A Brief Deconstruction of a Drunken Logic

THE "death penalty" (already an oxymoron nobody cares to deconstruct in our drunken nation) is a direct admission of the Philippine prison system's inability to truly isolate from society perpetrators of heinous crimes. Therefore, it---as a solution to that prison system problem---makes it no different from a man's resorting to drinking wine when he can't anymore drink from his long-broken water faucet. Like Mr. Bean, this man will stupidly applaud his own newfound solution and will avoid arguments against problems that may arise from his habitual wine-drinking. Like this man, the "death penalty", in fits of beating its chest like a man excited with having found a manly solution to his stupid problem, will avoid arguments against historically-proven new problems that could arise from it---such as wrongful executions of persons adjudged as "criminals", or criminal society's countering with its own death-brandishing judgments upon all privileged. Bur even before this, like Mr. Bean, the death penalty (or capital punishment) would avoid the basic introductory question we hinted above, which asks whether death can be considered a form of punishment, or whether a dead man made dead by the "death penalty" can both be considered as one that "has been punished" as well as one now "resting in peace". If it is the death process that is actually being referred to here as the punishment and not death itself, then is it possible to have that sans the death? Thus, torture? Or should we be done with all this stupid nonsense and just call a spade a spade, so to stop all this bullshit about the death penalty being a penalty. Let's all call it what it is, the extermination of what our civilization would judge as our society's "true criminals" (some of whom may actually have logical reasons for considering our neoliberal or "jedem das Seine, mir das Meiste" civilization as criminal by itself). In which case I may be all for it, this extermination after having honestly called itself so, . . . with the hope that I won't end up like Mr. Bean or a knocked-out Manny Pacquiao after a media-publicized wrongful execution happens years from now. [S / -I]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT’S PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL LEVEL (o, SINO ANG KAWAWANG KOBOY?)

photo from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802103/pacquiao-duterte-wants-to-restore-death-penalty-i-do-too

1. In that corner and in this corner

ALAM siguro ni Senator Manny Pacquiao na bagamat ang pinanggalingan ng boxing bilang organized sport ay maaaring noong tanggapin ito ng mga ancient Greeks bilang isa sa mga Olympic games ng taong BC 688, nag-evolve ito mula sa mga prizefights noong 16th- at 18th-century sa Great Britain hanggang sa mabuo nito ang forerunner ng modern boxing noong mid-19th century, muli sa Great Britain at pagkatapos ay sa Estados Unidos kung saan maraming taga-Great Britain at Ireland ang nag-emigrate. Ito ay mga around the time na nagbabarilan na ang mga later-generation pioneers at mga American Indians ng Midwest at West ng North America na maaari nating tawaging Koboy Age sa westward movement na ito ng mga bagong Amerikano, just for purposes of our non-cinematic discussion. Sa panahong ito, marami ring outlaws ang binitay (literally hanged) pagkatapos mahuli ang mga ito ng mga sheriff ng paparami nang pioneer towns.
    Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
    Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

----------------------------------------

2. The context of this and that

LET’S contextualize the many mobile nouns now contending in the ring:
    When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
    My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
    Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.

----------------------------------------

3. Hindi lang naman iisang source (or, Tsk tsk tsk)

SPEAKING of lists, I understand that all this recent hoopla about the “restoration” of the implementation of an existing capital punishment law is all in aid of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs.
    But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
    In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
    "Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
    By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
    What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.

----------------------------------------

4. Hindi lang naman tayo ang human (or, Tsk tsk tsk, hey-yo, Silver, away!)

MGA kababayan, sa mga naririnig nating diskurso among government people, legislators, and supporters of this government, mapapansin natin na may iisang pagkainis na pinanggagalingan ang urgent clamour for the death penalty at ng agresibong war on drugs na ating tinukoy—ang pagkainis  sa pakikialam ng konsepto ng human rights o paggalang sa karapatan na mabuhay (kahit ng mga convicted na mga mamamatay-tao na nasa death row, na by the way karamihan, kung di man lahat, ay mahihirap at tila walang kasamang mayaman).
    Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
    na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.

SABI NILA, ang human daw ay punong-puno ng takot dahil ang halimaw ay punong-puno ng galit. Kaya siguro naimbento ang human rights.
    Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
    Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
    Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
    Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
    Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324877/news/regions/davao-mayor-duterte-moonlights-fights-crime-as-taxi-driver

THE faults and loopholes in plans are always clearer in hindsight. And it is from this perfect angle within the present that you might grant me the indulgence to find out where the presently-perceived progressing wrongness in Rodrigo Duterte’s national war on drugs may have started, going even beyond its practical launch during the transition period prior to his inauguration.

    I won’t get into the good things the war brought out from the dark as it exposed to national attention a problem already so huge that the gravity of the situation in solving it seems almost unimaginable now. I’m sure Duterte’s defenders can enumerate quite well enough some of those good things.

    But if the world and a growing number of Filipinos have perceived some things going wrong with the Duterte approach to the problem, so have I, and—thanks to the beauty of hindsight—I may now proceed to venture into where those mistakes may have been lurking prior to and during implementation:

1. First, it seems to me now that when Duterte made his drastic solution to the drug problem as one of the highlights, if not the sole highlight, of his presidential election candidacy and campaign, that was perhaps also when he practically started to shape what would later be his impending war on drugs’ problem with critics (perhaps also this war's later-found difficulty in quickly and efficiently obliterating the menace). True, Duterte the candidate might not have been the Duterte candidate that many wanted to see blossom, though we don’t know that, if he had not harped too much on that subject (or on that solution of his to that subject). But Duterte is Duterte, and if everyone has an obsession, this was his.
       But one thing for sure now, well at least now looking back, is that the loquacity of the campaign rhetoric on it as a problem needing a drastic solution, while it served his campaign was also already paving the way for its potential unraveling. For it was simply by announcing this solution of his to the nation, and consequently to the world of criminals (and to the parallel universe of policemen frustrated with the requirements of the law and the corruption in the judiciary) that he may have unwittingly planted the seeds of the war’s own defeat.
       We might remember that the death toll from this war actually already started during the transition period when Noynoy Aquino was still commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Duterte was still the president-elect with diktats in waiting. When, during this period, Duterte made speeches encouraging police to kill drug criminals who opted to fight it out with arresting officers, the encouragement certainly sounded like an offer to policemen to use that scenario as their perfect alibi for the summary execution of confirmed drug dealers that the President might have wanted done (as per some other contents of his speeches). The encouragement would likely also have been useful to erring or criminal cops friendly to drug lords, who may have used the same scenario as the same perfect alibi for the elimination of would-be-whistleblowers (small pushers, runners, client users).
2. The garrulousness of Duterte’s anti-illegal-drug campaign never changed its ways after his inauguration, maintaining a high profile via its appetite for loudness. That practically functioned as a warning to big drug criminals of their impending arrests. In fact, Duterte and his henchman, newly-installed Philippine National Police chief Gen. Bato de la Rosa, would state very explicit warnings to those drug lords on broadcast TV, saying, clearly or in effect, “get ready, we’re coming for you”. This ill-advised loudness defeated the potential of getting to the big drug lords through the quiet use as assets of small dealers (and client users). Instead, the government practically encouraged and aided the elimination of these small dealers, in the process eliminating their potential use as assets and witnesses necessary for getting to the big drug lords and necessary for the latter’s later ultimate conviction in the courts. In short, the Duterte proclivity for braggadocio made it possible for the program to only get the small fry as it practically warned the medium and big fish to get out of the way, even aiding the latter in eliminating elements in the equation who would potentially rat out on them. Thus the so-called “vigilante killings,” which, for all we know, may likely have been killings of simple users who necessarily knew who were who in the trading of the drug supply. These “vigilante killings” by drug dealers would be exacerbated by such programs as 1) Oplan Tokhang that encouraged the surrender of runners and users for listing and 2) mandatory drug testing that announced results: these two programs exposed users to the world of drug dealing as potential testifiers, which would be reason enough for their later or immediate assassination/elimination by the drug dealers. The programs' ultimate accomplishment? These eliminated the witnesses, setting free the drug lords. 
3. Another offshoot of Duterte’s loud campaign (which might have been frustrating to the PNP’s quiet spies and assets) was its susceptibility to being used by the regular murderers for hiding the real motives of their murders. It’s not unlikely that some policemen frustrated with the law and the justice system might have been easily taken in by the cardboards laid on top of murder victims' bodies announcing an anti-drug-pusher motive for their killing, a reaction that would lead these policemen to dismiss any enthusiasm to investigate further other possible motives behind those killings. And when one such occurrence multiplies itself to a horrific number that may trouble the media and human rights organizations as well as the rest of the relatively civilized world, then the war on drugs starts to move on its way to defeat. Instead of gathering more fans (in the manner it gathered fans during the enthusiasm of the election campaign period), it accumulated critics.
4. I need not say much about the potential of Duterte’s approach—along with any killings via vigilantism that may likely have been encouraged by Duterte’s passion—to eliminate wrongfully-accused persons (innocent persons) or persons adjudged as guilty by the verdict of mistaken identification.
5. Much of the enthusiasm for and loyalism towards Duterte’s war on drugs seems to have derived from a mythical appreciation of its beauty, lacking any favor for a delicate treatment of the problem. This kind of enthusiasm would necessarily churn out more good-looking braggadocio (bravado) instead of more scientific thinking towards winning the war. The potential unraveling of the still-continuing war (for which the President has asked for another six months to complete) could start precisely from this seeming waylaying of any delicate treatment of the situation in favor of the charismatic carelessness of the drastic, thanks to the penchant for sweeping obsessive thinking in the President himself. Thus his announcements (after the Davao explosion that some have begun to regard as an experimental false flag) that the military might have to be hauled in into this war, without weighing the fact that this solution could bring in more problems (via evolution) instead of real closure. We’re not even talking yet about the announcements that seem to be jeopardizing a long-time alliance with the relatively more democratic West (that has been critical of his war) in favor of a sweet-talking trickster called China (that has offered him rehab centers allegedly already under construction). This obsession by Duterte with one single personal interest (the dreamy utopia of a drug-free world) seems to have become so emotional to him that it has placed the drug problem in a pedestal worth any sacrifice, even the sacrifice by a leader of his country’s national sovereignty, thanks perhaps to a blinded confidence that he will not be deceived by his new like-minded allies from the lands of Qin Shi Huang and surviving KGBs.
6. The recently-accumulating careless statements of the President have made people nervous, primarily of the fact that he may have used this bottom-up war on drugs not for the serious elimination of the trade and drug lords but merely as a casus belli for the establishment of a culture of fear and obedience, fear of and obedience to a loved leader, after which establishment he can perhaps impose whatever personal utopia he has had in that strange 71-year-old brain of his, and likewise place in power the friends and institutions (local and foreign) that he wanted placed in lieu of the old friends his 71-year-old memory had come to hate.

    Sadly, all this developing blindness or myopia (in government or in the people) may perhaps only be proven true when it’s already too late and the only redeeming solutions available are already hidden in the tears of hindsight. [S / -I]





P.S. October 4, afternoon: If I may be allowed to speak in the language of divination priests, I'd bluntly say this to you now, Mr. President: "Here you are again, sir, deciding out loud, making all your thoughts known at a local leaders' congress. Sure you're telling them truths, collective truths and personal truths, but isn't the habitual or continuous screaming out of extemporaneous, lecturing truths risky when you are telling these to the populace yourself, touting yourself as your own best communication expert? Isn't it a disadvantage when you are being heard in the battlefield of your war, consequently warning the enemies you shouldn't be handing the benefit of a warning? Might it not be better to tell all these to key people in your team, giving them the blunt truths they might already know that yet need to be quickly and aggressively addressed? Might not the communication of a positive purpose or goal work better for the people's collective listening ears? Can you come up with a better communication plan than the non-plan you now have of making criminals daily hear your ever-present anger that's enabling them to adapt or be ready for?"
    Here's my joke about you to counter your Hitler rant:
    Kung si Rodrigo Duterte ang naging Hitler ng Germany at si Bato de la Rosa ang kanyang naging Goering, hindi na kakailanganin ni Churchill si Turing dahil walang magiging Enigma.

DUTERTE'S CLUSTER BOMB

photo from http://www.redthreadinc.co/red-thread-blog/2015/4/2/dyi-cyber-vigilantism-the-heroes-we-need

I'D AGREE that when you let calls and checks for human rights work for the criminals, as criminals have no concern for human rights, then human rights end up benefiting criminals, to the disadvantage of anti-criminal enforcement (which is usually the only present subject for human rights calls and checking).
    However, I also buy the fact that when due process that is meant to protect the wrongfully accused is removed from the equation of going after criminals, the absence of that process also successfully removes from the face of the earth both 1) the criminals and 2) the wrongfully accused . . . having both been summarily executed by the judge, jury and executioner-cleaner who implemented their removal. And should we ignore the collateral damage that these executions produce? One wonders if the absence of due process is truly the only way to successfully clean a dirty street, or if there is a more precise way with almost no collateral damage.
    Could there be a cleaner with a cleaning plan better than what the Duterte/de la Rosa cleaning theory boasts as being the only plan sure to successfully clean streets? Could a denial of an alternative plan be due to an attitude indifferent to collateral damage? [S / -I]

ANG PULISYA AT ANG DIWA NG KARTON

photo from https://twitter.com/biancadava/status/749329266139992064

SABIHIN na natin na ang mga nasa larawang ito ay totoo ngang methamphetamine drug pushers na direkta o di-direktang may kinalaman sa maraming krimen na nangyayari sa ating lipunan. Malamang totoo ngang pusher sila, dahil . . . may tattoo.
    Pero paano, halimbawa, kung ito ang nangyari? May mga akyat-bahay na pumasok sa isang shop at naabutan sila ng dalawang may-ari ng shop kaya pinatay na lang ng akyat-bahay ang dalawang may-ari ng shop at nagsulat ng "pusher, huwag tularan" sa isang nahanap na karton at itinabi ang karton na ito sa mga bangkay ng kanilang napatay na mga may-ari ng shop. Ano sa palagay ninyo ang gagawin ng pulis ukol dito? Iimbestigahan ba nila ang marder na ito? Maaaring hindi. Dahil maaaring maging malakas ang dating sa superintendent nila ang diwa ng karton. [S / -I]

BINABARIL BA KAYA NG BARIL MO ANG SARILI MONG PAA?

photo mula sa http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/07/16/3-lalaking-nanlaban-sa-mga-pulis-maynila-patay

ILAN sa mga napabalitang napaslang (sa ilalim ng anti-drug drive ng gobyerno) ay anti-drug activists na pinaslang ng mga drug trafficking organizations? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno para di na dumami pa ang mga anti-drug activists na mapapaslang ng mga organisasyong ito?
    Ilan sa nabalitang mga napaslang ang napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity? Ilan na ang nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga napaslang ang wrongfully accused o biktima ng wrongful execution (na tinaniman pa ng ebidensya at baril)?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga pulis na nakapaslang ng diumano'y nanlaban na mga suspek ang bahagi o nasa payroll ng drug trafficking syndicates at maaaring napag-utusan ng sindikato na paslangin ang lahat ng may nalalaman tungkol sa kanilang druglord? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno sa pag-usisa tungkol sa usaping ito? Naniniwala ba talaga si General Rock ofthe Rose (Bato dela Rosa) na hindi ito posible, ayon sa sabi niya sa panayam sa kanya ng TV5 tungkol dito, dahilan kung bakit walang pag-usisa sa usaping ito?

KUNG walang ginagawa ang gobyerno para maprotektahan ang mga anti-drug activists na may kaunting alam tungkol sa ilang public figures sa illicit drug trade, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno tungkol sa mga napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoo ngang mayroon, o nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoong mayroon, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga kaso ng wrongfully accused at mga kaso ng wrongfully summarily executed, ano ang magiging impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga problemang nabanggit, dahil lamang sa kaniyang paniniwala na hindi posible maging totoo ang mga problemang ito, . . . dahan-dahan bang pinapatay ng gobyerno ang sarili niyang anti-illegal drug drive?
    Abangan na lang siguro natin kung saan ang lahat ng ito ay patutungo, at kung tataas nga ba ang bilang ng mga napaslang na di dapat napaslang. [S / -I]