Category: terrorism

Of Black Flags and Careless Connections

By Marck Ronald Rimorin

In her latest “Thought Leaders” piece for Rappler.com, Maria Ressa writes:

Much like the Madrid bombings in 2004 that killed 191 people and the London bombings in 2005 that killed 52, the Boston bombings were carried out by men who integrated into their societies and benefited from the liberalism and inclusiveness of the West. Yet, despite their seemingly Western ways, the attackers in London and Madrid harbored deep hatred sparked by al-Qaeda’s virulent ideology – perhaps much like Tamerlan, who said, “I don’t have a single American friend. I don’t understand them.”

Read on 

cyberlibel law will “level the playing field” ?!?

before anything else, kudos cheers mabuhays to SENATOR TG GUINGONA for voting NO to the cybercrime act, the only one who dared, cared, on grounds that the libel clause is a prior restraint on freedom of expression, a constitutionally guaranteed right.

so who voted yes to the cybercrime act despite the libel clause?

LOREN LEGARDA
FRANCIS ESCUDERO 
GREGORIO HONASAN II
AQUILINO “KOKO” PIMENTEL 
PIA CAYETANO
RAMON “BONG” REVILLA JR.
JINGGOY EJERCITO-ESTRADA
PANFILO LACSON
MANUEL “LITO” LAPID
FERDINAND “BONGBONG” MARCOS
RALPH RECTO
VICENTE SOTTO III
MANNY VILLAR

so the following abstained, it would seem:

JUAN PONCE ENRILE
JOKER ARROYO
ALAN PETER CAYETANO
EDGARDO ANGARA 
FRANKLIN DRILON
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
SERGIO OSMENA III 
FRANCIS “KIKO” PANGILINAN
ANTONIO “SONNY” TRILLANES

makes you wonder about these senators.

my first thought was, the ones who said yes must be anti-RH, like sotto.  but wait, where’s enrile?  and what’s RH sponsor pia doing in that list?  ah, so, maybe these are senators who have been criticized, berated, attacked online a la sotto, they know what it’s like, or maybe they haven’t and they don’t want to be and they don’t want to know what it’s like, ever, so yes, regulate blogs, facebook, twitter, news websites.

as for those who abstained, since they didn’t have it in them to say yes, good for them, then why did they not go the whole hog and vote no a la guingona?  pogi points sana.  talo rin lang kasi, wiser to stay on sotto’s good side, the old-boys-club mentality kicking in, kapit-bisig kumbaga, circle the wagons, there’s more at stake than one senator’s reputation?  there’s more at stake than one senate bill?

say ni pia cayetano sa twitter:

My review of the cybercrime bill was focused on child pornography, which falls within my area of responsibility.

a follower asked:

@piacayetano so if you say your review is only on child pornography, then all the other areas of the law you don’t bother to check? 

no response so far.  what kind of senators are these.

and no word from the palace, no explanations.  only this announcement on the president’s website, that the doj, the dilg, and the dost are working on the implementing rules and regulations of the cybercrime act.

Punishable acts under the new law include offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data system, illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, and misuse of devices. Also included are computer-related offenses such as forgery, fraud, and identity theft that are rampant in the Internet.

Also punishable under the new law are content-related offenses like cybersex, and child pornography.

The law also punishes unsolicited commercial communications or cyber squatting, the acquisition of a person’s domain name for profit or destroy reputations.

ang lupit, di ba?  no time-frame, manginig tayo.  at ang weird, ni hindi nakalista ang libel.  which means what?  did they even read it?  did they even know that it contained a libel clause?

and take note, the prez and the senators are leaving it to sotto iii to defend the libel clause.  every one else is silent on the matter, esp the palace communications peeps, two of whom used to be “noted” bloggers, one of whom tweeted non-stop in memory of the declaration of martial law.

rubbing salt into the wound, sotto iii has the temerity to ask : why, what’s wrong with a libel law in cyber space? 

“I can’t see the logic,” said Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III when asked to react to media protests regarding the dangers and possible unconstitutionality of extending libel laws to new social media in the new Cybercrime Prevention Act.

“If mainstream media are prevented by law from cursing and engaging in character assassination, why should those in the social media and in the Internet be exempted from such accountability,” said Sotto, who had proposed the extension of the Act’s coverage to include libel.

“What’s so special about (mainstream journalists) that they have those prohibitions, and that they (social media bloggers) don’t?” Sotto had insisted in a recent interview.

—

The libel clause in the recently passed anti-cybercrime law is meant to “level the playing field” between the mainstream media and the social media, Sen. Vicente Sotto III said. 

he can’t see the logic in the cybercommunity’s protests.  he’s saying that he only seeks to level the playing field between social media and mainstream media, both should be covered by the same libel law, never mind that honasan had filed a bill to decriminalize libel, i guess because honasan must have changed his mind, as he voted for the cybercrime-with-libel law.

but but but it is not the playing field between mainstream and social media that’s the problem – we are co-existing, mainstream media is not complaining that social media is more free; social media, indie political bloggers in particular, are not complaining that mainstream media is profit-oriented, a capitalist enterprise.  it is what it is.  instead, mainstream and social media are feeding off each other, and that is good, for the information of the nation.

in truth, the playing field that needs to be levelled is the one between government officials and the citizens and communities whom they are pledged to serve.  lamang na lamang, llamadong llamado ang ruling class, from one admin to the next, life does not get better, only worse, for the larger population, status quo.

for our part, all that we political bloggers and commenters and tweeters and facebookers have is the internet where, as ordinary citizens mostly, we have the freedom to speak out, share our points of view, take a stand, esp on political developments that impact negatively on nation (and there are many, it doesn’t stop…), if only for the record.

indeed, it is not a level playing field, and an anti-libel law that infringes on the freedom of speech of the cyber community makes the rules even more  favorable for the already powerful ones who have sat on the RH and FOI bills, and who knows what else, divorce? for more than a decade now, manigas tayo.

on facebook there are some who say that we who are so upset by the cybercrime act should have spoken up before the bill became law, that we should have monitored closely the legislative process. ang say ko naman, but, really, there were some who spoke up, and even if more had spoken up earlier, would the senate have listened to us?  the senate has not been listening to 7 out of 10 filipinos who want the RH bill, why would they listen to the cybercommunity, na 3 out of 10 filipinos lang daw (and of that three, i bet only one is interested in politics).

ang problema sa ating elected government officials ay, they believe their own propaganda that they are god’s gift to filipinos, they know better than we do about what’s good for the nation, so na-o-offend sila na bonggang bongga when they’re called out, criticized, cyberstoned for something we think they did wrong or didn’t do right.

what if, sumagot sila nang maayos?  umamin, kapag nagkamali.  magpaliwanag, kung may malabo.  engage with the citizenry in constructive discourse.  but no.  instead of getting their acts together, instead of behaving like honorable statesmen who deserve to be in public office, instead of giving us no cause to criticize and deplore, instead of being men and facing up to public opinion for the good of nation, they slap us with an anti-cyber-libel law.

and this, from sotto pa rin, part of his justification for the libel rider, based on the senate journal of january 24, 2012.

…there are numerous abuses in technology, particularly the video and photo uploading and unnecessary write-ups and comments in social networking systems. 

unnecessary in what sense?  who is to decide about necessity?  what might seem unnecessary to sotto would not necessarily be unnecessary in the filipino’s long-term struggle for a true, informed, and working democracy.  everything being done and being said in the freewheeling ether of cyberspace today, day after day, from the inane to the cruel, from the gross to the sublime, and everything that government does and does not do, documented for cyber-eternity, has historical value and significance for the future.

i’m a writer of history, and this is an indie non-profit blog where i share historical and political notes, and call a spade a spade, in aid of nation-building, if not for my children’s generation, then for their my grandchildren’s, and yours.  don’t tell me i have to mince my words now and live in fear of sotto and his ilk.

AMEND THE ANTI-CBYERCRIME ACT!
DECRIMINALIZE LIBEL!

ampatuan’s army

BY-PRODUCT
Alex Magno

What happened in Maguindanao is more than a tragedy. It is a moment of insanity.

Condemn it, we must. Understand the circumstances that made this barbarity even remotely possible, we should.

Over the past few days, we have done the round of excoriations. The outrage is justified. The condemnation is well deserved.

This is a massacre whose barbarity rippled across the globe. The rest of the world is not satisfied with the simple explanation that a culture of impunity has evolved in this little corner of humanity. The rest of the world wants to understand why a condition like this one was allowed to persist — a condition where petty provincial rulers were allowed to keep so many men under arms with little control from the state and enforce their own rules of the game in defiance of the rule of law.

When Gibo Teodoro, former defense secretary, was asked in a press conference how something as mind-boggling as this one could even happen, he said the situation in the locality was complex. He could have gone on and on explaining what that means, but that would have required transforming the press briefing into a full-scale seminar on the vulnerabilities of the Philippine state.

True, a culture of impunity has evolved in that locality. True, political patronage has encouraged political warlordism. True, the authorities looked the other way while local tyrants became more abusive by the day.

But let us talk about the complexity as well. That is important, too. It will help us avert a repeat of such gross atrocities as this one.

The standing estimate is that the Ampatuan clan has 800 men (!) under arms. That virtual army is maintained largely at the expense of the state. Government armed and paid allowances to most of these men: a private army operating under the cover of “civilian volunteers” useful for containing the insurgency in the region.

Until this chilling tragedy happened, the authorities found the arrangement concerning “civilian volunteers” a largely functional one. A trade-off was adopted early in the game, many presidencies ago.

Since the AFP did not have enough men and equipment to effectively contain the armed secessionist groups in the area, the “civilian volunteers” functioned as force extenders. In the case of the Maguindanao “civilian volunteers” were very useful. They kept the MILF trapped in the Maranao areas, with the Maguindanao-speaking areas relatively free of insurgents.

There is a price to pay for that: government tacitly condoned warlords who did their best to contribute to suppressing the insurgency. This has been the unspoken arrangement since the days when these “civilian volunteers” were called BSDUs and then CAFGUs.

The “civilian volunteers” in Maguindanao province provided a crucial buffer, keeping the insurgent groups away from the productive plantations, tuna industries and bustling urban economies to the south. The occasional abuses committed by the warlords, until this week, were a small price to pay for the strategic role of keeping the Maguindanao area and those to the south of the province free of insurgency.

In a way, government had little choice. There was not enough money to enlarge the army so that it achieves an effective ratio of superiority over the secessionist guerrilla forces and the isolated communist gangs. “Civilian volunteers” might be a band-aid solution to a strategic vulnerability, but it was the best that could be done.

This is the complex structure of considerations underpinning Gibo Teodoro’s statement that the only way we can get rid of private armies is to enlarge the army. That is a statement made boldly and frankly — even at the risk of many voters failing to get the point.

Gibo Teodoro should know what the complex considerations are. He served an exemplary two years as defense secretary.

The warlords were not about to squander the leverage they enjoyed. They used the private armies to consolidate their local power bases and occasionally pleased their patrons in Manila by delivering votes in their favor. Still, the existence of these private armies is a by-product of a strategic vulnerability of the state, not just the administration.

Until we have enough money to invest in greater military capability to contain a well-armed insurgent movement, we will have to rely on the cheap repressive labor contributed by “civilian volunteers”organized by local warlords.

The Ampatuans are not an idle clan. They understood their leverage and employed it to the hilt. They won sub-Cabinet posts, the governorship of the ARMM, mayoral posts in towns they renamed after their forebears, and the largesse of government projects. They probably ran shady businesses, too, which should explain the great wealth exhibited by clan members. With their leverage, government simply looked the other way and pray nothing too disastrous would come out of this unholy but unavoidable arrangement.

But something truly disastrous has happened. The arrangement will now have to be abrogated. What that means is that the civilian volunteer groups need to be disbanded, the offending local tyrants made to face the full eight of the law and the military, although already thinly spread out, must be redeployed to cover the vacuum.

Andal Ampatuan Jr. will face the music. The outrage is such that this clan has become a political inconvenience. We will now have to find the means to replace the strategic role their private armies played in the counter-insurgency effort.

In the wake of this tragedy, the only guys who have anything to cheer about are the insurgent groups and their allied criminal and terrorist gangs. That is the greatest misfortune of this whole thing.

abu sayyaf: kidnap-for-homeland

ces drilon was in and out in nine days.    the red cross workers swiss andreas notter, italian eugenio vagni and filipina jean lacaba have been in the hands of the abu sayyaf since jan 15, that’s two months and 10 days today and still no release in sight.

as it turns out, this is no ordinary abu sayyaf venture pala.   hindi ito tulad noong kay ces na kidnap-for-money raket, na even if the government was adamant kuno na hindi sila nagbabayad ng ransom, ever, kuno, still they didn’t stop the drilon family from paying up in the millions of bucks.

the red cross hostage-taking is different, radically different.   it is, so far, no less than a kidnap-for-homeland gimik.

INDANAN, Sulu: The Abu Sayyaf is not demanding a ransom for the release of three volunteers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) whom the group abducted on January 15.

Abu Ali, a senior leader within the Abu Sayyaf, told The Manila Times that what they want is an independent Bangsamoro homeland.

“I would like to announce to all our Muslim brothers in the Philippines that what we are doing is not for our self-vested interest but for the interest of the Muslim ummah [community] in order to give them freedom as a Bangsamoro people as well as their right to self-determination,” Ali said.

further, according to ding gagelonia atmidfield :

… a reliable source told luwaran.com/net that the ASG has already released their demands to the government for the release of the three staff of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) kidnapped in Sulu on January 15.

The ASG demands are: 1) For the military to pull out their troops in the entire province of Sulu; and 2) For the government to declare Jolo as an open port between Malaysia and Sulu to boast the economic development of the people of Western Mindanao.

tugon ng red cross, at balik ng abu sayyaf:

A representative of the Red Cross who asked not to be identified and who was with Gordon in Mindanao said the organization could give millions of pesos in livelihood assistance to Sulu so that the peace would be restored in that province.

But Abu Ali said they would not sacrifice their lives if they are only after livelihood assistance.

“If we are only fighting for our livelihood, we might as well lay down our arms and turn into businessmen or farmers to earn a living. But that is not our motive but rather we are fighting for our homeland,” he pointed out.

When asked why they must kidnap Red Cross volunteers, Ali said that is the only way his group can gain attention, especially from the Philippine government.

“No matter how loud we shout and cry even everyday, still the Philippine government would not listen to us.”

tugon ng muslim oppositionist lawyer adel tamano:

Tamano told The Manila Times that “enough is enough” for Abu Sayyaf and all these kidnappings should stop once and for all as it has dragged the names of peace-loving Muslim Filipinos. He also sent a message to the Abu Sayyaf that if they are fighting in the name of Islam and for the sake of Bangsamoro people, they must not perpetrate kidnapping at the expense of the innocent.

so it’s not true that the abu sayyaf guys are not asking for anything in return for the release of the hostages.   what’s true is that the palace chooses to ignore the kidnappers’ demand-for-homeland — it is simply not talked about, because how preposterous, how outrageous, how priceless?

instead the afp, on orders no doubt of the president or the-defense-secretary-who-would-be-president, has, with the help of visiting american technology, tracked down the whereabouts of the kidnappers and hostages and thrown a military cordon around the area, i suppose to limit the abu’s movements while the troops await the order to attack and rescue.   rescue and attack?

meanwhile of course civil society and the international red cross have been calling for a peacefully negotiated release of the hostages.   senator dick gordon, chair of the philippine red cross, had been negotiating with the abu via cellphone and the abu had agreed to release one hostage if the military would pull out from the area.   instead there was a firefight last march 16 — the abu say the afp started it, but the afp will neither confirm nor deny (tulad ng kano) — and nothing to show but dead and wounded on both sides, buti na lang the hostages were not harmed.

no wonder gordon is fit to be tied.    it doesn’t help, or maybe it does, that major general juancho sabban, commander of what seems a failed attack-and-rescue operation, has taken off for a week to speak at a columbia conference on anti-terrorism *lol*.   seriously though, what’s up with ourmilitary?   haven’t they been training all these last 8 years with the visiting american forces?   why  then do they continue to be such dismal failures at stopping the abu sayyaf, among other terrorist groups, and ending the reign of terrorism in sulu?

the latest is this abu sayyaf ultimatum:

Muslim militants holding captive three Red Cross workers in the southern Philippines have threatened to behead one of the hostages if government troops do not move out of their jungle hideouts by the end of the month, officials said Wednesday.

The latest threat was issued by Abu Sayyaf rebel leader Albader Parad on Monday as the military stepped up a blockade to prevent food and supplies from reaching the guerrillas in the hinterland of Indanan town on Jolo island, 1,000 kilometres south of Manila.

tugon ng militar:

Lt. Gen. Nelson Allaga, commander of military forces overseeing the operations in Sulu, said security forces will continue to maintain its presence in Indanan town and is closely working with Kasim and Sakur Tan, the provincial governor, who heads the government task force in-charge of securing the safe release of the hostages.

“We will maintain our presence in Indanan town,” he said, adding, any withdrawal of troops could pave the way for terrorists to escape and consolidate their forces.”

Tan also rejected Abu Sayyaf demands for a military pull out. “That is tantamount to surrendering the whole town to terrorists. I will not allow that to happen,” he said.

say naman ni afp spokesperson lt. col. ernesto torres over dzbb radio:

“Mahirap mag-rely sa kanilang sinasabi. They are asking for something in exchange for the freedom of the ICRC workers. Vinavalidate natin kung saan galing yung mga demand na ganiyan. Medyo malaki po yung hinihingi nila,” Torres said.

“Assuming it [demand] is true, ay parang pinullout natin yung tropa sa Sulu, which is not possible,” he added.

[It will be hard to rely on what they are saying. They are asking for something in exchange for the freedom of the ICRC workers. We are still verifying whether they are indeed making the demand. But assuming it is true, they are asking too much because it will be like pulling out our troops from the entire province.]

Torres said they also doubt that the Abu Sayyaf will fulfill its part of the “bargain” because last week, the bandits reneged on its agreement to release one of the ICRC volunteers after government forces repositioned its troops in Indanan town.

Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) chair Senator Richard Gordon last Saturday said Abu Sayyaf commander Albader Parad “is now asking for two-thirds” of Jolo – a larger portion of the island than originally agreed upon.

He said Parad also wanted the pullout of the armed barangay guards, which was not covered by the original agreement. Parad’s supposed demands are likely to be rejected by officials and the military, Gordon said.

so this crisis is not what djb over at FV says it is:

The months-long Red Cross hostage situation in Sulu is evolving into a major crisis as the government looks increasingly unable to do anything at all about it. It’s Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s ransom paying habits running right smack into the firm and unbending policy of the International Red Cross NEVER to pay ransoms in these terrorist kidnapping cases.

indeed, if it were money the abu sayyaf wants, the crisis would have long been resolved through a pay-up from some pocket or another, matapos lang, kahiyaan na.   but it’s not money that the abu want this time.   it would  seem na nag-evolve na ang abu sayyaf.   a la MILF, looking for a homeland, na ang drama nila.

interesting, di ba?   who kaya is behind this change-of-politics ng abu sayyaf?  what are the implications for the peace talks and the MILF’s campaign for a bangsamoro homeland?   will/can the MILF ignore the new abu sayyaf or will/can there be a joining of forces?

gma and her defense-secretary-who-would-be-president teodoro must be praying very hard na magbago sana ang isip at mag-settle na lang for millions of pesos ang abu sayyaf in aid of a dramatic rescue of the three humanitarian workers.   for the sakes of the three, i pray so too.