Bizarre, Criminal law, International, Society

Duterte Brags About Throwing Criminal Suspect From A Helicopter

We have previously discussed the total meltdown in the Philippine’s with the election of Rodrigo Duterte, a man whose hostility toward civil liberties is match only by the uncertainty over his sanity. rodrigo_duterte_and_laotian_president_bounnhang_vorachith_croppedWe have previously discussed Duterte’s foul-mouthed tenure in office, including profanities directed at the Pope, President Obama, and anyone else objecting to his evisceration of human rights and the rule of law. Recently Duterte bragged about how he personally murdered suspects as an example for police who were a bit more reluctant to engage in extrajudicial murders. Now, Duterte has bragged that he personally threw suspect to his death from a helicopter.  Duterte continues to brag about his extrajudicial murders but there remains no action taken against him.

In a speech at Camarines Sur in the northern Philippines on Tuesday, Duterte reportedly said that he threw an alleged kidnapper out of the helicopter while he was mayor of Davao City: “If you are corrupt, I will fetch you with a helicopter and I will throw you out on the way to Manila,” the newspaper quoted him as saying in Tagalog during the speech. “I have done that before, why should I not do it again?”

Duterte is a disgrace to the Philippines and seems to be devoid of any semblance of decency or humanity. That was evident during the campaign when he said that he would have “been first” in line to join the gang rape of an Australian missionary killed in a prison riot in 1989.

So now he is chatting about throwing people from helicopters as part of his extrajudicial murders.  After being elected on the promise of killing criminal suspects, Duterte is clearly counting on effective immunity from any criminal charges.  So far he is right.

22 thoughts on “Duterte Brags About Throwing Criminal Suspect From A Helicopter”

  2. Well helicopters are a horrible waste of money. Better to just chunk the druggie off a tall building, or pop a cap in the back of the head. You could feed a lot of hungry children for what it takes to operate a helicopter.

    But in spite of this waste, I still say “Go Duterte!”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. On another blog it was reported that Duturde threw a monkey he stole from a zoo off of a bridge.
    The people sang this song in protest:

    I went to the animal fair,
    The birds and the beasts were there,
    The old baboon by the light of the moon
    Was combing his auburn hair

    The monkey he got drunk
    And fell on the elephant’s trunk
    The elephant sneezed and went down on his knees
    And that was the end of the monkey monkey monkey monk…

  5. The smart money says Duterte is trolling the world’s pluperfect impotents. It is disconcerting that in the Philippines, your standing is improved by concocting cock-and-bull stories that you’ve wasted people. It appears the political culture there is kind of like the society of feral young men in the Chicago slums.

  6. What in hades are “civil liberties “?

    As near as I can tell it is libtard code for rights turned into permissions and doled out by the
    police state to 14th amendment citizens. They are NOT the same as inalienable rights or God given
    rights.

    1. You could easily find an answer to your question with a Google search. I did it and the first source to present itself was this: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html. But I’ll assume you are too lazy to actually read itself excerpt it for you.

      “It is important to note the difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” The legal area known as “civil rights” has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. “Civil liberties” concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed — either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

      Freedom of speech
      The right to privacy
      The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
      The right to a fair court trial
      The right to marry
      The right to vote

      One way to consider the difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties” is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected. For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed “civil liberty.” But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion — you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee’s gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender.”

      So civil rights is a legitimate legal concept, that clearly is derived from and linked to the rights of U.S. citizens as enumerated in the Constitution.

  7. The rise of Duterte would be the natural outcome of a society yearning for ANY action against those that would threaten order. If the people feel as though criminals rule the streets and Duterte makes them feel safer, then they will not question the authority he has assumed until that authority turns on them. This is the classic rise of a tyrant. Of course the American culture is too sophisticated to allow our government to rise to this level of lawlessness, right? Militarized government agencies, weaponized entities like the IRS, civil asset forfeiture, and so on. The rule of law ignored for the political class who are also enriching themselves on the public dime, compliant MSM, targeting of certain groups not favored by those in power. No, our tyrants aren’t yet crazy enough to do the dirty work themselves, they will have it done in far more sophisticated ways.

    http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

  8. Enough with the Fake News about Duterte. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Duterte just likes classic movies, like Scarface (the original and the remake), as is clear from this clip below from the remake written by Oliver Stone, when he knew how to write and make movies (before he became absorbed in Leftism, which, naturally, destroyed all of his creative abilities, as Leftism inevitably does):

  11. As an executive, I think Duterte is very effective and says what a lot of people are thinking. However, in this case, I think he is all hat and no cattle. He has mentioned before that he talks a big personal reputation which he cannot back up.

  12. To all you guys out there who are communicating by email with women in those islands with the notion of bringing them over here to marry: consider what you are getting into.

  14. The Philippines is a party to the Rome Statute and extrajudicial murders by a government’s leadership can be considered a crime against humanity and hence prosecutable by the International Criminal Court.

    Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines a “crime against humanity” to include, in pertinent parts:

    1) For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as a part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population, with knowledge of the attack;

    (a) Murder;
    …
    (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    …
    (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
    …
    (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

    (a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
    …
    (i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
    ~+~

    I believe given the admitted and confirmed acts of atrocity committed by, or on orders from President Duterte, it is reasonable to suspect that the future might hold an investigation and possible indictment for crimes against humanity.

    1. That’d be a lovely day, Darren. Love the statute and the ICC concept, but as Old Hickory said, “John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!”

      The US is up to its ears in crimes against humanity, and until this country gets on board the ICC love train, in terms of enforcement it’s dead in its tracks.

      Besides, when push comes to shove, Duterte will characterize these statements against his own interests as testosterone-enhanced puffery, and no Filipino who knows differently and who wants to live would dare speak out.

      Once again, it’s up to the US to start taking responsibility for its own actions or in this case omission by its lack of uniform support of the ICC before denouncing others.

      1. The US is up to its ears in crimes against humanity,

        I get the impression you’ve never offered a precise and defensible observation in your sorry-assed life.

      2. You are correct and therein lies the problem with the ICC–the lack of enforceability when a party state lacks the will to extradite the offenders. Eventually Duterte will fall out of favor, after of course move citizens are murdered. This is not going to end well for their nation.

        If only politicians were held personally liable for their actions, or at least made to “volunteer” to be cannon fodder as young men are in wars of aggression. Maybe then they would reconsider the approach to international disputes. After all, its easy to prosecute a war when human life becomes simply a statistic in the minds of the corrupt and the power-hungry.

Comments are closed.