Passion For Reason
Rebels as common criminals
By Raul Pangalangan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:12:00 06/20/2008
Filed Under: Crime, Law & Justice
MANILA, Philippines—We tend to fudge labels, and we confuse not just the enemy but also ourselves, and it’s costing us plenty. No, no ransom money was paid, just reimbursement for “board and lodging.” Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita affirmed the government’s no-ransom policy, but said: “I’m just being realistic that, maybe there [was] a small amount [paid],” then added that after all, the kidnappers had to feed Ces Drilon and her crew for nine days. We took the answer in silence—after all, why look a gift horse in the mouth? We could have asked: If the hostage-takers wanted to save on Drilon’s food allowance and room rentals, then maybe they shouldn’t have abducted her in the first place? And shouldn’t we charge a discount for the mosquito bites, the handcuffs and the occasional slap on the face? We don’t ask, because we prefer to count our blessings instead.
What made the fib easier was that, as Ermita points out, Malacañang did not take a lead role in the hostage negotiations, and allowed the local peace and order councils, composed of the local government officials and police and military components in the area, to take the lead. By outsourcing the work to local and private negotiators, we can all maintain the pretense to principle, and we go about our day-to-day lives, that is, until the Abu Sayyaf needs a fresh infusion of cash and strikes again.
But the real point of contention is what to call the Abu Sayyaf. Are they rebel warriors, or are they merely common criminals? That question lies at the heart of the larger debate abroad in the “war against terror,” and on this point, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo deviates from US President George Bush, from whom she usually gets her bearings on these weighty issues.
I agree that members of the Abu Sayyaf are plain bandits, common criminals who merely wave religious banners to cloak themselves with a lofty cause. Ms Arroyo says that “we must remind them that ‘crime does not pay’.” Unfortunately for us, that means that conversely we must grant them all the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Constitution: the right against warrantless arrest, the right to remain silent, to be presumed innocent, and to be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why George W. Bush doesn’t consider his Guantanamo prisoners as “accused” under the US Constitution, but merely as unlawful or “unprivileged” combatants.
Moreover, even our own antiterrorism law, the Human Security Act, which enables the government to monitor and investigate terror groups, will be short-circuited by the government’s own position. That law requires some additional elements before a group is considered “terrorist.” The group must have acted “to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” Given Ermita’s denial that ransom money changed hands, do we then prove that it is unlawful to ask to be reimbursed for board and lodging? In addition, that group must have “sow[ed] and create[d] a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.” Would the latest kidnapping satisfy that test?
On the other hand, if we were to believe the Abu Sayyaf’s claim that they are freedom fighters for the cause of an independent Islamic state, we concede them some propaganda points, but we also subject them to the discipline of international humanitarian law over organized armed groups. If indeed they are the warriors they claim to be, that means they are legitimate objects of military attack in case of armed encounters. In other words, if as mere criminals, they can be executed only after trial, this time, as soldiers, they can be shot in battle without any legal niceties.
(Going back to George W. Bush, neither does he consider his Guantanamo prisoners as prisoners of war because then they will enjoy the POW rights under the Geneva Conventions. But that shouldn’t be a problem for Ms Arroyo: POW status arises only in international armed conflict, like those into which Bush has brought the American people, but not in internal armed conflict, like those in Mindanao.)
Moreover, if indeed the Abu Sayyaf claims to be part of a larger political movement, then Ces Drilon’s first-hand account provides damning proof that it has violated the international prohibition on the use of child soldiers. She said that she and her crew were held by “bandits who were 12 years old, 17 or 15, and they were holding guns ... You’d think, why are these children holding guns instead of holding notebooks and studying?”
There is a global ban on the use of child soldiers, and the rebel groups in the Philippines have become notorious violators. Child soldiers are easy prize for rebel recruiters: they are easily manipulated, are highly impressionable and readily adopt the groups’ sense of right and wrong, and are agile and energetic. The farther away they drift from the safety of their families, the more they are absorbed into the lives of their new comrades. The rebel groups can offer them food and shelter that they cannot get from their impoverished parents. In turn, the rebel armies deprive them of their childhood, numb them to the horrors of war, and transform them into killers without conscience. Recent accounts of the “Killing Fields” in Cambodia show that the youth were the most ruthless and mechanistic butchers of the Khmer Rouge.
We can fudge our answers, or we can face the questions squarely. Ransom was paid. The Abu Sayyaf are criminals, and they must be brought to justice. And the legitimate political movements of the Moro people, both armed and unarmed, must disown these criminal acts committed in their name but without their blessings.
* * *
Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com
|
