TaN: The message I am getting from Mr Duterte — being a former prosecutor ergo a lawyer and someone with enough knowledge of the law to skirt around the loopholes by technicality — that it is only criminally liable when killing (or death due to the statement or utterances) of a person by someone is specific but not when it is a blanket or all-encompassing statement. This would explain why he keeps telling law enforcement officers and encouraging vigilante groups to kill drug personalities and corrupt public officials (without mentioning the specific target) and, when they do, he is not guilty because he did not specify the particular person to be killed. Wow!
If that is the secret to getting away with murder, Mr Duterte just blurted out the loophole to elude criminal prosecution and liability for all the criminals to use as a template. As long as we do and justify our criminal actions the way Mr Duterte does, we should be home free from being arrested, let alone do prison terms.
From now on, only those who are stupid enough not to follow Mr Duterte’s example of how to avoid being arrested, prosecuted, and doing prison time for criminal offenses should be in jail. Thank you Mr Duterte (again).
Again because we also know how to become saints. We simply blame everything on God. Since He is the one who made Mr Duterte’s tongue, all the profanities and vulgarities he utters must be blamed on God. So, when we commit crimes and other heinous and despicable acts, we should just blame it on God since He is supposed to be the One who made us (all).
So, no one is ever at fault. It is all God’s fault. We are saints, every one of us.
And God was wrong to punish Lucifer since He is the One who made him; it is His fault that Lucifer turned out to be evil. In conclusion, everything is God’s fault; only He is to blame. Fantastic logic!
TaN: Telling falsehoods is lying — regardless of whether intentional or not and whatever the reason or justification and the manner. However, it is written in the Holy Scriptures (2 Corinthians 3:4-6, KJV or try: http://www.hallvworthington.com/getverses.php?search=2%20cor%203:6;&version=160;) that it is the Spirit and not the Letter of the law that must be considered. In this light, please permit me to pose the following:
(1) Is it lying when a person unknowingly tells (or even swears under oath) something untrue or inaccurate?
(2) What if the untruth is due to negligence and not innocent ignorance? Or what if it is innocent ignorance? Does it make any difference?
(3) How about if the truth which runs counter to the prevailing is not readily available, as in a widespread (almost a conspiracy) cover-up by huge or influential interest groups — and aided connivingly by mainstream media?
(4) Or what about “bending” the truth — i.e., making vague generalizations to skirt or avoid telling the accurate truth or leaving out certain details to conceal or side-step telling the complete truth? Or using somewhat similar but not really precise terms that have other meanings or definitions with the intention of misleading the conclusion (sometimes also known as doublespeak)? Does it constitute lying?
Diplomatic language is full of such instances — where the truth is twisted or manipulated in order to save face or avoid potential conflicts or damaging existing relationships. Does this justify the speaking of untruths?
One good example is the frequently used policy statement of “no ransom payment was made” during kidnap for ransom scenarios when government deals with terrorists and similar situations when, in truth, there was payment but it was just conveniently phrased as “payment for ‘room and board'”. How using the Muslim concept of “blood money” (but not ransom payment)?
Does good intentions justify lying — or, for that matter, good intentions justify any wrongdoing like the drug campaign of Mr Duterte (Machiavellian)?
TaN: I agree completely with the statement (and I paraphrase) of Sen Rene Saguisag: If Mr Duterte has to resort to declaring martial law, it only proves that he has a leadership problem and tacitly admits that he is incapable of fulfilling his (main and most touted) election campaign promise — i.e., to solve the illegal drug menace of the country.
Moreover, it would be against or in violation of the Constitution which expressly specifies that the only valid reasons for the declaration of martial law are: in cases of rebellion, insurrection, and invasion. It is not the case with illegal drugs nor the rampant corruption and criminality that Mr Duterte keeps claiming to be.
However, it does not surprise me a bit since he has already implicitly admitted in past statements and pronouncements when he said he needed another six months to solve the drug menace — where he promised to solve it within six months upon assumption to the presidency.
And his cronies, lapdogs and toadies are absolutely shameless in expressing their blind and unconditional devotion and obedience and, at times, even outdoing the master himself. Since I am not privy to the inner thoughts and desires of Mr Duterte, I cannot be certain as to how true or accurate the transpiring events are. How much of what Congress is doing is really the wishes of Mr Duterte and how much are Congress’ own interests and agenda and merely using Mr Duterte as some sort of a scapegoat or patsy to take the blame should any of their schemes and plots fail or are uncovered/exposed.
It is sad that (these) people cannot see beyond what is being said; they are blinded by what they want to believe — as the saying goes, None are as blind as those who refuse to see. It is likewise a case of: The blind leading the blind.
Finally, the sad and pitiful thing here is that most supporters — as well as “pseudo” supporters, who take advantage of Mr Duterte’s pronouncements and boastfulness to advance their own personal agenda and interests — can (or will) not see beyond what they want to see. They refuse to see the evil or detrimental effects on the innocent by the ruthlessness of Mr Duterte’s campaign and simply brush them aside as “collateral victims”. The use of violence is (always) a last resort option and the violence in Mr Duterte’s campaign and its unforgiving character only proves and reinforces the argument that Mr Duterte is not ready for the presidency. His ways are too juvenile and primitive.
If one observes carefully (and admits honestly), one can readily see that children have a tendency to resort to physical violence to settle disputes and disagreements. This bestial approach is characteristic of a primitive and simplistic mind.
TaN: In today’s (Jan 19) issue of The Philippine STAR, in the article titled “‘If martial law looms, I’ll keep quiet about it” by Paolo Romero, these phrases interest me:
(1) “Malacañang had clarified that the President…accused the media of misreporting his statement and sowing panic…”. — With the exception of those who practice “envelopmental” journalism and those who, wittingly or not, permit themselves to be pawns and lackeys or stooges of business interests (such as those who are into infomercials and who may have vested interests like being part or whole owners and use their media access to push their business agenda), media people are generally objective, try to get all sides in the issue, and avoid editorializing. They are more prone to be impartial and will resort to direct quotes or verbatim to avoid libelous or inaccurate reporting. It is highly unlikely that the accusations of the Palace are just its way of trying to pass the buck.
(2) “Last August, Duterte scored Chief Justice Ma Lourdes Sereno for meddling in his crackdown on illegal drugs and threatened to declare martial law if she continues to interfere in the campaign” versus “…he [Duterte] was tempted to place the country under martial law due to security problems…” and “…said he would declare martial law if the drug problem becomes ‘very virulent’…” and “…that I have to preserve the country, I will declare martial law“. — These statements or pronouncements appear to have a pattern and the picture is not pleasant. It would appear that Mr Duterte, like Big Business, regularly threatens the public if and when he does not get what he wants or when there is opposition. His latest weapon is martial law, waving it around like a club at whomever will resist his wishes and whims.
(3) “… The media are not listening. They only heard martial law.” — I seriously doubt if the media is not listening, considering almost every reporter is equipped with devices that accurately record everything being said and done, from tape recorders (in mobile phones) and tablets and netbooks to television cameras and camcorders and handy cams. It is not as if we are still the early years of broadcasting where reporters are still equipped with pen and notebooks and pads to take down details. It is the electronic and digital age; there is nothing in media reportage that is not taken down or up in recording devices. Even mobile phones transmit to their home base, be they television or radio studios or newspaper communications centers. Mr Duterte is insulting our intelligence with his statements of being mis-quoted or under-reported.
(4) “…Duterte said he would not hesitate to kill narco mayors on his list.” — His so-called narco list has already repeatedly been shown to be unreliable and there are numerous instances when the names belonged to people who are either no longer with us, who were never involved at any time and under any circumstance in illegal drugs, or where more than one person has the same name and the wrong person is implicated, just to name a few. Moreover, it has been shown likewise that information in the narco list is not well vetted and this is dangerous as it can cause the wrong person to be killed or harmed, in which case the damage will have been done and no amount or manner of retribution, compensation, or reparation can undo. As the saying goes, What has been done can no longer be undone.