Watchdog Slams Thai Army, Protesters Over Media Casualties

[webfact]

Watchdog slams Thai army, protesters over media casualties

BANGKOK (AFP) -- The Thai military and "Red Shirt" protesters exposed the media to "mortal danger" during violent street protests in Bangkok that left two journalists dead, a press freedom group said.

The army failed to act with the "required restraint" to protect members of the media, Reporters Without Borders said in a report released Thursday.

Italian freelance photographer Fabio Polenghi and Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto of the Thomson Reuters news agency were among 90 people killed when anti-government protests descended into bloodshed in April and May.

The group said that some of the witnesses and victims it interviewed believed journalists were targeted during the violence, in which 10 members of the press were also injured.

"Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement," it said.

"They did not try to prevent journalists from covering the events, but the rules of engagement and the lack of professionalism on the part of the soldiers led to serious incidents that could have been avoided," the group added.

Its report, "Thailand: Licence to Kill", also found that armed Red Shirts "deliberately exposed Thai and foreign journalists to mortal danger".

It called for any Red Shirt leaders found responsible for violence against the press, as well as troops that fired on properly identified members of the media, to be punished.

The report called for the results of investigations into the deaths of Muramoto and Polenghi to be made public as soon as possible.

It also urged the Thai authorities to provide financial compensation to journalists wounded in the violence, some of whom it said sustained injuries "from which they will never fully recover".

Media groups were also urged to improve safety training for journalists and ensure people working in dangerous situations had suitable equipment, like bullet-proof vests and helmets.

Most of those killed were civilians, while nearly 1,900 people were injured during a series of clashes triggered by the rally, which came to an end with a deadly army crackdown on May 19.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-07-09

[Rucharee]

"Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement," it said.

Is was a civil war. All the people knew the risk when they enter the war zone.

Please don't blame Mark's soldiers.

[spiderleghead]

if you don't want to get shot don't stand in the way of bullets

[pedro01]

Utter nonsense.

Journalists know the risks they take in an attempt to get their Pulitzer.

Judging by their opinionaited, biased output, I would say that their risks are in vain.

If they think they are hero's by entering a warzone and then making up stories about the experience - they are seriously misled.

[thaihome]

I think the Japanese photographer shot on 10 April got caught up in something unexpected as at that point few thought it was going to break out into open gunfire between Army and Red Shirts.

Once that happened, it was now combat and the journalist were taking the risk and they knew it. To now come back now and say the Army had an obligation to protect them is ludicrous and is just shifting personal responsibility to the Army.

Just go to Big Picture blog and look at the photos. Most are taken from in front of the Army or red shirts in full combat mode. And they wonder why they got shot?

TH

[hoaker]

T I T.......This is Thailand. Purchase plenty of insurance because you can die free in this Kingdom.

[Ulysses G.]

Utter nonsense.

Journalists know the risks they take in an attempt to get their Pulitzer.

Judging by their opinionaited, biased output, I would say that their risks are in vain.

If they think they are hero's by entering a warzone and then making up stories about the experience - they are seriously misled.

I concur. They should not report from war zones if they are not willing to risk their lives. No one else is to blame..

Edited July 9, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[eggomaniac]

The OP should be used in journalism school as a lesson on how to twist and mess up a concisely written and more factual account. For GOOD reading why not just PRINT the Article instead of discombobulating it.

http://en.rsf.org/th...2010,37905.html [Notice box 'in same country, to see why TV has to be so darn careful]

As a commission specially created by the Thai government will be investigating the violent clashes between the security forces and Red Shirts in April and May 2010, Reporters Without Borders is releasing a report on 10 serious violations of press freedom and the safety of journalists.

Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked.

Can you see the last sentence, my underline, quoted in the OP?

The full 15 pages.

http://en.rsf.org/IM...HAILAND_Eng.pdf

Edited July 9, 2010 by eggomaniac

[tigerbalm]

I agree that it is a risky business and the journalists took some incredible risks, but then again soldiers who go to war will take the same risks and we dont say well he new what he might come up against and it is his fault for being in the army..do we?.

I cant get my head around why they were actually shot, in the head i believe (ghastly stuff) and one was even shot as he lay on the ground, friendly fire, a stray bullet a bad sighted sniper.

[animatic]

...Its report, "Thailand: Licence to Kill", also found that armed Red Shirts "deliberately exposed Thai and foreign journalists to mortal danger"...

This should not be missed either.

Raporteurs Sans Frontiers is one of the more lucid and even handed groups

reporting on war zone issues and the risks of reporting news.

And of course they fully support a free press, and dissemination of 'accurate information',

but might draw the line if a press organ were calling for reporters to be shot if they don't hew to a party line.

...Red Shirts:

"deliberately exposed Thai and foreign journalists to mortal danger"

The army was called ill trained or unprofessional, this may well be true:

"They did not try to prevent journalists from covering the events, but the rules of engagement and the lack of professionalism on the part of the soldiers led to serious incidents that could have been avoided,"

But what the Reds get is an infinity more sinister labeling.

One that can not be ignored.

Edited July 9, 2010 by animatic

[givenall]

if you don't want to get shot don't stand in the way of bullets

As far as the army, I think they showed too much of restraint and tolerances for the whole situation. I lived very close to the action and I saw how the Red Shirt fired randomly. I am surprise that there were more casualties.

[blaze]

if you don't want to get shot don't stand in the way of bullets

As far as the army, I think they showed too much of restraint and tolerances for the whole situation. I lived very close to the action and I saw how the Red Shirt fired randomly. I am surprise that there were more casualties.

Interesting=- what weapons did you see them firing? When? On a daily basis or only as the troops moved in? Can you tell us approximately where you saw this firing happening? (By the way, I too feel that the army showed professional restraint).

[blaze]

But what the Reds get is an infinity more sinister labeling.

One that can not be ignored.

Of course not- but bear in mind that the reds do not have a professional army which is entrusted to ensure security of the nation. And to abide by certain international standards. While your point is well taken- it is pretty much meaningless in this context. Were these two professional armies facing off, then it would be a different story.

Unless you are suggesting that the unprofessionaolism of the reds justified the unprofessionalism of the army. (And, as I said in another post- I don't really agree that the army did behave unprofessionally for the most part- though there were a few glaring- and tragic- exceptions- in my opinion- but then, I'm pretty amature when it comes to knowing what to expect from an army in this situation).

Edited July 9, 2010 by blaze

[somo]

The goverment said that soldiers were authorized to use live rounds only in self defence.

Nearly all those shot were unarmed and the journalists most certainly were. Shooting one journalist multiple times shows they were intent on killing people not just disabling them. Either the goverment was lying or the soldiers disobeyed orders either way the authorities have a lot to answer for. There should be an enquiry to determine the truth but of course there won't be.

As an aside True Internet went down earlier today and their support line had a recorded message saying that due to the state of emergency high speed internet would not be available for a while. What were they up to? Perhaps just adding to the hundreds of blocked sites!

[chainarong]

If the jurno's can't take the heat in the kitchen , don't go in there.

[way2muchcoffee]

The goverment said that soldiers were authorized to use live rounds only in self defence.

Nearly all those shot were unarmed and the journalists most certainly were. Shooting one journalist multiple times shows they were intent on killing people not just disabling them. Either the goverment was lying or the soldiers disobeyed orders either way the authorities have a lot to answer for. There should be an enquiry to determine the truth but of course there won't be.

As an aside True Internet went down earlier today and their support line had a recorded message saying that due to the state of emergency high speed internet would not be available for a while. What were they up to? Perhaps just adding to the hundreds of blocked sites!

Of course you have no evidence to back up your claims.

I can just as easily say that nearly every injured protester was armed at a minimum with molotov cocktails and at worse with AK-47s and grenade launchers. Just saying something does not make it true.

The fact is that unless you were present at every injury, knew precisely who fired every shot, and kept meticulous notes, you cannot possibly make any claims about how many injured protesters were unarmed.

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[tigerbalm]

Of course evidence for the ordinary citizen, with his own point of view, looking on and trying to make a judgment based on what he sees is going to be fraught with inaccuracies.

I for one saw no weapons around the people who had been shot none (But I have to add I did see members other than the military with weapons)and i certainly do not believe the reporters were carrying any, but who knows in the instances of the people who died of gun shot wounds, may be just because there were no weapons visible does not necessarily mean they were not guilty of throwing bricks or throwing small M150 bottles of gasoline around, but would hardly warrant a snipers bullet,just as Seth Dang for all his faults did not really warrant a snipers bullet while trying to chat with a reporter.

[way2muchcoffee]

deleted

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[somo]

The goverment said that soldiers were authorized to use live rounds only in self defence.

Nearly all those shot were unarmed and the journalists most certainly were. Shooting one journalist multiple times shows they were intent on killing people not just disabling them. Either the goverment was lying or the soldiers disobeyed orders either way the authorities have a lot to answer for. There should be an enquiry to determine the truth but of course there won't be.

As an aside True Internet went down earlier today and their support line had a recorded message saying that due to the state of emergency high speed internet would not be available for a while. What were they up to? Perhaps just adding to the hundreds of blocked sites!

Of course you have no evidence to back up your claims.

I can just as easily say that nearly every injured protester was armed at a minimum with molotov cocktails and at worse with AK-47s and grenade launchers. Just saying something does not make it true.

The fact is that unless you were present at every injury, knew precisely who fired every shot, and kept meticulous notes, you cannot possibly make any claims about how many injured protesters were unarmed.

The evidence is there on film. Plenty of unarmed being shot. Not one bit of film showing an armed protester being shot. That is evidence!!

Shooting an unarmed journalist 3 times is also on film and is evidence.

[way2muchcoffee]

The goverment said that soldiers were authorized to use live rounds only in self defence.

Nearly all those shot were unarmed and the journalists most certainly were. Shooting one journalist multiple times shows they were intent on killing people not just disabling them. Either the goverment was lying or the soldiers disobeyed orders either way the authorities have a lot to answer for. There should be an enquiry to determine the truth but of course there won't be.

As an aside True Internet went down earlier today and their support line had a recorded message saying that due to the state of emergency high speed internet would not be available for a while. What were they up to? Perhaps just adding to the hundreds of blocked sites!

Of course you have no evidence to back up your claims.

I can just as easily say that nearly every injured protester was armed at a minimum with molotov cocktails and at worse with AK-47s and grenade launchers. Just saying something does not make it true.

The fact is that unless you were present at every injury, knew precisely who fired every shot, and kept meticulous notes, you cannot possibly make any claims about how many injured protesters were unarmed.

The evidence is there on film. Plenty of unarmed being shot. Not one bit of film showing an armed protester being shot. That is evidence!!

Shooting an unarmed journalist 3 times is also on film and is evidence.

Please show me the video evidence that conclusively shows plenty of unarmed protesters being shot by military bullets. The problem with video evidence is that the video camera cannot simultaneously be on the shooter and the victim. Therefore when someone goes down it is not possible to say where the bullet came from. This is an unfortunate limitation of the use of video cameras.

The only video evidence I saw of someone being shot that was definitive was of a soldier being shot by a redshirt while being pulled from the back of a truck.

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moe666]

"Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement," it said.

Is was a civil war. All the people knew the risk when they enter the war zone.

Please don't blame Mark's soldiers.

Sorry honey not Marks soldiers but Thailands soldiers.

[somo]

"Please show me the video evidence that conclusively shows plenty of unarmed protesters being shot by military bullets. The problem with video evidence is that the video camera cannot simultaneously be on the shooter and the victim. Therefore when someone goes down it is not possible to say where the bullet came from."

You must be blind or in denial of the facts. Did you not see the footage of the journalist being repeatedly shot?

[way2muchcoffee]

"Please show me the video evidence that conclusively shows plenty of unarmed protesters being shot by military bullets. The problem with video evidence is that the video camera cannot simultaneously be on the shooter and the victim. Therefore when someone goes down it is not possible to say where the bullet came from."

You must be blind or in denial of the facts. Did you not see the footage of the journalist being repeatedly shot?

Do you have a link that conclusively shows anyone being shot by the military? I do mean conclusively. That is a video showing a soldier with a weapon firing on someone at a range where both the shooter and victim are in the same frame?

I do not doubt that soldiers killed protesters. I suspect that some of those protesters killed were not carrying firearms. But I do doubt claims of 'most' or 'all' or any such thing. And I have yet to see anything conclusive on any of the deaths.

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[somo]

Denial it is then

[way2muchcoffee]

Denial it is then

Your inability to back up your claims with evidence is the problem. If you can then please do so. If you cannot then you lack credibility.

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[tigerbalm]

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that the request for evidence is a strong indicator to weather a fact is a fact or not but it is hardly surprising that it is beyond the bounds of any one on here to prove or disprove any thing, mostly it is peoples opinions, based on their belief in what they saw or perceived to see that makes their minds up about one thing or another.

What bothers me is if say that none of the 90 mostly civilians did not forfeit their lives at the hands of the Military then who the <deleted> did and if it was a group of separate individuals then thats murder is it not , and should that not be investigated by the authorities, or a some thing like which is popular at the moment a committee set up in to the cause of these killings.

[way2muchcoffee]

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that the request for evidence is a strong indicator to weather a fact is a fact or not but it is hardly surprising that it is beyond the bounds of any one on here to prove or disprove any thing, mostly it is peoples opinions, based on their belief in what they saw or perceived to see that makes their minds up about one thing or another.

What bothers me is if say that none of the 90 mostly civilians did not forfeit their lives at the hands of the Military then who the <deleted> did and if it was a group of separate individuals then thats murder is it not , and should that not be investigated by the authorities, or a some thing like which is popular at the moment a committee set up in to the cause of these killings.

Agreed. Personally I believe that all sides were guilty of some crime or other. These incidents should be thoroughly investigated.

Unfortunately I don't believe it is possible for all the facts to come out even with the most rigorous investigation, using the best tools available.

This doesn't mean that a serious investigation shouldn't happen. It should. In the end I don't think it will happen though, because I don't think any side really wants that.

Edited July 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[somo]

Denial is an unfortunate condition that prevents the sufferer from facing facts usually because of an irrational belief which he/she cannot abandon.

Unfortunatley it also precludes rational discussion so I bid you fairwell. Having said that I have enjoyed winding you up

[jayjay0]

The goverment said that soldiers were authorized to use live rounds only in self defence.

Nearly all those shot were unarmed and the journalists most certainly were. Shooting one journalist multiple times shows they were intent on killing people not just disabling them. Either the goverment was lying or the soldiers disobeyed orders either way the authorities have a lot to answer for. There should be an enquiry to determine the truth but of course there won't be.

As an aside True Internet went down earlier today and their support line had a recorded message saying that due to the state of emergency high speed internet would not be available for a while. What were they up to? Perhaps just adding to the hundreds of blocked sites!

Be interesting to see who really shot the reporters. So far all I have seen here is a bunch of red shirts blaming the army. As far as the army being unprofessional I have to agree if they had been professional it would all have ended April 19. The government should bear a lot of responsibility in what happened. It was there dilly dallying around instead of putting a end to it when the red shirts showed they were unwilling to negotiate.All they were willing to do was demand and take over parts of the city.

[yoshiwara]

Denial it is then

Would that be 'denial' as in Thaksin's denial that it was the reds who caused the violence in Bangkok and Pattaya/Jomtien Songkran 2009? Or maybe Thaksin's denial that he financed the violence in Bangkok 2010. Or denial from the red cheerleaders that the reds were primed for violence by Arisman? Or the red denial that the blackshirts were the reds armed wing? When it comes to 'denial', Thaksin's supporters are first in the queue.

Edited July 9, 2010 by yoshiwara