Trump praised Philippines' Duterte for 'unbelievable job' on drugs

Trump praised Philippines' Duterte for 'unbelievable job' on drugs: report
http://thehill.com/policy/internati...-duterte-for-unbelievable-job-on-drugs-report

Since he took office last year, Duterte has encouraged the extrajudicial killings of thousands of citizens accused of dealing or using drugs. He also compared his campaign to kill criminals to the Holocaust.

"Hitler massacred 3 million Jews. Now, there are 3 million drug addicts [in the Philippines] ... I'd be happy to slaughter them," he said in September.

Crooked Donnie sure loves corrupt, and immoral strongmen
like Putin and Duterte.

 

Is heroin being smuggled to UK on Pakistani planes?...

Is heroin being smuggled on Pakistani planes into Heathrow?
Wed, 24 May 2017 - Pakistani officials investigate two incidents in which the drug was found on London-bound planes.

See also:

Pigeon 'caught with backpack of drugs'
Thu, 25 May 2017 - A pocket holding 178 pills was strapped to the bird which was caught near the Iraq border - report.

 

Philippine police try to save lives of drugs war victims...

Philippine top cop says police try to save lives of drugs war victims
Fri Jun 30, 2017 | The Philippines' police chief on Friday stood by anti-narcotics officers and rejected a Reuters investigation that pointed to a pattern of police sending corpses of drug suspects to hospitals to destroy crime scene evidence and hide executions.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right...

Duterte vows end to uprising, ‘jail or hell’ in drug war
July 24,`17 — Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte vowed Monday to continue his bloody war on illegal drugs despite international and domestic criticism and warned that offenders will end up in “jail or hell.” In his second state of the nation speech, Duterte also insisted he would not hold peace talks with communist rebels because of continuing attacks.

 

It is not surprising that Trump supports allowing police to be judge, jury and executioner.

Once something like this becomes acceptable in a country it only gets worse. Police will expand the type of people they can execute and also start targeting opponents of those in power.

We have a President who has hired his family, wants the DOJ to not apply the law to him, attacks the free press and courts. If he can get away with it I am fairly certain he would support the police in the US conducting executions.

 

You seem quite carried away with your fears!

 

Not really we have a President who does not seem to realize the importance of a few things to a democracy.

A free adversarial press. Every President had to endure bad news cycles and negative press. It is very important for the press to point out negative things and question our leaders. Trump called them the enemy of the people. That is something people who want to be dictators say. Demonizing and controlling the press is one of the first steps that need to be taken. Not saying he wants to be a dictator, but it certain raises a concern.

He tries to politicize things other Presidents for a good reason did not. Asking the military to actively support his agenda and his speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree.

His attack on the AG for doing exactly what the AG should have done. The DOJ serves the country not the President. This is a President who seems to think the priority is for the DOJ to support and defend the President. There is no justifiable reason to be upset with Sessions. Sessions is actually has been really successful in moving forward with Trump's agenda way more so than the President himself or any other of his appointees or those in the White House. That leaves one logical reason I can think of to attack Sessions. Trump does not like the investigation may turn up something. To me that reveals Trump thinks he should be above the law and does not believe in the autonomy of the DOJ and AG.

Trump brought family members to serve in the White House. Unless they just happen to be the best people for the job this should not be tolerated. There are countries where family members are given positions in government. These countries tend to have leaders that win elections with 100% of the vote if they hold elections at all.

We have a President who shows admiration for leaders who oppose many of the things in our Constitution.

Putin who runs a country that political opponents end up dead along with members of the press who ran negative stories and is openly a oligarchy.

Duetre for having people around 7,000 people executed in a year without a trial.

President al-Sisi who does not allow protest against the government who also likes and charges the members of the press with fake news and took power in a coup.

Erdogan who was able took advantage of consolidating power to give himself the power to rule by decree, his country has more journalist in jail than any other country,had a 16 year old jailed for criticizing him , he has complete power to appoint and fire ministers and judges.

We have a President that attacked the courts for ruling against him. Again something other Presidents understood not to do and accepting the ruling. Another action that shows that Trump does not seem to like the rule of law if it gets in the way of what he wants to do.

Trump's charitable giving seems to be self serving. His largest charitable donation was to repair a fountain outside one of his buildings. His other largest donations were land that he really did not give away and he still owns it, but did so for the tax advantages. Something that highly suggest he has very little interest in helping others unless he can benefit. Another trait that is shared with by a lot of autocrats.

As for allowing police to execute people that only gets worse. It starts out targeting a small group, but always expands to other people determined to be undesirable. Duetre has already targeted and killed political opponents and journalist using the police.

 

Steps to dictatorship and Trump supporters never see it coming. Putin understands these fools.

 

A psychiatrist friend told me her associates agree, that 30 percent of this country will always yearn for a despot, a strongman, an autocrat. They said there is nothing we can do about it. Except avoid them when possible, and make sure they don't get their wish.

 

The fact is that the president Duterte has overwhelming support of Filipinos for his war on drugs.Over 80% of Filipinos aporove of his aproach.Most psychiatrists agree that those 15-20% actually have serious problems of grasping the reality around them.Same as people who suffer from TDS.Reality escapes them.

 

I can't say that this was always the case but I think the psychiatrist is right about the birthers.

 

Fine. You be a concern troll. And while you are at it, go dig up all your "concerned posts" that you created while Obama was spying on journalists and warning people to avoid certain news makers and opinion speakers.

Oh dear gawd, he spoke to the boy scouts! No one has ever done that before! You are right, I now feel a deep and abiding sense of alarm like something truly horrifying is about to happen. Thanks for warning me!

The AG is an idiot. He blows the recusal and then vows to increase asset forfeiture? WTH? Under Obama, the police hauled in more goods without convictions than the burglars!

Sure they are the 4th branch of government, its right there in the Constitution, but only if you read in the Old Greek manuscripts, then you can see this in the text.

I'd can him over the Asset Forfeiture thing. Clearly he is out of his mind and has no judgment. Who in their right minds would think "I know what I should do, OVER RULE state regulations and make assert forfeiture easier!" I mean, are you serious?

Or like when JFK made RFK, AG?

Have you read Clinton Cash? She was the alternative and how the Clinton Foundations were turned into cash cows, vehicles for all the world to funnel cash to the Clintons? Generally a Foundation is a way for wealthy people to give away their money. Not Clinton, the Foundations were a way for the world to give them money. But, it all went to hell when she couldn't deliver herself as a bought and sold President. Made a fortune though when she was selling the State Department!

And Obama, had no idea Hillary was using her own server, he swore this convincingly. No, he never gave her permission either, and then we learn that he used it for every email communication and used an assumed name to correspond with her? Yeah, you're a real sleuth when it comes to detecting a lack of candor and being repulsed by it!

That this is a plan of Trump's to bring to America is nothing more than your un-grounded fantasy.

But, depending on how the situation evolves as Trump pushes back against the gangs and cartels, if they are too much for the police to handle, we may very well use US troops against them on US soil if the State Gov approves.

 

Weird that me showing concern about this President's behavior has you thinking I 100% supported Obama. Like all Presidents he did stuff I found acceptable and unacceptable.

I am concerned about any time the government expands its ability to conduct surveillance without oversight or need for a warrant. I am not sure you realize that the ability for the conduct surveillance was expanded under Bush and received support from most Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

The US Freedom Act was passed in 2015 under President Obama. It received bipartisan support. The act is an attempt to try and correct the overreaching by government, protect privacy and peoples rights while still allowing the government to find and target threats in the US.

Mitch McConnell wanted not to change a thing to the powers granted by the Patriot Act. Rand Paul came out very strongly against spying on Americans and tried to filibuster to block the bills passage.

I agree with Rand Paul in believing we as Americans seem to be willing to remove safe guards to protect us from the government that “some people are so fearful” of terrorism that they believe “ISIS will be in every drug store in America, in every house, if we don’t get rid of the Constitution.”

Trying to place the blame squarely on the Democrats is wrong. There is plenty of support on both sides of the aisle for this kind of thing. There is also opposition to it on both sides of the aisle.

Sessions had to recuse himself if he wanted to follow the DOJ regulations. If he wanted to he could have ignored them and get away with it I guess. We are a country that is based on rule of law even if it becomes inconvenient for the President.

We are talking about Trump not Clinton. Imagine if we had a legal system based on if someone may or may not have gotten away with something illegal. The defense you seem to be using is someone else did something wrong so it is okay if this other person does. If Clinton did something illegal has nothing to do with if Trump did. I am also not a Clinton supporter and never have been. I will give Bill credit for economic expansion.

I find it inappropriate for a President to select family members to serve in the White House. Regardless if past Presidents have done it since I think they should not have. No one else can do it in government according to the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute. There certainly can be a large amount of bias involved with the selection and when looking to see if they should be fired. I guess I can support it if the President can demonstrate that no one else is as qualified or can not do the job as well as one of their family members.

The road going from a free country to mirroring the countries lead by the people Trump praises does not happen overnight. It starts by doing things like demonizing the free press that run negative stories, expanding police powers or reducing oversight of their actions, doing things like allowing seizure of property without trial which Sessions is promoting, politicizing things like the military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies and other similar things.

I am not saying that he is absolutely doing this on purpose. I do think he frequently shows that he does not understand the importance of an adversarial press, the courts ability to tell him no and him not attacking them over it, that giving political speeches to the military, FBI and CIA is something that should not be done, his AG should and be encouraged to follow DOJ regulations, it is not okay offer praise to those leaders who oppose what is on our Constitution.

If given the time and resources I am sure I can find at least questionable stuff about the vast majority of politicians. I also can say that most on both sides seem to understand how important certain things are and what lines not to cross. Even if I may not agree with them on certain issues.

 

To use the words of Joe Biden, "It's a big effen deal!"

I was hoping that when it came up for renewal that Obama and the Democrats would curtail it, but instead is was MASSIVELY expanded very few on either side are good on this issue. Rand Paul is, as is Wyden, the Democrat Senator from Oregon, other than that the expansion was pretty much greeted with a bi-partisan Amen Chorus.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Oba...ome..69i57.12684j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In 2013, the former director of the US National Security Agency has indicated that surveillance programs have "expanded" under Barack Obama's time in office and said the spy agency has more powers now than when he was in command.



Hayden's comments came as the debate around the extent of government surveillance in the US and the UK intensified on Sunday. In Washington, some US senators demanded more transparency from the Obama administration. Libertarian Republican Rand Paul said he wanted to mount a supreme court challenge.

On CNN, senator Mark Udall, one of the prominent Senate critics of US government surveillance, called for amendments to the Patriot Act, the controversial law brought in after the 9/11 attacks, to rein in the NSA's powers. "I'm calling for reopening the Patriot Act," Udall said. "The fact that every call I make to my friends or family is noted, the length, the date, that concerns me."

Udall, who has been privy to classified briefings about NSA data collection programs, said it was unclear to him that the surveillance initiatives had disrupted terrorist plots, as the administration has claimed.

He called on Obama's administration to make more information about the programs public. "The ultimate check, the ultimate balance is the American public understanding to what extent their calls are being collected, if only in the sense of metadata," he said. "Let's not have this law interpreted secretly, as it has been for the last number of years."


Wyden

Paul
Udall's Democratic colleague Ron Wyden, who has had access to the same confidential briefings, and also spoken out over the surveillance programs, told the Guardian he believed the White House needed to address whether previous statements "are actually true".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/us-surveillance-expanded-obama-hayden

Then in 2017, Obama massively expanded domestic spying powers. Just two days after his Jan. 10 farewell speech, the Obama administration granted sweeping surveillance powers dramatically expanding 17 government agencies legal authority to spy on US citizens.

Mr. Obama’s most enduring legacy may be the establishment of the modern US surveillance state. During his eight years in office, Obama has dramatically expanded the reach of US government surveillance, with scores of new revelations of previously unknown surveillance initiatives continuing to regularly come to light.

Obama’s surveillance expansion was accomplished not with legislation but though the power of the president to issue new, or, in this case, updated, executive orders.

Obama’s administration has reinterpreted “foreign security threats” to also mean “domestic security threats” and increased the number of agencies that have access to the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance data. With the CIA, FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, Treasury Department/IRS, Homeland Security, Coast Guard, and “such other elements of any department or agency as may be designated by the president” now able to get this data, there’s really no meaningful limit to how widely information might be shared nor who might be targeted.

These changes will dramatically increase the impact of spying on everyday Americans. Many more government agencies will have access to your most private emails, phone calls, text messages, social media posts, and a host of other information; and compartmentalization of sensitive information will be irreparably diminished.

The power of these tools is far greater than should be in the hands of any president, regardless of political affiliation.

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Pas...2017/0118/Opinion-Obama-s-surveillance-legacy

No he didn't.

Section 45.2 states that an official is disqualified from “a criminal investigation or prosecution” if he has a personal or political relationship with a “subject of the investigation or prosecution,” or with a person or organization whose interests would be affected by the outcome “of the investigation or prosecution.”

The probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign is not a criminal investigation or prosecution. Moreover, when the reg speaks of the “subject of the investigation or prosecution,” it is using “subject” as a criminal-law term of art. A “subject” is a person or entity whose actions are being examined by a grand jury with an eye toward a possible indictment. There are no “subjects” in that sense in a counterintelligence investigation because the objective is not to build a criminal case and there is no grand jury.

And certainly Sessions shouldn't have done this in the heat of the moment without consulting with the President and somebody who apparently understands these regulations better than he apparently does.

No. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those that ignore very real crimes and they hyperventilate over imagined ones.

You certainly welcome to your opinion, but there is nothing illegal about it and there is precedent for it.

We agree on that, that prompted many to jump off the Sessions bandwagon.

When they tell him no, he stops and appeals it to a higher court. He hasn't pushed past their rulings, even when they are clearly ridiculous.

 

Duterte takin' care of the drug problem in the Philippines...

Philippines records its bloodiest day EVER in war on drugs
Thursday 17th August, 2017 - In what became the single deadliest day of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s unrelenting war on drugs - the Philippines police killed 32 people in raids in Manila.

 

Vice has an HBO doc on it I believe tonight.............Duterte is breaking every rule in the book.

 

Duterte is fully supported by the vast majority of Filipinos.Still 80% approves of his methods used against drug cartels.The biggest complainers are liberals who profit from human misery which drugs bring upon people Keep up good work Mr Duterte.As a matter of fact,most Filipinos want him to get even tougher.

 

This again?

If you read the entire transcript, its blatantly obvious that Trump is pandoring to the megalomaniac Duterte, who controls major shipping lanes in the pacific, to use that influence to pressure China for political help with N. Korea. Nothing more.

Duterte is that sort of personality where flattery will get you everywhere, and Trump uses this for Americas advantage. Its called politics.

 

Duterte threatens to kill his own son for drug trafficking...

Rodrigo Duterte says he would 'kill son' for drug trafficking
Sept. 21, 2017 -- Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte addressed allegations his son was a gang member who facilitated the smuggling of methamphetamines into the country on Wednesday.

See also:

Thousands in Philippines gather to protest Duterte, martial law
Sept. 21, 2017 -- Thousands engaged in protests throughout the Philippines on Thursday for the 45th anniversary of the declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos.

 

Duterte enjoys tremendous support in war on drugs...

Over 78 percent Filipinos support Duterte’s bloody drug war
Saturday 23rd September, 2017 - Despite thousands of people losing their lives in Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war over the last year - a recent poll has revealed the tremendous support he has in the country.

 

Duterte enjoys 90% support of Philipinos in drug war efforts...

Nearly nine out of 10 back Duterte’s drugs war: poll
Tue, Oct 17, 2017 - Nearly nine out of 10 people support Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs and almost three-quarters believe extrajudicial killings are taking place in the bloody crackdown, an Philippine opinion poll showed yesterday.

 

Putting aside the juvenile anti-Trump prejudices, the simple fact of the matter, posited as a question, is this: has Duterte's directive reduced the number of traffickers, thereby saving some lives of those addicts who can no longer acquire the very substances which are killing them, or not? If the answer is 'yes, it has done all of that' then the policy is obviously the right one - how on earth can anyone argue with it?

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - he ain't lettin' up onna war on drugs...

Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte Sustains Support For Deadly War On Drugs
November 13, 2017 - Inside the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has maintained support for his bloody war on drugs, despite the thousands of lives lost and criticism by human rights groups.

 

We should use similar laws on gun owners.

 

"Duterte continues to carry out his pledge to kill every drug dealer and user in the country. Human rights groups say the deadly extra-judicial war has left more than 13,000 people dead. (...) When he ordered the first death squad to target drug dealers and users in 1989, he allegedly told police officers: "Throw them in the ocean or the quarry. Make it clean. Make sure there are no traces of the bodies."

^^^^^ why we will never turn em in.