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 must say 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 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 > > 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 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." 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 > > Gambia. 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?â€� > > > > > > 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 > > lawsâ€�. 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 1997 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 in accordance 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;â€� > > > > > > That begs me to question how is the president excluded from the > > “Gambian peopleâ€� 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 have 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 > > 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 statementâ€�./ > > > > > > 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!â€� 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 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 party 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 that 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 > > 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 for 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 judiciary’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 passage 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,â€� because it > > appears that you are defending imperialism. European imperialists used > > to call the peoples of their colonies “subjects.â€� Gambians are no > > longer subjects, we are sovereign people! I hope you understand the > > distinction between “subjectsâ€� and “sovereign people,â€� if not > > there will be no need to continue this conversation. In 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 “persecuteâ€� 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 in whose > > 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 any 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 > > 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.â€�* *I think you are the damn > > fool for trying to defend the indefensible. > > > > > > The fact that segregation laws existed in the US or that 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, > > peacefulness, 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 have > > 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.â€� / > > > > > > 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 limitedâ€�./ > > > > > > > > > Now tell me where in this passage 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? > > > > > > > > > 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.â€� /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 failed 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 > > 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.â€� > > > > > > 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 set 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 Constitutionsâ€�. > > > > > > 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 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 . > > > > > > 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 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. > > > > > > 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 believe 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 is 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 > > 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 prison? 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 ones.]/ 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]> > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > > > > > > > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > > 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]> > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet > > Explorer 8 <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/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]> > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > > > > > > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > > 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]> > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > > > > ���������������������������������������������������������� 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] > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > > > > ���������������������������������������������������������� > 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] > ���������������������������������������������������������� _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary—get free winks and emoticons. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/