As for me naman, I am not against the Anti-Terrorism Bill per se. I just dont trust the administration implementing it. And the bill in it's current form is unacceptable and needs to be rewritten.
As to the Special courts Dean suggested, will it really be independent? Or independent like our current SC? Or like our COMELEC?
DJB, ikaw mismo sinabi mo kung bakit hindi maipasa ni Arroyo ang anti-terror bill:
The Anti-Terror Law must not be only a product of legislation, it should also be a call to arms for national and international cooperation fighting a common enemy. It should be an integral part of that call to sacrifice and valor and creativity to secure our borders and malls and jeepneys and tricycles from the terrorists.
Ah, but there is the problem. Only legitimate leaders, those with the implicit trust and confidence of their people, can call upon them to make such sacrifices in the name of survival against an implacable and dangerous foe.
Only true, tested and trusted leaders can convince their people to suspend disbelief in the inherent malevolence of state power towards personal freedom.
Without such a leader to implement a law of such precise definition as you suggest and which I agree is needed, no amount of definition and distinction-making can possibly elicit the willing and eager support of the population for the temporary curtailment of the full ambit of their liberties and prerogatives.
Only a trusted and esteemed leader, can ask her people for the benefit of the doubt that their liberties will be safe in her hands.
In your Jan 28, 2006 letter to GWB, you wrote the reasons why Arroyo cannot be trusted:
(1) Despite her promises after 9/11, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has failed to secure an Anti-Terrorism Law in the Philippines, mainly because she has failed to make the case with the Filipino people and its Congress which she controls, to join in the Global War On Terrorism. I think this is because she is at heart, a politician, who saw GWOT just as a way into America's good graces. Sorry to let you know this, but she used you and she used our great nation, pretending to be our friend, when really all she wanted was to win an election in 2004, by hook or by crook, by golly or by Garci.
(2) Despite her promises to the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, she negotiated with and capitulated to hooded terrorist kidnappers holding Filipino truck driver Angelo de la Cruz hostage. Spooked by the local antiwar Media and the Left, she gave in to the terrorists' demand and pulled out the Philippine humanitarian force.
(3) Despite fulsome support of the American people and the US Congress for her administration up until that point -- and indeed to this very day [sic!] -- Gloria then high-tailed it off to China to play that game of modern promiscuity that is the vice of Third World leaders who don't really want the Cold War to go away. It was always in pitting one Big Power against another during that long struggle, that the craftiest among them thought they found "an independent foreign policy." In my opinion, for Gloria this two-step process of abandoning the Coalition in Iraq and jumping into the Chinese-canopied bed in Asia was actually done in anticipation of a DEFEAT for the Republicans and George W. Bush in the 2004 US national elections. Analysis of the Palace's moves and statements in the crucial month before the November, 2004 polls shows that Malacanang was already betting on and backing a win by JOHN KERRY. Gloria did not believe you were going to win a second term, W.
I agree with your letter Dean. From 2001 to 2004 (when RP-US relations were at it's peak) and mid 2004- mid 2005 (months before GLORIAGATE), BAKIT hindi ni Arroyo mai-pinasa yang Anti-Terror bill na yan?
Kung seryoso talaga si Arroyo na ipasa ang Anti-terror bill, I'm sure she would gotten the support of the opposition during 2001 to mid 2005. O baka naman nag-iba ba ang priorities ni Arroyo after elections? From Big Brother America to Big Brother China? (and back to Big Brother America again)?
Alam mo rin ang dahilan kung bakit walang tiwala ang opposition at GMA critics sa Anti-Terrorism bill ni Arroyo. You wrote:
Take the Anti-terrorist Bill that is up to the Senate for deliberation. During her birthday celebration speech, the President called on the people to help her fight "not just the terrorists" but also "the political destabilizers" -- both as the enemies of freedom and democracy.
No wonder the Opposition fears the Anti-Terrorism Bill will be used against them, since "destabilizing the government" is apparently one of the proposed terrorist crimes in the proposed measure. Even Rep. Roilo Golez (Independent, Paranaque, PMA and US Naval Academy, former National Security Adviser of Gloria!) told ABSCBN News last night, that he did not support passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill now because he was convinced the President would use it against the Opposition.
Obviously, Roilo Golez have good reasons to be concerned. The Anti-Terror bill needs to be rewritten, IMO.
At sa pagkakaalam ko, hindi naman kontra ang opposition sa anti-Terror bill. I don't think the opposition is "soft on terrorism":
The situation is like a tinderbox. And now a very dangerous development has occurred which ought to concern our allies in the war on terror. There is a clear attempt on the part of the palace to tie its repressive policies against the critics of the President to the badly needed Anti-Terrorism Law.
Opposition Senators Panfilo Lacson and Jinggoy Estrada, who co-sponsored the anti-terrorism bills in the Senate are saying they may withdraw support for the legislation because the apparent danger that a law they pass can easily be used against them. And they are joined in this uncertainty over the measure as administration stalwarts like Joker Arroyo and Manuel Villar.
Likewise Rep. Roilo Golez may oppose the legislation in the House on similar grounds. He of the US Naval Academy!
So sponsor pala ng anti-terrorism bill sila lacson at jinggoy. pero umatras sila nung sumabog ang legitimacy crisis ni Arroyo, at lumabas ang pagka-abusado DOJ, pulis at military ng Arroyo admin.
I agree with Ninez that this administration doesn't really need an anti-Terror bill, with the way they're behaving and abusing it's powers. But Arroyo still wants the anti-terror bill passed so that they can have something to show to the Bush administration (na they're a "strong ally" in the WOT raw), just as the ARroyo admin used the abolition of the death penalty as a "pasalubong" for Pope Benedict.
More: MLQ3 has a good suggestion: "why not a law that requires the periodic re-evaluation, and re-passage of the law, every year or so?"
Posts
2 comments:
As to your question/title, the answer is a BIG and OBVIOUS NO.
indeed.
Post a Comment