Nattawut seeks NACC file on red-shirt crackdown case

By The Nation

 

Nattawut Saikua

 

Red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikua on Friday petitioned the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to disclose the files regarding the 2010 demonstrations after the agency decided not to pursue legal action against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban.

 

Nattawut said he had no intention to challenge the powers that be, but he only wanted to ensure justice was done after a great number of deaths and injuries.

 

The red-shirt umbrella United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) wanted the file to see whether there was any evidence and facts that the NACC had not taken into consideration, Nattawut said. 

 

This was in addition to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI)’s findings that had been used in the court as well as the court’s deliberations into the deaths of 20 red-shirt protesters killed by the officials’ weapons, he explained. 

 

Nattawut said the UDD sought to know whether the latter could be deemed new evidence and thus could be used to fight the case further.

 

The UDD also wanted the NACC to publish its file to see whether the agency had been straightforward, he said. The group wanted to compare it with how it had dealt with case over the crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters, he said.

 

The NACC had charged former PM Somchai Wongsawat and other officials in connection with the dispersal of the People’s Alliance for Democracy protesters in 2008. 

 

The red-shirts questioned the impartiality of the NACC after it absolved Abhisit and Suthep in a similar case. 

 

“The NACC’s decision to drop the case over the 2010 violent crackdown is unacceptable,” the red-shirt leader said. 

 

“We want this case, which involves injuries and loss of lives, to go to court. We insist on finding the truth and justice,” Nattawut said. “And if the NACC ignores this and refuses to disclose the file, we will exercise our rights under the information dissemination law.”

 

The petition was accepted by Chakkrit Tanlert, head of the investigation of political corruption office 1. The official said that the matter would be placed before the commissioners next week.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30336108

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-1-12

"Nattawut said he had no intention to challenge the powers that be, but he only wanted to ensure justice was done after a great number of deaths and injuries."

 

Oh yes I believe him. Not?

 

Were the "great number of deaths and injuries" not caused by the red shirt army who did not follow the government's appeal to leave their unlawfully occupied fortress - and very likely provoked the army's response? The then government tolerated them far too long. That is their only mistake. 

 

If justice would be ensured he would be in prison for a long time.

10 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

"Nattawut said he had no intention to challenge the powers that be, but he only wanted to ensure justice was done after a great number of deaths and injuries."

 

Oh yes I believe him. Not?

 

Were the "great number of deaths and injuries" not caused by the red shirt army who did not follow the government's appeal to leave their unlawfully occupied fortress - and very likely provoked the army's response? The then government tolerated them far too long. That is their only mistake. 

 

If justice would be ensured he would be in prison for a long time.

 

No, simple facts. The great number of deaths were caused by people being shot by soldiers.

 

The people who gave authority for soldiers to shoot at protesters should be in prison for a very long time.

 

It is worth remembering that at this time there were serious street protests in Greece . At no time did the Greek government ask or give permission to the army to break up the protests by firing live rounds.

4 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)

I just watched a bit of 'Life of Brian'; sounds like something used in that show.

 

But fair point. Ask the agency to be transparent in their dealings. 

 

However, he may be someone that goes missing latter on?

49 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

 

Were the "great number of deaths and injuries" not caused by the red shirt army who did not follow the government's appeal to leave their unlawfully occupied fortress - and very likely provoked the army's response? The then government tolerated them far too long. That is their only mistake. 

So the overseas reporter/newsperson given the same heads up before he was killed?

I can understand his frustration. His court case, suspended while he was an MP is LONG overdue.

12 hours ago, Denim said:

 

No, simple facts. The great number of deaths were caused by people being shot by soldiers.

 

The people who gave authority for soldiers to shoot at protesters should be in prison for a very long time.

 

It is worth remembering that at this time there were serious street protests in Greece . At no time did the Greek government ask or give permission to the army to break up the protests by firing live rounds.

So you believe the soldiers were not shot at first from the red shirt area? I think they had to protect themselves. Not unlikely that the first shooting from the reds was to provoke the soldiers to produce victims in order to blame the government.

13 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

I just watched a bit of 'Life of Brian'; sounds like something used in that show.

 

But fair point. Ask the agency to be transparent in their dealings. 

 

However, he may be someone that goes missing latter on?

 

555! Sounds like Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch too: "No one expects the UDD!"

 

Wonder if he'll be transparent about how he mysteriously became a UDD Leader? 

2 hours ago, sweatalot said:

So you believe the soldiers were not shot at first from the red shirt area? I think they had to protect themselves. Not unlikely that the first shooting from the reds was to provoke the soldiers to produce victims in order to blame the government.

 

Conspiracy theory much.

 

One you go down that road I could just as easily claim that a few fanatical yellow shirts pretending to be red shirts fired at soldiers to get them to react by shooting red shirt protesters

 

Conspiracy theories are two a penny but the facts are that soldiers not only fired at protesters but innocent people sheltering in a temple.

 

Personally , I do not condone  the violence of either side but the greater responsibility for the long period of trouble lies clearly on the shoulders of the yellow shirts for not accepting the result of democratic elections. Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. 

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Nattawut said he had no intention to challenge the powers that be, but he only wanted to ensure justice was done after a great number of deaths and injuries.

He only wanted supporters to know that he hasn't gone away. The publicity will help when the election is held. This guy is power hungry and smart, he let's Jatuporn do all the jail time while encouraging him to keep talking. Watch for him to emerge as the front runner.

45 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

Conspiracy theory much.

 

One you go down that road I could just as easily claim that a few fanatical yellow shirts pretending to be red shirts fired at soldiers to get them to react by shooting red shirt protesters

 

Conspiracy theories are two a penny but the facts are that soldiers not only fired at protesters but innocent people sheltering in a temple.

 

Personally , I do not condone  the violence of either side but the greater responsibility for the long period of trouble lies clearly on the shoulders of the yellow shirts for not accepting the result of democratic elections. Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. 

You may notice a few "black shirts" firing rifles from the red shirt ranks.

 

18 hours ago, Denim said:

 

No, simple facts. The great number of deaths were caused by people being shot by soldiers.

 

The people who gave authority for soldiers to shoot at protesters should be in prison for a very long time.

 

It is worth remembering that at this time there were serious street protests in Greece . At no time did the Greek government ask or give permission to the army to break up the protests by firing live rounds.

 

Your attempt to make it 'simple' is just opportune diversion and nothing more.

 

It was, it still is a complicated picture.

2 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

You may notice a few "black shirts" firing rifles from the red shirt ranks.

 

 

 

"Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. "

 

Total crap, and past events prove clearly you comment is absolutely/factually incorrect and divisive.  

 

 

Edited January 13, 20188 yr by scorecard

3 hours ago, Denim said:

 

Conspiracy theory much.

 

One you go down that road I could just as easily claim that a few fanatical yellow shirts pretending to be red shirts fired at soldiers to get them to react by shooting red shirt protesters

 

Conspiracy theories are two a penny but the facts are that soldiers not only fired at protesters but innocent people sheltering in a temple.

 

Personally , I do not condone  the violence of either side but the greater responsibility for the long period of trouble lies clearly on the shoulders of the yellow shirts for not accepting the result of democratic elections. Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. 

You can claim it.. but the facts are that they have arrested black shirts who later were proven to be red shirts. So there goes your theory and the support for his theory is there with blackshirts now identified as redshirts.

43 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

"Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. "

 

Total crap, and past events prove clearly you comment is absolutely/factually incorrect and divisive.  

 

 

You are wrong of course, but if you say it often enough someone may believe you.

Whatever people think about who may be responsible, it is not acceptable that no investigation is conducted when 90+  are killed.

There should be an in-depth investigation in order to establish responsibilities. Same for the war on drugs.

Unfortunately, in both cases, we know it will never happen.

Edited January 13, 20188 yr by candide

Conspiracy theory ?

 

Same old so and so's come out to play when anything red comes up.

 

We should start a tread about the old red telephone boxes the UK used to have and this lot would be there comparing it to Thaksin in some way or other, PLONKERS

7 hours ago, sweatalot said:

So you believe the soldiers were not shot at first from the red shirt area? I think they had to protect themselves. Not unlikely that the first shooting from the reds was to provoke the soldiers to produce victims in order to blame the government.

There is ample footage available on various internet sites, showing soldiers firing on unarmed civilians in Bangkok during those protests. There is also footage showing clearly identifiable medical personnel being shot at, and in the case of one young lady shot and killed.

 

That is absolutely beyond the pale, and cries out for proper investigations.

 

A number of posters on this board will have served in the British Army in Northern Ireland during Op Banner - "the troubles". They will be aware of the very strict rules regarding opening fire - the "yellow card rules" - they will have had to learn them verbatim and will have carried that card with them before being allowed on the streets with a weapon. Given the demographics of this boards membership (mainly male, 50+ and from Europe, the Antipodes and the USA), many of them will have had some sort of military service. They will know and have been taught the rules of armed conflict, (all armies do it), known as the "Geneva Convention", perhaps more properly codified as various "Hague Conventions". They will all, therefore, be aware of the rules - prohibitions in International Law - regarding shooting at unarmed civilians.

 

"Sweatalot", you are wrong, so wrong, on so many levels to claim that the soldiers who shot 90 odd civilians in Bangkok in 2010 were doing so "to defend themselves".

 

The fire positions taken up by the troops at the Pathuwanaram temple shootings were clearly selected to allow an unrestricted field of fire into a location known to be being used as a refuge for unarmed civilians.

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

Your attempt to make it 'simple' is just opportune diversion and nothing more.

 

It was, it still is a complicated picture.

Abhisit and the Mad Monk gave the order to shoot because they believed the crowds would come and get them. They wet their pants, panicked and gave the order. That much I remember as I researched it at or about the time. A lot was written on this event and even reported on TV.

 

However it is as complicated as you say, if that is what you believe. 

 

What does not change the fact is that Abhisit and the Mad Monk did not have a transparent investigation into the matter.

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

There is ample footage available on various internet sites, showing soldiers firing on unarmed civilians in Bangkok during those protests. There is also footage showing clearly identifiable medical personnel being shot at, and in the case of one young lady shot and killed.

 

That is absolutely beyond the pale, and cries out for proper investigations.

 

A number of posters on this board will have served in the British Army in Northern Ireland during Op Banner - "the troubles". They will be aware of the very strict rules regarding opening fire - the "yellow card rules" - they will have had to learn them verbatim and will have carried that card with them before being allowed on the streets with a weapon. Given the demographics of this boards membership (mainly male, 50+ and from Europe, the Antipodes and the USA), many of them will have had some sort of military service. They will know and have been taught the rules of armed conflict, (all armies do it), known as the "Geneva Convention", perhaps more properly codified as various "Hague Conventions". They will all, therefore, be aware of the rules - prohibitions in International Law - regarding shooting at unarmed civilians.

 

"Sweatalot", you are wrong, so wrong, on so many levels to claim that the soldiers who shot 90 odd civilians in Bangkok in 2010 were doing so "to defend themselves".

 

The fire positions taken up by the troops at the Pathuwanaram temple shootings were clearly selected to allow an unrestricted field of fire into a location known to be being used as a refuge for unarmed civilians.

Very good post Jag.

21 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

So the overseas reporter/newsperson given the same heads up before he was killed?

 

If the news agency he worked for, or if he was an independent, it was well known at the time that there was possible danger. Nobody forced the reporter to get that close.

49 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

If the news agency he worked for, or if he was an independent, it was well known at the time that there was possible danger. Nobody forced the reporter to get that close.

What a disgusting person you are.

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

If the news agency he worked for, or if he was an independent, it was well known at the time that there was possible danger. Nobody forced the reporter to get that close.

It seems you suggest that it was his fault! Same as, for example, the two nurses who were killed in a medical tent while treating wounded civilians?

Pesky people who persist in running into bullets!

3 hours ago, JAG said:

 

"The fire positions taken up by the troops at the Pathuwanaram temple shootings were clearly selected to allow an unrestricted field of fire into a location known to be being used as a refuge for unarmed civilians."

 

might be. But I am not sure. It was an area occupied by law breakers.  People in the area have been warned that force might have to be applied. They had their chance ro leave. They decided otherwise.  And are you sure that there was not one in that "refuge for unarmed civilians" who shot first? Are you sure they were really unarmed civilians? As a military commander in that situation wouldn't. Which doesn't mean I would open fire for no reason.

 

To be honest I don't know what really happened (same as you, I guess) but having observed the "peaceful protest" over the long time they unlawfully occupied a public area, with armed "protesters" under the command of a general, their propaganda  and their overall behavior during that time, (inciting to burn down Bangkok, storming a hospital and so on)  I believe  it to be more likely the violence came from them first.

Edited January 13, 20188 yr by sweatalot

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Your attempt to make it 'simple' is just opportune diversion and nothing more.

 

It was, it still is a complicated picture.

 

To people with an agenda to make poor excuses for government sponsored murder I guess it can get quite complicated. How to justify the shooting of innocent and unarmed protesters and come out smelling of roses ......yes ,I see your point, pretty complicated.

23 hours ago, Denim said:

 

No, simple facts. The great number of deaths were caused by people being shot by soldiers.

 

The people who gave authority for soldiers to shoot at protesters should be in prison for a very long time.

 

It is worth remembering that at this time there were serious street protests in Greece . At no time did the Greek government ask or give permission to the army to break up the protests by firing live rounds.

Probably the army had no need to defend themselves. Otherwise I am not sure ...

 

If "those people"  did not give  authority for soldiers to shoot at "protesters" who shot at soldiers they should be in prison for a very long time.

 

You don't really know what happened, nor do I.

My opinion is based on observation of the government who kept peaceful until the end and of the "protesters" who provoked every day and only failed in the end with their coupe.

During the time before and during their occupation they were provoking violence and I wouldn't be surprised if they even wanted victims in their strategy.

Seeing it different is one sided. I am just saying the likelihood to be guilty of killing is against the reds.

If proof is given for the opposite I will gladly admit.

Edited January 13, 20188 yr by sweatalot

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

"Had their own horse , the democrats , won the election there would have been no protests at all and the likes of the PAD and UDD would not have risen to prominence. "

 

Total crap, and past events prove clearly you comment is absolutely/factually incorrect and divisive.  

 

 

 

So you are saying that if Thaksin had never won any election there would still be the PAD and the UDD ???

 

Are you quiet sure about that or are you just a getting ahead of yourself.

 

 

4 hours ago, robblok said:

You can claim it.. but the facts are that they have arrested black shirts who later were proven to be red shirts. So there goes your theory and the support for his theory is there with blackshirts now identified as redshirts.

 

I don't have a theory , the facts are that soldiers opened fire ( for the umpteenth time in history ) on unarmed civilians sheltering in a temple. And for good measure they shot a reporter. 

 

Violence is violence regardless of who is shooting whom. Some idiots are saying that because black shirts took pot shots at the army the army were entitled to fire into unarmed civilians ? Is that right ? Is that how civilized government should react.

 

Oh....but excuse me. There was not a civilized government at the time.

14 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Probably the army had no need to defend themselves. Otherwise I am not sure ...

 

If "those people"  did not give  authority for soldiers to shoot at "protesters" who shot at soldiers they should be in prison for a very long time.

 

You don't really know what happened, nor do I.

My opinion is based on observation of the government who kept peaceful until the end and of the "protesters" who provoked every day and only failed in the end with their coupe.

During the time before and during their occupation they were provoking violence and I wouldn't be surprised if they even wanted victims in their strategy.

Seeing it different is one sided. I am just saying the likelihood to be guilty of killing is against the reds.

If proof is given for the opposite I will gladly admit.

 

I am sorry, your post is a bit garbled. 

Care to have another more succinct stab at it ?

4 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Probably the army had no need to defend themselves. Otherwise I am not sure ...

 

If "those people"  did not give  authority for soldiers to shoot at "protesters" who shot at soldiers they should be in prison for a very long time.

 

You don't really know what happened, nor do I.

My opinion is based on observation of the government who kept peaceful until the end and of the "protesters" who provoked every day and only failed in the end with their coupe.

During the time before and during their occupation they were provoking violence and I wouldn't be surprised if they even wanted victims in their strategy.

Seeing it different is one sided. I am just saying the likelihood to be guilty of killing is against the reds.

If proof is given for the opposite I will gladly admit.

When the legitimacy of a government (= fits the current preference of citizen) is strongly contested, the only democratic behaviour is to quickly dissolve the assembly and organise elections. 

That's what Yingluck did, and Abhisit sent the troop instead of it.

Oh sorry! I forgot Abhisit knew he would lose elections and wanted to appoint Prayuth before, in order to make sure the result of the elections will not have any consequence anyway.