But not, it appears, when it comes to the Philippine military with its Defense department that seems to have an overly hawkish hawk in the person of its chief, Delfin Lorenzana, who has been calling for broader powers to fight terrorism and other — there it goes again, the all-blackmail style word to get the public roused — threats to the national security.

“Whatever happened to the law and the Constitution stating that anyone being interrogated should have his lawyer present?

Lorenzana and, yes, even the Interior department headed by another hawk, Eduardo Año, who also comes from the military, having once served as the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ chief of staff, have this too hawkish stand.

Año had earlier called for the revival of the law on subversion, which has been long dead and buried. He claims that this would be the very effective weapon to fight the communist “indoctrination” of youths, which the Interior chief did say.

The problem of these hawks who are now in position and power is that they refuse to admit that they and their departments are hardly effective using all legal means to catch those whom they call enemies of the people and threats to national security.

That law on subversion during the martial law years under Ferdinand Marcos was clearly misused and abused, targeting even the student activists who were not, by definition, the outlawed communists then nor were they threats to national security — a threat to Marcos, yes, but not to national security.

And the law was used to go after Marcos’ political foes, which only goes to show that as long as such a law — even when amended — exists, it will always be prone to abuse by the police and military. They will then present their victims — mainly recycled, as well as the innocents — as their claimed “success” in quashing the communists and the terror threat.

It does not work, and they in the military and the police know it doesn’t.

Lorenzana wants broader wiretapping powers to fight terrorism and other threats to national security, which will then be included in the amendments to the Human Security Act of 2007 or Republic Act 9372, which will be recommended by the Cabinet cluster on security.

This was explained more by Lorenzana in a TV interview, who said that the wiretapping period would be extended to an initial 60 days instead of the 30 days specified under the law, with one extension of up to 30 days allowed.

Whatever information they cannot get within a 30-day period, they expect to get it within a 60-day period?

This failure on their part already shows that their intelligence network failed to provide accurate or near accurate information on whoever the security people believe should be tapped.

Even with an existing wiretapping law, with a judge’s order this will make wiretapping a legitimate intelligence activity, say, on the matter of terrorism and suspected terrorists. It is known that while the law allows wiretapping, with the consent of the Court of Appeals, and only for terror suspects, the law expressly prohibits it in the case of lawyer-client communication, between doctor and patient, and between journalists and their sources.

But despite the law, and through many presidents, it is fairly common knowledge that such wiretapping activities have been used against journalists and activists.

Yet despite the intelligence these security leaders and their subalterns gather from the wiretaps, they haven’t been able to prevent as well as capture the real national security threats, especially the Muslim insurgents, local and foreign in our shores.

The amendment Lorenzana also wants included on the extension of time to interrogate terrorist or suspected terrorists is suspect.

What do they resort to in 60 days? Torture the suspect into confessing to something that he may not even have committed but has been forced to have committed to stop the torture being inflicted on him?

Whatever happened to the law and the Constitution stating that anyone being interrogated should have his lawyer present? Apparently, this constitutional law is even now being ignored by Philippine security officials?

Lorenzana even wants authorities to make the decision on whether communist rebels should be classified as terrorists under the proposed amended law.

And just who are the authorities? Hawks like Lorenzana and Año who seem to see even critics and yes, even the legal Left as terrorists. Lorenzana said the amendment to the anti-subversion law covers the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army and the CPP-front organizations, including the “legal left,” such as the Makabayan bloc of partylist organizations.

I am no fan of Sison’s CPP and NPA and its front organizations, but heck, unless one commits a terrorist act, that person should not be seen as a terrorist, since we are supposed to be a democracy.

Or do Lorenzana and Año as well as the hawks in the Palace want to relive the bad old Marcos military and police days?

It wasn’t healthy then for democracy and it won’t be healthy now if implemented, as this would be throwing the people into the arms of the commies.