Friday, March 30, 2007

Human Security Act Needs A Prank Terrorism Provision

TEDDY BOY LOCSIN on Korina Today (ABSCBN ANC) reveals how opponents of the Anti Terrorism Bill in the House and Senate were able to delete an important provision in the legislation punishing PRANK TERRORISM with ten years in jail. This provision was intended to prevent incidents at airports in which someone jokingly or idiotically claims to have a bomb or weapon. Such a provision would certainly apply to the Manila Hostage Crisis this past week, so Teddy Boy says he will file an amendment to the Human Security Act when Congress reconvenes. He says that even if those were wooden grenades and blank ammo in the possession of Jun Ducat and his fellow hostage takers, the police had no way of knowing that and might have opened fire or taken some other drastic action resulting in disaster. I agree. And while they're at it, those other big LOOPHOLES in the Anti Terrorism Law ought to be closed and its grievous deficiencies alleviated. The removal of the prank terrorism provision in the original version of the law was only one of dozens of amendments accomplished by so called "human rights defenders" among the honorable senators and congressmen which have in fact substantially weakened the law and inutilized it for the purpose of preventing the use of terrorist tactics and activities. What the Jun Ducat incident teaches us is that PRANK TERRORISM is really now a new form of PROTEST ACTION that could start a whole new destructive fashion among militants and so-called reformers.

Now for disturbing speculation about the Manila Hostage Crisis:

WERE PARENTS IN ON DUCAT HOSTAGE TAKING? One of the most puzzling and intriguing aspects of this story is how the parents of the 26 hostaged day-care kids (average age 5) have apparently declared no intention to file charges against Jun Ducat and his accomplices. It strikes me as most unnatural and suspicious that some of those parents who immediately made themselves available for Mass Media interviews following the end of the 10 hour hostage drama were actually supporting Jun Ducat, calling him a philanthropist, a hero, and calling for his release! Almost as if they were in cahoots with the hostage takers, they are behaving or talking not like the parents of kids kidnapped and detained in a school bus with grenades and Uzis being brandished by three men, but almost as co-conspirators. I suppose the fact that two big names (Bong Revilla and Amable Aguiluz) have acceded to the hostage taker's demand that they be given free lifetime education and even land titles also constitutes they're motive. Perhaps, as Teddy Boy suggests they also should be investigated for conspiracy to extortion!

MASS MEDIA RUN AMUCK: Mass Media in the Philippines plays a unique role which I can only describe as that of QUASI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS. Newspapers, TV and Radio networks have become far more than objective recorders and observers of the local and national scene. Having many times tasted of social and political power potent enough to effect social changes big and small all the way to regime change at the highests levels, the Mass Media stands toe-to-toe with militant mass organizations, NGOs, and Government itself as a wielder of information, influence and power. This situation is self-congrulatingly described by some media folks as the "power of press freedom". But an irreversible consequence for reporters, journalists, broadcasters, editors, commentators anchor persons who partake of this power is that they have indeed become PUBLIC FIGURES who just happen to work in the Mass Media and can hardly claim the old title of JOURNALIST.


manuelbuencamino said...

it is already forbidden to make bomb jokes. when was the last time you were at an airport?

I think that's covered by the shouting fir in a crowded theater thing.

That's why keep shouting theater at your crowded fire.

Rizalist said...

You are right MB. Causing such a panic in a crowded theatre was the situation contemplated in the original provision, but that only covers causing a panic or a stir, not when it is complexed with economic (land title) and political demands (free education for the children he was holding guns and grenades to). That's why it makes every sense in the world to make the amendment to the law--the anti terrorism law.

Btw, I know you will probably bring it up again, so let me give you an answer already! It is possible to be prosecuted for crimes under the Human Security Act WITHOUT being put on a special Terrorist List or Order of Battle under the same law.

I know you don't think it is necessary for you to DEFINE terrorism, but lil by lil you are going to have to define what is NOT terrorism. haha!

manuelbuencamino said...

I am happy with the Revised Penal Code.

By the way. Do you think torture is permissible under certain circumstances?

Rizalist said...

Mental, physical, or just prank torture?

manuelbuencamino said...

Torture under certain circumstances. Yes or No?

L.A said...

Hi. We sent you the e-Ticket for the Philippine Blog Awards 2007. Please show this at the registration table. You will then be given two entrance tickets: one for you and another for your guest. If you have not received your e-Ticket or have any questions please email philippineblogawards [at] gmail [dot] com. Best of luck to you and your blog. See you there!

Rizalist said...

Torture under certain circumstances?


But I doubt such circumstances would ever arise that could not be adequately be addressed with a good shot of sodium pentathol.

How about you MB? Are there any limits to the Right of Privacy that can not be breached by the Right of the Public to Know?

Yes or no?

manuelbuencamino said...

I don't know where your question is leading.
And I don't know the answer to that question. I am not well versed on exactly what the right of privacy is and the right of the public to know. However id the question is raised in the context of torture then I will say, torture is not permissible under any circumstances.

But your answer reminds me of your oft repeated principle, The end never justifies the means.

Rizalist said...

The Right of Privacy extends to a person's entire being, his body, his mind, his very person. The right of the Public to Know is the very right which can justify the use of torture to breach a terrorist's right of privacy. So it is quite germane to your own question. Now...

"Torture is not permissible under any circumstances." -- Manuel Buencamino

Suppose there is a nuclear bomb set to go off in the middle of the City in six hours. A million people will die instantly and 10 times as many more slowly and painfully. The police arrest two men in a speedboat leaving the Philippines, one of them a missing nuclear physicist who was kidnapped along with his wife who is being tortured by the terrorists and was forced to rig the Bomb. But he doesn't know where they put it. However the other man apparently installed it and knows exactly where it is. The nearest sodium pentathol is 7 hours away.

Now answer my question, YES or NO:

Are there any limits to the Right of Privacy that can not be breached by the Right of the Public to Know?

There is an important eternal moral principle that is involved. What is it?

manuelbuencamino said...


Nothing justifies torture.

But your example tells me that the ends don't justify the means is not really cast in stone. It's a movanle feast.

manuelbuencamino said...

by the way, sodium pentathol is not some magic truth drug.

If you check the literature on it, you will find out that all it does is affect the nervous system.

Remember the cliche about wine and the truth?

Sodium Pentathol affects the interrogator more than the subject. The interrogator thinks the subject is telling the truth because he was injected with the "truth serum". That's movie and novel stuff, doc.

Rizalist said...

There is stronger stuff than sodium pentathol, but it's really beside the point.

But I see your answer to my question is NO.

Which reminds me very much of a similar question asked of Michael Dukakis during the 1988 Presidential race in which he was asked whether he would allow to go on furlough a rapist that had raped his own wife and Gov. Dukakis missed the point of the question and started talking about his dedication to law and order...

It would be a pretty dedicated (or merely argumentative) civil libertarian who insists he would rather let 11 million innocent people die than to do whatever is necessary to get the information that would save them.

NO to Torture!??? Radiation burns for 10 million people is not torture to the Civil Libertarian? Even if it means both he and the Terrorist would perish in a blinding fireball together with the 11 million to uphold the principle: NO to Torture??

Here, pull my other leg, it hurts from slap-laughing!

manuelbuencamino said...

Movable feasts are not consistent with moral consistency,reverend.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with dying for one's principles.

Also read what the dean of the US Military Academy has to say about torture and the effectivity of torture as a means of extracting information.

The "ticking time bomb" is storybook stuff and Jack Bauer is a fantasy hero. And there is no such thing as a truth serum, doc.

And you got the Dukakis story wrong. The question asked him was whether he supported the death penalty or not if his wife was raped. The furlough part was part of the bogus Willlie Horton furlogh story that was being pinned on Dukakis to show that he was soft on crime

And of course the politically astute answer to that question would have been, "I would love to tear his head off but I don't believe in capital punishment."

And to your ticking time bomb I would reply, "I would love to do whatever it takes, but there are certain lines I will not cross."

Rizalist said...

MB--Like Dukakis, your are still inhuman if you insist on that answer to the original question. Paleoliberally correct. But inhuman.

manuelbuencamino said...

Hahaha. .."And so castkes made of sand,,,fall into the sea....eventually..."

Tick,,, Tock,,, Tick...Tock...out with ends don't justify the means......Tick,,, Tock,,, Tick...Tock...oyr with moral consistency

O ye men of little abandon everything ye stand for at the first sound of a couldn't even wait until after the first commercial... hahahahaha

manuelbuencamino said...

At the criimes against humanity trial. DJB's lawyer, Gaudy Oliver Rosales said,

"Satan made him do it...Oh no...not was the tick...tock...tick...tock......besides it's just a speck sompared to...."

Rizalist said...

First you ask me if torture is EVER justifiable. After I give a perfectly good instance of one, you make fun of it as fiction. Well of course it's fiction, but my answer is still perfectly logical by presenting an example in which most reasonable human beings would agree, torture would be a lesser evil than the incineration of 11 million human beings.

You cannot establish the opposite--that torture is NEVER justifiable--by then bringing up the acknowledged fact that most instances of torture in the world today are in fact unjustified and illegal.

You are being fallacious by a very inept use of CASUISTRY.

But you see it is like taking a human life. Is killing another person EVER justified?

Sure it is! It is called SELF-DEFENSE.

Yet what you are doing in respect to torture is like arguing that Killing is NEVER justified just because there are murderers who commit that crime, sometimes in multiples!

I know you can come up with far better logic and arguments than these lame fish in a barrel.

manuelbuencamino said...

You have think your perfectly good instance through. It is flawed.

The tick...tock works in the favor of your torture subject. He knows his suffering will end in exactly six hours.

You see, DJ, a definite time limit robs torture of its greatest strength - that of the victim not knowing how much more pain and how much longer.

The threat of endless suffering is lost when you put a tick tock.

But then again you can't remove the tick, tock from your example because your rationalization and justification of torture will lose its legs.

See what I mean? See why I didn't take your example seriously?

Think about your perfectly good instance again...or cook up another perfectly good instance...maybe I'll bite...

In the meantime...

Peace be with you.


Dean, just read the Inquirer article on blogs awards night, you won.


Jego said...

Congratulations, rizalist.

manuelbuencamino said...


jeniffer said...

how come you wOn the award in GMA eh.. you are blogspot user? is it ok to them? I thought only those people who own their own site like .com but congratz.. :)

costa rica said...

This article is fantastic; the information you show us is very interesting and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it... Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia.

Jego said...

Is costa rica insinuating something about you, rizalist? :-D

Rizalist said...

No Jego. If you check out costa rica's site you will realize it is nothing personal, just a spambug. I've already reported the "blog" to blogger as an inappropriate site. Don't touch it. Toxic!