Robert A. Silverstein
I will ask a series of questions and provide the answers to each.
First: There is a headline in one of today's papers which states, "JCC rejects inquiry commission." In the substance of the article, it goes on to say that "The JCC and the NTAC rejects the one-man JIC as it cannot comprehend the magnitude of violence that erupted on January 31 in the entire state." "It urges the state government to expand the members of the JIC to at least three, 'out of which one should be from NGOs.'" What do these sentences signify?
Answer: By not rejecting a JIC out of hand, that is, by not saying that no JIC is acceptable, and by expressing wishes that it make improvements, the JCC is acknowledging that a JIC is necessary.
Second: If a JCC is necessary, what does that mean in relation to the events of January 31st, including the killing of the two men?
Answer: It means that neither the JCC nor the NTAC, nor anyone else has any precise idea of what took place during all that violence and chaos.
Three: Given that the JCC thinks a JIC is warranted because the facts that day have not been clearly established, how could the JCC and others condemn the security services and state government for causing the death of the two men and damage and injury to others?
Answer: In justice, the JCC et al., cannot condemn the security services and other state government personnel for any deaths, injury, or property damage, at least not until the JIC completes its work, which has not yet begun.
Four: Given all of the above, how can the JCC, and almost every other organization in the state, and most individuals treat the two dead men as martyrs until we know exactly under what circumstances that they died? (Presuming that will ever be known accurately.)
Answer: The two dead men, victims of the violence on January 31st, cannot, in fairness, be treated as martyrs until the circumstances of their deaths are described in detail. To do otherwise would be to say that, no matter what the circumstances of their deaths, the JCC will blame the security services. But then why have a JIC in the first place?
Five: What is the JCC likely to do when the JIC issues a definitive report, if it ever does?
Answer: If the JIC concludes that the security services are responsible for the deaths of the two men, and responsible for other injuries and property damage, and it could have been prevented by more prudent action on the part of the security services, the JCC will praise the integrity of the JIC and condemn yet again the security services and the state government.
If, on the other hand, it exonerates the security services from blame, stating that they did the best they could to control a situation which was not just chaotic but initiated and encouraged by the JCC and others, the latter will condemn the JIC as a tool of the state and center governments, obviously biased, or intimidated. In other words, the JCC will only accept one view of things, as they have throughout this whole series of incidents, that is, their view.
