U N Human Rights Commissioner Says Thailand Should Try Those Responsible For 2010 Deaths

[jerrysteve]

I am afraid the UN is

[JurgenG]

I think there is a point some people don't get when they compare the deaths from the war on drug and those from the 2010 events.

Thaksin never directly ordered to kill drug traffickers, there was an international trial and he was cleared of this accusation.

a couple of things.

1. You're saying Abhisit directly ordered to kill Red Shirts?

2. When and where was there ever an "international trial" that absolved Thaksin in his Drug War?

.

granted there was never an international trial, but didn't (abhisit and co - i think that's who it was) try and go after him about it and found no evidence to incriminate him with?

I'll wait for JurgenG to explain his post. Perhaps he has knowledge of something others are unaware of.

.

You expected me to answer at midnight ? Sorry I'm working, I'm sleeping at midnight.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial. But there was an international inquiry, actually required by Thaksin (the now infamous sentence, "the UN is not my father"). Also the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup tried to dig something so Thaksin can find legally responsible for the death that occurred during the war on drug. And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Your other question is a bit tricky. Who was really in charge during the 2010 bloody crackdown ? We both know it wasn't Abhisit. Actually he was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership during this crisis period. But that's the problem with being a puppet PM, when something goes horribly wrong like when the army was ordered to shoot at the crowd, you're the fall guy.

The army didn't shoot at the crowd without clear orders. When you have snipers taking clear shots at individuals you can't claim self defense. The person who gave the orders belongs to the same league as Saddam, Gaddafi and other South American and African dictators. Who was the person in charge ? Abhisit ? So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

Edited September 20, 2012 by JurgenG

[whybother]

You expected me to answer at midnight ? Sorry I'm working, I'm sleeping at midnight.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial. But there was an international inquiry, actually required by Thaksin (the now infamous sentence, "the UN is not my father"). Also the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup tried to dig something so Thaksin can find legally responsible for the death that occurred during the war on drug. And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Your other question is a bit tricky. Who was really in charge during the 2010 bloody crackdown ? We both know it wasn't Abhisit. Actually he was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership during this crisis period. But that's the problem with being a puppet PM, when something goes horribly wrong like when the army was ordered to shoot at the crowd, you're the fall guy.

The army didn't shoot at the crowd without clear orders. When you have snipers taking clear shots at individuals you can't claim self defense. The person who gave the orders belongs to the same league as Saddam, Gaddafi and other South American and African dictators. Who was the person in charge ? Abhisit ? So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

"the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup"

Do you have anything to show that Abhisit tried to justify the coup?

In one sentence you say that Abhisit wasn't in charge of anything, then you try and say he was complicit in the coup.

[JurgenG]

You expected me to answer at midnight ? Sorry I'm working, I'm sleeping at midnight.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial. But there was an international inquiry, actually required by Thaksin (the now infamous sentence, "the UN is not my father"). Also the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup tried to dig something so Thaksin can find legally responsible for the death that occurred during the war on drug. And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Your other question is a bit tricky. Who was really in charge during the 2010 bloody crackdown ? We both know it wasn't Abhisit. Actually he was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership during this crisis period. But that's the problem with being a puppet PM, when something goes horribly wrong like when the army was ordered to shoot at the crowd, you're the fall guy.

The army didn't shoot at the crowd without clear orders. When you have snipers taking clear shots at individuals you can't claim self defense. The person who gave the orders belongs to the same league as Saddam, Gaddafi and other South American and African dictators. Who was the person in charge ? Abhisit ? So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

"the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup"

Do you have anything to show that Abhisit tried to justify the coup?

He clearly never showed any opposition to the coup ...

In one sentence you say that Abhisit wasn't in charge of anything, then you try and say he was complicit in the coup.

Your point being ?

Being an accomplice, an accessory to a crime and not the mastermind, doesn't mean you're innocent and you shouldn't face the consequence of your acts.

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

[nurofiend]

yeah ok...anyhoo, if anyone is interested in me showing ye said source, just ask me for it in a normal fashion and i'll be happy to oblige.

Well I would like to see it. But even more I would like to know if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard would you be so reluctant to give it up or for that matter even bring it up.

here, i have no idea what hiding behind a keyboard has to do with anything whatsoever but anyway

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkgwiJd2dfQTrnSIIIlE_KO7oAiA

now shhh

[rixalex]

Thaksin never directly ordered to kill drug traffickers, there was an international trial and he was cleared of this accusation.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial.

I see. So you just made the International trial thing up to see if you could get away with it.

[nurofiend]

You remind me of another red shirt Thaksin lover. He posted like he knew what went on and when asked if he was there or how he would feel if his business was one of those closed down he refused to answer.

But he did carry on about how bad the army and Abhist were and not a word about any thing negative the red shirts did.

Carry on

well if i remind you of this person, then you're not very perceptive.

it's either that or you're just posting out of plain ignorance.

but tbh hellodolly, your opinion of me doesn't count for much at all.

Edited September 20, 2012 by nurofiend

[otherstuff1957]

The UNHC seems to be largely basing their call for justice on the report of the TRCT, which has been rejected as flawed & biased by Red leaders like Chalerm and Tida.

So, which is it? Is the report total trash, as the Red leaders claim or is it the first step in assigning responsibility for the deaths?

Edited September 20, 2012 by otherstuff1957

[AleG]

You expected me to answer at midnight ? Sorry I'm working, I'm sleeping at midnight.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial. But there was an international inquiry, actually required by Thaksin (the now infamous sentence, "the UN is not my father"). Also the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup tried to dig something so Thaksin can find legally responsible for the death that occurred during the war on drug. And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Your other question is a bit tricky. Who was really in charge during the 2010 bloody crackdown ? We both know it wasn't Abhisit. Actually he was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership during this crisis period. But that's the problem with being a puppet PM, when something goes horribly wrong like when the army was ordered to shoot at the crowd, you're the fall guy.

The army didn't shoot at the crowd without clear orders. When you have snipers taking clear shots at individuals you can't claim self defense. The person who gave the orders belongs to the same league as Saddam, Gaddafi and other South American and African dictators. Who was the person in charge ? Abhisit ? So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

Can you show us a citation of Abhisit's order to shoot at crowds which make him "clearly guilty of murder"?

So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

Funny how you don't apply the same precept for Thaksin and the thousands of deaths from his War on Drugs.

[rixalex]

And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Case closed. How convenient.

The more commonly held belief amongst those a little better read is not that there was no trial because Thaksin was believed innocent, or because of lack of legal ground, but because the case would implicate not only Thaksin, but a lot of other people as well.

This doesn't seem like justice to me.

[whybother]

"the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup"

Do you have anything to show that Abhisit tried to justify the coup?

He clearly never showed any opposition to the coup ...

In one sentence you say that Abhisit wasn't in charge of anything, then you try and say he was complicit in the coup.

Your point being ?

Being an accomplice, an accessory to a crime and not the mastermind, doesn't mean you're innocent and you shouldn't face the consequence of your acts.

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

You said he justified the coup, and that's shown by you not seeing any opposition to it from him?

And he Abhisit was an accomplice to the coup because you didn't see him show any opposition to it?

"The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster" Pot, meet Kettle.

[MunterHunter]

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

The main problem of the PTP is that Yingluck is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall gal if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Yingluck is not the sharpest pencil in the box but she should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the PTP and PM.

See what i did there?

[JurgenG]

Again, for confused people, lets explain the difference between the war on drug and the bloody 2010 crackdown.

To make it simple you are responsible of an organization. One of your employe commit a crime, a murder. The important question is did he do it following orders or did he act on his own. If he did it following orders the responsible of the organization is as responsible as the person who press the trigger

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution. There was no "hit list". But during the 2010 there was direct orders to shoot to kill. The person who gave this order, and nobody believe it was some low ranking officer, is a murderer.

[whybother]

Again, for confused people, lets explain the difference between the war on drug and the bloody 2010 crackdown.

To make it simple you are responsible of an organization. One of your employe commit a crime, a murder. The important question is did he do it following orders or did he act on his own. If he did it following orders the responsible of the organization is as responsible as the person who press the trigger

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution. There was no "hit list". But during the 2010 there was direct orders to shoot to kill. The person who gave this order, and nobody believe it was some low ranking officer, is a murderer.

Except there were no direct orders to shoot to kill.

[rixalex]

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

The main problem of the PTP is that Yingluck is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall gal if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Yingluck is not the sharpest pencil in the box but she should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the PTP and PM.

See what i did there?

It is absolutely staggering that someone who openly supports the current set up, could preach about the woes of a pretty face puppet PM with no brains. Can someone really be that blind to their own contradictiousness?

[bunuel]

TRCT REPORT

The Nation

Geneva

GENEVA: -- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Tuesday welcomed the release of the final report of a commission on the 2010 political violence as a positive step to advance accountability and reconciliation among different segments of Thai society.

A report by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) - which was set up by the previous government in 2010 - concluded with "substantive findings backed by forensic evidence" and recommendations to bring the perpetrators to justice, Pillay said in Geneva.

The demonstrations in April and May 2010 led to violent protests and ensuing suppression in which 92 people died and thousands were injured. On July 6, 2010, the government established the TRCT with a mandate to seek truth and reconciliation.

"In spite of its limited mandate and initial difficulties, the TRCT has conducted an important investigation into political violence and human rights violations in Thailand," the High Commissioner said. "The Royal Thai Government now has the responsibility to act on the TRCT's recommendations, both in holding state officials to account and addressing the institutional weaknesses identified in the report."

While the final report fails to specify who was responsible for the deaths, it contains serious and substantive findings backed by forensic evidence and recommends urgent action to bring perpetrators to justice. It also contains a number of far-reaching recommendations that could help to advance reconciliation and respect for human rights in Thailand.

In particular, it stresses the importance of the Army remaining neutral in political affairs, the need to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and a proposal to review Article 112 of the criminal code in order to protect freedom of expression in Thailand.

"Making the legal and institutional reforms recommended in the report will strengthen Thai democracy," the High Commissioner noted. "Bringing perpetrators to justice will not only set an important precedent for Thailand but for Southeast Asia as a whole."

Concerns have been raised about the preservation of evidence gathered by the TRCT and Department of Special Investigations. "Safeguarding evidence is essential for the pursuit of accountability," the High Commissioner said, urging the government to take the necessary steps to protect the integrity of the information collected by these institutions.

Another report on the 2010 political violence by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand is expected shortly, which should provide a further detailed account of human rights violations, Pillay said.

-- The Nation 2012-09-20

As a retired UN Peacekeeper who has served in some places where there were virtually no human rights at all,

I think Navi Pillay's words are simple enough. Without pointing any fingers, she is

simply advocating Rule of Law. Easier said than done, but I know her to be a brave woman

who is not afraid to speak truth to power. The UN has all the problems found elsewhere in

the world, such as corruption, cronyism and refined bureaucratic incompetence, but

speaking from first-hand knowledge,I can state without reservation that the UN High Commission

On Human Rights is worthy of respect, as is Ms. Pillay. I recommend the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights , which might prove illuminating for Forum members interested in reviving post

World War II ideals ( Eleanor Roosevelt was heavily involved, by the way! )

Edited September 20, 2012 by metisdead
Repaired the reply.

[JurgenG]

"the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup"

Do you have anything to show that Abhisit tried to justify the coup?

He clearly never showed any opposition to the coup ...

In one sentence you say that Abhisit wasn't in charge of anything, then you try and say he was complicit in the coup.

Your point being ?

Being an accomplice, an accessory to a crime and not the mastermind, doesn't mean you're innocent and you shouldn't face the consequence of your acts.

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

You said he justified the coup, and that's shown by you not seeing any opposition to it from him?

And he Abhisit was an accomplice to the coup because you didn't see him show any opposition to it?

Yes, basically what I said.

And he went even further by accepting in 2008 the PM job from the hand of the junta when it was clear that the electors have chosen the other side.

Beside you can't hide the fact that people who support Abhsit also supported the coup and when in 2011 the electors, again, bring back PT to power democrats called again for a military coup to give them the power that the people refused them.

[rixalex]

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution.

OK, so no order was given, but people just suddenly started dropping dead.

If what you seek to be convinced of culpability, is a bit of paper in Thaksin's handwriting saying "ok guys, let's go out there and kill the bar stewards" then he will conveniently in your eyes be forever innocent.

Other people might look at the number of deaths before he introduced this war on drugs campaign, that he advertised as being his own brainchild, and the number of deaths after, and conclude that however instructions were worded, the result was a lot of dead innocent people. So either all the enforcers involved in the war on drug campaign up and down the country, just happened to all coincidentally read his instructions wrong, or they all read his instructions correctly, and those instructions amounted to, "use as much force as you like... you'll be protected from prosecution so no worries on that score".

[whybother]

Yes, basically what I said.

And he went even further by accepting in 2008 the PM job from the hand of the junta when it was clear that the electors have chosen the other side.

Beside you can't hide the fact that people who support Abhsit also supported the coup and when in 2011 the electors, again, bring back PT to power democrats called again for a military coup to give them the power that the people refused them.

He accepted the job of PM when a majority of MPs voted for him in parliament.

The people that supported the coup had a Vote NO campaign in the last elections.

Which Democrats called for a military coup after the last elections?

You just continue to make things up!

[JurgenG]

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

The main problem of the PTP is that Yingluck is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall gal if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Yingluck is not the sharpest pencil in the box but she should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the PTP and PM.

See what i did there?

It is absolutely staggering that someone who openly supports the current set up, could preach about the woes of a pretty face puppet PM with no brains. Can someone really be that blind to their own contradictiousness?

For the sake of the argument, lets say that if I support Yingluck and the PT party, I know that they will have the support of K. Thaksin and his team who are amongst the most brilliant minds of the the Thai politic scene. You may like them or not but you can't objectively contest that they are brilliant.

On the other side, first Abhisit leadership is heavily contested within his own party but the worst is they don't have anybody else. The real power belongs to a gerontocracy totally out of touch with the reality of our time. The magnificent 7 a recent editorial was hoping will solve all our problems. The "dream team" to who the power was handled after the coup and it was a total disaster. The real problem for the democrats is that behind the pretty face there is nobody you can trust to run the country.

[Nickymaster]

The main problem of the democrats is that Abhisit is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall guy if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Abhisit is not the sharpest pencil in the box but he should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the democrats and PM.

The main problem of the PTP is that Yingluck is not a leader, just the pretty face on the election poster and, for the people behind the scene, the fall gal if (actually when) everything goes wrong. Yingluck is not the sharpest pencil in the box but she should have understood that before accepting the job of "leader" of the PTP and PM.

See what i did there?

It is absolutely staggering that someone who openly supports the current set up, could preach about the woes of a pretty face puppet PM with no brains. Can someone really be that blind to their own contradictiousness?

For the sake of the argument, lets say that if I support Yingluck and the PT party, I know that they will have the support of K. Thaksin and his team who are amongst the most brilliant minds of the the Thai politic scene. You may like them or not but you can't objectively contest that they are brilliant.

On the other side, first Abhisit leadership is heavily contested within his own party but the worst is they don't have anybody else. The real power belongs to a gerontocracy totally out of touch with the reality of our time. The magnificent 7 a recent editorial was hoping will solve all our problems. The "dream team" to who the power was handled after the coup and it was a total disaster. The real problem for the democrats is that behind the pretty face there is nobody you can trust to run the country.

"For the sake of the argument, lets say that if I support Yingluck and the PT party, I know that they will have the support of K. Thaksin and his team who are amongst the most brilliant minds of the the Thai politic scene. You may like them or not but you can't objectively contest that they are brilliant."

Where have you been lately? That fairy tale has ended a long time ago.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Nickymaster

[JurgenG]

he (Thaksin) introduced this war on drugs campaign, that he advertised as being his own brainchild

Sorry the war on drug was not his brainchild and was actually endorsed at the highest level. And if you know anything about Thai politic (and the rules of this forum) you will understand why we will stop this debate here.

[rixalex]

For the sake of the argument, lets say that if I support Yingluck and the PT party, I know that they will have the support of K. Thaksin and his team who are amongst the most brilliant minds of the the Thai politic scene. You may like them or not but you can't objectively contest that they are brilliant.

If they were so brilliant, Thaksin would have never ended up in this mess, separated from his family, divorced from his wife, convicted of a crime, on the run and unable to live in his home country. If they were so brilliant, Thaksin would still be PM to this day.

Brilliant or not, Thaksin and his team have no right leading the country from the shadows, no more than the military had a right leading when Abhisit was in power.

Yingluck was elected PM, let her lead, let her make decisions. Anything else is not democracy.

[rixalex]

he (Thaksin) introduced this war on drugs campaign, that he advertised as being his own brainchild

Sorry the war on drug was not his brainchild and was actually endorsed at the highest level. And if you know anything about Thai politic (and the rules of this forum) you will understand why we will stop this debate here.

Rubber stamping is simply part of protocol and custom. It doesn't actually mean anything. Your attempt to shift blame in that direction disgusts me.

And if you were here at the time you would have seen all the TV interviews and newspaper reports in which Thaksin spoke about how he would eradicate drugs from Thailand. And then we had the war on drugs, followed shortly by a gradually increasing number of dead bodies.

For goodness sake man, join the dots.

[TheKrayTriplet]

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution.

OK, so no order was given, but people just suddenly started dropping dead.

If what you seek to be convinced of culpability, is a bit of paper in Thaksin's handwriting saying "ok guys, let's go out there and kill the bar stewards" then he will conveniently in your eyes be forever innocent.

Other people might look at the number of deaths before he introduced this war on drugs campaign, that he advertised as being his own brainchild, and the number of deaths after, and conclude that however instructions were worded, the result was a lot of dead innocent people. So either all the enforcers involved in the war on drug campaign up and down the country, just happened to all coincidentally read his instructions wrong, or they all read his instructions correctly, and those instructions amounted to, "use as much force as you like... you'll be protected from prosecution so no worries on that score".

But did those instructions actually read like that? I'm not saying they didn't but haven't seen anything saying they did.

Whereas in the recent troubles that the OP is actually about the rules were written down. The soldiers could shoot to protect life (presumably theirs) but only by shooting below the knee. Now somewhere in this thread there was a figure of 50% deaths from head and chest injuries so it looks like the soldiers were even ignoring these guidelines.. For example in the recent inquest the soldiers fired at a van that had entered a forbidden area which resulted in the death of a completely innocent man. So somewhere their discipline broke down. Who is going to take responsibility for that? The soldier/s, the Military Generals, or the person who ordered the army onto the streets.

[AleG]

Again, for confused people, lets explain the difference between the war on drug and the bloody 2010 crackdown.

To make it simple you are responsible of an organization. One of your employe commit a crime, a murder. The important question is did he do it following orders or did he act on his own. If he did it following orders the responsible of the organization is as responsible as the person who press the trigger

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution. There was no "hit list". But during the 2010 there was direct orders to shoot to kill. The person who gave this order, and nobody believe it was some low ranking officer, is a murderer.

Thaksin on his War on Drugs speech, 14th January 2003:

Chiang Rai is another example of a province which was serious about

suppression and rehabilitation, including using some police stations for rehab, and seizing

assets. Sometimes people were shot dead and had their assets seized as well. I think we

have to be equally ruthless. The drug sellers have been ruthless with the Thai people, with

our children, so if we are ruthless with them it is not a big deal. I believe we are forced to

be so. It’s not something we have to be cautious about.

That is a pretty clear statement that killings (no mention of any judicial process) are not just to be tolerated but necessary. He, as Prime Minister, set this policy.

Now your citation on Abhisit ordering shooting into crowds?

[Buchholz]

I'll wait for JurgenG to explain his post. Perhaps he has knowledge of something others are unaware of.

You expected me to answer at midnight ? Sorry I'm working, I'm sleeping at midnight.

No expectation of an immediate reply at all. I just said I'd wait for your reply rather than respond to nurofiend's preemptive extrapolation of your post.

Regarding the "international trial", you're right, there wasn't any international trial. But there was an international inquiry, actually required by Thaksin (the now infamous sentence, "the UN is not my father"). Also the military and Abhisit in their unsuccessful efforts to find some legal ground to justify the coup tried to dig something so Thaksin can find legally responsible for the death that occurred during the war on drug. And you're absolutely right, there was no trial because in both cases, both the international and the junta inquiries didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin for the deaths during the war on drug. Case closed !

Sorry there was no international inquiry. In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee raised serious concerns about the "extraordinarily large number of killings" that took place during the Drug War and recommended that a thorough and independent investigation be done. That recommendation was what Thaksin's tart reply was in reference to.

So there was never any international trial nor was there any international inquiry, let alone one that one that "didn't find any legal ground to indict Thaksin". It never happened.

edit to add:

errrr.... case closed.

.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Buchholz

[bapak]

Again, for confused people, lets explain the difference between the war on drug and the bloody 2010 crackdown.

To make it simple you are responsible of an organization. One of your employe commit a crime, a murder. The important question is did he do it following orders or did he act on his own. If he did it following orders the responsible of the organization is as responsible as the person who press the trigger

During the war on drug, no order was ever given for extra judicial execution. There was no "hit list". But during the 2010 there was direct orders to shoot to kill. The person who gave this order, and nobody believe it was some low ranking officer, is a murderer.

"But during the 2010 there was direct orders to shoot to kill." Where is this order? I have not seen it anywhere. Have you? Perhaps you are talking about an order by the Reds...

[rixalex]

Whereas in the recent troubles that the OP is actually about the rules were written down. The soldiers could shoot to protect life (presumably theirs) but only by shooting below the knee. Now somewhere in this thread there was a figure of 50% deaths from head and chest injuries so it looks like the soldiers were even ignoring these guidelines.. For example in the recent inquest the soldiers fired at a van that had entered a forbidden area which resulted in the death of a completely innocent man. So somewhere their discipline broke down. Who is going to take responsibility for that? The soldier/s, the Military Generals, or the person who ordered the army onto the streets.

Soldiers aren't robots and when you are talking young men who don't have the greatest training, and who have never faced a life threatening situation before, i think expecting their every reaction to follow precise guidelines, might be expecting a little too much. Easy to sit here, far from danger, and make judgments about how less lethal force could have been used, but if it is your own life in danger perhaps you might be inclined to increase your odds of survival by whatever means.

And don't forget, soldiers were the people in all this who had no choice but to be there. The protesters had complete freedom to leave whenever they wished, and indeed they were urged to day after day, with the government warning that to stay was to put their life in danger.

As for whether the soldiers should have been ordered onto the streets in the first place, well of course, had the police been able to restore order, as is their job, there would have been no need. But they couldn't do their job, indeed some might say they didn't even try, and so the job fell to others.

Perhaps some would say, well if the police can't get the job done, just let the mob have their way, and perhaps had that happened, 90 odd lives would have been spared, but at what cost? If we accept that mobs can take to the streets and be given whatever they demand, what path will that take us down? I suggest a path that long-term would be even more devastating.

[Buchholz]

Thaksin never directly ordered to kill drug traffickers

1. You're saying Abhisit directly ordered to kill Red Shirts?

Your other question is a bit tricky. Who was really in charge during the 2010 bloody crackdown ? We both know it wasn't Abhisit. Actually he was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership during this crisis period. But that's the problem with being a puppet PM, when something goes horribly wrong like when the army was ordered to shoot at the crowd, you're the fall guy.

The army didn't shoot at the crowd without clear orders. When you have snipers taking clear shots at individuals you can't claim self defense. The person who gave the orders belongs to the same league as Saddam, Gaddafi and other South American and African dictators. Who was the person in charge ? Abhisit ? So he is clearly guilty of murder. If he was not the one giving the orders at that time, he has to say who it was or if he choses to remain silent, take the fall.

You earlier said that Thaksin is exonerated for the Drug War deaths because he never directly ordered to kill drug traffickers, which by implication prompted my question.

There's no indication that Abhisit, or anyone else for that matter, directly ordered the killing of Red Shirts.

Did Red Shirts die? Yes.

Did anyone specifically give a direct order to go out and kill Red Shirts? No information available that would indicate that.

.

.