Do You Support The Governments Use Of The Internal Security Act

[rixalex]

  Ulysses G. said:

No, the government should not use such strong force against the reds when the yellows were treated with kid gloves.

So what you're saying is that the current government should repeat the same mistakes as the previous government.

[caf]

  Ulysses G. said:

  caf said:

  Ulysses G. said:

  rixalex said:

As you refuse to respond to my repeated questions on the matter, you leave me no choice but to assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is simply something you have no belief in.

I believe in the concept under perfect circumstances, but I do not cry when a known terrorist is taken out by a drone without a trial by law or a child molester is stabbed in prison. Heroin and speed dealers who sell to children deserve to die for their crimes.

The world is not all black and white.

You have a problem with having a fair justice system administered by judges with the right of a defence and appeal. But would want to see what? A system where nominated people could make judgments outside the court system.

I have no problem at all with a "fair justice system", but do you think that it exists in this part of the world?

If major criminals can simply buy their way out of being convicted - like a major arms dealer is reputed to have recently done - can we blame responsible leaders from also abusing the system in order to remedy poisonous social ills?

That is often how it is done here.

No. I do not think it exists here. But you have not answered the question. If someone accused you as a known "drugs dealer" you woulsd accept their verdict? yes or No

[Ulysses G.]

The moderator has directed us to stay on topic, and I do not want to get suspended, but, of course, I would try to get out of it whether I was innocent or guilty. That is how these things work.

[Bukseeda]

  mca said:

  Bukseeda said:

Just because a majority supports something is irrelevant.

You're not General Sonthi Boonyaratglin by any chance are you?

Not quite. I was against Thaksin, against the coup, and against the internal security act. I'm pro a representative democracy which upholds minority rights etc. i.e. a simplified definition of modern democracy as simply the will of the majority is flawed to the extreme.

I actually abhor what the red-shirts stand for. However, I uphold their right to protest without having to suffer suppression by a draconian law.

[Rtwo]

  Jingthing said:

Love of the Thaksin can make people blind ...

But not as blind as pulling a shirt over your head does apparently. I've never see ceased to be amazed at how so many people apparently end up buying the wrong size and can never get their head beyond the collar. It doesn’t matter which colour they buy them, red or yellow in Thailand, brown in Germany or black in Italy they all seem to end up the same, with a bad case of Myopia. As far as supporting the Governments use of the Security Act is concerned surely it’s quite irrelevant. Whatever anybody says Thailand is NOT a democracy and the government is not listening to the plebs. That right was lost in 2006 when a freely elected democratically elected government was forcibly overthrown. The present government was installed with the assistance of the military and they will do exactly what they want to do until they decide that they can get more by taking up the reigns of democracy once more and not before. Talk as much as you like but you’re blowing in the wind.

[Huey]

I fully support the measures and I hope they are effective. taksin's back wood's thugs already showed the world the murderous violence they are capable of during this past Songkran.

[SpoliaOpima]

I don't think the act goes far enough. The UDD should be banned for their stance on overthrowing the government, for their history of violence in Bangkok and Pattaya and for their support of banned political parties.

[mca]

  Huey said:

I fully support the measures and I hope they are effective. taksin's back wood's thugs already showed the world the murderous violence they are capable of during this past Songkran.

If you want to see effective Thai security measures in place then a trip down memory lane to October 1976 ought to suffice. Trouble is the "murderous violence" and " backwoods thugs" were all part of the measures.

[SpoliaOpima]

Ulysses G. supports the drug war but considers the ISA draconian. The ISA is child's play compared with Thaksin's unceasing efforts to bypass all checks and balances on execcutive power while he was in office.

None of the Thais I know, whether urban or rural, supported the extrajudicial slayings of suspected drug dealers. Of course only the minor suspects got the bullet; the kingpins were spared for obvious reasons, and they have had no trouble finding new couriers and middlemen to take the place of the dead. Some of those killed were found in possession of only two pills. It has been documented that for some, perhaps many, there was no evidence whatsoever. The international community also strongly condemned the extrajudicial killings, as did major NGOs in Thailand.

Drug war aside, Col T issued executive decrees in areas of governance for which the prime minister's office was not responsible, overstepping his juridisdiction on several occasions. Although elected by a party (not by the people, just to remind the Americans how a parliamentary system works) who dominated the coalition, he was, for all intents and purposes, a dictator.

[mca]

  SpoliaOpima said:

None of the Thais I know, whether urban or rural, supported the extrajudicial slayings of suspected drug dealers.

We certainly must move in different urban and rural Thai circles then. I was quite suprised about how blase most of the Thais I came across were about execution without trial.

[Jingthing]

Yes, the time has come to end rule by the mob. Let Abhisit have more time to stabilize the country, then have fairer elections (nothing is perfect) and this time accept the result, whatever it is. However, Thaksin belongs in prison.

[mc2]

  Jingthing said:

Let Abhisit have more time to stabilize the country

what dreamland are you living in ???????????

he cant even stabilize his own party let alone the country

[mca]

  Jingthing said:

. Let Abhisit have more time to stabilize the country,

How much time do you think he'll get? If he so much as sneezes without a hankie they have to issue denials that a coup is imminent.

[Jingthing]

I think it will still be a year until elections. Thaksin needs to neutralized more effectively, completely, and definitively. The people need to get to the point where they realize 100 percent he will never be in power again, nor will he the puppetmaster of anyone in power. They are making progress as with Black Songkran he basicially did it to himself. It is Thaksin who is the major threat to stability in this country, period, end of story.

BTW, do you seriously believe your childish emoticons make your point? Abhisit is doing much better than the reds ever thought he would do, and it embarrasses them to admit it. Each day that Thaksin fails to accomplish his wished for violent revolution is another day where his twisted dream becomes less possible.

[mc2]

  Jingthing said:

BTW, do you seriously believe your childish emoticons make your point?

not trying to make a point with the emoticons, just having a genuine laugh at your nonsense. the bs meter was red lining when i read that other post of yours.

  Jingthing said:

Abhisit is doing much better than the reds ever thought he would do

and he is doing a lot worse than the yellows ever thought he would do

  Jingthing said:

Each day that Thaksin fails to accomplish his wished for violent revolution is another day where his twisted dream becomes less possible.

this last quote pretty much sums up how out of touch you are with reality. this time its not funny.

[Ulysses G.]

  SpoliaOpima said:

Useless Grant supports the drug war but considers the ISA draconian.

Actually, I did not support the War on Drugs, but as long as drug dealers that sell hard drugs were being targeted, I was not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. This ain't the West.

That truth is that the meth problem has gotten considerably better since Thaksin got rid of all the dealers and methedrine is very bad stuff.

The war on drugs attacked heroin and crystal meth dealers. The ISA is being used to take away poor people's right to protest.

[mca]

  Jingthing said:

BTW, do you seriously believe your childish emoticons make your point?

No. It just seemed the appropriate response to your post.

[Jingthing]

  mc2 said:

  Jingthing said:

BTW, do you seriously believe your childish emoticons make your point?

not trying to make a point with the emoticons, just having a genuine laugh at your nonsense. the bs meter was red lining when i read that other post of yours.

  Jingthing said:

Abhisit is doing much better than the reds ever thought he would do

and he is doing a lot worse than the yellows ever thought he would do

  Jingthing said:

Each day that Thaksin fails to accomplish his wished for violent revolution is another day where his twisted dream becomes less possible.

this last quote pretty much sums up how out of touch you are with reality. this time its not funny.

Please expand on the last point. Are you so deluded as to believe the red Thaskin dictator movement is gaining strength? You couldn't even get a rally going last Sunday.

[cmsally]

Implementing the ISA gives the army power and presumably they are paid for making preparations. Presumably every time there is ISA implemented it is money in the coffers; even better if the actual event they cover is called off. "Money for nothing".

Abhisit too busy trying to deal with the side effects of technology and not in a position to keep his eye on them.

Abhisit now responsible for 2 crackdowns in a week, wonder what they have planned for him next.

[rixalex]

  Ulysses G. said:

Actually, I did not support the War on Drugs, but as long as drug dealers that sell hard drugs were being targeted, I was not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

For someone who doesn't support "the war on drugs" you put a lot of effort into supporting it.

Regarding your not losing any sleep on the proviso that drug dealers were the ones being targeted, how could you possibly know whether they were or whether they weren't. There were no trials so noone will ever know. I bet you still sleep like a baby tonight though...

[SpoliaOpima]

  Ulysses G. said:

That truth is that the meth problem has gotten considerably better since Thaksin got rid of all the dealers and methedrine is very bad stuff.

The war on drugs attacked heroin and crystal meth dealers. The ISA is being used to take away poor people's right to protest.

Please cite a reliable source to support the absurd claim that Col Thaksin "got rid of all the dealers." Ya ba appears to be available as abundantly as before, if not more abundantly. Thai friends in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai say it's just as popular and available as ever there. I was approached three times on Suk Soi 3 in Bangkok by dealers offering ice for sale last Saturday night while going to dine at Sherezade.

All the drug war accomplished was driving up the price of ya ba temporarily, thus adding further incentive for the drug kingpins, who remained above the war. Not a single major dealer was either killed or captured. It was just a PR campaign with no net positive effect, and one which left a lot of innocent people deprived of their rights or dead.

The ISA is a similarly draconian measure that presumes the guilt of a lot of people without due process in order to get to the few who are guilty.

[Ulysses G.]

The mods have already warned us.

[hammered]

  Ulysses G. said:

  SpoliaOpima said:

Useless Grant supports the drug war but considers the ISA draconian.

Actually, I did not support the War on Drugs, but as long as drug dealers that sell hard drugs were being targeted, I was not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. This ain't the West.

That truth is that the meth problem has gotten considerably better since Thaksin got rid of all the dealers and methedrine is very bad stuff.

The war on drugs attacked heroin and crystal meth dealers. The ISA is being used to take away poor people's right to protest.

True democracy advocates will unequivocably and without pause condemn the impositon of the ISA against a demonstration and indeed would oppose the ISA itself: true democarcy advocates would have also unequivocably and without pause have condemned the extra-judicial killing of innocents (note that everyone is innocent in a democracy until proven guilty in a court of law), and called for the prosecution of those who prosecuted and ordered the acts right up the chain to the head of government if involved.

Now how many true democracy advocates do we have on TV who will now openly take this position? I assume we dont have only faux democracy advocates who cherry pick which bits to condemn and ignore or excuse away their own side in the vicious power struggle's anti-democracy credentials.

[Ulysses G.]

  hammered said:

... true democarcy advocates would have also unequivocably and without pause have condemned the extra-judicial killing of innocents (note that everyone is innocent in a democracy until proven guilty in a court of law

You seem to have no idea of what a democracy is or even how to spell it. It has nothing at all to do with the American law that you mention.

*the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

*a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

*majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[hammered]

  Ulysses G. said:

  hammered said:

... true democarcy advocates would have also unequivocably and without pause have condemned the extra-judicial killing of innocents (note that everyone is innocent in a democracy until proven guilty in a court of law

You seem to have no idea of what a democracy is or even how to spell it. It has nothing at all to do with the American law that you mention.

*the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

*a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

*majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I am quite amazed that you do not relaise that the concept of formal equality in the eyes of the law and innocence until proven guilty are assumed to be basic tenets of democracy by anyone who would describe themselves as a democracy advocate. Few if any democarcy advocates would argue that democracy is defined as only about how representatives are elected. The term democratic rights comes to mind and that is what would lead democracy advocates to condemn both the issues I mentioned earlier. If just about how peopel were slected we would be defending the stance of Hitler. It wasnt on how he was selected that he fell down but on how he abused certain other democratic rights.

As to my spelling who cares.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The dictionary is right.

[caf]

  hammered said:

  Ulysses G. said:

  hammered said:

... true democarcy advocates would have also unequivocably and without pause have condemned the extra-judicial killing of innocents (note that everyone is innocent in a democracy until proven guilty in a court of law

You seem to have no idea of what a democracy is or even how to spell it. It has nothing at all to do with the American law that you mention.

*the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

*a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

*majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I am quite amazed that you do not relaise that the concept of formal equality in the eyes of the law and innocence until proven guilty are assumed to be basic tenets of democracy by anyone who would describe themselves as a democracy advocate. Few if any democarcy advocates would argue that democracy is defined as only about how representatives are elected. The term democratic rights comes to mind and that is what would lead democracy advocates to condemn both the issues I mentioned earlier. If just about how peopel were slected we would be defending the stance of Hitler. It wasnt on how he was selected that he fell down but on how he abused certain other democratic rights.

As to my spelling who cares.

He can not logically argue the points made against him so he criticises spelling and grammar.

The topic is about supporting the isa or not and one issue revolves around whether actions can be carried out if supported by the law. He made the point that "known" criminals ( according to whom?, not the judges it seems according to him) should be terminated. I have no patience for the "hang um high" brigade who ignore the innocent till proved guilty concept. The isa implimentation may be a good or bad judgment call but it is not against the law. Summary justice is against the law and undemocratic.

I wonder if he spots my spelling mistake.

[Ulysses G.]

Hammered says that "everyone in a democracy is innocent until proven guilty", but that is simply not true. Not all democratic countries include this tenet in their system of law. Some democratic countries operate under Napoleonic Law which does not contain this presumption.

Is that "logical" enough for you?

[Jingthing]

  Ulysses G. said:

Hammered says that "everyone in a democracy is innocent until proven guilty", but that is simply not true. Not all democratic countries include this tenet in their system of law. Some democratic countries operate under Napoleonic Law which does not contain this presumption.

Is that "logical" enough for you?

You are correct. I think this drug war issue is tangential. Yes, the way it was carried out did offend most westerners aware of it, but Thaksin's culpability in it, and make no mistake that he was culpable, was not really a factor in his justifiable downfall. That is politically from the Thai perspective it wasn't seen as that big of a deal ...

BTW, it is interesting that the poll voting has tightened to about 50-50 ...

We know from past polling that Thaivisa members voting are overwhelmingly anti-Thaksin, so to my view this reflects understandable concern that these security measures are overly restrictive. Personally, I don't see that, the reds are still free to have PEACEFUL rallies.

[Ulysses G.]

  Ulysses G. said:

Actually, I did not support the War on Drugs, but as long as drug dealers that sell hard drugs were being targeted, I was not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

  caf said:

He made the point that "known" criminals ( according to whom?, not the judges it seems according to him) should be terminated. I have no patience for the "hang um high" brigade who ignore the innocent till proved guilty concept.

Actually, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not support what Thaksin did in the War on Drugs and have said so numerous times, but felt that it did not negate all of his positive accomplishments either.