Latest update April 18th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 16, 2009 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon
Any school boy using logic and common sense, after reading what President Jagdeo said about Major (Ret) David Clark, is bound to ask the question: Did Mr. Jagdeo know what Roger Khan was doing?
In the social sciences, there is the methodology of logical deduction or deductive reasoning. It is a mode of inquiry by the researcher that moves from the general to the specific. It starts out from a pattern that might be logically expected to observations that test whether the expected pattern actually occurs.
The examples a teacher can offer a student on deduction are literally endless. One would not know where to begin. Deduction has been popularised throughout the world because of the Sherlock Holmes’ exclamation: “Elementary, my dear Watson”. Simply put, it means to “deduce from…” or to draw a conclusion from a set of recurring episodes that have connections. Here is a very simple example. Your priest refused to permit homosexuals in his church. He denies drinkers entrance to his sermons. He is against sex out of wedlock. You can logically deduce from that pattern that he would frown on abortion
Now, using the methodology of deduction, can we conclude that President Jagdeo had to know about the extra-judicial “escapism” of Roger Khan? Let’s start with Mr. Clark. In 2003, one year after the crime spree began with the escape from the Camp Street jail on Mash Day 2002, President Jagdeo (in 2003) refused the promotion of Major Clark. It was based on intelligence he got on Clark. The same time (2003) that Clark was under suspicion, Roger Khan was on the rampage. In that year, Mr. Khan was arrested on the Good Hope public road with two others and was alleged to have in his possession the now-talked-about “spy equipment”.
Mr. Khan was charged but was freed. The spy item was not returned to him. There is no official record that it was given back to him. Logical deduction number one – when the police and army arrest such a person with that kind of hi-tech stuff, it is not unreasonable to assume that he will be checked on and surveillance would follow. The deduction comes in because, if Clark could be monitored and the President given confidential data on him, then why not Khan? Is there an argument out there that posits that during the violent turbulence of 2003 the President had no confidential information on Khan? But he had on a major in the army, not even a rank higher up, but a major?
Logical deduction number two – after the denial of promotion, and after the arrest of Khan, the Buxton rampage and Khan’s so-called counter-offensive didn’t stop. There were gruesome killings on both sides (from the Buxton-based gunmen and the phantoms of the Georgetown opera). Is it not logical to accept that at this time President Jagdeo would have had a report on Khan?
Logical deduction number three – Khan himself informed the Guyanese people that he was essential (not instrumental) in the counter-attacks in Buxton. Then he transmitted a revelation to the nation – the US embassy sought his help in locating and securing the release of Stephen Lesniak. Is it not logical to deduce from the pattern of state security activities that the President of the country had to be in receipt of information on Khan’s extra-judicial operations?
Logical deduction number four – this columnist and other media operatives knew Khan was in confrontation with the Buxton-based gunmen. High state security officials had to know this too. Why then did they not pass this kind of intelligence on to the President? They told the President about Clark, why not about Khan?
From 2002 to 2005, the entire gamut of violent activities centering on Buxton and Khan’s blitzkrieg was so terrifying and all-encompassing that it is logical to deduce that the President of Guyana had to know about Khan. So far, there has been no acknowledgement by President Jagdeo that he has ever met with or spoken to Khan. There is not one sentence from President Jagdeo that he heard from confidential sources about Khan’s activities. Is it reasonable to argue that, as early as March 2003, the President knew about Clark’s alleged misconduct, but in 2004 not about Khan? That cannot hold water. We will see what Khan is made of when his trial begins. He paints himself as a saviour because he took the fight to the Buxton gunmen. That is true. But in the process, did high government officials including President Jagdeo know what he was doing?
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 18, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies captain Hayley Matthews has been named Wisden’s leading Twenty20 Cricketer for 2023, as she topped all and sundry, including her male counterparts. Alan Gardner looks...Kaieteur News – Compliments of the Ministry of Education, our secondary school children are being treated to a stage... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]