Hacker News Reader

It is always interesting to hear how things are going from someone who actually lives there. I condemn these extrajudicial killings and find it abhorrent to call on the population to kill their neighbours, whatever problems they may cause/suffer. On the other hand, I don't know if I would think the same if I would be living there. I don't know the situation in the Philippines, but in Mexico there are armed vigilante groups have formed to protect their villages against drug lords. I can't really blame them when armed forces of the drug lords are killing villagers indiscriminately to show the state/army who really is in power.

Another thing I might add is that extrajudicial killings happened before Duerte especially in the southern Mindanao region, perpetrated by the army, as well as rebel groups. Nobody (in the western media) has ever given a rats ass about this anyway, and its been going on for over 30 years now. It is another form of conflict, I admit, if you just read what happened there just in the last 2 years, you'd be shocked.[0][1]

[0]: http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBaromete...

[1]: http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBaromete...

I went to visit a friend in the Philippines in Feb and she'd moved from Manila to Davao specifically for the lower crime under Duterte - he's been mayor there for many years. Although his policies are iffy people there know what they are voting for and he seems popular so far - "84 percent of those surveyed showed 'much trust' in Duterte" http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/795717/sws-duterte-begins-presi...

I see a lot of negative press about Duterte in the western media. Talking to Filipino friends, I have quite the opposite impression that mirrors your sentiments - that people are actually hopeful, a refreshing change after decades of corruption. It also appears that Duterte favors a more pragmatic stance on the Spratlys/South China sea disputes rather than toeing the western line which in the long term is better for the region. You do not want to antagonize China, despite the assurances of USA that they have your back (only as long as realpolitik affords it). Something that the average foreigner fails to comprehend.

You're the guy I bought drugs from on my last trip through your country. What makes you believe that you will escape the dance this time?

Did you actually? And this also brings up another question, what counts as a drug?

No, I'm just making the point that we have a judicial process because merely claiming someone is a criminal should not be enough to get them killed. OP is anonymous so I didn't see any harm in this.

I don't use drugs, don't drink (pretty boring person here).

> And this also brings up another question, what counts as a drug?

Well, it's simple: that's the stuff the person you just killed was selling to your nephew three weeks ago.

Those related to drugs were killed during a buy-bust operation. And yes, there is judicial process but people will read more if the media highlights and writes about "extrajudicial killing" instead.

Can we assume the same rules will be applied to the whole population? Or will it just be applied to "them"?

There is judicial process to all.

How do you get that from the article? 30 killed since June 30 and calling on people to kill addicts themselves as it would be too hard for the parents. Describing addicts mothers as whores. How does this indicate judicial process?

Once you go there, it's really hard to come back.

Could you explain this further? The president's comments are straight up scary and the police actions seem to way overstep human rights.

Once you start ignoring basic human rights, due process and the rule of law, it's pretty difficult to re-establish a functional society.

> Those related to drugs were killed during a buy-bust operation.

In a country where the police is as corrupt as yours the last thing you want is to by-pass due process.

That pretty much guarantees that lots of opponents of the newly elected regime will suddenly find themselves on the receiving end in 'buy-bust' operations.

> And yes, there is judicial process

I find that hard to square with

> Those related to drugs were killed during a buy-bust operation.

> Judicial process 30 killed since June 30. Things seem to move fast in those judicial circles.

Article dated 4th of July.

Right, the guy that was found shot to death with a sign on him saying "I am a Chinese drug lord" was definitely killed as part of a completely-above-board judicial process.

He wasn't shot by the cops so that means he could be shot by THE BOSS, vigilante or his partner. Who knows...

> THE BOSS, vigilante or his partner. Who knows...

You don't see a problem with that?

How do you know he even was a drug lord (other than that conspicuous sign)?

The number of apologists for what's happening is pretty alarming. When did these sorts of things start getting justified here? It's happening with anything mentioning China too.

They don't know and probably won't even bother finding out.

And here is the President threatening to murder someone accused of drug trafficking if they step off a plane. This person hasn't been through the court process. Why do you think this is ok?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/philippine-pre...

This whole thread is ludicrous. Two right-wing foreigners make hateful top level comments tacitly endorsing the execution and forced rehabilitation of drug users, and HN upvotes it why?

He's for medical Marijuana but against recreational use. But anyone growing, selling or using marijuana fall into the same category as any drug and is subject to his death squads. There have already been marijuana "pushers" murdered by the deathsquads and police. The man is a monster.

Out of curiosity, is there any distinction being drawn between "hard" and "soft" drugs? For example, is anyone being killed for selling/using marijuana, or is it all about heroin and meth?

Edit: I don't understand why someone would down vote this question. Taken at face value, the mandate to kill "drug users" could mean it's OK to shoot up a coffee shop or kill your neighbor for being an alcoholic, depending on where your particular culture draws the line. For example, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-d...

Most cases are meth related. Philippines now is like a meth capital.

I seriously doubt the Philippines is the meth capital of the world, I'm sure there are other countries where meth is far more profitable.

He's killing marijuana "pushers" and users too. The man is monster.

It's people like you who gave the nod and wink to abuses like the mechanics school in the dirty war in Argentina.

No offense but this is "working towards the Fuhrer" in action

> 5 police generals were mentioned that they are the protectors of the DRUG TRIAD here in the Philippines. It was also mentioned that 23 mayors are also linked to the triad

> President Duterte had a list of people involved

I wonder how many of those are political allies. My guess would be something very close to zero.

During a period of unaccountable killing, I wonder if any leader can resist a list of political enemies. If the list of corruption goes up to the police, legislature, and the judiciary, does that mean that only the appropriate public figures will be killed? Will only corrupt senate members be shot?

I still haven't seen the practical question answered what would stop people from simply murdering whoever they have a personal grudge against and labeling them "drug addict" after the fact.

Absolutely nothing will stop people from doing just that, it's the real life Purge. This maniac has the poor killing the poor.

Here is an interesting analysis about Duterte:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmGueIli7vc

Gotta love your brand of moral relativism.

It's easy to have a moral compass when nothing ever challenges it.

I'm susceptible as the next man, but I'm pretty damn sure I will never go around killing drug traffickers or users with the justification of improving my country or something abstract like that.

It wouldn't be the same if, for instance, they posed a direct physical threat to me or my close ones.

But they do pose a direct, physical threat to everyone in the phillipines.

I know handful of alcoholics and prescription pill addicts. They have successful (for the moment, at least) lives contributing to society. They have an unfortunate problem.

Many successful, influential people had drug and alcohol problems. Leaders, philosophers, writers, surgeons, entertainers, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters have been addicts that were never a direct, physical threat to anyone but themselves.

That doesn't distract from the fact that this problem can be solved without resorting to vigilante justice and out right murder. Death shouldn't be the punishment for having a problem.

What? So let's kill drug addicts everywhere?

Here's an idea... those Filipinos over there have such a violent country! They just can't get there act together! I guess Filipinos are prone to violence, and they DO pose a direct, physical threat to everyone in the world! So, go ahead and kill a Filipino if you see one -- you'll just be putting them out of their misery -- and of course we're so benevolent, we offer free rehabilitation (AKA prison) for any Filipino that turns themselves in.

And it's easy to have no moral compass if you are constantly challenged

Morals and ethics can only ever be relative / subjective / personal. Moral absolutism is the root of all evil.

Can we start the counter of americans that do nothing against the killings of black people or americans/europeans that don't care about their government killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions? Moral relativism.

RMS is absolutist, does that make the FSF evil? If one is absolutist about being against rape or child crimes, what evil does that cause? The courage and consistency of ones conviction shouldn't be the basis of judging its merit.

I once thought this, and I disagree.

There are many issues which you can find common ground for a base case of moral absolutism when you are not being absurd.

Moral relativism allows you to accept the actual evil of other's actions as a product of their culture.

That is the kind of thinking that allows people to say genital mutilation is a cultural thing.

Claiming moral absolutism is the root of all evil is a morally absolute statement in itself. What is the basis for this claim?

I don't actually have a strong opinion on the matter, but keep in mind the OP is advocating killing people to improve the state of the country. In the abstract. It's "kill the narcos", not "if a narco rackets or threaten me", then I'd be justified in taking him out".

For me that's quite a line to cross.

Start fighting using non-violent means and maybe only resort to violence when confronted with violence from the other party.

"If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it, would be too painful,".

Rody Duterte

History has shown us that when a leader kills huge segments of the population wether its hitler with the Jews or Duterte with the criminals and drug users, it's always a recipe for turmoil. Duterte's methods may work in the short term if u don't care about innocent people dying, But it'll get worse in the long term. U cannot fight darkness with darkness. This man is killing both drug dealer and drug user. This tyrant got on national tv and told the people to kill drug users essentially giving the people a license to kill. Addiction is a disease and it should be treated as such, not given the death penalty. Killing drug users is a crime against humanity, it's as heinous as killing sick people. Since duterte ok'd nationwide murder, dead bodies have been turning up with notes on their bodies saying "drug dealer " or "user"with a bag of drugs next to them. And since the cops assume the person was a dealer or user they don't even investigate. What's to stop people from killing those they hate and making the person look like a dealer or user with a bag of drugs next to them? The short answer, absolutely nothing!! Its pretty much the real life purge pinoy edition, except instead of having only one day a year to kill, it's everyday for the next 6 years(duterte term)that's fking terrifying. Violence only breeds more violence, Duterte is cultivating a generation of murderers that won't stop killing even after every drug dealer and user is killed. And like a psychologist friend of mine says, once some people get the taste of killing, they won't stop. If you think Duterte is for the people think again. He has figured out a way to get the poor to kill the poor. Does that sound like a person of the people to you? To my fellow Filipinos.......WAKE UP!!!! Duterte is EVIL!!! The people being killed have loved ones too. Do you think the thousands of loved ones of the murdered aren't going to want revenge? Revenge is a very powerful emotion, more so then love because its reinforced by love. History has shown us that when tyrants kill without abandon, resistance groups will form and fight back. Everyone always thinks they're the good guys and the killings always get worse and in the end EVERYONE loses. It's happened in the Philippines before and it's about to happen again but this time around its going to be much worse. To get rid of crime you have to alleviate the root cause, and in the Philippines and most places in the world, it's poverty. Alleviate poverty and most crime will go with it. U can't just kill everyone like the newly elected Mad King of the Philippines.. This guy is pure evil in the flesh and he's committing crimes against humanity on a scale I've never seen in the PI, and I hope the world intervenes before his death toll goes into Stalin and Hitler territory. God help the Philippines they are being lead down a dark path by this madman.

http://youtu.be/aHvYYopJupA

Mexico could do with a President like that.

No, we're good. Thanks though ...

Yeah, fighting the cartels directly has worked like a charm so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Casualties

By many accounts, the Mexican Drug War has involved very little of the Government fighting on one side and "the Cartels" on the other, and very much of elements of the government (including the military, especially units of the Army) selling exclusive rights to particular regions to particular cartels, and fighting against that cartel's rivals in the region.

Which is not to say that actually fighting against the cartels would actually produce good results.

Both (all?) countries could benefit from doing one thing: legalize everything.

Mexico could do with a wall.