The armed forces are irked by comments by a UN human rights official. Palace says it will relent and release the Melo report. Ernesto Hilario thinks the UN official’s pressure may be cause for hope for human rights advocates.
Despite an attempt by Philippine Commentary to propose a definition of terrorism, the fact remains that we are about to enter an era in which legislation defines terrorism in terms of existing crimes- piracy or mutiny on the high seas; rebellion or insurrection; coup d’etat (“including acts committed by private persons”); murder; kidnapping; “crimes involving destruction”; arson; toxic or nuclear waste transport violations; hi-jacking; highway robbery; illegal trade, manufacture, or possession of firearms or explosives; -and perpetrating those crimes to engage in terrorism, which the law defines as:
[the above acts and the commission of which] “thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism.”
Any group can be declared a terrorist organization if it is organized for the purpose of conducting terrorism, or which “although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” This could range, depending on those wanting to enforce it, on anything ranging from wearing a t-shirt, to a strike, a protest, a rally, a religious gathering, etc., etc., etc.
In other words, terrorism itself is not clearly defined: or to be precise, it is designed in terms of a convenience -it gives to the executive branch of government a breadth of discretion no executive should be given on such a scale for something so unclear as “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic” for “unlawful demands”.
More useful to my mind, would have been the creation of some sort of mechanism, perhaps a special Anti Terror Tribunal, to authorize either the thwarting of a terrorist conspiracy in progress, or to apprehend and punish the perpetrators on a case to case basis.
Let us assume that terrorism is like smut. As an American supreme court justice famously put it, “I couldn’t define pornography for you but I know it when I see it.” Could a law to prevent 911 have been crafted? Only after the fact; and to punish its perpetrators and prevent a similar atrocity.
Therefore: if there is a valid case to clamp down on those involved in a terrorist conspiracy, why not a special tribunal that would use some sort of judicial benchmarks, instead of what is the equivalent of a carte blanche for the executive branch? If it is to punish an act, let it begin with an official consensus on an act being a case of terrorism. Let the chief executive transmit to Congress a request for a joint resolution stating an act was terrorism, and authorizing the security and armed forces to utilize the law for an identified target. Surely public opinion would then have a chance to either temper or validate such a call.
Instead, what the law sets up is a new cabinet cluster to handle the application of the law: composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of National Defense, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary of Finance.
Most of all, as I advocated some time back, the law does not carry in it any expiration date, which would require a review of the law prior to its reenactment. See the mechanisms involved in Canada’s Anti Terrorism Act. The handling of terrorism-related investigations has caused a political ruckus in Canada, and a furious debate which serves as a cautionary tale. This law is the tail end of our pandering puppy like devotion to Bush’s War on Terror just when the rest of the world is debating whether the whole thing has created more problems than it tried to address.
Here is the text of the anti terrorism act. It’s from the PCIJ blog. Whoever their source was left interesting marginal notes on their copy of the bill.
Incidentally, a law of this magnitude was arrived at with very few opportunities for the public to find out what was under discussion or what was even approved. The websites of both chambers of Congress have not published the proposed bills or amendments in a timely fashion; there is no way of finding out exactly who voted for or against; when the law is signed, it will be published in the newspapers (at several hundred thousand pesos per publication, which makes the papers happy, and allows Congress to play favorites by deciding where to make placements) but no useful, accessible record will be created. The Official Gazette remains off line, it is not updated properly, it is not distributed widely, it cannot be referenced conveniently.
My column for today is An Assessment, it reprints an article commissioned by Katipunan Magazine.
Finally, I’d like to share some thoughts, for discussion, on the economy as it actually is, and how it could be, from an economist, Filomeno Sta. Ana III, of the Action for Economic Reforms (emphasis added is mine):
To achieve sustainable, equitable growth, the economy must grow above 6.5 percent over the long term (20-25 years), as the examples of successful high-growth countries like China, Vietnam and India show.
And such growth comes from sustained investments, which likewise create jobs.
Present growth is below six percent. It is mainly driven by consumption, thanks to OFW remittances. (The OFW phenomenon, to be sure is a symptom of a larger problem – that our economy can’t provide quality jobs to the labor force.) Consumption-led growth cannot be sustained.
So the key is to spur investments. But investments that will create production and jobs are scarce. There is lack of investor confidence in the country. Among the reasons are: the political instability brought about by serious questions on GMA’s legitimacy, the unpredictability of policy and the reversal of rules of the game (think PIATCO), weak infrastructure (government under-spending in infrastructure), peace and order, widespread and massive corruption, etc….
Moreover, the growth that GMA boasts of has bypassed the majority. The SWS survey showed that the increase in hunger incidence last year was the highest recorded in recent history.
Further, unemployment and underemployment remain high. More than a fourth of the labor force are either unemployed or underemployed. What is likewise not revealed by the official statistics is that the quality of employment for those who have work is poor.
For example, counted as among the employed are “those who do any work for one hour during the reference period for pay or profit, or work without pay on the farm or business enterprise operated by a member of the same household related by blood, marriage or adoption.” (Definition comes from the National Statistical Coordination Board.)
In the same vein, many of those employed are engaged in activities, especially in rural areas, that have low productivity. In the rural areas, much of the labor is unpaid. Poverty-level wages are the norm, even in urban areas. The minimum wage cannot even be enforced.
So the irony is this: there is growth, stock market is bullish, hot money flows BUT there is an employment crisis, as productive sectors of the economy cannot generate enough high-productivity jobs.
What can then be done to spur investments for long-term growth and generate quality jobs?It is mainly a political question (review the obstacles to investments, and the conclusion one gets is that the institutions are the prime culprit)…
In relation to economic policies, the key measures that should be done (measures that GMA failed to do) are:
1. Increase spending for public investments that will strengthen the country’s resources; specifically give priority to spending on infrastructure, education, health and nutrition. During GMA’s period, spending for these sectors has gone down in real term or in per capita terms.
2. Create conditions for higher productivity by providing ample budgetary and institutional support for research and technology, agriculture extension services, access to credit, and the like.
3. Address the perennial problem of low taxes by improving tax collection (instead of raising taxes that affect the poor), introducing progressive and equity-oriented consumption taxes, and reducing graft and corruption. GMA has mainly depended on under-spending and anti-poor taxation to narrow the fiscal deficit.
4. Arrest the further appreciation of the peso, which is harmful to Filipino exporters and producers for the domestic market (who have to compete with cheaper imports). The strong peso also means less income for the OFW dependents.
5. Provide targeted incentives to investments that will create jobs and promote technological innovation, but making sure that such incentives lead to greater social benefits and will not be abused by vested interests. In this regard, an industrial and technology policy for the long term is required.
6. In the meantime, as a short-term measure, immediate relief has to be given to production, employment and income. Among the options are correction of exchange rate, accessible credit, and a slight adjustment of tariffs (which are in fact very low).
Technorati Tags: elections, philippines, politics, president, Senate
The eyes of the world is seeing the acts of inhumanity, and the UN has responded. It is hope. The cloud of deceit cannot prevail in these times.
Terrorism is indeed a grave threat, but what is even more threatening is our civil liberties being lost. The vagueness of the recent anti-terror bill is lacking in clarity, and is still cause for concern.
MLQ3 is correct. To have a monopoly by the executive branch and its cabinet, on the implementation, and overseeing of this bill, is alarming.
Whew! Is Sta. Ana III nuts what he is proposing is heresy to the precise free market paradigm that everyone in the higher echelons of government have been pushing since day one of Marcos, Cory, Ramos, Erap and GMA.
Where does he get off proposing the precise formula that made China move like a freight train after Mao and Deng.
God forbid anyone would listen to Sta. Ana’s heresies.
Burn him at the stake before Salceda hears him and orders him to be skinned alive instead.
Please allow me to add why some jihadists for trade liberalization are all wet since the world in a time of financial excessess which is driving our vaunted consumption economy is in a very very delicate state.
GMA and Salceda are playing with a double edged sword when they court the vanguards of surplus capital as they could turn on you on a dime and we all pay the bills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001291.html
“Global finance is mysterious, exciting and sometimes reckless. A specter now haunts it — the specter of excess “liquidity.” Will this prove a passing anxiety or, as in 1997 and 1998 with the Asian financial crisis, will it threaten the stability of the entire global economy? Good question.” Robert J. Samuelson
I personally believe that Pacquiao will be a better Congressman than Escudero as Senator for this country.
MLQ3,
I think it is misleading to give the impression that there are no safeguards built into the law. The Anti Terrorism Council implements the law, but the Court of Appeals and Congress Oversight Committee are clearly there to check abuses. At first, they were going to leave it to RTC judges to perform judicial oversight, but a large number of people, including myself, pointed this out to Senators and their staff, that even in the US, special courts have been organized to supervise implementation of intelligence and surveillance and there are LISTS of terrorist organizations which are annually reviewed. I would have preferred a special court, like FISA, to directly supervise and oversee the law’s proper implementation.
In fact, with that 500,000 peso “mistaken” arrest clause, police authorities are wondering if the bill doesn’t actually give leftists and terrorists a big break by chilling the authorities into doubt and inaction.
Moreover, it is dumb and silly for such an important law to be automatically suspended one month before and 2 months after every election.
It is on these aspects of it that attempts at reductio ad absurdum arguments ought to be targetted. The hypotheticals that folks like Lisa Maza have been peddling are patently arguments meant to shield the CPP NPA from its violent and illegal criminal activities, organized extortion, kidnapping and yes, terrorism.
I give as a recent example of a patently terroristic act, at least under my definition of the term, the recent torching of Natonin, Mt. Province schools by NPA terrorists — because its principal refused to give the guerillas 300,000 pesos he didn’t have.
What about the civil rights of those Igorot children? Do we care about them? Is a charge of arson enough to deter the inhuman ideologues who insist that they have a right to teach communism in the schools because it is included in the curriculum, that they should be supported by the public coffers, or else they will burn the schools down?
What about the assasinations of local officials, police and military men adjudged guilty by secret kangaroo courts of the NPA? Don’t they have any rights by your lights?
Of what use is civil liberty if human life has been snuffed out? How can happiness be pursued under a reign of terror imposed by thuggish ideologies and totalitarian notions that the end justifies violent and criminal means?
We should be vigilant against abuse by fascists, but terrorism is an extraordinary challenge, not least in the Philippines where there are clearly two different kinds that are helping each other tacitly and even openly.
The law can be upheld justly, but it won’t be automatic. It is no guarantee that terrorism can be stopped either, especially in such a state where Aquilino Pimentel and Jamby Madrigal have had their way with it.
Heck we held Mrs. Dulmatin for a few weeks then paid for airfare back to the waiting arms of the Jemaah Islamiyah. The law says we were only allowed to hold her for three days.
The rationale of acting against terrorists. Targeting unknown unknowns and killing them before they become known unknowns or known knowns.
By “Stuff Happens Rumsfeld” described recently by John McCain as the worst defense secretary the U.S. has ever had.
“At a press conference at NATO Headquarters in Brussels in June 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said: “Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no ‘knowns.’ There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that’s basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.”
So far as reported by the Daily Reckoning ( financial news letter the War on Terror has resulted in the ffg.
The war in Iraq was such an obvious error. The French said it wouldn’t work. Maggie Thatcher said she’d have no part of it. Even we saw the calamity coming. As far as we can tell, only three groups come out ahead: Osama bin Laden, who now has the Great Satan pinned down in the Middle
East where it is wasting its resources while radicalizing Muslim youth;the Israelis, who now have the United States just where they want it (if anyone wants to destroy Israel now, they’ll have to do it over the U.S.’s dead body); and U.S. defense contractors, who are making off with a
fortune in war booty.
Oh I forgot, the many young felons in the U.S. who are getting waivers if they go and fight in Iraq.
February 20, 2007
Editorial
Moral Waivers and the Military
The Iraq war has plunged the Army into a vicious cycle of declining standards. Multiple, extended tours of duty have sapped morale and blighted recruiting. New plans for a larger overall force could reduce pressures but would also mean that recruiters would have to meet higher quotas.
To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of “moral waivers,†which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks.
Last year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women  or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America’s four military services.
Most of last year’s Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900  double the number in 2003  were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems. Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.
There is a long and honorable history of young people who have had minor scrapes with the law joining the military and successfully turning their lives around. But those who have committed more serious crimes, especially those involving weapons, vehicular homicide or sexual abuse, should generally be denied moral waivers. And those who do qualify for waivers should be monitored, counseled and carefully supervised.
The fastest way to drop the rate of moral waivers would be for the Army to rebuild its recently tarnished reputation among less problematic young Americans. That will require an end to involuntarily extended tours of duty and accelerated, multiple redeployments into combat. The military is America’s face to much of the world. It ought to present the best face of American youth.
HVRDS–You are a cut-n-paste idiotarian when you insult America’s armed forces as a bunch of felons. No group of young men and women deserve the world’s thanks more than them for all that they do, even in strange places like Guinsaugon. Attack the policy of the leaders all you want, but have a little decency when it comes to the brave and selfless giants of humanity.
MLQ3,
That the legislation defines terrorism in terms of existing crimes is a logical necessity, and indeed, it is also the essence of my own definition. These whole of these component crimes is greater than the sum of them precisely because murders, kidnappings, extortion, blackmail and even the use of illegal land mines are not done for their own sake, or even, as the law claims, to sow fear and panic, but precisely to advance the ideological and political program of the organized criminal syndicate that carries them out, like the CPP-NPA and Al Qaeda. Their leaders are of course perfectly willing to allow individual members to do things with whatever motivation human beings are capable of. Which is why it is not sufficient to deal with the component crimes of the terrorist movement. It’s really quite an unfortunate term since we ought not to panic or fear these hypocrites at all, but call them what they are: organized criminals out to destroy society and impose their will on all because they think only they stand for the good or know what is best for us.
Is the Human Security Act of 2007 more an internal security act or part of the global war on terror?
I have a few friends in the States who are Irish Catholic.
In the East coast most especially in the Boston area the Irish cause was funded and supported not only amongst the Irish-American working class but several U.S. officials.
That struggle lasted hundreds of years. Off course in modern times the IRA used modern weaponry in bombings in London. Gerry Adams the head of Sein Fein a former IRA commander will sit in as a legislator in Northern Ireland.
He most surely has blood on his hands as does Tony Blair. Yet both men have met and sat down to talk peace.
The Song from Londonderry (Danny Boy) the anthem of the Irish people which was a love song turned call to arms by the IRA will probably again become a love song.
Insurgencies are dirty wars. Both sides engage in it. The one who loses his cool usually loses in the long run.
The left in the Philippines have their political fronts.
They also have their armed wings. They are in effect a shadow government. It seems that this Human Security Act was specifically formulated for internal security and not have anything to do with the global Muslim insurgency. All countries that have had Marxist insurgencies in Asia solved the problem through a combination of soft and hard power. Marxists share power in the Indian legislature with the Congress party in India. In one poor state there is a Maoist insurgency ongoing. The State of Bengal is run by the Communists. India still has a long way to go with its massive population.
All under the U.S. tutelage are wallowing in poverty.
Here the Philippines the U.S. allowed corrupt and weak governments because it was easier to control a vassal state.
The Philippine state did not have the opportunity and freedom to develop economically and politically. The Philippines does not have the luxury of power economically to become neutral.
The U.S. is talking today to Abbas who represents the Fatah party of Palestine. Part of the Fatah party is their Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade. The last bombing in Israel was done by this group. Men, women and children have been blown to bits by them. They are engaged in a struggle with Hamas.
Enrile and Marcos tried the way of hard power. It eventually brought them down. Now the U.S. is directly involved in the insurgency in the Philippines. Just like it was in the 50’s and at the turn of the century.
Now the govenrment is going to start mouthing slogans that
the insurgency is the cause of underdevelopment and a bar to continued economic development. I can see it coming.
That means anyone who questions her economic polcies is aiding and abeting terrorists. How things change and yet they remain the same. It is Marcos all over again. It is a throwback to the sixties. Must we go through all that again.
To those who look at the authoritarian ways of China to develop please note that the social ferment in China which is brewing is the greatest threat to the government in power and they have to move to build institutions of social safety nets quickly otherwise Tianeman Square will just have been a tea party.
They are slowly industrializing and plan to move almost 300 more million people from the rural areas to cities in two decades without harming a hair on peoples heads. It has never been done.
They continue to isolate their economy from unrestricted fund flows.
Thanks DJB.
He-he! “Cut-n-paste idiotarian”. Great and apt term.
MLQ3
What I like in this blog is the obvious high intelligent discussion of issues apart from knowledge one gains from economist & political analyst on both sides of the political divide unlike other blogs which preach the dictum of hate and intolerance to other opinion if it is contrary to their own.
DJB obviously feels good that the anti-terror law is now in the hands of Gloria. Better her than those towel-heads and commies right? Besides Gloria is just a pimple in the face of global neo-conservatism and pimples are part of growing up.
DJB,
Terrorism cannot be defined. I’ll give you an example.
Extortion and extortionists. They use terror to achieve their ends.
What disqualifies extortionists from your definition of terror? They lack a political and/or religious agenda. Their goal is purely criminal.
There is, you might say, a qualitative difference between a terrorist organization and an extortion syndicate.
And that’s where the anti-terror law is exposed for what it really is – an attempt to label as enemies of civilization those organizations that pursue political and/or religious groups opposed to yours.
The methods you use to defend and advance your state ideology and/or religion are as violent as the ones terrorists use to topple it. In short, we cannot make any distinction in the quality of violence involved. Except that one comes from “the government”. Never mind if that government is Robert Mugabe or little Kimi.
So one can even say those acts of violence are as immoral and illegal except that since it is the government in power, it’s actions are covered with a veneer of legitimacy and authority. Again never mind if its Mugabe or Kimi
If we pursue this line of argument we will take the next step which is to start labeling sovereign states as rogue states, terrorist states or what-not. So now make the leap from terror organizations to terror states. This is the neo-con leap.
Terror states or rogue regimes are now fair game for your neo-cons charging on their whitehorses to save the world from whatever the fuck it is they don’t like at the moment and to bless the world with whatever the fuck it is they believe at the moment.
All that would be fine except that nobody likes or believes in the neo-con ideology except the neo-cons themselves.
So now let’s go back to what you said in your blog –
“I think one indication of a terrorist position is when someone calls for and works toward the overthrow of a given social system, but won’t do it publicly, openly and peacefully. ”
Neo-cons have never registerd themselves as a political party, they have no card carrying members, they do not even want to be labeled as such. But they do want to overthrow the given social order for the heaven on earth they believe in. But they won’t do it publicly, openly and peacefully. They disguise themselves as freedom loving, free market thinkers but like Joma they want to impose their ideology on the world.
They, like Joma. work through fronts. Think tanks, their own publications, as members of the Democratic or Republican party (they switch when convenuent) and they get themselves appointed to positions in governments whenever a “soft” government is in power (think Reagan and Dubya but his dad who is a true conservative is an enemy) They like Joma are all advisers to a prty that does not exist. A party with no clear heirarchy.
So shouldn’t we also label neo-cons as terrorists?
this appeared today in the independent. a similar article was printed in the times a few days ago, unfortunately, the site is done at the moment.
just want to share with y’all.
———-
Philippines army accused of killing political activists
By Justin Huggler, Asia Correspondent
Published: 22 February 2007
Many of the hundreds of unsolved killings of political activists in the Philippines were carried out by the military, a United Nations special envoy said yesterday.
The findings of Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, are a damning indictment of the government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and have shaken the Filipino establishment.
Since President Arroyo came to power in 2001, at least 832 people have been killed or gone missing under mysterious circumstances, 356 of them were left-wing political activists according to a local human rights group, Karapatan.
After a 10-day fact-finding mission to the Philippines, Mr Alston said he was convinced a “significant” number of the killings could be linked to the armed forces. Although he was unable to give an exact figure, Mr Alston said: “I am certain the number is high enough to be distressing”.
The Philippines has been fighting a communist insurgency by the New People’s Army (NPA) that has cost 40,000 lives since 1969. Last year Ms Arroyo declared “all-out war” on the communists. The country is also facing various Muslim insurgent groups.
Mr Alston said he did not believe Ms Arroyo had personally ordered the killings, and instead laid the blame at the feet of the military. “I do not believe that there’s a policy at the top designed to direct that these killings take place,” he said.
The military has long claimed the unsolved killings were a purge of its own ranks by the NPA. But Mr Alston said that theory was “especially unconvincing”.
“The armed forces remains in a state of almost total denial of its need to respond … to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them,” he said.
“The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways. It intimidates vast numbers of civil society actors, it sends a message of vulnerability to all but the most well-connected, and it severely undermines the political discourse which is central to a resolution of the problems confronting this country.”
Some sections of President Arroyo’s government reacted furiously to Mr Alston’s findings. “We will not accept that we are in denial because we opened the doors of our country to him,” said the Justice Secretary, Raul Gonzalez. “That’s the problem with people who come here for one week and become experts afterwards.”
But other were more conciliatory. “No right-thinking government or leader will tolerate such things happening and that’s the reason why we’re looking into it,” the Executive Secretary, Eduardo Ermita, told reporters. “It is the policy of the state to look into it and put a stop to it?”
The Philippines government ordered its own inquiry some time ago, but Ms Arroyo has refused to release the findings until now. The commission, headed by a former Supreme Court Justice, Jose Melo, is believed to have found that the killings were carried out by a small group within the military. The government has now announced that the commission’s report will be released today.
Some senior officers have suggested that rogue elements within the military were responsible. But Mr Alston said if that was the case, the military “needs to… indicate what investigations and prosecutions have been undertaken in response”.
The army hierarchy has reacted angrily even to the suggestion that some rogue elements may have been behind the killings. The Associated Press reported it had seen a copy of a strongly worded letter from the chief of staff, General Hermogenes Esperon, to the Justice Melo commission, in which he dismisses its findings.
hvrds, kudos on your analysis (at 2:37pm), especially on your warning about the brewing social ferment in China.
mlq3, on your points of discussion, i think Sta. Ana’s analysis is enlightening seeing that it comes from real (as opposed to make-believe) economic analysis. The piece of economic information that would be helpful is the portion of our economic growth can be attributed to growth in Total Factor Productivity (TFP), as opposed to an increase in inputs. This would give an indication on whether an increase in investments is forthcoming and whether it can be sustained. Any pointers on this would be appreciated.
From a cut and paste idiotarian to my favorite jihadist Bocobo.
Right now most of the GI’s serving in Iraq are from the bottom of the income and social scale. They are mostly from small town America and inner cities and most of them are also weekend warriors. America always picks the guys with little choices to do the fighting. They are mostly not in Iraq for defending freedom. Hence the need for hiring felons.
Why aren’t Americans volunteering in droves for your glorius crusade. Bush is telling the American people to keep on shopping to support the troops. Hey did you hear about the scandal in Washington about the hospitals where the wounded are being treated. They are getting screwed by their own government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022101179.html
When the U.S. did not have any boots on the ground in Tora Bora because W. and Cheney wanted to go after Saddam, Usama got away when they had him. Your Gods gave Usama exactly what he was praying for. The Crusaders entered Iraq.
You like to stroke yourself in waving the flag of a warrior for guys that you feel are dying for a cause. Your idol Rummy thought that shock and awe would work and you do not need boots on the ground for occupying a country. Hey killing wholesale like you want is not PC today. It was common practice for the white men to kill colored coolies by the thousands back when they took the Philippines. Now the bleeding hearts complain You do it a little at a time. It eventually climbs up.
You are so much like W. As long as it is not his blood. Why don’t you organize a voluteer group as there are many organizations that are looking just for guys like you to go and fight or provide support in Iraq or in Afghanistan. They could even use a guy like you to drive trucks to supply the guys in the green zone. You could make a fortune in the black market as the best of everything is available there cheap in the PX stores. I might be able to arrange a free trip for you through some guys I know who are doing contract work for some companies setting up businesses there.
Hey it is just like Nam over there. Go out on patrols during the day and then go back to the firebase for pizza and beer. I have got friends who served there. The best past time is porn movies and waiting for your time to get over to get home.
They are not there for a act of defending their country. You have created a glorious crusade in your mind as long as you are away from the blood and guts of the fight.
Their blood and guts and you extoling some stupid crusade in your warped mind. DFid you play with GI Joes and are you still playing with them today?
You want to join the battle why dont you.
You can start by mouthing slogans like the people you want to pulverize..
You could watch out for ads put out by KBR/Halliburton here and at least they tell you straight that you are going into a war zone.
The smell of war and burnt bodies might give you a high to get you off.
My problem with ‘terrorism’ and ‘global terrorism’ in general is who defines it. I always feel a significant amount of fear whenever the United States of America defines important issues. Now, my problem with the recently passed anti-terrorism bill is Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
If the act of terrorism in simple definition means ‘to sow fear,’ then my goodness there are a lot of terrorists in the government. Di ba?
The bogey of terrorism being impossible to define is the same bogey that EVIL cannot be defined. It is the Father of Lies that invented that bogey and it is taken up today by the defenders of terrorists because they see politics mainly as a spectator sport.
But I take my lessons from the First Neo-Con, Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, a thing also derided in his day as politically incorrect in the liberal context of the Cold War (during which the human experiment that proved Communism to be an unworkable and unsustainable system had not yet been completed).
I say the CPP NPA is an evil, criminally-minded and -intended organization. Their cadre are trained to lie about their associations, their true beliefs and their hidden activities. That is why there is not a single person who will admit to being an NPA and CPP member in public and proudly. Why? Because they know that most won’t support their violent and surreptitious means of seeking power.
The problem we have of course is that as civil libertarians and democrats we must defend the freedoms of all citizens, UNLESS they turn to violence. But if they will not admit their associations, nor will they denounce the CPP-NPA for their violent revolutionary ideology, then neither can they be opposed by peaceful means alone.
The anti-terror bill is an Act of Self-Defense against an organized and determined conspiracy to impose totalitarian rule.
I detest the hypocrisy of those who would make them their proxy in a fight against equally corrupt, hypocritical and violent people like GMA, Palparan and the rightist death squads the military is supposed to be deploying against the communists.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The end never justifies the means. These are eternal principles. If you adhere to them, honestly, in your heart and mind, these issues all assume a clarity that liberalism only clouds by forgetting them.
MB,
In the example you give, there is a big difference between a group of extortionists who are only after money versus those, like the NPA terrorists who torched three Mt. Province Schools, who did it for clearly partisan political purposes, such as intimidating the local folks into submission and demanding money to support their egregious activities. Charging with arson the soldati, does not get at the cadre-capo that planned, ordered and benefits from the extortion activity far more than economically. For now, even the Igorot children must fear what might come next as a result of a simple email from Utrecht. Who knows, but perhaps they are already giving up their carabaos and chickens to what you might call “freedom fighters of Joma?”
That is what makes them “terrorists” in my book, not just ordinary criminal gangs.
Terrorism is organized crime for ideological and political purposes. Its component crimes are petty in comparison. To insist that we stick to the Revised Penal Code in order to deal with the scourge is simply indefensible.
The burnings-cum-extortion-cum-intimidation in Natonin clearly qualifies as terrorist acts by the New People’s Army and the CPP that guides it to perdition.
If some people refuse to denounce the Iraq War, which is the result of the Neocon’s own violent revolutionary ideology, does if follow that “neither can they be opposed by peaceful means alone“? We haven’t even come up with a proper definition of terrorism, now we have to contend with defining what is meant by associations. Those two blurry concepts in combination will further encourage the prevaling culture of impunity i.e. (‘terrorism’ + ‘association’) x government paranoia = human rights violations.
DJB,
I already did you the favor of pointing out the difference – “What disqualifies extortionists from your definition of terror? They lack a political and/or religious agenda. Their goal is purely criminal.”
Now do me the favor of responding to the points I raised.
And by the way, Reagan is not the First neo-con. He was only the first Dubya, a plaything of neocons. Remember the time when neocons thought Dan Quayle would be their ticket back to power? They backed him until they saw that Dubya had a better chance of winning and they realized he was just as stupid as Quayle.
As a neocon you should know the history of your movement. Do not desecrate the Founding Fathers of your movement by calling Reagan the First Neocon.
You should revere the memory of the University of Chicago economics professor whose theories guided a whole generation of IMF and World Bank types who consequently wreaked havoc on third world economies; the memory of the same school’s philosophy professor, the father of Madeline Albright, who gave neocons the kind of moral certainty and rectitude they claim to possess exclusively,; and the great mathematician and Rand corporation analyst who taught them about bureaucratic infighting and who singlehandedly turned US nuclear foreign policy from MAD to Star Wars.
Oh am I’m sorry I forgot to mention that father and son who ran that magazine.
Funny also how many of their acolytes like Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristols etc are related by marriage and all that.
DJB,
“Two wrongs don’t make a right. The end never justifies the means. These are eternal principles.”
Well, when all the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq were exposed as fabrications and lies, what became the neocon justification? Wasn’t it democracy?
So was it alright to lie and fabricate to attain the end which was democracy?
Rhetoric and reality that’s the unbridgeable gap for neocons.
The poponents of the anti-terror bill are like Bong Austero. They are willing to sacrifice something real, their freedom, for a false sense of security.
As if I am reading an essay of a student on Economic Development. Hohum.
What is scary is the composition of the Ant-terrorism council. If you have the same people who are running the DILG, the DoJ and the NSA, what guarantee does the people have that the law will not be abused? This is what is scary, not the law. These three are so notorious at abusing and circumventing the laws.
Raul Gonzalez has got to be the stupidest Justice Secretary in the world. His comments on the UN report further proves he has shit for a brain. I can’t believe someone of his subterranean intellect is even in office!
Keynesian. There had been criticisms against this school of thought.
Aw, c’mon Hvrds, you don’t mean that now, do you? Asking DJB to “organize a voluteer group … to go and fight or provide support in Iraq or in Afghanistan.”?
We already have a half-demented US Gen MacNeil (who thinks he’s Gen Custer reincarnated) in Afghanistan applying the same tactics that failed the Soviets there.
Am not saying that DJB is someone closely resembling MacNeil, not at all but asking him to fight or support US troops in Afghanistan ain’t gonna help NATO forces there.
Let DJB sort out the CPP-NPAs, more his cup of tea.
But it is not the simple definition, di ba?
TRUE. I don’t think the people in Congress are so shortsighted to believe that this law is only during GMA’s regime.
The United States will never escape from its responsibilities in Iraq, no more than it could escape from its responsibilities in the Philippines. It would not be in the character of the American people to shut the world out from their Continent, which, if they were a less generous and decent people, they could easily do. No matter what myths are spun about how “Iraq” as an historical event started, the world cannot shut its eyes to the need for democratization in the Middle East, no more than we can shut our eyes to the need for Filipinos to defend democracy against those who would destroy it.
That is what people criticizing the anti-terror bill ought to keep in mind. One day we shall have a decent President, a loyal and professional military, and a truly patriotic citizenry, but only if we do not give in to the perceived ideological and political needs of the moment. We shall lose the chance for moral consistency, in Law and in action, if we don’t stand for principles because we think doing so might benefit the incumbent in Malacanang.
Besides, does anyone here actually disagree that the CPP NPA is an organized crime syndicate with political and ideological ends that they think justify their means?
Or are you not willing to say what you really think? I just want to know if I’m really the only “neocon” around here.
Cat,
The people in Congress wh advocated, proposed, and voted for that law are that shortsighted. And they are rushed its passing so that GMA could enjoy its benefits.
MB,
I predict that ironically Philip Alston will cause a large and significant upsurge in extrajudicial killings by the CPPNPA, who will use his report to JUSTIFY a new wave of assassinations, attacks and offensives on military, police, government. Sensing how paralyzed the citizenry are, and how successful the propaganda campaign has been to villify the government and the military, there is no stopping such a “Tet Offensive.” As I recall, the count of how many leftists were dying started about the same time that GMA promised an anti terror bill to our allies in the West and Asean. They count even those they probably killed themselves along with Palparan’s victims. They aren’t any different than him, since he is himself the kind of military man that decided he would fight as dirty as they do. After they were deprived of millions of dollars in financing by Euroleftists, they saw this anti terror bill coming and have done everything to delay its passage. Now that it is here, they have to ratchet up the stakes because the terrorist label really does stick where people see the sense of it. I’m sure the Kankana-ey of Natonin know the NPA are terrorists even if we cappucino-sippers don’t seem to.
Their definition of terrorist is in the cold ashes of those three schools torched by someone else’s “freedom-fighters”.
So Enrile is shortsighted.
Oh wow, now i can appreciate very well the presence of HVRDS, DJB, and Manuel Buencamino in this blog. Very very interesting “wrestling of ideas and opinions”
mas nakakarelate ako sa stand ni DJB. I believe its because I have two close relatives that where excuted by the NPAs. Then a portion of our land was occupied by NPAs na pinaghirapan naman ng tatay at nanay ko na mabili….
I m leaning towards being a neocon? How active the neocons are in the Phil? DJB, if you dont mind, are you really a neocon.? If DJB is a neocon, what does that makes HVRDS and MB?Anti Neocon or there a more more appropriate tag.
Sensya na. I was googling the term neo con but I just dont have the luxury of time to digest all those links.
Rego, if you want to learn about the neocon’s handiwork, why don’t you go to Iraq so you can see for yourself? That would be a good crash course, better than google.
Naming the anti-terrorism bill as the Human Security Act of 2007 is misleading and debases the term ‘Human Security’ that has been defined comprehensibly in unambiguous terms.(http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Human+security)
The concept of human security, imho, has become necessary for man in his struggle to survive as human beings amidst and immersed in a dehumanizing culture in which terrorism has become a compelling reality. We are compelled to make a choice: to be or not to be – human beings.
What choice do we have in the anti-terrorism law?
djb, mb,
General Palparan face-to-face Ka Roger in the Ultimate Extra-Judicial Challenge
Would you take the opposing sides?
DJB… there is probably at least one person in here who looks with romantic adulation, if not outright adulation, at the CPP/NPA.
Folks should be reminded, though, that the EU (also) and the US State Department considers the CPP/NPA as a terrorist organization (and that Joma’s name is front-and-center, namely JoMa is mentioned outright). MOREOVER, it is policy both for the EU and US-State Department to regularly review the organizations/people on their list of terrorists to identify which folks may have died already, or better, which organizations have made statements of renunciation and actual changes so the terrorist tag (and penalties, e.g. asset-freeze) can be lifted. Organizations/people on the list also can make presentations to the EU (and US-State Department) as to why they should be removed from the list.
The CPP/NPA remains on the EU and US-of-A (plus Canadian, Italian, the INTERPOL and even the UN) list.
UPn student :
There is probably at least one person in here who looks with romantic adulation, if not outright adulation, at the EU and US of A.
Folks should be reminded, though, that the members of the EU (also) and the US of A could be considered, at one time or another, as a terrorist states.
As MLQ3 said, it’s all very subjective.
These are recycled older entries of mine, which I wish to share in this exchange since the issue about the Terror Law is hot again.
xxx
Sans the doctrinal sieves, how do we re-conceptualize terrorism?
Let me offer some other frame of discourse than those already formulated by scholars like Dr. Victor Ramraj.
First, if a person or a group is labeled as the villainous “terrorist,†the other person or group is likely to assume the starring role, the “counter-terrorist†(or the “anti-terroristâ€Â). Save for the casting process which could well be directed by the one who has unilaterally appropriated the more benign character, this might still look innocuous.
Outside of the terrorist/freedom fighter context, what if the role-playing were also transformed in some Biblical sense, say, in a David /Goliath conflict. Who should logically be called one or the other?
People who are routinely blowing themselves up (maybe because they could not afford a missile or a gunship helicopter) could not plausibly be pigeonholed into a Goliath role? And how could the most powerful actor in the world, at least militarily, be co-starred as boy David? The casting of the protagonists won’t just hold up, it seems . . . President Arroyo blew it, did she not, when she tried to play the “victim†of the schoolyard bully because the forced analogy was ridiculous or funny at best, many thought.
Professing to avoid being “political,†Dr. Ramraj writes that “focusing instead on the acts of violence themselves and on the specific methods of terrorism might be more fruitful than trying to formulate a definition (of terrorism) acceptable to all.â€Â
My problem about the rather nuanced assessment of Dr Ramraj is that it immediately and conveniently excludes from the discursive analysis the “acts of violence†and the “specific methods†of ANTI-TERRORISM with the effect of rendering those “acts†and “methods†as innocent and acceptable to be begin with except for certain concerns — e.g., potential violation of procedural and substantive due process as regards the “rights†of the suspected terrorist or the expansive role of the executive vis-à-vis the restrictive scope of judicial review — Dr. Ramraj has identified within the range of discourse thus narrowed.
Think about this: supposing the masterminds in the 9-11 attacks were unmistakably identified and there were convincing speculations they were hiding in London but exact whereabouts were not known. Would intense air raids by Americans over London (well, using smart bombs) be “justified†as legitimate “acts of violence†in the guise of counter-terrorism?
Even if the Americans, in our hypothetical, did not carry the threats to shell London or carpet bomb the outskirts of the city to spare no terrorists attempting to escape, the months of preparation to war against the terrorists supposedly hiding in London who would have “terrified†the whole city no end.
The twist: the terrorists were actually hiding in Iraq and Afghanistan (And no Al Qaeda operatives and nuclear weapons found in Britain ?). Oops.
“But we can’t bomb the Iraqis and Afghans now,†the hawks in Washington muttered, “they are too pretty and too cosmopolitan to suffer or die like the Brits.â€Â
. . . “There’s so much ‘terror,’†I wrote in my book, “happening in our midst today but we don’t see it, because it is not readily visible. Not being visible, we often don’t resent it. It is not suicide bomber but terrorism ‘on paper (that) hurt the most’ (says Raj Patel).†For example, . . . a statute that requires the precedence of a debt repayment to feeding the people, or a sanctions policy that kills millions.
xxx
“Terrorism†is still defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary as “a mode of governing . . . by intimidation†or “any policy of intimidation,†implying clearly that states are capable of committing terrorist acts. However, CIA’s Counterterrorist Center defines a terrorist act pursuant to Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,†thus potentially excluding state actors from the definition. The current pejorative meaning of terrorism directly linking it to Islamism or to extremist contrarian tactic against the advance of liberal ideology is therefore of recent concoction.
By some broad strokes, there could be three political conceptions of terrorism: 1) insurrection against a legitimate government; 2) a policy of violence or acts of intimidation by a government in violation of human rights; and 3) warfare in contravention of universally accepted rules of engagement (See Hardt and Negri, Multitude, 16-17).
On the first conception, is a government that has cheated its way to power in a rigged election a fair game to a Lockean right of revolution? On the second, is the recent spate of violence (murders and assassinations) in the Philippines involving for the most part journalists critical of the Arroyo government and left-leaning activists considered terrorism by a state actor? When the justifications for waging a war are based on “sexed up†intelligence, is the resulting violence within the acceptation of the third sense?
xxx
Remember these lines: “You are not a Filipino if you are against the peace and progress being offered by the Balikatan 2002. You are not a Filipino if you are against the help being offered by a friend. You are either for or against democracy, freedom and prosperity. There can be no bystanders�
In an old op-ed commentary of mine . . . , I’ve reacted to the above by saying “This is sounding more like a playact between a child and an adult, with the former gladly parroting the latter. As a parrot, GMA is attempting to solve the Mindanao conflict from the standpoint of subservience and myopia. This shameless repeat-after-George W. [“if you are not with us, you are against usâ€Â] stance is truly deplorable.â€Â
. . . The embarrassing . . . parroting has continued after the [waging of] Gulf War II, the GMA government this time employing such overused words as ‘embedded’ or ‘selective’ as in ‘embedded terrorist cells’ or ‘selective targets’ in the renewed Mindanao bombings. And when Indonesian terrorist, Al-Ghozi, was slain by the PNP, the cadaver was allowed to be publicly exhibited by the GMA government the way the mangled bodies of Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Odai and Qusai, were displayed to the American public as a tonic for a faltering US campaign in Iraq . . . .
Both Bush and Arroyo . . . have made the “war on terror†and free market capitalism their central concerns. She claims that her market reforms and the nation’s security are at risk in the (2004) election. So does he. He used the capture of Saddam to halt his falling popularity, albeit temporarily. She has tried, unsuccessfully, to use the domestic “war on terror†to bolster her flagging ratings . . . .
Arroyo, still the most unpopular president the country has ever had, apparently saw that even when losing ground a hard-hitting or bunker-busting policy against terrorists works. But there are no Al Qaedas roaming in the streets of Manila and suburbs, not even the homespun Abu Sayyaf. Who will absorb the parrot and stick? The Left.
As Arroyo dumbly equates the Left with terrorists, INQ7.net banners this headline: “Gov’t going full blast with NPA rebels.†Armed with a one-billion peso funding commitment to AFP and PNP for the eradication of the four-decade old communist insurgency, the little sister is zestfully marching behind the big brother again to crush their imagined foes in another aberrant but deadly playacting.
But the scripts don’t seem to fit according to Randy David: “Not all leftists advocate the violent overthrow of the State, and not all armed groups are leftist. To be Left is to think and speak radically about social problems; to be an armed rebel is to participate in the forcible overthrow of government. Our Constitution outlaws armed rebellion, but it resolutely protects freedom of thought and of speech.â€Â
Surely, there are brutal terrorists causing untold sufferings among innocent civilians in Iraq but there are also patriotic nationalists among Iraqis who are fighting to end the “illegal†occupation of their country. Yet, today everyone fighting the US in Iraq is a “terrorist†just as any critic – whether journalists, farmers, students, priests, activists and the like – of the Arroyo regime is leftist. Indeed, “both striking and surreal†are the similarities.
There’s one explanation. “But let’s not forget,†mlq3 warns, “that [President Arroyo] relies on the media planning and political advice of the same people who advise the Republicans in the United States .†That makes sense.
The Philippines is the First Iraq. This is not rhetoric. This is the history made by Americans and Filipinos and Iraqis alike.
Now it is ironic but true that it was America that gave colonialism and imperialism it’s first decisive kick into the grave. In 1776!
But America never became the colonial power that Europe’s empires were. Global leadership was not something she seized out of ambition, but was thrust on her by the failures of the rest of world and her own stunning successes.
I believe she came here because William MacKinley had a bad conscience over the genocide of the Indians that perturbed him no end, and so kneeling before his God, conceived the notion of “benevolent assimilation.” Why else would he cause William Howard Taft to establish the Dept. of Public Instruction in 1901, at the height of the Philippine American War? Why else would they send tens of thousands of their young men and women to teach us English, and awaken us from the Sleeping Centuries of Spain to the wonders of the world and of man?
They were also Abe Lincoln’s Republicans, emancipators of the Negroes or Nineteenth Century Neocons if you will, fired up by the yellow journalism of Randolf Hearst about the appalling and inhuman conditions in Cuba and the Philippines (now where did they get THAT idea?).
A hundred years whence, we find ourselves today, to be neither American nor Filipino nor Iraqi, but citizens of the future, looking at the past, deciding what we must do:
Resent it or play the Cruel Hand as God above dealt it.
But there is no avoiding or evading America. She is too large, too much a part of the future and the world. Indeed, she IS the future of the world, or else we shall have another Dark Age.
What the CPPNPA and the global jihad stand for are hate and destruction. That is why the Iraqi “insurgents” are killing Iraqis 150 to 1 American. That is why the Filipino terrorists are burning down Igorot school buildings.
Because they ARE someone else’s freedom fighters. Not ours.
That is why even those
The Philippines is the First Iraq. This is not rhetoric. This is the history made by Americans and Filipinos and Iraqis alike.
Now it is ironic but true that it was America that gave colonialism and imperialism it’s first decisive kick into the grave. In 1776!
But America never became the colonial power that Europe’s empires were. Global leadership was not something she seized out of ambition, but was thrust on her by the failures of the rest of world and her own stunning successes.
I believe she came here because William MacKinley had a bad conscience over the genocide of the Indians that perturbed him no end, and so kneeling before his God, conceived the notion of “benevolent assimilation.” Why else would he cause William Howard Taft to establish the Dept. of Public Instruction in 1901, at the height of the Philippine American War? Why else would they send tens of thousands of their young men and women to teach us English, and awaken us from the Sleeping Centuries of Spain to the wonders of the world and of man?
They were also Abe Lincoln’s Republicans, emancipators of the Negroes or Nineteenth Century Neocons if you will, fired up by the yellow journalism of Randolf Hearst about the appalling and inhuman conditions in Cuba and the Philippines (now where did they get THAT idea?).
A hundred years whence, we find ourselves today, to be neither American nor Filipino nor Iraqi, but citizens of the future, looking at the past, deciding what we must do:
Resent it or play the Cruel Hand as God above dealt it.
But there is no avoiding or evading America. She is too large, too much a part of the future and the world. Indeed, she IS the future of the world, or else we shall have another Dark Age.
What the CPPNPA and the global jihad stand for are hate and destruction. That is why the Iraqi “insurgents” are killing Iraqis 150 to 1 American. That is why the Filipino terrorists are burning down Igorot school buildings.
Because they ARE someone else’s freedom fighters. Not ours!
question, and excuse my legal ignorance:
if say a coup détat is staged, and a street text party (say a case similar to edsa 2) ensues following its declaration, is this terrorism? for doesn’t the law define this condition: “to sow and create a condition of widespread extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.â€Â
and since the definition of terrorism as contained under sec 3 subsumes all those acts already defined as criminal (and therefore have their corresponding penalties), is there valid legal to contest terroristic charges as case of double jeopardy?
ano ba talaga ang terrorism, kuya?
hypothetical: say we stage a street protest wanting to know what precisely terrorism is, and the crowd grows to a mammoth size, and the public rally begins to instill fear on the government because it is paranoid about public gathering, could the rallyists be charged for committing acts of terrorism when all we are seeking is to know what exactly it is?
drat.
re: paragraph 1, i miss this out: but street parties do not necessarily sow EXTRAORDINARY fear. talk about pinoys–do we really care if coups are staged? don’t we jsut shrugged this off, and say “let’s move on?” so what is so terroristic about coups? hello, bong, care to answer me?
re: paragraph 1, i miss this out: but street parties do not necessarily sow EXTRAORDINARY fear. talk about pinoys–do we really care if coups are staged? don’t we jsut shrug this off, and say “let’s move on?” so what is so terroristic about coups? hello, bong, care to answer me?
I hope someone publishes this video of Joma naming the front organizations of the CPP in Congress on YouTube.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=51103
only the bad and those with intention to do bad is afraid of the anti-terror bill.
i don’t have any sympathy for the cppnpa more so with the party lists that sison admitted being his lapdogs in congress.
atrocities done by this group is unforgivable i don’t know why people lose sight of this fact.
For decades party list organizations have been denying they are communist fronts. This hypocrisy borders on the criminal because political parties have both legal and moral obligations under the Constitution to be honest with the people and forthright about their agenda. If they are using public funds to support the communist insurgency there’s gonna be holy hell to pay.
But the “holier than thou” persona they’ve successfully built for themselves is truly despicable. At least the trapos admit to being trapos by owning up to who belongs to them.
Now the other matter of an internal purge (Operation Bushfire) ongoing within the communist ranks, reportedly confirmed by documents captured in May 2006 bears looking into because at least some of the political killings may be attributable to it. AFP CS Esperon also claims to have submitted to Philip Alston, 1227 case files on persons liquidated by the NPA between 2000 and 2006. These have not been counted by the “human rights” groups protesting extrajudicial killings. Why? Because many of those persons were former NPAs trying to get away from what they realized were the real monsters of society. Perhaps many even turned into AFP assets–at least in paranoid minds that can so easily turn homicidal. Up in the hills, even one disloyal member can turn deadly for the entire group.
Like Islamic states, where converting out of Islam is a capital crime, it seems the communist terrorists are also susceptible to a kind of theocracy that leads to murder.
only the bad ones and those with bad intentions should really be afraid of the anti-terror bill.
the cppnpa do not deserve any sympathy. so with the party lists that are aligned with sison.
so with all destabilizers and those that plan to bring down the governement
mukhang madami nagbabasa ngayon nang military intelligence ah.
The above are a variation of the “if you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear” line of reasoning that is used to justify other oppressive laws. That assumes that the State (and its authorities) are always benevolent and/or does not make mistakes, which we know is not the case.
The fact remains that these party-list organizations have been legitimately elected based on their party’s platform. Isn’t it better to include them within society’s conversation, after all, they also have a constituency whose interests they represent. If you are confident that you can defeat them in the battle for ideas, why the call for a witch hunt?
I would like to believe that by ‘hell to pay’, you are not endorsing the methods of Palparan. Because if you are, then can we make of your plea for moral consistency, in law and action? Summary executions and arbitrary detentions are incompatible with democratic ideals. If there is any criminal diversion of funds, that should be a subject of a proper investigation – similar to the one that should be conducted for the military’s diversion of weapons to the Muslim rebels. Better yet, why not support the elimination of the pork barrel for all legislators as mlq3 has talked about in his PDI column (‘Revolt in the Making’).