US Silent as Major Ally Begins Campaign of Murdering Drug Users — Executing 11 People a Day

Source: Free Thought Project
Published: Jul 27, 2016
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2016-07-28 10:33:44 by Deckard
Views: 6991

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.

“Why will I give you a (due) process?” said Duterte. “I am the president. I don’t give you [due] process.”

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.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: nativist nationalist    To: Deckard (#0)

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.”

This is an internal matter for the Philippines, it is none of our concern.

nativist nationalist posted on 2016-07-28 11:17:32   Reply   Private Reply

#2: misterwhite    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.

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 11:26:09   Reply   Private Reply

#3: Vicomte13    To: Deckard (#0)

In the end, every law is enforced by the executive death penalty.

If you refuse to obey the traffic laws, or the litter laws, or to pay a parking ticket, or comply with any other law or rule of any sort, and are caught, and commanded to do anything particular thing, the refusal will set up a rapidly escalating series of confrontations that will end in your submission or, if you are too strong to be physically subdued, your death.

All law reposes on the "executive death sentence" implicit in the cop's gun.

That cannot change as long as our philosophy about law remains what it is.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-28 12:21:34   Reply   Private Reply

#4: misterwhite    To: Vicomte13 (#3)

"If you refuse to obey the traffic laws, or the litter laws, or to pay a parking ticket, or comply with any other law or rule of any sort, and are caught, and commanded to do anything particular thing, the refusal will set up a rapidly escalating series of confrontations that will end in your submission or, if you are too strong to be physically subdued, your death."

Yeah, that's how it works.

What part would you change? If a person resists arrest the cop should simply let them go?

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 12:29:52   Reply   Private Reply

#5: Vicomte13    To: misterwhite (#4)

What part would you change?

The volume of it.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-28 12:33:39   Reply   Private Reply

#6: misterwhite    To: Vicomte13 (#5)

"The volume of it."

The people themselves control that. They write the laws and some break them.

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 12:50:02   Reply   Private Reply

#7: VxH    To: misterwhite (#6)

The people themselves control that. They write the laws and some break them.

LOL.
 
 
 
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

Wanna buy some derivative a$$paper secured by bridges?

VxH posted on 2016-07-28 13:18:25   Reply   Private Reply

#8: ConservingFreedom    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.

Why? Because it works.

Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-28 13:27:09   Reply   Private Reply

#9: misterwhite    To: ConservingFreedom (#8)

"Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?"

This thread is about drugs. Why are you bringing up abortion?

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 14:25:17   Reply   Private Reply

#10: ConservingFreedom    To: misterwhite (#9)

Because police in the Philippines are now committing post-birth abortions in the name of combating drugs.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-28 15:58:03   Reply   Private Reply

#11: Vicomte13    To: misterwhite (#6)

The people themselves control that. They write the laws and some break them.

Everybody breaks the law. The people always control everything, because the people in every country can overthrow any government any day of the week, if they chose to. They actually do only very rarely.

If I drill deeper - we'll just get into another argument and I don't feel like it. Have a good day.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-28 16:30:43   Reply   Private Reply

#12: misterwhite    To: ConservingFreedom (#10)

"Because police in the Philippines are now committing post-birth abortions in the name of combating drugs."

Pre-birth, post-birth. Certainly the Constitution addresses both in some penumbra of an emanation.

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 17:28:37   Reply   Private Reply

#13: Logsplitter    To: Deckard (#0)

The Philipines are literally the toilet of asia. Add in heroin and islam and there's no telling where it could lead.

Logsplitter posted on 2016-07-28 22:35:47   Reply   Private Reply

#14: Vicomte13    To: Logsplitter (#13)

Toilet of Asia? The Philippines are the best part of Asia, the most humane, BY FAR, because it's the only major Catholic country in Asia.

It's islands, and therefore poor in resources, but the people are friendly and kind. The Chinese are not kind. Nor are the Japanese. Hindus don't believe in charity on principle.

South Koreans are ok, thanks to Christianity, but the Filiipinos are a warm, friendly, happy people.

The place is poor, yes, because there are a lot of people, and not much in the way of resources. If anything, the Philippines are like a piece of Peru that broke off and drifted East.

It isn't right to call it a toilet. It's the only place in Asia that is like us, Western in culture, because it's Catholic to its very soul. If you had to go to Asia to make money, go to China. If you were going to Asia to get educated, go to Japan or Korea. If you're going to Asia for tawdry sex, go to Thailand. If you're going to Asia to live permanently, as a Westerner, then the only place whose people and you see eye to eye on God and everything else that matters is the Philippines. It is poor. So is Alabama. The Philippines are no more a toilet than Alabama is.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-29 07:01:53   Reply   Private Reply

#15: Vicomte13    To: All (#14)

drifted East.

or rather, west...so far west it's East.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-29 08:37:46   Reply   Private Reply

#16: Justified    To: Vicomte13, Logsplitter (#14)

I think over populations has more to do with ones ability to be charitable. The more people have to compete for the same job less a person can make legally which means they have less to give. Simple economics.

You don't want over populations or under populations. In the old farming community you want more kids[higher death rate more manual labor needed] and city dwelling you want less children[less jobs controlled by a small group]. If people can not get jobs they will create havoc.

Justified posted on 2016-07-29 09:05:07   Reply   Private Reply

#17: Vicomte13    To: Justified (#16)

I think over populations has more to do with ones ability to be charitable. The more people have to compete for the same job less a person can make legally which means they have less to give. Simple economics.

That's how the Black Death effectively created the European middle class.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-29 10:39:31   Reply   Private Reply

#18: calcon    To: nativist nationalist (#1)

This is an internal matter for the Philippines, it is none of our concern.

The conservatives here need to be remained that "it's not our business" what the hell any country does. Unless of course they fu*k with us.

calcon posted on 2016-07-29 15:04:09   Reply   Private Reply

#19: nolu chan    To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#8)

Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?

If they called it targeted killing would that make it ok?

nolu chan posted on 2016-07-29 15:16:50   Reply   Private Reply

#20: nolu chan    To: Deckard (#0)

I understand they already solved the problem of stray dogs.

nolu chan posted on 2016-07-29 15:19:06   Reply   Private Reply

#21: ConservingFreedom    To: nolu chan (#19)

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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-29 16:18:42   Reply   Private Reply

#22: ConservingFreedom    To: calcon, nativist nationalist (#18)

"it's not our business" what the hell any country does. Unless of course they fu*k with us.

If we applied that rule across the board, fine - but then if we're going to say nothing about the current state of human rights in the Philippines then we should just shut the f*ck up about human rights anywhere.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-29 16:24:07   Reply   Private Reply

#23: nolu chan    To: ConservingFreedom (#21)

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.

nolu chan posted on 2016-07-29 16:32:26   Reply   Private Reply

#24: ConservingFreedom    To: nolu chan (#23)

sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target?

Is that what's happening in the Philippines? If not, take it to another thread.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-29 16:36:25   Reply   Private Reply

#25: calcon    To: ConservingFreedom (#22)

then we should just shut the f*ck up about human rights anywhere.

you are 100% correct

calcon posted on 2016-07-29 20:39:27   Reply   Private Reply

#26: GrandIsland    To: calcon (#18)

I agree. We need not nose in another countries business, exspecially when their way of dealing with a drug scumbag is more effective than ours.

We need not interject our WEAKNESS upon them... but we could learn from them.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-29 20:56:22   Reply   Private Reply

#27: Vicomte13    To: Justified (#16)

Well, in the Philippines they have a lot of people, and a lot of people are poor, and yet it is pretty happy nation, and there is a lot of care through the society, because of the Catholic beliefs. In India they also have a lot of poor, but they are miserable and die on the streets and nobody cares (except the Catholic minority like Mother Theresa), because the base religion of the culture believes that suffering in this life is payment for the sins of past lives, so helping a suffering person is evading justice.

Which is why you'd rather live in the Philippines, where people are friendly and kind, than in India, where people are friendly and kind to you if you're rich.

Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-30 07:26:17   Reply   Private Reply

#28: Justified    To: Vicomte13 (#27)

I think there is more to it than that.

Philippines live on an island supported by US military. Its has a large prostitution service. There is about 100Million people.

India is extremely over populated with the largest number of Muslims per country in the world. Islam has a way of bringing people down. Surrounded by enemies(China, Pakistan, Bangladesh). 1300Million people.

Philippines have 3 times as much income per GDP per person than India. No real enemy.

I would say any place that has a large base of Muslims will be hindered.

Pumping out crap loads of children is not a good thing any more. When land was greater than the people could populate having large number of children was desirable. Since this is not the case anymore and we are building up instead of building out its time to slow the birth rate(not for abortions but birth control).

Justified posted on 2016-07-30 09:24:17   Reply   Private Reply

#29: Justified    To: Vicomte13 (#17)

That's how the Black Death effectively created the European middle class.

What is killing the European middle class is progressives running their world.

How is bring in millions of foreign people and paying them to make babies at the cost of the countryman helping the middle class?

When Europe throws the progressive mindset out into the heap of this doesn't work at all pile then they will be on top of the world again. By the time they get this figured out it will be too late.

The bible talks about how a new religion will take over the world and many think its Islam but its the religion of progressivism.

Justified posted on 2016-07-30 09:48:02   Reply   Private Reply

#30: nolu chan    To: ConservingFreedom (#24)

[ConservingFreedom #8] Extrajudicial execution ... how did our Founding Fathers miss its benefits?

[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.

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.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

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.

http://www.ipon-philippines.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Observers/Observer_Vol.2_Nr.2/Observer_Vol.2_Nr.2_PoliticalKillings_4.pdf

What defines an 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,

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).

Sinaltrainal also states,

2. Torture Victim Protection Act

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."

nolu chan posted on 2016-07-30 22:00:03   Reply   Private Reply

#31: ConservingFreedom    To: nolu chan (#30)

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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-30 22:21:55   Reply   Private Reply

#32: misterwhite    To: ConservingFreedom (#24)

"Is that what's happening in the Philippines?"

It would be legal under a declaration of war, right? And haven't we declared a War on Drugs?

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-31 09:09:01   Reply   Private Reply

#33: nolu chan    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.

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.

nolu chan posted on 2016-08-01 00:00:05   Reply   Private Reply

#34: ConservingFreedom    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.

I never said nor implied otherwise.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-08-01 13:32:15   Reply   Private Reply

#35: nolu chan    To: ConservingFreedom (#34)

[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.

I never said nor implied otherwise.

Damn. You are as bad as Hillary Clinton explaining how James Comey said she did nothing wrong.

#21. To: nolu chan (#19)

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.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-07-29   16:18:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[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.

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]

sending in a drone strike to vaporize the target?

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?

nolu chan posted on 2016-08-01 14:03:27   Reply   Private Reply

#36: ConservingFreedom    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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-08-01 15:27:20   Reply   Private Reply