Thai Opposition Urges World Court To Probe Bangkok Violence

[webfact]

Thai opposition urges world court to probe Bangkok violence

BANGKOK, October 27, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand's "Red Shirt" anti-government movement has urged the International Criminal Court to investigate possible crimes against humanity by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's government.

The petition argues that the country's political and military leadership are "criminally liable" for actions taken during two months of mass opposition protests in April and May that left more than 90 people dead, mainly civilians.

The Red Shirts, many of whom support fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, accuse the government of a "massive cover-up", according to details posted on the website of Thaksin's Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam.

He said his firm was involved in the filing of the "preliminary report", based on interviews with dozens of witnesses and survivors, at the Hague-based ICC this week.

Thailand's government said it was aware of the complaint, but did not believe it would be taken up by the court.

"I have been informed by the ministry of foreign affairs about the case," said government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn.

"But as I understand it this is not within the scope of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction," he added.

The two-month rally by the Reds attracted up to 100,000 people demanding immediate elections, but was broken up by soldiers firing live ammunition.

The petition says the army was "given the authority to shoot the mostly unarmed demonstrators on sight," noting that at one point the authorities designated certain areas as live fire zones.

On April 10, during a failed military attempt to clear part of Bangkok's historic district of protests, troops "fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd," it says.

It cites the examples of one man whose brains were blown out by a rifle shot while carrying a Red Shirt banner, and a renegade general allied to the Reds who was killed by a sniper while giving an interview to a foreign reporter.

At the time Abhisit accused "terrorists" of inciting the violence. His government said its troops were only allowed to fire live rounds in self defence, as warning shots or against armed militants.

Abhisit promised an investigation into the deaths but the opposition has denounced the probe as a "whitewash".

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-10-27

[hammered]

Well thats not going to happen but it will allow Amsterdam to extract a few bundles of dosh from his employer, something of which Amsterdam is a past master at, and ponce around a load of media outlets which is what it is all about (both the dosh and media).

If Thailand does sign up to the court the slaughter of a couple of thousand a few years ago should be added to the roster of investigations. That too of course wont happen as the power players dont actually give a @#$% about any dead ordinary people.

[hammered]

Taken form their own information:

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

•The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;

•The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or

•The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.

Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

[Skywalker69]

The two-month rally by the Reds attracted up to 100,000 people demanding immediate elections, but was broken up by soldiers firing live ammunition.

I guess they mean the 1.000.000 man march:whistling:

[chantorn]

The two-month rally by the Reds attracted up to 100,000 people demanding immediate elections, but was broken up by soldiers firing live ammunition.

I guess they mean the 1.000.000 man march:whistling:

What killing?

The red murder the red. Said ex-PM chuan on Monday.

[OzMick]

"On April 10, during a failed military attempt to clear part of Bangkok's historic district of protests, troops "fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd," it says.

It cites the examples of one man whose brains were blown out by a rifle shot while carrying a Red Shirt banner, and a renegade general allied to the Reds who was killed by a sniper while giving an interview to a foreign reporter."

The only thing shot here is his own credibility. "Thousands of rounds" achieved one head shot at the time and another 33 days later - that one must have gone into orbit for a month.

Both shots require a degree of marksmanship, something severely lacking with the others fired that day.

[jonclark]

"On April 10, during a failed military attempt to clear part of Bangkok's historic district of protests, troops "fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd," it says.

It cites the examples of one man whose brains were blown out by a rifle shot while carrying a Red Shirt banner, and a renegade general allied to the Reds who was killed by a sniper while giving an interview to a foreign reporter."

The only thing shot here is his own credibility. "Thousands of rounds" achieved one head shot at the time and another 33 days later - that one must have gone into orbit for a month.

Both shots require a degree of marksmanship, something severely lacking with the others fired that day.

Do those making the accusations actually have any evidence of that ' thousands of rounds of live ammunition' were fired'. Or is this Jatuporn demonstrating his mathematical prowess once again 5 = 50 and 1'000 = 1 million (red shirts demonstrating) Interestingly I wonder if they added the grenade / RPG / bomb attack on the army killing the commander as something to be investigated by the world court. Or perhaps feeling justifiably proud their handiwork, they omitted it from their petition.

The World Court will politely throw this out simply because if they accept it, it sets a precedent for any future demonstrations, in any country, which end up in a violent (and fatal) confrontation being forwarded for investigation by the WC.

This is simply the Reds trying to steal some of the limelight away from Mr Bans visit with the PM.

[slapout]

The UN and the World court have been approached, why not approach the Vatican next?

[craigt3365]

Taken form their own information:

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

•The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;

•The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or

•The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.

Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

According to international laws, what crime was committed? Other than the reds disobeying the law by not breaking up and shooting grenades at passengers on the skytrain? I mean seriously...was a crime committed according to the UN or World Court? I know at either place, getting to a final decision is many, many years away.

[virtualtraveller]

It's all quite laughable really, Amsterdam has gone to a great deal of effort, charging his client a great deal of money to produce a report that probably lacks balance and isn't going to be accepted by this court and Mr Amsterdam knows that very well, otherwise he wouldn't be an international lawyer.

Khun Thaksin, you're being ripped off!

[otherstuff1957]

Thailand is not yet a 'States Party" to the ICC, so the ICC has no jurisdiction here. Thailand has signed the "Roman Statute" but has not yet ratified it. Even after the statute is ratified, only crimes committed after the ratification will fall under the jurisdiction of the court.

The only way for the court to get jurisdiction would be for the UN to recommend this case to the court. There is also a possibility that Thailand could ask that their ratification (if and when it happens) to be retroactive. Here's a quote from Wiki about that possibility"

Former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan called in November 2006 for Thailand to ratify the court and to accept retrospective jurisdiction, so that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra could be investigated for crimes against humanity connected to 2,500 alleged extrajudicial killings carried out in 2003 against suspected drug dealers.

[MaiChai]

Muppets

[frodo]

I had the opportunity to read Amsterdam's 62 page preliminary report to the ICC which is nothing but a very lop-sided report full of nothing but inaccuracies.

"The 2009 Massacre

Of an altogether more serious nature is the campaign of violence to which members of the National United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship ("UDD") have been subjected bythe Abhisit administration. On April 11, 2009, hundreds of Red Shirts assembled outside the venue of an ASEAN Summit in Pattaya to protest the undemocratic manner in which Abhisit had come into office. The summit was cancelled after Red Shirt protesters entered thepremises of the hotel where the talks were being held. Following the operation in Pattaya, the focus of the protests shifted to Bangkok, where the Red Shirts staged traffic blockades and demonstrations around the city. The government declared State of Emergency in Bangkok andfive surrounding provinces in preparation for a more incisive crackdown. In the early morningof April 13, the military was sent in to disperse the Red Shirts, now scattered across various locations in Bangkok."

All the reds did was enter the hotel premises? Nothing which indicates the brutal attacks on government officials and rioting which took place.

Blockades and demonstrations around Bangkok? I seem to recall a lot of violence and 2 murders of citizens by the reds, not to mention the gas tanker in Din Daeng. Nothing in 62 pages mentions anything close to this and, as he is paid to do, attempts to make all reds and their leaders as nothing but victims all the way around.

For those who are not covered under the umbrella of Amsterdam/Thaksin view on Democracy, he had this to say:

"...the PAD re-appeared on the streets of Bangkok. Largely peaceful demonstrations were staged on Ratchadamnern Avenue beginning in late May 2008, but as time wore on the PAD turned increasingly confrontational and violent. In late August, armed PAD guards stormed a television station in Bangkok, assaulted several ministries, and occupied the grounds of the Government House, physically preventing the government from working..."

Not a mention anywhere about the reds trying to burn down a television station with 100 people trapped inside, nothing about the takeover of the E.C., etc... There was nary a word about violent speeches and rhetoric from Arisman or Natthawut telling their followers to make "Bangkok a sea of fire."

It was also noted that Amsterdam in his opening remarks gave a little historical perspective to the reader, but somehow forgot to include the 2500 innocents who were slaughtered under the Thaksin administration or the Tai Bak massacre in the south. From reading Amsterdam's report, none of this is relevant since it's Thaksin's style of democracy.

The report is worth a read, albeit inaccurate and full of misconceptions.

Source: Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court

Edited October 27, 2010 by frodo

[MikeyIdea]

The two-month rally by the Reds attracted up to 100,000 people demanding immediate elections, but was broken up by soldiers firing live ammunition.

I guess they mean the 1.000.000 man march:whistling:

What killing?

The red murder the red. Said ex-PM chuan on Monday.

And not to forget that 90% of the attracted reds were attracted by... THE MONEY, THE CASH HAND-OUTS

Thousands of rounds being fired? I have also read that and I work at Ratchaprasong so I have been walking around that area looking for where all those live bullets actually landed. I couldn't find any so then I assumed that they had been covered up and I walked around the area again looking. A live bullet from an army rifle leaves a viewable mark on solid concrete and goes straight through a crappy "half width" wall. You can't patch either without it showing. I checked the Wat Pathumwan temple area too and I found ONE bullet mark in total, not patched. I also found a few questionable ones, maybe they were bullet damage but I don't think so, I just think they were too small to be that. I am not questioning that live rounds were fired, some people were even killed so we know that, the majority soldiers I think the statistics for the area in question said, but I can't find any signs of any indiscriminate firing of thousands of rounds. Where are all the bullet damage or the patches? If anyone can point them out, I'd be happy please. I simply can't find neither them or the patches

The most serious crimes committed during the occupation and its break-up were done by grenades and RPGs, the firing of RPGs at Dusit Thani hotel while tourists were still staying there, the firing of grenades right into a yellow counter-demonstration. The only ones using mass-destruction weapons like RPGs and grenades were the reds.

This will never go to any international court because the current government is pushing reconciliation and the evidence for those who do not only get their input from commercial TV channels like CNN and BBC are heavily against the reds, both when it comes to crimes committed and legal stand point for the protests. It is easier to mislead rice farmers than judges sitting at international courts so to speak...

Thaksin isn't being ripped off though, he's too smart for that. He knows that there is no substance and that it won't get him anywhere but he does everything he possibly can to keep face and his version alive anyway because he wants to come back to Thailand one day. It is not doubts in the minds of international judges that will decide if that is ever going to happen or not, it's the opinion of the Thai public - and they even forgot what Sujinda did in the early 90's. Keep the doubts alive and maybe he will be able to come back one day.

Besides, it is so little money for him anyway...

Edited October 27, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[hyperdimension]

I don't think Pheu Thai or the UDD even care about the people who actually died. The main goal I see of all this incessant whining is to discredit the government to try to bring it down so that they can get back into power with Thaksin. They are simply using the deaths as a political propaganda tool. If there had been no deaths, they'd probably dig up other negative points about the government and whine on about them.

[Born2lag]

"On April 10, during a failed military attempt to clear part of Bangkok's historic district of protests, troops "fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd," it says."

Then who are these ?

[rubl]

"On April 10, during a failed military attempt to clear part of Bangkok's historic district of protests, troops "fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd," it says."

Then who are these ?

Completely besides the point. The army fired thousands of rounds into a densely packed mob and only 19 protesters & civilians killed? Sack the generals and start a program to teach those soldiers how to shoot. My mother would do better than this

Edited October 27, 2010 by rubl

[rubl]

The preliminary report (which isn't dated or otherwise identified in the PDF made available) was submitted four weeks ago. It says a.o.

"However, the Applicant will substantiate that:

(i) The situation of Thailand can be brought within the jurisdictional ambit of ICC, which will be dealt with in a separate document filed on behalf of the UDD and others in approximately eight weeks;"

So we're halfway now. As the ICC normally takes 4 - 6 weeks to decide taking a case into consideration and with the caveat of 'separate doc filed later' I can only assume the ICC has been sitting on the report and simply waits till further doc's are made available. It's not as if they have nothing else to do

[rubl]

By now eight weeks have passed. No news. no additional report from Robert A. (as far as I know).

The ICC still very busy with cases in Africa. The report maybe under consideration.

'What's the difference between "under consideration" and "under active consideration"?'

'"Under consideration" means we've lost the file. "Under active consideration" means we're trying to find it!"

(Yes, Minister; The official visit)