There are plenty of horrible examples of extrajudicial killings and vigilantism. But unless you are saying that all extrajudicial killings are committed by the Ku Klux Klan, the Khmer Rouge and the brownshirts, there are certainly examples of vigilantism that aren’t horrible (even if they might not universally be considered good).
Bearing in mind that these extrajudicial killings are not all the result of death squads. Many of them are police and private citizens. There might be as many vigilantes as there are death squads.
I don’t know if you would say this turned out well but some people don’t find it objectionable when extrajudicial killings are used to reach criminals who are beyond the reach of justice
What would you call the special forces teams being sent to kill the leaders of terrorist organizations? Like Osama bin Laden? There was no real attempt to bring him back alive for a trial. Obama ordered the murder of a guy who never got his day in court. He has ordered the murder of several people who never had their day in court since then. These are not guys that are being killed on the field of battle, they are guys that are identified as enemies, located and then bombed by drones or killed by special forces. Dutarte, to the extent he is targeting people to be killed, seems to be targeting drug dealers.
Some vigilante groups were born to protect citizens in an era of chaos
Indeed. Almost all that you mentioned are not death squads. It is clear that you were forced to add vigilantes and self defense groups that are more in the open about who they are. When they are not they are just plain death squads.
The point is that many vigilante groups are not like that. They are many times known to the people and even authorities.
Also for the case of the Seal team that got Bin Laden is that doing the killings are not a thing where they do not report to higher offices that do review their actions and those reviewers deal with abuses or can change their focus and targets depending on those reviews.
This is not happening to the death squads that Duterte was aware from before when he was major and now. And one example you made is a very bad one, the Bakassi Boys are actually an example that show how wrong this idea can get.
And then it became a moot point to use as more recently the group was disbanded in recent years but restored more recently as part of the local governments, meaning that now they are also known by the authorities and have more accountability.
Vigilantes who don’t seem concerned about be pursued by law enforcement, apparently.
I’m willing to recognize a distinction between sending out operatives to kill foreign nationals and sending out operatives to kill one’s own fellow citizens. I’m not especially happy about either, but the latter carries the additional risks of eventually being used against domestic political opponents.
Who aren’t getting their days in court, either, and it’s less excusable because the courts are right there.
And the chaos ended and they went back to their peaceful ways, did they?
Yes, but these killings are not for the purpose of “political repression, genocide, or revolutionary terror” nor are they “enemies of a political party” They are criminals so vigilantes seem like a pretty fair definition of a lot of what is going on.
OK fine but you guys asked for ONE example. I provided several examples that I thought were analogous with the folks that were doing the killing in the Philippines. So this may not be the first time in history something like this didn’t lead to disaster.
Sorry the bakassi boys article is behind a paywall but IIRC they were the lesser of two evils.
As pointed many times before, no, not all are criminals and not all crimes deserves death.
Again the lesson you are trying to get that is not really justified by the examples only attempts to justify the gross violation of human rights. And I pointed at another definition of the death squads. not just that one. Wonder what happened to the other one. :dubious:
And as pointed out you were wrong. Not analogous. Many of the examples you mentioned were coming from people that still have still some accountability as the authorities can intervene to deal with abuses. In the Philippines there is no recourse for the innocent and people unfairly put to death.
Certainly it may be necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, if those are the only choices you have, and this is unclear at best.
Besides, the end result doesn’t have to be actual disaster. It’s just very likely to leave you worse off than if you* hadn’t *embraced death squads and unchecked vigilantism after deciding that some people just needed killin’.
They’re both there. See the part where I say “political repression, genocide, or revolutionary terror” and the part where I say “enemies of a political party”
Are you under the impression that the homicide division of the Philippine police department has been fired or is no longer doing its job?
Yeah, the assassins and special forces that go out and hunt terrorists have accountability. So? If there are death squads in the Philippines, aren’t they also accountable to someone? Aren’t the police (who account for a lot of the deaths) also accountable to someone?
I don’t know that there is unchecked vigilantism. There does still seem to be police work being done and prosecutions of criminals including murderers.
Perhaps there is another option out there but the Philippines is not required to adopt YOUR preferred method. They are a democracy and they have decided that enough is enough and they want the drug dealers out and they will kill them if that’s what it takes. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. Maybe the Philippines would have been better off using some other method, maybe they wouldn’t. But the Philippines decided to adopt this guy’s approach and they are overwhelmingly happy with it.
He enjoys ridiculously high approval ratings, particularly among the poor and disadvantaged who suffer the most from the drug cartel’s control over the streets.
This one: “an unofficial armed group who look for and **illegally **kill particular people”
What makes you think that? I see only another straw man here.
That would Duterte then (or he does know who they are as he is proud to say), but as we can see the relatives of the innocent and the ones that do not deserve death get no help from el supremo of today. The ones committing murder now are indeed death squads, with no one being taken to task when abuses are being committed.
OK, and how is that different from vigilante? because we are trying to distinguish vigilante from death squad, right? Either they are controlled by Duterte and he is NOT using them for political repression, or they are not controlled by Duterte and they are vigilantes. You keep throwing shit against the wall hoping something will stick.
Because you say stuff like: “In the Philippines there is no recourse for the innocent and people unfairly put to death.”
The Philippines still have a functioning law enforcement function so there is in fact some recourse for innocent people unfairly put to death.
What abuses? Are you talking about collateral damage or deliberate murder of innocents?
Nope, those are your arguments as it is what others can see in the thread. Your “OK” there also came only after avoiding **twice **the definition of what I also pointed clearly out. As it is your continuing relying on straw men, I did not say that what Duterte is looking at in the Philippines to be vigilantes, those are death squads, plain and simple. And there is even a tacit acknowledgment by Duterte that he does know who they are and are right now acting with his blessing.
The news reports about Danica May, a little girl that died at the hands of one of the death squads, report that the family does not expect see much of any justice to come from Duterte.
A distinction without a difference. As I pointed before and now to cases where both collateral and deliberate murders of innocents were reported. Indeed both are abuses of power as Duterte knows who the perpetrators are or he does not care to look for them when he has the power to do so.
Just so you know. When I say OK there its not in agreement with you. You seem to be unable to distinguish between death squads, vigilante’s and police killings.
[quote]
The news reports about Danica May, a little girl that died at the hands of one of the death squads, report that the family does not expect see much of any justice to come from Duterte.
Her killers have at least as much chance of being brought to justice as people that were being killed by drug cartels before Duterte took office. Probably more.
It is possible that there is collateral damage to people who are too close to criminals.
Of COURSE there is a difference between the murder of innocents and the inadvertant killing of innocents who get caught in the crossfire. How could you possibly believe that this is a distinction without a difference.
Read it again, I was indeed saying that there was no agreement from you, because you were avoiding that definition. And it was not about the definition itself but to remark how clearly you did not notice or glossed over that definition.
Not likely as the killers are in reality being congratulated still by Duterte.
:rolleyes:
That does not justify their killing.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
The non-difference was about the authorities abusing their power in relation to both murdering innocents and innocents caught in the crossfire; both depend, in the cases at hand, on the illegal use of force and perpetrators that hide and have no accountability.
I’m not avoiding your definition, I’m rejecting it.
I did not think it worthy of response.
Duterte is congratulating people for killing 5 year olds? Really? Cite or retract.
Collateral damage is never justified it is a consequence of other policies. You can’t look at the policy’s collateral damage without looking at the primary effects.
It was just more convenient to avoid it twice than rejecting it of course.
Because you were also wrong about that simple thing, I was indeed saying that either way Duterte can not avoid having some responsibility, if not much for the crime, he has it for not prosecuting the criminals that he is only approving of.
Will retract when he begins to hunt for the killers. As it is now Duterte has not taken back this:
Due to the lack of due process and unwillingness of going after the ones that did the collateral damage it follows that Duterte does not mind what they are doing.
Again: Due to the lack of due process and unwillingness of going after the ones that did the collateral damage it follows that he does not mind what they are doing.