Phooey on all that phoney paranoia over the anti-terror ‘law’

Let’s leave it to the Supreme Court to decide if La Presidenta’s Executive Order No. 464 is "Constitutional" or not. This is the Order which requires heads and senior officials of government departments (notably Cabinet members) and top officers of the military and police to get clearance from the President before appearing before the Senate or House of Representatives.

Susmariosep. This unseemly row between the Palace and the Senate, and all that nasty talk about an assassination plot, give the impression that the Philippines is on the verge of anarchy; worse, of cracking up.

Business is in a stage of suspended animation. Foreign investment – particularly since the Senate is rudely "investigating" the North Rail project based on a huge concessionary loan from the People’s Republic of China – has literally dried up. Who wants to invest in a country where the investors get "investigated," or the courts can meddle in every enterprise? We’re shooting ourselves in the foot, and calling it, piously, "protecting the people’s interest."

I think it’s time both Malacañang and the Senate came to their senses. (The House of Representatives, in contrast, is beginning to appear more sedate and judicious).

Our over-combative media, as well, has waded into the fray determined to play a role far more pugnacious than reporting the news. No wonder that just before the French Revolution the Press was dubbed, in terms of power and clout, the Fourth Estate. Even the great Napoleon Bonaparte, when he seized control as First Consul, later as self-crowned Emperor, declared: "One hostile newspaper is more to be feared than 10,000 bayonets!"

We must not take this Napoleonic remark to be a compliment. It was a threat. After he made that statement, the Emperor sent 50,000 bayonets to suppress the newspapers.

I submit, as one who has covered eight Presidents, four wars, several coups (here, and in Indonesia and Thailand) for about half a century, and been a prisoner of Marcos martial law in the maximum security concentration camp of Fort Bonifacio, that media must be brave, strong and persistent – but it must also be responsible. It does not do for us in the media to raise false alarums, over-hype a situation, or provoke hysteria. With every freedom must come a commensurate responsibility.

When we were student newspaper editors in the College Editors’ Guild, despite being wet behind the ears, we at least managed to frame a sensible motto for the CEG: "A drop of ink makes millions think." In this age of radio-TV dominance, the print media (like The STAR) still has that major mission to perform. Many of the radio and television commentators still get their facts from print media research and their opinions are likewise influenced by what they pick from the early morning editions of the newspapers. In this sense, that drop of ink continues to make millions think.

When I started out as a columnist, I took my credo from somebody named Anonymous whom everybody quotes. The purpose of my columns, I cheekily announced, was "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

I trust this is still the motive which inspires those who write in our Opinion Pages.

To fulfill this intent and to serve the nation (pompous though this may sound), newspapers and all media must be sober and responsible, not reckless, intent on stirring up violence, or hortatory. I am concerned in this climate of tumult and contumely about the incendiary manner in which much opinion, indeed even "news" is published or aired on broadcast media.

What we need in this disappointed country, faced by the chronic challenge of poverty, and confronted with the fresher but even more troubling problems of fiscal deficit and escalating fuel and energy prices (a worldwide phenomenon) is to come together in common purpose.

What we’re witnessing is a disquieting Uncivil War waged with bitter words and Senate "inquiries", with a resentful President striking back.

It’s time for a truce, if not an end to hostilities.

I covered the Vietnam War for a long time. I recall one incident in which an entire village was destroyed in a snap engagement between the South Vietnamese (ARVN) forces, their American allies, and the Viet Cong. US jets napalmed it, and ARVN and US artillery zapped the unfortunate place. When the smoke cleared there was almost nothing left but debris and scorched corpses or pieces of corpses. You couldn’t tell who was friend, foe, or non-combatant victim.

An officer shrugged, sadly, in a phrase heard over and over again – and echoing around the planet, too: "We destroyed the village in order to save it."

Let’s not destroy our country in order to save it.

* * *

I am amazed at the absurd fears being expressed, particularly by the Radical Left (among them Party List members of the House of Representatives) and some jittery members of the Opposition against the proposed Anti-Terrorism Law, which comes in several versions in both House and Senate. A number of solons (a misused term sometimes) are protesting that it might be a weapon used by the GMA Administration to devastate the Opposition, et cetera.

What nonsense.

This is a nation, alas, where everybody cries out "human rights" while the villains murder humans right and left, then hide behind these very "rights" to escape justice – much less retribution. Our people cower in fear, while we bluster and brag about our "democracy" – when the only democratic right we possess is to die at the hands of killers, rebels and terrorists.

Even carnap gangs, who infest such toney areas as New Manila, or harass motorists in the dead of night, robbers who barge into restaurants and hamburger joints to rob both establishments and patrons, or kidnappers who’ve gone on a rampage (police statistics notwithstanding) don’t fear the law. They know they can beat our marshmallow and extremely malleable justice system.

Even our Catholic Bishops contribute to immunity of the evildoers. They publicly bully the President into not executing even convicts on Death Row already sentenced to death for heinous crimes like murder, homicide, kidnapping, rape and drug-dealing. "Thou shalt not kill!" They intone. And GMA, scared of the Bishops hastens to comply.

And we’re afraid such a President will abuse an Anti-Terrorism Law to destroy her "enemies"?

The fact is that we urgently need an Anti-Terrorism Law, not just for our protection but the defense and welfare of our neighbors in Southeast Asia. It’s already well-known, to our shame, that the two Malaysian terrorist leaders – Azahari bin Husin (dubbed the "Demolition Man" for his expertise in explosives) and "Money Man" Noordin Mohamed Top of the Jemaah Islamiyah – trained in Central Mindanao and honed their bomb-making and terrorist techniques in our southern Philippines.

These two cretins are believed to have sent the suicide-bombers who blew up the tourist restaurants in Bali last Saturday, killing 27 and grievously wounding 133. These same men were tagged as the masterminds of the bombings of the J.W. Marriott in Jakarta, and last September’s bombing of the Australian Embassy, also in Jakarta. (In that last outrage, in which the fatalities were all Indonesian, not a single foreigner, least of all Australian, I happened to be in the Indonesian capital – and on the scene within the hour. The carnage was unbelievable and sickening).

This is why I say: We must have an Anti-Terrorism Law. And the more teeth we put into it, the better. There is an old slogan which comes to mind: "The life you save may be your own."

As it is, the proposed Anti-Terrorism bills’ strictures are hilariously toothless. It was proposed that, when arrested, a suspect in an act of terrorism could be detained for 90 days.

Our congressmen and senators, wailing the protection of "human rights" have already watered this down to only 15 days – which is ridiculous. It may even be reduced further. Whatta joke, but the joke is on us.

By golly, our legislators cannot even agree on the definition of who can be regarded as a "terrorist."

In the debating society which is composed of our two chambers of Congress, they may debate until the terrorists come and blow all of us up to kingdom come. (Why, they might even plant a bomb in the Batasan or the Senate, which some people already maliciously hint may not be a disservice).

Let’s look at how our neighbors are fighting "terrorism." In Indonesia, a suspect can be detained for at least 28 days.

In the United Kingdom, where the Mother of Parliaments guarantees democracy, suspects can be detained for as long as six months. (In the wake of the vicious Underground bombings in London, Scotland Yard, Special Branch, M-15 and the SAS have become even tougher).

In the United States, if the suspect is an alien, detention can even be "indefinite", especially if the suspected terrorist is locked away in Guantanamo Bay.

Malaysia and Singapore have the most stringent laws of all. Both of them have an Internal Security Act (ISA) which they inherited from the Colonial British – the former PPSO, or Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Under the ISA, suspects can be picked up and kept in detention indefinitely. They are not even subject to habeas corpus, since technically they aren’t under arrest, but merely "helping" the police in their inquiries. There’s more than one way in which to skin the terrorist cat in the above-mentioned countries.

But in ours? Sanamagan. We’ll be debating the "evils" of an Anti-Terrorism Law till the killers get us, or till hell freezes over. Some may call this "democracy," but having seen the dead and the dying in Jakarta, and in Madrid (yes, I was there too) – in the El Atocha station – I’m afraid I must call it stupidity.

Pass that Anti-Terrorism Law, and give our people a fighting chance to survive!