Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

Philippines VP Sara Duterte threatens Marcos assassination if she is killed

Philippines VP Sara Duterte threatens Marcos assassination if she is killed

The president’s security has been boosted after his deputy’s ‘active threat’ that were ‘made so brazenly in public’. Security agencies in the Philippines have stepped up safety protocols after Vice President Sara Duterte threatened to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr assassinated if she was killed. Duterte, an ally of Marcos until recent months, made the threat on Saturday, as a rift between the two most powerful political families in the county widens. “This country is going to hell because we are led by a person who doesn’t know how to be a president and who is a liar,” she said in the profanity-laced briefing broadcast on her Facebook page. “Don’t worry about my safety. I have talked to a person and I said, if I get killed, go kill BBM [Marcos], [First Lady] Liza Araneta, and [Speaker] Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke,” she said. “I said, do not stop until you kill them and he said yes.” Duterte made the statement in response to comments urging her to stay safe while she was in the House of Representatives, where her chief of staff was detained for failing to reply to questions on the alleged misuse of funds at the vice president’s office. The vice president did not cite any threat against her. The presidential communications office said Duterte’s remarks were being taken as a serious threat against Marcos. “Acting on the vice president’s clear and unequivocal statement that she had contracted an assassin to kill the president if an alleged plot against her succeeds, the executive secretary has referred this active threat to the Presidential Security Command for immediate proper action,” it said in a statement. “Any threat to the life of the president must always be taken seriously, more so that this threat has been publicly revealed in clear and certain terms,” it added. Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin referred the “active threat” against Marcos to an elite presidential guards force, which said it considered the Duterte’s threat, which was “made so brazenly in public”, a national security issue. Duterte is the daughter of Marcos’s predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who is notorious for his crude language and a controversial war on drugs that is under investigation by the International Criminal Court. She remained Marcos’s deputy after resigning from her post as education secretary in the cabinet in June, indicating a crack in their political alliance that propelled them to a landslide victory in 2022. In October, Vice President Duterte told reporters that her relationship with Marcos had become so “toxic” that she sometimes imagines beheading him. She also confessed that she felt “used” after teaming up with Marcos. She threatened to dig up the remains of Marcos’s father, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr, from the national cemetery and dump them in the sea. The political rift comes before mid-term elections in May, when Filipinos are to vote for new members of the House of Representatives, half of the Senate and thousands of local officials. It will be a litmus test of Marcos’s popularity and an opportunity for him and his political allies to consolidate power. Even though Duterte resigned from the cabinet, she remains the constitutional successor to the 67-year-old president. Adblock test (Why?)

1000 days of war and the toll on Ukraine’s media

1000 days of war and the toll on Ukraine’s media

President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to fire US missiles into Russia has brought the world’s two leading nuclear powers to a head. Western media overlooks the broader implications of this move. Inside Ukraine, journalists face the dual threats of restricted press freedoms and Russian aggression. Contributors:Branko Marcetic – Writer, Jacobin MagazineLeonid Ragozin – Journalist & authorPauline Maufrais – Ukraine program manager, Reporters Without BordersSevgil Musaieva – Editor-in-chief, Ukrainska Pravda On our radar Israel’s media and political class have united in their fury over the arrest warrants issued by the ICC for Israeli leaders. Tariq Nafi looks at the media coverage. Silenced voices: Afghan journalism in the shadow of Taliban rule Since the Taliban regained power, Afghanistan’s media landscape has faced severe restrictions. We sat down with the former head of Tolo News to discuss working in exile and keeping the spirit of Afghan journalism alive. Featuring:Lotfullah Najafizada – Former director of news, Tolo TV Adblock test (Why?)

Israel and its supporters cannot gaslight the law

Israel and its supporters cannot gaslight the law

It was expected that the issuance of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in crimes committed against Palestinian civilians in Gaza would cause a flood of furious responses from Israel and its allies. The chorus is as colourful as its arguments are flimsy and dehumanising: from French writer Bernard-Henri Levy, who claims the ICC can only prosecute in countries without a “proper judicial system” to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham declaring war on the ICC and any nation that dares to implement its warrants. However, the more sinister attacks, illustrated by statements of Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres and Israeli politician Naftali Bennett, which argue that Israel’s actions were justifiable as self-defence or reprisals against Hamas’s brutal October 7 attack, constitute a dangerous form of gaslighting and need to be debunked. These arguments fail not only on moral but also on legal grounds, when taking into account international humanitarian law and legal precedents set by special courts like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The protections afforded to civilians in armed conflict are absolute and non-derogable, and the ICC is right to enforce them. The argument that Israel is exercising its “right to self-defence” has been made throughout this war and not just in response to legal rulings. However, self-defence under international law is not a justification for violating fundamental legal principles. The targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate use of force are explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. During the ICTY’s prosecution of Milan Martic, leader of Serb rebels in Croatia, for the shelling of Zagreb, the Appeals Chamber unequivocally held that attacks against civilians cannot be justified by self-defence. It stated that “whether an attack was ordered as pre-emptive, defensive or offensive is from a legal point of view irrelevant” if the conduct of the attack violates principles of international law. In Gaza, evidence indicates that Israeli military operations have resulted in widespread and systematic attacks against civilians. Residential areas, hospitals and schools – protected spaces under international humanitarian law – have been subjected to intense bombardment. Even in cases where military targets may exist, attacks that fail to distinguish between civilians and combatants or cause disproportionate harm to civilian populations violate Articles 51 and 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, Torres’s argument that the ICC is “criminalising” self-defence does not hold. Bennett, who himself has made statements of intent to commit crimes against Palestinian civilians, asserts that Israel is “fighting back” Hamas’s attacks. However, international law unequivocally prohibits reprisals against civilian populations. Article 51(6) of Additional Protocol I states: “Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited in all circumstances.” This prohibition applies irrespective of the conduct of the opposing party. The ICTY precedents further reinforced this, including in the case of Martic, holding that reprisals must meet strict conditions, including necessity, proportionality, and adherence to humanitarian principles. Even when responding to serious violations by the adversary, acts of reprisal must respect international law. The indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of attacks in Gaza, including the use of heavy explosives in densely populated areas, renders the argument of reprisal legally untenable. Voices parroting the points made by Torres and Bennett argue that Hamas’s alleged use of human shields absolves Israel of responsibility for civilian casualties. This is a dangerous misrepresentation of international law. While the use of human shields by Hamas would itself be a violation of international law, it does not diminish Israel’s obligation to avoid harm to civilians. Additional Protocol I clarifies that violations by one party do not permit the opposing party to disregard its own legal obligations. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY addressed this issue directly, emphasising that the failure of one party to adhere to its obligations does not absolve the other from its responsibilities. In the case of Gaza, indiscriminate aerial bombardments have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, raising serious concerns about whether adequate precautions were taken to minimise harm, as required by Articles 57 and 58 of Additional Protocol I. A core tenet of international humanitarian law is the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks where the expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. The ICC’s charges against Israeli leaders focus precisely on this issue. Reports from Gaza have highlighted the devastating impact of military operations on civilians, with entire neighbourhoods razed, residential buildings purposefully demolished and vital infrastructure destroyed. Moreover, the principle of distinction, enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I, mandates that parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian populations and combatants. Weapons and tactics that cannot discriminate between the two, such as large-scale aerial bombardments of urban areas, are considered inherently unlawful. The case of Martic illustrates this point: the ICTY found that the use of indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster munitions, in civilian areas constitutes a direct attack on civilians and a grave breach of international law. The parallels with the weaponry and tactics employed in Gaza are evident. Israel’s actions in Gaza have clearly provided the ICC with enough ground to pursue a case against Netanyahu and Gallant. In this context, Torres’s assertion that the court is engaging in an “ideological crusade against the Jewish State” is simply false. The ICC does not single out specific nations; it prosecutes individuals where there is credible evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. The ICC’s intervention serves a critical purpose: to uphold the universal principles of humanity enshrined in international law. Accountability is essential to deterring future violations and ensuring justice for victims. To dismiss the ICC’s actions as a “kangaroo court”, as Torres did, disregards the court’s mandate and the legal precedents it draws upon, including those established by tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. While the October 7 attack by Hamas constitutes a heinous

Texas AG sues Dallas for decriminalizing marijuana

Texas AG sues Dallas for decriminalizing marijuana

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a lawsuit Thursday targeting the blue city of Dallas over a ballot measure that decriminalizes marijuana. Paxton alleges that Proposition R, which “prohibits the Dallas Police Department from making arrests or issuing citations for marijuana possession or considering the odor of marijuana as probable cause for search or seizure,” violates state law. The attorney general argues in the lawsuit that the ballot measure is preempted by Texas law, which criminalizes the possession and distribution of marijuana. Paxton also claims the Texas Constitution prohibits municipalities from adopting an ordinance that conflicts with laws enacted by the state legislature. MORE AMERICANS SMOKE MARIJUANA DAILY THAN DRINK ALCOHOL, STUDY CLAIMS “Cities cannot pick and choose which State laws they follow,” Paxton said in a statement. “The City of Dallas has no authority to override Texas drug laws or prohibit the police from enforcing them.” Paxton called the ballot measure “a backdoor attempt to violate the Texas Constitution” and threatened to sue any other city that “tries to constrain police in this fashion.”  WHAT ARE THE TOP RISKS OF MARIJUANA USE? The lawsuit comes after interim Dallas Police Department Chief Michael Igo directed Dallas police officers not to enforce marijuana laws against those found to be in possession of less than 4 ounces.  Ground Game Texas, a progressive nonprofit group that campaigned in favor of the ballot measure, argued it would help “keep people out of jail for marijuana possession,” “reduce racially biased policing” and “save millions in public funding.”  TEXAS AG PAXTON FILES CRIMINAL REFERRAL AGAINST DOJ FROM ‘SUSPICIOUS DONATIONS’ THROUGH DEMOCRATIC GROUP “It’s unfortunate but not surprising that Attorney General Ken Paxton has apparently chosen to waste everyone’s time and money by filing yet another baseless lawsuit against marijuana decriminalization,” said Catina Voellinger, executive director for Ground Game Texas. “Judges in Travis and Hays counties have already dismissed identical lawsuits filed there. The Dallas Freedom Act was overwhelmingly approved by 67% of voters — this is democracy in action.” Since January 2024, Paxton has filed lawsuits against five Texas cities that decriminalized marijuana possession, arguing these policies promote crime, drug abuse and violence.