Ex-Thai PM 'to face murder charge'

[STEVE G]

If I remember correctly, scheduled elections were only a couple of months away when those protests started. Could the reds not have simply waited until then? Was it really necessary to hijack the country's capital? They knew the current government would be elected, so they could easily have waited for a few months.

That is a valid point but you have to remember that governments were constantly being removed from power by either coup or legal actions. Following what happened in April and May 2010, a deal was done with the military and other influential groups to allow the elected party to stay in power and personally I believe that is because they all began to realise that if they weren't careful, the country could be heading towards a point where none of the vested interests had control.
Actually, I don't believe that Abhisit is guilty of murder on the basis of the fact that I'm doubtful that he was actually in command of the situation at that time and indeed, there were certain highly positioned individuals alledgedly involved whose names never appear anywhere in the official reports.
The action of April 10th 2010 was a complete debacle by any standards and in most countries, would cause a high level resignation, basically a fully armed mechanised cavalry unit was routed by half a dozen men who turned up in a white van.

[cozza]

That is a valid point but you have to remember that governments were constantly being removed from power by either coup or legal actions.

That is true, this is why I said to remember what is being debated, a political game where elected governments can be and are removed. Law does not exist here for the elite.

Following what happened in April and May 2010, a deal was done with the military and other influential groups to allow the elected party to stay in power and personally I believe that is because they all began to realise that if they weren't careful, the country could be heading towards a point where none of the vested interests had control.

Im not sure what you are saying here, are you saying the then elected government, the Dems to stay in power? Also, what do you mean by none of the vested interests had control, are you saying there was a third side, possibly an instigator making trouble for both sides?

Actually, I don't believe that Abhisit is guilty of murder on the basis of the fact that I'm doubtful that he was actually in command of the situation at that time and indeed, there were certain highly positioned individuals alledgedly involved whose names never appear anywhere in the official reports.
The action of April 10th 2010 was a complete debacle by any standards and in most countries, would cause a high level resignation, basically a fully armed mechanised cavalry unit was routed by half a dozen men who turned up in a white van.

In my opinion, I think they handled the situation as well as they could...ok Abhisit is the scape goat in your eyes and there might be 'bigger fish to fry', but you still think it was handled poorly. We both know we are not talking about "most" countries here and some of the issues that surround this event I think to be fair are being simplifyied without going into too much detail, so in your opinion, what would you have done differently?

[sargeant]

quote from wikipedia

The UDD called for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and hold elections earlier than the end of term elections scheduled in 2012.

the riots started march 2010 and ended in may 2010
havashit and shitheap remained in office until thrown out on their butts in the general election on 5th Aug 2011
quote takiap

If I remember correctly, scheduled elections were only a couple of months away when those protests started.

your memory leaves a lot to be desired
my memory tells me live tv broadcasts of the talks between havashit (and i watched every second of them) and the red shirts clearly showed havashit could easily have avoided all the bloodshed by dissolving parliament and holding elections but he refused
Bearing in mind as i have consistently pointed out and to be fair to all the yellow peril supporters they have equally consistantly ignored the fact HAVASHIT WAS UNELECTED HE HAD NO MANDATE

quote cozza

"This man is not a wild-eyed murder. I saw the combat first hand, and the Thai Army and Police operated with honor, from everything I saw. The Thai authorities operated with great restraint. If not, thousands would have died. Many of the casualties were not caused by the Army. That is a fact.

Okey dokey (i will agree with every word)up to this point so WHO the f*** was it causing the casualties spell it out if he was there.
all of the hatred and distrust would go away immediately if that question was answered by those that saw it FIRST HAND like the man you like to quote
at least i say it was the ninjas, at least i say they were shooting at both sides.at least i say they were not with the army or the red shirts and although i am pretty sure who it was using them i am not silly enough to name him directly. IF havashit had the answers and i am sure he does why doesnt he tell us and if he doesnt have the answers it is either his incompetence or his indifference both of which say he should never be PM again

quote Steve g

I don't believe that Abhisit is guilty of murder on the basis of the fact that I'm doubtful that he was actually in command of the situation at that time and indeed, there were certain highly positioned individuals alledgedly involved whose names never appear anywhere in the official reports.

My thoughts exactely (however i also believe the buck stops there so to speak)
They will NOT GO TO COURT they will do exactely the same ammount of time as Thaksins wife has done i do believe for the high sos shopping in Hong Kong and Singers is considered hard time

I however hope that just the fact it has got this far may, just may scare any other aresholes from pulling the same crap ON ALL SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

This is my final point on the drugs war which had nothing to do with this topic and was introduced by havashit supporters to muddy the water my experience aqnd therefore my views of drugs and addicts is not the same as yours end off story

and could we please stay on topic

[STEVE G]

Im not sure what you are saying here, are you saying the then elected government, the Dems to stay in power? Also, what do you mean by none of the vested interests had control, are you saying there was a third side, possibly an instigator making trouble for both sides?

To clarify, I meant a deal was done to give the PT party a chance of running the country after they had won the election in 2011, instead of continually toppling them as was done in the past. I believe this was due to a fear that continued action on the scale of the 2010 demonstrations and crackdowns could lead to the country falling apart completely leaving none of them in power.
As for instigators making trouble for both sides, I believe that there are a several of them!

[Takiap]

Sarge, I'm well aware of what the original election date was, but as you yourself know, the date for elections was brought forward.


What I find rather strange is that you, as with many Thais, lump everyone into one of two camps - Red or Yellow? As I've stated clearly in earlier threads, I wouldn't support either of them. I have very little respect for the reds, and even less for the yellows. I think a lot of reds are really good people, but they were and still are being used by fools who couldn't care less about their troubles. The yellows are even worse, and some of the comments made by their "leaders" tells me they have IQs similar donkeys. Just because someone doesn't support the reds, doesn't mean they automatically support the yellows.

In my opinion, both groups are vile. The leaders of both sides are one and the same. We always see reference being made to the Bangkok "elite" and of course this title tends to be reserved for the yellows. But, aren't the red shirts leaders also Bangkok elite. Personally I can't imagine the current PM sitting in a dusty village in Isaan eating somtam every day. Does she "really" care? Did her brother "really" care. No person on this planet would be able to convince me. Let's not forget we're talking about some of the wealthiest people in the country here - the BANGKOK ELITE, no matter what color their T-shirts are.


I don't believe in handouts. If you want something, get off your backside and go work for it. I finished my national service with no home to go to, and a whopping R1,900 to my name (about GBP190, danger pay for fighting in Angola). Did I blame the government? Did I blame society? Did I blame my parents? NO!, I went and found a bloody job, and I clawed my way out of that position. Both my brothers went through the same thing, so if we could do it, why can't others. Now, moving closer to home..........my wife too has done the very much the same thing. I don't have money, and she knew that from the start. However, this beautiful little Isaan/Samut Sakhon lady didn't go camping in Bangkok because she wants handouts. Instead, she worked and worked and worked. She dragged her own ass out of the life she once had. Again, if she could do it, why can't others?

BTW, at heart she's a red supporter, but fortunately her brain is big enough to see through a lot of the bullshit. For instance, she doesn't like the ex PM, but she also doesn't think he should be facing murder charges.

Now, her younger brother who happens to be getting everything handed to him on a plate........well, my guess is he would gladly go camping in Bangkok with the reds. After all, getting something for nothing is far better than actually having to work for it. Countless rural folk move to the cities to seek a better life. Some succeed, some don't. That's life.

I have spent quite a bit of time up in Isaan, and from what I saw, many of the people there wouldn't last two minutes in a proper job, so why should those who do make sacrifices be forced to support them. Sorry, I don't like the idea of communism.


Anyway, to get back to topic.............I think the ex PM handled the crisis very well, although I also think he should have summoned the military a lot sooner than he did. I wonder how the current PM would deal with such a crisis?


On a more positive note.......hats off the the Thais for always seeming to pull themselves out of the mud before it's too late. At least they've never gone the same way as Syria.


One more thing ..........I have been watching some the Hua-Hin locals to see how they feel about this murder charge affair, and from what I've seen, most seem to be very anti Mr T. In fact, a few have made their feelings towards the reds very clear. It seems the torching of buildings in Bangkok was a big "no no". Seems like we're living in a blue part of Thailand.


If I was Thai, would I vote for Mrs T or Mr A? Afraid to say, Mr A would get my vote. Don't tell my wife.

[caller]

Just a pity that Mr. A didn't get the Thai vote, which is at the root of the problem and whatever the issues with Mr. Thaksin, the coup and its consequences, which led to Mr. A, are a salient lesson to those who were living in the past. The events that culminated in the red shirt occupation of a small area of Bkk and how that was managed and dealt with, is probably the last show of force of the old brigade.

Not that it means anything has really changed?

[Takiap]

I couldn't agree more, although given Thailand's past, we might still see some governments getting kicked out, or at least a PM or two, even if it's only because of a cooking documentary aired on national TV.

[Bamboo Grove]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... al-demands

The legal licence to kill

Published: 16/12/2012 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

If we were to view the charges against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former national security chief Suthep Thaugsuban relating to the death of an innocent bystander during the political crisis of April and May 2010 from a moral perspective, supporters on both sides of the political divide would yell at each other until the end of days, and nothing would get solved.

However, if we were to view the charges from a legal perspective, we must examine the nature of the emergency decree, and we might find an answer there, which, of course, would still be unacceptable to many people.

In its primitive form, the world is anarchic. The desire to bring order to chaos is why we form societies, with governments and laws. However, a society may descend into a state of chaos for any of a number of reasons.

As such, declaring a state of emergency is a government's last resort when it wants to restore order amid chaos. When making such a declaration, a government will never specifically say that this gives the state a "licence to kill". But the decree does suspend basic rights and give the government the power to use force to restore order. Using force can and often does lead to deaths, in the interest of restoring order.

Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, noted: "The emergency decree makes it possible for soldiers and police officers to get away with murder."

From a legal perspective, an emergency decree enables the state to commit capital punishment without the due process of law. From a moral perspective, this would, of course, be seen as inhumane, an infringement on human rights, an abuse of power.

While emergency decrees are by their nature controversial, every country reserves the right to use them. Human rights are guaranteed by manmade laws, and these can be abused in any society. When society falls and order degenerates into chaos the death of human rights is guaranteed.

As such, while we may decry emergency decrees as unjust and inhumane, for a government whose priority is to maintain order, issuing one is not a question of morality, but of a duty to society, to law and order.

As prime minister of Thailand, Mr Abhisit was the commander-in-chief. As head of national security, Mr Suthep oversaw security operations. Both men are ultimately responsible for any government actions taken during the political violence of April and May 2010.

Charges were dismissed against authorities following the shootings at Kent State in Ohio in 1970. Authorities were never charged following Derry's Bloody Sunday and Belfast's Springhill Massacre in 1972 in Northern Ireland.

In all three incidents, unarmed protesters and civilians were shot down by the authorities. These actions might have been deemed immoral in reports and investigations concerning the incidents, but ultimately they were not considered illegal.

And accordingly, by virtue of the emergency decree, both Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep are protected. Here, the matter is closed, but only from a legal perspective.

However this begs the question of whether the situation warranted an emergency decree? To answer this, let's lay down the facts in no particular order, without laying blame.

Protesters marched and called for a general election. M79 grenade attacks took place. A military crackdown near Phan Fa bridge left 25 dead, including a Japanese journalist and five soldiers. Protesters stormed and seized the Thaicom satellite's uplink station. Protesters blocked off Ratchaprasong intersection and posted armed guards, while there were daily shootings and bombings. Protesters entered and ransacked Chulalongkorn Hospital. Civilians had to leave their homes and businesses were closed down.

Both Col Romklao Thuwatham and Col Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawatdiphol were assassinated. Mysterious men in black acted as snipers from buildings. Protest leaders turned down the offer of a general election, saying that any criminal charges against them must be dropped first and that additional charges should be laid against Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep.

These events and others led to the May 19 crackdown.

Without arguing about who is right or wrong in this situation, take the simple facts above and ask: Did matters descend to a point of chaos warranting the emergency decree, a law that is a government's last resort to restore order?

That said, while the law is the law, we should not hesitate to question its validity make amendments in the interests of humanity. An emergency decree should not mean open season. It might be a licence to kill, but not to do so indiscriminately.

In the battles, where troops clashed with protestors, people died. At Wat Pathum Wanaram, or any other place where defenceless, unarmed people took refuge, not even the emergency decree should protect the shooters. While we understand the need for an emergency decree, we should never discard our humanity.

With all due respect to those who lost their lives and were injured, their families and loved ones _ protesters, soldiers, police and innocent bystanders _ cases such as Wat Pathum Wanaram are the ones on which the Department of Special Investigation should focus.

The fact that the DSI back-pedalled from the Wat Pathum Wanaram case, while instead zeroing in on the death of an innocent bystander, should tell us something.

Trace the Wat Pathum Wanaram trail and it might lead to people the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin Shinawatra cannot afford to upset. It was perhaps deemed more politically astute to trace whatever trail was available to get to Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party. This is to make them see a blanket amnesty for all those involved in the political crisis since the 2006 coup in a more favourable light.

This then might eventually lead to the return and exoneration of Thaksin Shinawatra, without too much opposition or mass demonstrations. This instead of bullying the bill through parliament and ensuring an outraged opposition in parliament that could bring about mass demonstrations in the streets. No, this is not about justice. No, this is not about the emergency decree. No, this is not about the deaths of 90 plus people. This is just a political game, whether or not it is a well played one, however, will depend on the results.

[sargeant]

Takiap your couple of months was in reality over a year fact sir fact if you cannot get the facts right then your opinion is suspect

What I find rather strange is that you, as with many Thais, lump everyone into one of two camps

and you are not painting me red along with glc buksi etc so again from the yellow side we have the do what we say NOT what we do

quote me on many occasions

ON ALL SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

My first post on this topic was followed by you going right of topic to bring in Thaksins sins they have nothing to do with this topic but a true propogandised yellow shirt will never miss the opportunity to smear thaksin and whether the facts are true or not, even the proven facts are deliberately ignored

Please please do not pretend to be something you are not, FAIR & BALANCED on this matter
you are perfectly entitled to your vews as i am the only issue i will take is when views mine included are not based on facts or personal experience
so please feel free to point out with proof when i get facts wrong i am always grateful for people who educate me

[Bristolian]

I have no point to make red or yellow. Only here is an intervew in the last few days (BBC)with havashit.

[MrPlum]

Is there any need for this vulgarity with Abhisit and other's names?

[Bristolian]

Is there any need for this vulgarity with Abhisit and other's names?

Absolutely none

But I am fairly confident Mr. Plum that you are not easily offended by other points of view

My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone by the use of a somehow fitting nom de plume for Mr XXX“ an ex non-elected puppet PM” of Thailand. I would never use such terms for a democratically elected politician who performed their duties to their best of their abilities. But, for non elected politicians who by default look after the needs of the minority “elite", I call it as I see it.
I also had little respect for the "Iron Lady"

On the subject of a murder charge against Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva….simply stupid and inconceivable

[STEVE G]

What is an interesting point is why Abhisit spent so long after the May 2010 crackdown denying that any deaths were caused by the security forces. For weeks he was making statements that all the deaths were either of armed terrorist or caused by third parties.
If all of the nearly 100 deaths were justified why did he not just say so?

[sargeant]

caused by third parties.

Steve i agree and as i have said so many times he must know who they were so why no arrests or even any investigation he is obviously talking about the ninjas
so either he does NOT KNOW= incompetence
or he doesnt care =indifference either way he should never be pm again

but both you and i know who the ninjas worked for and knew it the day after it happened if i was told am i expected to believe the pm was in the dark

MrP i will ask you the question who fired the first shot in responce to your last question

[STEVE G]

One thing that is slowly dawning on me after spending about a week reading reports and news items about the events of 2010 is that there is quite a high likelihood that all of the 90 odd deaths and nearly 2,000 injuries was caused by members of the security forces.
Who they were working for at particular times is another matter entirely and I think we are all perhaps making the mistake of seeing this as a conflict of two sides when there are actually several more.