Govt. and the Rule of Law

Dear Editor,
With the recent revelations from a Brooklyn court room regarding self confessed drug smuggler Roger Khan and his unholy alliance with government officials, there has been an attempt among many to rationalise and justify the government’s alleged involvement and or complicity.
In short, the substance of these arguments is as follows: If the Government’s liaison with Mr. Khan and his “phantom” gang enabled them to neutralise the Buxton gang and ameliorate the crime wave, then it was well worth it”.
The proponents of this argument further reason that, since the armed forces proved unwilling or unable to curtail the crime wave, then it made perfect sense for a criminal group to step up to the plate and do the Government’s bidding. In other words, a sitting government may employ a criminal outfit heading by none other than the infamous Roger Khan to protect its citizens. Never mind that we are a society of laws, the end justifies the means, and, according to our esteemed leader, “he doesn’t lose any sleep when criminals kill each other.
What is even more troubling is that some of these same people who rightfully condemn the PNC’s use of the house of Israel and the “Rabbi” in a similar fashion, has now resorted to a kind of convenient logic to explain away the PPP’s alleged liaison with Roger Khan and his phantom gang. One is tempted to ask, if these acts were illegal and deplorable then, would the same not be true today?
The government position on these matters seems to suggest a deliberate attempt, to camouflage the real issue which is one of gross incompetence.
To further cover up this incompetence, the government has presented its supporters with a false dichotomy.
Under this scenario, supporters are told their choices are either (a) “personal security by any means necessary” (including government corruption) on the one hand, or (b) “criminals and bandits unleashing terror on society”, on the other hand.
This Hobson’s choice is indeed a false choice since it conveniently ignores a third and more prudent approach i.e. “personal security coupled with government upholding the rule of law. Among other things, this is precisely what governments are elected to do – to protect its citizens and to uphold the rule of law.
In any event, this government has succeeded in convincing its supporter that it was either Roger Khan or the bandits.
What a con game or maybe not, perhaps we have really regressed a few thousand years back to a radical theory of justice propounded by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic i.e. “Justice is the Interest of the Stronger”. A very slippery slope indeed!
John F. Haynes