PAD Leaders Plan Defence Against Bangkok Airport Charges

[webfact]

PAD leaders plan defence against airport charges

By KESINEE TAENGKHIO

THE NATION ON SUNDAY

BANGKOK: -- Leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) plan to report to police next month to face charges of seizing and shutting down Bangkok's two international airports in late-2008, a spokesman for the group said yesterday.

Panthep Puapongpan said after a meeting with core leaders of the PAD several of them would report to police to hear the charges. They include Sondhi Limthongkul, Chamlong Srimuang, Pibhop Dhongchai, Somsak Kosaisuk, Somkiat Pongpaibun and Suriyasai Katasila.

Some of those charged have said the charges are unfair. So they would refuse to report to police, as an act of civil disobedience, Panthep said, without elaborating.

The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging".

"We unanimously agreed the charges are false. We were not terrorists. The Airports Authority of Thailand ordered the airports' closure without the board's approval. We didn't close the airports. The rallies were at the terminals while the other parts were still available for services," Panthep said after the meeting.

Panthep said the PAD called for a meeting of the 79 people charged over the closures of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports with lawyers Suwat Apaipak and Nitithorn Lamlua to discuss how to defend the case. The 79 includes people such as the PAD leaders, guest speakers, and artists, although their charges were different.

PAD planned different strategies to defend the cases for each group, he said. However, they would report to police in big groups instead of small groups as summoned by police, Panthep said.

Somsak and Suriyasai did not attend the meeting yesterday as they were at New Politics Party activities in Surat Thani. And Sondhi only met with other PAD leaders before the meeting.

-- The Nation 2010-07-25

[Thailand]

"Some of those charged have said the charges are unfair. So they would refuse to report to police, as an act of civil disobedience, Panthep said, without elaborating."

Be able to add some more charges then. I hope the leaders get the jail time they deserve and those that were identified as taking part are given stiff fines.

This should then set a precedent with regard to how to treat the reds when they get their days in court.

All of them deserve the stiffest penalties.

[whybother]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

[Xangsamhua]

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

I think they are referring to the "terrorism" charge. The possibility of police being charged with malfeasance for an "unfair charge" is a live one at the moment with respect to the police charge of lese majeste against the actor, Pongpat Wachirabanjong, for referring to the king as "father" in an acceptance speech.

[hardy1943]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

[whybother]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

[hardy1943]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

I am very sure both country would find away to not have the Airports shut down.

[whybother]

I am very sure both country would find away to not have the Airports shut down.

Yes, but protest groups shut down areas of cities through peaceful means on a regular basis. They are not usually labelled as terrorists.

[animatic]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

IMO,

for what I saw, PAD could be charged with a lot of things, but not terrorism.

Trespass, being a basic one, Illegal assembly, blocking public transport etc.

And civil suits for stopped commerce are likely, but ptrobelmatic,

but they didn't close the freight terminals,

The Board did, being a bit wimpy I think,

PAD were not near the freight shipping in any numbers at all, they were strictly on 1 floor of

the passenger terminal. Even duty free and all the cameras and booze was UN TOUCHED...

That right there indicates this is not a typical incident, but a tightly controlled protest.

It should never have happened there, and they should be prosecuted for what they did do , when proven,m

but terrorism is not one of the charges, especially when Mumbai was happening the same week.

THAT was REAL terrorism and the 2 situations to not compare at all.

The board must have felt that police can handle them,

and having one walk across runway during a FEDEX plane arrival would be disastrous,

so the closed all down, rather than, be professional and deal with airport security on their own.

The three guys in UK who threw fire bombs and crashed their truck into the airport those are terrorists.

They anti-new-runway group that tried to shut down Heathrow got trespass charges and a few others,

but not terrorism.

Edited July 25, 2010 by animatic

[Democrat]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

I agree with you but I do not think Panthep agrees the airport was blocked.

Quote

We didn't close the airports. The rallies were at the terminals while the other parts were still available for services," Panthep said after the meeting.

[jayjay0]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

No they wouldn't in all likely hood be charged with Terrorism in L.A. or Hearhrow. But would they be allowed to shut the air port terminal down for nine days.What they did was devestating to many business at the time yes they let some freight go and come but most of it was held back. You can't ship freight just because the run way is open.

Not that sure they are guilty of Terrorism but I am not a lawyer and I am not naive enough to think that they could not have a description that covers the situation. Anyhow I hope the leaders get life. And as a after thought Abhisit gets something for allowing them to run free so long.

[animatic]

I don't really understand how what they did falls under "terrorism". They occupied the airports. They inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. But they didn't threaten people. They didn't shoot at people or blow things up. They didn't "terrorize" people.

They definitely should be charged for the damage that they did to the economy and for the occupation itself and also the damage and occupation of Government house, but it's hardly terrorism.

This part is a bit of a laugh: "The PAD also planned to file charges of malfeasance against all police involved in what Panthep called the "unfair charging"." What is "unfair charging". They were breaking the law. The police have the right to move them on. Not with exploding gas canisters of course, but that has already been dealt with.

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Agreed. But a group peacefully blocking access to Heathrow or LAX wouldn't be branded as terrorists, would they?

No they wouldn't in all likely hood be charged with Terrorism in L.A. or Hearhrow. But would they be allowed to shut the air port terminal down for nine days.What they did was devastating to many business at the time yes they let some freight go and come but most of it was held back. You can't ship freight just because the run way is open.

Not that sure they are guilty of Terrorism but I am not a lawyer and I am not naive enough to think that they could not have a description that covers the situation. Anyhow I hope the leaders get life. And as a after thought Abhisit gets something for allowing them to run free so long.

I think a part of the point is, it wasn't just PAD's doing that caused all the extended peripheral damage.

If they had been stopped or redirected enroute by real forces, not crazy Red taxi drivers

Or extra security negotiated calmly at the airport, or the airport had been segmented by security,

Or the forces opposing hadn't thrown grenades at them repeatedly in the night, killing some, for 2 weeks,

causing a very angry and injured PAD mindset.... then this likely wouldn't have been as bad.

This was a large group effort to screw up so badly, PAD was just one piece in this Thai Gordian knot.

Why were PAD and the Reds allowed to go as far as they did?

Both questions and situations are springing from something deep in the Thai collective psyche.

And from those that have learned to cynically manipulate their country men for their own profit.

We can't JUST say it's all PAD, or ALL powers that be, or ALL army, or any one group primarily.

"It takes a village" to raise a redheaded stepchild no one wants,

but whom they still keep around. Metaphorically.

Edited July 25, 2010 by animatic

[badgerbailey]

will any charges be brought against the factions of the PAD who shut down the airports in Phuket and Krabi, I know for a fact they were not allowing people to enter or leave the airport at a certain point and tourists were becoming quite scared. IMHO they should bring back public stoning for all these idiots, let all the people who were inconvenienced by there mindless actions throw a large boulder at there heads.

[HAL9000]

How do you defend against that? They did it.

[asiawatcher]

Interesting that they are a lot smarter than reds. The AOT closed the airport - point of law, they are correct! Civil protest - apart from the noise, the nuisance factor or the inconvenience, and they didn't defecate anywhere other than in the appropriate places. So the difference is vast - notwithstanding they need to be held to book. Anyone holding a country to ransom - red or yellow or blue - deserve legal ramifications and the sooner the better as the reds then will have no complaint at all but sure as hel_l they will find something else to whinge (protest) about!

[Piengrudee]

The Airports Authority of Thailand ordered the airports' closure without the board's approval. We didn't close the airports. ... I am sure the Red shirt did not order the close of Central World. In fact they want it open so that they can use the air con & toilets.

[Ricardo]

<snip for brevity>

Not that sure they are guilty of Terrorism but I am not a lawyer and I am not naive enough to think that they could not have a description that covers the situation. Anyhow I hope the leaders get life. And as a after thought Abhisit gets something for allowing them to run free so long.

Perhaps one ought to direct some of the blame towards the then-government and its ineffectual nominee-PM ?

[Piengrudee]

If The Yellow walk free, the Red will occupy the airports next, to prove that there is no double standard.

[Piengrudee]

Temple dispute surfaces again. . http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/7/27/temple-dispute-surfaces-again

[jackspratt]

Try that at Heathrow or LAX in LA It would never ever happen.Amazing Thailand. The whole world is laughing.

Wow - what understanding and insight you have. I can only speculate at the number of political and business leaders around the world who would give their right arm to know what even 10% of the world was thinking.

Thai Visa is truly blessed.

[Piengrudee]

PAD Lawyers Postpone Suspect Appearances to Aug 26..... Lawyers representing the People's Alliance for Democracy have submitted a request to postpone scheduled appearances of nearly 70 suspects in the airport closure case. The first three suspects were requested to make an appearance at the Crime Supression Division today. However, lawyers claim their clients are not ready and have asked to rescehdule for August 26.