International News
See other International News Articles
Title: US Silent as Major Ally Begins Campaign of Murdering Drug Users — Executing 11 People a Day
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ca ... rug-users/#jMpTlZglrROs1ZSt.99
Published: Jul 27, 2016
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2016-07-28 10:33:44 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3481
Comments: 36
One of the strongest American allies in Southeast Asia has embarked on a campaign of mass murder on its own citizens, at the behest of its president. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines—designated a “Major Non-NATO Ally” by the U.S. State Department—is pushing an anti-drug campaign that includes encouraging law enforcement and even civilians to kill drug users and dealers on the spot. And he will pardon anyone who takes part in the killings. In Duterte’s July 25 State of the Nation address he said, “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.” During the election campaign earlier this year, Duterte estimated 100,000 people would be murdered during his campaign, and fish would grow fat from feeding on bodies dumped in Manila Bay. This reign of terror has already seen more than 400 people summarily executed by police and others since May. Bodies are being found with cardboard placards saying, “I am a drug pusher” or “I am a drug addict.” Relatives and village residents are pictured weeping from the violent loss of their loved ones. Police plan to proudly display their “success” by erecting a billboard outside their Manila headquarters to keep track of all the drug-related executions. 60,000 Filipinos have turned themselves in after Duterte began the campaign, hoping to avoid death by submitting to the harsh Filipino penal system. This is no guarantee of life, however, as there have been reports of suspects being killed inside police stations after being arrested. Duterte is not swayed by criticism from human rights advocates, vowing instead to “retire with the reputation of Idi Amin” — a brutal African ruler who killed tens of thousands of Ugandans in during his eight-year reign in the 1970s. There is no indication that U.S. diplomats are attempting to dissuade the maniacal president, and the silence from American mainstream media is deafening. Since 9/11, the U.S. has renewed a strong partnership with the Philippines as part of the “war on terror,” and the U.S. once again has a military presence there. The U.S., which maintains a strong military presence in the region and has indicated a “pivot to Asia” coming soon, has enlisted the Philippines in its standoff with China. An international court case was brought by the Philippines against China regarding a territorial dispute over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, and the court recently ruled against China’s claim. China rejected the ruling, as expected, and continues to develop the area with military installations. Beijing is also considering establishing an Air Defense Identification Zone, which would require all traffic to notify Beijing before entering the air space. This would be a major challenge to American military hegemony. Perhaps this has emboldened the Filipino president to ignore 21st century human rights and embark on a campaign of mass murder against people who use or sell substances deemed “illegal.” As we know, government prohibition of drugs creates the black market which fuels violence and health risks from unknown product sources. Decriminalizing drugs, as Portugal has demonstrated, is the answer to reducing addiction, reducing health risks and ending the violence of the drug trade. The International Commission of Jurists has reminded Duterte that “the Philippines had passed laws and signed international agreements binding it to work against police abuse, extra-judicial killingsm and the death penalty.” However, these words are falling on deaf ears as Duterte and his partners in terror continue the most brutal campaign against drugs the modern world has witnessed. 11 people a day are being summarily executed, and Duterte says “that is not enough.” Solicitor General Jose Calida pledged his support, saying, “’I am here to encourage the (police) not to be afraid of any congressional or senate investigations. We will defend them … I am the defender of the (police).” When authority is allowed to run amok in this manner, killing people at will with no due process, this thirst for blood and power does not go away. “I strongly suspect that Filipinos will come to regret their election of a president who expresses such contempt for basic principles of due process and human rights,’ said Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “A government that condones extra-judicial killings of people who use or sell drugs will eventually turn its terror on others – it’s just a matter of time.” The U.S. — which has its own record of human rights abuses carried out under the “war on terror” — has no hesitation claiming human rights abuses against other countries that don’t bow to American hegemony, but remains silent when its own allies are the purveyors of mass murder. **** Anyone ever read the book or seen the movie "The Stand" by Stephen King? This maniac is exactly like the evil "Walkin' Dude" who sets up his base in Las Vegas and executes drug users by crucifying them. I'm sure there a a few here who applaud this Philippine psychopath. “Why will I give you a (due) process?” said Duterte. “I am the president. I don’t give you [due] process.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
The people who claim "the war on drugs isn't working" are the same people who object to the way the law is enforced in the Philippines. Why? Because it works.
Why? Because it works. Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?
If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok?
Only if the "targeting" is done by a judge and jury imposing the terms of properly enacted legislation.
Can you explain what "properly enacted legislation" would be to authorize targeted killing, such as sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target? I don't see how to do it and conform to the Constitution.
Is that what's happening in the Philippines? If not, take it to another thread.
[nolu chan #19] If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok? [ConservingFreedom #21] Only if the "targeting" is done by a judge and jury imposing the terms of properly enacted legislation. [nolu chan #23] Can you explain what "properly enacted legislation" would be to authorize targeted killing, such as sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target? I don't see how to do it and conform to the Constitution. [ConservingFreedom #24] Is that what's happening in the Philippines? If not, take it to another thread. Can you explain what "properly enacted legislation" would be to authorize targeted killing pursuant to Filipino law considering Filipino Supreme Court Administrative Order 25-2007? When you cited "our Founding Fathers," I mistakenly thought you were referring to the United States. In any case, by definition there is no such thing as an extrajudicial killing that is authorized by a court. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing The term ‘extrajudicial killing’ in its original meaning refers to homicides that are committed outside the legal system with no prior judgement of a court.1 In this sense, the term comprises a large amount of violent acts with different motives, victims and perpetrators. For instance, acts that are predominantly seen as vigilante killings or lynching, carried out by privately organized groups can be called an extrajudicial killing as well as homicides that are committed by the state without legal proceedings. Beside this general description, there exist other predominant definitions of the term that differ in that they claim extrajudicial killings to be politically motivated acts. According to this definition, the state has to be involved in or at least tacitly accept the commission of the killings. This type of definition is also used by the Philippine government.2 1) See e.g. US legal definition of extrajudicial killings (Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. Fla. 2009)). 2) Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25-2007. Sinaltrainal states, Sinaltrainal also states, Enacted in 1992, the TVPA provides a cause of action for official torture and extrajudicial killing. The TVPA is broader than the ATS in that the TVPA allows citizens, as well as aliens, to seek remedy in federal court for official torture. S.Rep. No. 102-249, at 5 (1991) ("[W]hile the [ATS] provides a remedy to aliens only, the TVPA . . . extend[s] a civil remedy also to U.S. citizens who may have been tortured abroad."); see also Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 246-47 (2d Cir. 2003). By its terms, the TVPA attaches liability to those individuals who have committed torture or extrajudicial killing "under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation."
Drone strikes have zip to do with the current thread; either make a connection as you have so far failed to do, or take it to another thread.
Whether an extrajudicial killing is by drone strike or any other method, it can have nothing to do with courts or any judicial process. Either make the connection or take your diversion and get lost.
I never said nor implied otherwise.
[ConservingFreedom #34] I never said nor implied otherwise. Damn. You are as bad as Hillary Clinton explaining how James Comey said she did nothing wrong. Only if the "targeting" is done by a judge and jury imposing the terms of properly enacted legislation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. [nolu chan #23] I don't see how to do it and conform to the Constitution. Apparently, you couldn't fabricate a way extrajudicial killing, or your proposed properly enacted authorizing legislation, could possibly conform to the Constitution, leading to the following obfuscatory diversion. [ConservingFreedom #24] Is that what's happening in the Philippines? If not, take it to another thread. Can you explain what "properly enacted legislation" would be to authorize extrajudicial killing or targeted killing in any manner whatsoever?
#36. To: nolu chan (#35)
I tried to make sense of your question, "If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok?" and apparently failed. If you want to consider that my problem, go ahead - I don't agree.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. To: misterwhite (#2)
The people who claim "the war on drugs isn't working" are the same people who object to the way the law is enforced in the Philippines.
#19. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#8)
Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?
#21. To: nolu chan (#19)
If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok?
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
Only if the "targeting" is done by a judge and jury imposing the terms of properly enacted legislation.
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target?
#30. To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
[ConservingFreedom #8] Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?
Extrajudicial. That which is is done, given, or effected outside the course of regular judicial proceedings. Not founded upon, or unconnected with, the action of a court of law, as e.g. extrajudicial evidence, or an extrajudicial oath.
An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are mostly seen by humanity to be unethical, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur.
What defines an extrajudicial killing?
Extrajudicial killing is defined as "a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note § 3(a).
2. Torture Victim Protection Act
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
Drone strikes have zip to do with the current thread; either make a connection as you have so far failed to do, or take it to another thread.
#34. To: nolu chan (#33)
Whether an extrajudicial killing is by drone strike or any other method, it can have nothing to do with courts or any judicial process.
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
Whether an extrajudicial killing is by drone strike or any other method, it can have nothing to do with courts or any judicial process.
#21. To: nolu chan (#19)
If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok?
Can you explain what "properly enacted legislation" would be to authorize targeted killing, such as sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target?
sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target?
Replies to Comment # 35.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]