'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[SteeleJoe]

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Well, you generally need evidence of actual participation in the murder not just the mere fact that someone had a reason to do it and was capable of it; ie just because a person or organization has all three by no means shows that they are guilty of murder.

EDIT for typo

Edited November 29, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[animatic]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Agreed.

[animatic]

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Well, you generally need evidence of actual participation in the murder not just the mere fact that someone had a reason to do it and was capable of it; ie just because a person or organization has all three by no means shows that they are guilty of murder.

EDIT for typo

Right, but evidence or witness testimony,

always go to prove those three together.

Edited November 29, 2011 by animatic

[Nisa]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Who doesn't care he was killed? But your argument is kind of odd as most people provide a service to society and while it is sad we all die, it is just the way it is. As for an entertainment reporter, they too serve a huge purpose in society unless you believe being serious is more important than enjoyment. Many people don't even watch the news and many lead much happier lives because of it ... especially to us Thai Visa posters who often get worked up about things we have absolutely no control over nor can make even a tiny dent of difference. There are very very few people who are not replaceable and whose life should be compared or judged to be worth more than others.

Bottom line is you seem to be up on a high horse about a specific group of workers who choose their profession and are compensated for what they do and choose or decline to cover dangerous stories. Not much different than a taxi driver in my opinion who serves the public but whom I would suspect have a much much higher rate of being killed in the line of duty while also having a much much lower pay and little future of promotion.

Although this case may be much different --- many of the reporters you see on TV are airheads who do little if anything to get the story. They simply look and speak good on TV and generally get paid big bugs to do so. Even in the field many of them do little off camera and it is their producers, cameraman and staff who get the story and spend much of the time in the danger area scouting for stories ... not just 5-minutes in front of the camera. No doubt they provide a service but they are no more important than every other cog in the wheel of workers serving the public, economy and people in general.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Nisa

[Oberkommando]

Who cares? The Japanese government, the journalists colleagues, friends and family for starters.

Amazing how insensitive and mindless some posters can be in order to score a political point, or whitewash Thailand of any wrongdoing.

[TAWP]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

[longtom]

Motive from the government or army is missing. There is no logical reason for the army or their snipers to kill a credentialed reporter on the scene. It can not further any of their goals, and if anything, is detrimental to them.

At worst it is accIdental death by misadventure in a RIOT. Maybe a soldier did accidentally shoot him, fog of battle etc, but certainly the logic of there being any orders to do so is patently absurd.

On the other hand

If it could be used to embarrass or prosecute the government, as they are again attempting now, then the black snipers for the other side would have motive to to shoot a reporter standing in the midst of many soldiers.

Some snipers behind red lines to make the army think the mob is armed,

but one good shot well back BEHIND the army lines, selectively making the army look like it is taking out red rioters, and coincidentally one Japanese reporter. Psychological warfare in a political context.

This would further the long term goals of removing the Democrats as a viable opposition and sidelining many of their and the armies leaders. In theory. It is obvious that the army was targeted with extreme deadly violence, that can NOT be denied. By whom and why is an open question, but those with a motivation to do so are not the army nor the Democrats. So who does that leave... Oh yes Redshirt rioters, their backers and their sub-rosa military black shirts.

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Is it really impossible to imagine a Thai general giving the order to hit a journo, just for the sake of deterrence, to keep the cameras out of the fighting zone? Even more so when we consider different factions within the military, and their general feeling of being untouchable and not really responsible to the governement?

Edited November 29, 2011 by longtom

[TAWP]

Is it really impossible to imagine a Thai general giving the order to hit a journo, just for the sake of deterrence, to keep the cameras out of the fighting zone? Even more so when we consider different factions within the military, and their general feeling of being untouchable and not really responsible to the governement?

Yes, since journalists rarely stop going to places other have died at. Infact, it is likely to bring more. Not-withstanding that today every wear portable cameras and removing one journalist wouldn't stop that.

Next try?

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[rubl]

It should be the new slogan of the democrats " Who Cares ?"

Does it concern us, we, the Bangkok supporters of the democrats ? Does or will it affect our way of life in anyway ? No ? So, who cares ?

There is no moral high ground in their positions as some want us to believe, just, worst than greed, selfishness.

Is this the guy who didn't see much wrong with all those deaths in the 'war on drugs'

"Beside that, the number of death related to the war on drugs have repeatedly been greatly exagerated. But lets focus on the main point, why all the attention about the death of a couple of criminal and nothing about the death of their hundred of thousand of victims ? What your bleeding heart activists have to say about that ?"

[whybother]

Is it really impossible to imagine a Thai general giving the order to hit a journo, just for the sake of deterrence, to keep the cameras out of the fighting zone? Even more so when we consider different factions within the military, and their general feeling of being untouchable and not really responsible to the governement?

The guy was shot at night on April 10, after the army had been hit by grenades. After the grenade blasts, they soldiers were basically retreating. There were "men in black" shooting at the soldiers, moving forward attacking the soldiers, and the soldiers were firing back.

Hiro Muramoto was not there covering a war zone. He was there covering protests, that became a war zone. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Thai generals wouldn't have been thinking "lets take out a journo, to make them keep out of our hair". They would have been thinking "soldiers have been killed by grenades. The protesters are shooting at us. We've got to get the people shooting at us".

[rubl]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Agreed.

True, we should care, but even hardened reporters try to avoid real 'deathwish' situations. From our local reporter Nick Nostitz:

"On May 19 i was behind the military, and was about 60 meters away from Chandler when he was injured by a M79 grenade fired by militants against soldiers (Chandler was in a group of soldiers, which was a bad mistake, most of us journos ran into cover after the first grenades exploded)"

[hanuman2543]

From the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall "In memory of Hiro Muramoto"

"As is standard when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings."

This article has the whole truth and the cover up of the Government, Army and DSI and is already 5 month available for everybody who is interested .

Edited November 29, 2011 by hanuman2543

[JurgenG]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Who doesn't care he was killed? But your argument is kind of odd as most people provide a service to society and while it is sad we all die, it is just the way it is. As for an entertainment reporter, they too serve a huge purpose in society unless you believe being serious is more important than enjoyment. Many people don't even watch the news and many lead much happier lives because of it ... especially to us Thai Visa posters who often get worked up about things we have absolutely no control over nor can make even a tiny dent of difference. There are very very few people who are not replaceable and whose life should be compared or judged to be worth more than others.

Bottom line is you seem to be up on a high horse about a specific group of workers who choose their profession and are compensated for what they do and choose or decline to cover dangerous stories. Not much different than a taxi driver in my opinion who serves the public but whom I would suspect have a much much higher rate of being killed in the line of duty while also having a much much lower pay and little future of promotion.

Although this case may be much different --- many of the reporters you see on TV are airheads who do little if anything to get the story. They simply look and speak good on TV and generally get paid big bugs to do so. Even in the field many of them do little off camera and it is their producers, cameraman and staff who get the story and spend much of the time in the danger area scouting for stories ... not just 5-minutes in front of the camera. No doubt they provide a service but they are no more important than every other cog in the wheel of workers serving the public, economy and people in general.

We can discuss at length about this subject but just let say governments or other political groups don't have much incentive to assassinate a culinary critic or an entertainer, much more to kill reporters covering strategic events when their stories may contradict what they want us to believe.

That's why we should clearly let governments and other political parties know that killing reporters is off limit and no exception will be tolerated. And that extends to their supporting staff on the field.

The rest of your post just say we should just live a stupid but happy life and let "superior" people make the important decisions for us. I don't agree with you. That's why you have your position and I have mine about recent events in Thailand

Edited November 29, 2011 by JurgenG

[TAWP]

From the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall "In memory of Hiro Muramoto"

"As is standard when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings."

This article has the whole truth and the cover up of the Government, Army and DSI and is already 5 month available for everybody who is interested .

There is little bit more to the story around Andrew Macgregor Marshall. His campaign against this nations highest institution, use of wiki-leaks to spin an un-supported narrative by cherry picking cables (and choosing to gloss over the ones where Thaksin is practically labeled a megalomaniac person with self-delusion issues) to support this campaign - and a background of his time at Reuters (including repeatedly calling them 'incompetent' after he - presumably the only talented reporter - left them in the midst of a scandal involving very bad off-the-cuff remarks that got out publicly).

But anyway...

[ThaiOats]

Motive from the government or army is missing. There is no logical reason for the army or their snipers to kill a credentialed reporter on the scene. It can not further any of their goals, and if anything, is detrimental to them.

At worst it is accIdental death by misadventure in a RIOT. Maybe a soldier did accidentally shoot him, fog of battle etc, but certainly the logic of there being any orders to do so is patently absurd.

On the other hand

If it could be used to embarrass or prosecute the government, as they are again attempting now, then the black snipers for the other side would have motive to to shoot a reporter standing in the midst of many soldiers.

Some snipers behind red lines to make the army think the mob is armed,

but one good shot well back BEHIND the army lines, selectively making the army look like it is taking out red rioters, and coincidentally one Japanese reporter. Psychological warfare in a political context.

This would further the long term goals of removing the Democrats as a viable opposition and sidelining many of their and the armies leaders. In theory. It is obvious that the army was targeted with extreme deadly violence, that can NOT be denied. By whom and why is an open question, but those with a motivation to do so are not the army nor the Democrats. So who does that leave... Oh yes Redshirt rioters, their backers and their sub-rosa military black shirts.

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Is it really impossible to imagine a Thai general giving the order to hit a journo, just for the sake of deterrence, to keep the cameras out of the fighting zone? Even more so when we consider different factions within the military, and their general feeling of being untouchable and not really responsible to the governement?

Is it really impossible to imagine the plausibility of "watermelon" soldiers shooting at innocent civilians in order to discredit the government?

[hanuman2543]

From the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall "In memory of Hiro Muramoto"

"As is standard when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings."

This article has the whole truth and the cover up of the Government, Army and DSI and is already 5 month available for everybody who is interested .

There is little bit more to the story around Andrew Macgregor Marshall. His campaign against this nations highest institution, use of wiki-leaks to spin an un-supported narrative by cherry picking cables (and choosing to gloss over the ones where Thaksin is practically labeled a megalomaniac person with self-delusion issues) to support this campaign - and a background of his time at Reuters (including repeatedly calling them 'incompetent' after he - presumably the only talented reporter - left them in the midst of a scandal involving very bad off-the-cuff remarks that got out publicly).

But anyway...

It is not about the journalistic work of Andrew Macgregor Marshall, it is about the findings of the investigation Reuters commissioned.

[ThaiOats]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Who doesn't care he was killed? But your argument is kind of odd as most people provide a service to society and while it is sad we all die, it is just the way it is. As for an entertainment reporter, they too serve a huge purpose in society unless you believe being serious is more important than enjoyment. Many people don't even watch the news and many lead much happier lives because of it ... especially to us Thai Visa posters who often get worked up about things we have absolutely no control over nor can make even a tiny dent of difference. There are very very few people who are not replaceable and whose life should be compared or judged to be worth more than others.

Bottom line is you seem to be up on a high horse about a specific group of workers who choose their profession and are compensated for what they do and choose or decline to cover dangerous stories. Not much different than a taxi driver in my opinion who serves the public but whom I would suspect have a much much higher rate of being killed in the line of duty while also having a much much lower pay and little future of promotion.

Although this case may be much different --- many of the reporters you see on TV are airheads who do little if anything to get the story. They simply look and speak good on TV and generally get paid big bugs to do so. Even in the field many of them do little off camera and it is their producers, cameraman and staff who get the story and spend much of the time in the danger area scouting for stories ... not just 5-minutes in front of the camera. No doubt they provide a service but they are no more important than every other cog in the wheel of workers serving the public, economy and people in general.

We can discuss at length about this subject but just let say governments or other political groups don't have much incentive to assassinate a culinary critic or an entertainer, much more to kill reporters covering strategic events when their stories may contradict what they want us to believe.

That's why we should clearly let governments and other political parties know that killing reporters is off limit and no exception will be tolerated. And that extends to their supporting staff on the field.

The rest of your post just say we should just live a stupid but happy life and let "superior" people make the important decisions for us. I don't agree with you. That's why you have your position and I have mine about recent events in Thailand

Wow talk about having a blinkered view on things.

"That's why we should clearly let governments and other political parties know that killing reporters is off limit and no exception will be tolerated. And that extends to their supporting staff on the field."

It's much better to say killing anyone regardless of profession as long as they are unarmed and not supporting violence is off limits. You make it seem as if the Army is deliberately targeting reporters. I'll use tlansford's argument here by saying it's an "occupational hazard" when they choose to be there, putting themselves in danger just like all the other red shirts. The Army personnel however, were not there by choice. They were ordered to be there and it would serve them to have some sort of defense against armed insurgents who have every intention of doing harm to them.

It would be dutifully wrong for the General to order his men to go into a battlefield with toy guys vs real guns. He'd be putting his men in danger without a means to defend themselves. Consider that for a bit. Could you imagine the soldiers in Afghanistan being equipped with rubber bullets for the sake of not "accidentally" killing citizens?

[pisico]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

Maybe the single bullet caliber 308 that killed Seh Dang was also an accidental case of an unqualified sniper who, coincidentally was (according to forensics) situated on a roof top of a building cordoned off by the military. Hum!!

Another case of mistaken identity or sloppy snipping?

[SteeleJoe]

Means, opportunity AND motive.

The three basic parts need to convict for murder and conspiracy to murder.

Well, you generally need evidence of actual participation in the murder not just the mere fact that someone had a reason to do it and was capable of it; ie just because a person or organization has all three by no means shows that they are guilty of murder.

EDIT for typo

Right, but evidence or witness testimony,

always go to prove those three together.

Yes.AND to prove that the accused actually did it -- not merely to prove that those three things were extant' the presence of those three on their own prove nothing. And all you presented was that -- a theory that there was means, motive and opportunity to kill the journalist and pin it on the army but no evidence or witness testimony that someone did that.

Right?

[rubl]

Maybe the single bullet caliber 308 that killed Seh Dang was also an accidental case of an unqualified sniper who, coincidentally was (according to forensics) situated on a roof top of a building cordoned off by the military. Hum!!

Another case of mistaken identity or sloppy snipping?

Sorry to say that the renegade general Khattiya Sawatdiphol (aka Seh Daeng) brought it unto himself, but I think he did. Most likely killed by Army snipers as well. I think that may be one of the only points people here will agree upon.

"The army officer was suspected to be the man behind several grenade attacks launched from within red shirt lines on army, police and civilians. Khittaya denied being behind the attacks. “I deny,” he said ‘No-one saw me!”

But he has also been quoted as saying ‘I have only one dance. It’s the throwing the hand grenade dance.”"

http://www.andrew-drummond.com/view-story-other.php?sid=37

"“I deny!” he cried in English, with a laugh, when asked in an interview on Sunday about the dozens of bombings that have set Bangkok on edge and about the mysterious black-shirted killers who escalated the violence on April 10 that killed 26 soldiers and civilians. “No one ever saw me.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/asia/14thai.html

[metisdead]

Past and present politicians have proper names, use them or your post will be deleted.

[scorecard]

There is also an other reason why we should care.

There are two kind of journalists. The ones who entertain us and fill the blanks between an advertisement for a luxury car and one for a whitening cream. And those who do the real job of reporter, to go where something happen and report to us what they witness so we can later make informed decision when we are asked to chose our representants. They are our ears and our eyes, without them we are blind and deaf. That's why we should care when one of them is killed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

[TAWP]

It is not about the journalistic work of Andrew Macgregor Marshall, it is about the findings of the investigation Reuters commissioned.

No, it is about the alleged report that a discredited former reporter claims was carried out only to be buried by Reuters themselves afterwards.

[nicknostitz]

From the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall "In memory of Hiro Muramoto"

"As is standard when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings."

This article has the whole truth and the cover up of the Government, Army and DSI and is already 5 month available for everybody who is interested .

There is little bit more to the story around Andrew Macgregor Marshall. His campaign against this nations highest institution, use of wiki-leaks to spin an un-supported narrative by cherry picking cables (and choosing to gloss over the ones where Thaksin is practically labeled a megalomaniac person with self-delusion issues) to support this campaign - and a background of his time at Reuters (including repeatedly calling them 'incompetent' after he - presumably the only talented reporter - left them in the midst of a scandal involving very bad off-the-cuff remarks that got out publicly).

But anyway...

Yes, there is a whole lot more to Andrew than your feeble attempt to discredit him here makes it appear. Andrew, who left Reuters on his own account as his conscience and journalistic ethics were more important than money and career, which is very rare in today's business of journalism. If you look at his bio - he had top positions in both the Middle East and here in South East Asia, and made money most of us can only dream about, and walked away from it without regrets.

As to his remarks that he got reprimanded for - they were nothing but morbid humor to keep morale up for journalists in a very difficult situation. If you ever have been in a difficult situation either as a soldier, journo, cop, or whatever else - morbid humor and bad jokes is what keeps you from breaking down, not political correctness.

Your misplaced hidden accusation that Andrew somewhat whitewashed Thaksin either in his Thaistory or in his career, i would suggest reading Andrew's story "Thaksin and me", and come back again.

As to Wikileaks - well, the cables were never meant for public consumption, and written by the embassy which since WW2 has had maybe the closest relationship with Thailand of all foreign countries.

Given Andrew's position at the time of the internal investigation by Reuters over the death of Hiro, his story on the investigation is more than important, maybe one of the most important journalistic pieces about last year's mess. What furthermore supports the truth of this story is that Reuters so far has neither commented on the story, nor has it proceeded with legal cases, which would have happened if this story would have been fake.

The story opens more than a few questions over the condition the business of journalism is finding itself in now, especially also regarding Thailand, which for some strange reason gets since decades a velvet glove treatment by international journalistic heavyweights. Well, this is beginning to change now, at least, regardless the dirt some like to throw at journalists who care more about their job than living the comfortable life here.

[hellodolly]

I thought the investigation before could not ascertain anything, all of a sudden the reds are in power and it has been proven that the military killed him.

Sorry but Chalerm and all his cronies need to start thinking of the people affected by the floods, and sort that out first before messing with other things, or they will have more serious problems on their hands.

The bottom line is so what.

He is still dead.

In the zone he could just as well have been killed by the terrorists. People that think they are bullet proof because they are reporters and walk around in active zones need to have their head examined.

The Government's big screw up was allowing him to enter the area.

And for that they are responsible.

Edited November 29, 2011 by hellodolly

[AleG]

Is it really impossible to imagine a Thai general giving the order to hit a journo, just for the sake of deterrence, to keep the cameras out of the fighting zone? Even more so when we consider different factions within the military, and their general feeling of being untouchable and not really responsible to the governement?

Considering that the Thai Colonel (there wasn't a general in charge of the operation) had been killed by a grenade fired by the "Black Shirts", I think the chances of him ordering anything were none.

Any other inane theories you may want to entertain?

[natchainuk]

Chalerm is a disgusting, filthy, corrupt, lying lizard. He is everything that is bad and a disgrace to Thailand. As a Thai, I am ashamed that such a creature is in a position of power.

[geriatrickid]

"It is one of the reasons why foreign governments are no longer "discreet" in their support of the current administration."

Do you have evidence of this?

If not then you have no right to write it as a statement of fact, it's your opinion and nothing more.

There is the other side of the coin g'kid, it's very possible that many governments admire the fact the abhisit was very restrained in his handling of the protests, often with violence started by the reds.

Perhaps you'd also like to make a comment about the image of Thailand as a result of your idols assassination 'shoot on site / no questions will be asked' of some 2,500 fellow Thais.

But I can guess your answer, probably a comment about slamming down hard on the Nation.

You ask for evidence. What do you make of Japan's willingness to allow former PM Thaksin to visit? The Japanese have usually kept "convicted" people from entering their nation. And yet, no problem for Mr. Thaksin. Do you suppose there was a subtle message sent at the time? And what do you make of the stronger than usual statements of support offered by the USA and EU following the election of PM Yingluck. Some of the congratulatory statements were practically giddy.

I don't think there was any admiration for the Abhisit's handling of the potests. If there had been, senior foreign diplomatic staff would not have been visiting the protests sites and delivering statements on their respective governments' human rights positions. Had there been admiration, I don't think the dean of the diplomatic corps would have made the public statements at the time- it would have been a hands off approach.

I suggest you look back at actions and statements for the past year as a great many things will come into focus.

[TAWP]

From the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall "In memory of Hiro Muramoto"

"As is standard when a member of staff is killed in the line of duty, Reuters commissioned an independent investigation by a professional security company. The company used was one of the leaders in the field; the probe was conducted by experts in forensic investigation. Their report also concluded that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier, probably not specifically targeted. It added that the bullet that killed Hiro was most likely to have been standard military issue, and not from an AK47 or pistol. This report was kept confidential within Reuters management, but I became aware of the key findings."

This article has the whole truth and the cover up of the Government, Army and DSI and is already 5 month available for everybody who is interested .

There is little bit more to the story around Andrew Macgregor Marshall. His campaign against this nations highest institution, use of wiki-leaks to spin an un-supported narrative by cherry picking cables (and choosing to gloss over the ones where Thaksin is practically labeled a megalomaniac person with self-delusion issues) to support this campaign - and a background of his time at Reuters (including repeatedly calling them 'incompetent' after he - presumably the only talented reporter - left them in the midst of a scandal involving very bad off-the-cuff remarks that got out publicly).

But anyway...

Yes, there is a whole lot more to Andrew than your feeble attempt to discredit him here makes it appear. Andrew, who left Reuters on his own account as his conscience and journalistic ethics were more important than money and career, which is very rare in today's business of journalism. If you look at his bio - he had top positions in both the Middle East and here in South East Asia, and made money most of us can only dream about, and walked away from it without regrets.

As to his remarks that he got reprimanded for - they were nothing but morbid humor to keep morale up for journalists in a very difficult situation. If you ever have been in a difficult situation either as a soldier, journo, cop, or whatever else - morbid humor and bad jokes is what keeps you from breaking down, not political correctness.

Your misplaced hidden accusation that Andrew somewhat whitewashed Thaksin either in his Thaistory or in his career, i would suggest reading Andrew's story "Thaksin and me", and come back again.

As to Wikileaks - well, the cables were never meant for public consumption, and written by the embassy which since WW2 has had maybe the closest relationship with Thailand of all foreign countries.

Given Andrew's position at the time of the internal investigation by Reuters over the death of Hiro, his story on the investigation is more than important, maybe one of the most important journalistic pieces about last year's mess. What furthermore supports the truth of this story is that Reuters so far has neither commented on the story, nor has it proceeded with legal cases, which would have happened if this story would have been fake.

The story opens more than a few questions over the condition the business of journalism is finding itself in now, especially also regarding Thailand, which for some strange reason gets since decades a velvet glove treatment by international journalistic heavyweights. Well, this is beginning to change now, at least, regardless the dirt some like to throw at journalists who care more about their job than living the comfortable life here.

If you are going to pretend that anyone that writes about rumours as facts, and repeatedly states these high flown rumours as if they were fact (and the cause behind some laws) - and him making several infact very serious allegations - then you are showing your clear bias, again. You support him because you see him as a 'brother', on the same side of a conflict. If only either of you where interested in the full story instead of pushing an agenda.