Halifa,

I'm on break at work, so I don't have much time. This is a brief commentary.
But, reading this piece of your's, several things jump at me.

First, I think we're getting WAY OFF TRACK here. I'm not a public figure.
Never have been. And much as you keep trying to portray me as your opponent,
I've been a great admirer of your's and PDOIS until the latter part of the
transition period, when you started engaging in behavior that I find
unbecoming of the honorable person you've always claim to be. But, instead
of addressing the issues raised to allay my concerns, you're engaging in
demonizing me. Let's assume for a minute that I'm the Devil incarnate, how
does that explain Halifa Sallah's defence and campaign for a very faulty
constitution? How does that explain what Halifa Sallah said about Korro
Ceesay's killing? And these issues are the crux of the matter here! I did
not reply to your previous short comment, b/c there isn't anything there.
You made some insinuations about my fairness, and claimed another hollow
victory, but that's about it.

(By the way, Hamjatta  has said several times now that he's in a position to
challenge your postulation on the constitution. I did warn you not to
celebrate so prematurely. But in every piece, you must claim some victory.
How you find fulfillment in such hollow victories beats me.) I'll reiterate
again what the debate is about from our end. I'll tell you exactly what I
mean by saying that you believe in ludicrous ideas; your manipulation of
Yaya Jammeh and every allegation I've made. Maybe, that would help us
address the real issues myself and Hamjatta raised that you're so reluctant
to tackle.

It's obvious to me at this point that you're trying to use this debate to
sell yourself to members of this List. The events that you keep talking
about, while part of the daily jockeying for position that all you
politicians engage in, do not in any way help me understand the issues in
contention here. Like I said, I'll spell out exactly what we're looking for
clarification on. You can supply PDOIS's daily history since the coup to
those interested. I'm not. I'll get you the detail of our inquiry by Friday.
But first, let me touch on some issues.

You ask why I'm speaking for "many" people? Because they made comments to me
to that effect. I'm not Alpha Robinson. Four people have spoken to me
personally about the volume of your replies, and whether that is necessary
at all. Some find it windy, and totally boring. I have a private email from
someone who doesn't "get it" that you're talking about people and events
that have nothing to do with the behavior we're questioning. Of course, the
same person camplains about Hamjatta's use of what he calls "Big English." I
told him to write the gentleman a private message and ask him to use more
common terms. I suggested to you that, you get to the meat. Apparently, that
has fallen on deaf ears.

In any case, even while you're questioning why I'm speaking for many people,
you're INFORMING me that you'll be publishing my articles  for Gambians
because it's "history." I don't recall you asking my permission, and I
giving my approval. In which case, since this is a commercial  age, and I'm
in the business of making money, I have to ask you: What percentage of the
profits you'll generate in selling MY product will accrue to me? I have to
know. It's the fruit of my labor afterall, isn't it? There is something call
"Intellectual Property Rights" and it's universal now from what I know. The
Gambia is a member of the WTO I believe. Even Socialists have to obey laws
of International commerce. I have a few classmates who are practicing law in
The Gambia, and I'll get to one of them to work out the details with you if
you want. Because, if you're going to make money off me, I demand a part of
the proceeds! I hope you'll be honest enough to understand, afterall Freedom
is relative. There is no such thing as Absolute Freedom. One is free as long
as his freedom does not encroach upon someone else's freedom. Meaning:
Halifa Sallah can publish anything he wants in his newspaper, as long as
someone else doesn't have the rights to that material. No hard feelings, but
this is business.

On Jawara, Bakary Darbo & Co, my own mother would not recognize me if you
describe me as a Jawara apologist. She's a Die Hard Jawara fan, and she
knows what I think of her man. Jawara is not on this forum, we all know
that. So, when you suggested that he had defaulted to defend the
constitution by "abandoning" the country, I felt compelled to put forward
Jawara's own explanation just to put things in perspective.  Failing to do
that would be like beating on your boxing opponent when he's lying down. I'm
surprised you have a problem with that. There are several parallels of what
Jawara did in world history. Would you call Charles DeGaulle a
traitor/coward for "abandoning" France to the superior power of the Nazis?
Or Winston Churchill virtually moving in with FDR in the White House during
WWII? The French and British people don't seem to think so. Jawara's
strategy/plan bombed, but it's not as cowardly as you're portraying it. I
want to be fair to you Mr Sallah, so allow me to be fair to those absent.

For lack of time, I'll send you a detailed synopsis of what myself and
Hamjatta are looking for. Hopefully, we can focus on the real issues at
stake. I have absolutely no interest in reading the Gambia's day-to-day
political history since Yaya Jammeh came calling. Sorry if that disappoints
you.

Good night!

Saul.



>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Response to Saul
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:48:28 -0000
>
>Saul and other subscribers,
>
>I had thought that you will simply acknowledge my short comment and I would
>have had no option but to proceed with Part 2. However, I am compelled to
>turn the cards and put you under scrutiny as a result of  your following
>response:
>
>+ACI-The onus for that falls on you though. I'm just a little worried about
>getting inundated with totally irrelevant facts. The issues that myself and
>Hamjatta asked are pretty clear. So really, you don't need to give us a
>day-by-day political diary of the Gambia to answer these issues. That you
>had nothing to do with planning/executing the coup is a given. But in your
>last piece, you went to great lengths trying to prove what has never been
>in
>dispute anyway. They  say +ACI-old habits die hard,+ACI- but if you can
>resist the
>temptation of engaging in overkill, and just get to the meat, I'd
>appreciate
>it. Not to get technical, but there is a concept in Accounting called
>+ACI-Representational Faithfulness.+ACI- It means basically that the
>information
>provided should have a relationship with what triggered it's generation in
>the first place. Therefore, the more Representationally Faithful your
>response is, the better off we'll all be. Besides, voluminous articles
>often
>cost you your audience.  I'll personally read anything you write -however
>long. But if you want to get to many out there, you may want to be
>cognizant
>of this fact. This is just a thought.+ACI-
>
>Who are you speaking for Saul? All the readers? Are you practising what you
>are preaching? I thought that you say that every person should speak for
>himself or herself. Are you now the autocratic judge who should determine
>what is relevant and what is not?  You mean you are yet to acknowledge  the
>narrowness of your comprehension of things and your limited power of
>differentiation of what is relevant fact and what is trivial?
>
>Let us go back to your initial reaction.
>
>It should be  self evident to any honest reader that what I am simply doing
>is to recall facts in a chronological order. To Saul, however, history is
>not an evolutionary process that takes place within specific times and
>circumstances. He does not seem to realise that events are
>interconnected+ADs-
>that we cannot describe the nature of the forest by concentrating on the
>individual tree. He does not seem to understand that it is my duty to
>requisition the facts in a chronological order and leave the reader with no
>loophole.
>
>Disturbed by the widening vista of overwhelming facts, Saul is not even
>allowing his thoughts to go through an incubation process before they are
>hatched. It is clear that his fairness cannot go beyond the limits imposed
>by his prejudices. This is why he made comments like this: +ACI-Yaya
>planned his
>coup w/o Halifa Sallah+ADs- he had his own designs on how to trick the
>various
>political players to get a measure of acceptance or at least a breathing
>space. He declared all types of decrees to achieve that goal. No one had to
>tell him that. So, there's no news here+ACE- My contention has to do with
>the
>time when Yaya began to feel comfortable enough in State House, and started
>generating the +ACI-I've no intention of leaving any time soon vibes.+ACI-
>+ACI-
>
>Now Saul is saying that it is common knowledge that the members of the
>AFPRC
>were responsible for manipulating their way to consolidate their rule, but
>he expressed a contrary position in his charge sheet by stating that:
>+ACI-It is
>very disturbing b/c here is a very highly intelligent person (referring to
>Halifa Sallah), preying on a group of people, who at best are only of
>average intelligence.  Considering that no one in the defunct AFPRC had the
>education, intelligence, or foresight to be running anything, the Council
>members were taking their cues from resident intellectuals like Halifa.
>Their strategy was basically putting out daily +ACI-feelers+ACI- trying to
>gauge the
>direction of public sentiment through the public's reaction to stories in
>the media.+ACI-
>
>Compare his present statement and his original allegation. Do you now
>understand why I accuse Saul of either being guilty of crass stupidity or
>clumsy trickery? Has he not shown that he has a double edged tongue? Saying
>one thing before and another thing later.  Shouldn't one be suspicious of
>his call for an amputation of the analysis?
>
>Do you see how he is trying to evade unpleasant facts, which refute his
>barren allegations, by dismissing them as irrelevant? Suffice it to say,
>Saul has exposed that he has a very simplistic way of looking at things
>that
>hampers him from deriving essence from sturdy reality. Let us take this
>quotation as an example:
>
>+ACI-But looking at the period you've focused on so far, you seem to be
>suggesting that the PPP leaders (who I've never been able to stand -quite
>frankly,) should have put up a fight -even if by publicly defying Yaya.....
>But +ACI-standing for the constitution+ACI- empty-handed against people
>with
>absolute power is not only quixotic, it's absolutely lunacy+ACE- Dead
>people
>don't make very good Cheer Leaders Mr Sallah+ACEAIg-
>
>Where have I made any comment that these people should have done this or
>that? What I explained is how a historical tragedy was transformed into a
>historical comedy. I simply stated the fact which is not in dispute.  It is
>left to the readers to pass their judgment. I can make my judgment of their
>actions and others can make their own. Saul, however, reads into situation
>what is a figment of his own imagination and attributes to others very
>absurd notions that are a by-product of his own mental failings.
>
>However, Saul's capacity to overlook the significant and wallow in the
>trivial attained collossal proportion when he became both defence counsel
>and judge of the behaviour of the PPP cabinet ministers. Take the following
>comments he made: +ACI-I can't speak for any of these people......+ACI-
>+ACI-I am not a
>fan of any of these men...+ACI- +ACI-I do not like many of those men, but I
>do not
>blame them for behaving the way they did in those trying times
>either....+ACI-
>
>Is this no all empty quackery? Who ask Saul to defend or speak for anyone?
>
>As soon as he absolved these men he is not supposed to speak for, Saul
>turned around to become prosecutor and judge by asserting that:
>+ACI-However,
>you're yet to deal with your own about-face regarding the coup: first you
>called it unconstitutional and published articles challenging it's
>legality,
>but later you acquiesced to the new chiefs by declaring that the coup's
>legality/illegality doesn't matter b/c the PPP was gone for good. But the
>fact that you stopped publishing your newspaper at all in '94 signifies
>your
>tacit submission to the realities of the day. Clearly you would have
>endangered your life by defying the APRC govt at the time if you were to
>publish. So, you obeyed the order for you to desist from publishing, (just
>like the other politicians obeyed the order to desist from
>politicking.)+ACI-
>
>Interesting, isn't it?
>
>Saul, you are beginning to sound very funny and your credibility is
>beginning to be at stake. First and foremost, one can see that Saul is
>taking truth to be independent of time and had quickly made a mental leap
>from the period where everything is now evident to raise doubts about a
>period which I am yet to deal with. I hope you will allow to make my
>defence
>of what happened with FOROYAA before you pass your judgment since you claim
>that you don't have all the evidence. Or do you?
>
>Secondly, even if we were to accept Saul's allegations, he would still be
>refuting his charge. Saul started by accusing me of being a manipulator
>with
>superior intelligence who continued to mastermind the AFPRC's consolidation
>of power only to argue now that in fact we were very helpless political
>figures who could not even publish a newspaper and had to change the name
>because of the might of the AFPRC. So what Saul is  now saying is that I
>was
>not the master manipulator after all, but a victim under the jack boot of
>the men in arms.
>
>What then is Saul really out to prove? That I was a manipulator or that I
>condescended to the AFPRC? As one can see, his power of differentiation of
>the charge has been blunted by the overwhelming facts that he wants to
>sweep
>under the carpet. This is not all. He proceeded to clumsily look for ways
>and means of giving excuses for the PPP leadership and try to attribute to
>me what I have not said and then argue vehemently to show the irrationality
>of what is a by-product of his own erratic mind.
>
>Saul proceeded to display collossal childlishness when he raised the
>following contentions:
>
>+ACI-Regarding Jawara, Bakary Darbo and Saihou Sabally, I'm not a fan of
>any of
>these men, but my understanding from Jawara's interview is that he was led
>to believe that getting on the US naval vessel was a tactical retreat.
>Something of a strategy planning session. He has since indicated that
>things
>would have been different if he knew the Americans weren't going to help
>either directly, or by asking Abdu Joof. I can't speak for any of these
>people, but that's what I've gathered from Jawara's numerous interviews on
>the subject. Maybe some one out there can take up the challenge. But, in
>fairness to Jawara, he did not just abandon the country like you seem to be
>suggesting. Bakary Darbo deluded himself into thinking that he could talk
>the Jammeh camp into handing back power. We all know how that went.+ACI-
>
>It is amazing that a person who claims to has contempt and disdain for
>ineptitude would have such simplistic notions. Is it not clear that Saul is
>an expert in overlooking the significant and dwelling on the trivial?
>
>What is governance all about? Is it not about institutions, and the
>viability or unviability of those institutions? If Saul was interested in
>good governance and the efficient management of a state, what questions
>would he have posed if somebody told him that a head of state made a
>decision on the basis of the advice of a foreign government to leave a
>country and fail to return when his expectations were not met? What should
>happen in a state which is not personified? Would one not expect a cabinet
>which is prepared both for normal times and emergency? Wouldn't one expect
>the institutions set up to handle emergencies to start working as soon as
>an
>emergency situation comes into being? If what Saul is saying is what
>actually happened, and it is not safe to take Saul's word as accurate since
>he said he cannot speak for them, one would wonder what type of government
>was in The Gambia in 1994. One would also wonder how Saul, who holds
>ineptitude in government with such contempt or disdain, would transform
>himself into an apologist.
>
>I hope Saul will bear in mind that everything he is writing is history
>which we intend to publish for the Gambian readers at home. It is therefore
>best for him to allow his thoughts to incubate before allowing them to
>hatch.
>
>Let me proceed with Part 2.
>
>
>Halifa Sallah.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------