Anti-terror bill is US project
October 10, 2005 | 12:00am
The Bush administration is clearly behind the anti-terror bill being pushed in our Congress. Nothing really wrong with that, if the US proposal -now being sponsored by the Arroyo administration- aligns with our national interest. But does it?
The nationalists are against the bill for sovereignty reasons. Reps. Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Crispin Beltran and some sectoral reps have already indicated their opposition to the bill. But even pure civil libertarians, like Dean Pacifico Agabin of the UP College of Law, have concluded that it is even harsher than the US Patriot Act, implying that it is violation of civil liberties.
Expect the traditional opposition like Rep. Rolex Suplico (Iloilo) and Rep. Ronaldo Zamora (San Juan) to scrutinize the bill to find out if it could be used by the executive to muzzle GMA's political enemies. As for the congressmen of Islamic background, they feel that terrorist being described in the bill is a Muslim.
The bill is being revived because of the recent bombings in Indonesia. Philippine authorities think that a bill is needed to effectively interdict these terrorists who may be on the way to Mindanao. Sponsors of the bill, most of whom met with the president in the palace last week, think our laws are not sufficient to check terrorism.
The US game plan to secure its borders and citizens during the Cold War years was to build military bases all over the world. The idea then was to insure that before the enemy hits the US mainland, it would first hit other countries hosting these bases. But today, the game plan is to ensure that its allies and friends in the world support the US crusade against terrorism.
That should explain why the US is keen on having the anti-terrorism bill passed in Congress. The US wants the Philippines to be a bastion of anti-terrorism. Another big consideration is the fact that Mindanao, being Muslim country, could be a base of operations of the terrorists.
There is now a worldwide campaign by the US to encourage allies to pass anti-terrorism measures. This one being proposed in the Philippines is just one of them. The US is telling the Arroyo administration that the bilateral ties between the two countries would be based on how the Philippines would pass the measure.
I believe that the measure would have a hard time in Congress. Given the many controversies between the executive and the legislative on many issues, Congress would deliberately delay the discussion of the measure. But we never know. The president has many ways of influencing Congress, based on past precedents. Let us see this time whether the President's adroitness in handling Congress will prevail.
The United States government is not likely to favor the opposition or the administration on the spying case involving Mr. Leandro Aragoncillo, a former staff member of US Vice President Dick Cheney who was suspected of giving information to opposition leaders in the Philippines.
In all likelihood, the United States would stand neutral because it wants to insure that the US has links with the administration and the opposition. That has always been its stand -to be neutral when the issue involves both allies. And in the case of the Philippines, both the administration and the opposition are friends of the United States.
We are not about to see a situation where the US will name Ping Lacson as the ringleader of this spying scandal in the US. Ping is a genuine friend of the United States, having forged the closest ties with the US when he was PNP chief. As PNP chief, he worked closely with operatives of the US on the anti-illegal drug campaign. The worse thing that can happen to Ping is the routine investigation of Michael Ray Aquino, a former officer under Ping. But Aquino would not be extradited, even if DOJ's Secretary Gonzales would try his best.
If you notice, the US is not talking. Only the factions in the Philippines are talking, taking advantage of the situation. As for the United States, it knows what it wants. It wants continued division of the Philippine political groups so that it can continue to rule its former colony.
The nationalists are against the bill for sovereignty reasons. Reps. Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Crispin Beltran and some sectoral reps have already indicated their opposition to the bill. But even pure civil libertarians, like Dean Pacifico Agabin of the UP College of Law, have concluded that it is even harsher than the US Patriot Act, implying that it is violation of civil liberties.
Expect the traditional opposition like Rep. Rolex Suplico (Iloilo) and Rep. Ronaldo Zamora (San Juan) to scrutinize the bill to find out if it could be used by the executive to muzzle GMA's political enemies. As for the congressmen of Islamic background, they feel that terrorist being described in the bill is a Muslim.
The bill is being revived because of the recent bombings in Indonesia. Philippine authorities think that a bill is needed to effectively interdict these terrorists who may be on the way to Mindanao. Sponsors of the bill, most of whom met with the president in the palace last week, think our laws are not sufficient to check terrorism.
The US game plan to secure its borders and citizens during the Cold War years was to build military bases all over the world. The idea then was to insure that before the enemy hits the US mainland, it would first hit other countries hosting these bases. But today, the game plan is to ensure that its allies and friends in the world support the US crusade against terrorism.
That should explain why the US is keen on having the anti-terrorism bill passed in Congress. The US wants the Philippines to be a bastion of anti-terrorism. Another big consideration is the fact that Mindanao, being Muslim country, could be a base of operations of the terrorists.
There is now a worldwide campaign by the US to encourage allies to pass anti-terrorism measures. This one being proposed in the Philippines is just one of them. The US is telling the Arroyo administration that the bilateral ties between the two countries would be based on how the Philippines would pass the measure.
I believe that the measure would have a hard time in Congress. Given the many controversies between the executive and the legislative on many issues, Congress would deliberately delay the discussion of the measure. But we never know. The president has many ways of influencing Congress, based on past precedents. Let us see this time whether the President's adroitness in handling Congress will prevail.
In all likelihood, the United States would stand neutral because it wants to insure that the US has links with the administration and the opposition. That has always been its stand -to be neutral when the issue involves both allies. And in the case of the Philippines, both the administration and the opposition are friends of the United States.
We are not about to see a situation where the US will name Ping Lacson as the ringleader of this spying scandal in the US. Ping is a genuine friend of the United States, having forged the closest ties with the US when he was PNP chief. As PNP chief, he worked closely with operatives of the US on the anti-illegal drug campaign. The worse thing that can happen to Ping is the routine investigation of Michael Ray Aquino, a former officer under Ping. But Aquino would not be extradited, even if DOJ's Secretary Gonzales would try his best.
If you notice, the US is not talking. Only the factions in the Philippines are talking, taking advantage of the situation. As for the United States, it knows what it wants. It wants continued division of the Philippine political groups so that it can continue to rule its former colony.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest