'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[nicknostitz]

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.

"The full story"...according to TAWP. on Thaivisa.

Very droll.

Good night.

[tlansford]

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.

+1

[OzMick]

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?

Agree. It should be noted that on April 10 the RTA were in crowd control mode - riot shields and batons in the main.

[Buchholz]

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.

+ 1

.

[webfact]

Police report nearly ready in Japanese cameraman's death

PIYANART SRIVALO

THE NATION

The police investigation into the death of a Japanese cameraman in connection with last year's political mayhem is being wrapped up and the prosecution review will commence next week, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said yesterday.

"The Japanese government can rest assured that the case will be solved in a transparent manner and in accordance with the judicial process," he told Japanese Ambassador Seiji Kojima.

Chalerm said the police report was virtually done pending additional statements from former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban. The two were in charge of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation that authorised the anti-riot operations.

Abhisit and Suthep are scheduled to give their statements by Friday. Should there be no delay, the police report should reach the Office of the Attorney-General around next Wednesday.

The deputy prime minister said the government has assigned top priority to resolving the 91 deaths related to the mayhem.

He said based on forensic checks and witnesses, it was clear that the killing of cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto might involve state officials who were responsible for crowd control.

Under judicial procedures, the lower court would launch an inquest into the Muramoto case, he said. As per relevant laws, the anti-riot forces would receive immunity for their action but their superiors would be held accountable if the court found the use of force to be excessive, he said.

He said he did not want to comment on the progress of the investigation under the previous government but in just three months under his supervision, the case was near completion.

Emerging from his meeting with Chalerm, Ambassador Kojima said the Japanese government and the family of the deceased had attached importance to the discovery of the facts related to the killing.

-- The Nation 2011-11-30

[moe666]

Any body with a brain knew that when this bunch returned to power evidence would be found, maufactured or conjured out of thin air to stick the former government. This of course being done without a look at the organizers of the demonstrations or the bully boys whipping up the crowds to commit crimes.

[animatic]

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?

It is illogical, because this info would not get to other journos in time for them not to be there.

It was a riot, are they going to stop and say

'Look one of you journalists is dead, maybe you should all go away.'

Sorry that dog don't hunt.

Again, this is not enough of a motivation to give this stupid an order, in the age of every Somchai having a portable phone with video and photo capabilities. Handheld vido cameras are small enough to hardly be visible in the hand. As we have seen there is quite a bit of video shot at that scene. Removing one journo wouldn't have cut down that amount noticeably.

[animatic]

Any body with a brain knew that when this bunch returned to power evidence would be found, maufactured or conjured out of thin air to stick the former government. This of course being done without a look at the organizers of the demonstrations or the bully boys whipping up the crowds to commit crimes.

Exactly.

[phiphidon]

Any body with a brain knew that when this bunch returned to power evidence would be found, maufactured or conjured out of thin air to stick the former government. This of course being done without a look at the organizers of the demonstrations or the bully boys whipping up the crowds to commit crimes.

Exactly.

As opposed to a year spent prevaricating investigating and coming up with an initial finding only for it to be changed. One would think that this had been done deliberately if one thought that the Government of the day had something to gain from that .

Edited November 30, 2011 by phiphidon

[animatic]

"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.

"Big money talks."

That's why Thaksin got in Japan.

No other reason.

Diplomatic staff were sent in to make their own on site assessments,

and deliver boiler plate human rights statements, which would cut both ways,

not show solidarity for the Red mob.

Edited November 30, 2011 by animatic

[beano2274]

The bottom line is he was in an area that was deemed dangerous, all these reporters and cameramen or women, know that their lives are in danger when working in this kind of environment. All the reports about whose bullet it was are just stories, it was an accident that happened, they never even found the round, so how can they say who shot. Also remember before the whole thing started weapons were going missing from Army barracks, so again they can never prove the round, if found, came from an Army soldiers or a stolen weapon.

The fact that a lot of Japanese businesses have been affected by the floods and the Thai Government was to show the Japs that they do care, is the reason that this story has been taken up by Chalerm.

He always seems to go on about evidence, maybe he should look back at the evidence in a case against his son, not the paid evidence but the real evidence.

[lannarebirth]

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?

I don't know what happened to the reporter, though whoever shot him, I doubt it was done with specific intent. Seh Daeng on the other hand, if shot by the Army, would be IMO a valid target. By his own admission he was the commander of an armed rebel force intent on doing harm to government forces. The thing about Seh daeng is, that there were so many parties that would benefit from his death there is no sole person or body with a motive. Still, if it was the Army, I think that he would have been an appropriate "target of opportunity".

Edited November 30, 2011 by lannarebirth

[beano2274]

Seh Daeng could have been shot by anyone as another poster suggested, everyone had something to gain from it, the bad publicity for the Government would have helped the Reds, the Government shot a terrorist and the major player in the planning of deadly attacks on others, the truth will never come out.

[hammered]

There is the worrying der spiegel article too on the Italain journalist

[lannarebirth]

Seh Daeng could have been shot by anyone as another poster suggested, everyone had something to gain from it, the bad publicity for the Government would have helped the Reds, the Government shot a terrorist and the major player in the planning of deadly attacks on others, the truth will never come out.

And he was no longer of any use to Thaksin. Seh Daeng was waaaay to chatty about his close relationship with Thaksin.

[hammered]

This seesm to be heading to the Thai courts if Chalerm is correct. Because of the nature of the cases there will also be intense international scrutiny and a desire to see it go to conclusion whatever the outcome. On top of this is the attempt to use the ICC. Politically this is going to be very interesting and potantially disastrous for some. It is going to be an interesting watch for scholars of Thai politics albeit one bets not to comment on too much.

The thai institutions will resolve it/ international court gambit is a very interesting opening especially at a time when foreign media and bodies seem to be a tad interested in the Thai legal system. It is a classic Thaksin/red play (Im not sure who the masterminds really are)

[Buchholz]

The thing about Seh daeng is, that there were so many parties that would benefit from his death there is no sole person or body with a motive.

An often over-looked, yet essential, point.

The list of those with a motive is a lengthy one.

.

[Buchholz]

This seesm to be heading to the Thai courts if Chalerm is correct. Because of the nature of the cases there will also be intense international scrutiny and a desire to see it go to conclusion whatever the outcome. On top of this is the attempt to use the ICC. Politically this is going to be very interesting and potantially disastrous for some. It is going to be an interesting watch for scholars of Thai politics albeit one bets not to comment on too much.

The thai institutions will resolve it/ international court gambit is a very interesting opening especially at a time when foreign media and bodies seem to be a tad interested in the Thai legal system. It is a classic Thaksin/red play (Im not sure who the masterminds really are)

The ICC gambit is dead in the water until Sunai gets his cohorts to ratify the Rome Statute.

.

[elgato]

"He said based on forensic checks and witnesses, it was clear that the killing of cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto might involve state officials who were responsible for crowd control."

What are forensic "checks" and who are the witnesses? The finger pointing is far from over on this unless they come up with the Thai version of Lee Harvey Oswald.

[PaulBax]

it is very odd that people continue to justify the assassination of an unarmed man chatting to a reporter!

The big lie theory continues!

[hammered]

This seesm to be heading to the Thai courts if Chalerm is correct. Because of the nature of the cases there will also be intense international scrutiny and a desire to see it go to conclusion whatever the outcome. On top of this is the attempt to use the ICC. Politically this is going to be very interesting and potantially disastrous for some. It is going to be an interesting watch for scholars of Thai politics albeit one bets not to comment on too much.

The thai institutions will resolve it/ international court gambit is a very interesting opening especially at a time when foreign media and bodies seem to be a tad interested in the Thai legal system. It is a classic Thaksin/red play (Im not sure who the masterminds really are)

The ICC gambit is dead in the water until Sunai gets his cohorts to ratify the Rome Statute.

.

That may well be part of the gambit if things move further. A coup for trying to ratify an international agreement would not exactly go down well internatioanlly.

But also rememver this is all in a careful context of we all can forgive each other and reconcile, which Thaksin pushes as his enmeies try to insist it doesnt happen and pile up court cases against him and while his friends try to pile up court csaes inclusing maybe very sensitive international ones against his enemies. The strategy of Thaksin is pretty clear.

[geovalin]

It's better to do not make any trial, it will be a joke. The culprit will have a 7 days suspended sentence vs Old SMS Uncle who did nothing wrong but got 20 years a few days ago.

[Buchholz]

This seesm to be heading to the Thai courts if Chalerm is correct. Because of the nature of the cases there will also be intense international scrutiny and a desire to see it go to conclusion whatever the outcome. On top of this is the attempt to use the ICC. Politically this is going to be very interesting and potantially disastrous for some. It is going to be an interesting watch for scholars of Thai politics albeit one bets not to comment on too much.

The thai institutions will resolve it/ international court gambit is a very interesting opening especially at a time when foreign media and bodies seem to be a tad interested in the Thai legal system. It is a classic Thaksin/red play (Im not sure who the masterminds really are)

The ICC gambit is dead in the water until Sunai gets his cohorts to ratify the Rome Statute.

That may well be part of the gambit if things move further. A coup for trying to ratify an international agreement would not exactly go down well internatioanlly.

But also rememver this is all in a careful context of we all can forgive each other and reconcile, which Thaksin pushes as his enmeies try to insist it doesnt happen and pile up court cases against him and while his friends try to pile up court csaes inclusing maybe very sensitive international ones against his enemies. The strategy of Thaksin is pretty clear.

A coup if Parliament decides to ratify the Rome Statute?

I don't see that happening at all.

Even if Sunai's party does decide on that course of action (which will only make the PTP look silly for not having done so BEFORE attempting to file a case), I don't see the ICC accepting the case for a myriad of other logical reasons.

[apyale]

The government is in the process of replacing all the judiciary to their side, police force and government servants, they will then indict Abhisit and Suthep with witnesses for the dead of some red shirts. Abhisit and Suthep will then be cornered to accept a solution, The government will then propose an amnesty for all, including Abhisit, Suthep, the red shirts, the yellow shirts and the prime minister in Dubai.

[gregb]

The government is in the process of replacing all the judiciary to their side, police force and government servants, they will then indict Abhisit and Suthep with witnesses for the dead of some red shirts. Abhisit and Suthep will then be cornered to accept a solution, The government will then propose an amnesty for all, including Abhisit, Suthep, the red shirts, the yellow shirts and the prime minister in Dubai.

Nice thought but wrong.

Abhisit and Suthep are small players in the war against Thaksin. Readily expendable if necessary. Any attempt by Thaksin to return under any circumstance other than as human remains means civil war. Reds who want him back have no idea of the level of commitment by those who will fight him at all costs.

Sadly, I'm sure they will eventually find out.

[peterpop]

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.

OK So I live in Chiang Mai but I have no deep seated belief in the Red Shirt movement. However the hostility to them as repeated in this forum is almost unbelievable. Have you guys any belief in or understanding of the roots of democracy. Thailand is struggling to move into a democratic era and could do with a little support not hysteria.

[anterian]

It´s very possible that Muramoto was killed by a bullet from a soldier; then again nobody would have died if the Black Shirts hadn't opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area into the army on the other side. Deaths of unarmed people were not just likely, they were inevitable in the crossfire that ensued.

There's no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for all the deaths on that night is on the militia that went there and set up the ambush for the army.

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

[AleG]

It´s very possible that Muramoto was killed by a bullet from a soldier; then again nobody would have died if the Black Shirts hadn't opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area into the army on the other side. Deaths of unarmed people were not just likely, they were inevitable in the crossfire that ensued.

There's no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for all the deaths on that night is on the militia that went there and set up the ambush for the army.

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

I'll tell you what, I'll answer after you tell me why peaceful protesters carry live ammo to the protest site.

[anterian]

It´s very possible that Muramoto was killed by a bullet from a soldier; then again nobody would have died if the Black Shirts hadn't opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area into the army on the other side. Deaths of unarmed people were not just likely, they were inevitable in the crossfire that ensued.

There's no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for all the deaths on that night is on the militia that went there and set up the ambush for the army.

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

I'll tell you what, I'll answer after you tell me why peaceful protesters carry live ammo to the protest site.

Chicken and egg my friend Did the army know some of the the protesters would have guns, did the protesters know the army had live ammo? As this is Thailand I think the answer is yes to both. The peaceful protesters simply got caught in the crossfire.

[slapout]

It´s very possible that Muramoto was killed by a bullet from a soldier; then again nobody would have died if the Black Shirts hadn't opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area into the army on the other side. Deaths of unarmed people were not just likely, they were inevitable in the crossfire that ensued.

There's no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for all the deaths on that night is on the militia that went there and set up the ambush for the army.

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

I do not think this situation could be termed a ceremonial parade/exercise and to carry a firearm without ammo into a potential hostile situation was not suggested, much less ordered in the military I was acquainted with.