DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales said in an interview, “We want to hold Dulmatin’s wife longer but because there is no Anti-Terrorism Law, we cannot do that.” Raul Gonzales further said she was carrying messages for her husband.
So, in order to detain her, why don’t they charge her with Dulmatin’s crimes, like multiple murders, multiple arsons, multiple kidnappings (Dulmatin in conspiracy with other JI members), all of which are capital offenses and non-bailable crimes except where the evidence is not strong. Even just one count of one of those charges. Charge her. Even just one murder charge or one arson charge or one kidnapping charge. So why don’t they charge her with those crimes and detain her till kingdom come? Because they don’t have any evidence. Why don’t they have any evidence linking her to the overt acts of Dulmatin? Because she was never cased, never followed around; nobody talked to her friends, her neighbors, her favorite fishmonger, seamstress, nanny, etc., nobody gathered evidence. Why was no one gathering evidence on the associates and relatives of Dulmatin? Nothing. If they charge her with those crimes (multiple murders, multiple arsons, multiple kidnappings), or even with just one count of any of those, and if they don’t have evidence, what will happen? She’ll be out in one and a half days. So you need an anti-terrorism law so you can detain any person in any small jail no communication with family, friends, lawyers in the custody of unnamed strangers armed with electricity without evidence without charges for three to 15 days depending on the version that’s approved. If you like the prospect of that, go ahead surrender yourself to Secretary Raul Gonzales because they cannot catch Dulmatin. But what if they absolutely have nothing on the person on murder, arson, kidnapping, does that mean that even under the anti-terror bill, she’s off? No, wait…. Raul Gonzales said she was carrying messages for the husband. Maybe she knows something. Maybe you know something. Maybe I know something. So, is that enough to stick for murder, arson, kidnapping? Maybe not but does that mean that under the anti-terrorism law, she’s off? No, wait… isn’t this cool — the anti-terrorism bill creates new crimes: 1.establishing contact with a person known to be a terrorist; 2.maintaing such contact; 3.serving as contact; 4.harboring a person known to be a terrorist; 5. not disclosing to the government as soon as possible any information on any person known to be a terrorist. He’s right. You need an anti-terror law in the present version it is in and under this government so that you can detain the wife, brother, sister, children, parents, nannies, maids, friends, classmates (in the U.S., even the lawyers of one terror suspect was charged and detained under the U.S. Patriot Act for the crime “providing skill or expertise”; the case is on certiorari in the Supreme Court, one judge struck down the specific provision as unconstitutional but that’s a long paper), interviewers, those with contacts with them, like if the terror suspects’ names are in your cellphone, addressbook, phone book, if you’re a reporter texting a terror suspect for an interview and you don’t tell the police, or if you arrange a meeting or serve as contact etc…you’re included. Maybe you know something. Maybe I know something. If they cannot catch the terror suspect, they will catch you. You need an anti-terror law to go after all those people because they cannot catch the real terrorist. As even the more moderate Senator Ralph Recto said: “Not under this government…” There can be no real security where you are required to surrender yourself to Secretary Raul Gonzales because they cannot catch Dulmatin and other members of JI and the Abu Sayyaf. Because maybe you know something.