Police Charged Over Drug War

[Journalist]

I suppose you can't be called an upper class unless you can pull the rank on the police.

Having the business card of a senior police officer is worth 1000x its weight in gold. Maybe more.

"Do you know this gentleman, officer?" (proffers card).

Im surprised they don't sell their business cards.

[rixalex]

You have very little idea about the class set up of Thailand if you believe that close relatives of people of upper class are not seen as such.

I accept there is some truth to that but that's not to say that there aren't families which have split to some extent, with one part becoming the black sheep side that lives a quite separate and far less comfortable life. If there were drugs involved that could have well been the case.

Anyway, do you not think that had the boy been the upper class woman's own son there would have been more attention to the case and that heads would have rolled?

[Plus]

So a nephew of a very very upper class woman couldn't save himself from the police.

And I was told elites control this country.

[Journalist]

So a nephew of a very very upper class woman couldn't save himself from the police.

And I was told elites control this country.

If there is a bullet en route to the back of your head, there's not much you can do, whether you are a king or a cabbage, a prince or a pauper....

....my Mark Twain reference there !

[justanothercybertosser]

You have very little idea about the class set up of Thailand if you believe that close relatives of people of upper class are not seen as such.

I accept there is some truth to that but that's not to say that there aren't families which have split to some extent, with one part becoming the black sheep side that lives a quite separate and far less comfortable life. If there were drugs involved that could have well been the case.

Anyway, do you not think that had the boy been the upper class woman's own son there would have been more attention to the case and that heads would have rolled?

With the drug war, the rules have changed quite tremendously.

Previously, it wasn't much a deal, if you had the right connections, and/or a reasonable amount of money, in case of being caught, most of the time. When the drug war was announced, money and connections were not much use anymore. Many police officers and other puyai made it very clear - if you are caught with drugs, you are on your own. Still, until today, that rule is somewhat valid. Being caught with drugs, the money that might get you off is in the millions, or tens of millions, and you need extremely good connections. Of course we are talking more than a spliff here.

In case of my acquaintance, she was in favor of the killings, and still is, regardless of personal feelings towards her nephew. And to make clear - i do not agree with her on the point of the killings. I agree with the necessity of the drug war, but not with the killings.

[Plus]

I agree with the necessity of the drug war, but not with the killings.

Do you think it would have been as successful in stopping the trade without the killings? It was a pretty strong deterrent - the police clearly meant business.

[DaleBlue]

I am a bit confuse. So now the drug dealers are good people, and police are bad.

Drug dealers should not be shot at; while police should go to jail.

Ironic isn't it. TiT.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Not in Thailand where the police force has long been a hotbed of criminal and corrupt behaviour. Often forcing young people to sell drugs on their behalf.

[justanothercybertosser]

I agree with the necessity of the drug war, but not with the killings.

Do you think it would have been as successful in stopping the trade without the killings? It was a pretty strong deterrent - the police clearly meant business.

I guess it would not have been as successful, especially that fast.

But it was not just police, it was a concerted effort of all security forces, including police, army, BPP and the different militias and paramilitary organizations and volonteer organizations, with support from politics, bureaucracy and above. That also included the increased use of village defense forces in the most drug infested regions.

At the same time, the killings were but one of the strategies. There were others as well, such as the re-education camps, the separation between use and dealing, and programs such as Princess Ubonrat's "Numer One" program. Some of these strategies were very sucessful, some were less sucessful, and others outright ridiculous. And some were complete <deleted> ups, resulting in a mess, such as the policy of not allowing intravenous drug users to buy their needles in pharmacies, which has under this subgroup increased the HIV infection rate.

But the importance is, that the drug war was not just killings, the whole thing was a combined strategy to reduce the amount of drugs as fast as possible.

[DaleBlue]

IMHO, Princess Ubonrat's "Numer One" program is the best program the world ever seen. Any one wish to disagree?

[marshbags]

if I may be allowed to say it without sounding a bad person as unimportance cries out loud and clear and not one life was wasted during this War On Drugs from the upper so called classes. ?????

marshbags

Would you feel better if they'd shot a few rich kids too?

You're muddying your own argument. This wasn't a war to exterminate the poor or the underclass. Gas chambers would have done that far quicker than bullets and with less stress on the executioners. That methodology has already been proven.

As always you edit and take quotes out of context.

Shooting a few rich kids was not my meaning and would not have justified this rampant blood thirsty slaughter that unfolded.

Selective killing is what this is all about and the point is that IMHO, who you were determined your fate when alledged attempts to apprehend suspects was being taken through the motions by the police.

No one needed to be shot / exterminated in this cold blooded, calculated executional fashion, especially when there was not in most cases, a threat on the executioners life / lives.

Many victims were trying to get away, scared to death of what had become common knowledge of their fate, most unarmed and no threat what so ever, but still to suffer a predetermined penalty.....................execution.

In all the publicity and coverage done via the media and from documentation relating to victims the lack of shall I say, higher profile names suggests to me it was selective from a who you were and if you didn,t have influence by connections and social standing, your fate was pre determined.

Bystanders did not of course have any say either way as the officers of the law wildly discharged their weapons all over the place.

They should have arrested as many suspects as was humanly possible and had them tried in a court of law.

Rehabilitation and re education should have then kicked in wherever it could be used and applied in the majority of cases where guilt was proven and addiction played a factor in whatever they had done, especially the minor / petty offenders.

It soon became apparent that legal proceedings were not the intended purpose and still they kept the murderous vendetta going, overseen by their beloved CEO and Commander in Chief Thaksin.

In spite of international alarm and outrage being voiced along with concerns being personally offered via diplomatic channels to Thaksin, it continued and actually got worse.

Thaksin even told the outside world they were not his keeper, or words of a similar nature, without finding the exact quote he gave them.

A question please ?

How many officers were investigated for their questionable actions and misuse of firearms, unprofessionalism ect. or indeed disciplined in relation to their actions ?

marshbags

P.S.

Debate is what Thai Visa is about when carried out respectfully and responsibly and is encouraged as far as i was last aware, J

Both for and against opposing views when it is applied in a reasonable and moderate way, I believe.

Edited May 29, 2009 by marshbags

[DaleBlue]

IMHO, Princess Ubonrat's "Number One" program is the best program the world ever seen. Any one wish to disagree?

I'm not even sure we are permitted to disagree. So you can make whatever outlandish claims you like!

I didn't like the song or the music video. However if you want to say its was the greatest piece of music ever written, it is compulsory to agree with you.

Exactly.

[justanothercybertosser]

This following article is more evidence of my view about the many Human Rights violations in Thailand being systematic, and not just attributable to one person alone. In the Tak Bai incident all security forces have been cleared of wrongdoing:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/29...al_30103922.php

[Journalist]

if I may be allowed to say it without sounding a bad person as unimportance cries out loud and clear and not one life was wasted during this War On Drugs from the upper so called classes. ?????

marshbags

Would you feel better if they'd shot a few rich kids too?

You're muddying your own argument. This wasn't a war to exterminate the poor or the underclass. Gas chambers would have done that far quicker than bullets and with less stress on the executioners. That methodology has already been proven.

As always you edit and take quotes out of context.

Shooting a few rich kids was not my meaning and would not have justified this rampant blood thirsty slaughter that unfolded.

Selective killing is what this is all about and the point is that IMHO, who you were determined your fate when alledged attempts to apprehend suspects was being taken through the motions by the police.

No one needed to be shot / exterminated in this cold blooded, calculated executional fashion, especially when there was not in most cases, a threat on the executioners life / lives.

Many victims were trying to get away, scared to death of what had become common knowledge of their fate, most unarmed and no threat what so ever, but still to suffer a predetermined penalty.....................execution.

In all the publicity and coverage done via the media and from documentation relating to victims the lack of shall I say, higher profile names suggests to me it was selective from a who you were and if you didn,t have influence by connections and social standing, your fate was pre determined.

Bystanders did not of course have any say either way as the officers of the law wildly discharged their weapons all over the place.

They should have arrested as many suspects as was humanly possible and had them tried in a court of law.

Rehabilitation and re education should have then kicked in wherever it could be used and applied in the majority of cases where guilt was proven and addiction played a factor in whatever they had done, especially the minor / petty offenders.

It soon became apparent that legal proceedings were not the intended purpose and still they kept the murderous vendetta going, overseen by their beloved CEO and Commander in Chief Thaksin.

In spite of international alarm and outrage being voiced along with concerns being personally offered via diplomatic channels to Thaksin, it continued and actually got worse.

Thaksin even told the outside world they were not his keeper, or words of a similar nature, without finding the exact quote he gave them.

A question please ?

How many officers were investigated for their questionable actions and misuse of firearms, unprofessionalism ect. or indeed disciplined in relation to their actions ?

marshbags

P.S.

Debate is what Thai Visa is about when carried out respectfully and responsibly and is encouraged as far as i was last aware, J

Both for and against opposing views when it is applied in a reasonable and moderate way, I believe.

So welcome to the 3rd world. Can you truly hold cops in a borderline failed state accountable to the same standards as G7 countries?

...and its going to stay 3rd world for a very long time, unless the Democrat leader miraculously develops the gumption, the ideology and the power base to take it in a new direction.

[Plus]

But the importance is, that the drug war was not just killings, the whole thing was a combined strategy to reduce the amount of drugs as fast as possible.

I would say that killings were the cornerstone of the whole program.

Re-education camps, signing off sworn statements never to deal again etc are useless without enforcement, a farce, and enforcement came through killings, did it not? Officially they had absolutely nothing to be afraid of - no jail, no persecution, nothing. Just killings.

But it was not just police, it was a concerted effort of all security forces, including police, army, BPP and the different militias and paramilitary organizations and volonteer organizations, with support from politics, bureaucracy and above.

I think you are going out on a limb here. Drug war as a whole was a concerted effort but killings were most certainly not.

They were accepted as part of the deal at most, the part that no one would ever want to talk about in public. It's a stretch to say that they were "concerted effort".

[justanothercybertosser]

But the importance is, that the drug war was not just killings, the whole thing was a combined strategy to reduce the amount of drugs as fast as possible.

I would say that killings were the cornerstone of the whole program.

They were accepted as part of the deal at most, the part that no one would ever want to talk about in public. It's a stretch to say that they were "concerted effort".

Don't you think you contradict yourself here a bit?

[Johpa]

Anyhow. Marshbags tries to present the drug war as some sort of elitist conspiracy against the poor, which is a ridiculous misinterpretation. The drug war was popular under all sectors of society, and that includes the classes where most people who got killed came from. That is a clear fact. One of the reasons is that those classes carried also the largest burden of the massive spread of amphetamines, disabling their families. For these people the drug war improved their life, and the killings in their view were collateral damage. Don't say now that i support the killings. I do not. I try to explain why the drug war was and still is popular, and why you will not see any majority support in investagating it. And for other reasons you will also not see much support in the elites, beyond a few symbolic convictions that won't damage the enabling system.

What a few farang (including me) on an internet board say here, has no relevance whatsoever to Thai reality. You are grasping for straws if you believe that the investigations that you read here in newspaper articles posted will lead anywhere substantial. It's a slow news day, nothing else.

It has become rather rare here to see a voice, such as Cybertosser, combining both understanding of the Thai reality and reasoning. In my wife's native neighborhood (tambon) the war on drugs was, and is still today, celebrated as a good thing. Yes, a few people lost a distant relative (nephew) including my wife, but all were still overjoyed at the results that included the disappearance of the meth dealers out of the local schools and the almost immediate drop in local crimes such as theft, burglary, and domestic violence that had become truly epidemic. All of those social ills still exist of course, but back at the lower levels that existed before the drug epidemic had become commonplace.

[JetsetBkk]

Anyhow. Marshbags tries to present the drug war as some sort of elitist conspiracy against the poor, which is a ridiculous misinterpretation. The drug war was popular under all sectors of society<snip>

It has become rather rare here to see a voice, such as Cybertosser, combining both understanding of the Thai reality and reasoning. In my wife's native neighborhood (tambon) the war on drugs was, and is still today, celebrated as a good thing. Yes, a few people lost a distant relative (nephew) including my wife, but all were still overjoyed at the results that included the disappearance of the meth dealers out of the local schools and the almost immediate drop in local crimes such as theft, burglary, and domestic violence that had become truly epidemic. All of those social ills still exist of course, but back at the lower levels that existed before the drug epidemic had become commonplace.

Agreed - excellent post justanother... and that is how I remember it. Also, that is why I went looking for any posts on this web site that were posted at the time of the 'war' (Jan - Apr '03) that were critical of it, and couldn't find any.

The first, I believe, was from sriracha john, about a year and a half after the 'war'. But I guess there wasn't much debate going on at all on the forum in those days - early 2003 - so maybe that was the reason

[hammered]

This following article is more evidence of my view about the many Human Rights violations in Thailand being systematic, and not just attributable to one person alone. In the Tak Bai incident all security forces have been cleared of wrongdoing:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/29...al_30103922.php

Amazing Thailand. Must have been something to do with the fasting........... combined with a hand chaining fetish

[sriracha john]

Police urged to accept murder cases

Kalasin teens' kin think they died in drugs war

Eight more Kalasin families yesterday urged police to speed up the acceptance of their relatives' murders as special cases to be investigated as possible extra-judicial killings carried out in the Thaksin administration's 2004 war on drugs. The representatives from the families of eight murdered teenaged males appealed to Thawee Sodsong, Chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), to investigate their claims that the youths were victims of extra-judicial killings carried out by the police.

They were taken to see the DSI Chief by Angkhana Neelaphaijit and Metha Martkhao from the Campaign Committee for Human Rights, and Pikul Promchan, a relative of 17 year-old Kiattisak Thitbunkrong whose death in 2004 was allegedly the result of an extra-judicial killing. The DSI accepted Kiattisak's case as a special case in 2005.

The department would immediately accept them as special cases if the complaints lodged by the families prove to be well-grounded, Police Colonel Thawee said. The law was recently amended to allow the DSI to take over the investigation of any cases involving wrongdoings allegedly committed by administrative officers or senior government officers, he said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1757...pt-murder-cases

-- Bangkok Post 2009-05-30

=======================================================

Note:

The Angkhana Neelaphaijit mentioned in the article is the widow of missing and presumed dead lawyer Somchai Neelaphajit, the subject in the thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Aide...71.html&hl=

Thaksin Aide Link To Kidnap Of Somchai, Missing Lawyer

[Plus]

But the importance is, that the drug war was not just killings, the whole thing was a combined strategy to reduce the amount of drugs as fast as possible.

I would say that killings were the cornerstone of the whole program.

They were accepted as part of the deal at most, the part that no one would ever want to talk about in public. It's a stretch to say that they were "concerted effort".

Don't you think you contradict yourself here a bit?

Not at all, I believe very very few were aware of killing plans before hand. Thaksin generated a lot of publicity for the drug war and there was overwhelming support to "do something". When the killings started the media began making noises but was ordered to stop reporting a couple of weeks into the campaign. Govt line of "dealers killing off eachother" was drilled into the public mind, dealers killed in shootouts the police didn't get any sympathy either.

Everyone was caught off hand by this sudden maneuvre. The campaign was clearly successful and had broad support, the existence of death squads was officially denied, there is no evidence of them to this day.

So yes, killings as enforcement were probably a cornerstone but they were never announced before hand and it is not right to blame supporters for what had happened without their knowledge.

Could they stop them? How? They didn't even exist, officially, and everyone thought it wasn't such a big deal anyway. Johpa's post is the best testimony:

Yes, a few people lost a distant relative (nephew) including my wife, but all were still overjoyed at the results

Nice tradeoff, huh? Some nephew you never knew anyway had to be killed, but the benefits!!!!

I thought the era of human sacrifices was over. Apparently not.

[rixalex]

The reasoning seems to be that well if the public go along with it, that somehow makes it alright.

Point 1: It doesn't make a jot of difference what the public think - the public could be jumping up and down with joy at a government initiative - but at the end of the day, it's the politicians who make the decisions, they pass the laws, they sign the papers, they take responsibility - not the public - and when they make bad decisions, they can't turn around and say "well yes, but the public supported it, so it must have been ok"

Point 2: At the time of the "war", the public wasn't privy to all the information - it was much more like rumours about the authorities getting heavy-handed, but it wasn't widely reported that the police had remit to simply shoot suspects on sight. The media let's not forget was being heavily controled and they gave the news little coverage and if they did it was done so with spin. My impression at the time was simply that the police were engaging drug dealers in gun fights and when there was no alternative, they were resorting to killing - not that the police were going round and shooting unarmed people who could have easily been taken into custody.

[justanothercybertosser]

The reasoning seems to be that well if the public go along with it, that somehow makes it alright.

Point 1: It doesn't make a jot of difference what the public think - the public could be jumping up and down with joy at a government initiative - but at the end of the day, it's the politicians who make the decisions, they pass the laws, they sign the papers, they take responsibility - not the public - and when they make bad decisions, they can't turn around and say "well yes, but the public supported it, so it must have been ok"

Point 2: At the time of the "war", the public wasn't privy to all the information - it was much more like rumours about the authorities getting heavy-handed, but it wasn't widely reported that the police had remit to simply shoot suspects on sight. The media let's not forget was being heavily controled and they gave the news little coverage and if they did it was done so with spin. My impression at the time was simply that the police were engaging drug dealers in gun fights and when there was no alternative, they were resorting to killing - not that the police were going round and shooting unarmed people who could have easily been taken into custody.

A few things you got wrong here. One was that there was very much media coverage in the Thai media. For the first two months there was corpse after corpse shown on all Thai TV channels, and a head count was kept. You had monks holding lectures on TV explaining that killing a drug pusher does not draw bad Karma. You had people like Sondhi Limthongkul (at the time still great buddy with Thaksin) giving much space in his papers in suport of the drug war, and you had many of the so called "humanitarians" such as Chamlong Srimuand not saying one word against the killings. Only after about one and half or two months the government did not give out the numbers anymore. By the most of the killings soon fizzled out.

The international media did not take much interest in the drug war killings at the time because of the beginning Iraq invasion. That was bigger business than a few dead in Thailand.

Secondly, the pressure on the media was there, but i have issues with your use of the past term, because it still is under enormous pressure. I would suggest asking around about what recently happened at Matichon.

At the time you got one spin about the drug war, and now you get another spin. All the information is still not available (but much is if you make some effort to look for it), and by many here not believed anyhow, because of the ideological bend of holding Thaksin solely responsible for everything.

Maybe many Farang were not really aware of what happened there at the time, but most Thais were more than aware of the extrajudicial killings, supported them then (Thaksin's popularity rating were at the highest during that time), and still support it. Just ask around common people what they think about the drug war, and the killings.

[hammered]

Agree that the killings were popular and remain so, and saw it on TV. It was well marketed almost so people could feel it as vigilante action. I say this even as abhorent as I found the killings and the denial of democratic procedure. That however, seems not unique just to Thailand or its citizens

The stuff about the monks saying killing drug dealers doesnt draw bad karam is reminiscent of communists arent humans attitudes from the past and to some degree majority opinions about Muslims in the south. There are a lot of scary and manipulated opinions when you get under the surface. Then again Iraq was invaded based on given reasons that were false but still peddled by a so called free media.

[rixalex]

Secondly, the pressure on the media was there, but i have issues with your use of the past term, because it still is under enormous pressure.

By stating that the media "was being heavily controled", doesn't mean that it's not now, simply that this topic is about a past event. Your eagerness to point out that it still is as some sort of a justification came as no surprise though.

[rixalex]

One was that there was very much media coverage in the Thai media. For the first two months there was corpse after corpse shown on all Thai TV channels, and a head count was kept.

I accept there was some coverage but i still don't think the public got what was happening. The very term "war on drugs" suggests you have two parties attacking each other.

The way media presents something can make a massive difference, even if they are showing corpses and giving a head count.

For example, if you see the image of a dead corpse and the news reporter tells you he was a drug dealer (like it's a proven fact) who the police took out when he resisted arrest, the public might feel justice was done.

If on the other hand you see a dead corpse and the news reporter tells you he was a suspect, yet to be proven guilty of anything, who the police walked up to and even though was unarmed, outnumbered and wasn't about to put up a fight, they simply shot rather than apprehend, the public reaction would be different.

[justanothercybertosser]

Secondly, the pressure on the media was there, but i have issues with your use of the past term, because it still is under enormous pressure.

By stating that the media "was being heavily controled", doesn't mean that it's not now, simply that this topic is about a past event. Your eagerness to point out that it still is as some sort of a justification came as no surprise though.

I would suggest to leave your emotional blinds behind. Do i need to point out in every single post that i do very much disagree with the killings, and that i abhor them?

You pointed out that the media was "controlled". This is no news to me. But i have issues with the use of the past term "was", because the media is still under enormous pressure, but now by this government, and its backers. There still is no open and neutral coverage. This is not my "eagerness" but i state a fact, which can be proven if you read relevant articles on the subject in the few media outlets that do not bow down to the pressure, such as Prachatai. Also bangkokpundit has some very informative blogs on the issue (and no, he is not just another blogger, but the maybe only blogger that is on the bookmarks of most analysts, journalist and also many people in power. His blogs are widely discussed in those circles, and referred to.

The Thai media at the time has widely reported about the drug war killings. Mostly supportative. But that many people were killed, and most in for the west more than suspicious circumstances, was no secret, as you never fail to point out when citing Thaksin's blaze comments. You view that the killings at the time happened outside the public eye simply does not stand up to reality.

The killings had wide support under the population, that is reality. It does not reflect my view on the killings, but it is a fact that i have to take under consideration when i want to analyse the drug war.

A point i have difficulties to argue with when discussing the events with supporters of the killings is, that the enormous spread of drugs in the communities is also a violation of human rights, and that after years of inactivity people were glad that a government finally took action. I guess it is out of the range of the experience of many people here how affected the communities were at the time. In many communities drugs were simply everywhere, and it was impossible for parents to stop their children to get involved. I would suggest to learn about the suffering of these people as well, because these people were victims for many years of the drugs and the inactivity of the government, at the time the Chuan government. Not just the killed people were victims of the drug war, but also the victims of the drugs themselves.

And again, so you don't misinterprete my position - this is not a justification for the killings, it is about understanding the complexities at the time. I am of the view that a softer solution should have been found. The problem though is, that i understand that Thailand is a emerging democracy with a informal power distribution that most of the time overlays the formal power distribution. The dealers had so much protection through these very murky power networks, that for many the hardline solution was the only way they could think off to solve the mess. Especially difficult is the part that such hardline solutions were many times employed in recent Thai history, and therefore this was very much a usual strategy to employ. So, we have more that a few precedents of such state organized human rights violations.

And instead of solely waffling on what happened then, we should also begin to discuss what is happening right now under our noses in our communities. Which, being a father, does also concern me personally. I do know what is going on in my neighborhood. I am not living isolated in my farang paradise, and i have not the money to isolate myself from the evils of a developing country and can move in a rich suburban mu ban. I do see daily more and more drugs invading my community. This is a threat to my son's future.

Again we are in a period of much inactivity from the side of the government, and the spread of amphetamines, and related crime, reached major proportions again. If this continues, you can imagine what will happen when we will get again a government that is not completely pre-occupied with factional infighting such as this government (as every democrat led government in the past was).

Just because the media here does not report much on the present drug problem, does not mean that it does not exist.

Edited May 30, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[justanothercybertosser]

If on the other hand you see a dead corpse and the news reporter tells you he was a suspect, yet to be proven guilty of anything, who the police walked up to and even though was unarmed, outnumbered and wasn't about to put up a fight, they simply shot rather than apprehend, the public reaction would be different.

I very much disagree with the common slant here on this forum, in which some posters try to paint this picture of most of the killed having been innocent victims caught up in the cross fire. I do not doubt that some were. But most were known drug dealers.

In societies such as Thailand, not much personal is a secret. Poeple know who is doing what, and when. The communities were so flushed with drugs and the business, that everybody knew (and still knows) exactly who is in the business. Almost every family has been affected, so they knew exactly where drugs are sold, and who sells them. The major business in the communities happens in front of everybody. Dealers stand at street corners openly, their identities are known by everybody. And so are the identities of addicts (which, on the street level, is often the same. Police is heavily involved in the trade as well. And police has a massive informer network.

That is why you had very little outcry against the killings. People accepted this as necessary, because it killed the people who were involved. Of course people are sad when a relative died. But people were (and increasingly are again) caught between a rock and a hard place there. They abhor the drugs, but their own relatives are affected both as victims and perpetrators.

Things are not as simple as you try to make them out. There is no nice solution, unfortunately.

[rixalex]

You pointed out that the media was "controlled". This is no news to me. But i have issues with the use of the past term "was", because the media is still under enormous pressure, but now by this government, and its backers.

To repeat, i used the term "was" because this thread is a discussion of something that happened in the past. If you wish to discuss the current pressure that the media is under, you should start a thread on that topic.

[justanothercybertosser]

You pointed out that the media was "controlled". This is no news to me. But i have issues with the use of the past term "was", because the media is still under enormous pressure, but now by this government, and its backers.

To repeat, i used the term "was" because this thread is a discussion of something that happened in the past. If you wish to discuss the current pressure that the media is under, you should start a thread on that topic.

Maybe the discussion goes a little over your head. My apologies.

When discussing the drug war killings of the past, we do have to discuss the social and political context. As these cases are now brought to justice, the present context of government interference with the medias is of high importance. May i refer you to the thread title? The title says very clearly that police is now charged over the drug war, and not: only discussion allowed over the killings 5 years ago, or: only discuss what rabid Thaksin opponents allow to discuss.