Arrest of Bahamian Bag Handlers in Florida Creates Political Firestorm in Nassau

by Larry Smith

"This is a different era. It's a different mindset. Today, we cloak our children in wrongdoing." -- National Security Minister Cynthia Pratt.

The arrest of five Nassau airport baggage handlers in Florida last month unleashed a storm of self-righteous protest among Bahamians. And - with an election in the offing - opposition politicos are having a field day.

They accuse the government of "colluding" in an "extra-judicial rendition" of unsuspecting Bahamians to imprisonment in another country. Some go so far as to say the men were officially kidnapped.

By this account, the unwitting baggage handlers were "tricked" into traveling to the US as part of an elaborate scheme to circumvent their right of due process under Bahamian law.

All of the cabinet ministers who would logically be in a position to know what happened have been put on the defensive and have denied any foreknowledge.

They include Cynthia Pratt (who oversees the police), Fred Mitchell (who handles foreign relations), and Allyson Gibson (who is responsible for prosecutions). Mitchell also said that Glenys Hanna-Martin (who is in charge of the airport) had no prior information, and neither did the managers of Nassau Flight Services, who employed the unfortunate bag men.

But the opposition insists otherwise. They say that Bahamian suspects should not be enticed to travel abroad to facilitate their arrest and prosecution by foreigners: "Somebody is lying. There is more to this than meets the eye," one political source told Tough Call.

"At least three separate departments in three separate ministries had to co-operate to pull off the scam which entrapped and summarily deported five Bahamians," said former attorney-general Carl Bethel. "But now everybody is ducking for cover."

The FNM has called for a full accounting of the government's knowledge of, and involvement in, the so-called "sting" operation. And the prime minister - bemused as always - says he will look into the matter.

The issue has generated over 30 pages of comments on the Bahamas Issues discussion forum alone since the bag men were arrested on December 18. Here are just a few examples:

"What right does the government have to become complicit in a scheme to kidnap free people by another nation? This one is going all the way to the Privy Council and the United Nations. "

"Not quite entrapment, but unethical nonetheless...our 'democratic' government is becoming more and more undemocratic at a frightening speed."

"Where was all this grand talk of sovereignty when Hubie and the boyz gave up our offshore banking system to the OECD bullies?"

"How can we explain setting up our own people to please the US when we have a system already in place to deal with extradition?"

"I am speechless...black people get shaft by their black leaders again. When will it end?"

"The bag handlers were hoodwinked out of having their day in a Bahamian court by the very entity that was supposed to protect them."

"This amounts to the government conspiring with foreign agents against citizens of the Bahamas. The same acts perpetrated by individuals could be considered treasonous."

According to the wife of one of the arrested men: "I believe my husband was kidnapped rather than arrested and I will fight the authorities until he is discharged from prison and returned to the Bahamas."

A Nassau Guardian editorial was similarly outraged: "The managers of Nassau Flight Services were patently wrong to agree with the (US) Transportation Security Administration to send 20 of its employees to Florida on a bogus training course, recognizing that a number of those employees would be arrested and would not be returning to the Bahamas."

No evidence was adduced to support these claims.

Guardian columnist and potential PLP election candidate, Craig Butler, had this to say: "If you are a handler of baggage at the airport and you are involved in a conspiracy to export drugs to the United States, don't go - especially when you realize that the others with whom you have allegedly conspired are also going."

And Tribune columnist Sir Arthur Foulkes also weighed in: "Citizens have a right and a duty to ask questions when it appears that Bahamian authorities may have colluded with agents of another country to bypass the sovereignty and due processes of the laws of the Bahamas in order to render Bahamian suspects to another jurisdiction."

So what are we to make of all this?

Well, in law enforcement terms a "sting" is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime - by means of deception. And "'rendition" means the handing over of criminal suspects from one jurisdiction to another. Extradition is the process by which this usually happens, regulated by international treaty.

"Extra-judicial rendition" means handing over suspects who are denied due process because they are arrested without charges and deprived of legal counsel. The NFS bag men went to Florida voluntarily and were charged in a Florida court with conspiracy to import illegal drugs into the United States - a violation of American law. They have been assigned lawyers and the Bahamian consulate in Miami is fully involved.

One of the principles of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over its own people. And most countries have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. Samuel '90' Knowles was extradited to the US recently on drug charges after years of costly legal appeals in the Bahamas failed.

According to both American and Bahamian officials, there are concerns about "potential security shortcomings" at Nassau's airport that could lead to illegal drugs and weapons being imported into the US. And perhaps to more dramatic consequences for the Bahamas.

These officials say the arrests were the result of a long investigation into the "high incidence of drugs found on pre-cleared aircraft during secondary searches in the US." So the first point is that the accused bag men were allegedly able and willing to put uninspected packages onto aircraft flying to the US.

"These finds prompted the DEA to begin an investigation," US Deputy Chief of Mission Dr Brent Hardt told Tough Call, "which they coordinated closely with the Bahamian Drug Enforcement Unit. These cases were developed by US and Bahamian law enforcement authorities in the same way that we routinely coordinate our many successful counter-drug investigations.

"Cases were developed by both sides and those arrested in the US had a clear US nexus. Anybody who violates US law and travels to the US is subject to arrest, just as an American who violates Bahamian law would be in the Bahamas."

Official sources say the training was "neither mandated nor sponsored" by the TSA. It was apparently requested by Spirit Airlines for NFS staff loading baggage onto their planes, in order to meet US requirements. But the airline's communications manager would not respond to inquiries despite repeated calls.

However, the fact is that another group of bag handlers went for the same training in mid-December and returned without incident. And other NFS staff members who traveled with the five arrested men also received training and returned. So the suggestion that the training was "bogus" does not hold water.

It has also been reported that the pre-clearance space at Nassau airport is US territory. But the bilateral agreement (published on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site) states clearly that this is not so. Bahamian law applies and Bahamian sovereignty pertains in the pre-clearance area. And although many aircraft using the airport may be US-owned and flagged, when they are on the ground here they are under Bahamian jurisdiction.

"That is not to say that one cannot do something in the Bahamas that brings you on the wrong side of the law in the US," Dr Hardt said. "Drug trafficking is a cross-border crime, like money fraud and money laundering. All of these things can physically be done in other jurisdictions, but if people are defrauded in the US, or the drugs end up in the US as a result of your action, you have broken US law and are liable to US prosecution."

And according to the American Ambassador, John Rood: "It was merely the fact that there were indictments on the individuals in the United States and when it was found out that these individuals were travelling to the United States they were arrested. If they are not guilty they will be set free.”

Meanwhile, Assistant Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson insists that - although two baggage handlers were arrested locally as part of the same investigation - there was not enough evidence to charge the other five bag men in Nassau.

But according to lawyers we spoke to, Bahamian police would have had the same evidence that the DEA had, since it was a joint investigation: "Our guys declined to prosecute - when they should have and could have - having both the jurisdiction and the evidence."

So the question remains - why did this happen?

Was it out of deference to American security concerns? Is it because our jails are too full? Or that it would take too long too bring the accused to trial? And because witnesses and evidence might disappear in the meantime? Is it because of a fear that politicians would compromise the prosecution?

In other words, was the failure to prosecute locally actually an indictment of the Bahamian criminal justice system by our own government and law enforcement officials? Does it suggest that we are moving down the road towards a failed state, where the rule of law breaks down?

And in the midst of all this self-righteous rhetoric about the bag men, we should not lose sight of stark reality. The 9/11 terror attacks have changed the way we live. By most accounts, the airport is a huge security risk - and we all know how important the airport is to the industry that makes our entire economy function.

It costs up to $30 million a year to support the 45 American pre-clearance officers and facilities in the Bahamas. And the fees that are collected from ticket taxes to support that are fractional.

So the real question is, how do we weigh these interests?

Comments

[EB Christen]

It is refreshing to read an editorial/report that lays out a lot of facts about this matter rather than all the hyperbole and invective opining that has dominated the discussion thus far.

We, as Bahamians, have a right to be concerned about sovereignty issues and we have a right to be concerned about the level of influence the US has in the country. We also have a right to demand transparency and accountability from our government and it is healthy to see Bahamians clamouring to know if the administration knew about this sting operation.

Having said that, we must not lose sight of the fact that fighting drug trafficking in this country is an essential componenet of our continued good relations and good standing with the United States - from which we reap immeasurable benefit. It is most alarming to hear the deafening silence on the air waves and in the press coming from Bahamians who are genuinely concerned that the horrid security conditions (horrid conditions period) at the airport could cost us our pre-clearance status and severely affect tourism in this country. Perhaps the renaming ceremony of the airport was most apt, since the airport's problems with drug trafficking, efficiency and corruption are beginning to take on the look and feel of the LOP administration in its most corrupt heyday. Ironic, but fitting. However, the airport still hasn't been properly addressed and it is still nothing short of a Banana Republic experience in there. I again invite someone in the news to compare the progress of NIA to PTY - Panama's national airport - over the past 5 years. With privatisation of the airport that country is now pursuing an aggressive policy to make PTY the hub of Central America. With travel to and from the US being such a hastle, we could do the same for the Caribbean - if we were smart and proactive... alas...

Furthermore, we don't appear to be at all concerned that our justice system's inefficiency allows drug dealers and drug lords to believe that they can act with virtual impunity, because they can 'buy' their way through and out of our judicial system. To hear our top judges complain of political interference is alarming in the extreme, especially when the Bahamas was blessed with a sitting Privy Council here and should be actively pursuing trying to make this a legal hub for British Commonwealth legal appeals. We have to think BIG. We have to decide what kind of country we are going to be.

To see Bahamians defending drug lords on national TV because they gave gifts to people is alarming in the extreme. The prime minister needs to challenge these people openly and take a very firm stand to make clear his administration's position on drugs and drug trafficking. He also needs to come clean and reveal who in the government knew of the action. It is impossible to believe that the police force, assisting with the investigation, would not have let someone in the government know about the possibility of a sting. It is not a leadership quality leader to allow one's 'soldiers' (the police) to take the blame for actions that were authorised and administered by the 'general' (the Prime Minister or a member of the Cabinet). It is a farce and insult to the intelligence of Bahamians and the debate on drugs and drug trafficking must be elevated beyond the quagmire of questions of sovereignty. We have US Cost Guard helicopters patrolling Bahamian waters for us - a great help, and yet we want to be angry with the US for nabbing 5 smugglers at an airport for which the US has awarded pre-clearance. We can take issue with our governments silence - and should, but we need to see the bigger picture here. My question is: to all these people who are angry about the NFS sting, how will they feel if these 5 are proven to be guilty?

[Arthur Foulkes]

This is the answer to E B Christen's question: Not a bit differently, because the debate is not about the guilt or innocence of these five. The question is whether our government or any of its agencies or agents abdicated their responsibilities and conspired to get around Bahamian law by effecting the rendition of Bahamians to another jurisdiction. It is about the rule of law.

[EB Christen]

@Sir Arthur
I agreed with that point in my comment. The question of sovereignty is perfectly legitimate. My question was more in relation to the fact that even in the face of known drug lords being apprehended - Bahamaians have rallyed to their defense - people are prepared to voice vocal support on national television and protest in favour of these people. It demonstrates a level of 'tolerance' that is alarming. The Ninety Knowles extradition case highlighted this dramatically.

Again, as a Bahamian, I am serious about defending our sovereignty, but we cannot do so by allowing the Americans to feel that we aren't serious about fighting drug traffickers and thus relying on them to do the job for us - that is not defending our sovereignty at all. The Americans will listen to us, but at the end of the day, if we fail in OUR duty on our turf, then we all know that they will take matters into their own hands - they have demonstrated that in the post 9/11 world the rules have changed. We would be wise to be proactive and not reactive here - which is what has been happening - as always.

[EB Christen]

To make the point with an analogy.

On drug trafficking and sovereignty issues, Bahamians want our cake (US support, preferred treatment and good relations with US government, US investment and US dollars coming in while also receiving assistance on border issues, human trafficking and drug trafficking issues), but we want to eat it too (not doing our part in fighting drug trafficking, tolerance of the drug culture and drug dollars coming in, lax airport controls and a laissez-faire approach to security concerns raised by the USA). At some point, we are going to have to bite the bullet and realise that we can't have it both ways for free and cry foul to Uncle Sam all the time. Unless we are actively seen to be doing our part, we don't have a strong argument against them and no 'principle' of sovereignty will be respected. A country is sovereign in theory always, but its 'real' sovereignty is always determined by its effectiveness to enforce and control the rule of law within its own territory. To the extent that it isn't able to do that, it can expect that foreign powers whose interests are being threatened will act if they cannot encourage the 'local' sovereign power to act. That might not be 'just' or 'fair' but it is the reality of how the world works. We Bahamians need to take greater responsibility for our own territory and our current government is clearly wanting in that regard.

A few quotes to highlight the problem of 'realpolitik':

Samuel P Huntington: "The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government."

Samuel P Huntington: "The primary problem of politics is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change"

Thucydides: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

[larry smith]

The purpose of this article was to explore the facts of the controversy as far as possible - going beyond the usual rhetoric.

I did not offer a black and white opinion, because it was impossible to do so from the information I was able to gather.

I hope it is constructive.

[Rick]

Always constructive Larry.
If they are innocent, they will walk.
Too bad there is such divisiveness where criminality is concerned.
I beleive the solution is to legalise drugs.

[Interested Abroad]

The article and the comments are instructive for several points. however readers should be aware of one basic fact, sovereignty and its relevance is really more important in the domestic forum and enforcement arena.

In the international arena and forum sovereignty practically plays second fiddle to the relative power and influence of the conflicting States, since each State considers its sovereignty issues as paramount and therefore the more powerful state usually wins despite the merits of their case.

This is and has been borne out time after time. A review of public and private international law cases, opinions and history teaches this lesson and it has tarditionally been a frustrating aspect of the study of International Law by international law scholars.

[EB Christen]

@Larry
It was a great article.

@Rick
Decriminalising certain drugs locally could be very useful in reducing the number of people that are sent to Fox Hill for minor drug offenses. However, having said that, to legalise drugs in this country would create a massive problem with the US administration and with trafficking concerns. While in theory, I am for the legalisation of drugs, in practise this won't work given the US administration's position on the matter. We would instantly lose pre-clearance status and we would probably lose a great deal of other benefits that we currently enjoy. However, I think we could pull off decriminalising certain drugs and maintaining our preferred nation status with the US. I think this would help alleviate the burden on our police force, our justice system and our prison system substantially. Very strong cases can be made for the decriminalisation of marijuana, for example, given the scientific evidence that is out there. If alcohol is legal, there is little argument against marijuana and the number of people sent to prison here for marijuana possession is alarming. Fox Hill is no place for someone with a minor drug offense.

[drew Roberts]

"Fox Hill is no place for someone with a minor drug offense."

Fox hill is no place for anyone with a minor offence of any sort.

I read once about a prison that I want to bring up here. I think it was somewhere in north Florida.

If memory serves, this prison had barraks style quarters, a chain link fence and no gate or guards. There was a yellow line at across the road where the gate would be.

Minor low risk offenders went to this prison.

During the days, prisoners were taken out and did public work. At night they were taken back.

If you were found to to have left without permission, you went to the prison with bars.

I think it is long past time for us to consider something like this here.

Set up a completely seperate prison system like this for minor offenders. A completely seperate set of prison officers. No cross duty.

Build something inexpensive. Eliminate the overcrouding at Fox Hill.

This will make things way better for minor offenders. It will also make things better living condition wise for major offenders who do get sent to Fox Hill.

It will probably make the Fox Hill prison officers lives better and safer as well.

I see many other positive aspects to this as well.

Does anyone see any downsides to something along these lines?

all the best,

drew

[Ian]

Due Process should be considered Innocent until Proven Guilty with "Facts." However "OUR" Laws that protect Bahamaians Rights sould be considered as well after all we are a Nation to be reconed with. And we hold a seat on the U.N. and we as well domanate world affairs we have politcal sway and we're savvy at it!. With respect to the U.S. they are "Very Close Ally" in basicly everything. we've been Friends for "Years without conflict" The americans "LOVE" Bahamians and Bahamas. we will get through this. "Optimistic" that the way to think My fellow bahamians we have the VICTROY!
Hon. Fred Mitcheal will get it sorted out, I have faith in The Christie led Administration.
GOD IS GOOD!
Bahamian 100% "Nassauvian born"

[Ian]

With all due respect All whom this might "offend" or "Hurt" I'm a BORN PLP to the craddle to the grave.

The PLP Party has done great deeds for the Bahamas and we have to right the right and wrong the wrongs.

Christie has proven to be an Honest, trustworthy and a gentalman with dignity, Bahamians from all walks of life Love him.
And I love him he is My Prime Minister With all respect due and no love lost.

Bahamian 100%