Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MANILA, Philippines Over 300 drug-related killings have been recorded since
President Rodrigo Duterte took office, with some quarters hailing these as proof
of his successful war against drugs.
The anti-drug war was the campaign promise that propelled the popular, toughtalking Davao City mayor to the presidency.
But human rights activists have expressed alarm over the rising body count,
pointing out that many of those killed were only unidentified suspects. For former
Ateneo School of Government dean Antonio La Via, death as punishment for
suspects will not win Duterte's promised war against drugs. (READ: Philippines'
war vs drugs: It has been bloody)
"We all agree that the war on drugs won't be won by extrajudicial killings, or even
death penalty, or even legitimate encounters. The war against drugs is also a war
on poverty, war on powerlessness," La Via said.
He pointed out that several of those killed in the drug war were from the poorer
classes. La Via added that addressing poverty and keeping the peace through
the new administration's planned peace talks and agreements with rebels could
be key to stem the new problem of drug killings. (READ: Drug suspect killings
rise after Duterte victory)
In Mindanao, he said, the ongoing conflict in the troubled southern regions has
only exacerbated poverty. La Via said that peace agreements that guarantee
economic reforms will also help bring down poverty levels.
"If you have less poor in the country, there might be [fewer] extrajudicial killings,"
he said.
For her part, political psychologist Cristina Montiel expressed concern that
Duterte's earlier pronouncements on his campaign promise vowing a bloody
crackdown on drug dealers and pushers did not generate as much alarm, even
with the President saying that he would reward and protect policemen involved in
anti-drug operations.
"It wasn't even considered a crime to say 'We will reward you.' That was a very
strong message coming from the top," Montiel said.
For Montiel, rationalizing extrajudicial killings might have unintended
repercussions. (READ: Duterte's drug war in numbers)
"It's still rationalizing that extrajudicial killings are okay, if these are the objects of
extrajudicial killings. Who knows where that story will go? It can be carried out
dangerously, " she said.
Rappler editor-at-large Marites Vitug, meanwhile, said Duterte has recast the
country's problem, shifting from the fight against poverty to a crackdown on
drugs.
Victim has an affiliation with lawful activist or leftist movements and political parties (including labor,
journalism, women, peasants, environmental and other sectors);
Assassination (often in front of the families and friends) by hooded persons often driving motorbikes
or unlicensed vehicles;
Scant investigation;
The above traits, however, may also be present in killings made by groups like the Abu Sayaff, MILF, or even
political opponents. How then do we distinguish these crimes, especially in determining jurisdiction of special
courts?
2. The investigation, evidence-gathering, and the witness protection program of the State must be
strengthened. A speedy and full investigation on the part of the police must be done. Also, the witnesses to
these human rights crimes must be encouraged to testify, for they will have to go up against the police and
the military. They must be assured that they will be protected during the investigation and the trial
proceedings.
3. The possibility of putting up a multisectoral agency composed of representatives from the NGOs, civil
society, military, police, church, media, and the judiciary. Such will focus solely on investigating such human
rights crimes and serve as prosecutor. And this agency can report its findings to the court handling the case.
4. The need to educate and orient the police and military thru seminars about our laws on human rights,
reminding them that the country is a civilian society and that the rights of the people to association, to
privacy, to liberty, and to life, must be protected at all times. The police and military should act within the
bounds of law and not attack indiscriminately whom they call insurgents.
5. The judiciary will have to bring back the confidence of the people in it by speedily disposing cases
involving human rights violations, holding the perpetrators fully accountable to the crimes. Incidentally,
another thing to consider is this: If one is merely acting under the orders of a superior, will the former be
exculpated or will there be a solidary liability as principals?
We hope that this summit will not turn out to be just rhetoric. The judiciary for sure is facing another
challenge and expresses its cooperation to address the problem. The bottom line is actually the political will
Are we ready to prosecute the top guns behind these human rights crimes?
The concerns that have been voiced recently are myopic in the sense that most
drone attacks take place abroad and most victims are foreigners. Lets therefore
limit our discussion to the justifiability of targeting foreigners abroad. (These
drone attacks, by the way, are just one form of targeted killing the British SAS
and the Israeli Mossad use or have used human operators to stalk and shoot
terrorists at home or abroad).
So, were talking about governments carrying out the killings, and the targets
are suspected foreign terrorists, insurgents or combatants hiding on foreign soil.
Governments try to justify such killings by arguing that they and the targets are
engaged in armed conflict: a war if not necessarily a declared one. If indeed we
are dealing with a war then the targets do not even have to pose an imminent
threat when they are killed. A history of violence and a risk of future violence are
sufficient reasons to target and kill them. In a war, its deemed acceptable to kill
unthreatening and even unarmed enemy forces, as long as these forces are
hostile and potentially dangerous elements in an ongoing conflict. Targeted
killing is therefore seen as equivalent to the normal and traditionally unlimited
wartime right to kill enemy soldiers.
That is also why the possibility of apprehension is not considered a sufficient
reason to abstain from targeted killing, although in practice most killings are of
people who are difficult to apprehend.
So thats the governmental story about targeted killing. How should we assess
this story? There are some good sides to it, and some bad:
PROS
Although these things are difficult to measure given the secrecy of the
whole affair, it does seem obvious that drone attacks, when compared to
standard military attacks, should in principle involve fewer civilian casualties.
(An attempt to measure this is presented here. A less rosy view on the matter
ishere and here).
CONS
Positing the equivalence with normal wartime killing implies that the
drone operators, who are commonly situated far from the battlefield and close
to residential areas in the home country, are legitimate targets for retaliation.
Ironically, drone attacks may therefore encourage terrorist attacks.
As already stated, a lot hinges on the use of words. Killing people who
arent an immediate military threat may be tantamount to extra-judicial
execution. And merely labeling those people combatants and the operation
a war isnt enough to acquire the right to normal wartime killing. It may
often be more precise to label terrorist attacks as normal crimes rather than
acts of war, in which case normal judicial proceedings are more appropriate,
which means apprehension and trial, and killing only when apprehension is
impossible and a threat is imminent.
The lack of transparency opens the door to abuse, as does the view that
an imminent threat is not required.
Targeted killing may be fatal to the democratic peace theory (see here for
more details).
Some of these points carry more weight than others, and some perhaps none at
all. Other points could be added. Its up to the reader to make up his or
her own mind, but my view is the following: compared to the general
unpleasantness of war, targeted killing isnt particularly shocking and can even
be seen as a step forward. That is, as long as it is really limited to an actual,
uncontested war involving real combatants who pose an imminent threat, and a
threat that cant be averted by apprehension and trial.
What is perhaps more shocking than the attacks themselves is the fact that the
whole war rhetoric has become so vague that anything can be called a war. Is
there a crime with which were not at war? When ordinary criminals and I
consider most terrorists to be ordinary criminals, ordinary except for their
particular motivation can be targeted like enemy soldiers, what is left of
criminal justice? Extra-judicial execution then becomes the only form of crime
prevention.
More on targeted killing here.
Drug trafficking is a global problem, an illicit trade that involves the manufacture,
cultivation, distribution and sale of prohibited substances. While every nation in the
world works hard to fight against drugs, drug trade is still a booming business. The
dynamics of drug trafficking is simply incredible in the sense that consumption and
distribution continues to rise even with continuous efforts to curb drug-related crimes
and offenses.
drugs should not only involve the government and local authorities, but also friends and
family of drug users or sellers.
are also very high. Friends and family of these brave men and women would be very
unhappy if something happened to them.
4. Increase racial tension
The soaring arrest because of the war on drugs disproportionately targeted African
Americans, according to the Human Rights Watch. From 1995 through 2000, the US
Department of Justice reported thats arrest for drug offenses rose by 126%, which also
accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% the total growth
among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates. In 2008, the
Washington Post also reported that one in five black Americans are behind bars
because of drug-related laws.
5. Disparity on sentencing
Opponents complain that sentencing in drug-related crimes have major flaws. There is a
huge problem in the sentencing between possessions or trafficking of powder cocaine
and crack. For example, those convicted for possession of 5 grams of crack and those
in possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine basically have the same punishment
minimum mandatory sentence of being incarcerated in a federal prison for 5 years.
Judging from the differences of the drugs in question, sentencing is definitely unfair.
Moreover, the ruling is perceived as discriminatory against minorities, because blacks,
Hispanics and other races are likely to use crack than cocaine. Does this mean that
white people go free for as long as they are not in possession of 500 grams of coke?
6. Never-ending chain reaction
One man incarcerated for drug abuse or drug-related crimes is likely to have children
who are growing up without a father. Statistics show how this can have a bad effect on
the little ones. If they are in the same situation as their father before them, they could
end up drug users or sellers as well, whichever comes first. So the cycle just goes on
and on. It will be a never-ending ride of history repeating itself.