DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS.

Filipino funeral workers carry the remains of an alleged drug dealer

who was killed in a shootout with the police, in Manila, Philippines, July 3, 2016. Photo by Mark
Cristino/EPA

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.

Thoughts on Extrajudicial Killings and Unexplained Disappearances

by: PJ Ruben T. Reyes and J. Mariano C. Del Castillo
Sadly, the Philippines in the eyes of the international community has a very poor human rights record due to
its alarming incidence of extrajudicial killings and unexplained disappearances/abductions of private
individuals without anyone being held accountable. And now, various sectors of the society are prodded to
seek for viable solutions to address the poor human rights problems of the country.
We sincerely believe that the root of the problem is not really much on the laws related to curbing and
punishing human rights violators. Actually, it has always been the implementation of these laws. As part of
the judicial institution whose power is drawn from the pen, we are here to present some issues to be mulled
over.
1. There is a need for a clear-cut definition of what extrajudicial killing is, for homicide and murder are
extrajudicial killings too. The name is a misnomer since every killing, outside of the death penalty, is
extrajudicial. Shouldnt the crime be called a political killing instead? When will a case fall under
extrajudicial killings in order that the special court can assume jurisdiction? Thus, the motive must be
determined during investigation. This is relevant in the light of the existence of special courts to handle such
cases. A categorical definition would pinpoint who are to be held liable and who are the victims.
An international NGO observed that such extrajudicial killings in the Philippines show a common pattern:

Surveillance and threats to the victims presumptively by officers;

Finding their names in an Order of Battle by military commanders;

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;

Witness intimidation and sometimes witness murder.

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?

Terrorism and Human Rights (40): Targeted

Killings, Pros and Cons
The use of so-called drone airplanes to target and kill suspected terrorists is in
the news again. Some in the U.S. have voiced what in my view are justified yet
somewhat myopic concerns about the supposed authority of the U.S. President
to target American citizens on foreign or domestic soil. This is one of many
cases in which the value of due process clashes with the need to respond to
imminent threats. As usual, the executive has a tendency to focus on the latter.

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

If indeed were dealing with a war, then concerns about extra-judicial

killings, about the absence of imminent threats and the failure to apprehend
when possible do not seem justified. Thats a bog if of course. One has the
feeling that the war on terror has been called a war not because it is one
but because it yields the right to kill. And one can even question the

traditional right to unlimited killing of soldiers during wartime, as Jeff

McMahan has done.

Drone attacks evidently minimize the risks of casualties on the attackers

side, even possibly down to zero. Drones may also provide cover for soldiers
in the field during regular operations.

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).

Drone attacks may produce leadership vacuums and lead to

disorganization in the terrorist organization. Organizational decapitation may
hurt terrorist groups more than regular attacks.

CONS

Drone attacks especially if they become widespread mean that the

attacking side no longer has skin in the game. As a result, these attacks may
remove an important restraint on war. Wars or military adventures may
become more common as they become less costly in human terms on the
attackers side.

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 choice to kill when apprehension is possible means forgoing the

possibility to put the target on trial and demonstrate to the world how a
civilized country deals with threats. It gives the opposite message that
violence is the appropriate form of defense and retaliation.

Intelligence that could be gathered by capturing and questioning the

targets is lost when they are killed.

The lack of transparency opens the door to abuse, as does the view that
an imminent threat is not required.

Drone attacks often violate the sovereignty of other countries, setting a

dangerous precedent.

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.

War On Drugs Overview

In a bid to reduce the illegal drug trade, a campaign of drug prohibition, military
intervention, and military aid was established. It includes effective drug policies that are
designed to discourage distribution, consumption, and production of psychoactive drugs
that were made illegal by the UN and participating governments.
While declaring war on drugs seems to be logical, opponents think it might be a waste
of time and resources. Some claim that criminal acts are a consequence of drugs being
declared illegal. Because people cant acquire these substances through official
channels, they will resort to illegal production, distribution and consumption.

List of Pros of War on Drugs

1. Deter or lessen drug-related crimes.
When drug addicts will not have easy access to illegal substances, they will not
experience the highs or hallucinations that will drive them to commit crimes. They
wouldnt need to steal either so they can buy drugs. Put simply, without the pushers
there will be little to no users.
2. Culprits will be penalized
Included in the policies of war on drugs is the penalty that will be afforded to
manufacturers, distributors and users of illegal drugs. The level of punishment that will
be imposed depends on the gravity of the crime. Knowing that there are consequences
to be paid will make people think twice before embroiling in any stage of the illegal drug
trade.
3. Helps create a place that is drug free
A drug-free area or community may seem impossible given the present situation, but it
is achievable as long as everyone does their share in the fight against drugs. War on

drugs should not only involve the government and local authorities, but also friends and
family of drug users or sellers.

List of Cons of War on Drugs

1. Widespread corruption
Watch any drug-related movies and youll see that the people who introduced and
imposed the war on drugs are the same people who could be peddling the illegal
substances. Political analyst also see a projected increase in corruption within the
government because of the funds that will be allocated to control drug abuse. What are
the odds that these funds will be used for personal gain?
2. Provides a smokescreen to hide the real problem behind drug abuse
A majority of the population that are easily lured into drug dealing are those within and
below the poverty line. People who have no hope of achieving very much because of
their circumstances would resort to drug dealing where knowledge and skills are not
required in their resume. They also see it as a way to make something of themselves,
and to have the resources to fund their own drug habits. Would it not be better when the
billions allocated for anti-drug campaigns are used to help improve the lives of these
individual? For the last 40 years, an estimated $1 trillion was funneled to the war on
drugs. Taxpayers are paying big for a war that is showing no signs of being victorious
any time soon. In fact, the flow of drugs into the United States are increasing year after
year.
Perhaps everyone would turn out to be good citizens if they are provided with all the
basic necessities to help them achieve their dreams. Viewed this way, the war on drugs
is nothing more than a nasty and vindictive smoke screen.
3. Increases risk on the lives of policeman and military
Missions against drug lords is no joke, considering that they too have their own army
that has no care about the lives that will be lost during a shootout or drug bust
operation. What do policemen have against assassins and mercenaries? Not to belittle
the skills and capacity of law enforcement, but a mission against drug pushers and
manufacturers are increasingly worse. The safety risks on the lives of many policemen

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.