The Philippine government has killed 2000+ drug dealers and addicts in the last few months. Is this the way to tackle the problem?

You are probably right Mark!!

The cops can shoot an armed felon in most neighborhoods in this country with little concern except that a complete investigation is done and the shooting is "legal". What is seldom talked about is the right of the people in some of the areas in our country that cannot move around without real concern for their well being or their kid's well being.

We are so concerned about the rights of criminals that the law abiding citizen has been lost in the discussion.

SGT Efaw (Mick) G. Alleged criminals (many have lengthy histories with LE) that resist arrest and especially with an illegally possessed weapon brandished at the police will get moved to the front of the line on the trip to hell.

No one supports "bad shootings" but criminals have an obligation to follow the law too, don't they? If they brandish a weapon, how much risk should a LEO accept? Are they justified in the use of deadly force? If a cop has a "bad shooting" he/she should be held accountable for it. They don't get a free pass either.

The value of the criminal's life is determined by the amount of risk he/she are willing to put it at on a day to day basis. Pretty simple isn't it?

It isn't that their death is deemed socially acceptable it is that we deem it socially unacceptable to commit crimes, especially major felonies. That is why we have law enforcement and courts. If you do not try to kill the cops or resist arrest you have a better shot at making it to trial rather than the graveyard of poor judgment.

They are the ones showing no regard for their life or liberty if they pursue reckless lives and commit crimes, resist arrest and pull a weapon on a cop or another citizen.

SFC (Join to see) solid comments! It is hard not to be sympathetic with the government...it is a hard line that they may not be able to recover from though.

A drug dealer who hasn't been convicted in a court of law is only an alleged drug dealer. I could allege that you were a drug dealer, would that make killing you acceptable? All we are really seeing in the Philippines is more powerful lawless factions killing less powerful lawless factions.

SSG (Join to see) - I got you what you're saying, which is why I said that was my own opinion. Does that mean I'm going to go out and do that? Hell no, I know what the law says and will follow it, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion on how I think things should work. Laws and opinions are two totally different things.

COL Lee Flemming Forget about who is being killed for a moment (drug dealers/addicts or suspected/known terrorists). The processes are the same. In the Philippines they gun them down in the street. In the middle east we send a hellfire missile into a vehicle/building. I am not comparing the two groups being killed, only the process by which they are killed. Neither were arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced etc. Both are extra-judicial killings, correct? We might argue that we have really good evidence these are bad guys and they might argue the same thing. Evidence only stands up to scrutiny when scrutiny is applied through the judicial process.

Obama is on very thin ice when it comes to questioning/critiquing the Philippines policy as he does the exact same thing to a different group of people.

I support what Obama does with drone strikes and I don't really care what they do in the Philippines to drug lords/addicts etc.

Cpl Jeff N. I am inclined to side with COL Lee Fleming on this one. From the limited knowledge I have about addiction I feel that it is a disease and we must treat it as best we can. Now these folks made a decision to get involved in drug use, but they did not choose to become addicts. They probably saw drugs as a way to fit in, feel good about themselves and their poor situation much like the addicts in the States.
The suspected terrorists have demonstrated ties to confirmed terrorist organizations. Given that we cannot place boots on ground in each country to pursue these individuals and that the countries they are in have shown support for terrorism in the past this is the only way we can take them out. I cannot agree with the use of either, based on the principle that everyone has a right to a fair trial, but understand that with someone who is mentally unstable and has shown the desire to harm innocent people through acts of violence and mass casualties it is better to not run the risk.

1LT (Join to see) Kyle, I am not attempting to create an equivalence between the killing of drug lords and the killing of terrorists but comparing the lack of due process in both cases and if Obama is lecturing the Philippine president he sets himself up to be called on his drone strikes (I fully support the drone strikes).

The existence of ties to terrorists or to drug lords does not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a belief that exists (in both cases) that the evidence is accurate enough to act even though it has not been exposed to judicial scrutiny or the legal process. Our absence of will to put boots on the ground to get the bad guys does not justify (legally) the killing lf them and possibly innocent people among them (family/friends/acquaintances etc.)

Cpl Jeff, I misread. That is the only reason I cannot fully support the drone strikes is the lack of Due Process. The fact that he was willing to call out another world leader for doing similar things is hypocritical, and honestly all these people should be given at least some kind of chance to defend themselves. Like I stated earlier, I may not fully support the drone strikes, I do understand the use. The people do not want to send service members to seek out and attempt to capture suspected terrorists, but at the same time want the terrorists dealt with.
I agree that the affiliation with certain people cannot be anywhere near the burden of proof needed to hand down any sentence. There is no substitute for true justice.