tried in the United State
> > for similar crimes.
> > >
> > > But this still does not justify the immorality of such laws! And if
> > I’m right, such laws have now been repealed in the constitutions of
> > both South Africa and the United States .
> > >
> > > Therefore, ML Touray, make no mistake, every law is legal at its
> > time. They ceased to be law once repealed. If we detest the laws of
> > Yahya Jammeh regime, we have to change him and then repeal his laws.
> > At that time we can make laws that are morally acceptable to us. Until
> > then it would be wronged to question the legality of his laws.
> > >
> > > As for your question about “why do we need human right laws,
> > African Charter, and others? There are fundamental human rights, such
> > as the right to life, free speech, association, and many others that
> > cannot be denied by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations
> > cannot form arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society
> > or contravene their National Constitutions�.
> > >
> > > The question I want to ask you is that, what will you do, if the
> > sovereign’s breach their conventional obligations. The simply answer
> > is nothing. Simply because what you failed to understand is that all
> > these conventions, you are referring to, were all craftily drafted;
> > such that they are all subjected to the condition of none interference
> > with the sovereignty rights of a contracting state.
> > >
> > > You still seem oblivion to the concept of sovereignty. No state
> > bargains its sovereignty!
> > >
> > > As for your further claim that I defended Yahya Jammeh, I think even
> > in Jammeh’s sweetest dream, he will not see me his defending him. I
> > guess that’s one of your cheap charges.
> > >
> > > As for the claim that I call Gambia a democratic society, well that
> > is what it’s meant to be. However, I can accept that my choice of
> > phrase was a bit inappropriate. Only that I seriously, don’t believe
> > that the Gambia is in fact a democratic society. However, I also
> > don’t believe that China , is democratic society, nor do I believe
> > ; Iran to be democratic society, or North Korea , or even Saudi Arabia .
> > However, I do not believe that democracy is a prerequisite for a
> > sovereign’s right to make legal laws for its subject, whether moral
> > or immoral.
> > >
> > > Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> > such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral20can it be to tax the
> > dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> > in the UK .
> > >
> > > As for my quote below:
> > >
> > > [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> > then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> > Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> > obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> > are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> > obedience of law that we identify the bad ones.]/ Yanks
> > >
> > > It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in the
> > Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not kill
> > each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means that
> > Gambians are obeying that bad=2 0law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they would
> > be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you start
> > challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.
> > >
> > > On that note I reiterate again that the sentencing of the six
> > journalists is morally wrong, which the UDP statement condemned. The
> > UDP further calls for it to be repealed and I b elieve if it ever wins
> > election in the Gambia , it will repeal that law, so that no
> > journalist will ever be prosecuted for it again. However, as long is
> > not repealed it remains the law, whether morally right or not.
> > >
> > > Nemesis Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:25:03 -0700
> > > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > >
> > > Yanks,
> > >
> > > I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is that
> > your definition of the philosophy i s primordial. Contemporary scholars
> > of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while earlier
> > versions do not. Based on your definition, the primordial definition,
> > apartheid laws and Mandela’s 27 years of incarceration would be
> > legal because they were formed by a sovereign nation. In the same
> > vein, the holocaust would be considered legal because it was formed by
> > a sovereign nation. We don’t think like that anymore in the 21^st
> > century. If legality of laws was just based on being formed by a
> > sovereign authority, why do we need human right laws, African Charter,
> > and others? There are fundamental human rights, such as the right to
> > life, free speech, association, and many others that cannot be denied
> > by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations cannot form
> > arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society or
> > contravene their National Constitutions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Moreover, you defense of Yahya Jammeh and the APRC is exceptionally
> > good; I have not seen a better defense of this rotten regime. I cannot
> > believe you said the following about the Jammeh regime:
> > >
> > >
> > > [/The Gambia is further a democratic society. Jammeh was elected by
&g t; > the majority, though difficult to verify, but that is what we were
> > told by the electoral commission. /*/The Gambian people empowered him
> > to make laws./*/ Who is the UDP or we to deny the people’s choice
> > from making laws for them?]/ Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > > How many innocent Gambias and UDP supporters are still languishing
> > in pr ison? And you dare to say that the Gambia is a democratic state.
> > How and When? In fact right after the last presidential election,
> > UDP/NRP filed a complaint at the High Court accusing APRC of election
> > malpractice. Furthermore, who empowers Jammeh to make laws? I thought
> > the legislature is responsible for making laws, not the executive?
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help me to understand what you mean by the following quote.
> > >
> > >
> > > [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> > then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> > Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> > obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> > are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> > obedience of law that we identify the bad o nes.]/ Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > > ML Touray
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks
> > and emoticons. Get Them Now
> > <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/>;
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the
> > Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact > > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ÂC2¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> > >
> > >
> > ��������������������������������������������������� �������
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the
> > Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ����������������������������������������������������ï¿D�����
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet
> > Explorer 8 <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/>;
> > >
> > >
> > ��A F¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> > >
> > > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, g o to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ��ï¿D�������������������������������������������������������
> > >
> >
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> > To=2 0unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface
> > at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> > To contact the List Manag ement, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> >
> > ���������������������������������������������������������� To
> > unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> > Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > EF���������������������������������������������������������
> >
>
> ����������������������������������������������������������
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L ar chives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ������������������������D���������������������������������

---

Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary—get free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now