Those Responsible For Bloodshed Must Now Answer For It

[webfact]

Those responsible for bloodshed must now answer for it

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

Published on September 15, 2009

Police have completely misinterpreted the indictments by the National Anti-Corruption Commission related to last year's October 7 crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters.

Indictments against former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, former deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, national police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan and former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lt General Suchart Muenkaew may have political and social ramifications - none of which will impact on the police service.

The lead suspects in the case are Somchai and Chavalit. The two have been charged with malfeasance [wrongdoing under the colour of authority]. Patcharawat and Suchart are accomplices for carrying out the instruction on botched crowd dispersal.

A number of police officers have raised hue and cry as if the indictments were designed to tarnish their professional integrity. They have failed unfortunately to notice that the case will be tried in the Supreme Court's special tribunal with purview over charges involving political office holders.

If the case is about wrongful police procedures or criminal misconduct, then it should go through the normal judicial proceedings via the Criminal Court.

Because of the noisy reactions, the real significance of the case has gone virtually unnoticed.

It is the first time in modern Thai history where demands have been made for accountability for the cause of bloodshed.

Past anti-riot operations- including the incidents on October 14, 1973, October 6, 1979 and May 1992- brought about many painful memories but were allowed to fade away without accountability.

Somchai and Chavalit are the first Thai leaders targeted for prosecution as a lesson on the tragic consequences of their decisions.

Though circumstances differ markedly, a close analogy for trying Somchai and Chavalit is the 1996 conviction of two South Korean presidents Choon Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, related to the Kwangju massacre in 1980.

The NACC has built up the case on one key issue - the failure of government and police leaders to intervene after the botched firing of tear gas had become lethal, allowing casualties to soar.

The gist of the NACC report is about the indifference to casualties inflicted. In the early morning of the tragic day, dozens of deaths and injuries were reported after anti-riot force fired tear gas canisters to open up the blockade at Parliament.

None of the government and police leaders showed any sensitivity to the blood spilled. Tear gas was supposed to be the non-lethal equipment for crowd control. Instead of trying to check the anomaly, policemen were condoned to keep on firing the gas. The casualties toll grew progressively in the afternoon.

The NACC did not fault the anti-riot procedures,nor the motive to crush protesters, nor the protests leading to the crowd's dispersal.

Its report has brought up two core issues - accountability for the bloodshed and desensitivity to halting the casualties when possible.

The indictment against Somchai clearly spells out his strict instruction for police to ensure access to Parliament and his negligence to intervene after the botched operation became apparent.

Chavalit's charge for malfeasance is based on the fact he encouraged police to use "every means" to disperse the protesters. Even though he resigned to assume responsibility, the NACC ruled his resignation was merely designed to elude legal proceedings.

Chavalit had closely monitored the crowd dispersal via two police aides, but he too failed to step in after deaths started to pile up, the NACC said in its report.

Patcharawat and Suchart have been indicted as enforcers of the botched operation. Since the two are in the police service, they will have to face mandatory disciplinary proceedings on top of the upcoming trial.

By his failure to halt the firing of tear gas, Patcharawat has been charged with dereliction of duty. The NACC contends he has compromised his job by trying to please his political overseers instead of saving people's lives.

Suchart is indicted in his capacity as chief enforcer of the anti-riot operation. He too has been accused of putting political expediency ahead of his police professionalism.

-- The Nation 2009/09/15

[animatic]

Regardless of PAD's culpability, this is not about PAD's surrounding Parliament.

Nor is it about the rest of the police force, inspite of their instinctive

circle the wagons of their honor and shoot indieans.

But about the leadership of the country THAT DAY.

What cause ithe deaths and dismemberments,

and why they did nothing to stop obvious carnage in the streets.

And a very big point made...:

this IS the first time any legal responsibility of it's leaders

for deaths during government actions has been demanded in Thailand.

About bleedin' time too.

[givenall]

Regardless of PAD's culpability, this is not about PAD's surrounding Parliament.

Nor is it about the rest of the police force, inspite of their instinctive

circle the wagons of their honor and shoot indieans.

But about the leadership of the country THAT DAY.

What cause ithe deaths and dismemberments,

and why they did nothing to stop obvious carnage in the streets.

And a very big point made...:

this IS the first time any legal responsibility of it's leaders

for deaths during government actions has been demanded in Thailand.

About bleedin' time too.

OR is this another witch hunt

[webfact]

I ain't see no witch hunt.

Unanswered questions must be answered!

The Thai people (not only them...) have a right to know the answers.

[Bagwan]

Those responsible for bloodshed must now answer for it

A number of police officers have raised hue and cry as if the indictments were designed to tarnish their professional integrity.

1. This is Thailand. Nobody is responsible for anything.

2. Police and professional integrity appearing in the same sentence. Whatever next?

[Chunkton]

Regardless of PAD's culpability, this is not about PAD's surrounding Parliament.

Nor is it about the rest of the police force, inspite of their instinctive

circle the wagons of their honor and shoot indieans.

But about the leadership of the country THAT DAY.

What cause ithe deaths and dismemberments,

and why they did nothing to stop obvious carnage in the streets.

And a very big point made...:

this IS the first time any legal responsibility of it's leaders

for deaths during government actions has been demanded in Thailand.

About bleedin' time too.

Regardless, that was the actual legal government. When they did nothing they were criticized, when they acted they are criticized. Can't see any reason to get excited about the mob that ousted them through questionable means demanding justice, it is an overt political ploy. In reality they personally couldn't care less.

Just shows though that partisan political views will cop any stupidity as long as it fits in their insular little view of the world. This whole thing is completely absurd.

[animatic]

Regardless of PAD's culpability, this is not about PAD's surrounding Parliament.

Nor is it about the rest of the police force, inspite of their instinctive

circle the wagons of their honor and shoot indieans.

But about the leadership of the country THAT DAY.

What cause ithe deaths and dismemberments,

and why they did nothing to stop obvious carnage in the streets.

And a very big point made...:

this IS the first time any legal responsibility of it's leaders

for deaths during government actions has been demanded in Thailand.

About bleedin' time too.

Regardless, that was the actual legal government. When they did nothing they were criticized, when they acted they are criticized. Can't see any reason to get excited about the mob that ousted them through questionable means demanding justice, it is an overt political ploy. In reality they personally couldn't care less.

Just shows though that partisan political views will cop any stupidity as long as it fits in their insular little view of the world. This whole thing is completely absurd.

Chunksie your bias is apparent and loud as anyone's here. No point made.

And PPP was not removed by PAD's mob, but by their own cheating in the previous election.

The courts removed them, and maybe a few days earlier,

to prevent HRM some pain on his birthday, or maybe not.

If your insular view of the world is that :

Legally elected to government means carte blanche to harm whomever you wish,

in any way you choose, then that is a pretty harsh indictment of your own philosophy.

Well tell that to the Ex Pres of Taiwan how just got 30 years for graft.. 20 for his wife too.

Oh but it's Asia you know, they all do it, so it's excused...

Plus he was LEGALLY ELECTED.. all is forgiven! righty O.

Or is it you just can't stand to see me make a valid point... LOL.

Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.

Your last moral sign post has faded into the vanishing point.

But you have saddled yourself with this baggage. Chockdee mate.

Edited September 15, 2009 by animatic