Use Of Thai Security Laws Comes Under Attack

[rubl]

Having done some searches the only source of the 'sandal lady' seems to be Prachatai. All other websites simple refer to a 'prachatai report'. So we have a 'red-shirt' leaning 'popular Thai newspaper' saying the police detained a lady 'or an offence under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree'.

No other newspaper reported independently on the incident. Makes you wonder

[orangezeke]

Having done some searches the only source of the 'sandal lady' seems to be Prachatai. All other websites simple refer to a 'prachatai report'. So we have a 'red-shirt' leaning 'popular Thai newspaper' saying the police detained a lady 'or an offence under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree'.

No other newspaper reported independently on the incident. Makes you wonder

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

[rubl]

Having done some searches the only source of the 'sandal lady' seems to be Prachatai. All other websites simple refer to a 'prachatai report'. So we have a 'red-shirt' leaning 'popular Thai newspaper' saying the police detained a lady 'or an offence under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree'.

No other newspaper reported independently on the incident. Makes you wonder

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

Your reply is besides the point. I can only find ONE original source. I would expect more. Censureship? Don't think so, Prachatai would not be able to report. So why none on the 'sandal lady' from others ?

[way2muchcoffee]

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

Actually it is you who must come up with a legitimate source. Prachathai isn't that. Sorry Zeke. It just doesn't work that way. Respectable news sources do not waste their time refuting internet blogs that are already discredited. What you are asking for is impossible. However, if you are certain that what you say is true then surely you can find a legitimate and respected source. Otherwise....

Edited October 13, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[orangezeke]

What is important is the duration, and charges to be filed.

Many people are detained for questioning

and detained pending charges, and eventually the charges are not filed.

This happens in all countries world wide.

The issue here is some police decided to ignore the governments

relaxation of the letter of the law, and apply it more harshly to one

individual who was showing very poor taste at best and spreading divisiveness.

This is as likely either :

a ) Overzealous cop, who took a disliking to her and / or her message

b ) a setup for political purposes

to continue the ongoing smear attempts on the government.

c ) a lack of communication between government and the Ayutthaya police

why is the duration important ? she was held for 6 hours, against her will. she would have been held longer - perhaps up to 30 days - had she not been bailed. the charges are important. will they be criminal charges or civil ? because one would be the responsibility of the state paid for with tax dollars whereas the other would be left up to the p.m, and funded from his own pocket.

[rubl]

What is important is the duration, and charges to be filed.

Many people are detained for questioning

and detained pending charges, and eventually the charges are not filed.

This happens in all countries world wide.

The issue here is some police decided to ignore the governments

relaxation of the letter of the law, and apply it more harshly to one

individual who was showing very poor taste at best and spreading divisiveness.

This is as likely either :

a ) Overzealous cop, who took a disliking to her and / or her message

b ) a setup for political purposes

to continue the ongoing smear attempts on the government.

c ) a lack of communication between government and the Ayutthaya police

why is the duration important ? she was held for 6 hours, against her will. she would have been held longer - perhaps up to 30 days - had she not been bailed. the charges are important. will they be criminal charges or civil ? because one would be the responsibility of the state paid for with tax dollars whereas the other would be left up to the p.m, and funded from his own pocket.

The issue here is a case which is originally reported ONLY in Prachatai. Assuming it's a true case, the police seem to have been overzealous. Even without bail the lady would have seen justice in court. If found guilty go to prison, if found innocent get compensation.

Cases like this happen in all countries. Most get defused quickly if obviously incorrect.

Only when you say this should not have happened and assuming details are true I would agree with you. Don't loose your sleep over this though.

Edited October 13, 2010 by rubl

[whybother]

Dodge, weave ,duck and keep using your colouring book simplistic use of the word. Read the bloody article! The professor is using the word to describe those held without charge which is legal for up to 30 days under the ED. That is his concern, that this is ongoing. Most of the posts on this thread have concerned an example of exactly what the professor required, those arrested to be charged, and offered the chance of bail, or brought before a judge - yet you use the same example to declare the PM a liar, an offence that exists only in your narrow mind.

This woman was being offensive. Showing the soles of your feet is offensive in this culture, walking on on image of their face even more so. And for that she was harassed, and she wants to get used to it. If I went to a political event and sold T-shirts with "Hilary Clinton is a <deleted>" (and the mis-spelling is deliberate) I could probably do so without breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't get any grief. That is the way it is, being offensive offends, and people respond.

your second paragraph first. there are judicial systems in place for the aggrieved - isn't the appropriate response for abasit/suthep to sue for defamation ? a civil case. at any rate your commentary here can be dismissed as holding no basis in law.

then you go on to decry my earlier posts as simply verbal rope-a-dope. that is pretty harsh. lets explore these claims.

• post 29 pedro01 says "No-one is locked up for having an opinion."
• post 31 OzMike's first post, follows up with "Agree absolutely".
• post 32 i disagree and post an example of someone locked up for having an opinion
• post 44 OzMike replies with "She was not detained" in bold and underlined for emphasis.
• post 45 i disagree.
• post 49 OzMike suggests i reread the article, continues to defy the rules of english and in a moment of quite incredible foresight assures us "the case would be dismissed". then he says "the same thing could happen in many parts of the world" comparing this administration to the likes of burma as evidence it is all okay.
• post 50 i disagree, say im not buying OzMike a beer and suggest we shouldn't focus on the flip flopper.
• post 52 i'm accused of dodging the issues

im confused, is it 'dodge, weave or duck' when i disagree with you or when i don't address your point ? because up until now it has been all about whether she was detained and i think we have covered that to death.

the rest of your post is good and worth discussing. your point as i understand it is the flip flop woman doesn't count as a relevant example she was processed, bailed and allowed to leave within the 30 day limit. all above board right ?

wrong.

she was arrested under section 9(3) of the emergency decree - the only way an offense like this becomes criminal. but the decree is not in effect in ayutthaya. (like my font flair ?) when k vivit talks about the laws being subverted to suit this administration, this example proves perfect.

as a footnote to my post i do recommend readers review the whole thread for themselves. my post summary is pretty bad.

If she was.arrested under the emergency decree, but the emergency decree was not in effect, is that the fault of the government or the police?

[SergeiY]

Actually it is you who must come up with a legitimate source. Prachathai isn't that. Sorry Zeke. It just doesn't work that way. Respectable news sources do not waste their time refuting internet blogs that are already discredited. What you are asking for is impossible. However, if you are certain that what you say is true then surely you can find a legitimate and respected source. Otherwise....

Vitit spoke at a seminar on special security laws organised by the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung and Cross Cultural Foundation at Chulalongkorn yesterday.

These people came up with some reasonable arguments against the State of Emergency.

The words/opinions in the OP come from a legitimate and respected source. Can anyone who posted a response here reach such a level of being respected - to be a law professor? Speak at such seminars?

Did anyone here respected these opinion and the "authority" behind?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Vitit spoke at a seminar on special security laws organised by the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung and Cross Cultural Foundation at Chulalongkorn yesterday.

These people came up with some reasonable arguments against the State of Emergency.

The words/opinions in the OP come from a legitimate and respected source.

From the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung mission statement on their About Us page:

The Foundation's office in Bangkok conducts projects in Thailand aiming at:•Strengthening the parliamentary system

•Promoting political participation of the people

•Strengthening the civil society's decision-making role

•Promoting rule of law

•Strengthening economic and social stability

•Promoting peaceful conflict resolution

The introduction to the seminar:

SECURITY LAWS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Five month after the violent crackdown of the protests in Bangkok's inner city, the emergency decree still holds in Bangkok, its neighboring provinces, and the deep south. Due to this fact KAS Thailand, the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), and the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) invited to a public forum.

Sorry. I'm confused. Is the KAS interested in promoting rule of law as they claim?

If so, perhaps they should have held a seminar discussing the options faced by security forces when 5000 terrorists illegally and violently hijack a capital city and barricade themselves into the largest shopping mall in the country, and then proceed to launch rockets, Molotov cocktails and live rounds at innocent soldiers tasked with protecting rule of law.

I was unaware that armed and violent criminals hijacking a shopping centre for two months, bringing a capital city to a standstill and turning the inner city into a Live Fire Zone of acrid smoke and chaos and destruction...constituted valid democratic protest - I was unaware that such behaviour fell into the acceptable boundaries of legal protest in any state across the globe where rule of law was held sacrosanct. I was unaware that burning 40 landmark buildings after dousing them in petrol was legal.

I was - apparently - unaware that security forces seeking to protect the rights of 20 million people, seeking to uphold the rule of law peacefully for two months of rejected concessions and subjected to endless violent attacks, tasked to return the inner city to Bangkok's 20 million residents and the hijacked stores to their innocent - law-abiding - owners against violent, armed criminals who were trying to kill them...could be labeled a "violent crackdown of the protests".

Your 'respected' professors have opinions which are illegitimate. Opinions which are indefensible in any first world nation. When they address the contradictions in their stated positions, we can listen to their 'respected' opinions and assess them for validity.

Until they do, the Red Propaganda Machine which promotes violent, illegal, criminal and despicable contempt for rule of law can discuss the matter between themselves. I do not know if they had any legitimacy at any point prior to this seminar.

But if they did, it has instantly evaporated when they condone criminal and violent hijacking, and War Crimes such as holding children hostage to use as human shields....as legitimate protest. Or when they consider enforcement of rule of law to be "a violent crackdown".

You may exit the discussion at this point. Head bowed, and face red (pun intended).

[TheyCallmeScooter]

your second paragraph first. there are judicial systems in place for the aggrieved - isn't the appropriate response for abasit/suthep to sue for defamation ? a civil case.

your point as i understand it is the flip flop woman doesn't count as a relevant example she was processed, bailed and allowed to leave within the 30 day limit.

Whilst you, Pravit, and the Red Propaganda network would dearly love to force their opponents into engaging them on trivialities - desperately hoping to achieve back-door legitimacy in the form of a response to provocation (an understandable goal for every extremist group in the world - all desperately desiring increased levels of 'legitimacy') - the simple fact is that school children don't fall for it, and it's unlikely that anyone here will fall for it, and I guarantee you Abhisit will not fall for it.

Whilst I have no problem with a lady gratuitously seeking to capitalise on emotion by selling offensive slippers, and I do not believe she should be subjected to harassment by police (if we assume that has occurred, and objective observers do not make those assumptions based on a single Red Tabloid 'report')...I have a problem with the Red Propaganda Machine's transparent attempts to niggle and harass and provoke leaders who are attempting to restore rule of law to a nation under attack by Red Provocateurs.

Whilst I cannot speak for the other valid points which have been made, my point is that the flip-flop woman's example is not relevant because it's not relevant.

1. We don't even know if the incident (innocuous as it is) even occurred. We have one report, and it's from a 'source' that no uninvested observer (or child above the age of 14) considers to be objective or legitimate.

2. If it did occur, we don't know all the extenuating circumstances. Did the lady attack or insult police? Did she insult the monarchy? What else happened leading up to the arrest? How can you assume she was arrested under the circumstances and the decree that you claim? Why has no evidence been presented to support the fairly outrageous and unlikely claims?

You see, legitimate journalists and legitimate news portals don't make outlandish claims without providing supporting evidence. Such a claim, hypothetically, would be that a person was arrested illegally by police, who made the arrest using a state of emergency decree which doesn't exist in that province - which would make the arrest illegal.

If what you claim is true (the one Prachatai didn't think was important to provide evidence in support of), then no doubt the Reds will be filing complaints against the police in question for illegal detention. The fact that there is no evidence that they even cited a decree which isn't in existence in their province, and the fact that Prachatai and PTP are not focusing on due process and disciplinary action levied against the police officers in question....is somewhat telling.

No - nothing about this is true. If it was, there are quite obvious avenues that would be pursued. They are not being pursued, instead the Reds are attempting to use their fabricated (we must assume it's fabricated in light of the fact NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED to suggest otherwise) story to hopefully generate outrage which is not warranted....and this fact effectively proves the report (singular) of the incident is a fabrication and misrepresentation, if the incident ever existed. At all.

wow, that would be super awesome dude, and i would be super interested to read that. but could you do it somewhere else, we are talking about something different here.

No. That's exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about Pravit's propaganda articles which endlessly and desperately seek to provoke a reaction from legitimate parties - in the hope that the Red Shirts' cause might enjoy an increased level of exposure and legitimacy.

Having done some searches the only source of the 'sandal lady' seems to be Prachatai. All other websites simple refer to a 'prachatai report'. So we have a 'red-shirt' leaning 'popular Thai newspaper' saying the police detained a lady 'or an offence under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree'.

No other newspaper reported independently on the incident. Makes you wonder

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

No.

Are you 8 years old?

That's EXACTLY how it works.

You don't get to fabricate a story, make outlandish claims which are unsupported by any evidence which would exist if the claims were true, then demand the other party disprove your claims.

That's very nearly the most stupid thing I've heard...perhaps the most stupid thing since I was 7 and, in response to my question asking our Minister for evidence of his God's existence, he demanded that I disprove his claims. He was an idiot. You are an idiot. What an idiotic, ridiculous, transparent 'strategy'.

You can also exit the discussion at this point, head bowed with your fiery red tail between your legs in shame.

[SergeiY]

Vitit spoke at a seminar on special security laws organised by the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung and Cross Cultural Foundation at Chulalongkorn yesterday.

These people came up with some reasonable arguments against the State of Emergency.

The words/opinions in the OP come from a legitimate and respected source.

From the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung mission statement on their About Us page:

The Foundation's office in Bangkok conducts projects in Thailand aiming at:•Strengthening the parliamentary system

•Promoting political participation of the people

•Strengthening the civil society's decision-making role

•Promoting rule of law

•Strengthening economic and social stability

•Promoting peaceful conflict resolution

The introduction to the seminar:

SECURITY LAWS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Five month after the violent crackdown of the protests in Bangkok's inner city, the emergency decree still holds in Bangkok, its neighboring provinces, and the deep south. Due to this fact KAS Thailand, the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS), and the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) invited to a public forum.

Sorry. I'm confused. Is the KAS interested in promoting rule of law as they claim?

If so, perhaps they should have held a seminar discussing the options faced by security forces when 5000 terrorists illegally and violently hijack a capital city and barricade themselves into the largest shopping mall in the country, and then proceed to launch rockets, Molotov cocktails and live rounds at innocent soldiers tasked with protecting rule of law.

I was unaware that armed and violent criminals hijacking a shopping centre for two months, bringing a capital city to a standstill and turning the inner city into a Live Fire Zone of acrid smoke and chaos and destruction...constituted valid democratic protest - I was unaware that such behaviour fell into the acceptable boundaries of legal protest in any state across the globe where rule of law was held sacrosanct. I was unaware that burning 40 landmark buildings after dousing them in petrol was legal.

I was - apparently - unaware that security forces seeking to protect the rights of 20 million people, seeking to uphold the rule of law peacefully for two months of rejected concessions and subjected to endless violent attacks, tasked to return the inner city to Bangkok's 20 million residents and the hijacked stores to their innocent - law-abiding - owners against violent, armed criminals who were trying to kill them...could be labeled a "violent crackdown of the protests".

Your 'respected' professors have opinions which are illegitimate. Opinions which are indefensible in any first world nation. When they address the contradictions in their stated positions, we can listen to their 'respected' opinions and assess them for validity.

Until they do, the Red Propaganda Machine which promotes violent, illegal, criminal and despicable contempt for rule of law can discuss the matter between themselves. I do not know if they had any legitimacy at any point prior to this seminar.

But if they did, it has instantly evaporated when they condone criminal and violent hijacking, and War Crimes such as holding children hostage to use as human shields....as legitimate protest. Or when they consider enforcement of rule of law to be "a violent crackdown".

You may exit the discussion at this point. Head bowed, and face red (pun intended).

yawn.

ps. Some just fail because of the typeface they use.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

yawn.

ps. Some just fail because of the typeface they use.

lol

I'm hurt, though. I just defended your valid point against rubl (who normally makes perfectly rational points) in another thread using the same typeface. If I was 1/100th as petty as the Reds, I would renege either my support or the superior typeface used.

That alone should be evidence of the inherent truth of the ancient Chinese proverb; "one must not judge a man's objectivity by his preferred font/s".

And it should be a clue that all I care about is rational, reasoned, debate involving facts, logic and arguments supported by evidence. The Reds defecate on Truth, then sling that the result (99% fecal matter, 1% truth) at their opponents. When they are willing to be rational, non-violent, ethical, and honourable...I will support any valid position they hold. Until they abstain from violence, abstain from terrorism, denounce their War Crimes of April/May this year, denounce and disassociate themselves from anyone who believes any of the above is valid means to an end....they, themselves, must be denounced.

[SergeiY]

yawn.

ps. Some just fail because of the typeface they use.

lol

I'm hurt, though. I just defended your valid point against rubl (who normally makes perfectly rational points) in another thread using the same typeface. If I was 1/100th as petty as the Reds, I would renege either my support or the superior typeface used.

That alone should be evidence of the inherent truth of the ancient Chinese proverb; "one must not judge a man's objectivity by his preferred font/s".

That isn't something that i made up. That is basic knowledge.

Google for 'Comic Sans font' - a couple of interesting articles will pop up. Read them to get an idea when to use a certain font and when definitely not; and how you can fail with comic sans, specially in the Internet.

Btw. Criticism on that Thai Security Law and specially the warning that it is open for misuse and to move away from the "Rule of Law" is much older than the red shirt movement and dates back to the days when it was introduced or at least some of the basic were manifested That was under the Thaksin administration (it got later "improved" by the coup dudes). Originally it was thought as an instrument to handle the problem in the south.

Now you can say - Ohhh lololotrollo, THE IRONY. now the red shirts have to face that evil. so nam na.

But if you have at least some intelligence you should know that two wrongs don't make a right - and that these academics at this seminar have some valid points.

[Buchholz]

- outstanding post reduced -

-outstanding post reduced -

The most comprehensive dissection of a discussion I've ever seen two posts make here.

Extremely well constructed and highly admirable in its credibility and thoroughness.

Brutally honest and frankly presented to the point where the only opposition to it is reduced to ridiculously discussing the fonts used to craft it.

Hats off to you and appreciative of your investing the time necessary to produce it.

Very well done.

[chantorn]

CRES have done a good job. They should take over the country after Dems are dissolved.

Keep up the good work with the continuous Bangkok bombing.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

That isn't something that i made up. That is basic knowledge.

Google for 'Comic Sans font' - a couple of interesting articles will pop up. Read them to get an idea when to use a certain font and when definitely not; and how you can fail with comic sans, specially in the Internet.

Fascinating. And a basic knowledge I did not possess. Like my little cousin buying her first car, I just thought Comic Sans MS was "pretty" compared to boring Arial and Times New Roman. I'm trialling Palantino Linotype. It seems like an aesthetically-pleasing, serious font. Apparently it has won awards! Can I be serious in Palantino Linotype?

Btw. Criticism on that Thai Security Law and specially the warning that it is open for misuse and to move away from the "Rule of Law" is much older than the red shirt movement and dates back to the days when it was introduced or at least some of the basic were manifested That was under the Thaksin administration (it got later "improved" by the coup dudes). Originally it was thought as an instrument to handle the problem in the south.

Now you can say - Ohhh lololotrollo, THE IRONY. now the red shirts have to face that evil. so nam na.

Only a fool believes two wrongs = right.

But in a choice between a side which is using the other side's Wrong to fight their ongoing Wrongs....and a side who literally produces Wrong faster than Thailand can recover from the fallout...I'm going to side with the former over the latter. Which of course, does not mean I support tit for tat action, or reprisals, or eye for an eye nonsense - or even compromise ideals for some perceived greater good - it's simply that I detest the hijacking of valid issues for the purposes of gaining traction; hijacking of ideals by people who, if they get the chance (again!), will only trample on the very ideals they hijacked along the way. It's the oldest trick in the book. When covered in mud, sling the mud around and cover everyone in mud, voila.

Screw that. People covered in mud don't get to criticise far less muddy (or clean) opponents for being 'dirty'. Pots don't get to call kettles 'black'.

The source of the criticism matters. Always. If the criticism is coming from an illegitimate source, their points are never salient, their criticism is never valid, their arguments are never legitimately made.

That's why Thaksin is paying millions on lawyers who don't defend him. They merely attack his opponents. On occasion, their criticisms are valid (but only in a vacuum). They are leeches, simply latching onto anything they can to exaggerate, twist around, stretch and spin into nauseating attacks. Look at this example of Amsterdam attempting - in vomit-inducing fashion - to hijack a top-notch report on police brutality and corruption by Andrew Drummond, attempting to segue justified outrage at a criminal cop....into yet another visceral attack on Thailand: http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=377

As the case of Sergeant Uthai so poignantly illustrates, coming to the defense of killers, granting them impunity in the name of a supposed "greater good," only guarantees that the same tragedy will happen over and over again. One wonders whether Thailand's "image" might not be better if its glorified establishment finally got around to building the country's reputation as a place that upholds the rule of law– especially when that implies bringing rogue state officials to justice. Consistently protecting the right of the strong to trample all over the rights of the weak does not seem to have done Thailand's "image" any good. This might be a good time to try something new.

LOL. Salient points are made. Criticisms appear to be valid. But this is why illegitimate sources are incapable of making valid criticisms. "granting impunity"? lol. "upholds the rule of law"? lol. "time to try something new"? lol

Andrew Drummond, being Andrew Drummond, made short shrift of Amsterdam's hijack attempt, forcing Amsterdam to finally address Thaksin's human rights record (to the best of my knowledge, the very first time he's ever been required to do so - he certainly censored every comment I'd ever posted, some comments were ONLY a single link to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch report - but after attempting to steal Drummond's article, he couldn't very well censor Drummond's comments, no doubt much to his chagrin - chortle).

Look at Amsterdam's idea of what constitutes a "defence argument" (to be fair to Amsterdam, it's not exactly the kind of legal representation he offers his clients, and definitely not the kind of legal counsel his clients are seeking).

His defence argument:

- attempt to dismiss the outraged criticism as merely "red herring" (oh, the irony)

- ridiculous attempt to rewrite history, downgrading the scale of the abuse to 3% of the number estimated by the same NGOs he so loves to (selectively) quote in support of his spin ("others have claimed"? lol - he cannot even name a ludicrous source like PTP or Prachatai 'suspecting' the number of killings is less than widely agreed)

- a ludicrous attempt to 'justify' the killings because "Mexico is worse!!" (<deleted>? lol, that's a defence argument? Thaksin pays this guy?)

- pathetic attempt to exonerate Thaksin by virtue of no conviction being recorded by an independent investigation that has never occurred

- a plea to "critical minds" to exonerate Thaksin on the basis that his Drug War was popular ("yes, he was responsible for the human rights abuses, but the killing of innocents was tacitly tolerated by others, so....he's not culpable" - <deleted>? is there any evidence that this guy has even been to law school?)

These kinds of people, Sergei - sources like this, their criticism is NEVER valid. No matter how salient their points may seem, no matter how deceptively idealistic their claims may sound.

Back to this 'respected' organisation and their criticisms of Abhisit's government in using Thaksin's (by virtue of proxy) Emergency decree to protect against Thaksin's (by virtue of proxy) terrorism. Are they a legitimate source capable of valid criticism?

Of course not.

And I proved that fact, which is quite evident when one looks at their ludicrous attempt to frame violence and terrorism as "protest" and patient exhausted attempts to reestablish rule of law as a "violent crackdown" - quite a contraction from their stated claims on their About Us page.

My typeface was inappropriate, but I assure you the validity of the arguments were not.

Thaksin's proxy companies and his employees and the poor excuses for journalists that he employs and the propaganda websites he sponsors....can huff and puff and criticise till the cows come home (or until the cheques bounce - with Thaksin's wealth, we should probably await the cows). But nothing they say is ever valid, because their motives triggering their criticism only ever consists of but ONE, single desire: return Thaksin to power. If he gets power again, I fear his human rights record will pale in comparison to the vicious reprisals and abuses of power that will inevitably be the hallmark of Thaksin Mark II: New & Improved (*other studies estimate 63% more Evil - get yours today!)

And the fact that (collectively) Thailand will deserve whatever Thailand allows to occur...is of little comfort. Or relevance.

Do not validate criticism from sources who:

a) only criticise Thaksin's opponents

b ) refuse to acknowledge Thaksin's record of abusing power

c) did not criticise far more - criminal - breaches than the *potential* for abuse which they harp on about. POTENTIAL of abuse, which exists as a result of the three primary issues they have chosen to exploit (two of which consist of Thaksin's own legislation, and the third being the Army which restored democracy, at Thaksin's expense)

Nothing they say is salient.

Nothing they say is valid.

Nothing they say is legitimate.

Nothing they say is relevant.

Which is why they so desperately scrabble to acquire (by hook or by crook) any or all of the above.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

[The most comprehensive dissection of a discussion I've ever seen two posts make here.

Extremely well constructed and highly admirable in its credibility and thoroughness.

Brutally honest and frankly presented to the point where the only opposition to it is reduced to ridiculously discussing the fonts used to craft it.

Hats off to you and appreciative of your investing the time necessary to produce it.

Very well done.

Thank you Sir! But I assure you any decent construction that may - on occasion - occur, are merely happenstance. My rants are delivered without disciplined consideration to brevity (ostensibly the soul of wit - some nerve, Shakespeare - talk about pots and kettles) or editing or even structure lol. I really should of course, pay attention to length and whatnot when I ramble, but I should do a lot of things...and editing with a focus on brevity is on page 2 of that long list so....

Also, I'm getting totally screwed by typeface choices - their appearance as typed in the Editing box, as shown in the Preview box, and displayed in the published Post....are three VERY different looks, strange for a single typeface / font (I don't yet know the difference and too lazy to Google it). I'm trialling Arial Narrow. one time

(edited out horrific Arial Narrow - by process of elimination, am trialling Century Gothic - I think we're onto a winner here. one time.)

Edited October 14, 2010 by TheyCallmeScooter

[animatic]

All laws in Thailand get abused, in most case by those tasked with enforcement.

One law removed one way or another isn't going curb abuses,

they don't even bother to really read them just apply them as they wish too

and let the target deal with it.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

- a plea to "critical minds" to exonerate Thaksin on the basis that his Drug War was popular ("yes, he was responsible for the human rights abuses, but the killing of innocents was tacitly tolerated by others, so....he's not culpable" - <deleted>? is there any evidence that this guy has even been to law school?)

... end removed

Interesting how bad examples propagate. Robert A. must have read the 2009 book 'Badge Of Honor 09 - The Traffickers' by W.E.B. Griffin.

In it there's a Texas Ranger who says

"“In 2003, Thailand began embracing Mao Zedong’s example. The Royal Thai Police reported that in a three-month crackdown, some twenty-two hundred drug runners were summarily shot and by year’s end another seventy thousand arrested. Those seventy thousand were lucky. Chairman Mao’s com munists, calling illegal drug users and suppliers social parasites, just outright killed them all.”"

Edited October 14, 2010 by rubl

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Those seventy thousand were lucky. Chairman Mao’s com munists, calling illegal drug users and suppliers social parasites, just outright killed them all.”"

Chairman Mao wasn't a man who would be frustrated by silliness like students in Tienanmen Square. If only Mao was about, he would have ensured those students got an up-close appreciation of the realities of tank tracks when they are applied to unprotected student skin (as sandwich filler between the slices of tank link track and concrete. And we'd likely be oblivious to the existence of that hallowed square.

The hallmark of a Winner is their commitment to (and capacity to tolerate / accept the exponentially increasing associated 'costs' of) doing...whatever is required to win. Whilst this personality trait is admirable in an Olympic athlete, it's pretty dangerous in politics. Because in political wars, when one fights battles unrestricted by petty considerations relating to the 'cost' of winning (and I'm not merely talking about political fallout, of course)...well, shit gets dangerous fast. And the costs tend to stack up in the form of...human lives.

I could rattle off some other historical politicians who were willing to tolerate / accept x human lives (as the cost of doing political / Utopian business); but the list would read like a Historical Villains Who's Who. It would appear as if I was intentionally trying to lump Thaksin in with guys Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones , et al. And that would be a cheap trick which - quite frankly - is beneath me. Something Amsterdam would attempt (Abhisit is Asia's Mugabe etc). I would never subscribe to such hyperbole. I float above such pettiness.

I'm merely warning against the dangers of politicians who's pious belief in their own infallibility has reached the point where they believe they can win un-winnable Wars. Or believe a single life is expendable fighting a War no government has yet won, or is currently winning, or will ever win. Let alone 2500 lives.

And, assuming I'm currently writing coherently (more of a hope than an assumption, considering this empty bottle of Bacardi on my desk), I'm not talking specifically about Wars on Drugs. I'm talking about the arrogant insanity that possesses politicians to the point where they are no longer sane; to the point where they somehow convince themselves they can achieve the Impossible (such as effectively prohibiting Human Desire). Oh no. One can regulate at best, one can hinder, hamper, restrict - if one is very 'lucky', one can...temper the power of the phenomenon. But prohibit? Wake me up when Prohibition works for the first time in history.

I'm not trying to be cute. If science hasn't progressed to the point where people can be woken up from cryogenics thousands of years in the future, they most certainly will not have discovered the key to effective control of human DNA as it relates to 'desire'. I'm a pretty arrogant sob, and often my arrogance leads me to believe I can win battles I cannot. But the level of arrogance which allows a national politician to believe they can eradicate drug use in a nation of 70 million....let alone eradication of drug use in 3 months....sigh. The kind of arrogance which 'allows' one to possess such a belief, the *kind* of arrogance, the *levels* of that arrogance....well, when it hits that point, we're not really even talking 'arrogance' anymore.

We're talking delusion. Specifically, a god-delusion.

And if you want such a deluded (self-worshiping) demigod as your PM, more power to you. And I admire your courage. And I envy your stupidity. I really, really do...and I'm being serious. Lucky bastards...

[orangezeke]

ahhhaaa....i see the voice of reason left this thread. it logged off about 10pm last night, caught a few zzz's, dropped some folk off at the airport this morning then arrived back in the office. just in time to witness the craziness. i have to say it guys...im disappointed.

i mean, where to begin ? another thread hijacked by the 'it is all taksin's fault' crowd. without referencing taksin, can there be no reasoned critisim of the government ? can we not ask for better from those we pay to represent us ? why do you guys sit cowering in corners when this administration came to power promising to serve you !? Buchholz called me out for using the description 'government lackeys'. i can't believe i apologised.

i hardly ever comment on thai visa. in the two years i have been a member, this thread is the most you would have seen me. i thought it would be good because professor vivit was discussing something i had just heard about - the lady in ayutthaya. it concerns me that these extra judicial powers remain in place some 6 months after the event. it concerns me that a lady like this could be censured for her opinion. i want to talk about it but on this thread the only way you can hear is between the

robert amsterdam/pravit is not a journalist/he works for the red shirts and taksin/the red shirts are bad/Merriam-Webster's Dictionary/you must come up with a legitimate source/are you 8 years old ?

crowd. (i am actually 8 years old btw)

[orangezeke]

Having done some searches the only source of the 'sandal lady' seems to be Prachatai. All other websites simple refer to a 'prachatai report'. So we have a 'red-shirt' leaning 'popular Thai newspaper' saying the police detained a lady 'or an offence under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree'.

No other newspaper reported independently on the incident. Makes you wonder

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

Your reply is besides the point. I can only find ONE original source. I would expect more. Censureship? Don't think so, Prachatai would not be able to report. So why none on the 'sandal lady' from others ?

when animatic first asked me to post a link to the story he didn't say there was going to be so many clauses. now one original source is not enough ? since when ? how many will satisfy you ? i also replied to him:

you want me to find you links to the story ? i will. but first answer this in an effort to save my time. will it change your opinion ? or will you have your defense of this administration already in place ? if you were to read that a lady with bad taste was arrested under a law that is

obsolete

in ayudhaya would you question it ? if you heard abasit falsely say on the 24th of last month that no one is being detained any longer under these laws, when they are, would you hold him to account ?

i didn't hear him reply. i haven't heard you either. don't you think it fair that after my first effort i get something back from you first. answer the questions.

[orangezeke]

you are simply parroting scooters post, that is, "i don't like the source, it doesn't fit my world view so it is b.s." but that's not how it works. if you want to call b.s. you need to find a source which says so. i spent my time finding info, links, screenshots...do the same. until you do, it stands.

have fun.

Actually it is you who must come up with a legitimate source. Prachathai isn't that. Sorry Zeke. It just doesn't work that way. Respectable news sources do not waste their time refuting internet blogs that are already discredited. What you are asking for is impossible. However, if you are certain that what you say is true then surely you can find a legitimate and respected source. Otherwise....

wow, a new poster - way2muchcoffee - joins the fray, and straight onto the 'legitimate source' bandwagon. because that is the easy path right ? ignore the possibility it might be true. dismiss those voices in the back of your head saying, 'that doesn't sound fair, that doesn't sound likes something i want happening in this country'.

you guys are all the same. you hi-5 each other on these threads, letting anything of substance pass you by. the flip flop lady was simply an example of professor vivit's opinion demonstrated. have you got something to say about the lead article ? anything to add or is the bandwagon playing your song ?

[way2muchcoffee]

wow, a new poster - way2muchcoffee - joins the fray, and straight onto the 'legitimate source' bandwagon. because that is the easy path right ? ignore the possibility it might be true. dismiss those voices in the back of your head saying, 'that doesn't sound fair, that doesn't sound likes something i want happening in this country'.

you guys are all the same. you hi-5 each other on these threads, letting anything of substance pass you by. the flip flop lady was simply an example of professor vivit's opinion demonstrated. have you got something to say about the lead article ? anything to add or is the bandwagon playing your song ?

New poster? I've been around this forum for quite a lot longer than you sir. I have also contributed to these political discussions considerably more than you have. Feel free to check my posting history.

In recent months I have curtailed my activity here to posting only when I have something to say. Quite often I will post when I feel the need to respond to the inaccurate, malicious, disingenuous, or just plain ignorant posts of others.

Edited October 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[orangezeke]

What is important is the duration, and charges to be filed.

Many people are detained for questioning

and detained pending charges, and eventually the charges are not filed.

This happens in all countries world wide.

The issue here is some police decided to ignore the governments

relaxation of the letter of the law, and apply it more harshly to one

individual who was showing very poor taste at best and spreading divisiveness.

This is as likely either :

a ) Overzealous cop, who took a disliking to her and / or her message

b ) a setup for political purposes

to continue the ongoing smear attempts on the government.

c ) a lack of communication between government and the Ayutthaya police

why is the duration important ? she was held for 6 hours, against her will. she would have been held longer - perhaps up to 30 days - had she not been bailed. the charges are important. will they be criminal charges or civil ? because one would be the responsibility of the state paid for with tax dollars whereas the other would be left up to the p.m, and funded from his own pocket.

The issue here is a case which is originally reported ONLY in Prachatai. Assuming it's a true case, the police seem to have been overzealous. Even without bail the lady would have seen justice in court. If found guilty go to prison, if found innocent get compensation.

Cases like this happen in all countries. Most get defused quickly if obviously incorrect.

Only when you say this should not have happened and assuming details are true I would agree with you. Don't loose your sleep over this though.

i have to disagree - cases like this don't happen in all countries. in all countries civil cases go to civil courts. in this country what would have been a civil case will now go to a criminal court. in all countries emergency laws are not used to stifle opinion. in this country she is held under an emergency law that was not even in place in her province !

[orangezeke]

wow, a new poster - way2muchcoffee - joins the fray, and straight onto the 'legitimate source' bandwagon. because that is the easy path right ? ignore the possibility it might be true. dismiss those voices in the back of your head saying, 'that doesn't sound fair, that doesn't sound likes something i want happening in this country'.

you guys are all the same. you hi-5 each other on these threads, letting anything of substance pass you by. the flip flop lady was simply an example of professor vivit's opinion demonstrated. have you got something to say about the lead article ? anything to add or is the bandwagon playing your song ?

New poster? I've been around this forum for quite a lot longer than you sir. I have also contributed to these political discussions considerably more than you have. Feel free to check my posting history.

In recent months I have curtailed my activity here to posting only when I have something to say. Quite often I will post when I feel the need to respond to the inaccurate, malicious, disingenuous, or just plain ignorant posts of others.

dude, im super sorry. i didn't mean to call into question your credentials. i was really just referring to this thread. i actually expected to see you here earlier, given the need to respond to the inaccurate, malicious, disingenuous, or just plain ignorant posts of others. where have you been ? i feel like i have been handling this all by myself !!!

[TheyCallmeScooter]

(i am actually 8 years old btw)

8 year olds are usually able to understand simple concepts, once they are outlined and explained. Don't drink the "adult juice", it will give you a killer headache. Don't eat all that chocolate before dinner, you will lose your appetite. Don't sleep in the afternoon, you'll be bouncing around all night.

Don't proffer fabricated claims without evidence. Especially not when the very absence of evidence, and the unique source who chose to exclude non-existent evidence they would be guaranteed to include if it existed, is really more than enough evidence required - to enable one to 'click' to the realisation that the entire story is a fabrication. Don't make outlandish claims which can be disproven by the very fact they possess no evidence...and then demand the other side disprove your claims, or accept them as Truth. You need a uniquely retarded crowd to be able to pull that trick off - and whilst TV forum isn't exactly hosting Mensa Thailand events, we're not really the type who fall for Amway or pyramid schemes or religion (the ultimate pyramid scheme) either. And I'm afraid you needed that kind of a crowd, if you wished to peddle rumour, claim it to be fact based on a link to Prachatai, then demand all disbelievers disprove your outlandish and unsupported claims.

Because I'm especially drunk today, I was actually able to do exactly what you demanded, even though it's - normally - impossible. But then again, one doesn't come up against the brainfreeze idiocy of Prachatai propaganda every day, so perhaps I'm giving myself undeserved pats on the back for recognising the Obvious.

Regardless, your claims have been effectively disproven and dispatched the boundary. You'd be able to recognise this fact if your brain was not frozen. I'm not a medical doctor, and I have only educated guesses with which to work with, but my colleague Doctor Gut believes you've been indulging in far too much Kool-Aid, of the distinct flavour and colour as that sold by Prachatai. Which I note (with requisite tsk's and flippant remarks along the line of "that shit will kill you"), you just admitted to routinely indulging yourself with. Unknowing. Unprotected. Unaware of the long-term danger of repeated digestion.

I'd recommend inducing vomiting in the hope of expelling the ingested poison, but I suspect the matter is really a lost cause - and there's simply nothing we can do. The FDA-listed antidotes are available (sold under brand names Fact™ and Logic™ - the generic being Common-Sense™) but I don't think there is any point of a confronting and painful course of medication which has negligible chance success. The cancer is in an advanced stage and I do not think we can thaw that brainwashed and frozen rock solid brain of yours out now. Not with our (pitiful) 21st century understanding of brain science. For that, I offer you my e-condolences and I promise you I'm shedding a single e-tear.

One day we might stumble upon a cure. I promise you we just well might! Yes, I guess it'll be too late for you, but you can RIP knowing perhaps one day, the human brain won't be quite so susceptible to the cancer of propaganda idiocy. But have no fear - your memory as one of the billions cut down before their prime by the irrefutable logic as that presented by emotive language and expressive hyperbole (unpolluted by supporting evidence, or yawn-inducing logic) - your memory as tragic number 2,129,349,999 or thereabouts will remain with us. For ever. If for no other reason, to serve as a warning to future schoolchildren that when you gulp down the sweet-tasting sugary liquid of the kind distilled by Prachatai and passed around freely, it's super-duper important to remember not to swallow.

Yes, too late for you, I've already conceded that. But it's a bit selfish for you to simply not appear to care about future imbeciles who may be saved by an accidental vaccine, no? Anyway, an important lesson to keep in mind for next time - so here's to reincarnation, am I right....(insert other flowery Hallmark messages here) and I'm off to get some Bacardi. holla

[rubl]

why is the duration important ? she was held for 6 hours, against her will. she would have been held longer - perhaps up to 30 days - had she not been bailed. the charges are important. will they be criminal charges or civil ? because one would be the responsibility of the state paid for with tax dollars whereas the other would be left up to the p.m, and funded from his own pocket.

The issue here is a case which is originally reported ONLY in Prachatai. Assuming it's a true case, the police seem to have been overzealous. Even without bail the lady would have seen justice in court. If found guilty go to prison, if found innocent get compensation.

Cases like this happen in all countries. Most get defused quickly if obviously incorrect.

Only when you say this should not have happened and assuming details are true I would agree with you. Don't loose your sleep over this though.

i have to disagree - cases like this don't happen in all countries. in all countries civil cases go to civil courts. in this country what would have been a civil case will now go to a criminal court. in all countries emergency laws are not used to stifle opinion. in this country she is held under an emergency law that was not even in place in her province !

You're right, it doesn't happen in all countries. I guess I should have said 'it happens sometimes in most countries'. Some countries never ever make mistakes (and those who say will be heard of no more)

As for civil and criminal court, there's the Anglo-Saxon tradition which differs from lots of other countries. Many in Europe are based on the 'Code Napoleon'.

'in all countries emerg. laws are not used to stifle opinion' is an incorrect statement if I am to believe what you write. So no meaning, no value.

And the last sentence 'in this country she iswas held for six hours on a E.D. not in place where she was apprehended.

Still only ONE original source for this story. All others I find only refer to the Prachatai newspaper. Something rotten in the state of ...

[rubl]

when animatic first asked me to post a link to the story he didn't say there was going to be so many clauses. now one original source is not enough ? since when ? how many will satisfy you ? i also replied to him:

you want me to find you links to the story ? i will. but first answer this in an effort to save my time. will it change your opinion ? or will you have your defense of this administration already in place ? if you were to read that a lady with bad taste was arrested under a law that is

obsolete

in ayudhaya would you question it ? if you heard abasit falsely say on the 24th of last month that no one is being detained any longer under these laws, when they are, would you hold him to account ?

i didn't hear him reply. i haven't heard you either. don't you think it fair that after my first effort i get something back from you first. answer the questions.

You ramble on and on, logic seems unnecessary.

No-one told you that more than one original source would be needed. Well sorry, if you can't figure that out yourself. And to answer your question, yes find more original source for the 'sandal lady', it would make the story more believable. An PTP MP is found to bail out the lady which would be unlikely on such short notice if the E.D. was invoked. How come no PTP MP's or red-shirt cry out for justice and drop a complaint at the various commissions or courts. Normally k. Jatuporn is really eager to sue.

'hear Abhisit falsely say' is nonsense. What he said on the 24th was true. The incident on the 3rd with the 'sandal lady' is still to be proven and if correct would be an error on the police side, not necessarily the government. Can you really tell when someone in Thai 'falsely' says something. Mind-reader?

As for getting something back, I wonder why I bother. You stick to your Prachatai fable and stop bothering more open-minded posters.

Edited October 14, 2010 by rubl

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I had a pretty funny post written out but I'm too drunk to function and I lost it backspacing my browser or something. It's gone. Please don't cry. It was only an Internet forum post. We'll get through this.

But in lieu of humour, I instead present you with a simple demand:

When you are arrested and then released on bail, you are given paperwork. Where is it, find it, scan it, and prove your outlandish claims. When you are unable to do so, you will realise that she was not arrested under the Emergency Decree, Prachatai is not a valid source for anything except lies, hypocrisy and propaganda. Pravit is not a journalist. No respectable news organisation tolerates such blanket refusal to supply basic supporting evidence for outrageous allegations.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.