DSI Chief: We Will Show The Links To Thaksin

[webfact]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

We will show the links to Thaksin : DSI chief

And the big picture of terrorism

Q : What is the definition of terrorism?

Thai law didn't define any act as terrorism until 2002/2003. It was the Thaksin Shinawatra-led government that entered "terrorism" in the Criminal Code. The definition follows that of the United Nations Charter. Terrorism covers many types of offence, such as stockpiling weapons, building up an armed force, causing fear among the population, inflicting damage on the country's economic sector or threatening the government.

On the bankrolling of [red-shirt] terrorist activities, the DSI along with the police will be responsible for gathering evidence and bringing charges. Public prosecutors will then proceed with the case and it's the duty of defendants to present the defence.

Although it's difficult to pinpoint what money went to food and what to weapon purchases, a chronicle of events should help make things clear. I am going to chronicle what has happened since late last year. Lots of rallies were held back then in big provinces. All such activities were implemented with one thing in mind, terrorism.

Q : On terrorism charges, are there any differences between the red shirts and yellow shirts?

I can't comment on this because I have not handled the cases against the accused yellow shirts. They are not special cases, so I have reason to assume that there must have been some differences between the accused red-shirt terrorists and the accused yellow-shirt terrorists. Had there been no difference, they should have undergone the same process.

Q : What if the yellow-shirt cases are forwarded to the DSI?

I will work on them then.

Q : Why has there been so little progress made on the yellow-shirt cases, when the cases against the red shirts have seemed to progress quickly?

They are handled by two different agencies - the DSI and the police.

Q : Does the blacklist of 83 individuals and companies [whose bank accounts are now frozen] threaten reconciliation efforts, with the red shirts feeling they've been pushed into a corner?

I am in charge of operations. I am not responsible for the overall policy.

Q : What kinds of support qualifies someone as a financier of terrorist activities?

From my perspective, all activities were aimed at the same goal. There were many kinds of activities but all of them were arranged to make terrorist acts possible. We can expect to see defendants fight fiercely against this charge in court. It's the duty of the court then to decide who are terrorism sponsors and who are not.

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

Q : Can those accused of sponsoring terrorism claim in court that they never thought the red-shirt rally would go as far as it did?

The intention is the important point. There are two types of intention, according to criminal law. One covers the ultimate goal and the other covers foreseeable outcomes. For example, if I use a gun to try and stop a bus, my ultimate goal is to stop the bus service. But in terms of the foreseeable outcome, I of course must know from the very beginning that people will get hurt. That's why I am bound to face a charge of premeditated murder.

A defendant may say he has donated money without knowing that things would spiral out of control. But the court has the right to say that he must have foreseen what the donation would lead to.

Q : Do you mean that Shinawatra family members will face terrorism charges if there is evidence to substantiate claims they bankrolled the red-shirt rally?

It's a possible scenario. With close links to Thaksin, some donors must have known what their activities would finally bring. By the way, small donors will be treated differently. If a man gave Bt1,000 to the red-shirt movement because he believed in its "no double standard" campaign, he perhaps wasn't in a position to understand that the movement would eventually lead to arson attacks and rioting.

Q : Can the money trail reveal in detail how the money was used and under whose supervision?

We have to hear their explanations first. We believe some money has been transferred to red-shirt leaders. Those on the blacklist must come forward and explain. On April 28, the Shinawatras together withdrew more than Bt10 billion in cash. What was the money for? They must provide explanations.

Q : Can they claim they withdrew the money merely as part of plans to escape the turmoil?

They may say so. But I am going to link such withdrawals to the recent unrest, because after the withdrawals took place, some big moves were made. There were so many people rallying. But remember, it's the court that will decide on this in the end.

Q : According to information recently published in newspapers, red-shirt protest leaders' financial transactions only add up to a seven-digit sum. What will you say about this?

They are just protest leaders. They were simply the ones who stepped onto the stage to talk to demonstrators. But behind the scenes, there are strategists and these people have greater access to money.

Q : How much money has been used for the red-shirt movement?

Several billions of baht

Q : When will the DSI conclude the investigation on suspected terrorists? And when will they be prosecuted?

The investigation report will be concluded within the next 50 days. We have to act fast because the law states that suspects can be detained without prosecution for no longer than 84 days.

We will put all cases against the suspected terrorists, which number between 40 and 50, into one investigation report. The defendants in this report are key men in the red-shirt movement, including those who torched provincial halls.

We are going to weave information on the financial transactions of the 83 individuals and companies into a solid investigation report.

We are going to show the links between these people and Thaksin. We are going to show how the money flowed to support terrorist activities and the unrest on May 19.

We are going to combine all related incidents, whether they took place on April 10 or on May 19, because that will provide a clearer overall picture of how the whole thing worked toward terrorism.

Q : What's the main purpose of summoning the 83 individuals and companies?

Contrary to widespread belief, the main purpose is not to make them all suspects. The main goal is to get information from them. Their information will show the links to Thaksin. Things will then become clear. We will know who has shelled out money for the unrest.

Via this process, we may be able to charge some of the 83, too. This is a by-product though. It's not our main purpose. What we plan to do is to arrest key men from the top down.

A man who torched CentralWorld is of course a terrorist, but he was by no means a key player. We are now after the masterminds and their key men.

Q : Is the DSI in charge of the investigation into the death of Maj-General Khattiya Sawasdipol?

Yes, but there has been little progress. We only know the description of his wound, the type of weapon used against him, and the ballistic trajectory.

It's hard to nail the gunman who pulled the trigger during such a riot, no matter where it happened, because it wasn't possible to gather evidence right away.

For similar reasons, there's not much progress in the investigation into Colonel Romklao Thuwatham's death.

Q : Are you worried about the case concerning the deaths inside Pathumwanaram Temple?

Yes, but it's just like how I feel about other similar cases. I am worried because it's hard to find evidence, and conflicting information exists. Although there were a lot of people at the temple, most were thinking purely about survival. They didn't really see or know what happened. We found six bodies in the temple, but clearly, not all were shot there.

Q : Can the investigations into the Pathumwanaram Temple case and the deaths of 90 victims of political violence be conducted just like an investigation into any other crime?

Yes, but it is very difficult to find evidence. We may be able to identify what killed the victims and from which directions the bullets came, but in the end, it may be impossible to identify who pulled the trigger.

Q : Will it help if relatives come forward to identify exactly where the victims were shot? Will it be possible then for investigators to rely on circumstantial evidence, for example by identifying which unit was active in the area at the time of shooting?

It will help somewhat. But all weapons are just general weapons. Policemen, soldiers and terrorists were all armed with similar weapons. So, it's difficult to say who the gunmen were.

-- The Nation 2010-06-25

[djlest]

Was this translated from Thai to English?

Or was this his exact words in English?

[lensta]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

[BenCanuck]

Thanks - there was some useful insight, especially for those of us, like me, who practically have no idea how all these things work.

But it's a good question: English or Thai?

[chainarong]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

[tgw]

On April 28, the Shinawatras together withdrew more than Bt10 billion in cash

End of story.

If they have material proof of that, "the Thaksins" are history.

[BenCanuck]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

I thought the same thing. But that may also be a simplification of the Criminal Code in light of the exact question: does there need to be a specific attack linked to Case "X"? The answer may mean something like, "No, it is sufficient that intention of violence and/or institutional destabilization is a theme." And it may be harder to prove this in one case than another -- although when tanks are involved in a "bloodless" coup, it certainly begs the question as to exactly how the Code is worded.

[ozzieman05]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

Good point

but you miss one important fact as has beed stated here time and time again

There was no government in power at this time

Only a Caretaker PM, who being a coward fled the country

[Samuian]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

Believe emergency decree was enacted which disables constitutional laws, it's "unconstituional", but then who is going to arrest the general leading the coup if they are in level with the governments power?

Funny that 1992 didn't repeat in 2006 as if the people saw it correct that the army ousted this man and his absolute majority installed government, which was dissolved before the coup (remember?), so not really a government to be overthrown and therefor no "Act of terrorism"!

I wish we stick to the historic facts, just to play in neutral gear, other wise one may get the impression that the written word is biased and not a fact establishing advance, thus making any conversation useless, because of some ideological "this side was wronged" pushing in certain directions, as the reporting of the events in Bangkok, the whole truth wasn't told, so this is biased!

[gemini81]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

Yes, according to the law (if anyone follows the law that is!)

[Ricardo]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

Good point

but you miss one important fact as has beed stated here time and time again

There was no government in power at this time

Only a Caretaker PM, who being a coward fled the country

This may be slightly-unfair to Thaksin. (words I didn't expect to write today !)

He was surely abroad on official business, and about to give a speech to the U.N., when the 2006-coup took place ?

His cowardly action, or as many might think wise foresight, in fleeing the country was much later in summer-2008, when the court was about to find him guilty and sentence him to a couple of years in jail, on one of his many court cases ! I recall that his own nominee-party PPP-led coalition-government was then in power ?

Some might find a certain irony in this.

Of course I might be wrong, and he might have been warned of what was going to happen in September-2006, which might explain why he took so much luggage with him.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Ricardo

[Rucharee]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

Yes, according to the law (if anyone follows the law that is!)

No. The constitution say that a coup is OK, and no one can be punished.

So, if you don't like the government, just over throw with a coup, and you will be OK.

Edited June 27, 2010 by cdnvic
Questionable info, please cite a source?

[elliss]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

NO, because that was a differnt goverment .

the plot thickens .

[rixalex]

So, if you don't like the government, just over throw with a coup, and you will be OK.

It helps if the PM (or caretaker PM) of the government you overthrow is commiting crime on his watch and using his power to prevent himself being brought to justice. If this is the case, most citizens will shake your hand for ridding the country of a cancer that democracy did not legislate for.

[animatic]

Q : Should the charge of terrorism refer only to actual attacks?

No, because that would be against the Criminal Code. Any attempt to overthrow the government constitutes a terrorist act, according to the law.

If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?

"If this is the law, shouldn't the leaders of the 2006 coup be charged with terrorism?"

If the charge were insurrection, I might agree if Thaksin had actually still been legitimate Care Taker PM at the time.

He was expired, had botched the election, his sole primary duty, through HIS parties cheating

and compromising the EC. The palace had clearly NOT renewed his constitution mandated legal status,

and he took the PM seat back unilaterally after publicly resigning.

His deputy who Thaksin had passed he caretaker seat to, also had not been to the palace

and have HRM do his constitutional job of signing off on the PM seat holder's status.

So what legal government did this coup actual remove?

That is a major point in the Sept 2006 mess, prior to the coup.

No legal leadership of the country. Just Thaksin assuming the chair on his own say so.

So 'the coup', just removed an usurper from self appointed leadership.

Makes no difference if he had won a year earlier, he threw that mandate away to a 2006 snap election.

Edited June 26, 2010 by animatic

[Motoon]

Interesting read although a bit vague. We still rationalize but isn't it just a more simple matter? RS to YS: "How come we get punished now and you weren't?" YS to RS: "We won...twice".

[animatic]

And the origin of the 'violence involved' was always more than a little one sided.

Both sides broke laws, but PHYSICAL VIOLENCE towards others is a game changer,

both on the street, and in the courts when it comes time to prosecute.

A violent group that loses a battle, will get hit harder and faster in the courts.

[Motoon]

And the origin of the 'violence involved' was always more than a little one sided.

Both sides broke laws, but PHYSICAL VIOLENCE towards others is a game changer,

both on the street, and in the courts when it comes time to prosecute.

A violent group that loses a battle, will get hit harder and faster in the courts.

Agree, that this is a factor

[HAL9000]

"some donors must have known what their activities would finally bring"

That's not logical. Only those who knew of those black guards with plans for violence would have known.

[animatic]

"some donors must have known what their activities would finally bring"

That's not logical. Only those who knew of those black guards with plans for violence would have known.

When I see people around me with weapons, I easily assume they will use them

if a situation goes sufficiently against their attitude and general way of thinking.

So piling up barricades of tires, dousing them with gasoline,

firing rockets at security helicopters, and seeing people with side arms

and other deadly weapons in plain view, while listening to people say '

that security groups are your enemies and you should resist them with force... and so on:

Well these are people I would reasonably assume will use their weapons against the security forces.

And that if I stay around them, I will be considered involved with their actions.

The plans for violence were daily announced from the red stages.

This argument above holds no water. Stupidity is rarely a successful defense.

Unless absolute mental capabilities are so low, that comprehension of

basic human functions is in dispute.

[473geo]

Given the description of 'Premeditated murder' - how would you define the decision to send in armed troops?

[way2muchcoffee]

Given the description of 'Premeditated murder' - how would you define the decision to send in armed troops?

A security operation to disperse heavily armed and demonstrably violent insurgents holding hostage the capitol city.

Edited June 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rabo]

"some donors must have known what their activities would finally bring"

That's not logical. Only those who knew of those black guards with plans for violence would have known.

In turn, that's not logical. Pretty much every Thai who was paying attention knew the story and what was going on. This is especially true of those who participated in the events on either side. Anyone who was responsible for the movement of significant amounts of money knew exactly what the money was for.

[Thai at Heart]

"some donors must have known what their activities would finally bring"

That's not logical. Only those who knew of those black guards with plans for violence would have known.

In turn, that's not logical. Pretty much every Thai who was paying attention knew the story and what was going on. This is especially true of those who participated in the events on either side. Anyone who was responsible for the movement of significant amounts of money knew exactly what the money was for.

Being illogical, doesn't mean it can be proven in a court of law.

Hundreds of thousands of people donated all sorts of stuff and cash to both the yellows and reds. To prove that the reds KNEW this was going to be used for terrorist activities is going to prove extremely difficult. This bearing in mind that the government may have only officially started naming the organisation as "terrorist" after much of the money had already been dispersed. Unfortunately for the government the kingpin who could have dropped them all in it , Seh Daeng is no more. All of the wrongdoers can claim he was acting on his own with funding from who knows where.

The problem is that the Emergency Act is what is governing the whole thing. They need to find it easy to make it illegal to give funds to illegal protests under normal circumstances. Of course if this was applied equally to ALL sides, it would put a lot of very important people in the poop.

Any number of the defendants are going to claim that they had no idea who was controlling the armed part of the reds and never intended to give money to the "armed" part of the organisation. And in any case, is providing money are more or less illegal than providing free guns and bullets?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[473geo]

Given the description of 'Premeditated murder' - how would you define the decision to send in armed troops?

A security operation to disperse heavily armed and demonstrably violent insurgents holding hostage the capitol city.

And the passage following "but in terms of the forseeable outcome" how do you interpret?.....just interested

[animatic]

Anyone who provided large sums of money after Arisman called for all red phrae

to to come to Bangkok and bring 1 liter bottles to put gas in to burn Bangkok to the ground

if the government tries to intervene, are culpable for supporting a violent insurrection movement.

If we farangs can know about it before the Red rally started, then most any Thai with TV

or internet connection would know of it SOONER.

These Red Leaders screwed up, with their own mouths on video in public,

and will be hung out to dry for their stupidity. And those that in any way acted

in the violence will join them. Violent potential was announced and the terms

of how it would be started were also, all on videos, and in the public domain now.

All or nothing, often gets you nothing, or a very NEGATIVE something.

Edited June 27, 2010 by animatic