Police Charged Over Drug War

[hammered]

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.

This is probably the first time that anyone has mentioned the police involvement in the trade! Having lived both in Bnagkok and outside I think it is very easy when living in Bangkok and leading a normal law abiding life to not notice things like this and to also not see the full extent of informer networks the police have, which quite honestly are staggering in their scope and the organization of them. Outside of Bangkok in smaller communities it is almost impossible not to notice the networks of infromers, not to mention police involvement in trades they shouldnt be involved in.

I dont personally ascribe to the thousands of people unconnected to the drug trade being killed theory. No doubt some were and when drawing up blacklists I am sure a good few vendettas ended up getting settled which may not have had anything to do with drugs. I would, however, say that it is still true in a democracy that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and hence technically everyone killed was innocent. That is a legal fact. That doesnt make my view popular with many. However, there was another way involving legal action. I dont think anybody is going to argue that soemthing had to be done but it didnt have to involve extra-judicial killing although I will accept that for many people in many countries vigilante style action holds an appeal over certain situations. Myself though, I do not support such an appraoch under any circumstances, which again may put me in a minority position. That however, is a position I am happy to occupy.

On an ironic note I do wonder that if killing those "causing harm to the country" in terms of drugs was acceptable then maybe those "causing harm to the country" in terms of politics could also be dealt with in the same way. The likes of Thaksin, Sondhi (hasnt it already been tried?), Jatuporn, Newin (add any name you think this applies to) turning up with half their head blown away may make interesting news coverage. Maybe we can even have a vigilante minister leading the machine gun attack on one of their houses with media in tow.

[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.

This is probably the first time that anyone has mentioned the police involvement in the trade! Having lived both in Bnagkok and outside I think it is very easy when living in Bangkok and leading a normal law abiding life to not notice things like this and to also not see the full extent of informer networks the police have, which quite honestly are staggering in their scope and the organization of them. Outside of Bangkok in smaller communities it is almost impossible not to notice the networks of infromers, not to mention police involvement in trades they shouldnt be involved in.

I dont personally ascribe to the thousands of people unconnected to the drug trade being killed theory. No doubt some were and when drawing up blacklists I am sure a good few vendettas ended up getting settled which may not have had anything to do with drugs. I would, however, say that it is still true in a democracy that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and hence technically everyone killed was innocent. That is a legal fact. That doesnt make my view popular with many. However, there was another way involving legal action. I dont think anybody is going to argue that soemthing had to be done but it didnt have to involve extra-judicial killing although I will accept that for many people in many countries vigilante style action holds an appeal over certain situations. Myself though, I do not support such an appraoch under any circumstances, which again may put me in a minority position. That however, is a position I am happy to occupy.

On an ironic note I do wonder that if killing those "causing harm to the country" in terms of drugs was acceptable then maybe those "causing harm to the country" in terms of politics could also be dealt with in the same way. The likes of Thaksin, Sondhi (hasnt it already been tried?), Jatuporn, Newin (add any name you think this applies to) turning up with half their head blown away may make interesting news coverage. Maybe we can even have a vigilante minister leading the machine gun attack on one of their houses with media in tow.

From the moral and legal aspect i absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately when my morals meet reality, things get very complicated.

A strong argument of the other side, the ones that support the killings, is that the problem with this approach here in Thailand is exactly the police involvement and the more than occasional complicity of the courts previous to the drug war. And the courts here in Thailand are incredibly slow - during trials often the courts meet only every 45 days, and often suspects linger in jail for more than three years before a sentence has passed. People said that nothing substantial has been done previous to the drug war, and again, the problem is that in that aspect they are right. For many years there was a clear progression to the messy situation that led to the wide spread of the years '97 to '03, and all that was done was changing the name from "ya maa" (horse pill) to "ya baa" (crazy pill).

You mentioned an important term as well, in a democracy...

Thailand never was what i would call a democracy. It was at most an emerging democracy (since 2006 i would term it regressing democracy). We simply cannot apply the same measurement as we would in a developed democracy, as much as i would like to.

If things would be as clear cut as some prolific posters here try to make it out, things would be much easier. Unfortunately things are not simple, especially when we count in the socio-political context. Which we have to, to keep a minimum of intellectual honesty in the discussion.

Fact is, that the drug war is, and will stay a very uncomfortable issue, from any angle, if viewed at honestly and informatively, avoiding the fashionable politicization aimed solely at Thaksin while ignoring the context.

[hammered]

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.

This is probably the first time that anyone has mentioned the police involvement in the trade! Having lived both in Bnagkok and outside I think it is very easy when living in Bangkok and leading a normal law abiding life to not notice things like this and to also not see the full extent of informer networks the police have, which quite honestly are staggering in their scope and the organization of them. Outside of Bangkok in smaller communities it is almost impossible not to notice the networks of infromers, not to mention police involvement in trades they shouldnt be involved in.

I dont personally ascribe to the thousands of people unconnected to the drug trade being killed theory. No doubt some were and when drawing up blacklists I am sure a good few vendettas ended up getting settled which may not have had anything to do with drugs. I would, however, say that it is still true in a democracy that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and hence technically everyone killed was innocent. That is a legal fact. That doesnt make my view popular with many. However, there was another way involving legal action. I dont think anybody is going to argue that soemthing had to be done but it didnt have to involve extra-judicial killing although I will accept that for many people in many countries vigilante style action holds an appeal over certain situations. Myself though, I do not support such an appraoch under any circumstances, which again may put me in a minority position. That however, is a position I am happy to occupy.

On an ironic note I do wonder that if killing those "causing harm to the country" in terms of drugs was acceptable then maybe those "causing harm to the country" in terms of politics could also be dealt with in the same way. The likes of Thaksin, Sondhi (hasnt it already been tried?), Jatuporn, Newin (add any name you think this applies to) turning up with half their head blown away may make interesting news coverage. Maybe we can even have a vigilante minister leading the machine gun attack on one of their houses with media in tow.

From the moral and legal aspect i absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately when my morals meet reality, things get very complicated.

A strong argument of the other side, the ones that support the killings, is that the problem with this approach here in Thailand is exactly the police involvement and the more than occasional complicity of the courts previous to the drug war. And the courts here in Thailand are incredibly slow - during trials often the courts meet only every 45 days, and often suspects linger in jail for more than three years before a sentence has passed. People said that nothing substantial has been done previous to the drug war, and again, the problem is that in that aspect they are right. For many years there was a clear progression to the messy situation that led to the wide spread of the years '97 to '03, and all that was done was changing the name from "ya maa" (horse pill) to "ya baa" (crazy pill).

You mentioned an important term as well, in a democracy...

Thailand never was what i would call a democracy. It was at most an emerging democracy (since 2006 i would term it regressing democracy). We simply cannot apply the same measurement as we would in a developed democracy, as much as i would like to.

If things would be as clear cut as some prolific posters here try to make it out, things would be much easier. Unfortunately things are not simple, especially when we count in the socio-political context. Which we have to, to keep a minimum of intellectual honesty in the discussion.

Fact is, that the drug war is, and will stay a very uncomfortable issue, from any angle, if viewed at honestly and informatively, avoiding the fashionable politicization aimed solely at Thaksin while ignoring the context.

Just dont agree with extra-judicial killing myself whoever it is by. It is not a Thaksin thing although he bears (some) responsibility in this case.

If the police are involved and they carried out the extra-judicial stuff it gives a new spin on the claim it was drug dealers killing drug dealers .

[justanothercybertosser]

Just dont agree with extra-judicial killing myself whoever it is by. It is not a Thaksin thing although he bears (some) responsibility in this case.

If the police are involved and they carried out the extra-judicial stuff it gives a new spin on the claim it was drug dealers killing drug dealers .

That i am aware off, and it was acknowledged at the time: many of the killings were police officers in the trade cutting of their links to the trade. The real problem was, and is, that legally, there just is very little hope to go against those officers. What mattered then was that spread of drugs decreases, quickly and efficiently, no matter the collateral damage. And i want to point out - not just police was/is involved, military officers are as well. And politicians, etc...

Personally, i am disgusted by this logic. But i have to accept that there is logic behind it.

And yes, of course Thaksin bears responsibility. I do not exonerate him. I just refuse to follow this witch hunt, where the drug war is minimized to political agenda that has little to do with reality. And at the same time we are fed some rather outlandish pseudo solutions (such as incarcerate them dealers on some island) to obfuscate the inactivity of the present government towards the again rising drug infestation in the communities.

[hammered]

Just dont agree with extra-judicial killing myself whoever it is by. It is not a Thaksin thing although he bears (some) responsibility in this case.

If the police are involved and they carried out the extra-judicial stuff it gives a new spin on the claim it was drug dealers killing drug dealers .

That i am aware off, and it was acknowledged at the time: many of the killings were police officers in the trade cutting of their links to the trade. The real problem was, and is, that legally, there just is very little hope to go against those officers. What mattered then was that spread of drugs decreases, quickly and efficiently, no matter the collateral damage. And i want to point out - not just police was/is involved, military officers are as well. And politicians, etc...

Personally, i am disgusted by this logic. But i have to accept that there is logic behind it.

And yes, of course Thaksin bears responsibility. I do not exonerate him. I just refuse to follow this witch hunt, where the drug war is minimized to political agenda that has little to do with reality. And at the same time we are fed some rather outlandish pseudo solutions (such as incarcerate them dealers on some island) to obfuscate the inactivity of the present government towards the again rising drug infestation in the communities.

Yep politicians and military involved too although the military specialise more in other fields from my understanding and leave this one more to the police. Agree going after the police involved is going to go nowhere. Their slice of the pie has increased with the removal of competitors.

There is logic behind the killings etc and even to be cynical to accept that some drugs would still be needed to be traded and that the authorities would be better trading as it kept them on top of the problem.

I doubt this government could get the police to issue a parking ticket to be honest. Whether they want to do something about drugs or not is almost irrelevent with the poltical breakdown.

You have a police force involved, a politicised police force that dont like the govgernment, a history of lax law enforcement on drugs excepting killing people. It is going to create the conditons for another round of slayings. The involvement and lax enforcement were as much to blame last time. Plus the involvement of politicos and military complicates it all. I concentrate on police as they are the ones tasked with law enforcement.

Basically you have a system that cant be controlled by government right now and indeed rarely has been controlled for more than short periods excepting the times when the majority of this parallel structure found it contingent to be in tandem with whatever government happened to be around.

[rixalex]

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

If you sincerely wish to apologise for anything, you should apologise for that sad attempt to patronise.

When discussing the drug war killings of the past, we do have to discuss the social and political context.

Yes, the social and political context at that time. What is happening now is irrelevant. Important without a doubt yes, relevant no.

The title says very clearly that police is now charged over the drug war,

Which happened in the PAST.

and not: only discussion allowed over the killings 5 years ago,

That is actually precisely what this thread should be about - what happened 5 years ago.

[justanothercybertosser]

[

That is actually precisely what this thread should be about - what happened 5 years ago.

That is very funny, because in you response here to me you solely debate what this discussion should be about (in your opinion), yet in none of your little remarks you respond to a single point i have raised in my posts regarding what happened 5 years ago.

You will have to stop evading these points, please, if you want to avoid me making sarcastic remarks.

[sriracha john]

Just dont agree with extra-judicial killing myself whoever it is by. It is not a Thaksin thing although he bears (some) responsibility in this case.

If the police are involved and they carried out the extra-judicial stuff it gives a new spin on the claim it was drug dealers killing drug dealers .

That i am aware off, and it was acknowledged at the time: many of the killings were police officers in the trade cutting of their links to the trade. The real problem was, and is, that legally, there just is very little hope to go against those officers. What mattered then was that spread of drugs decreases, quickly and efficiently, no matter the collateral damage. And i want to point out - not just police was/is involved, military officers are as well. And politicians, etc...

Personally, i am disgusted by this logic. But i have to accept that there is logic behind it.

And yes, of course Thaksin bears responsibility. I do not exonerate him. I just refuse to follow this witch hunt, where the drug war is minimized to political agenda that has little to do with reality. And at the same time we are fed some rather outlandish pseudo solutions (such as incarcerate them dealers on some island) to obfuscate the inactivity of the present government towards the again rising drug infestation in the communities.

In your opinion, what then is an appropriate sentence for Thaksin's involvement in the Drug War and how does that compare to what you think is an appropriate sentence for others (and please specify who the others are?)?

Punishment for the actual trigger-pullers should be what?

Also for hammered:

Just how much is "some"?

And the police involvement in this has been talked about since marshbags original thread.

Although a great deal of this is just rehashing of that with the seemingly mandatory posts, from the same updated posters, lamenting their poor, drug-ridden Bangkok community environment that struggle to survive in. The drama was barely the first time around and now, with their updated ID's, it gets really old...

[jayboy]

Just dont agree with extra-judicial killing myself whoever it is by. It is not a Thaksin thing although he bears (some) responsibility in this case.

If the police are involved and they carried out the extra-judicial stuff it gives a new spin on the claim it was drug dealers killing drug dealers .

That i am aware off, and it was acknowledged at the time: many of the killings were police officers in the trade cutting of their links to the trade. The real problem was, and is, that legally, there just is very little hope to go against those officers. What mattered then was that spread of drugs decreases, quickly and efficiently, no matter the collateral damage. And i want to point out - not just police was/is involved, military officers are as well. And politicians, etc...

Personally, i am disgusted by this logic. But i have to accept that there is logic behind it.

And yes, of course Thaksin bears responsibility. I do not exonerate him. I just refuse to follow this witch hunt, where the drug war is minimized to political agenda that has little to do with reality. And at the same time we are fed some rather outlandish pseudo solutions (such as incarcerate them dealers on some island) to obfuscate the inactivity of the present government towards the again rising drug infestation in the communities.

In your opinion, what then is an appropriate sentence for Thaksin's involvement in the Drug War and how does that compare to what you think is an appropriate sentence for others (and please specify who the others are?)?

Punishment for the actual trigger-pullers should be what?

Also for hammered:

Just how much is "some"?

And the police involvement in this has been talked about since marshbags original thread.

Although a great deal of this is just rehashing of that with the seemingly mandatory posts, from the same updated posters, lamenting their poor, drug-ridden Bangkok community environment that struggle to survive in. The drama was barely the first time around and now, with their updated ID's, it gets really old...

Translation for the uninitiated: Blame for this kind of poster is attributable only to the police and of course Thaksin himself.Any suggestion that the army, politicians and other elite figures had anything to do with or share any responsibility is "off message" regardless of the facts.If in danger of being defeated in the argument, start getting personal and belittling members background -as above.

[justanothercybertosser]

In your opinion, what then is an appropriate sentence for Thaksin's involvement in the Drug War and how does that compare to what you think is an appropriate sentence for others (and please specify who the others are?)?

Punishment for the actual trigger-pullers should be what?

Also for hammered:

Just how much is "some"?

And the police involvement in this has been talked about since marshbags original thread.

Although a great deal of this is just rehashing of that with the seemingly mandatory posts, from the same updated posters, lamenting their poor, drug-ridden Bangkok community environment that struggle to survive in. The drama was barely the first time around and now, with their updated ID's, it gets really old...

First learn to ask a question politely without the barely hidden impolite snide remarks, and an answer will be given, politely as well.

This though is no base for a civil and polite discussion.

[rixalex]

That is actually precisely what this thread should be about - what happened 5 years ago.

That is very funny, because in you response here to me you solely debate what this discussion should be about (in your opinion), yet in none of your little remarks you respond to a single point i have raised in my posts regarding what happened 5 years ago.

I apologise for not responding, but all of your remarks bear the same M.O. as all of your other posts concerning Thaksin - that is to half-heartedly condemn, whilst at the same time providing reasoning and justification (read excuses) for his actions, and then as rapidly as you can, turning the discussion to the alleged abuses of others, preferably anyone who is aligned against Thaksin.

Your posts in this thread have just continued on the same theme. Prime example of that being your desire to swing the discussion to the current government's alleged control over the media, which whilst being a valid and interesting topic of conversation, has absolutely no relevance to what happened some five years ago. If you need reminding, that is that thousand of innocent people were killed on the authority of Thaksin - and yes, whatever we may or may not believe about those killed, laws state that every citizen is considered innocent until they are proven guilty - doesn't matter how many of the local community have already decided on the guilt of the individual.

Regarding your argument that what is happening today is relevant to this discussion, please name me one murder case where the jury has taken into consideration what happened after the death of the victim? This is a case of murder - mass murder as it happens - and as with all other cases of this crime - any crime in fact - we look at what happened leading up to the event, and what happened during and up until the victim passed away. We never look at what happened after - it has no bearing - and for you to be arguing that we should just exposes your badly hidden agenda.

My feelings on this case were succinctly and accurately sumed up by SJ on the very first page of this thread. To paraphrase, "if you want to kill a snake you start with the head, and then work down". That means going after Thaksin first, and then working right the way down til you reach the scum at the very bottom.

[justanothercybertosser]

That is actually precisely what this thread should be about - what happened 5 years ago.

That is very funny, because in you response here to me you solely debate what this discussion should be about (in your opinion), yet in none of your little remarks you respond to a single point i have raised in my posts regarding what happened 5 years ago.

I apologise for not responding, but all of your remarks bear the same M.O. as all of your other posts concerning Thaksin - that is to half-heartedly condemn, whilst at the same time providing reasoning and justification (read excuses) for his actions, and then as rapidly as you can, turning the discussion to the alleged abuses of others, preferably anyone who is aligned against Thaksin.

Your posts in this thread have just continued on the same theme. Prime example of that being your desire to swing the discussion to the current government's alleged control over the media, which whilst being a valid and interesting topic of conversation, has absolutely no relevance to what happened some five years ago. If you need reminding, that is that thousand of innocent people were killed on the authority of Thaksin - and yes, whatever we may or may not believe about those killed, laws state that every citizen is considered innocent until they are proven guilty - doesn't matter how many of the local community have already decided on the guilt of the individual.

Regarding your argument that what is happening today is relevant to this discussion, please name me one murder case where the jury has taken into consideration what happened after the death of the victim? This is a case of murder - mass murder as it happens - and as with all other cases of this crime - any crime in fact - we look at what happened leading up to the event, and what happened during and up until the victim passed away. We never look at what happened after - it has no bearing - and for you to be arguing that we should just exposes your badly hidden agenda.

My feelings on this case were succinctly and accurately sumed up by SJ on the very first page of this thread. To paraphrase, "if you want to kill a snake you start with the head, and then work down". That means going after Thaksin first, and then working right the way down til you reach the scum at the very bottom.

In order to do as you suggested, we would have to first define what the "head of the snake" here in fact is.

According to your definition, this is Thaksin. I try to show here that this is not so easy, unfortunately. Thaksin was one of the many heads of a hydra here (right now the Thaksin head is removed for the time being, but all the others continue to exist), which combined is a long established system in Thailand. And to define this system one has to consider and try to analyze the context, and that includes the still continuing abuses, and the past abuses that happened before Thaksin has played any role in Thai politics, and the role of the media then and now. It also very much concerns the democratic development status of Thailand, because this is the larger context under which these abuses are able to happen in the first place.

I do not justify, and i do not condemn. I try to understand why things are happening first. And given some very obvious fallacies you have made along the course of this thread, i do think you have not really understood the socio-political background, in order to correctly assess what happened five years ago (and what happened 30 years ago, and what happens now). So far you are only interested in blaming Thaksin, because you are simply not aware of many factors that have let to the drug war and the killings. I can read out of your posts that you assess the situation based according to western, developed democracy parameters, but ignore Thai specifics.

My only desire is to have an intelligent, informative, and educated discussion. And not another accumulation of rants, again. That bores me to death.

[allcladrad]

The one thing that seems clear from reading the posts on this page is that, many have no grounding in the events that lead up to the headline story about which the thread started. Politics aside as to why the investigation has new legs.

There are reams of investigative paper work, a lot of which is available online, regarding the deaths, who the victims were and the official involvement. To even attempt to make this a righteous endeavor is to belie the very foundation laid to base the war on. There were lists made by locals of suspected drug dealers, there were quotas established and when the list's numbers didn't meet the quotas, names had to be added. So from the start there was a problem, the lsits consisted of known drug dealers, some were that is true, but even some of those were already through the judicial process, others were friends or relatives, still others were those unfriendly to the list makers. Chiang Mai as an example had conducted a vigorous drug war only the year before, yet they still had to meet quotas that overlooked or ignored their previous success. In fact, many of their successes became victims of the new war as their names were put on the quota lists.

An often excused fact, at least by those who believe the war was just, is that the accused is entitled to judicial process. Many start with the belief that the accused is a "drug dealer" there for whatever happens to him/her is justified. Skip the idea that he/she could have been innocent or falsely accused. Based on quotes by Dr T, that was his belief.

Suspects were called to the police station and shortly after found dead, many held a gun and a bag of yaba, arms folded across their chest. Witnesses to those killings often reported black clothed men.

The Thai medical examiner was not allowed to view the scene and when finally allowed access to body, she usually found that the bullet had been removed.

The government reported kill numbers daily, like ballgame scores, until the world became aware of the size of the problem. The media and human rights organizations started asking questions and looking into the "war" and the resulting deaths. The government stopped publishing the kill figures but continued the kill.

As for Dr Ts involvement, one has but to read a few of his statements regarding his feelings about the deaths of drug dealers to erase any doubt about his culpability. The words "could have or should have know" were never put to better use than in his case. His campaign allowed local leaders to eradicate the opposition and in the deep south that was the spark that rekindled the separatist fires.

The bottom line here is that the government, lead by Dr T, allowed, condoned, encouraged, did I mention the rewards and punishment used to coerce and entice the officials involved?, or otherwise were involved in the deaths of hundreds of people. If this were a war criminals trial Dr T would be a condemned man, case closed.

[Journalist]

Rixylix

How would you feel if your son became democratically elected landsllde leader of a banana republic. who single handedly cleaned up the drug dealing scum, only to be ousted by money-grubbing relics who want the Golden Triangle revenue to continue to flow (into their pockets), and then he spent the rest of his days being harangued on the internet by English teachers in-between lessons. A come down worthy of Ozymandius......

[justanothercybertosser]

The one thing that seems clear from reading the posts on this page is that, many have no grounding in the events that lead up to the headline story about which the thread started. Politics aside as to why the investigation has new legs.

The bottom line here is that the government, lead by Dr T, allowed, condoned, encouraged, did I mention the rewards and punishment used to coerce and entice the officials involved?, or otherwise were involved in the deaths of hundreds of people. If this were a war criminals trial Dr T would be a condemned man, case closed.

Much of the facts presented are well known to anybody who has done a minimum of research on the drug war.

What is wrong is your final conclusion based on a western model of government, and not of the reality of how Thai society is governed. You only take into account the formal power distribution, and not the informal power distribution that overlays the former.

Thaksin alone could not have possibly done this drug war, and its killings. This is too large an operation to have be performed without the nod of many other power networks that needed to collaborate and legitimize this. Much of the available evidence we are unfortunately not allowed to post.

Another evidence is, that when the Samak government announced a drug war, the necessary collaboration was not available, and nothing happened. If your theory would be correct, then Samak, who has a proven history of complete disregard for human rights, would have been able to pull his war on drugs off.

I can only advise you to study the history of the Village Scout movement, the Navapon and the Kratingdaeng, and elite involvement and its uses against the threat of communism. Very similar mechanics worked in the drug war. And exactly that is the reason why there will never be a proper investigation into the drug war killings beyond a few token convictions of recipients of orders of which there will be no paper trail leading anywhere substantial.

Edited May 30, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Journalist]

Although a great deal of this is just rehashing of that with the seemingly mandatory posts, from the same updated posters, lamenting their poor, drug-ridden Bangkok community environment that struggle to survive in. The drama was barely the first time around and now, with their updated ID's, it gets really old...

Awesome !! So the same people you were disagreeing with 25,000 posts ago are still gainsaying you ! All that typing since 2004 and none of you agree on any commonality, nobody has been persuaded by anything. Five years of life gone @ an average rate of 15 posts a day. Jeez !

Does that make one feel more or less steeled for posts 25001 to 49999? I think it would make me look for a new hobby, like golf or sailing!

Box on !

[plachon]

That is actually precisely what this thread should be about - what happened 5 years ago.

That is very funny, because in you response here to me you solely debate what this discussion should be about (in your opinion), yet in none of your little remarks you respond to a single point i have raised in my posts regarding what happened 5 years ago.

I apologise for not responding, but all of your remarks bear the same M.O. as all of your other posts concerning Thaksin - that is to half-heartedly condemn, whilst at the same time providing reasoning and justification (read excuses) for his actions, and then as rapidly as you can, turning the discussion to the alleged abuses of others, preferably anyone who is aligned against Thaksin.

Your posts in this thread have just continued on the same theme. Prime example of that being your desire to swing the discussion to the current government's alleged control over the media, which whilst being a valid and interesting topic of conversation, has absolutely no relevance to what happened some five years ago. If you need reminding, that is that thousand of innocent people were killed on the authority of Thaksin - and yes, whatever we may or may not believe about those killed, laws state that every citizen is considered innocent until they are proven guilty - doesn't matter how many of the local community have already decided on the guilt of the individual.

Regarding your argument that what is happening today is relevant to this discussion, please name me one murder case where the jury has taken into consideration what happened after the death of the victim? This is a case of murder - mass murder as it happens - and as with all other cases of this crime - any crime in fact - we look at what happened leading up to the event, and what happened during and up until the victim passed away. We never look at what happened after - it has no bearing - and for you to be arguing that we should just exposes your badly hidden agenda.

My feelings on this case were succinctly and accurately sumed up by SJ on the very first page of this thread. To paraphrase, "if you want to kill a snake you start with the head, and then work down". That means going after Thaksin first, and then working right the way down til you reach the scum at the very bottom.

In order to do as you suggested, we would have to first define what the "head of the snake" here in fact is.

According to your definition, this is Thaksin. I try to show here that this is not so easy, unfortunately. Thaksin was one of the many heads of a hydra here (right now the Thaksin head is removed for the time being, but all the others continue to exist), which combined is a long established system in Thailand. And to define this system one has to consider and try to analyze the context, and that includes the still continuing abuses, and the past abuses that happened before Thaksin has played any role in Thai politics, and the role of the media then and now. It also very much concerns the democratic development status of Thailand, because this is the larger context under which these abuses are able to happen in the first place.

I do not justify, and i do not condemn. I try to understand why things are happening first. And given some very obvious fallacies you have made along the course of this thread, i do think you have not really understood the socio-political background, in order to correctly assess what happened five years ago (and what happened 30 years ago, and what happens now). So far you are only interested in blaming Thaksin, because you are simply not aware of many factors that have let to the drug war and the killings. I can read out of your posts that you assess the situation based according to western, developed democracy parameters, but ignore Thai specifics.

My only desire is to have an intelligent, informative, and educated discussion. And not another accumulation of rants, again. That bores me to death.

It's unfortunate that in trying to show that Thaksin was not the head of the snake or the head snake (thankfully, not a snakehead as well), you come across as wanting to exonerate him from his share of responsibility, as Prime Minister of the time who ordered the War on Drugs and gave the clear green light to the Interior Ministry and cops use any means possible to rid Thailand of drugs. You seem to want to pass the buck to others, thereby lowering Thaksin's role in the EJK of some 2,700 + human beings.

However, as you are so keen on the socio-political and historical context which allowed Thaksin to order and execute (appropriate word) the War on Drugs, then I idly wonder, had Field Marshall Sarit been held responsible for his earlier popular War on Drugs which also allowed govt forces to murder people willy-nilly (perhaps the model for Thaksin's version?), tried, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment or shot by firing squad (as was the mode in those days), whether Thaksin would have been so keen to order another round of drug bloodletting in 2003?

It seems to me, whichever way you want to cut it, not blaming and then trying Thaksin first and foremost for this crime against humanity, is to allow history to repeat itself again in the future, perhaps when Chalerm (or some other despot-in-waiting) gets his chance at PMship. This is irrespective of context, no matter how clever one thinks one is at "understanding" Byzantine or Macchiavellian politics.

[rixalex]

Rixylix

How would you feel if your son became democratically elected landsllde leader of a banana republic. who single handedly cleaned up the drug dealing scum, only to be ousted by money-grubbing relics who want the Golden Triangle revenue to continue to flow (into their pockets), and then he spent the rest of his days being harangued on the internet by English teachers in-between lessons. A come down worthy of Ozymandius......

Funny guy.

Forget the day job, there's a career in stand-up.

[wackysleet]

Curtailment of civil liberties and freedom of the press (2500 uninvestigated killings last year during HIS drug war; firing employees of ITV and sacking of Post editor). He has completely blurred the line with conflicts of interest (loans to Burma to buy his satellite). He has repeatedly lowered the opinion of Thailand in the eyes of the world (bird flu lies and decrying human rights reports critical of his policies). His cronyism is unmatched. His plethora of lame "hub" ideas has made Thailand the laughing stock of Asia. Ludicrous Elite Card schemes, uneven "social order" campaigns and infantile Culture Ministry initiatives, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

It's amazing that anyone living in Thailand today is unaware of his many, many changes or if they are aware fails to see how detrimental they have become. Come out of your tower once in awhile and try to walk at street level sometime. I'm sorry if you think these are, as you say, "silly reasons" for being against Thaksin, but they are not "silly" to the people of Thailand.

I am not for or against Thaksin but to say, and I quote," but they are not silly to the people of Thailand" appears that you have overlooked the thousands that still support Thaksin.

[allcladrad]

Again some wish to forgive or over look crimes by passing blame to others, an argument when reason, facts and logic are not at hand.. The drug war was and is all on the shoulders of Dr T. To state otherwise is to ignore the facts. Dr T was the most powerful man in Thailand at the time, no one would dare challenge him, no one. Check your history,

Unlawful killing and the gleeful admission of the act can't be justified by anyone or any ones actions, at least if not found guilty in a court of law, and those deaths were not through judicial process.

Yes there were worse and yes there will be more who will be worse, but Dr T was the one responsible for thousands of needless deaths. There is no way to walk away for that fact.

[rixalex]

And as i said, i neither justify nor condemn - it is not my position to do so.

Not your position to condemn innocent people being shot dead without trial? If you are a member of the human race, it is your position - it's everyone's position.

[justanothercybertosser]

It's unfortunate that in trying to show that Thaksin was not the head of the snake or the head snake (thankfully, not a snakehead as well), you come across as wanting to exonerate him from his share of responsibility, as Prime Minister of the time who ordered the War on Drugs and gave the clear green light to the Interior Ministry and cops use any means possible to rid Thailand of drugs. You seem to want to pass the buck to others, thereby lowering Thaksin's role in the EJK of some 2,700 + human beings.

However, as you are so keen on the socio-political and historical context which allowed Thaksin to order and execute (appropriate word) the War on Drugs, then I idly wonder, had Field Marshall Sarit been held responsible for his earlier popular War on Drugs which also allowed govt forces to murder people willy-nilly (perhaps the model for Thaksin's version?), tried, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment or shot by firing squad (as was the mode in those days), whether Thaksin would have been so keen to order another round of drug bloodletting in 2003?

It seems to me, whichever way you want to cut it, not blaming and then trying Thaksin first and foremost for this crime against humanity, is to allow history to repeat itself again in the future, perhaps when Chalerm (or some other despot-in-waiting) gets his chance at PMship. This is irrespective of context, no matter how clever one thinks one is at "understanding" Byzantine or Macchiavellian politics.

What a selective view on history...

At least you acknowledge the role of precedents in the case of the drug war. But selectively chosing the assorted human rights violations without fully analyzing them in context of the at the time valid bureaucratic polity is intellectually not very honest.

We had after Thaksin a prime minister that has a proven history of human rights violations, and who also has announced a drug war. Why, do you think, nothing happened when Samak Sundaravej wanted to do his war against drugs? According to your theory, as holder of PM'ship he should have been able to kill lots of dealers. But he couldn't. He could not even get the army to follow his orders during the brief state of emergency he declared on Sept 2, 2008.

Is it maybe that Thaksin has been given a green light by sectors of society that can chose to follow, or not to follow orders of the PM? And if that is so, was Thaksin really the most powerful man in Thailand, as you imply here?

Your logic stinks, i am sorry to say, and the debate rapidly moves now into the territory of intellectual dishonesty and sophism.

[justanothercybertosser]

And as i said, i neither justify nor condemn - it is not my position to do so.

Not your position to condemn innocent people being shot dead without trial? If you are a member of the human race, it is your position - it's everyone's position.

Sorry, but i am not interested in moralizing.

I leave that business to NGO's collecting donations during Christmas time.

[justanothercybertosser]

I guess any one can ignore facts.

I remember very well. But if i were you, i would delete this post ASAP, because we are not allowed to state what you stated here on this forum.

Edited May 30, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[rixalex]

It's unfortunate that in trying to show that Thaksin was not the head of the snake or the head snake (thankfully, not a snakehead as well), you come across as wanting to exonerate him from his share of responsibility, as Prime Minister of the time who ordered the War on Drugs and gave the clear green light to the Interior Ministry and cops use any means possible to rid Thailand of drugs. You seem to want to pass the buck to others, thereby lowering Thaksin's role in the EJK of some 2,700 + human beings.

Funny that isn't it. And yet anything positive that happened under Thaksin's administration was all his own work.

[justanothercybertosser]

It's unfortunate that in trying to show that Thaksin was not the head of the snake or the head snake (thankfully, not a snakehead as well), you come across as wanting to exonerate him from his share of responsibility, as Prime Minister of the time who ordered the War on Drugs and gave the clear green light to the Interior Ministry and cops use any means possible to rid Thailand of drugs. You seem to want to pass the buck to others, thereby lowering Thaksin's role in the EJK of some 2,700 + human beings.

Funny that isn't it. And yet anything positive that happened under Thaksin's administration was all his own work.

Actually, no. It was mostly the work of people that saw TRT as a vehicle to try to implement some of their ideas. And Thaksin needed them because the base of his political power was the popular vote, and not military support as with this government now.

I am not so stupid and would believe that Thaksin was an altruistic man on a messianic mission.

[rixalex]

Sorry, but i am not interested in moralizing.

You don't need to be interested in moralizing to have morals.

[allcladrad]

Many think he is a clever puck, but I bet if truth were known, most of his accomplishments, good and bad, were accidents. looking back on them it is clear they were never fully thought out.

[justanothercybertosser]

Sorry, but i am not interested in moralizing.

You don't need to be interested in moralizing to have morals.

"Having morals" does not replace the need for knowledge.

Edited May 30, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[allcladrad]

Knowledge is worthless if you ignore it or fear it.