But then in US, they won’t wait for a retired general to get into an election campaign before they nab him for court-martial because that would look like an act of political expedience. Nor will they talk about vague plans to court-martial him before they have completed investigations and have actually laid the charges on him.

I know it is rumour because nobody has presented evidence yet. When I say it is “rumour”, I mean that the truth or falsity has not been established yet—not that it is false.

But I’ll assume you’re joking about Sri Lanka being more liberal in its liberalness than US. Sri Lanka has never had a minority president or prime minister, has it? The latest scholarship on liberal policies and philosophy isn’t coming out of Sri Lanka, is it? Obama’s popularity rates have been dropping because they don’t think he is sufficiently liberal. But one thing I’ll give Sri Lanka—its liberals are certainly very courageous in their willingness to take on a tyrannical regime.

As for the BBC publishing SL government propaganda, it together with many other leading media do publish Sri Lanka propaganda all the time for the simple reason that most often, no alternative avenues of views are available. Many media will not publish an alternative claim unless the source is willing to reveal his/her name. You may also not be familiar with how SL diplomats handle the media in the countries they are posted to—they threaten to sue and pull all sorts of political heavyweight if the local press wants to feature any news that presents their government in an adverse light. Unlike other foreign diplomats who will merely tell you their side of the story, the SL diplomats will go all out to prevent the story from being published. In SL itself, aren’t foreign journalists refused entry if they won’t play ball?

How do you know it is rumor? How do you know it is government propaganda? Do you think BBC publish Sri Lankan government propaganda? “May I conclude that your politics determines what and how you see things?”

No general or ex-general (There are no ex-generals in US. They are called generals even after they retire.) in US can get away by threatening to reveal military secrets. Contrary to your believes, US is a pretty conservative country. The so called liberals are just a shade to the left of far right and compare to the liberals of Sri Lanka they are way to the right.

I standby my earlier statement.

If a General has done what Fonseka had done in the United States he would be striped of all military honors and will be court marshaled. No one will be protesting to save him [Edited out].

“In fact, going forward and meeting the “jonny” (LTTE land mines) was better than retreating and meeting the “Fonny” (Fonseka), was a saying among officers according to a news report.”

Obviously, a pussy cat wasn’t going to kill the Tigers, no? So now you know how the war was won–with monstrosity, tyranny, fear, treachery.

“2) Fonseka threatened to reveal military secrets to enemies. (I.e., he threatened to become a spy.)”

Under military law, is a THREAT to reveal military secrets the same as actually revealing military secrets to enemies? Is threatening one of the most serious crimes under military law?

“If a General has done the above-mentioned crimes in the United States he would be striped of all military honors and will be court marshaled. No one will be protesting to save his ass.”

In the US, court martials are for officers and enlisted personnel. Somebody who has already left the service cannot be court martialed. So, if he is, there would be plenty of protests just on that aspect alone. If the person involved had been poised to reveal war crimes committed by the military, there would be a lot of popular support of him in the US. There are a lot of liberals in US–that’s how Obama got elected. Also, in the US, if someone is placed under military arrest while he is deeply involved in opposition politics, the people would cry “political motivation” and they would protest on that count too.

(1) Fonseka harbored and employed military deserters.

(2) Fonseka threatened to reveal military secrets to enemies. (I.e., he threatened to become a spy.)

Hence, he is guilty of the two most serious crimes according to the military law.

If a General has done the above-mentioned crimes in the United States he would be striped of all military honors and will be court marshaled. No one will be protesting to save his ass.

You may not. You are making an assumption here.
“Sony–you seem to have decided on his guilt even before seeing any evidence.”

How do you know that I have not seen evidence?

Wow, Sony–you seem to have decided on his guilt even before seeing any evidence. May I conclude that your politics determines what and how you see things?

Exactly, Sam! This is why I don’t understand why the threat MR posed to citizen rights was not understood by the majority who voted for him. He did not threaten their rights in secret–he did it well in the open. People don’t seem to understand that this is the end point of the spectrum of tyranny. He has been doing it since 2005. The abduction of Fonseka was not the first time.

Since law in function is well known to me in the west, and having lived in sl for such a long time, I know what rights we had then than today. We ddi not have harrasments of this degree even during Premadasa regime. At that time, Premadas was THEN critcised by almost everyone and people prayed not to have a leader of his sorta to be born again in sl. But when considering all the abuses, law violations, harrasements and human rights mal practices, today we are having a regime not second to that of Premadasa´s.

The government knew that General broke the law during the Presidential election campaign. Why didn’t the government arrest him then? What would have happened if the government arrested him as soon as they had evidence against him? The Colombians would have said that he was arrested because he was winning the election. (They totally believed the “close race” propaganda they themselves created. I have received bogus analysis with numbers predicting a Fonseka win more than once.) In addition, the arrest could have generated a “sympathy vote” for him. The west and the NGOs would have denounced MR and the government. It could have been a political disaster.

Why arrest Fonseka now? This is the ideal time to do so. The government has only a narrow window. If you wait any longer, i.e., after dissolving the parliament and letting Fonseka declare his candidacy for a seat, then the government will be in the same quandary as described above.

Fonseka must be punished for what he did. That is what Democratic countries like USA, UK, France, and Germany would do to a general who has done what Fonseka had done in their countries.

You can protest all you want. But it is not going to be an honest protest. You could not fool the people before January 26th. Why do you think that you can fool the people now?