Manila Extra-Judicial Killings: This Is What Happens to a Society That Ignores Its Constitution

(courtesy dailymail.co.uk)

The Constitution of the Philippines was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite in 1987. It’s not remarkably different from the U.S. Constitution, save the omission of a right to keep and bear arms. More to the point, you’d kind of hope the document would prevent summary execution. If so, you hope in vain. Like this [via dailycaller.com]:

Around 800 people have been killed since Duterte won by a landslide in May. It would seem that he is making good on his campaign promise to kill tens of thousands of criminals.

“The campaign of shoot-to-kill will remain until the last day of my term if I’m still alive by then,” the 71-year-old president said during a press conference in his hometown.

Duterte’s “war on drugs” has resulted in hundreds of police killings and executions, as well as countless extrajudicial murders by unidentified vigilantes, all of which have the full support of the Duterte administration. Police and military personnel have been given Duterte’s “official and personal guarantee” of immunity for drug-related killings.

Many human rights organizations have criticized Duterte for his extreme stance on drug control and his administration’s support for extrajudicial killings.

Ya think? Question (which I hate to ask): is the Philippine war on drugs effective? I’d say no, given my experience with drug addiction and [glancing] knowledge of the black market. But here are the stats:

More than 125,000 suspected drug dealers and users have turned themselves into the police since May. On July 21, around 10,000 suspects surrendered to authorities. These alleged criminals are seeking “safety” in jails over a horrible death in the streets, said Human Rights Watch in a statement.

An estimated 600,000 people are currently involved in some way with the illegal drug trade in the Philippines.

The lesson here: the U.S. Constitution is only worth the paper its printed on as long as the government is forced to abide by its provisions. Insert quote about the “four boxes of liberty” . . .

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    You could change the names and numbers and it would be a story on America.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      In 1942 the American government made a deal with Jewish Murder Incorporate. This deal was to kill any American citizen who would help the German government.
      Italian Americans supported Mussolini, Hitlers ally. So they didn’t want to help President Roosevelt.
      Jewish American criminals had a different point of view about Adolf Hitler.

      There was real fear of spies telling U boats when ships left for England. Also Roosevelt was concerned about labor strikes during war time.
      In England defense plant workers did go on strike in 1940 or 1941.

      So yes, America has a history in desperate times of killing it’s own people extra judicially.
      There are books written about this and the History Channel has done documentaries about this subject.

      “Ye who is without sin may cast the first stone.” Or something to this effect.

      1. What Jewish Murder Incorporated?

        Where is their business address?

        1. avatar Daniel Bernard says:

          Try telling the blog about AIPAC´s address. It won´t be easy.

      2. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

        Here, this is for you.
        *hands roll of tinfoil*

  2. avatar Anon in CT says:

    For years the Philippines’ police and justice system were so ineffective in fighting crime that the people now welcome a strong man who gleefully shreds the constitution. There’s a lesson there too – when “normal” government does not or cannot discharge its primary duties to the citizenry, they will seek, and find, extraordinary forms of government which will get the job done, regardless of the cost to liberty and human rights.

    Ponder that when you consider “sanctuary cities” and legalizing 5mm illegals by lawless executive fiat.

    1. avatar twency says:

      “5mm illegals”? I guess that explains who’s using those .9mm firearms we keep hearing about.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        hardy har

        m = thousand

        mm = million

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          k=thousand. WTF says m?

        2. avatar BlubBlubBlub says:

          And here I always thought k=thousands

        3. avatar Chris in SC says:

          No. Where do you get that?

        4. avatar CGinTX says:

          Not that you’ll ever find any pedants on the Internet, but he’s correct in as much that in financial circles:

          M (capital ‘M’) = Thousand(s)
          MM = Million(s)

          Financial types eschew “K” for “thousand” (to avoid confusion with the “K” in computer circles, which technically is 1024).

          Thank Ghu there’s no pedants around these parts.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          SI unit prefix 101:

          0.001 – milli – m
          1,000 – kilo – k
          1,000,000 – mega – M

        6. avatar CGinTX says:

          Financial types also eschew the Euro-influenced metric “k” for not only being easily confused with the computer-ish “K” but also for being, you know, metric.

        7. avatar 16V says:

          Just as the final(?) bit of pile-on-pedantry…

          The “M” in this context is derived from Latin mille which translates as “1000”.

          But yeah, the common parlance is to use the capital “M”.

        8. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

          O = Oy Vey

  3. avatar Vitsaus says:

    This is what a real “war on drugs” looks like. Every report I have read, regardless of the political bias does indicate that violent crime has dropped measurably there. Give the people what they want, what could be more democratic?

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “indicate that violent crime has dropped measurably there”

      Hardly, the violent crime increased massively, it is being committed by cops and bootlicker vigilantes.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> Give the people what they want, what could be more democratic?

      I doubt that some of the people that have gotten a bullet to the head by mistake (wrong address, false testimony etc) actually wanted it.

    3. avatar HP says:

      Something like that sounds great until 51% of the American electorate decides the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished.

    4. avatar peirsonb says:

      It is very democratic. Which is why I’m glad I don’t live in a democracy.

    5. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      It is more likely that the “criminals” being killed are by their rivals and corrupt police.

    6. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      No, Pascal, Duterte’s image as a crime fighter is a sham. Davao City’s crime was very high.

      http://www.philstar.com/nation/2016/04/02/1568394/murder-rate-highest-davao-city-pnp

      That city had a lot of rapes and robbery as well.

  4. avatar Ing says:

    Turned themselves in to police, or turned into police? There’s a big difference, both grammatically and politically. Or at least there should be (Mexico being exhibit A).

  5. avatar PeterK says:

    Scary. I can get behind the sentiment, but not the implementation. The rule of law is important, or all we have is a thinly veiled anarchy.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      The issue for many years is that the police have been corrupt and the judges too which have allowed the drug trade to prosper and grow. The is more desperation for a system run amuck.

      When Duterte was mayor, he did the same thing. The question is does it work on a national scale? As mayor his method cleaned up the streets to the point that people could be outside and not get caught in drug trade squabbles.

      The question is when things get to a certain point, can he rein it in?

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    It’s hard to argue with results. Drug dealers are some of the worst forms of criminal scum. I can’t entirely endorse their methods, but I can understand the frustration of the population. Hopefully, the US will never have a criminal problem that requires such extreme measures. Then again, sometimes it takes force to remove filth.

    1. avatar Elijah Decker says:

      If you’re going to be morally consistent, you should lump in owners and employees of corner drug stores that sell tobacco and alcohol with drug dealers. Both sell addictive and potentially dangerous chemicals for recreational use, yet one is legitimate and the other is not. Why the inconsistency?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Taxes.

        The G is okay with a lot of bad things as long as it gets its cut.

        1. avatar ANgryaz says:

          This ^^

        2. avatar Adub says:

          Then legalize drugs and tax it and be done with it.

          Honestly, locking people up for their own good because they buy or sell drugs is ridiculous.

          “I don’t want you to ruin your life with drugs, so I’m going to pay $70k a year to lock you up for your own good.”

          F that.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          We’re not locking up people to keep them from ruining THEIR lives. We’re locking them up to keep their greed and stupidity from ruining the lives of others.

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          Then legalize drugs and tax it and be done with it.

          Illegal drugs are already taxed, just not officially. Bribes, cop salaries, lawyer income, political kickbacks, jails and jailers, judges, DEA, ATF, FBI, the list is endless. Drugs are big business, and legalizing them would actually reduce the government’s piece of the pie.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          The thing is that 90% of the “problems” associated with drugs being illegal are because drugs are illegal.

          We apparently learned not a damned thing from the Prohibition of alcohol. Everybody still drank, booze got really expensive, people died from poisonous hooch, bad guys used the profits to take over other industries, we pissed away a ton of resources cops, courts, jail cells and for what?

          Moralistic tyranny of some crazy bat who was unfortunate enough to have an alky for a husband.

          Alcoholics seldom lose everything because they couldn’t afford their next bottle of rail vodka. They often stay fully functional. Fun fact – about the same percentage are alkies as when it was all “illegal”.

          I have known many people over the decades who at some point loved their blow a little too much, or were a little more creative while riding the horse. Most are clean and sober now. Why? Because they had enough money to afford to burn $200+ a day getting high. Eventually, they woke up, knew they were addicted, pulled their shit together. They never got fired from a job, or lost a gig – they’re rich.

          We have almost exactly the same percentage of people addicted to cocaine and heroin as when you got your pharma pure morphine and cocaine out of the Sears catalog, or your local druggist. Difference is, if you could afford booze, you could afford other drugs too.

          What generally kills addicts is inconsistent product – not some desire to die. People who get hooked commit crimes to fund their habit, because it costs an order of magnitude more than it would if you could by pharma grade goodies at CVS. It costs less than $2, yes, $2 to produce a gram of cocaine. Even marked up TEN times, it’d retail for around $20. Pure, uncut. Morphine has about the same math, though it’s initially a bit more labor intensive.

          So, you can do like people choose to do with alcohol. Choose not to use it but let others have access to their recreational chemical of choice legally, or you can deal with people going broke, losing everything, blacks (and Mexicans) killing each other needlessly, people in jail for doing what is their natural right to do, and a system that costs orders of magnitude more than just having free treatment for those who have a problem.

          And the extant system accomplishes sweet FA.

        6. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Alkies don’t have psychotic episodes as a direct effect of their drug of choice. Even 10% of drug crimes still makes up the majority of violent crime in this country.

          The problem is that we are not dealing with these scum harshly enough. We pretend that addiction is some sort of disease rather than a failure of moral fortitude. We pretend that addiction can excuse criminal acts.

          Quite frankly, I wish the Phillipinos all the luck in the world with their program. Drug dealers destroy lives. If any group of people deserves to be stood up against a wall and shot, I would put dealers fourth in line after Nazis, Socialists, and Islamists.

        7. avatar california richard says:

          We’re talking about DEALERS here…. Not ADDICTS. DEALERS/DISTRIBUTERS are responsible for the lion’s share of non-suicide “gun violence”…… These are the people being killed in the Philippines. The addicts who commit crimes to support their habits are getting hit too, but they are criminal addicts and not casual drug users or run of the mill addicts….. So in descending order of baddness we have: violent dealers, violent addicts, criminal addicts, casual dealer, hobo addict, weirdo addict, addict, then casual user…….. The the top two categories need to die. The third and fourth are debatable.

        8. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Even marked up TEN times, it’d retail for around $20. Pure, uncut. Morphine has about the same math, though it’s initially a bit more labor intensive.”

          Synthetic opiates (Fentanyl, Demerol, etc.) can be even cheaper. The clandestine chemists in Mexico have the cook for Fentanyl, and it’s now flooding into the US.

          They have figured out the difficult part, the precursors…

      2. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Equating alcohol or tobacco to cocaine or opium is pants on head retarded. Neither cause anything close to the damage of legalized intoxicants. We can have a debate about marijuana, but hard narcotics are not even in the same game, much less league or ballpark.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Lung cancer kills about 160,000 a year. About 85% is caused by smoking.

          Alcohol-related diseases kill about 88,000 Americans each year.

          There are about 48,000 drug overdose deaths per year in the US, including illicit (heroin, cocaine) and prescription drug deaths.

          Who is kidding who?

        2. avatar Adub says:

          Still, who does it hurt? Punish criminals severely. Go back to hanging for murder. But if somebody wants to smoke weed or OD on heroin, let them. I don’t owe them anything.

          Shoot, we could collect sales tax and income tax. And no, EBT cards will not be accepted. I’ll trade legalizing everything for the end of the welfare state.

        3. avatar Red in CO says:

          “We’re not locking up people to keep them from ruining THEIR lives. We’re locking them up to keep their greed and stupidity from ruining the lives of others.” Dude, you can’t possibly say this and then talk about “pants on head retarded”. You’re literally advocating for the incarceration of people based on the possibility that they might possibly do some unspecified bad thing at some unknown point in the future. THAT is pants on head retarded.

        4. avatar k says:

          Ur a fucking idiot. If a grown ass adult in the land of the free wants to shoot up some smack or blows rails of coke up there nose the fucking govt has no right to tell them otherwise. In case you havnt noticed no one gives a shit about drug laws thats why they do drugs. If they legalized drugs today people who dont do drugs wont pick up a smack neddle and start shooting up.

        5. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Alcohol is nowhere near as mind altering as a drugs like cocaine and heroin. Cocaine is more or less guaranteed to cause a psychotic reaction in even a healthy adult when used in quantity.

          Nobody goes on a killing spree because they are drunk.

        6. avatar Pwrserge says:

          On a side note Ralph, how many people OD on alcohol and tobacco per year? Comparing short term deaths from hard drugs to long term deaths from alcohol and tobacco is, at best, disingenuous.

        7. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Nobody goes on a killing spree because they are drunk.”

          DUI manslaughter is indeed a ‘thing’, thousands killed each year.

          The brilliant, late Sam Kineson (who was himself killed by a drunk driver) once said in his comedy routine, to the effect of:

          “Nobody starts wanting to drink and drive. But it’s the only way TO GET YOUR CAR HOME FROM THE BAR!”

        8. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Again… False equivalency is false. Do you think a cocaine based DUI is somehow less deadly?

        9. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

          Alcohol and Tobacco are absolutely NO different than cocaine or heroin.

          The keys that you are missing are DOSAGE CONTROL and METHOD OF ADMINISTRATION.
          As long as these drugs remain illegal, their dosages will never be objectively defined, and will vary wildly. It absolutely requires wild abuse because moderation is nearly impossible in the absence of dosage control.

          Imagine buying alcohol if you didn’t know if it was a 3% ABV or a 21% ABV. One glass of beer could actually have the alcohol of 7 glasses of beer.

        10. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

          Doctors used to perscribe cocaine for medical ailments – IN KNOWN AND CONTROLLED DOSAGES.
          Same with meth.

          Pswerge your argument does not take this into account – dosage control is a pre-requisite for avoiding the wild substance abuse you are afraid of. This can never be possible as long as the black market is the only source of these drugs.

          I know 4 beers in an hour will get me reliably drunk beyond the point of wisdom or safety.

          I have no idea what 1 blunt or 1 hit of smack will do to me, because it can only be acquired through the black market where there is no potency measurement, no dosage control or consistency, and no documentation that would enable me to responsibly moderate my use.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again… How many people EVER overdosed on nicotine? How about Alcohol? (Oh and dosage control on alcohol is very difficult given the mixers popular at colleges these days.)

          Both of these drugs are INHERENTLY safer than things like cocaine and heroin. Why? Because toxic doses are measured in hundreds of GRAMS rather than MILLIGRAMS.

        12. avatar 16V says:

          “Cocaine is more or less guaranteed to cause a psychotic reaction in even a healthy adult when used in quantity”.

          The stuff they taught you in DARE class, or wherever you heard that nonsense, is what is known as propaganda. Just like Reefer Madness what it purports to show as ‘normally happens’ is in fact the extreme outskirts, of fringe behavior, after years of abuse. One would need to sit down to a Tony Montana-sized pile of blow to achieve cocaine psychosis.

          Apparently you’ve never dealt with a blackout drunk. They can be violent as hell, and much more coordinated than their level of intoxication would suggest. Also, they don’t feel much pain.

          Regardless of any of that. The fact remains the Puritanical viewpoint does nothing to stop anyone from doing drugs, and leads to all the bad things that you say you don’t want. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… Because crackheads are clearly just as calm after a single rock as alkies are after a single beer.

        14. avatar 16V says:

          “Crackheads” have an issue with consumption that needs addressing at some point – just like “alkies”.

          The vast majority of people who use crack cocaine do so recreationally. They do what they’re doing at some party, or wherever. Then they go back to work on Monday. Just like the guy who had drank to alter his brain chemistry and make him feel good. They aren’t addicts, they just appreciate the dopamine rush from cocaine – turned up to “11”.

          But I’ve never seen (scientifically irrelevant, but still) anyone do anything “violent” or “stupid” on crack – except doing it without an attractive female as a co-participant. I’ve seen guys who weren’t chubby chasers, hitting on fat chicks. That was kinda sad.

  7. avatar NorincoJay says:

    We should withhold judgment until his term ends. Maybe it will work, heck tens of thousands of people are already turning themselves in. If the death of several hundred drug dealers cleans up tens of thousands of users who are we to criticize them.

    I don’t like foreigners critizing or getting involved in the US. We should not be judging other countries laws and culture. I like the Star Trek Prime Directive no intervention policy.

    1. avatar Oxygenthief says:

      I agree wholeheartedly! Who are we to judge another culture/nation? Our soon to be president has the FBI/AG/IRS and Wall Street backing her (deny it all you want, if she can get a pass on all the corrupt stuff she has done to date you know she will find a way back into the White House).

      I would love to see this work in Deuterte’s favor. This isn’t ethnic cleansing, its the platform he ran on, and was voted into office for. The law abiding citizens of the country wanted what is happening right now to actually happen. How can it be considered abuse of power in that light?

      Is it morally right? That’s not for me to judge. But I’ll say this… one way or another people were going to lose their lives either as a result of drug use, being murdered by a rival gang, or in this case being exterminated for breaking the law. Seems justifiable to me, I’m just glad I’m not the one making that call.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> If the death of several hundred drug dealers

      You forgot one important word – “suspected”. Suspected drug dealers. People accused of being drug dealers. They aren’t necessarily actual drug dealers. Whenever a witch hunt like this begins, people will use it to settle scores. Due process is supposed to be a check on that, which is one of the reasons why it’s important.

      As for that entire “don’t judge” BS, it’s just that, BS. We all live on the same globe, subject to the same universal laws of nature, and everything that follows from them. Thus, logical thinking is also the same, and same inputs to the process will yield same outputs. If you have rational reasons to believe that something is a bad thing, it doesn’t suddenly stop being bad just because it’s in a different country.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Due process is what’s killing us right now.”

        Sen. Joe Manchin (Dummy, WVA)

      2. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Omelet, meet eggs.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          I’m glad that in this country, I still have access to means to defend myself against any would-be “omelet makers” like Duterte or Trump, and their fanatic followers, who casually talk about killing people to further their goals.

    3. avatar Red in CO says:

      Let’s not forget, he promised to target drug dealers AND users. And all of those tens of thousands who have turned themselves in? What makes you think that’s evidence of an effective policy? You know most of those folks are probably going to be executed, right?

    4. avatar peirsonb says:

      I like the Star Trek Prime Directive no intervention policy.

      But it has to apply to EVERYTHING a nation does within its own borders.

      The U.S. got to where it is, partly, because of our natural resources. We effectively raped the land for everything we could get for 150 years before someone decided that might not be the best way to go about it. Hell, almost the entire lower peninsula of Michigan was clear cut at one point for the timber. By the time the dust settled and we started to think about the environment a little bit (to much, in some cases) we were already a world power.

      Now that we’re “enlightened” we go around telling third world and developing nations they can’t use their own resources in the same way because it’s “bad for the environment.” Trying to restrict nations’ access to their own resources is, in effect, guaranteeing shitholes remain shitholes.

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    Just another example of the exercise of Societal Agreement. If you are not a party to it, nor convince and demand that those around you be or become the other half of the necessary ‘pairigs’ of people comprising Societal Agreement, all that you did and experienced today could be replaced by waking up under a tree, and spending the rest of the day fighting to find that day’s tree to fretfully sleep under.

  9. avatar anonymoose says:

    Too bad the vigilantes can’t legally possess firearms of their own. Gotta have a black market for something if it’s not going to be for drugs…

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    I would ask how many of those people really were drug dealers?

    It seems to me that abuse of this system is not only possible it’s probably already happened.

    Just go buy some drugs and kill people you don’t like. The guy who slept with your wife? Shoot him in the face and leave a couple bags of dope in his pocket. That guy at the corner store who eyeballs you all the time? Hack him to death with a machete+plant drugs = getting away with murder. The guy who bullied you in high school? Same deal. The list of people you could murder this way is nearly endless and it would have the full support of the government.

    All in the name of what? Keeping people from putting scary chemicals into their own body of their own free will? I hate to point this out but using drugs is a choice. Doing stupid shit to pay for your habit is also a choice. The drugs didn’t make you rob that liquor store: your lack of self-discipline allowed you to make the choice to rob that liquor store.

    Do some people get addicted to drugs? Yup. They made a choice to use drugs. Every day they made the choice to continue using drugs. Guess what? Choices have consequences! Just because someone made a bad choice and screwed up their life is no reason to take that choice away from other people. Drug laws rely on grabber logic (which I refuse to embrace). This nonsense in the Philippines takes that twisted logic and extends it to justify cold-blooded, intentional, premeditated murder. That set of circumstances can be described by two words: totally fucked.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “Choices have consequences”

      Just like when the criminal government chose to demonize chemicals that they deem unsavory and murder people who use those chemicals on their bodies, those people tend to resist violently.

      Of course the choice of the state to murder people whom they dislike never goes mentioned by the “they chose to use drugs” crowd.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        You either didn’t read what I wrote and wrote down your knee-jerk reaction or you didn’t comprehend what I was saying.

        The War on Drugs is bullshit because if you own one thing in this life it’s your body. Drug use, in and of itself, doesn’t harm others. Your actions to feed the habit might. Ergo, the choice to take drugs should be one that people can make freely but that choice shouldn’t absolve them of responsibility for later decisions. Smoke crack all you want. When you rob the liquor store that’s the problem and you should be punished for the action of armed robbery, not the use of crack. If you screw up your life by making those decisions, society owes you nothing. If you choose to smoke crack until you die in the gutter, more power to you. You’re not harming anyone else. When you harm others that’s where the law should get involved and the only time it should.

        What the Philippines has embarked upon here is the flat out state sanctioned, extra-judicial murder of those who engage in actions that are not approved by the government but don’t directly harm anyone else. IMHO, no harm, no foul.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All these arguments are essentially IDENTICAL to those regarding Prohibition, and the results of the war on drugs are also essentially identical to the results of Prohibition (gangs, guns, murders, and other fun), wouldn’t you think we would have a clue by now? The biggest, maybe only, real difference is that Prohibition was authorized by an Amendment to the Constitution, and the war on drugs is authorized by exactly nothing, the whole idea is unconstitutional.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          @Larry:

          As I said in my OP, “Drug laws rely on grabber logic (which I refuse to embrace).”

          When I say “grabber logic” I mean that drug laws rely on gun grabber logic, i.e. nonsensical arguments based on feelz rather than logic.

          The thought process that says “We should take that guy to jail for having drugs and confiscate the drugs because he might harm someone” is exactly the same as the one that says “We should ban open carry, arrest those who carry openly and confiscate their firearm because they might harm someone”. It’s an irrational response to an irrational fear. Yes, some people do drugs and hurt other people. Yes, some people use guns to harm other people. That doesn’t mean that a law-abiding citizen with a good head on their shoulders should be banned from owning a gun or trying out LSD.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          Objectively speaking, I think you gents may be talking past each other.

          You are both acknowledging the failure of the BS war on drugs, that it’s futile, and a huge waste of resources.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m just scared that More Dead Soldiers and I actually agree on something. Maybe there’s hope for humanity after all.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          Strych9. Don’t stress over it. He’ll say something completely bat shit crazy before too long and you’ll be back to not agreeing with him.

      2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        If you consider the war on drugs to be BS, then you are not included in the “crowd” I mentioned.

        By the way, how is all this “no harm no foul” if you acknowledge that the only thing drugs do is offend the government?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Agree completely. Legalize everything.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Yeah when everything is legalized I’d imagine that all the current drug running gang members will just dust off their engineering degrees and get back to their old 9-5 job.

        With legalizing everything I’d wager that urban crimes against the general population would skyrocket but since it would mainly be against the Democrat-voting Leftist urban set I guess I’m hunky-dorey with the grand social experiment. I’ll just make sure my home security measures out in flyover country is tuned up.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Legalization would create many tens of thousands of jobs. I agree there would be some sort of bump in the crime rate, but, this would subside rather quickly – compared to selling drugs there’s really no money in it. Would be fascinating to see the knock-on effects of taking away the cash-cow of most of the criminal organizations extant in the US right now.

  11. avatar Lee says:

    The country has a problem, hes solving it. And this is why his people voted for him. If America had a few good men like Dutertre, we would be a much better place.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      If America had a few “good men” that were endorsing and promoting extrajudicial murder, it would be a third world shithole, too.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Ever been to Detroit, New Jersey or some areas of the Southwest? It already is.

      2. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Some people need killing.

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “The country has a problem, hes solving it. And this is why his people voted for him. If America had a few good men like Dutertre, we would be a much better place.”

      He’s not a good man. He was a very sketchy character when he mayor Davao City. Media image of him was a tough as nails crime fighter who cleaned up Davao City through death squads.

      The reality was Davao City had the highest murder rate of any major city in the Philippines, and nearly the highest rates for rape and robbery, while he was mayor.

  12. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    “Under the blue and starry flag,
    We civilized them with a Krag.”

    Old Marine Corps ditty.

  13. avatar MouseGun says:

    I remember listening to NPR (I drive long distances on a regular basis, and it makes good background noise) about how several places in Europe elected Right Wing politicians, and the talking heads were pissing themselves in fear/anger at the fact that even though the media and government tell the people how great left-wing politics are, people are getting tired of how ineffective they have been for the last couple of decades. I just hope We can get a good candidate in office before the American people resort to something as extreme as what’s described in the article above.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I remember listening to NPR (I drive long distances on a regular basis, and it makes good background noise) ….

      Pragertopia downloads….3 hours a day for essentially near free.

  14. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I have spent some of the most wonderful times in my life in the Philippines, this is just sad.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Yep. Even with Marcos curfew and guys in jeeps with mg’s to enforce it good times could be had in the PI.

  15. avatar HP says:

    Vigilantism aside, I have to say Duterte’s liberal use of the phrase “son of a bitch” amuses me.

  16. avatar jwm says:

    Would it save the taxpayer money if we ended the war on drugs? Most likely. Would it cut the prison population if druggies were treated instead of jailed? For sure.

    I would rather see the money being spent on the drug war be spent on treatment and diversion for drug addicts.

    Even if it meant the .gov supplying addicts with drugs would it still be cheaper on the taxpayer than what we do now? If the addicts got clean drugs for free would they still have to resort to crime and what it costs the country?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Making drugs legal would make them incredibly cheap.

      Cocaine and heroin/morphine are produced and sold at point of origin profitably for under $2000 per kilo. Even marked up 1000% – $20 a gram.

      A “habit” turns into something a minimum wager can survive. Just like alcoholism.

      Sadly, there are too many Fedzilla employees with fat salaries and fat pensions to ever get back to the sanity of pharma pure drugs out of the Sears catalog.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and I’m sure all those narco scumbags would dust off their degrees and go back to the workforce… Right?

        Please…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          serge, not all drug users are members of cartels. What we’re doing now isn’t working. And simply gunning them down is kinda illegal in this country.

          It’s not wrong to try a different approach.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Can we try just gunning them down first? It seems like we will need to change fewer laws.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          Sergei, c’mon man. Do you really think that you can stop people from doing whatever drugs they want to do?
          Seriously?

          Do you really believe that those who have passed on drugs, or do them without issues (the vast majority of drug users are recreational) are going to go full on Philip Seymour Hoffman if it gets re-legalized? Who BTW, is one of those who had enough money to get through his addiction, and would have eventually would have gotten treatment, had he not run into inconsistent purity of his product.

          There’s at least a dozen countries where you will end up dead or in prison for forever selling drugs. One can go there and get all the drugs one wants – just costs a bit more.

  17. avatar Red in CO says:

    Another interesting piece about Duterte: He’s pro-rape. During his campaign (and while he was a mayor), somehow he ended up talking about a recent gang-rape of a woman. And he said something (only half-joking of course, but also not even TRYING to pretend he was completely joking) about how attractive she was and how mayors should have first pick. Absolutely disgusting. I understand why the people of the Philippines are angry enough to elect such a monster. But given the blatant violence and corruption of previous regimes, I can’t help but feel that a better option would have simply been to kill the criminals and the authorities who enable them yourself. They’ve traded one type of tyranny for another, except that this one seems to somehow have MORE legitimacy.

    When the law fails to work on the scale that it has in the Philippines, that is the time to say, “screw the law” and do things your own way. Electing a crazy man who promises mass executions of anyone for any reason seems to be the opposite direction….

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    So we don’t have extrajudicial killings in the US? Good to know.

    Dude, we practically invented that sh!t.

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Here in the US, it is reserved for cops.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        The CIA, NSA, and FBI would beg to disagree. They sure aren’t ‘cops’.

        I think what Ralph was subreferencing is the School of the Americas.

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          The CIA/military do the murdering overseas. They leave the domestic murdering to the cops and the FBI.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          The CIA/military do the murdering overseas.

          Yeah right. Jeebus you are clueless….

        3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          The hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis beg to differ.

  19. avatar Badwolf says:

    Duterte didn’t make it a secret. His campaign promise was to kill criminals. Then he won by a landslide. So what did you expect was gona happen? Do you think the millions of people who voted for him are complaining?

  20. avatar Badwolf says:

    I suspect most of the killings aren’t ordered by Duterte. Duterte promised to kill all criminals, including corrupt cops and military. So if you were a corrupt cop involved in drug trade or other criminal syndicate what would you do? Dead men tell no tales.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Soooo…I’m curious as to why a thread about Filipino’s elicits 75 comments while a practically identical post about Mexican government murders usually gets scant commentary… to me it seems practically identical. We expect less out of Mexico?!?

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Maybe because deep down people recognize the shameful reality that the US government is directly responsible for the Mexican bloodbath.

  22. avatar A. Masters says:

    I live in Hawaii. Honolulu, HI. I had the cops and “Federal Police” give out my personal info to people to try to incite violence against me. I had people violently attack me and my elderly mom, boasting about what they were going to do to us and scream for the cops when I protected myself. When they had to run away, they and their masters in the police dept. said I was a terrorist because I legally owned a gun.

    They said I was like some goatf8cking CIA merc who rapes kids and farm animals and murders POWs because I owned a gun legally, and made state sponsored terrorists, I mean local neighborhood watch members run away when they tried to force my door open and were laughing about how they were going to do whatever they wanted to us…

    Wait a minute. There is no such thing as “Federal Police”. So that guy who was telling the “neighborhood watch” what to do and who the cops would not touch wearing a blue shirt with yellow letters that said “FEDERAL POLICE” must have been one of my schizophrenic hallucinations. And there is no child and meth trafficking protected by the white supremacist powers that be who control the local police, courts and gov. using Hula’s gay bar… ignore this, citizen. Who cares what some likely non white on a desert island says about his monkey kingdom anyway. Silly pineapple nigge

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Can’t tell if you’ve done too many drugs………or not enough.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Perhaps he’s in the middle of a blotter trip…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email