Pro-Duterte lawyer explains red-tagging not a crime, says Casino’s tweet on red tagging shows how stupid he is

On Twitter, former Bayan Muna Congressman Teddy Casino shared a self-serving infographics about red tagging – a primer for beginners.

A quick glance at the infographics tells how Teddy Casino defines red tagging and its effect to alleged victim or victims.

Teddy Casino’s “red tagging” infographics failed to get traction on Twitter, judging by the few number of likes and retweets. Still, Casino’s tweet managed to get the attention of staunch Duterte supporter Atty. Ahmed Paglinawan, co-admin of the FB Page Luminous by Trixie Cruz-Angeles & Ahmed Paglinawan.

On Facebook, Atty. Ahmed began by calling the attention of Casino with regards to what the former described Casino’s stupid post regarding a guide to newbies to red tagging.

“To Teddy Casino, on the occasion of your very stupid post, which is supposed to guide rookies through ‘red-tagging’:”

First thing first, Atty. Ahmed wasted no time in throwing insult at Teddy Casino.

“First, I don’t think you wrote this Primer. You are too dumb to have come up with this.”

Next, Atty. Ahmed explained to Casino that getting red-tagged does not mean they are made to appear they doing crimes. Atty. Ahmed remarked that the linkage is just a summary of the narrative about these people, which narrative was borne out of these people’s actions and declarations.

“Second, the act of linking people to the CPP-NPA, which “linking” is not arbitrary, unilateral or baseless, is not necessarily “making” those people appear as if they are doing crimes. That linkage is just a precis of a narrative about those people, which narrative those people themselves created by their own actions and declarations. Where is the conclusion that they themselves are doing crimes? You are trying to argue one step ahead in a discourse where nobody is supposed to take steps to anywhere.”

Atty. Ahmed called Casino’s step unwarranted because to be called a criminal, there has to be a process. In other words, the court will determines if an individual is a criminal or not. But to Teddy Casino, Atty. Ahmed said. mere “linking” is already enough for someone to be called a criminal, suppression of one’s right to speak and endangering one’s life.

“Why is your step unwarranted? Well, while it may not seem obvious to clueless persons, you and I know that to be adjudged as criminals, a judicial process has to occur. But you don’t seem to know this. To you, the mere making of such “link” is a process enough to justify calling them criminals, suppressing their right to speak and endangering their lives for being criminals. But is it such a process intelligent people know would realistically endanger anyone, Teddy?”

Atty. Ahmed laughed at Teddy Casino’s claim that his life is endangered because of red-tagging.

“Well, again, unless you did not believe in the legal and judicial system; and such concepts as due process, then, sure, danger would be at hand for them. Yet, take a look around, has anybody been actually endangered by such “linking”? Are you endangered by it, Teddy? Seriously?”

Atty. Ahmed remarked that for sure red-tagging is not responsible of his predicted endangerment but his insistence that making a conclusion is deeming people to be criminals.

“Fact is, it is not the red-tagging that furnishes the circumstances of your prophesied endangerment. What does that is your insistence that making a conclusion, based on both deductive and inductive reasoning, is adjudging people to be criminals.”

Atty. Ahmed said Casino’s arguments won’t stand a leg against sane, intelligent and responsible understanding of language.

“That flies in the face of sane, intelligent and responsible understanding of language, within or without the socialist/communist theory; and taking such sub-par grasp of matters into the realm of actual intelligent political discourse.”

Atty. Ahmed wondered that if, in theory it is possible to link people to the CPP-NPA without necessarily making them criminals, why is Casino trembling in fear that red-tagging would make them criminals?

“Simply, if it is theoretically possible to link people to the CPP-NPA without necessarily making them criminals, then why are you so afraid that describing that situation by language would make them criminals?”

Atty. Ahmed tried his best to explain to Teddy Casino by using himself and Teddy as an example. If Atty. Ahmed or Teddy can be linked to the CPP-NPA, it does automatically makes them a CPP-NPA member. He wondered why would they care about what other people say about them when it does not make them criminals?

“Simpler still, Teddy, if you or I can be linked to the CPP-NPA, in any way which does not necessarily make us members of the CPP-NPA, then why would we care about people linking us to the CPP-NPA in a way that could not necessarily mean we are criminals?”

Atty. Ahmed ended the FB post by peppering Casino with questions designed to show how stupid Casino is.

“If red-tagging, Teddy, is so wrong, then why isn’t it a crime?

And if being linked to the CPP-NPA isn’t so bad, then why are you so afraid to be so linked?

Now, do you see how stupid you are, Teddy?”

~Thoughts?

Source: Luminous by Trixie Cruz-Angeles & Ahmed Paglinawan

Add Comment