Mrs. Arroyo’s engagement in the War on Terror campaign and the acts of state agents (AFP, PNP, Paramilitaries) are subjects of which the present government is likely to be criticized.
Since taking office in 2001, the president seems to have tolerated the pattern of terror throughout the country: as the number of her most vocal critics grows, the more of their leaders, even journalists, lawyers, and church leaders, are silenced to death.
Rebels as they have been tagged by state forces, the government’s counter-insurgency measure ‘Oplan Bantay Laya 2” has apparently ran out of bounds as manifested by the killing or harassments of legal activists. The state has been denying involvement in these killings but its inaction to decisively solve the brutal murders more than expresses an assent to the growing culture of impunity.
Whether this counter-insurgency blueprint targets only those who are known sympathizers of armed rebels, it still is a questionable use of force insofar as the rule of law is concerned. For one, these ‘sympathizers’ are unarmed and therefore non-combatants. In fact, they are plain civilians. State agents better ask themselves why these people sympathize with state enemies in the first place. In the second place, there are rules that govern civil wars where non-combatants are guaranteed their rights.
As of April this year, there have been a total of 1,013 documented cases of summary killings, not to mention those that have not been documented. Total cases resolved: none.
This does not mean to say that the series of slaughter is a state-sponsored program and policy. The point is: if the state has the gall to confront the insurgents eye for an eye, why can it not have the muscle to conduct a truly decisive investigation, much less put a stop to summary executions?
Since taking office in 2001, the president seems to have tolerated the pattern of terror throughout the country: as the number of her most vocal critics grows, the more of their leaders, even journalists, lawyers, and church leaders, are silenced to death.
Rebels as they have been tagged by state forces, the government’s counter-insurgency measure ‘Oplan Bantay Laya 2” has apparently ran out of bounds as manifested by the killing or harassments of legal activists. The state has been denying involvement in these killings but its inaction to decisively solve the brutal murders more than expresses an assent to the growing culture of impunity.
Whether this counter-insurgency blueprint targets only those who are known sympathizers of armed rebels, it still is a questionable use of force insofar as the rule of law is concerned. For one, these ‘sympathizers’ are unarmed and therefore non-combatants. In fact, they are plain civilians. State agents better ask themselves why these people sympathize with state enemies in the first place. In the second place, there are rules that govern civil wars where non-combatants are guaranteed their rights.
As of April this year, there have been a total of 1,013 documented cases of summary killings, not to mention those that have not been documented. Total cases resolved: none.
This does not mean to say that the series of slaughter is a state-sponsored program and policy. The point is: if the state has the gall to confront the insurgents eye for an eye, why can it not have the muscle to conduct a truly decisive investigation, much less put a stop to summary executions?
0 Response to "Impunity: The State’s Questionable Use of Force"
Post a Comment