Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Phillipines shows the way
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37162323
Published: Aug 23, 2016
Author: paraclete
Post Date: 2016-08-23 10:37:02 by paraclete
Keywords: drugs
Views: 753
Comments: 16
The head of the Philippines police has said more than 1,900 people have been killed during a crackdown on illegal drugs in the past seven weeks. Ronald dela Rosa was speaking at a senate hearing into the sharp rise in deaths since Rodrigo Duterte became president. He said police operations had killed about 750 people, but the other deaths were still being investigated. Mr Duterte won the presidency with his hard-line policy to eradicate drugs. He has previously urged citizens to shoot and kill drug dealers who resisted arrest, and reiterated that the killings of drug suspects were lawful if the police acted in self-defence. He also threatened to "separate" from the UN after it called his war on drugs a crime under international law. The US has said it is "deeply concerned" by the increase in drug-related killings. Poster Comment: It seems there is a way to bring the war on drugs to an end and that is by fighting a real war. the Phillipines has done in seven weeks what the US has failed to do in thirty years. Apparently 700,000 drug dealers and users have turned themselves in rather than face summary justice, so when will the US namby pramby approach to stemming the tide cease?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: paraclete (#0)
That doesn't mean drugs go away. What will happen to all these people who turned themselves in? But this type thing hasn't happened before so we'll see.
Been there... Done that... Didn't work... Elliot Ness was an overhyped fraud... a broken down drunk who died penniless at only age 54.
Yeah, with toughness, summary killings, mass concentration camps and beating or torture you can scare many people away not only from having joint, but also a glass of wine or a beer or shot of vodka. What is next! And what is the purpose of all this? Pleasure from being righteously angry or from bossing others around?
Well, there's drug-related killings and there's drug-related killings. In the Philippines, it's the killing of drug dealers, and in the U.S. it's the killing of innocent bystanders. Perhaps the U.S. should be "deeply concerned" about the latter and look to the former as a solution.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. It could be that people are just fed up with the drug scene and the crap that comes with it, and what has happened is the people have been empowered, afterall they know who is dealing in their neighbourhood, this is why the druggies fled, because they can't hide. You see when the law is an ass and protects the criminals something must be done to bypass the process
Yeah. You're right. No due process. Just like the lack of due process for the children caught in gang crossfire and killed. But we tolerate that. Meaning we can tolerate the execution of a drug dealer without a trial. IF we were like the Philippines.
Yeah. You're right. No due process. Just like the lack of due process for the children caught in gang crossfire and killed. Not just like - only the former is carried out by agents of, or at least with the active encouragement of, the government. Not to mention that it's the War on Drugs that incentivizes drug gang crossfire - we see no such related to the legal regulated addictive mind-altering drug alcohol. Not the issue - we can't (or oughtn't) tolerate the execution of a SUSPECTED drug dealer without a trial. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So due process is a bad idea and should be abandoned? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. What should be abandoned is the idea that criminals should be capable of subverting the course of justice. The presumption of innocence should only exist for first offenders not those with a consistent record of offending. Those who put forward this principle did not live in a society full of criminals but they did live in a society where the process was swift and the penalties deadly. This is often forgotten
I am reminded of back in the early 1980's, in Philadelphia I think. It was on CNN. The reporter was standing in front of a house that was burned to the ground. There were a number of the local citizens there, with a couple that were pretty vocal. The story was, it was a peaceful lower middle class neighborhood. They had not had any issues, until a drug gang had moved in to the house. Then it was constant traffic, noise, fights, speeding up & down the street, kids could not play outside, etc. The locals had talked to the PD, told they could not do anything, etc. It just got worse. some of the fathers had gone down & tried to talk to the gang, That went nowhere. Finally, one of the gang hit one of the kids, which had to be hospitalized. Again, PD did nothing, issued minor traffic ticket, told the parents to keep kids in back yards. Apparently, the fathers decided to do something. That night, the house caught fire on four sides, one of the gang when climbing out a window was shot. The two vocal guys stood in front of the camera, pointed and said " you drug dealers stay away from our neighborhood, and you police, we don't need you ". The reporter interviewed someone from the PD, who condemned "vigilantes". I remember several weeks later, they did a short piece about it again, and pointed out that the neighborhood was still peaceful. The PD could at least have increased patrols in the neighborhood, maybe even parked in front of the house to eat donuts, and do paper work. But either they were too scared, or paid off. People can argue against those people all they want. I can hear it now " vigilantes, can't take the law into your hands, due process, BS, BS, BS ". But I do not blame them at all. I am just surprised they did not kill more of the gang. If I had lived there and my kids were being threatened, I would have done the same thing. Justice was done ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
The presumption of innocence is not there to protect the guilty but the innocent. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The presumption of innocence is there to protect the people from the police, it is an abstract idea found in the british legal system and is not found in non anglo societies. In other societies if there is enough evidence to charge you, you will be found guilty unless you can prove your innocence. In the Philippines what has happened is that authority has been given to the people who know the evidence is plain to take action
And since we're an anglo society we'll be keeping it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes you need it, few of you are innocent, there is a big difference between not being condemned without trial and presumed innocent. In the Philippines they have taken the extra step of summarily executing law breakers who deal in drugs
Few of who are innocent? Few Americans? True in the sense that one can put on a show trial. We don't like to do that in America. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Apparently 700,000 drug dealers and users have turned themselves in rather than face summary justice, so when will the US namby pramby approach to stemming the tide cease?
#2. To: paraclete (#0)
so when will the US namby pramby approach to stemming the tide cease?
#3. To: paraclete (#0)
so when will the US namby pramby approach to stemming the tide cease?
#4. To: paraclete (#0)
"The US has said it is "deeply concerned" by the increase in drug-related killings."
#5. To: misterwhite (#4)
In the Philippines, it's the killing of people somebody thought were drug dealers
Fixed it.
#6. To: A Pole (#3)
And what is the purpose of all this?
#7. To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
"In the Philippines, it's the killing of people somebody thought were drug dealers"
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
"In the Philippines, it's the killing of people somebody thought were drug dealers"
we can tolerate the execution of a drug dealer without a trial.
#9. To: paraclete (#6)
when the law is an ass and protects the criminals
#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
Ah the simple argument but within it exists the lie
#11. To: paraclete (#0)
#12. To: paraclete (#10)
What should be abandoned is the idea that criminals should be capable of subverting the course of justice.
#13. To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
The presumption of innocence is not there to protect the guilty but the innocent.
#14. To: paraclete (#13)
The presumption of innocence is there to protect the people from the police, it is an abstract idea found in the british legal system and is not found in non anglo societies.
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
And since we're an anglo society we'll be keeping it.
#16. To: paraclete (#15)
Yes you need it, few of you are innocent,
there is a big difference between not being condemned without trial and presumed innocent.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]