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

[yourauntbob]

I wish these people would pull their heads in - it is nothing to do with them, and why would they think they can solve anything by stirring the pot? As already stated - Reds started it, Army/Govt finished it, Reds fired first, Govt retaliated - people got killed whilst the "Police" stood by and watched/supported the Reds. Man oh man this is so screwed up!

I wish these people would pull their heads in - it is nothing to do with them, and why would they think they can solve anything by stirring the pot? As already stated - Reds started it, Army/Govt finished it, Reds fired first, Govt retaliated - people got killed whilst the "Police" stood by and watched/supported the Reds. Man oh man this is so screwed up!

You certainly have a creative memory of how everything happened. I certainly dont remember any firing until the army showed up, doesnt seem to be any evidence of the protest having weapons but go to youtube and you can see all the evidence in the world of the army firing into unarmed civilians.

[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.

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.

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

But if we can come back to the subject of this thread if you don't mind .

What is it about, what exactly the UN commissioner asks for :

UN rights chief urges govt to act

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.

"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."

-- The Nation 2012-09-20

Basically bringing the perpetrators of the 2010 bloody crackdown to justice.

She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party. So why do the democrats' supporter feel the need to react so aggressively to her demand ?

Admission of guilt maybe ?

Actually the most disturbing comments from this thread is not that some deny that the government at that time was responsible from the excess of the crackdown (but then what should they be afraid of ?) but that some try to justify shooting at the crowd. That is really disturbing.

[Buchholz]

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

Absolutely Thaksin's Drug War was his baby.

He announced it in a Prime Minister's Order.

He supervised it.

He revised it.

He repeated it several times.

He claimed the credit when it finally ended when he proudly proclaimed that all drugs had been completely eradicated nation-wide in Thailand.

Thaksin called for his War on Drugs to be conducted on the basis of an “eye for an eye.” Prime Minister’s Order 29/B.E. 2546 (2003), signed on January 28, 2003, called for the absolute suppression of drug trafficking by means “ranging from soft to harsh including the most absolutely severe charges subject to the situation.” The document stated that “ If a person is charged with a drug offence, that person will be regarded as a dangerous person who is threatening social and national security.” In the ensuing weeks, the Ministry of the Interior gave each province in the country targets for the number of arrests of suspected drug traffickers and seizures of narcotics.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__1033451

.

[rixalex]

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

Nobody is taking the side of the drug dealers.

You seem oblivious to the fact that you need to establish that people are drug dealers first, before you can debate about whether shooting them in the streets might be a good idea or not.

[TheKrayTriplet]

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.

I'm with you up to a point, but it has to be said the government of the time and its associated military were over reactive to the "threat".The HRW (not local asian branch) stated this in their report. The threat I'm talking about is those who were firing rockets or using sling shots - they weren't a danger to life

What would you say is the maximum distance someone could throw a rock or petrol bomb or fire from a catapult? Whatever your answer, I suspect it's a lot less than 300 metres - the reported distance that most of the troops maintained from the people using them. Self-defence?

By deploying snipers and cordoning off parts of the city into ironically named Live Firing ranges the government and its military backers set a precedent and upped the ante for crowd control. I suggest this path is far more devestating in the long term - what will they do the next time

(the military that is, I can't possibly see the democrats get voted back in without a change of personnel at the top, too tainted), and there will be a next time?

[whybother]

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

But if we can come back to the subject of this thread if you don't mind .

What is it about, what exactly the UN commissioner asks for :

UN rights chief urges govt to act

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.

"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."

-- The Nation 2012-09-20

Basically bringing the perpetrators of the 2010 bloody crackdown to justice.

She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party. So why do the democrats' supporter feel the need to react so aggressively to her demand ?

Admission of guilt maybe ?

Actually the most disturbing comments from this thread is not that some deny that the government at that time was responsible from the excess of the crackdown (but then what should they be afraid of ?) but that some try to justify shooting at the crowd. That is really disturbing.

What about taking the side of the innocent bystanders that were killed?

[rixalex]

She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party. So why do the democrats' supporter feel the need to react so aggressively to her demand ?

Admission of guilt maybe ?

Red leaders seem to have reacted most aggressively. Do you think they are admitting guilt?

[Cardiff1963]

Can someone explain why they are called democrats

[DP25]

The only one responsible for the 2010 deaths is Thaksin. Planned and financed by him and designed for maximum casualties for his political benefit in an attempt to overthrow the government and return his 76 billion Baht. He should be tried for this, and imprisoned permanently.

[TheKrayTriplet]

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

But if we can come back to the subject of this thread if you don't mind .

What is it about, what exactly the UN commissioner asks for :

UN rights chief urges govt to act

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.

"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."

-- The Nation 2012-09-20

Basically bringing the perpetrators of the 2010 bloody crackdown to justice.

She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party. So why do the democrats' supporter feel the need to react so aggressively to her demand ?

Admission of guilt maybe ?

Actually the most disturbing comments from this thread is not that some deny that the government at that time was responsible from the excess of the crackdown (but then what should they be afraid of ?) but that some try to justify shooting at the crowd. That is really disturbing.

What about taking the side of the innocent bystanders that were killed?

You could look at this thread for the death of an innocent bystander - there seems to be a lot of taking sides on that thread to me.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/584972-army-behind-thai-protest-death-inquest/

[Buchholz]

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

Nobody is taking the side of the drug dealers.

You seem oblivious to the fact that you need to establish that people are drug dealers first, before you can debate about whether shooting them in the streets might be a good idea or not.

Staggering Thaivisa.

9 years on and people still buying into Thaksin's wholly-discredited BS about how only drug dealers were killed.

,

[DP25]

The threat I'm talking about is those who were firing rockets or using sling shots - they weren't a danger to life

What would you say is the maximum distance someone could throw a rock or petrol bomb or fire from a catapult? Whatever your answer, I suspect it's a lot less than 300 metres - the reported distance that most of the troops maintained from the people using them. Self-defence?

They had already KILLED. They were launching grenades at the skytrain and in to crowds of opposition protestors, and not with slingshots. They were assasinating military leaders and killing soldiers. You people try to rewrite what happened but many of us were here for the whole thing so it's not going to work.

[nurofiend]

The threat I'm talking about is those who were firing rockets or using sling shots - they weren't a danger to life

What would you say is the maximum distance someone could throw a rock or petrol bomb or fire from a catapult? Whatever your answer, I suspect it's a lot less than 300 metres - the reported distance that most of the troops maintained from the people using them. Self-defence?

They had already KILLED. They were launching grenades at the skytrain and in to crowds of opposition protestors, and not with slingshots. They were assasinating military leaders and killing soldiers. You people try to rewrite what happened but many of us were here for the whole thing so it's not going to work.

were you on the ground first hand dodging grenades and first hand seeing red shirts killing military leaders and soldiers?

[rixalex]

By deploying snipers and cordoning off parts of the city into ironically named Live Firing ranges the government and its military backers set a precedent and upped the ante for crowd control.

I don't think they upped the ante just for the fun of it. I think they upped the ante in reaction to two things - one was the protesters increasing use of lethal weapons, and two, the capital city was effectively closed down all the time this went on, and the pressure on them to bring this to an end increased every day. Ironically, it was often those from the red side putting most pressure on authorities to take action, with all the goading of look, see, the authorities are useless, Abhisit can't handle it, do something or stand down.They knew what doing something would entail. That didn't bother them, well not the red leaders anyway. It was win win for them. Government backs down, we win. Government stands up, people die, government gets completely discredited here and abroad. We win.

Well, they miscalculated. They didn't win. Not that battle anyway. 90 odd people died for what? Elections were coming anyway.

One thing they did successfully achieve though, is coming out of it portrayed as the victim. Amsterdam has been a driving force for that spin. His work is echoed here by some. (not directed at you - welcome to the forum by the way!)

[tlansford]

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.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

[whybother]

Except there were no direct orders to shoot to kill.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

Because I haven't seen any evidence of it. If anyone has seen evidence of orders of shoot to kill, that would be very interesting.

Does anyone know who shot Seh Daeng? Was it retribution for some of the things he'd done or some of things he was talking about?

[nurofiend]

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.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

i wonder was he?

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

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.

Personally, what disgusts me the most is that some people could take the side of drug dealers for political gains.

But if we can come back to the subject of this thread if you don't mind .

What is it about, what exactly the UN commissioner asks for :

UN rights chief urges govt to act

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.

"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."

-- The Nation 2012-09-20

Basically bringing the perpetrators of the 2010 bloody crackdown to justice.

She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party. So why do the democrats' supporter feel the need to react so aggressively to her demand ?

Admission of guilt maybe ?

Actually the most disturbing comments from this thread is not that some deny that the government at that time was responsible from the excess of the crackdown (but then what should they be afraid of ?) but that some try to justify shooting at the crowd. That is really disturbing.

"She doesn't point the finger at any particular individual or party."

No, she doesn't. Just a simple statement to have accountability for the deaths. It would be nice for a change. I don't expect it to be even handed if it happens - 20+ prosecutions of protesters, 0 prosecutions in the other direction?

"some try to justify shooting at the crowd"

It is a rationalization that I don't understand - it manifests itself here in the arguments going along the lines of "if you play with fire", "they were warned", "wrong place wrong time" etc...

After reading a couple of pages, it looks like the overall sentiment came out as "yeah, hang 'em high, those filthy red shirts!" but then people said, "but what about the government/army?" ...

ooops

[nurofiend]

Except there were no direct orders to shoot to kill.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

Because I haven't seen any evidence of it. If anyone has seen evidence of orders of shoot to kill, that would be very interesting.

Does anyone know who shot Seh Daeng? Was it retribution for some of the things he'd done or some of things he was talking about?

or was it revenge for the attack on anupong's office?

[whybother]

Except there were no direct orders to shoot to kill.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

Because I haven't seen any evidence of it. If anyone has seen evidence of orders of shoot to kill, that would be very interesting.

Does anyone know who shot Seh Daeng? Was it retribution for some of the things he'd done or some of things he was talking about?

or was it revenge for the attack on anupong's office?

"retribution for some of the things he'd done"

Same same

[nurofiend]

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

Because I haven't seen any evidence of it. If anyone has seen evidence of orders of shoot to kill, that would be very interesting.

Does anyone know who shot Seh Daeng? Was it retribution for some of the things he'd done or some of things he was talking about?

or was it revenge for the attack on anupong's office?

"retribution for some of the things he'd done"

Same same

true, vague but true, which do you think more likely?

[tlansford]

Except there were no direct orders to shoot to kill.

how do you know?

Seh Daeng was hit by a sniper shooting in self-defense?

Because I haven't seen any evidence of it. If anyone has seen evidence of orders of shoot to kill, that would be very interesting.

Does anyone know who shot Seh Daeng? Was it retribution for some of the things he'd done or some of things he was talking about?

Do you think the sniper knew who he was shooting?

Was the sniper acting on his own initiative?

[whybother]

Do you think the sniper knew who he was shooting?

Was the sniper acting on his own initiative?

I'm positive he knew who he was shooting.

I doubt he was acting on his own initiative, but I doubt he was doing it against his will.

As to which side did it, my money is on the third side.

[kimamey]

how about human Rights for freedom of speech?

If you're referring, at least in part to the LM laws then I think that's more a red policy than a Dem one so in this case I would support the reds. Mind you I don't think there's any way the government would go down that route.

[nurofiend]

Do you think the sniper knew who he was shooting?

Was the sniper acting on his own initiative?

I'm positive he knew who he was shooting.

I doubt he was acting on his own initiative, but I doubt he was doing it against his will.

As to which side did it, my money is on the third side.

who do you mean by the third side?

[TheKrayTriplet]

By deploying snipers and cordoning off parts of the city into ironically named Live Firing ranges the government and its military backers set a precedent and upped the ante for crowd control.

I don't think they upped the ante just for the fun of it. I think they upped the ante in reaction to two things - one was the protesters increasing use of lethal weapons, and two, the capital city was effectively closed down all the time this went on, and the pressure on them to bring this to an end increased every day. Ironically, it was often those from the red side putting most pressure on authorities to take action, with all the goading of look, see, the authorities are useless, Abhisit can't handle it, do something or stand down.They knew what doing something would entail. That didn't bother them, well not the red leaders anyway. It was win win for them. Government backs down, we win. Government stands up, people die, government gets completely discredited here and abroad. We win.

Well, they miscalculated. They didn't win. Not that battle anyway. 90 odd people died for what? Elections were coming anyway.

One thing they did successfully achieve though, is coming out of it portrayed as the victim. Amsterdam has been a driving force for that spin. His work is echoed here by some. (not directed at you - welcome to the forum by the way!)

Well it looks to me that the major problem for the government and the military is that they over reacted. More and more use of lethal weapons? That doesn't seem to be born out by the number of military deaths between the introduction of military snipers and the final crackdown - yet the number of civilian deaths went up?

As more and more inquests are concluded it appears that more and more the army is going to be implicated in unnecessary deaths. There's only been one result so far and look at the fallout from that. The unfortunate who was killed appears to be an innocent party but that doesn't stop some posters on here from leaping to the defence of the army.

What do you (I don't mean this as literally you, anybody could answer but it's rhetorical anyway) think is going to happen when the inquest results come out for the foreign photographers - that's going to stir something up internationally. And then there's the deaths of Kate, the other medic and other protesters in the Wat. It's not Amsterdam making these people victims - Surely you can see they are genuine victims?

[whybother]

who do you mean by the third side?

A can't say, which should give you an idea.

[rixalex]

Well it looks to me that the major problem for the government and the military is that they over reacted.

That is your opinion. I don't think they did personally.

Personally i think they under reacted for three or four weeks, before finally acting in the same sort of fashion as authorities would act in the UK if London was under siege in the same fashion, or in America if Washington had been taken over. Main difference of course is that in those cities, they would have done a much better job of stopping it get as far as it did. Which brings us back to the Thai police.

More and more use of lethal weapons? That doesn't seem to be born out by the number of military deaths between the introduction of military snipers and the final crackdown - yet the number of civilian deaths went up?

It's born out by my eyes, whatever the "successfulness" of their use of those weapons were. If you were here in Bangkok at that time, you would have seen just how brazenly the armed members had become.

What do you (I don't mean this as literally you, anybody could answer but it's rhetorical anyway) think is going to happen when the inquest results come out for the foreign photographers - that's going to stir something up internationally. And then there's the deaths of Kate, the other medic and other protesters in the Wat. It's not Amsterdam making these people victims - Surely you can see they are genuine victims?

I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush.

Just because you end up dead, doesn't automatically make you a victim. Criminals get killed every day throughout the world by authorities. It's a risk you take when you break the law. Not to say that people who break the law deserve to be killed, but there are times when those people do have to take some responsibility for their fate - posthumously of course.

[lineofentry]

At the very least, the 'trigger happy brigade' will know that the eyes of the world are watching and that there is a possibility that they may be called to account. "Pulling their heads in" would be carte blanche for the ones who consider themselves excused any moral or legal obligations. Probably not a clever idea.

[MunterHunter]

I wonder how many innocent civilians would have been hurt or killed had the granade attack on Sala Deng BTS station had actually hit a train?