NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY -SUPREME COURT SRI LANAK

  • 18 Dec 2009 05:27:47 GMT

    [Chief Justice: The war is won. How can we provide security?

    ]

    The appropriate question could have been why should we provide security and not how can we provide security?

    [Senior Counsel further submitted there is no normal life in the country since Emergency Regulations are still existence and there is a threat from the LTTE to the former Army Commander]

    If there is no threat from LTTE, So , then why so much security to ex Navy commander, and the Government politicians ?

  • 18 Dec 2009 12:18:02 GMT

    Yeah, let`s start with the president himself and slash his own security down to only two or three dozens of bodyguards and see how the moron likes it. Now there is no war after all, so why security for the president anyway?

  • 19 Dec 2009 03:22:09 GMT

    President need security why? Brits ,Yanks, and rest of the Europeans are after him.

  • 19 Dec 2009 09:51:55 GMT

    In fact Sarath Fonseka is funny. On one side he says he won the war and eradicated the Ltte. From another side he says LTTE is targetting him. This clearly indicates what a liar this Sarth Fonseka is. Now go to other Sarath Nandalal Silva ( womaniser)and file fundametal right case! No one will trust you! Not even Ranil!

  • 19 Dec 2009 17:02:47 GMT

    All of a sudden, SF became a nothing. But as raigam mentioned, even the Mervyn the vermyn is having a security threat as per the so called security analysts. This can happen only in Sri-Lanka. I would love to see SF as the president. Idiots like Mervyn and all the other henchmen will get the real security under him.

    I am at lost to understand why the learned judges could not realized the grave situation SF is in. Not only from LTTE sympathizers but also from the you know who???

  • 20 Dec 2009 12:58:56 GMT

    [but also from the you know who???]

    U mean Mano Ganesan`s / Mangala`s friends ah?

  • 21 Dec 2009 07:37:02 GMT

    Why should a PE candidate be given extraordinary security?

    The poor tax payers hard earned money should not be spent to protect a single man !

    Furthermore, as the Presidential candidate of the joint opposition, he is perfectly protected by the UNJVP thugs !

  • 21 Dec 2009 16:26:08 GMT

    With due respect to the Supreme Court, I do not agree that Sarath Fonseka`s Security should be construed only on the basis that he is a candidate in the Presidential elections. When considering the elimination of the LTTE threat I believe that however much others may brag about their contribution towards the victory over the LTTE it is the Army,its humble foot soldiers and its commanders who deserve the most credit for winning the war. The Navy and the Air foice, though they make great contributions are only support services.The army commander is without any doubt the one who was responsible for the victory and the people of the country must have the gratitude to give him adequate security to him in his retirement. This has nothing to do with his being an election candidate, nothing to do with the Commissioner of Elections.

    The Attorney General has gone on record saying that to give him more security would amount to corruption. What a laugh! When ministers and others in the higher echelons of government are unashamedly guilty of massive corruption is the AG trying to say that the administration is Lily White as regards corruption?

    I would like to give the AG an example of how security matters are treated in the civilized world. Salman Rashdie an ordinary citizen in the U.K. is given 100% security by the government at great expense to protect him from the threat of FATWA. Does the AG think that,too, is corruption?

  • 22 Dec 2009 02:11:30 GMT

    Sarath fonseka has enough security including his son in law arm dealer danuna tilakeratne given with 2 vehicles and 6 peopole to gard him in oklahoma USA

    WOW