Thai 'Red Shirts' Rule Out Talks Despite Looming Crackdown

[OM3N]

I wish somebody had an answer. Not looking good.

[animatic]

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)

of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the princ

iples proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations,

recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family

is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

the ideal of free human beings enjoying

civil and political freedom and freedom from fear

and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby

everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to

promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs,

is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

--------------------------------------------------

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)

of 16 December 1966 entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27

Agree upon the following articles:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

I don't think it says you can kidnap the head of a satellite uplink, or capture an army train,

or take over the central square for a full month and stick bamboo spears in soldiers necks,

accost women on public trains to search their purses, run tolls on sidewalk passage near your rallies.

Civil disobedience

Refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.

It is used especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing government concessions and has

been a major tactic of nationalist movements in Africa and India, of the U.S. civil rights movement,

and of labour and antiwar movements in many countries.

Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole.

The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, sees himself as obligated by a higher,

extralegal principle to break some specific law.

By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke

the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change.

The philosophical roots of civil disobedience lie deep in Western thought. Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke,

among others, appealed to systems of natural law that take precedence over the laws created by communities

or states (positive law).

More modern advocates and practitioners of civil disobedience include Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

It does NOT say break laws until you get your way...

Edited April 21, 2010 by animatic

[Skywalker69]

Someone was wrong:-

BangkokDan: Reuters reports red shirts open to talks to avoid crackdown

edit: maybe they got a call during the day and got their minds changed for them.

Jatuporn Prompan, a core leader of the red-shirted campaigners who are pushing for fresh elections, said talks were "out of the question" after street clashes in Bangkok earlier this month that left 25 people dead.

"It's impossible to hold negotiations between killers and those who have been killed," he said.

Maybe if they had held negotiations earlier, no one would have been killed.

"Anyone with common sense can see that we cannot fight against assault rifles like M16s armed only with sharpened bamboo," he said. "We are not terrorists but have come here empty-handed to call for democracy."

"empty-handed" with sharpened bamboo?

And based on the 10 April riots, they won't be empty handed.

During today jatuporn has said:

- We have no weapons, then

- We only have sharpened banboo sticks.

Always the liar. Anybody think this guy should be in power? Hope not!

Wonder were the 6000 guns stolen from the military is?

[gigiman]

Someone was wrong:-

BangkokDan: Reuters reports red shirts open to talks to avoid crackdown

edit: maybe they got a call during the day and got their minds changed for them.

Jatuporn Prompan, a core leader of the red-shirted campaigners who are pushing for fresh elections, said talks were "out of the question" after street clashes in Bangkok earlier this month that left 25 people dead.

"It's impossible to hold negotiations between killers and those who have been killed," he said.

Maybe if they had held negotiations earlier, no one would have been killed.

"Anyone with common sense can see that we cannot fight against assault rifles like M16s armed only with sharpened bamboo," he said. "We are not terrorists but have come here empty-handed to call for democracy."

"empty-handed" with sharpened bamboo?

And based on the 10 April riots, they won't be empty handed.

During today jatuporn has said:

- We have no weapons, then

- We only have sharpened banboo sticks.

Always the liar. Anybody think this guy should be in power? Hope not

So i guess you prefer a man in power who closes all internet , tv and radio content of the opposition,, sends the army against civilian protesters with tanks, armored personel carriers, anti-aircraft weapons , and real bullets . In addition labeling them as terrorists ( what a joke )

If that is not fascist strong arm tactics of a dictator ,,, I don't know what is ,,. your reasoning is useless.

[elcent]

I wish somebody had an answer. Not looking good.

it's a foreplay before the real ugly actions set in and reaching a climax of hundreds of dead bodies left. This will be stretching out for about three weeks and before any real crowd control measures will take place.

Although, the fightings need to be verified first.

[Skywalker69]

Yep, you now know why the Reds erected all the bamboo barricades.

To keep the violent PAD/Yellow/Multicolors out.

The PAD want to invoke violence, they will try tonight it seems.

Hope the barricades hold or many will be killed due to PAD starting violence against Reds.

If the PAD went to Khon Kaen and starting sleeping and pissing in the streets I'm sure it would take less than a month for an angry mob to form and kick them out. Reds have been begging for violence and they'll keep being A-holes till they get it.

Hahahahaha, good one

[traderjm]

So i guess you prefer a man in power who closes all internet , tv and radio content of the opposition,, sends the army against civilian protesters with tanks, armored personel carriers, anti-aircraft weapons , and real bullets . In addition labeling them as terrorists ( what a joke )

If that is not fascist strong arm tactics of a dictator ,,, I don't know what is ,,. your reasoning is useless.

Hmmmm if the alternative is Thaksin back in power than yes... I prefer what we have now.

[Redsunset]

Police doing absolutely NOTHING... standing around in front of Dusit Thani Hotel.... then walking across the street like taking a stroll with their dogs... doing NOTHING to stop people from fighting... maybe they need the red shirts or multi coloreds to give them a BRIBE before they can do any REAL WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!1

DISGRACEFUL....

[hammered]

I wish somebody had an answer. Not looking good.

It may just be that all sides prefer a fight now. There really seems no other conclusion and any attempt at finding middle ground is snubbed

[Redsunset]

What I have learned from the street fighting between the multicolored shirts and the red shirts, tonight, Wednesday night....

1. Police are still incompetent

2. Slingshots, while not as effective as an M-16 can still hurt

3. Thai news reporters still look as young as my 13 year old daughter

4. Thais are shy quiet but just as violent as any other race on this planet

5. Police are still incompetent [oh did I say that already?!]

6. The Dusit Hotel is going to be a pig styx for the next month or so

7. Wearing a helmet fighting is more important than wearing one on a motorcycle

8. Heineken bottles are easy to grip and throw

[animatic]

Since negotiations are not in the cards what is justifiable mechanisms to punish those refusing

toadhere to commonly held modes of law.

And at what point does CLAIMING civil disobedience veer off into serial lawbreaking

as a modus and method to CREATE CONTROL over the law making,

rather than simply set a 'moral high ground' as a symbolic point to rally change?

4.2 Punishing Civil Disobedience

Deterrence systems of punishment recommend a simple approach to civil disobedience.

Since the purpose and justification of punishment is to deter people from breaching the law,

a deterrence system would impose on civil disobedients whatever punishment was necessary

and sufficient to achieve that end. Whether that punishment would be less or more severe than,

or equal to, that imposed on ordinary offenders depends on empirical considerations.

Sometimes greater punishment than that required for ordinary offenders would be in order

since disobedients who are serious in their moral conviction may not be deterred by standard punishments.

Other times, however, less punishment than that for ordinary offenders would be in order since disobedients

usually are not ‘hardened’ criminals and thus may need less severe treatment to deter them from offending.

In contrast to deterrence systems, monistic desert systems and communicative systems of punishment

would only punish civil disobedients if, and to the extent that, they deserve to be punished.

A pluralistic communicative system, which gives weight to considerations of mercy as well as retribution

or desert, would only punish to the extent that the punishment was justified (not to the extent that it was deserved)

since mercy toward the offender might recommend punishing her less than she deserves according to justice.

The pluralistic approach raises the question whether being motivated by civil disobedience might give

the law a reason to show mercy towards an offender. One might argue that a disobedient's conviction

and commitments, which make it very difficult for her both to adhere to norms that violate those commitments

and to desist from using effective means of protest, are facts about her circumstances that give the law

reason to show mercy toward her. This would lessen the severity of any justified response from the law.

For desert and communicative theories concerned solely with justice-based desert, the key question is

whether disobedients deserve censure, and if so, how much? There are at least three possible replies.

One is that disobedients deserve the same punishment as the ordinary offenders who breach the same laws.

There are several reasons to take this view. First, as Greenawalt puts it, the demands of proportionality

would seem to recommend a uniform application of legal prohibitions.

Since trespass is prohibited, persons who breach trespass laws in protest of either those laws or other laws

are equally liable to persons who breach trespass laws for private purposes. Second, also from Greenawalt

comes the suggestion that any principle that officials may excuse justified illegal acts will result in some

failures to punish unjustified acts, for which the purposes of punishment would be more fully served.

Even when officials make correct judgments about which acts to excuse, citizens may draw mistaken inferences,

and restraints of deterrence and norm acceptance may be weakened for unjustified acts that resemble justified ones

(Greenawalt, 1987, 273). Therefore all such violations, justified and unjustified, should be treated the same.

But much of this turns on the assumption that civilly disobedient breaches of law are in fact comparable to

ordinary offences and deserve a comparable response from the law.

The discussion of the key features of civil disobedience showed that it differs greatly from ordinary offences

both in motivation and in mode of action, let alone moral justification.

This would suggest that civil disobedience should be regarded in the eyes of the law as a different kind of disobedience

from common crimes. This leaves two options: civil disobedience deserves greater censure or it deserves

less censure than ordinary crimes do.

There are reasons to believe that civil disobedients should be dealt with more severely than ordinary offenders are.

First, there is the fact that disobedients seem to have put themselves above the law in preferring their own moral judgment about a certain issue to that of the democratic decision-making process and the rule of law.

(Although some judges have endorsed this caricature, it is worth noting that it clashes with how both dissenters and many theorists characterise their activities (Cf. Rawls, 1971; Greenawalt, 1987; Markovits, 2006).)

Second, the communicative aspect of civil disobedience could be said to aggravate such offences since it

usually is attended by much greater publicity than most covert violations are.

This forces legal authorities to concern themselves with the possibility

that law-abiding citizens will feel distressed, insecure and perhaps imposed upon

if no action is taken.

So, notes Greenawalt, while authorities may quietly let minor breaches pass,

failure to respond to violations performed, in some respect, in the presence of authority,

may undercut claims that the rules and the persons who administered them deserve respect

(Greenawalt, 1987, 351-2).

Third, any use of violence would seem to aggravate civil disobedience particularly when it

increases the harm of the offence or when it directly incites further and unjustified instances of violence.

And although violence may eloquently communicate a dissenter's seriousness and frustration,

it changes the nature of the dialogue. It pushes authorities to respond in ways consonant with their stance on violence

– responses which may be harsher than those they would otherwise wish to make toward acts of civil disobedience that defend values they can appreciate.

The final possible view is that civil disobedients should be dealt with more leniently than ordinary offenders are,

at least when their disobedience is morally justified. These offenders are conscientiously motivated and often their protests

serve the interests of society by forcing a desirable re-examination of moral boundaries.

That said,

moral justifications do not usually translate into legal justifications and disobedients

have been notoriously unsuccessful at advancing a defence of necessity

(a defence that their action was legally justified being the lesser of two evils).

Whether the law should be more accommodating of their conscientious motivation

and efforts to engage in moral dialogue with government and society is a topic for further debate.

5. Conclusion

Some theorists maintain that civil disobedience is an outdated, over-analysed notion

that little reflects current forms of political activism, which tend toward more extreme modes of engagement.

Herbert Storing has suggested that

‘The most striking characteristic of civil disobedience is its irrelevance to the problems of today.’ (Storing, 1991, 85)

He said, shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, that the fashion of civil disobedience is as likely to die out

as it was to burst forth under the words of King. There is of course much evidence to show that Storing was mistaken in his predictions for the popularity of civil disobedience as a mode of dissent.

Certainly though there have been shifts in the paradigm forms of civil disobedience in recent years;

yet these shifts have occurred largely within the framework of conscientious communication discussed at the outset.

The historical paradigms of Gandhi, King, the suffragettes, and Mandela are representative of that kind of civil disobedience

which aims to guarantee legal protection for the basic rights of a specific constituency.

Such disobedience contrasts with much contemporary civil disobedience,

which focuses not on individuals' basic rights, but on broader issues

or special interests such as the environment, animal rights, nuclear disarmament, globalisation, foreign policy, and so on.

Civil disobedience taken in support of concerns such as the environment or animal rights may be seen in part

as a response to some breakdown in the mechanisms for citizen engagement in the decision-making process.

This breakdown might be termed a democratic deficit (Markovits, 2005).

Such deficits in that dialogue may be an inevitable part of real democracies,

and disobedience undertaken to correct those deficits may be said to reflect,

to varying degrees, dissenters' sensitivity to democratic ideals.

Civil disobedience remains today very much a vibrant part of liberal democracies

and there are significant issues concerning civil disobedience for philosophers to address,

particularly in how this practice may be distinguished from more radical forms of protest

and how this practice should be treated by the law.

Attribution: plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/#PunCivDis

[Redsunset]

Who wrote this long, boring, academic post on civil disobedience.... moderator can you please delete this non-value-added arrogant, boring post and put it in the archives?

[dobadoy]

Who wrote this long, boring, academic post on civil disobedience.... moderator can you please delete this non-value-added arrogant, boring post and put it in the archives?

It's too long and boring for me to read, but if you don't like it, why flame it? Some people might find it interesting, and if not, what harm is it to you? Don't like people's right to free expression? How 'red' is that... ;-)

Edited April 21, 2010 by dobadoy

[Redsunset]

Who wrote this long, boring, academic post on civil disobedience.... moderator can you please delete this non-value-added arrogant, boring post and put it in the archives?

It's too long and boring for me to read, but if you don't like it, why flame it? Some people might find it interesting, and if not, what harm is it to you? Don't like people's right to free expression? How 'red' is that... ;-)

Hahaha! Touche!

[animatic]

Yes, why dare actually consider the REAL questions of the day,

when sound bites will be much more colorful and easier to blast out.

Well sorry,

I hope I didn't make anyone actually THINK against their will.

Edited April 21, 2010 by animatic

[elcent]

-- The Nation

At 11:30 pm Wednesday, about 100 residents of Silom, Klong Toey and Thanon Tok areas threw things at red-shirt protesters.

About 100 people from the three neighbourhoods gathered on the Silom Road near the Dusit Thani Hotel and exchanged abusive words with the red-shirt protesters at 11pm.

About half an hour later, they threw beer bottles, glasses and other things at the red-shirt protesters as well as firing slingshots at them.

The Bangkok residents tried to break through the line of police to clash with the red-shirt protesters who surged towards the Silom people as well.

The red-shirt people then threw two Molotov cocktails at Silomp people, prompting them to retreat.

About 30 policemen tried to eparate the two sides but the two sides kept on firing slingshots at each other, prompting police themseles to retreat to be stationed in the compound of the hotel.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Redsunset]

Yes, why dare actually consider the REAL questions of then day,

when sound bites will be much more colorful and easier to blast out.

Well sorry,

I hope I didn't make anyone actually THINK against their will.

Your original post on civil disobedience is way too long, plagerized, has no context, too much jargon and appeals only to those who have nothing to do in their lives but surf the net to kill time. Can't you summarize someone else's thoughts in a concise way that fits the format of this blog? Did you ever think about your audience?

Perhaps a more appropriate post would be a quote from Henry David Thoreau - the expert on civil disobedience!

Edited April 21, 2010 by Redsunset

[animatic]

-- The Nation

At 11:30 pm Wednesday, about 100 residents of Silom, Klong Toey and Thanon Tok areas threw things at red-shirt protesters.

About 100 people from the three neighbourhoods gathered on the Silom Road near the Dusit Thani Hotel and exchanged abusive words with the red-shirt protesters at 11pm.

About half an hour later, they threw beer bottles, glasses and other things at the red-shirt protesters as well as firing slingshots at them.

The Bangkok residents tried to break through the line of police to clash with the red-shirt protesters who surged towards the Silom people as well.

The red-shirt people then threw two Molotov cocktails at Silomp people, prompting them to retreat.

About 30 policemen tried to eparate the two sides but the two sides kept on firing slingshots at each other, prompting police themseles to retreat to be stationed in the compound of the hotel.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Seems the Reds have singularly pissed off the neighbors a 2nd year running.

[Redsunset]

-- The Nation

At 11:30 pm Wednesday, about 100 residents of Silom, Klong Toey and Thanon Tok areas threw things at red-shirt protesters.

About 100 people from the three neighbourhoods gathered on the Silom Road near the Dusit Thani Hotel and exchanged abusive words with the red-shirt protesters at 11pm.

About half an hour later, they threw beer bottles, glasses and other things at the red-shirt protesters as well as firing slingshots at them.

The Bangkok residents tried to break through the line of police to clash with the red-shirt protesters who surged towards the Silom people as well.

The red-shirt people then threw two Molotov cocktails at Silomp people, prompting them to retreat.

About 30 policemen tried to eparate the two sides but the two sides kept on firing slingshots at each other, prompting police themseles to retreat to be stationed in the compound of the hotel.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Seems the Reds have singularly pissed off the neighbors a 2nd year running.

.... like dogs barking at night... I wanna throw a shoe at them to shut up so that us good folks can get some shut eye!

[animatic]

Thoreau is one voice.

The attribution got cut by accident.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-di...ence/#PunCivDis

Some may choose to think further on this if you don't,

go to the window and scream at the noisy neighbors.

Short is not always well thought out.

We face a rather unsimplistic problem in Bangkok,

platitudes, nostrums and pablum will not get through this sufficiently.

[elcent]

tulsathit: RT @ananlada: @pawoot soliders (or soldiers lookalikes?) on motorcycles on Rajvithi Rd http://tweetphoto.com/19333275

Thu Apr 22 2010 00:39:16 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

seems like fake soldiers to me. I have seen reds delivering uniforms on Songkran day.

Army vehicles are marked with black licence plates.

Edited April 21, 2010 by elcent

[elcent]

these uniforms are identical with those I've seen on a back of a red shirt's bike on sonkran day.

[jayjay0]

Why did'nt the army and police force crackdown on the yellow protestors when they took over government house and the two Bangkok airports. If they had have done the present situation with the Red Shirts might not have happened.

So what?

Unless you're saying because they didn't crack down on the lunatic yellows they shouldn't crack down on the lunatic reds?

Is that what you're saying?

That's what he saying. Whinge, whinge, whinge, like a broken record. Never mind the yellow past - the present problem is red and it needs sweeping away.

Yes that is what he is saying. What kind of a government allows the yellows to do what ever they want with no recriminations and turn around and deny the same rights to others. It dosen't look like Thailand can win we will wind up with the same bunch of crooks in office and a lot of people dead to keep them there.

[SpoliaOpima]

There will be casualties but they will specific targets and shot from a long distance.

Very well could be the military command and control again.

Not it they get Seh Daeng and his black guard first.

[SpoliaOpima]

Who wrote this long, boring, academic post on civil disobedience.... moderator can you please delete this non-value-added arrogant, boring post and put it in the archives?

Yeah don't confuse us with the facts about true civil disobedience.

[elcent]

veen_NT: RT @jin_nation: (translating) Two injured persons are tourists who got hit by stray sling shot. via NNA news

Thu Apr 22 2010 01:23:46 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

[cheguevara]

veen_NT: RT @jin_nation: (translating) Two injured persons are tourists who got hit by stray sling shot. via NNA news

Thu Apr 22 2010 01:23:46 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

According to The Nation article, the pink shirts were the ones using slingshots. Great way to go pinkies, demonstrate for peace and injuring tourists.

[traderjm]

veen_NT: RT @jin_nation: (translating) Two injured persons are tourists who got hit by stray sling shot. via NNA news

Thu Apr 22 2010 01:23:46 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

According to The Nation article, the pink shirts were the ones using slingshots. Great way to go pinkies, demonstrate for peace and injuring tourists.

According to the same article the REDS were throwing Molotov cocktails soooo ummmm that's better in your world?

[cheguevara]

veen_NT: RT @jin_nation: (translating) Two injured persons are tourists who got hit by stray sling shot. via NNA news

Thu Apr 22 2010 01:23:46 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

According to The Nation article, the pink shirts were the ones using slingshots. Great way to go pinkies, demonstrate for peace and injuring tourists.

According to the same article the REDS were throwing Molotov cocktails soooo ummmm that's better in your world?

After the pinks were using slingshots. Do you suggest they let themselves be killed by the slingshots? Slingshots do happen to be deadly weapons.

[mommysboy]

veen_NT: RT @jin_nation: (translating) Two injured persons are tourists who got hit by stray sling shot. via NNA news

Thu Apr 22 2010 01:23:46 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time)

According to The Nation article, the pink shirts were the ones using slingshots. Great way to go pinkies, demonstrate for peace and injuring tourists.

According to the same article the REDS were throwing Molotov cocktails soooo ummmm that's better in your world?

Heck this guy is seriously colour blind?

The point is the tourists were alledgedly injured by so called peace protesters, that's the point. What part of that irony don't you understand?