Hearing Of Terrorism Case Against 19 Red-Shirt Leaders Scheduled In June 2012

[webfact]

First witness hearing of terrorism case against 19 red-shirt leader scheduled in June next year

The Criminal Court Monday scheduled the first witness hearing of the terrorism case against 19 red-shirt leaders in June next year.

The court decided to have the first prosecution witness testify on June 1 2011.

The prosecutors initially sought the court permission to produce 369 witnesses but the court asked the prosecutors to reduce the number of witnesses to 120 to 150. The prosecutors were allowed o produce the witness testimony in 60 hearings.

-- The Nation 2011-07-11

[webfact]

Court orders all UDD-related cases on terrorism charges to be combined

BANGKOK, July 11 -- Thailand's Criminal Court today ordered that all cases regarding the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the Red Shirt movement, to be combined in an overall case, with the first hearing of witnesses for the prosecution set for June 1 next year.

The Criminal Court on Monday had examined evidence and witnesses in the case of former UDD chairman Veerakan (formerly known as Veera) Musikapong and 19 UDD leaders and supporters charged with terrorism.

The prosecutors asked the court to allow 369 prosecution witnesses to testify.

The court found that some witnesses’ names were duplicated so that the court instructed the prosecutors to reduce the number of witnesses to between 120-150, who must testify in 60 court hearings.

Legal counsel for the defendants told the Court that some of the defendants were elected as members of parliament in the July 3 general election and would therefore not be available to appear in Court during Parliamentary sessions.

The Court, therefore, ordered to the start of testimony with witnesses for the prosecution and set the first hearing on June 1, 2012 at 9am.

The Court set April 23, 2012 at 9am for both sides in the case to examine the list of the prosecution witnesses.

Moreover, the defence lawyers asked the Court the combine the terrorism charges of other UDD members the same charges as the 19 UDD and the Court agreed with the move so that an overall scheduled of 23 persons will be prosecuted in the terrorism-related cases.

In another related development, UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri told the media that the Wang Thong Lang political party registrar has reinstated Mr Jatuporn's electoral rights so that his victory as a party-list candidate can now be officially endorsed as a Pheu Thai Party MP.

Mr Jatuporn, detained in Bangkok Remand Prison on charges of terrorism, is the No 8 candidate on the Pheu Thai party list from which candidates Nos 1-61 have been elected.

Mr Winyat said he petitioned Wang Thong Lang district political party registrar, to clarify the reason that Jatuporn could not exercise his right on July 3 general election.

The registrar replied that Mr Jatuporn had a justifiable reason for not voting so he did not lose his election right.

Mr Winyat said he would ask the Election Commission (EC) to endorse Mr Jatuporn's MP status so that he would use the endorsement to seek a court order to release him on bail.

The electoral body will begin endorsing the winning MP candidates' status on Tuesday. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-07-11

[RickBradford]

Why rush things? How about 2017? Or whenever the high-speed rail line to China is built?

[jonclark]

Why rush things? How about 2017? Or whenever the high-speed rail line to China is built?

Indeed - what about all the 'little reds' which are still rotting in prison. No concern for them by their leaders thank you very much

[noahvail]

Why rush things? How about 2017? Or whenever the high-speed rail line to China is built?

Indeed - what about all the 'little reds' which are still rotting in prison. No concern for them by their leaders thank you very much

Oh, I'm sure they will be released as part of the "reconciliation."

[OzMick]

As a good percentage are PTP party list MPs, they will have to wait until parliament is dissolved before serving their sentences anyway. Hopefully the court can remain impartial and they actually get sentences rather than a medal and a gold watch.

I wonder what happens if a few MPs get the BIG sentence.

[Crushdepth]

A year is more than enough time to shove an amnesty through. They won't stand trial.

[rubl]

In another related development, UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri told the media that the Wang Thong Lang political party registrar has reinstated Mr Jatuporn's electoral rights so that his victory as a party-list candidate can now be officially endorsed as a Pheu Thai Party MP.

Mr Jatuporn, detained in Bangkok Remand Prison on charges of terrorism, is the No 8 candidate on the Pheu Thai party list from which candidates Nos 1-61 have been elected.

Mr Winyat said he petitioned Wang Thong Lang district political party registrar, to clarify the reason that Jatuporn could not exercise his right on July 3 general election.

The registrar replied that Mr Jatuporn had a justifiable reason for not voting so he did not lose his election right.

My knowledge of the Thai Law is somewhat limited (x marks the spot where I need to sign, even if it is my death warrant), but I'm wondering about this.

K. Jatuporn has the right to justify his being incapable of voting and reasoning why his rights to vote/stand should not be removed (for five years?). What is unclear to me is to whom k. Jatuporn or his legal representative should forward that request? Is any political party registrar possible, or should it go to Election Commission, Election Court, anyone else ?

Who can provide more insight in this matter?

[rubl]

As a good percentage are PTP party list MPs, they will have to wait until parliament is dissolved before serving their sentences anyway. Hopefully the court can remain impartial and they actually get sentences rather than a medal and a gold watch.

I wonder what happens if a few MPs get the BIG sentence.

The case will be postponed over and over again as far as MP's are involved. Witnesses may be heard, but not MP's. As such the case cannot be concluded, no one will be sentenced. Rule of Law, like it or not, but 'rule of law' !

[phiphidon]

Why rush things? How about 2017? Or whenever the high-speed rail line to China is built?

Indeed - what about all the 'little reds' which are still rotting in prison. No concern for them by their leaders thank you very much

If you read the OP and know a little about the justice system you would realise it is the Criminal Court that decides when hearings are held. The UDD and their leaders have no input to this decision.

[phiphidon]

As a good percentage are PTP party list MPs, they will have to wait until parliament is dissolved before serving their sentences anyway. Hopefully the court can remain impartial and they actually get sentences rather than a medal and a gold watch.

I wonder what happens if a few MPs get the BIG sentence.

The case will be postponed over and over again as far as MP's are involved. Witnesses may be heard, but not MP's. As such the case cannot be concluded, no one will be sentenced. Rule of Law, like it or not, but 'rule of law' !

Hopefully the Court can remain be impartial and judge accordingly to the statements put before them and sentence or not as appropriate according to the evidence provided. Can't say fairer than that, can we?

[rubl]

As a good percentage are PTP party list MPs, they will have to wait until parliament is dissolved before serving their sentences anyway. Hopefully the court can remain impartial and they actually get sentences rather than a medal and a gold watch.

I wonder what happens if a few MPs get the BIG sentence.

The case will be postponed over and over again as far as MP's are involved. Witnesses may be heard, but not MP's. As such the case cannot be concluded, no one will be sentenced. Rule of Law, like it or not, but 'rule of law' !

Hopefully the Court can remain be impartial and judge accordingly to the statements put before them and sentence or not as appropriate according to the evidence provided. Can't say fairer than that, can we?

Strictly speaking that's implied with 'rule of law'. Unfortunately it also needs stressing again every once in a while

[Bkkorupcountry]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

[wolfmanjack]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

It isn't as if this was just a demonstration that got out of hand. There were guys on stage listing all of the buildings to burn. There were guys stating that everyone should bring a liter of petrol and make thailand a sea of flames. I would say for these guys and the financier a case could be made that they were terrorist since their goal was to create so much terror in the country the government would collapse. Isn't that the goal of the terrorist attacking the USA? To create an atmosphere of constant fear? To make people afraid to leave their homes? Are the Islamist terrorist attacking western countries for religious reasons or political reasons?

Is their aim the collapse of the USA or UK government or is it an attack against christianity? Remember the attack in the USA was against the representative of the financial markets not the churches.

[webfact]

REDS MOVEMENT

Reds' terrorism case to start in June next year

By The Nation

The Criminal Court yesterday scheduled June 1 next year for the first hearing of the case against 19 red-shirt leaders charged with terrorism and illegal protest in connection with last year's unrest and rioting.

Public prosecutors asked the court to hear 369 prosecution witnesses but the court asked them to reduce that number to 120-150, as many witnesses were considered unnecessary. The court would hear the witnesses in 60 hearings.

The defence team for the red-shirt leaders had submitted a list of 168 witnesses.

Defence lawyers yesterday asked the court to ensure that the date set for the hearing of the defendants who become MPs in the new House of Representatives would not coincide with the date they have to attend a parliamentary meeting.

MPs-elect Jatuporn Promphan and Nattawut Saikua are among the 19 red-shirt leaders facing the terrorism case.

Scores of businesses whose properties were damaged in last year's riots and arson attacks have obtained court permission to become co-plaintiffs in the case.

All of the red-shirt leaders, except Veerakan Musigapong, will have the same set of witnesses and evidence, according to their lawyer Karom Polthaklang.

Winyat Chartmontri, who is Jatuporn's lawyer, said yesterday that the Wang Thonglang District Office had considered Jatuporn's written explanation for his failure to cast his votes in the July 3 general election and informed him that Jatuporn had sufficient reason and would not lose his electoral rights. The lawyer said that if the Election Commission endorsed Jatuporn's election, he would seek his release from remand.

Jatuporn, being detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison, was not allowed by the court to vote on election day.

Meanwhile, Department of Special Investigation director-general Tarit Pengdith yesterday said the DSI would summon the 19 red-shirt leaders to be formally informed of the lese majeste charge on August 17 in connection with their rally on April 10.

Messages deemed insulting to the monarchy were allegedly made during the red-shirts' rally on that day. The lawyers for the red-shirt leaders had requested postponement of a formal indictment twice, first citing the fact that some red-shirt leaders had to take part in election campaigning, and later citing the need for more time to gather evidence.

-- The Nation 2011-07-12

[Britannia]

It’s a sham, no where in the World can you be accused, charged or not with terrorism and not be contained on remand.

So to me it is just throwing a word around (terrorism) when there could or should be alternative accusations

Terrorist are locked up detained, not let out to stand for parliament or any other activity.

True or false I make no comment other than, you can not still retain your liberty whilst accused of terrorism

[OzMick]

It's a sham, no where in the World can you be accused, charged or not with terrorism and not be contained on remand.

So to me it is just throwing a word around (terrorism) when there could or should be alternative accusations

Terrorist are locked up detained, not let out to stand for parliament or any other activity.

True or false I make no comment other than, you can not still retain your liberty whilst accused of terrorism

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

The argument that they can't be terrorists because they ave been granted bail is illogical. Please re-consider Arisman's "bring a bottle" clip, and suggest an alternative charge." Incitement to commit mass arson" perhaps? sounds like a definition of terrorism.

[animatic]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

It need not rise to the level of Twin Towers or Bali,

terrorism is a much more clear defined set of actions than only it's worst case implementation.

Sorry your definition doesn't cut it.

A single person holds a child hostage while wearing an explosive vest

unless his political aims are met he will blow them up.

You don't met them, and he blows up himself and the child and bystanders.

Terrorism or not? Only one man and not hundreds killed, but stil terrorism.

You are trying to be pedantic by re-writing a weaker definition that is invalid.

Your personal opinion doesn't change a definition sorry mate.

"...The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated,

to bring down the existing government,..."

they used violence to further their political ends.

And threatened to do more if their demands were not met.

A textbook application of terrorist methods.

Yes common sense indeed.

Sorry, own goal on your own point.

Edited July 12, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

The IRA actions were politically motivated. Not terrorists?

[animatic]

Well seems they give PTP a year to fail or not,

and reign in their reds or not.

[OzMick]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

The death and destruction were higher in BKK than in London 7/7, or shouldn't the deaths of the terrorists be counted? Politically motivated - does that make it more justifiable?

GK might be able to help you with the motivations of the London terrorists, because I have no idea what goes on in the minds of homicidal brainwashed idiots, in either case.

[Britannia]

It's a sham, no where in the World can you be accused, charged or not with terrorism and not be contained on remand.

So to me it is just throwing a word around (terrorism) when there could or should be alternative accusations

Terrorist are locked up detained, not let out to stand for parliament or any other activity.

True or false I make no comment other than, you can not still retain your liberty whilst accused of terrorism

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

The argument that they can't be terrorists because they ave been granted bail is illogical. Please re-consider Arisman's "bring a bottle" clip, and suggest an alternative charge." Incitement to commit mass arson" perhaps? sounds like a definition of terrorism.

(Quote)

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

Yes sir I do believe if you are accused of terrorism then you should be detained to avoid exactly as you said to re offending

If you’re a terrorist you are held in detention, America Spain Britain, France etc do not give bail to terrorist

Therefore I stand by my words it is not the correct word however you define terrorism

[OzMick]

When it becomes proven that millions of baht have changed hands so that the accused would incite their followers to terrorism, they become mercenaries in one man's political war. Hopefully he also will be convicted of terrorism and share their fate.

The death toll in BKK was very low compared to what COULD have happened if the govt and army had not been so restrained, if the RPG attack on the fuel-tank farm had been successful, or the fires in BKK had gotten out of control. And all for the political and financial gain of one man, who still claims to be a patriot.

He is a proven liar, thief on a monumental scale, abuser of power and position, and corrupter of others - yet millions of Thais believe that he is a great man, blinded by their poverty, greed, and lack of education. Even stranger to me is that supposedly democratically educated foreigners can swallow his propaganda.

[OzMick]

It's a sham, no where in the World can you be accused, charged or not with terrorism and not be contained on remand.

So to me it is just throwing a word around (terrorism) when there could or should be alternative accusations

Terrorist are locked up detained, not let out to stand for parliament or any other activity.

True or false I make no comment other than, you can not still retain your liberty whilst accused of terrorism

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

The argument that they can't be terrorists because they ave been granted bail is illogical. Please re-consider Arisman's "bring a bottle" clip, and suggest an alternative charge." Incitement to commit mass arson" perhaps? sounds like a definition of terrorism.

(Quote)

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

Yes sir I do believe if you are accused of terrorism then you should be detained to avoid exactly as you said to re offending

If you're a terrorist you are held in detention, America Spain Britain, France etc do not give bail to terrorist

Therefore I stand by my words it is not the correct word however you define terrorism

I repeat that the argument that what happens to an accused in other countries does not happen here means that the charge is inapplicable is logically flawed. At most it indicates that you believe that the system here is faulty. I gave you an example, which I consider a clear case of terrorism. Please consider it and give me an alternative charge, noting as you do THAT HE IS NOT ON BAIL.

[Britannia]

It's a sham, no where in the World can you be accused, charged or not with terrorism and not be contained on remand.

So to me it is just throwing a word around (terrorism) when there could or should be alternative accusations

Terrorist are locked up detained, not let out to stand for parliament or any other activity.

True or false I make no comment other than, you can not still retain your liberty whilst accused of terrorism

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

The argument that they can't be terrorists because they ave been granted bail is illogical. Please re-consider Arisman's "bring a bottle" clip, and suggest an alternative charge." Incitement to commit mass arson" perhaps? sounds like a definition of terrorism.

(Quote)

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

Yes sir I do believe if you are accused of terrorism then you should be detained to avoid exactly as you said to re offending

If you're a terrorist you are held in detention, America Spain Britain, France etc do not give bail to terrorist

Therefore I stand by my words it is not the correct word however you define terrorism

I repeat that the argument that what happens to an accused in other countries does not happen here means that the charge is inapplicable is logically flawed. At most it indicates that you believe that the system here is faulty. I gave you an example, which I consider a clear case of terrorism. Please consider it and give me an alternative charge, noting as you do THAT HE IS NOT ON BAIL.

Difference of opinion on what exactly terrorism is Sir a bank robber walking in to a bank with a sawn off shotgun induces terror, but that is not terrorism its bank robbery

Someone mugging an old lady induces terror but that is not terrorism, it again is robbery with violence

I would define terrorism as an indiscriminate act to cause harm injury or death against an alien society, that the perpetrators self justify their act on political or a religious basis.

Many other charges from inciting civil unrest, to causing or inciting others to whatever you want to add, but terrorism is inciting National fear, for that in any society the culprits must be detained

[jdinasia]

So all the posters on this thread thus far (coincidentally, the majority of whom are anti-Reds) believe there is a prima facie case of "terrorism" against the accused parties? And let's not be pedantic by quoting definitions (as the almighty EYE likes to do) but use your common sense as to what terrorism means in the wider context of the word.

The actions of the reds last year was politically motivated, to bring down the existing government, and cannot be compared to what happened to the Twin Towers or Bali or the subway bombings in London.

The IRA actions were politically motivated. Not terrorists?

Let's DO get pedantic and post definitions .... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   

[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[OzMick]

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

The argument that they can't be terrorists because they ave been granted bail is illogical. Please re-consider Arisman's "bring a bottle" clip, and suggest an alternative charge." Incitement to commit mass arson" perhaps? sounds like a definition of terrorism.

(Quote)

Do you believe that the Thai bail system is faulty, and that accused persons should blocked away for , say, 18 months waiting trial? Perhaps there is a chance that they will re-offend.

Yes sir I do believe if you are accused of terrorism then you should be detained to avoid exactly as you said to re offending

If you're a terrorist you are held in detention, America Spain Britain, France etc do not give bail to terrorist

Therefore I stand by my words it is not the correct word however you define terrorism

I repeat that the argument that what happens to an accused in other countries does not happen here means that the charge is inapplicable is logically flawed. At most it indicates that you believe that the system here is faulty. I gave you an example, which I consider a clear case of terrorism. Please consider it and give me an alternative charge, noting as you do THAT HE IS NOT ON BAIL.

Difference of opinion on what exactly terrorism is Sir a bank robber walking in to a bank with a sawn off shotgun induces terror, but that is not terrorism its bank robbery

Someone mugging an old lady induces terror but that is not terrorism, it again is robbery with violence

I would define terrorism as an indiscriminate act to cause harm injury or death against an alien society, that the perpetrators self justify their act on political or a religious basis.

Many other charges from inciting civil unrest, to causing or inciting others to whatever you want to add, but terrorism is inciting National fear, for that in any society the culprits must be detained

Funny how your definition doesn't match those provided. Threatening to burn the capital to the ground is not "inciting National fear", or threatening and carrying out the burning of provincial govt offices?

Why do you believe that terrorists must be detained? Is there a possibility, in your mind, that the UDD leaders will do it again? There is in mine, and I also believe that they should be behind bars pending execution, but that is not how the system works here.

[whybother]

I would define terrorism as an indiscriminate act to cause harm injury or death against an alien society, that the perpetrators self justify their act on political or a religious basis.

So the term "home-grown terrorists" can be thrown out the window, and Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.

[Siam Simon]

Let's DO get pedantic and post definitions .... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   

[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

2. And 3. are perfect descriptions of the Army dispersal of last year's protests. There we have it then: The CRES a terrorist organisation.

[OzMick]

In most democracies, it is considered appropriate that MP's facing serious criminal charges step down until their case is heard. I doubt very much if that will happen in a Thaksin democracy.