Red Leaders Vow To Retaliate After Thai Army Files Lese Majeste Complaint

[jayboy]

Interesting additional information on Jatuporn and Vichien and Suporn lese majeste charges in the other paper today.

Also, regarding Jatuporn's threats to charge Prem, it's worthy to note this seems based on second-hand hearsay evidence in the form of wikileaks whereas the charges against Jatuporn are first hand video and audio evidence of his public speech.

You have made a study of the first hand video and audio evidence? Pray enlighten us

As for the second sentence you are talking nonsense.It is in the nature of the Wikileaks that they are as reliable sources of evidence as any available.Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.You can call the American Ambassador a liar or a fool but most people would say that seems unlikely.

Once again awkward facts don't compute for you. so you rubbish the source (in this instance highly reliable).

[whybother]

You have made a study of the first hand video and audio evidence? Pray enlighten us

As for the second sentence you are talking nonsense.It is in the nature of the Wikileaks that they are as reliable sources of evidence as any available.Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.You can call the American Ambassador a liar or a fool but most people would say that seems unlikely.

Once again awkward facts don't compute for you. so you rubbish the source (in this instance highly reliable).

Do you think the Thai courts would accept a leaked embassy cable from someone saying that someone else said something as proof of LM?

Do you think the Thai courts would accept a video showing that someone said something as proof of LM?

[Buchholz]

Interesting additional information on Jatuporn and Vichien and Suporn lese majeste charges in the other paper today.

Also, regarding Jatuporn's threats to charge Prem, it's worthy to note this seems based on second-hand hearsay evidence in the form of wikileaks whereas the charges against Jatuporn are first hand video and audio evidence of his public speech.

You have made a study of the first hand video and audio evidence? Pray enlighten us

As for the second sentence you are talking nonsense.It is in the nature of the Wikileaks that they are as reliable sources of evidence as any available.Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.You can call the American Ambassador a liar or a fool but most people would say that seems unlikely.

Once again awkward facts don't compute for you. so you rubbish the source (in this instance highly reliable).

Once again you completely unnecessarily attack the poster .

My only point is that in one case the evidence is second-hand and in the other case it is first-hand.

Shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend, unless one wishes to start another bickering session.

[jdinasia]

Hmmm "They don't deny it so it must be true"? Is that a valid argument? I thought (could be wrong) that they neither confirm nor deny the veracity of any "leaked" info as a matter of policy. One could argue that they do that because they are "guilty" but just as plausibly they don't deny or confirm because it would put them in the position of always having to do that. Similar to making a public stand of "not negotiating with terrorists" because once you are seen as weak you are even more of a target?

[jayboy]

Once again you completely unnecessarily attack the poster .

My only point is that in one case the evidence is second-hand and in the other case it is first-hand.

It was a very weak point for reasons I have already explained.

For Whybother, no and yes to your respective questions

jdinasia, you are right but not sure how this adds to the discussion.

Summary:lots of points to be made here and nobody has the monopoly of wisdom, but it would be very hard to demonstrate (actually impossible) that the Wikileaks aren't genuine uncensored despatches to the State Department.One can argue whether they are accurate or not but given the source one must give the benefit of doubt to the Ambassadors concerned.

Not just a Thailand issue of course.

[jdinasia]

My comment was relevant only to the following sentence (which is building a strawman argument -- "they don't deny it so it must be true". A lack of denial does not make it true at all. It makes it only not commented on. There being a valid reason not to comment on untrue "leaks" speaks to the entire issue.

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

[animatic]

What might or might not have been said face to face with someone in private, and then relayed as hearsay, and that hearsay exposed illegally, is not necessarily a ilegal statement.

This is a huge stretch to say Prem did LM because

what he said in private is allegedly repeated by others.

LM alws are about public statements and actions not private.

He did not say anything in public, and he is the 1st advisor to the monarchy as head of the privy council. It is also a huge stretch to acuse him of LM.... the reds just hate his guts, so they throw out the accusation.

That Jatuporn and his other two musketeers have JUST said things in public, and ALREADY they are being charged speaks volumes about how over the top they MUST have gone at this rally for such a fast legal movement.

Edited April 14, 2011 by animatic

[jayboy]

What might or might not have been said face to face with someone in private,

and then relayed and then exposed illegally as being said, is not necessarily a ilegal statement.

This is a huge stretch to say Prem did LM because what he said in private is allegedly repeated by others.

He did not say anything in public, and he is the 1st advisor to the monarchy as head of the privy council.

It is als a huge stretch to acuse him of LM.... the reds just hate his guts so they throw out the accusation.

That Jatuporn and his other two musketeers have JUST said things in public,

and ALREADY they are being charged speaks volumes about how over the top they MUST have gone at this rally for such a fast incrimination..

I agree most of this (though your last sentence is just conjecture on your part)

It would be absurd to charge Prem with LM, though absurd charges have been made against others in the past (eg Jonathan Head)

The law has become abused by charletans.That's why Abhisit wants to reform it.

[whybother]

Do you think the Thai courts would accept a leaked embassy cable from someone saying that someone else said something as proof of LM?

Do you think the Thai courts would accept a video showing that someone said something as proof of LM?

Once again you completely unnecessarily attack the poster .

My only point is that in one case the evidence is second-hand and in the other case it is first-hand.

It was a very weak point for reasons I have already explained.

For Whybother, no and yes to your respective questions

...

Summary:lots of points to be made here and nobody has the monopoly of wisdom, but it would be very hard to demonstrate (actually impossible) that the Wikileaks aren't genuine uncensored despatches to the State Department.One can argue whether they are accurate or not but given the source one must give the benefit of doubt to the Ambassadors concerned.

Not just a Thailand issue of course.

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

[jayboy]

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

[jdinasia]

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

But your argument as to the truth of wikileaks is built upon a strawman argument. "They don't even bother to deny them so they must be true", basically you have been caught out in a fallacious argument and are trying to doctor your replies now to attempt to match your statements (to jing?) earlier, imho.

[jayboy]

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

But your argument as to the truth of wikileaks is built upon a strawman argument. "They don't even bother to deny them so they must be true", basically you have been caught out in a fallacious argument and are trying to doctor your replies now to attempt to match your statements (to jing?) earlier, imho.

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

The phrase you quote is yours not mine.What are you trying to deny here?

Edited April 14, 2011 by jayboy

[jdinasia]

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Which university did you say you went to? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

"Which university did you say you went to?" LOL I absolutely love it when you take offense to being contradicted and go "personal" yet again

Fair enough -- I shouldn't have used quotation marks even though it didn't change the meaning of this .....

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

Which by very nature is a fallacious argument (strawman, wishful thinking, whatever ) Edited April 14, 2011 by jdinasia

[Buchholz]

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

Laughable.

That was exactly my point that you made.

I made no remark regarding the truthfulness of wikileak, only the legality of it as evidence in a court case versus first hand videotape evidence in the case against Jatuporn.

Thanks for reiterating my point but no thanks for the, as said, completely unnecessary personal slight in your previous post and dragging out unnecessarily into a bickering session.... again.

.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Laughable.

That was exactly my point that you made.

I made no remark regarding the truthfulness of wikileak, only the legality of it as evidence in a court case versus first hand videotape evidence in the case against Jatuporn.

Thanks for reiterating my point but no thanks for the, as said, completely unnecessary personal slight in your previous post and dragging out unnecessarily into a bickering session.... again.

.

So ignoring your usual personal abuse,, it seems we agree.That's a good thing isn't it?

[jayboy]

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Which university did you say you went to? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

"Which university did you say you went to?" LOL I absolutely love it when you take offense to being contradicted and go "personal" yet again

Fair enough -- I shouldn't have used quotation marks even though it didn't change the meaning of this .....

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

Which by very nature is a fallacious argument (strawman, wishful thinking, whatever )

I deleted the university comment.

Question remains do you believe the Thailand wikileaks reflect the truth or not.Up to now you are just flapping around.

[animatic]

What might or might not have been said face to face with someone in private,

and then relayed and then exposed illegally as being said, is not necessarily a ilegal statement.

This is a huge stretch to say Prem did LM because what he said in private is allegedly repeated by others.

He did not say anything in public, and he is the 1st advisor to the monarchy as head of the privy council.

It is als a huge stretch to acuse him of LM.... the reds just hate his guts so they throw out the accusation.

That Jatuporn and his other two musketeers have JUST said things in public,

and ALREADY they are being charged speaks volumes about how over the top they MUST have gone at this rally for such a fast incrimination..

I agree most of this (though your last sentence is just conjecture on your part)

It would be absurd to charge Prem with LM, though absurd charges have been made against others in the past (eg Jonathan Head)

The law has become abused by charletans.That's why Abhisit wants to reform it.

A rare instance of us both agreeing.

Yes the third was conjecture, but it clearly was conjecture,

and not purported to be an absolute.

[jdinasia]

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Which university did you say you went to? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

"Which university did you say you went to?" LOL I absolutely love it when you take offense to being contradicted and go "personal" yet again

Fair enough -- I shouldn't have used quotation marks even though it didn't change the meaning of this .....

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

Which by very nature is a fallacious argument (strawman, wishful thinking, whatever )

I deleted the university comment.

Question remains do you believe the Thailand wikileaks reflect the truth or not.Up to now you are just flapping around.

I wasn't privy (pun intended) to the discussion. I can't make the argument for or against it being true and neither can anyone else that wasn't there, and using a fallacious argument to try to get around that fact just doesn't work. You conceded my understanding of the US's official stance of wikileaks, but continue to use the argument? I don't get it.

Good on you for deleting a single ad hominem attack! (btw -- in case people don't know it, an ad hominem attack is yet another form of fallacious argument. If you can't debate the point raised, just attack the poster to deflect!)

BTW -- another fallacious argument is "because it is plausible it must be true."

[jayboy]

I wasn't privy (pun intended) to the discussion. I can't make the argument for or against it being true and neither can anyone else that wasn't there, and using a fallacious argument to try to get around that fact just doesn't work. You conceded my understanding of the US's official stance of wikileaks, but continue to use the argument? I don't get it.

Good on you for deleting a single ad hominem attack! (btw -- in case people don't know it, an ad hominem attack is yet another form of fallacious argument. If you can't debate the point raised, just attack the poster to deflect!)

BTW -- another fallacious argument is "because it is plausible it must be true."

I deleted the university remark because it seemed excessive and a bit rude.I remain a bit puzzled about your thought processes.Perhaps it's just a question of an untrained mind as the stuffier Cambridge dons used to say.

On the key issue you continue to flap around.Nobody with an ounce of intelligence or common sense is fooled.

[jdinasia]

I wasn't privy (pun intended) to the discussion. I can't make the argument for or against it being true and neither can anyone else that wasn't there, and using a fallacious argument to try to get around that fact just doesn't work. You conceded my understanding of the US's official stance of wikileaks, but continue to use the argument? I don't get it.

Good on you for deleting a single ad hominem attack! (btw -- in case people don't know it, an ad hominem attack is yet another form of fallacious argument. If you can't debate the point raised, just attack the poster to deflect!)

BTW -- another fallacious argument is "because it is plausible it must be true."

I deleted the university remark because it seemed excessive and a bit rude.I remain a bit puzzled about your thought processes.Perhaps it's just a question of an untrained mind as the stuffier Cambridge dons used to say.

On the key issue you continue to flap around.Nobody with an ounce of intelligence or common sense is fooled.

Congrats for going straight back to the ad hominems! You seem to do this every time someone contradicts you (holds any view contrary to yours).

Common Sense:

unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.

When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#familiarity

The appeal to "common sense" particularly in politics -- yet another fallacious argument

Edited April 14, 2011 by jdinasia

[yoshiwara]

Although Jatuporn is a loose cannon he is one side of Thaksin's mouth while the other side of Thakin's mouth plays at being Mr Nice. It is a variation on the rabid dog owner who expects credit for pulling the dog off after it has bitten you. As for LM laws we have experience of Thaksin using the civic equivalant of suing anybody to hell who crosses him, particularly newspapers......

[Buchholz]

Laughable.

That was exactly my point that you made.

I made no remark regarding the truthfulness of wikileak, only the legality of it as evidence in a court case versus first hand videotape evidence in the case against Jatuporn.

Thanks for reiterating my point but no thanks for the, as said, completely unnecessary personal slight in your previous post and dragging out unnecessarily into a bickering session.... again.

.

it seems we agree.That's a good thing isn't it?

Seemingly we agreed before your typical personal slighting began.... AKA "completely unnecessary"

.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Congrats for going straight back to the ad hominems! You seem to do this every time someone contradicts you (holds any view contrary to yours).

Common Sense:

unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.

When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#familiarity

The appeal to "common sense" particularly in politics -- yet another fallacious argument

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

[whybother]

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

The truth, or otherwise, of the cable isn't really the point. The point is the likely hood of it being accepted as true by a court.

And we all seem to agree that it wouldn't be.

[jayboy]

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

The truth, or otherwise, of the cable isn't really the point. The point is the likely hood of it being accepted as true by a court.

And we all seem to agree that it wouldn't be.

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

[whybother]

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Whether we believe they said it is irrelevant. Whatever "it" is.

It's whether it can be proven in court that is the point. And, it's hearsay. The guys will deny that they said it. The ambassador won't confirm or deny it.

[jayboy]

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Whether we believe they said it is irrelevant. Whatever "it" is.

It's whether it can be proven in court that is the point. And, it's hearsay. The guys will deny that they said it. The ambassador won't confirm or deny it.

It's hard going sometimes but the point is a fairly simple one to grasp.

The position regarding LM evidence in a Thai court is clear enough.

But because of Wikileaks the world at large knows the score now.The details are widely discussed among Thais etc etc etc .... this has nothing to do with any court or what it is prepared to accept as evidence.It's a sideshow along with the ridiculous Redshirt charges.You can pretend Wikileaks is just hearsay but the truth is what it is.Even the pretence that Wikileaks has nothing to do with the real world is clearly wrong: for the example the American Ambassador to Mexico has had to resign precisely because of the public airing of what he reported.

If Wikileaks had damning evidence against Thaksin I suspect the gauleiters would be singing a different tune.Actually it may yet:there is much more to come from Wikileaks on Thailand

[jdinasia]

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

Gotta love Jayboy Since you shouldn't change the contents of a quote the original is above.

"Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are Purported to be uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above."

The" likely " is his own word. The "purported to be" is my addition. Again plausibility and fact are not one in the same .... and even jayboy admits (with his use of "likely") and previously in the thread regarding the official US position on reacting to any "leaks", that the leaks are not "facts", They do appear plausible though

The "awkward fact is that jayboy wants to claim something is a fact, when it isn't and will ~do all those things that he accuses others of doing*~ to pretend that they are facts even though he admits they are not.

* --- this part is filled in like this so as to not make off topic ad hominem attacks in the same way that jayboy does

Edited April 15, 2011 by jdinasia

[whybother]

It's hard going sometimes but the point is a fairly simple one to grasp.

The position regarding LM evidence in a Thai court is clear enough.

But because of Wikileaks the world at large knows the score now.The details are widely discussed among Thais etc etc etc .... this has nothing to do with any court or what it is prepared to accept as evidence.It's a sideshow along with the ridiculous Redshirt charges.You can pretend Wikileaks is just hearsay but the truth is what it is.Even the pretence that Wikileaks has nothing to do with the real world is clearly wrong: for the example the American Ambassador to Mexico has had to resign precisely because of the public airing of what he reported.

If Wikileaks had damning evidence against Thaksin I suspect the gauleiters would be singing a different tune.Actually it may yet:there is much more to come from Wikileaks on Thailand

I think there is a big difference in saying something in private to one person and saying something on a stage to thousands of people. In either case, it's about whether a court accepts that something was said.

No one here is denying that something was said to the ambassador. Did the cable state exactly what was said, or did it just summarise or paraphrase?

In any case, Thaksin or anyone else, wikileaks is not damning evidence. It is a leaked cable of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened. It might confirm in some peoples minds, but it is irrelevant in a court of law.

[jayboy]

In any case, Thaksin or anyone else, wikileaks is not damning evidence. It is a leaked cable of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened. It might confirm in some peoples minds, but it is irrelevant in a court of law.

OK that's it.If you can't grasp my point I don't see a simpler way of putting it (and I'm getting bored with repeating it!)

How many times must I say I agree with you about court of law evidence.However that's not the true significance of Wikileaks whether in Thailand or elsewhere.

On a point of detail, you are completely incorrect to suggest that Wikileaks are "leaked cables of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened".In most cases they are an Ambassador's reports of conversations he had directly with the people involved.