'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[Siam Simon]

Actually Gen. Chavalit is right in the sense that the government is responsible for the actions of DSI and CRES

Technically, yes. But when the CRES is making decisions without prior reference to it's nominal leader, the Prime Minister (as we know it has), then it's possible to place blame away from the civilian government, subject to verifications.

[Pi Sek]

Who you think is going to examine it? Anyway, I consider the leaks real because that's what the balance of probabilities suggest, considering there's nothing in the leaked reports (as far as I can see) that doesn't match the evidence/testimonies we've seen before. It's nothing to do with thinking the government is to blame for everything, I apply the same standard to the reds. For instance, you can't prove that all or most, of the grenade attacks were due to red affiliated militants, but I believe they are because I haven't seen any evidence to dispute it. It's just the most likely thing. Sometimes the elaborate explanations for events proffered by conspiracy theorists from all sides might be true, but most not, I'd bet. Go with the simplest, most likely explanation imo.

^^

Hey! Stop using common sense! No call for that here!

edit - add quote because Simon posted before me!

Edited December 28, 2010 by Pi Sek

[rubl]

Actually Gen. Chavalit is right in the sense that the government is responsible for the actions of DSI and CRES

Technically, yes. But when the CRES is making decisions without prior reference to it's nominal leader, the Prime Minister (as we know it has), then it's possible to place blame away from the civilian government, subject to verifications.

Not really. For an organization like CRES to function general directions need to be given after which they should fill-in the directions with actions. At first a consensus may be needed, but when approved, the government shouldn't continuously look over CRES shoulders. That's called delegation. A regular report, or in case of real problems may be a daily report. The government may also request reports outside the regular schedule. IF the CRES did something wrong, the government is still to blame, but may need restructuring or re-manning the CRES.

[SomTumTiger]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

[whybother]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

[mkawish]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

The unauthorized additions, makes everything more interesting and exciting, particularly additions and multiplications advanced by JaTuPorn and associates, imho.

They appeared to be almost expert at doing all this sort of thing nowadays.

Today is already Tuesday evening, wonder what the court says about the withdrawal of bail bond as suggested by DSI?

[Siam Simon]

Actually Gen. Chavalit is right in the sense that the government is responsible for the actions of DSI and CRES

Technically, yes. But when the CRES is making decisions without prior reference to it's nominal leader, the Prime Minister (as we know it has), then it's possible to place blame away from the civilian government, subject to verifications.

Not really. For an organization like CRES to function general directions need to be given after which they should fill-in the directions with actions. At first a consensus may be needed, but when approved, the government shouldn't continuously look over CRES shoulders. That's called delegation. A regular report, or in case of real problems may be a daily report. The government may also request reports outside the regular schedule. IF the CRES did something wrong, the government is still to blame, but may need restructuring or re-manning the CRES.

The problem is, even though the Prime Minister is the nominal head of CRES, he was left out of the decision-making. Remember the new law made up by Gen Chan-Ocha about sandals and suchlike? Remember Abhisit's response when a Journo questioned him about it? "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban".

[Siam Simon]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

Do we have any proof that additional info has been inserted into the leaked DSI documents?

[rubl]

Actually Gen. Chavalit is right in the sense that the government is responsible for the actions of DSI and CRES

Technically, yes. But when the CRES is making decisions without prior reference to it's nominal leader, the Prime Minister (as we know it has), then it's possible to place blame away from the civilian government, subject to verifications.

Not really. For an organization like CRES to function general directions need to be given after which they should fill-in the directions with actions. At first a consensus may be needed, but when approved, the government shouldn't continuously look over CRES shoulders. That's called delegation. A regular report, or in case of real problems may be a daily report. The government may also request reports outside the regular schedule. IF the CRES did something wrong, the government is still to blame, but may need restructuring or re-manning the CRES.

The problem is, even though the Prime Minister is the nominal head of CRES, he was left out of the decision-making. Remember the new law made up by Gen Chan-Ocha about sandals and suchlike? Remember Abhisit's response when a Journo questioned him about it? "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban".

The PM should not be involved in every minor decision making, he has other things to do. This means that some decisions deemed minor by others may slip through for a moment. When these 'slip-ups' are discovered, they are corrected. Normally they would (should?) pop up in the regular reports on activities. Do you really expect the PM to know all details (any PM for what it matters)?

Democracy at work, you have to love it

Edited December 28, 2010 by rubl

[whybother]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

Do we have any proof that additional info has been inserted into the leaked DSI documents?

If it walks like a duck ....

Jatuporn has lots of experience making things up.

[Siam Simon]

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

Do we have any proof that additional info has been inserted into the leaked DSI documents?

If it walks like a duck ....

Jatuporn has lots of experience making things up.

Yes, but you stated that additional info had been added, as if it were a fact. Obviously, you were just struggling with your English.

[metisdead]

A post and replies to it which were potentially libellous have been removed from view.

[Siam Simon]

The problem is, even though the Prime Minister is the nominal head of CRES, he was left out of the decision-making. Remember the new law made up by Gen Chan-Ocha about sandals and suchlike? Remember Abhisit's response when a Journo questioned him about it? "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban".

The PM should not be involved in every minor decision making, he has other things to do. This means that some decisions deemed minor by others may slip through for a moment. When these 'slip-ups' are discovered, they are corrected. Normally they would (should?) pop up in the regular reports on activities. Do you really expect the PM to know all details (any PM for what it matters)?

Democracy at work, you have to love it

I would expect such a major decision as the creation of a new law to be run by the CIC (Abhisit) for approval before any announcements. The fact that the CIC wasn't even consulted on this would have led to the sacking of the subordinate (Gen Chan-Ocha) in any mature democracy (and probably in more than a few Third World ones too). It makes me wonder about what other decisions were being made by CRES without reference to Abhisit.

[rubl]

The problem is, even though the Prime Minister is the nominal head of CRES, he was left out of the decision-making. Remember the new law made up by Gen Chan-Ocha about sandals and suchlike? Remember Abhisit's response when a Journo questioned him about it? "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban".

The PM should not be involved in every minor decision making, he has other things to do. This means that some decisions deemed minor by others may slip through for a moment. When these 'slip-ups' are discovered, they are corrected. Normally they would (should?) pop up in the regular reports on activities. Do you really expect the PM to know all details (any PM for what it matters)?

Democracy at work, you have to love it

I would expect such a major decision as the creation of a new law to be run by the CIC (Abhisit) for approval before any announcements. The fact that the CIC wasn't even consulted on this would have led to the sacking of the subordinate (Gen Chan-Ocha) in any mature democracy (and probably in more than a few Third World ones too). It makes me wonder about what other decisions were being made by CRES without reference to Abhisit.

You start to wonder with as starting point something you 'would expect'. Solid foundation, to be sure

[Siam Simon]

The problem is, even though the Prime Minister is the nominal head of CRES, he was left out of the decision-making. Remember the new law made up by Gen Chan-Ocha about sandals and suchlike? Remember Abhisit's response when a Journo questioned him about it? "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban".

The PM should not be involved in every minor decision making, he has other things to do. This means that some decisions deemed minor by others may slip through for a moment. When these 'slip-ups' are discovered, they are corrected. Normally they would (should?) pop up in the regular reports on activities. Do you really expect the PM to know all details (any PM for what it matters)?

Democracy at work, you have to love it

I would expect such a major decision as the creation of a new law to be run by the CIC (Abhisit) for approval before any announcements. The fact that the CIC wasn't even consulted on this would have led to the sacking of the subordinate (Gen Chan-Ocha) in any mature democracy (and probably in more than a few Third World ones too). It makes me wonder about what other decisions were being made by CRES without reference to Abhisit.

You start to wonder with as starting point something you 'would expect'. Solid foundation, to be sure

Well, ok, I'll be more blunt: Can you cite any examples of a new national law being created on the fly by a subordinate without reference to his senior officer in any circumstance anywhere else in the world in recent times?

[metisdead]

Several off topic posts have been removed from view.

[rubl]

I would expect such a major decision as the creation of a new law to be run by the CIC (Abhisit) for approval before any announcements. The fact that the CIC wasn't even consulted on this would have led to the sacking of the subordinate (Gen Chan-Ocha) in any mature democracy (and probably in more than a few Third World ones too). It makes me wonder about what other decisions were being made by CRES without reference to Abhisit.

You start to wonder with as starting point something you 'would expect'. Solid foundation, to be sure

Well, ok, I'll be more blunt: Can you cite any examples of a new national law being created on the fly by a subordinate without reference to his senior officer in any circumstance anywhere else in the world in recent times?

A national law, a 'newly created' national law? Was it published in the Royal Gazette (or whatever publication newly approved laws must be published in)?

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt the 'law' set up by CRES was a 'national law'. Why would it be a 'national law'?

Edited December 28, 2010 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

A national law, a 'newly created' national law? Was it published in the Royal Gazette (or whatever publication newly approved laws must be published in)?

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt the 'law' set up by CRES was a 'national law'. Why would it be a 'national law'?

Go back and read the announcement by Gen Chan-Ocha. He was quite unequivocal about it. Thankfully for democracy, Abhisit showed his skills in quietly getting it dropped, but it never should have come to that.

[rubl]

A national law, a 'newly created' national law? Was it published in the Royal Gazette (or whatever publication newly approved laws must be published in)?

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt the 'law' set up by CRES was a 'national law'. Why would it be a 'national law'?

Go back and read the announcement by Gen Chan-Ocha. He was quite unequivocal about it. Thankfully for democracy, Abhisit showed his skills in quietly getting it dropped, but it never should have come to that.

A BAN, nowhere can I find this ban described as a 'national law' (except for you saying so that is).

The ban was imposed on the 19th of November 2010 by army commander-in-chief Prayuth Chan-ocha who said souvenirs, including clothing and footwear deemed offensive to the monarch or which might instigate disunity, could not be sold.

One day after the order was announced, Mr Abhisit said he wanted the CRES to reconsider it, as it breached people's rights to freedom of expression.

On the 26th of November 2010 the ban was lifted.

Storm in a glass ?

[Siam Simon]

A national law, a 'newly created' national law? Was it published in the Royal Gazette (or whatever publication newly approved laws must be published in)?

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt the 'law' set up by CRES was a 'national law'. Why would it be a 'national law'?

Go back and read the announcement by Gen Chan-Ocha. He was quite unequivocal about it. Thankfully for democracy, Abhisit showed his skills in quietly getting it dropped, but it never should have come to that.

A BAN, nowhere can I find this ban described as a 'national law' (except for you saying so that is).

The ban was imposed on the 19th of November 2010 by army commander-in-chief Prayuth Chan-ocha who said souvenirs, including clothing and footwear deemed offensive to the monarch or which might instigate disunity, could not be sold.

One day after the order was announced, Mr Abhisit said he wanted the CRES to reconsider it, as it breached people's rights to freedom of expression.

On the 26th of November 2010 the ban was lifted.

Storm in a glass ?

Storm in a glass because of neat maneuvering by Abhisit. But, like I said, It never should've come to that.

[rubl]

A national law, a 'newly created' national law? Was it published in the Royal Gazette (or whatever publication newly approved laws must be published in)?

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt the 'law' set up by CRES was a 'national law'. Why would it be a 'national law'?

Go back and read the announcement by Gen Chan-Ocha. He was quite unequivocal about it. Thankfully for democracy, Abhisit showed his skills in quietly getting it dropped, but it never should have come to that.

A BAN, nowhere can I find this ban described as a 'national law' (except for you saying so that is).

The ban was imposed on the 19th of November 2010 by army commander-in-chief Prayuth Chan-ocha who said souvenirs, including clothing and footwear deemed offensive to the monarch or which might instigate disunity, could not be sold.

One day after the order was announced, Mr Abhisit said he wanted the CRES to reconsider it, as it breached people's rights to freedom of expression.

On the 26th of November 2010 the ban was lifted.

Storm in a glass ?

Storm in a glass because of neat maneuvering by Abhisit. But, like I said, It never should've come to that.

Now I agree. Your previous remarks should and can be safely ignored.

[Siam Simon]

Now I agree. Your previous remarks should and can be safely ignored.

Not at all. The discussion further highlights your ongoing attempts to gloss over the actions of a brutal, corrupt, politically-interfering military.

[rubl]

Now I agree. Your previous remarks should and can be safely ignored.

Not at all. The discussion further highlights your ongoing attempts to gloss over the actions of a brutal, corrupt, politically-interfering military.

Gloss over? Like in

1. seek to conceal beneath a false appearance

2. conceal or evade by mentioning briefly or misleadingly

Please point out and explain where I did just that.

Somehow I think you describing a ban as 'national law' and even daring me to find another example of your assumption is more 'glossing over'. Remember you wrote

"Well, ok, I'll be more blunt: Can you cite any examples of a new national law being created on the fly by a subordinate without reference to his senior officer in any circumstance anywhere else in the world in recent times?"

Just to help you, I think this is the first of my posts in this topic on which you started to reply:

Follow it through again and tell me where I do 'gloss over'

[SomTumTiger]

Maybe we should bring the terrorists back, and reinstall them downtown - that would make Simon happy, I'm sure. He seems fine with the grenade tossing, rpg firing, baby human shield using, shopping mall burning crowd.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Now I agree. Your previous remarks should and can be safely ignored.

Not at all. The discussion further highlights your ongoing attempts to gloss over the actions of a brutal, corrupt, politically-interfering military.

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

[SomTumTiger]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

But protesters shooting solders and burning buildings and bombing and grenade tossing are ok, right CMF?

[Insight]

The simplest and likelyest explanation is that Jaruporn invented the documents - because he is a "documented" liar. Remember the Abhisit audio tapes that UDD faked?

It may be part of a genuine DSI report, but like the court tapes released by the red shirts trying to discredit the Democrats, they added additional information.

Do we have any proof that additional info has been inserted into the leaked DSI documents?

Here's the files downloaded from Prachatai in their original form.

Page 15 onwards is saved in a different file format to the previous pages (apart from page two which judging by its filename and decrease in DPI appears to have been through some web/image management application), and the structure of the document also takes a slightly different form to that of the previous pages. If this page does contain the disputed conclusion then IMO there's enough room for doubt based on this alone.

Surely the person who obtained the document could of scanned it in a higher quality in a consistent file format?

DSIReport.zip

[Piengrudee]

http://www2.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9530000182506 If you read Thai. Basically, it say that if DSI have already completed the investigation, they should release it within 15 days.

[fnprop]

Who will examine it? Well Jatuporn did supply his documents to Reuters and the Japanese embassy. I'm sure they have some opinions on the authenticity of the documents. Fortunately, thanks to laws prohibiting the dissemination of news which might upset the social order (not to mention national security), you won't be allowed to read them here.

Abhisit is the CIC? Really, you must shed your western blinders. The prime minister is not the commander in chief of the Thai armed forces. That post is reserved for the head of state.

Before the DSI chief got his story straight, claiming the documents weren't the DSI's, he commented that he suspected that they were some of the documents that the DSI had turned over to the police for further investigation. Only when the pressure mounted, and he had a few moments to consult the spin doctors, did he take advantage of Jatuporn's legacy to concoct the falsification theory.

Both the documents and the chief have referenced soldiers acting in the line of duty. Martial law, the emergency decree, and the ISA all exempt soldiers acting in the line of duty from criminal prosecution. So, it really doesn't matter what their actions were, or if they were justified, appropriate, or not. "I was only following orders" is a legitimate defense under Thai law.

So in the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are doctored or not.

[SomTumTiger]

So in the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are doctored or not.

You could have just said that, and spared us the rest of your diatribe. gl

Edited December 29, 2010 by SomTumTiger