Philippines president overseeing killing of drug addicts/dealers

[Tryhard]

I came across this topic of which I was previously unaware and I found it interesting so I decided to make a topic about it. Note that I do not know the situation in the Philippines, other than drug cartels are a major problem in the area.

The fact that he is advocating the killing of drug addicts and dealers stuns me, however.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-urges-people-to-kill-drug-addicts

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/asia/philippines-war-on-drugs/

And from what I'm to understand, people actually support this guy, who was nicknamed 'The Punisher'. I saw some figures suggesting that Duterte had approval ratings up to 91%, and most of them seem to agree with the course of action, or are even actively being vigilantes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37172002

Are the people complicit in what is essentially an act of genocide (I don't call it that lightly - and while genocide typically refers to race, it is specifically defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people - but drug addicts need help, and it should go without saying that they don't deserve to be killed), regardless of your feelings on drugs and their dealers (in which I doubt many people would have much nice to say about drug dealers)? Is this extreme course of action necessary? Is the country just backwards? All of this isn't to take away from other horrible things currently happening in the world where thousands more are dying but this is a unique case to me. Also, what's to stop the planting of drugs to frame people?

Perhaps I'm just ignorant of the subject but it was thrust back into the news this week with his relay with Obama.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/05/politics/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-barack-obama/

Edited September 7, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

I guess a great deal of people like authoritarians as long as they're not the ones being punished.

[Tetragrammaton]

I'll give you guys more links so you can see a larger picture of this drug war.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/813023/rich-poor-are-all-targets-in-drug-war-dela-rosa

All of them, the rich, the poor, police, civilians… even if you are a politician, you will die if you are into drugs and you fight back

We even prefer to kill our fellows who have betrayed our cause… they have turned traitor

Duterte's 'drug list' has mayors, judges, congressmen
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/08/07/1611013/list-public-officials-duterte-said-are-involved-illegal-drugs
http://www.rappler.com/nation/142103-duterte-drug-list-mayors-judges-congressman

Political officials' lives are in danger too, some of them had already surrender

http://www.rappler.com/nation/141607-duterte-surrender-rolando-espinosa-mayor

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/08/02/1609195/mayor-son-warned-surrender-or-die

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/05/16/two-mayors-surrender-admit-involvement-in-drug-trade

If you dont want to die, this is where you will go

http://time.com/4438112/philippines-overcrowded-prison-manila-rodrigo-duterte/

Edited September 7, 2016 by hanhnn

[Moblin Major General]

Southeast Asia in general has a tree up their ass about drugs, especially because of how badly it damaged China during the Opium Wars. It's seen as a popular move because Singapore and Thailand will execute smugglers and dealers without appeal. Does it mean it's right? Hell no it doesn't. But seeing as though drugs irreparably damaged the region, they have a point.

[Tryhard]

Southeast Asia in general has a tree up their ass about drugs, especially because of how badly it damaged China during the Opium Wars. It's seen as a popular move because Singapore and Thailand will execute smugglers and dealers without appeal. Does it mean it's right? Hell no it doesn't. But seeing as though drugs irreparably damaged the region, they have a point.

Hmm, but is there cause for attacking the victims of drug addiction, not just the dealers?

[Moblin Major General]

Hmm, but is there cause for attacking the victims of drug addiction, not just the dealers?

Far Eastern governments don't give two shits about mental health either, especially Japan and China. They don't care why you need or want drugs. You are apart of the problem to them, and must be disposed of.

[tuvarkz]

I see no issue with death penalty for drug dealers, as I find the direct corruption of healthy people into addicts for profit completely unacceptable and injustifiable, and directly against human society and human progress.

It does cross the line regarding addicts, though.

Edited September 7, 2016 by tuvarkz

[blah the Prussian]

He has high approval ratings because the people care more about stopping drugs than they do about the rule of law. What Duterte is doing, which includes hiring contract killers to kill drug dealers, is unacceptable under any circumstances. The precedent that this sets- a head of state using contract killers to perform extrajudicial killings- is diasastrous.

[shadowofchaos]

I guess a great deal of people like authoritarians as long as they're not the ones being punished.

While I don't sympathize with the extreme solution of "death to drug dealers"... growing up in the Philippines... there was always this notion of "be very afraid of the police and government officials, because honest ones are rarer than diamonds". I can testify to the government corruption culture.

Corruption was just a normal part of life there.

[Rapier]

I see no issue with death penalty for drug dealers, as I find the direct corruption of healthy people into addicts for profit completely unacceptable and injustifiable, and directly against human society and human progress.

It does cross the line regarding addicts, though.

What do you think legally justifies taking the life of another, from a moral point of view? Also, how do you draw the line between cocaine/crack dealers and weed/tobacco sellers?

[Etrurian emperor]

I find Duterte to fit in quite neatly with the current tend of populist wolves gaining power or prominence among a wave of discontent with the traditional parties. Its happening all over the world. Trump in America, Le pen, the brexiteers and Wilders in Europe and Erdogan and Duterte in Asia.

You could say Duterte is a whole different league of terrible compared to those other names and you'd be right. But I do detect similarities in the way they act from the macho image, the slandering of the establishment while arguably being a far worse alternative and a (in my eyes disingenuous) claim to fight for the average folk.

From what I heard the leaders who came before Duterte really were corrupt but your leader being merely corrupt strikes me as a far better situation then that leader being a mass murdering madman. And who's to say everyone on those list is even involved in drugs to begin with? I wouldn't put it past such a man to just write down the name of an opponent.

[Lord Raven]

I see no issue with death penalty for drug dealers, as I find the direct corruption of healthy people into addicts for profit completely unacceptable and injustifiable, and directly against human society and human progress.

It does cross the line regarding addicts, though.

Do you also believe in things like the death penalty to fast food chain owners, soda companies, tobacco companies etc? Or are drugs the only thing that affect physical and mental health? (Yes I know tobacco is a drug - but it is legal, and you appear to be talking about illegal drugs).

[Life]

I'm looking more into Duterte to see where this came from and it's astounding how quickly this whole thing came up. It's not like this is new, it's just on a federal level instead of tertial.

91% approval sounds strange to me. There's no evidence to disprove it aside from the belief that it is a lie. This needs to play out if you ask me.

EDIT: Wow, this is amazing. It's a moral dilemna that needs to play out without outside interference. I want to see the conclusion.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Moblin Major General]

Do you also believe in things like the death penalty to fast food chain owners, soda companies, tobacco companies etc? Or are drugs the only thing that affect physical and mental health? (Yes I know tobacco is a drug - but it is legal, and you appear to be talking about illegal drugs).

Tuvarkz is Peruvian. When your neighbors are two of the most corrupt states in the world, you tend to be a little biased. And when I mean a little, I mean extremely biased. Your logic is also flawed, in that most of those things take years or decades to kill, when some drugs take as little as one use to kill. Sure, a choking death could probably happen more often than a crack stroke, but that doesn't excuse that crack cocaine is, on the whole, far more dangerous. What you mentioned, save tobacco, are fine in moderation, but drugs, sans cannabis, are not.

[tuvarkz]

What do you think legally justifies taking the life of another, from a moral point of view? Also, how do you draw the line between cocaine/crack dealers and weed/tobacco sellers?

Morally? I believe that there are crimes heinous enough that send a person beyond the point of reformation into a functioning member of society. While yes, I have a significantly less harsh stance on weed, if it was to be legally allowed, outside of prescripted medical reasons, I'd have it (and tobacco) taxed beyond the point of profitability as anything other than a very much luxury good. I'd also add something akin of what Italy does regarding tobacco. I'll admit I have a strong personal bias against smoking, though.

Do you also believe in things like the death penalty to fast food chain owners, soda companies, tobacco companies etc? Or are drugs the only thing that affect physical and mental health? (Yes I know tobacco is a drug - but it is legal, and you appear to be talking about illegal drugs).

I specifically mentioned against human society and human progress as conditions that make drug sellers deserving of the death penalty. Fast Food and Soda are not directly detrimental to either, and while obesity and related health issues are something that needs to be adressed, the fact that most of the nocive compounds that come from eating those in an occasional to semi-regular manner can be balanced out with a healthy enough lifestyle (And then, banning fast food would also logically proceed to banning ultra-high-calory concentration products and other stuff that is otherwise necessary for human consumption). OTOH with most drugs, the lead chemicals are significatively easier to point out and determine as cause of the nocive effects, and I see products that actively damage the brain as incommesurably worse than products that are minimally detrimental to a healthy lifestyle. I've already talked about tobacco and weed in my reply to Rapier.

Tuvarkz is Peruvian. When your neighbors are two of the most corrupt states in the world, you tend to be a little biased. And when I mean a little, I mean extremely biased. Your logic is also flawed, in that most of those things take years or decades to kill, when some drugs take as little as one use to kill. Sure, a choking death could probably happen more often than a crack stroke, but that doesn't excuse that crack cocaine is, on the whole, far more dangerous. What you mentioned, save tobacco, are fine in moderation, but drugs, sans cannabis, are not.

I'll have to add Perú to the list of corrupt countries there too. It's gotten to the point where rooting out corruption in the Peruvian parliament (and probably the rest of the government) would likely lead to its shutdown from so many members being involved in one or another thing.

[Lord Raven]

Tuvarkz is Peruvian. When your neighbors are two of the most corrupt states in the world, you tend to be a little biased. And when I mean a little, I mean extremely biased. Your logic is also flawed, in that most of those things take years or decades to kill, when some drugs take as little as one use to kill. Sure, a choking death could probably happen more often than a crack stroke, but that doesn't excuse that crack cocaine is, on the whole, far more dangerous. What you mentioned, save tobacco, are fine in moderation, but drugs, sans cannabis, are not.

My logic is not flawed because the post I was responding to did not add the nuance of "time to kill." Mine also was responding to the "drug dealers" point too. All of these are very broad. Detrimental to human life and drugs are two extremely broad terms.

Morally? I believe that there are crimes heinous enough that send a person beyond the point of reformation into a functioning member of society. While yes, I have a significantly less harsh stance on weed, if it was to be legally allowed, outside of prescripted medical reasons, I'd have it (and tobacco) taxed beyond the point of profitability as anything other than a very much luxury good. I'd also add something akin of what Italy does regarding tobacco. I'll admit I have a strong personal bias against smoking, though.

Why? Because you don't like it?

I specifically mentioned against human society and human progress as conditions that make drug sellers deserving of the death penalty. Fast Food and Soda are not directly detrimental to either, and while obesity and related health issues are something that needs to be adressed, the fact that most of the nocive compounds that come from eating those in an occasional to semi-regular manner can be balanced out with a healthy enough lifestyle (And then, banning fast food would also logically proceed to banning ultra-high-calory concentration products and other stuff that is otherwise necessary for human consumption). OTOH with most drugs, the lead chemicals are significatively easier to point out and determine as cause of the nocive effects, and I see products that actively damage the brain as incommesurably worse than products that are minimally detrimental to a healthy lifestyle.

Okay, but as it stands everything can cause some sort of addiction to your reward pathway, including cocaine. Anything that "tastes good" with little to no health benefits (soda comes to mind) will also affect this pathway. The intensity is not comparable of course, but the point is that these are not actually beneficial outside of pleasure due to the minimal amount of anything healthy within them if at all. You can also make the whole "balanced out" argument with just about any drug, as well.

As for the rest, it's the slippery slope fallacy. The same way that banning fast food can lead to banning just about anything else, the death penalty for illegal drug distributors can lead to the death penalty for legal drug distributors...? One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Soda has literally zero health benefits and is a pure detriment to health. Again, are you for banning soda companies? Sure, it doesn't kill you short term, but the long term effects are quite painful, and also eating unhealthy semi-regularly will lead to a reduction in physical and emotional state. It's meant for the occasional use - as are a lot of things - but that doesn't stop people from using it.

Again, your logic is very broad and seems to apply to just about anything that can be considered a net hindrance, where the costs outweigh the benefits (and I'm assuming that you believe the pleasure aspect is irrelevant).

Edited September 7, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

91% approval sounds strange to me. There's no evidence to disprove it aside from the belief that it is a lie. This needs to play out if you ask me.

That was a poll's approval rating of Duterte himself in July, and he pretty much directly ran on the platform of what is happening now. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/04/as-bodies-pile-up-in-philippines-many-fear-to-talk-about-dutertes-war.html

As for actual support for what's happening, it's harder to find. There was this before he was elected.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/philippine-punisher-president-160426200042352.html

A survey by the renowned Ateneo de Davao University shows that more than half of residents think the death squad is "OK", while 98 percent are satisfied with the mayor.

He even admitted that he had killed "at least three people" personally in the past.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

I see no issue with death penalty for drug dealers, as I find the direct corruption of healthy people into addicts for profit completely unacceptable and injustifiable, and directly against human society and human progress.

It does cross the line regarding addicts, though.

very weird stance coming from a libertarian

[Tetragrammaton]

That was a poll's approval rating of Duterte himself in July, and he pretty much directly ran on the platform of what is happening now. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/04/as-bodies-pile-up-in-philippines-many-fear-to-talk-about-dutertes-war.html

As for actual support for what's happening, it's harder to find. There was this before he was elected.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/philippine-punisher-president-160426200042352.html

He even admitted that he had killed "at least three people" personally in the past.

Duerte had been doing this drug war in his city for more than 20 years as its mayor.

People elected him as the new president because they want this war to be a national scale.

[tuvarkz]

My logic is not flawed because the post I was responding to did not add the nuance of "time to kill." Mine also was responding to the "drug dealers" point too. All of these are very broad. Detrimental to human life and drugs are two extremely broad terms.

Why? Because you don't like it?

Okay, but as it stands everything can cause some sort of addiction to your reward pathway, including cocaine. Anything that "tastes good" with little to no health benefits (soda comes to mind) will also affect this pathway. The intensity is not comparable of course, but the point is that these are not actually beneficial outside of pleasure due to the minimal amount of anything healthy within them if at all. You can also make the whole "balanced out" argument with just about any drug, as well.

As for the rest, it's the slippery slope fallacy. The same way that banning fast food can lead to banning just about anything else, the death penalty for illegal drug distributors can lead to the death penalty for legal drug distributors...? One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Soda has literally zero health benefits and is a pure detriment to health. Again, are you for banning soda companies? Sure, it doesn't kill you short term, but the long term effects are quite painful, and also eating unhealthy semi-regularly will lead to a reduction in physical and emotional state. It's meant for the occasional use - as are a lot of things - but that doesn't stop people from using it.

Again, your logic is very broad and seems to apply to just about anything that can be considered a net hindrance, where the costs outweigh the benefits (and I'm assuming that you believe the pleasure aspect is irrelevant).

Regarding smoke, I cannot explicitly say I don't like smoking as I've never considered trying it, but it's mostly due to a very impressionable younger me finding out about the multiple negative effects of constant smoking, including the risks of second-hand smoke. However, regardless of it, my stance on smoking is in a very low priority regarding the rest of my political stances.

The 'balanced out' argument can't really be applied to drugs due to the severity of quite a few of their side effects, including damage to nervous cells, which cannot be repaired in most cases. My point about the ban on fast foods and soda is that it's not going stop people from eating unhealthily as there will be a myriad of other ways that they can do it. On the other hand, it's significatively more possible to shut down drug distribution, as the specific chemicals in them aren't quite as replicable. And additionally, establishing overly tight restrictions on what people can do will lead to a net hindrance to society, which makes banning fast food and soda not a net positive.

very weird stance coming from a libertarian

I've never said I was a libertarian.

[dondon151]

problem with these extrajudicial killings is that you can label any political opponent as a drug dealer and bam there goes his career/life

it's also creating problems where people are hiring or coercing people into doing assassinations and they're getting retributions as a result

[Life]

I liken this to a practical example of "do the ends justify the means".

Hence why I want this to play out.

[Wanuska]

Just like Hitler, he was elected legally, and will be a tyrant. And no country will lay a finger on him for his crimes against human rights, 'cos trade with Philipines.

That's how history works. It repeats again and again eternally.

[Tetragrammaton]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/philippines-president-drug-dealers-rodrigo-duterte-extrajudicial-killings-crocodile

Edgar Matobato, 57, told a nationally televised senate committee hearing that he had heard Duterte order some of the assaults that left around 1,000 people dead from 1988 to 2013 in Davao city, where Duterte was mayor for more than two decades.

Matobato told the senate hearing that he had carried out about 50 of the killings, including that of a man who was fed to a crocodile in 2007. “I didn’t kill anyone unless ordered by Charlie Mike,” he said, telling the senate it was the vigilante squad’s code name for the then-mayor.

He said some victims were dropped into the sea with their stomachs cut open so the fish would eat them. “They were killed like chickens,” he said.

Someone speaks up.

Duerte had done many terrible things.

Edited September 15, 2016 by hanhnn

[Magical CC]

Just like Hitler, he was elected legally, and will be a tyrant. And no country will lay a finger on him for his crimes against human rights, 'cos trade with Philipines.

That's how history works. It repeats again and again eternally.

Not to mention a certain country will prefer him over a more sane and normal president.