Robert Amsterdam Responds To Somtow's Article

[webfact]

'A novelist's fantasy'

Published on August 2, 2010

Robert Amsterdam responds to Somtow's article

At the cost of drawing additional attention to it, it is probably worth our while to say a few words about the "response" to our White Paper that has appeared on Somtow Sucharitkul's blog. Indeed, while Somtow's retort contains little in the way of substance, highlighting its contents gives us a chance to illustrate yet again the scurrilous and fact-free nature of the reactions that our advocacy has sparked off among the government's representatives and supporters.

In a way, Somtow provides in his own words one of the strongest endorsements for the White Paper: "You may wonder why this long review doesn't actually take apart Mr Amsterdam's arguments piece by piece. It is because, by and large, the arguments are perfectly sound - they are just based on incomplete or selective evidence". We would of course welcome a vigorous debate on whatever the "complete" evidence that Somtow could provide to disprove our arguments, however in the response he chose not to deal with any of the facts we present. Instead, there is the very exhausting distraction of personal attacks and highlighting that I am retained by Thaksin Shinawatra, a fact which we have made abundantly clear in every action we have taken and every document we have published however few can explain what this has to do with the facts presented in the paper.

Aside from mimicking the government's own reaction to our White Paper - a mixture of name-calling, racist dog whistles and conspiracy theory about the true nature of our motives - Somtow's main complaint about the White Paper is its supposed reliance on a collection of "half-truths" skilfully woven together into what ultimately amounts to a fictional account of the events of the past several years. We are certainly grateful that Somtow decided not to overwhelm us with his superior debating skills and command of the subject, sparing us the humiliation of publicly exposing all the "half-truths" the paper supposedly contains. We take him at his word that he would have been able to "win every single argument" had he chosen to engage either the facts we present or our interpretation of the evidence. We are disappointed, however, that Somtow would deny us the opportunity to be enlightened. The one "half-truth" he does identify, in fact, reveals Somtow's penchant for speaking only the full, unvarnished truth, a virtue we are anxious to see him apply to the remainder of the document.

No doubt coincidentally, Somtow takes issue with a statement that appears in the paper's first paragraph:

"The people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right - the right to self-determination through genuine elections."

He explains to us that the purpose of the 2006 military coup was merely "to stop the country's self-destruction" and reverse its descent into "repression, darkness and corruption". We must confess we had previously failed to grasp the purity of the generals' motives. In fact, we freely admit to having failed to understand that the way out of "repression, darkness and corruption" is (in retrospect quite obviously) more "repression, darkness and corruption". Judging from the wealth of indicators suggesting that the past four years have actually seen corruption increase while freedom of expression, civil/political rights and Thailand's human rights record have steadily deteriorated, we cannot but agree with Somtow that Thailand finds itself on the right path. We sincerely regret our error.

Because Somtow does not address any of the arguments presented in the rest of the White Paper, we are deprived of the opportunity to defer to his superior, more complete version of "the truth" on the contents of the remaining 74-and-a-half pages. As a result, the "half-truths" with which we have allegedly stacked our paper will have to stand, in the absence of further guidance from Somtow. But whereas we do not see the need to modify arguments whose substance has essentially gone unchallenged by the government (or the people it relies upon to put an acceptable spin on its shameful performance), we would like to take the opportunity to offer a defence of our motives.

First, Somtow maintains that our despicable team of shyster lobbyists knows full well that "the springtime violence does not rise to the level of a crime against humanity", adding that tragedies like Kent State and Waco cannot compare to real crimes against humanity like the Killing Fields and Buchenwald. Because we have actually read the relevant statutes, we are in a position to correct Mr Somtow's misapprehension. Whether or not a "crime against humanity" has been committed does not hinge on the scale of the tragedy in question. As we detail in the paper itself (admittedly, beyond the first page), for murder to amount to a "crime against humanity", the killing must be: (1) directed against a "civilian population", (2) as part of "a widespread or systematic attack", (3) pursuant to or in furtherance of a "State or organisational policy to commit such attack", (4) with knowledge of the attack.

The reason why the killings at Waco and Kent State are not crimes against humanity, while the Holocaust and the Cambodian genocide are, has nothing to do with the magnitude of the events; it has everything to do with the existence of governmental policy to systematically murder a certain group of people - it makes no difference whatsoever how many of them wind up dead as a result. We note in the White Paper that there is significant evidence pointing to the existence of such a policy of systematic persecution and violence. Incidentally, the recurrent use of qualifiers like "appears to be", which Somtow singles out as evidence of our disingenuousness, is owed to the fact that we do not presume to elevate ourselves to the role of judge, jury and executioner, as the government has been keen to do in its labelling of the red shirts as "terrorists". The threshold we set out to meet is to show that there is sufficient evidence of a crime (if you will, a strong enough "appearance" of a crime) to warrant the kind of independent and complete investigation required by international law. Apparently, every major human rights organisation around the world agrees with us on this count.

This brings us to Somtow's accusation that the White Paper is somehow an "attack on Thailand", a further assault on the victim of Thaksin's heinous "crimes" (never mind that: 1. Had it been left up to "Thailand", Mr Thaksin would still be prime minister; and 2. It took a military coup and the manipulation of a judicial system now almost universally recognised as rigged just to convict Mr Thaksin of the pettiest of offences.) Somtow's line of reasoning is consistent with the government's ongoing attempt to equate itself with the country as a whole and, by implication, accuse its critics of wanting to "destroy Thailand". In Somtow's (fantasy) world, see, criticism of Thaksin's administration is a heroic act of patriotism, while criticism of Abhisit's administration is a despicable act of treason. Still, it is interesting that a call for an "independent and complete investigation" into the deaths of almost a hundred people could earn someone the accusation of wanting to "destroy the country". Such an investigation does not pose any threat to the country, which is more mature and eager to learn the truth than Somtow and his ilk have ever given it credit for. The hysteria of the reactions that our appeal has elicited, however, has made it all too clear that the current government considers a full inquiry into the events of April and May an existential threat to itself.

Contrary to what Somtow suggests, the goal of the paper is not to seek anyone's absolution or dispensation. Note that we called for an investigation and not for a blanket amnesty - something that Thailand's establishment has resorted to before when it has found it impractical to conduct the sham of an investigation it is poised to launch in the coming months. On this point, Somtow appears to apply a different standard to the investigation into the current government's alleged crimes and the investigation into the previous government's alleged crimes. On the one hand, he expresses no sympathy for the doubts we raise about the investigative panel to be led by Khanit na Nakorn. On the other hand, Somtow still continues to argue that "Mr Thaksin's government ordered the extrajudicial killing of thousands of alleged drug dealers" in spite of the fact that an investigative panel led by one Khanit na Nakorn found no grounds for anyone's prosecution for the conduct of the "War on Drugs". We, at least, have the coherence to argue that "independent and complete" investigations should be conducted into ALL instances where there is reason to believe that human rights violations have occurred - let the chips fall where they may. Somtow wants to have the luxury to make his own judgement, in the absence of a credible investigation, about which administration is guilty of human rights abuses and which one is not - and to decide for everyone else which human rights abuses constitute "attacks on Thailand" and which human rights abuses were perpetrated in a valiant attempt to defend Thailand. This is a luxury that international law does not afford him, or anyone else for that matter.

Finally, it is beyond farcical that Somtow would be the one to accuse us of employing Orwellian language. Far from "Orwellian", the statement "there can be no reconciliation without truth" seems to us rather obvious. The reason why Thailand has no "reconciliation" today is precisely that so many previous instances of state violence were covered up in the interest of protecting entrenched powers. What strikes us as Orwellian is that the government would ground a campaign of censorship in its commitment to freedom of expression, a slide towards authoritarianism in the need to preserve democracy and a continued attempt to crush all forms of dissent in the imperative to achieve "reconciliation". It is similarly preposterous than an apologist for a government that has shown nothing but fear and contempt for its own citizens would have the nerve to urge someone who has won three, freely conducted elections to "trust the people". Say what you will about Mr Thaksin, but if the current government had "trusted the people" as much as he has consistently been willing to, the hundred men and women who died because Mr Abhisit did not feel sufficiently confident in his electoral prospects would still be alive today.

Who is Rober Amsterdam:

- January 1956: Born in New York.

- 1980: Creates Amsterdam & Peroff law firm in Toronto (Canada)

- 2005: His client, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is sentenced to 8 years in prison.

- 2005: Arrested in Moscow on September 22nd, he is forced to leave the country.

- August 2008: His request |to gain Khodorkovsky's freedom is rejected.

- May 2010: Hired as international counsel to former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

-- The Nation 2010-08-02

[webfact]

You be the judge

By The Nation

When a novelist and a lawyer face off over who respects the truth more, or, to put it another way, who has a greater tendency to "lie about the truth", it's interesting enough. When that "truth" is about Thaksin Shinawatra, what we get is a classic showdown. Decide for yourself who to believe when Somtow Sucharitkul crossed swords with Robert Amsterdam last week over the latter's issuing of a 'White Paper: The Bangkok Massacres'.

Is it a case of a novelist dreaming up an alternate political scenario? Or a lawyer doing what he does best - twisting facts to serve his big-money client and making the culprit out of the real victim?

(Below is Somtow's article)

'A lawyer's half-truth'

For the past week now, friends of mine in America and elsewhere have been emailing me a document that appears to be by the controversial lawyer-apologist Robert Amsterdam. The header reads "The Bangkok Massacres: A Call for Accountability: The Thailand White Paper Final by Robert Amsterdam". These emails to me invariably include comments like "Do something about this!" Though what I am supposed to do, I am not quite sure. Procrastinating as long as I could - after all, I did have Mahler 3 to conduct - I finally got around to double-clicking the icon today. It was then that I learned that the document is 75 pages long.

As I started to read it, I realised that this document has something in common with a novel by my friend Norman Spinrad called "The Iron Dream". In this book, Spinrad used novelistic licence to alter one tiny moment in our past. He takes a real-life historical figure, a mediocre artist named Adolf Schickelgruber, and instead of leaving him in Europe, causes him to emigrate to the United States where he becomes a mediocre science fiction writer. The book, then, is the "award-winning novel" that might have been written by this person - and it's a bizarre epic fantasy about blonde, noble Aryans conquering evil, quasi-Semitic lower orders of humanity to bring about a shining future. It's the Lord of the Rings version of the Third Reich.

Now, in real life, Schickelgruber didn't emigrate to America, but did change his surname to Hitler. The rest you know.

Mr Amsterdam's White Paper has a great deal in common with Norman Spinrad's novel, although it doesn't purport to be a novel. Both pieces change a little bit of history and extrapolate an edifice of the imagination from that little change. The White Paper is, in its own way, as much of a masterpiece as "The Iron Dream", but to understand why, one must first consider what it is that a novelist does, and what it is that a lawyer does.

Both novelists and lawyers build houses of cards. But although a novelist may invent anything that he likes, he is only successful insofar as the foundation he builds on is one of truth. A novel only truly speaks to the reader if in that novel the reader can recognise himself. As the Dutch novelist Gerard Reve said, "Ik lieg de waarheid" - "I lie the truth".

What a lawyer ostensibly does is very similar. He builds up, through what is hopefully an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, a viable, sequential story - a sort of novel, if you like. But a lawyer's primary loyalty is not to the truth. It is to the client. His sole motivation is convincing the jury - you, the reader in this case - that whatever it is his client is supposed to have done, he didn't do it. The cards from which the house of cards is built may all be "truths" ... but the foundation of the house needs not be the truth at all.

In other words, a novelist must use invention to reach a truthful conclusion ... whereas a lawyer may well use truth to get to a conclusion that is pure invention.

Of course, truth by itself seldom leads to untrue conclusions. This is where the lawyer must have recourse to the most important weapon in his armoury: the half-truth.

If I were to take every half-truth in the 75-page treatise and respond to it, I could probably win every single argument; but by then the war would have been lost. And that is, of course, what Mr Amsterdam wishes people to do. If he can set a few dozen officials in the Thai government to work denouncing his arguments and dredging up the facts, no one will notice what all this is actually about.

We will take Mr Amsterdam at his word when he says that he is Mr Thaksin's lawyer. But it may seem a little odd for him to be defending someone who has already been convicted. Nevertheless, Mr Amsterdam has a history of doing just that. While one of his previous clients, Mr Khordokhovsky of the Yukos case, was already in jail, he went on an international whitewashing binge. He was, in effect, Khordokhovsky's lobbyist, not his lawyer. His efforts were not entirely effective, however. There is no reason his methods would work any better now, unless we allow them to. Nevertheless, there is a real danger that Thailand's government will miss the point, rise to the bait and waste a lot of valuable time trying to "handle" Amsterdam's posturing.

I'm not a lawyer. Therefore, I see no reason to answer point for point, as a lawyer would. Rather, I would like to respond as a novelist. Because Amsterdam's White Paper is as fictitious as any novel. But if it somehow manages to illuminate some fundamental truths, it may still be considered valid. And that is the question we need to answer: Is it valid? Is it necessary? Or are we simply being distracted from what we should be looking at?

So let's start by cutting to the chase. Who is Mr Amsterdam working for, and what is the actual purpose of this so-called White Paper? The answer, of course, is that his employer is Mr Thaksin, and Mr Amsterdam has been employed to rehabilitate his boss's reputation with the eventual goal of returning him to Thailand with his wealth intact and without having to suffer any prison time.

Once we understand that the White Paper is not actually a serious call for this government to come to account, nor a genuine, balanced analysis of the political situation in Thailand, but simply one of the tools Mr Amsterdam has fashioned in order to realise his employer's goals, it will all make very much more sense.

Let us examine this piece of Mr Amsterdam's arsenal for what it is. You are the jury. Cutting through the PR and the rhetoric, Mr Thaksin is, at present, a condemned criminal on the lam. The governments of the major powers have accepted the findings of Thailand's legal system. And by hiring Mr Amsterdam, Mr Thaksin himself has acknowledged what the terms of discourse are. It is up to Mr Amsterdam to shift the war back to more congenial turf.

What are the methods by which a lawyer gets a rapist, corrupt politician or mafia don off the hook? Well, there are several main ones, and the White Paper uses every single one of them.

( a ) Put the victim on trial.

( b ) Overwhelm the jury with irrelevant facts and figures.

( c ) Construct elegant arguments from flawed premises.

( d ) Use emotionally charged "power words" to alter the jury's perspective on events.

( e ) Engage the jury's sympathy for the perpetrator.

( f ) Try the case in the court of public opinion and the media.

Once the White Paper is examined from the point of view of its author's motivation, most of its blandishments become irrelevant.

I'd like to discuss how the White Paper adheres to the classic rulebook.

We'll start with (a): Put the victim on trial. Well, here's where the fun begins. "She made me do it" is the rapist's first line of defence and the White Paper's title makes it quite clear that this will be the main thrust of Amsterdam's argument. A historically selective introduction soon leads to an equally selective rundown of the events we all lived through this year, culminating in the chapter heading "crimes against humanity" in which Mr Amsterdam makes much of the legal definition of such crimes. He then tries to link this definition with the Rajprasong events, but by using the phrase "appears to be present", he manages to let himself off the hook. Indeed, the phrase "appears to" is a constant mantra here, because he's not really accusing the government of perpetrating a massacre. He is saying that there is an appearance of a massacre. This legalistic hair-splitting allows him to be as sensationalist as he wants, while affording himself deniability at every turn.

When I say that Mr Amsterdam is putting the victim on trial, I am not saying that the victim is the government, the Democratic Party or Mr Abhisit. The victim is Thailand.

Mr Thaksin has been convicted not of stealing from the Democratic Party, but of stealing from Thailand. It is the judiciary system of Thailand that has convicted him, not the yellow shirts and not the elite. When Mr Thaksin's government ordered the extrajudicial killing of thousands of alleged drug dealers, when it permitted the torture and slaying of Muslims in the South of Thailand, these were crimes against Thailand. He has not yet been convicted of these latter crimes, but by painting Abhisit as a vicious murderer, Mr Amsterdam is launching a pre-emptive strike against the bringing of such charges against Mr Thaksin.

As a lawyer Mr Amsterdam knows perfectly well that the springtime violence does not rise to the level of a crime against humanity as defined by the laws he himself cites. If this were true, US presidents would have been on the dock for Kent State and Waco. These were terrible tragedies - but hardly the Killing Fields or Buchenwald. Surely Mr Amsterdam knows better than to equate an attempt by a recognised government to restore order, when a city has been held hostage by lawless ruffians for months, with the Holocaust.

So let's return to the rapist analogy. What is Mr Amsterdam's point? It is this: "Okay, so maybe my client raped Thailand. But Thailand was a bad girl. She brought it on herself."

Let's look at ( b ) now, the irrelevant facts and figures. I've already shown how Mr Amsterdam quotes masses of legal data, makes it look as though it's relevant, then squirms out of the whole thing with the phrase "appears to". His second chapter, a reductionist summary of the history of Thailand's constitutional development, is full of indisputable facts, but for real analysis one might want to read the commentary of a genuine historian such as David Wyatt. This is the icing without the cake, and it's there to provide a cloak of verisimilitude to Mr Amsterdam's specious arguments.

The flawed premise © is evident from the very opening sentence of Mr Amsterdam's thesis. "For four years," he says, "the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right ... self determination through genuine elections."

Powerful stuff. But it is a half-truth. The entire logical thread of the White Paper leads outward from this half-truth. And as the truth gets halved again and again, recursively, we finally end up with what I would call a near-lie. It is only the constant repetition of the word "appears" that prevents the paper from being actual lies.

You see, Mr Amsterdam is protecting his client, but on a deeper level, he is protecting himself. Proud as he is of the elegance of his constructed arguments, he is forced to tell us, in the small print, that it's a house of cards.

To tell the whole-truth version of this opening sentence would be to try to understand both sides of the issue, to comprehend not only that some people's rights were violated in the last four years, but that the reason they were violated may have been a reaction to similar, in many cases more egregious, violations during the Thaksin era. This is not about an evil military elitist monolith clamping down on a noble, pro-people regime. Rather it is the story of a regime that began with great optimism and with the highest of hopes, supported by almost everyone as a breath of fresh air ... a regime that moved steadily away from its professed principles towards repression, darkness and corruption, until the only mechanism that could be found to stop the country's self-destruction was the unpopular and outmoded strategy of the military coup - a strategy that the military itself realised, almost immediately, was not working. That the military came to its senses and restored an elected government almost immediately and has so far in fact resisted the temptation to have another coup - though it has been at times needlessly meddlesome. It is the story of groups of people, yellows and reds and others, unable to accept that a democracy thrives on diversity of opinion, and that in a mature democracy, when you lose an election, you don't seize airports or burn down shopping malls - you try to win the next one fair and square. It is also the story of a leader having to choose on a daily basis between unacceptable alternatives, and finally coming up with a plan that has pleased no one - and which is therefore almost certainly the only correct one.

To tell the whole truth would be to describe this last year as only one of a series of dramatic milestones in an arduous journey towards democracy that has had reverses in the past, but is still clearly, inexorably, moving in the right direction.

He may or may not be a lawyer in this case, but a historian he's clearly not.

Mr Amsterdam does not have a responsibility to tell us the whole truth. His responsibility is to the source of his paycheque. His reasoning, by the very nature of who he is and what he does, is necessarily tainted.

Semantics are Mr Amsterdam's stock in trade and this falls into category (d). Words like "dictatorship" are bandied about with reckless abandon. His use of the word "truth" in his conclusion (that there can be no reconciliation without truth) is positively Orwellian. And as this farrago of half-truths is destined to provoke conflict, his paper in fact proves his point.

Point (e) - to engage the jury's sympathy for the perpetrator - Mr Amsterdam takes care right at the beginning by trotting out our "rapist" in a nice clean suit, smelling like a rose. He has instructed his client, slayer of Muslims, to speak of inclusiveness. "We must renounce all violence,"says the man under whose watch over 2,000 alleged drug dealers appear (yes, I'm using legalspeak here too) to have been murdered to fulfil a quota requirement that could lead to a declaration of victory in a "drug war". I think we're also supposed to feel sorry that the coup took away Mr Thaksin's right to vote, but of course in countries like the US, criminals in many states lose that right.

My final item in my catalogue of the shyster's arsenal is the "court of public opinion". In this case, it is the only court that matters, because the conviction has already taken place.

You may wonder why this long review doesn't actually take apart Mr Amsterdam's arguments piece by piece. It is because, by and large, the arguments are perfectly sound - they are just based on incomplete or selective evidence.

Yes, of course, Mr Amsterdam, there should be accountability. Yes, of course, the government has made some missteps, and the clumsy handling of Internet censorship is one of them. Yes, of course Thailand has a duty to investigate and prosecute. Of course, actual accountability and actual investigation might land Mr Amsterdam's client in more hot water. So why not turn off the hot air for a moment and think about what would really be good for your client?

In short, this 75-page document is a waste of our time, and a bad use of Mr Thaksin's money. It's unlikely to convince anyone except the already convinced. It fails to connect the dots. It's a failure as a logical construct, and it's a failure as fiction. It is, however, like Norman Spinrad's novel, a triumph of the imagination. Not only have the people of Thailand been had, but I fear that Mr Thaksin has been as well.

If Mr Amsterdam cared a little more about his client and a little less about his paycheque, he would give him the following advice: Mr Thaksin, bend a little. You're not in exile, you know. Stop pretending that you were "kicked out of Thailand". Come home and do your time. Everyone will forgive you if you show just a little contrition. If you want to be a real saint, and not just "play one on TV", you must be prepared for a little real suffering. You did a lot of good things for this country, but you got greedy. You got careless. But the Thai people are actually pretty good at reconciliation - it's built into their culture. Put away your wallet and start trusting them.

In the meantime I will try to think of a practical use for this White Paper. I can only think of one so far, but it's not going to stay white for long.

Who is Somtow:

December 1952:Born in Bangkok

- A scion of the Chakri dynasty (his grandfather's |sister was a cousin and |consort of King Vajiravudh).

- A Thai-American music composer and fiction writer, he was educated in Eton College and at St Catharine's College, Cambridge.

- He won the World Fantasy Award for best Novella in 2002 for The Bird Catcher, |the International Horror Guild Award, the John W Campbell Award in 1981, the Locus Award for Best First Novel in 1982, the HOMer Award, the American Horror Award and other awards.

-- The Nation 2010-08-02

[chantorn]

Does this mean that about 50% of Rob allegation is true?

[siampolee]

Say what you will about Mr Thaksin, but if the current government had "trusted the people" as much as he has consistently been willing to, the hundred men and women who died because Mr Abhisit did not feel sufficiently confident in his electoral prospects would still be alive today.

As would be the witness in a case against Thaksin in Chang Mai some years ago who was murdered just prior to the trial of Thaksin which was then cancelled and all charges dropped due to, ''lack of evidence.''

As would a large number of innocent men women and children who were slaughtered in the ,''war on drugs,'' instigated by Thaksin without any person being subjected to the due course of law, only the rule of lynch law.

As would be a prominent Muslim lawyer too, that is just the tip of the iceberg of Thaksins abuse of the Thai people

Amsterdam you should go back under the stone and into the primeval sludge you and your kind belong to, nasty little money grubbing maggots who delight in profiteering from the misery of others , Amsterdam you failed in Russia you are a born again distorter of the truth who is possibly one of the worlds leading con artists.

- 2005: His client, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is sentenced |to 8 years in prison.

- 2005: Arrested in Moscow on September 22nd, he is forced to leave the country.

- August 2008: His request |to gain Khodorkovsky's |freedom is rejected.

- May 2010: Hired as international counsel to former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin has a brief with a track record like that, well he doesn't need enemies does he !!!

Edited August 2, 2010 by siampolee

[Ulysses G.]

I saw an interview with this slimy creep, so I don't need Somtow to tell me that he is a liar.

[mausplan]

The Reds , under Thaksins leadership , had a clear choice. They could try to attain Government through participating in parliamentary process or through violent overthrow. They choose violence , presumably only because of their Bosses timeline and cash flow reasons.<div><br></div><div>To bolster Amsterdams "Bangkok Massacre " story , I will mail him the Thai TV news video of the unarmed soldier who was shot at Din Daeng after the mob attacked and beat him to the ground.  </div>

[TallForeigner]

So far no one has been able to counter anything but emotional and fictional blah blah against Robert Amsterdam's White Paper.

I read the Whole document very carefully and I must say that this is an excellent piece of work, well written and sticking to verifiable facts. His call for a truly independent panel of experts to investigate the truth is THE ONLY WAY to initiate true reconciliation in Thailand. I wished that at least one single person in the sitting government would have the intelligence of the people who were writing this document.

I know that I will be flamed for my opinion and instead of real facts and arguments and calls for the truth there will only be stupid emotional attacks.

Guess what? I don't care...and I will not answer on this topic again - enough said.

[yumidesign]

I saw an interview with this slimy creep, so I don't need Somtow to tell me that he is a liar.

mr slimy must be paid by the word count, and i would guess in swiss frank not barts

[Robby nz]

Liked ther last sentence:

In the meantime I will try to think of a practical use for this White Paper. I can only think of one so far, but it's not going to stay white for long.

Started to read R A's paper then when I saw there were another 70 odd pages to go I gave it away.

All about a spin doctor trying to scrape some of the crap of his client.

[dru2]

So far no one has been able to counter anything but emotional and fictional blah blah against Robert Amsterdam's White Paper.

I read the Whole document very carefully and I must say that this is an excellent piece of work, well written and sticking to verifiable facts. His call for a truly independent panel of experts to investigate the truth is THE ONLY WAY to initiate true reconciliation in Thailand. I wished that at least one single person in the sitting government would have the intelligence of the people who were writing this document.

I know that I will be flamed for my opinion and instead of real facts and arguments and calls for the truth there will only be stupid emotional attacks.

Guess what? I don't care...and I will not answer on this topic again - enough said.

"I will not answer on this topic again - enough said".

Good. Enough said.

[whybother]

Liked ther last sentence:

In the meantime I will try to think of a practical use for this White Paper. I can only think of one so far, but it's not going to stay white for long.

Started to read R A's paper then when I saw there were another 70 odd pages to go I gave it away.

All about a spin doctor trying to scrape some of the crap of his client.

I just read the executive summary ... I can see where the rest is leading - selective use of facts.

Weeks earlier, on April 10, 2010, units hadcarried out a failed attempt to disperse a Red Shirt gathering at the Phan Fa Bridge,resulting in the death of twenty-seven people. At least fifty-five more people died inthe dispersal of the Ratchaprasong rally between May 13 and May 19.

... failing to mention the number of soldiers/police and non-protesting citizens that were killed by red-shirt "forces".

[liveinlos]

Another lawyer that has never lived in Thailand, but became an overnight expert on all things Thai.

[hammered]

Amsterdam's whole career is built on creating lies, fabrications, internet creations and memes for his clients. That is all anyone needs to know. Period.

[march]

- 2005: His client, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is sentenced to 8 years in prison.

May he be equally successful with his current client.

[animatic]

If you held a mirror up to Thaksin and his career, it would reflect recto verso, and more egregious,

pretty much the entirety of the charges Robert Amsterdamn tries to level on the government.

Which would be highlighted in stark relief negatively to the majority of the world's nation's lives.

And in a dark shadow of contrast to the works accomplished by Abhisit and Korn

under much more difficult, and internationally less propitious conditions, in spite of grave distractions.

If Amsterdamn gave the same scrutiny he purports to apply here,

directed at his employer the picture would be damning in the extreme.

[animatic]

Another lawyer that has never lived in Thailand, but became an overnight expert on all things Thai.

After spending 4-5 days mostly behind the Red Stage 'advising' them....

Yeah a real expert on all things Thai.

[animatic]

Does this mean that about 50% of Rob allegation is true?

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics,

and the combining statistics and lawyers of sorts you get

'Damned Hampster lies.'

Nothing more than throwing partial facts on a tread mill

and spitting them out in random order with the meanings reversed.

Run lil rodent run, faster now, we're losing the battle!

And then have your own forum shills come in and comment how perfectly

your work is constructed and how amazingly true it all is, and how all

who criticizing it are illiterate bumpkins and bad story tellers.

@$600 per billable hour of course.

May the lawyers and Perception Management weenies bleed Thaksin dry.

Though big fines work faster.

Edited August 2, 2010 by animatic

[snakehips]

I would not use Mr Amsterdams paper to wipe my **** with.

[Rama]

I have read Mr. Amsterdam's paper in the smallest room in my house, and soon his paper will be behind me...

[jayboy]

Amsterdam's whole career is built on creating lies, fabrications, internet creations and memes for his clients. That is all anyone needs to know. Period.

Glad to see you are taking a broad civilised view in the spirit of genuine inquiry.Actually Amsterdam wiped the floor with poor old Somtow whose Eton/Cambridge brain has probably atrophied in Thailand's intellectually stultifying atmosphere where fairy tales are taken at face value.Both contributions were loaded cases, but that's fair enough.Amsterdam like most PR men is not my cup of tea but your summary of his career is ridiculous.He is taken seriously for example by the admirable Charlie Rose (who can be seen on Bloomberg now, a rare oasis of civilised discussion on the telly)

Still it's sad to see you in this mode - not the fair minded person I remember.Are you really comfortable to be in the company of the feral posters with their inane bleating "two legs bad four legs good" approach?

[Shah Jahan]

And then have your own forum shills come in and comment how perfectly

your work is constructed and how amazingly true it all is, and how all

who criticizing it are illiterate bumpkins and bad story tellers.

how much is he paying per post?

[slapout]

Mr. Robert, as well as his employer appear to have an inflated feeling of intelligence and self worth. The good part is that they have spent countless hours of their respective time and money to put out a piece of garbage which may be accepted as truth , by those of less intelligence, than they feel they have. The thought behind the 'white paper' is apparently pure unadulterated propaganda, which is expected when the employer and the sources records and moral attitudes are both considered. What both parties seem to not accept, is that there are a certain per cent of the population (even in Thailand) who have more moral fiber, intelligence, and self respect than they or the minions who are on their payroll. This percentage seems to be increasing over the past few years, even though they keep harping on the restriction which they perceive, to be in effect today.

[simon43]

Actually, it is not relevant all what we on this forum think about Robert Amsterdam. What is relevant is how international opinion and the international courts view his comments.

The comments on this forum are just white noise

Simon

[HAL9000]

A good way to judge something is to see who is against it.

All the critics seem to be reduced to name calling.

[Samuian]

So far no one has been able to counter anything but emotional and fictional blah blah against Robert Amsterdam's White Paper.

I read the Whole document very carefully and I must say that this is an excellent piece of work, well written and sticking to verifiable facts. His call for a truly independent panel of experts to investigate the truth is THE ONLY WAY to initiate true reconciliation in Thailand. I wished that at least one single person in the sitting government would have the intelligence of the people who were writing this document.

I know that I will be flamed for my opinion and instead of real facts and arguments and calls for the truth there will only be stupid emotional attacks.

Guess what? I don't care...and I will not answer on this topic again - enough said.

Interesting "emotional and fictional blah' blah"... very interesting argumentation...to detest illegal assembly, mob riots, threats to citizens, mob killing/lynching of a soldier, firing grenades at will and randomly in public areas of the capitol, drive by shootings, public threads of more violence, of turning Bangkok into a sea of fire is "emotional and fictitious blah, blah" interesting notion, very interesting...nothing but shallow polemics!

Edited August 2, 2010 by Samuian

[whybother]

Actually, it is not relevant all what we on this forum think about Robert Amsterdam. What is relevant is how international opinion and the international courts view his comments.

The comments on this forum are just white noise

Simon

TVF is part of, and may influence other, international opinion.

But what do the international courts care about his comments? No international courts are dealing with any Thai issues, are they?

[jayjay0]

So far no one has been able to counter anything but emotional and fictional blah blah against Robert Amsterdam's White Paper.

I read the Whole document very carefully and I must say that this is an excellent piece of work, well written and sticking to verifiable facts. His call for a truly independent panel of experts to investigate the truth is THE ONLY WAY to initiate true reconciliation in Thailand. I wished that at least one single person in the sitting government would have the intelligence of the people who were writing this document.

I know that I will be flamed for my opinion and instead of real facts and arguments and calls for the truth there will only be stupid emotional attacks.

Guess what? I don't care...and I will not answer on this topic again - enough said.

Not sure why he answered in the first place.

My money says his mind was made up and then he read the white paper.

Having all his assumptions proven with half facts legal manipulation of terms which had nothing to do with the atrocity of the actual events. He found it not necessary to read.

Somtow's Article

I myself am not a lawer and can not imagine wading through 75 pages of a lawers writing. Particularly when the Lawer is hired to make some one look good. I particularly liked in his response that corruption has gotten worse sense Thaksin left office. I really don't know where he gets that fact. However if one stops and thinks about it, it does have a seed of truth to it. After all one can only be so corrupt time does not allow for more. But when that individual is gone it allows more people in and as a group they can do far more corruption than one man who would not allow them to encroach on his private domain. Let us not forget that it was Thaksins puppets who eventualy replaced him. You will notice that Robert Amsterdam's does not place the starting time for the increase in corruption as the time Abhisit took over. Just speculation but there is always the possibility that it has decreased under the Abhisit regime. I don't know what the facts are but I post it to show just some of the ways Amsterdam's article can be misleading. And I am not even a lawyer and I can see through that.

[jayjay0]

- 2005: His client, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is sentenced to 8 years in prison.

May he be equally successful with his current client.

Even more successful may it never end.

[jayjay0]

Does this mean that about 50% of Rob allegation is true?

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics,

and the combining statistics and lawyers of sorts you get

'Damned Hampster lies.'

Nothing more than throwing partial facts on a tread mill

and spitting them out in random order with the meanings reversed.

Run lil rodent run, faster now, we're losing the battle!

And then have your own forum shills come in and comment how perfectly

your work is constructed and how amazingly true it all is, and how all

who criticizing it are illiterate bumpkins and bad story tellers.

@$600 per billable hour of course.

May the lawyers and Perception Management weenies bleed Thaksin dry.

Though big fines work faster.

At that rate I am surprised he stopped at 75 pages. I believe it is all about money, that is how much he can get into his pocket. If it was me I would have found a way to get Amiella Earhart into it. That would have taken ten pages of explaining backed up by two weeks of research.

[jayjay0]

Amsterdam's whole career is built on creating lies, fabrications, internet creations and memes for his clients. That is all anyone needs to know. Period.

Glad to see you are taking a broad civilised view in the spirit of genuine inquiry.Actually Amsterdam wiped the floor with poor old Somtow whose Eton/Cambridge brain has probably atrophied in Thailand's intellectually stultifying atmosphere where fairy tales are taken at face value.Both contributions were loaded cases, but that's fair enough.Amsterdam like most PR men is not my cup of tea but your summary of his career is ridiculous.He is taken seriously for example by the admirable Charlie Rose (who can be seen on Bloomberg now, a rare oasis of civilised discussion on the telly)

Still it's sad to see you in this mode - not the fair minded person I remember.Are you really comfortable to be in the company of the feral posters with their inane bleating "two legs bad four legs good" approach?

Beg to differ. Not only is he being fair but he is also being generous. Why does that bother you?