Indictment Of Abhisit, Suthep Based On Legal Mumbo Jumbo

[RubbaJohnny]

It took me a while to grasp the difference between jurisprudence,case law and actual justice,it is a lucky country where these coincide

[OzMick]

Beware of re-direction of difficult conversations. Difficult for some agenda's. The best defense for some is to "Change The Conversation - Quickly (CTC-Q)"

• In this case - the murder investigation of Abhisit/Suthep, CTC-Q to the war on drugs.
  
• Deaths at R'song, CTC-Q to "Men In Black"
  
• Accusations of R'song realities as concerning Abhisit , CTC-Q to Somchai
  
• If all else fails, CTC-Q to Thaksin.
  

Classic cases of offense being better than defence. Who can argue with that.

You forgot "Post about others' posting habits"

[MaxYakov]

A few points come to mind:

1/ Won't this unprecedented legal gobbledegook first have to survive a judicial scrutiny to see if it is a justifiable charge?

2/ Surely there wouldn't be an appeal process for the prosecution if they are tried and found innocent - double jeopardy.

3/ How can someone be found guilty of ordering somebody else to commit a crime, when the person committing the act has legal immunity?

4/ Where is the cut-off level for immunity for those acting under an SoE? Why doesn't it apply to all?

What crime was committed (he has been only accused - addressing #3)? Looks to me like it's one of those: 'not the accuracy of the accusation, but the seriousness of the crime' situations.

From the article's description of what happened it looks to me like it was an accidental shooting at best, collateral injury at worst (or vice versa). Why did not the taxi driver get immediate medical attention ... or was it they could not stop the bleeding? Many were hurt physically, psychologically and financially from that 'occupation'. The longer Abhisit, et al let it continue, the riskier it became for all, IMHO. Oops, forgot - TiT, Sorry.

Edited December 11, 2012 by MaxYakov

[Fozfromoz]

Why do people believe that the case against Thaksin for the War on Drugs can be investigated?

It can never ever be investigated because it was sanctioned!

Sanctioned by whom?

Thaksin, Charlem et al.

Accused of being "drug dealers," they were systematically exterminated based on "hit lists" compiled by police given carte blanche by then Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (a former police bureaucrat himself). It would later be determined by official investigations that over half of those killed had nothing to do with the drug trade in any way.

In recent weeks, the government of Thailand has publicly threatened the resumption of killings. On 20 February [2008], Interior Minister, Chalerm Yubamrung, told parliament that

"... For drug dealers if they do not want to die, they had better quit staying on that road... drugs suppression in my time as Interior Minister will follow the approach of [former Prime Minister] Thaksin. If that will lead to 3,000-4,000 deaths of those who break the law, then so be it. That has to be done ... For those of you from the opposition party, I will say you care more about human rights than drug problems in Thailand."

Readers should note that then Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is now Deputy Prime Minister of Thaksin Shinwatra's sister's government, and just recently promoted his son - accused cop-killer Duang Yubamrung - to "platoon leader of a military police company." Rampant "banana republic" nepotism is a prevalent feature of Thaksin's political party - disbanded and renamed several times due to persistent voter fraud.

While the United States attempts to sanction the dirt out from under the feet of Syrians and Iranians for "crimes against humanity" while they battle admittedly foreign-terrorists armed and funded by the US, Gulf States, NATO, and others, the US has granted a visa to a convicted criminal, a fugitive, a mass murderer, and a man presiding over a political machine that is to this day rife with nepotism, murder, intimidation, and sweeping corruption. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/hypocrisy-syria-burns-while-mass.html

Thaksin said in an interview, "The United Nations is not my father

If they were, his initials could be U.N.T. Now if the Chief of the UN was his father....

[tragickingdom]

The Nation calls life firing zones and shoot to kill orders that come with it legal Mumbo Jumbo, but how about the legal mumbo jumbo of the absurd charges of terrorism levied on the red shirt leaders. This local royalist newsletter don't dare to put ion the front page the 6000 people killed by real terrorists in the south and the hundred thousands or so wounded. That is real mumbo jumbo.

[khunken]

I'm sure that the various ex-police 'officers' that propagate the PTP are experts in legal mumbo-jumbo. Certainly the puppet master & his ear-medicine abusing deputy PM are professors of both legal & illegal mumbo-jumbo.

[inzman]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

[ratcatcher]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

No nation run by intelligent people..

[righteous]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Edited December 11, 2012 by righteous

[OzMick]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

On 30 March 2010, a mercenary red shirt fired an RPG at the temple of the Emerald Buddha. Please explain to me how this was self-defence or retaliation, and not simply terrorism.

What you are spouting is a self-serving revision of history.

[khunken]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Rewriting history again. There were a series of riots. At the Satellite station, at Rachadamnong, on Viv-Rangsit road & near Din Daeng. The 'easily achieved political solution' was more like a gun to the head - resign or else.

An electoral majority is nothing to do with a parliamentary majority. Many governments in the UK took power with a minority of votes cast but a majority of seats won. More smoke & mirrors.

Yes, responsibility for the deaths should be apportioned to the right perpetrators, not at the whim of a ruling party nor including an amnesty. A party-controlled body (the DSI) is not who should decide who should be indicted.

[Gulfsailor]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

A delayed reaction to a coup and an electoral minority?? An election was held after the coup. Trt got some seats, so did the dems, as well as some other smaller parties. Trt was the largest, so formed a majority coalition with some smaller parties to form the government. They then elected Samak and Wongsawut as subsequent PM's. Both were disqualified later. The smaller coalition parties then no longer supported the trt led coalition, and so the government fell. Dems then formed a MAJORITY coalition with some of the smaller parties, and they elected Abhisit as PM. Absolutely nothing undemocratic about any of it. The same happens in many European countries all the time.

[whybother]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

What do you call it when protesters break through riot police to storm parliament, or throw molotov cocktails and break through riot police to storm Thaicom? Self defense?

"a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010" ... I've heard people calling the red shirts slow, but really!!

[Skywalker69]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Are you for real?

[Tatsujin]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Are you for real?

He's obviously off his meds and his memory is fading . . . I remember riots and storming of buildings.

[Meetoo]

Abhisit interview on BBC

BBC Pfffffffffffffff!!! They were totally biased during the riots and are still going at it..... What a bunch !!

[Skywalker69]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

What do you call it when protesters break through riot police to storm parliament, or throw molotov cocktails and break through riot police to storm Thaicom? Self defense?

"a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010" ... I've heard people calling the red shirts slow, but really!!

Thank you.

[MrSlatersParrot]

Abhisit interview on BBC

BBC Pfffffffffffffff!!! They were totally biased during the riots and are still going at it..... What a bunch !!

Mumbo jumbo in deed.

The author of this article I'm assuming is just an ex British public schoolboy fresh out of college or some anti-deluvian old hi-so/ old buffer using colloquial expressions just to register his distaste.

Not 'arf mate.

I just heard abhisit claim In this bbc interview that the government ministers are seeking protection, avoidance from possible protection (in what way I wonder) from any future prosecution!? And he also slipped in that the red shirts were armed so force had to be used. All At the end of the interview so wasn't questioned.

Notice how he ventilated and pressed when challenged.

.

Not one redshirt who died was armed and not one MIB has ever been found.

Poor interviewer she couldn't or didn't have the time to address his fibs.

17 coups against corruption. Ya think?

He, I believe, thinks that he is righteous and that what he does is for the good of his people.

They are though not the majority.

[rubl]

It's not only legal mumbo-jumbo, lots of nonsense from TV posters as well.

Not one MiB found, so red-shirts innocent. Tell that the widows and children of the army and police officers killed. Only retaliation I read one post, perfectly normal again. Anyone would lob a few more grenades in that situation, peacefully of course. Probably with 'have a nice day' written on the grenade.

[ridkun]

There's nothing for them to lose. Red shirt will be satisfied by seeing Mark and Suthep appear in court already no matter if they are guilty or not. If they are found guilty in court, it is a big bonus for Red. If they are not, PTP can go for "court is biased" propaganda again as ever. We won't have to mention about fairness of charge, or the fact that they are hardly to be found guilty because the law, ironically made by Thaksin, would make most killing legally justified, because PTP and Red never care about those matters anyway.

[hyperdimension]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Are you for real?

He is CalgaryII (banned), back with his "coup coup" and "vindicated by the election" mumbo jumbo.

Edited December 12, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Skywalker69]

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Are you for real?

He is CalgaryII (banned), back with his "coup coup" and "vindicated by the election" mumbo jumbo.

So now Calgaryll is back and PPD is back whom else?

[AleG]

So now Calgaryll is back and PPD is back whom else?

It's like the Karmic Wheel of Banning, as they are reincarnated the climb down the rungs until they achieve complete Trollvana.

[Arkady]

These charges seem to be a real long shot when one considers that the case hinges on Section 59 of the Penal Code on criminal liability which I quote in its entirety below:

"Section 59

A person shall be criminally liable only when such person commits an act intentionally, except in case of the law provides that such person must be liable when such person commits an act by negligence, or except in case of the law clearly provides that such person must be liable even though such person commits an act unintentionally.

To commit an act intentionally is to do an act consciously and at the same time the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

If the doer does not know the facts constituting the elements of the offence, it cannot be deemed that the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

To commit an act by negligence is to commit an offence unintentionally but without exercising such care as might be expected from a person under such condition and circumstances, and the doer could exercise such care but did not do so sufficiently.

An act shall also include any consequence brought about by the omission to do an act which must be done in order to prevent such consequence."

The other Sections to do with commissioning crimes and the penalties for murder don't really add a lot to strengthen the case but the train of thought seems to be: the accused are guilty of murder because their negligence unintentionally caused them to commission a soldier to murder someone. The clauses re intent seem ruled out as they couldn't possibly have foreseen the death of the taxi driver. That leaves the prosecutors the negligence argument on the basis that the accused didn't exercise sufficient care to prevent the taxi driver's death. On the other hand the defence will argue they had a duty to allow the troops to defend themselves against armed aggressors who were apparently successful in killing and wounding several soldiers and it was impossible to strike a balance whereby no deaths were foreseeable on either side. They can point to the 2009 red shirt riots when no protestors were killed by troops who no need to fire live ammo as they were not attacked by armed men.

The case seems even harder with no shooter to cross examine. No one knows if he: shot the taxi driver under direct orders that emanated from the CRES; shot him as a result of a personal decision that he thought the man was armed and a threat to the troops; shot him as a result of an accidental discharge in the heat of the moment; shot him because he took a personal dislike to him; or even just for fun because he wanted to know what it felt like to kill a man under legal immunity.

I can see a much stronger argument for prosecuting Obama for commissioning the Navy Seals to murder Osama Bin Laden.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Arkady

[Tatsujin]

It's all moot. It happened under a legal SoE.

[smedly]

If Thai law is worth the paper it's written on then this case will go no further than the DSI at which point I'd expect a lot of collapses of those involved and that may include a government - the whole thing is absolute hogwash - AV must be discusted at these people, it's time for Thailand to waken up and see through this debacle of thugery corruption and greed - education might be the way to move the people into realising what a crowd of low lifes they voted to govern this country - it's obvious to most here but how do you get that message out

TS is the single most evil individual in recent times

Thaksin if you want to prove me wrong then get you ass on a plane to Bangkok and face up to your charges like a real man just as Absth V is doing

You sit there in Dubai feeling you are a victim with your billions of Thai baht preying on the good people of this country that you and your family robbed blind - get your ass back here and face the music just like AV is doing - if you respect Thailand and it's laws then you have nothing to fear

Edited December 12, 2012 by smedly

[AleG]

These charges seem to be a real long shot when one considers that the case hinges on Section 59 of the Penal Code on criminal liability which I quote in its entirety below:

"Section 59

A person shall be criminally liable only when such person commits an act intentionally, except in case of the law provides that such person must be liable when such person commits an act by negligence, or except in case of the law clearly provides that such person must be liable even though such person commits an act unintentionally.

To commit an act intentionally is to do an act consciously and at the same time the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

If the doer does not know the facts constituting the elements of the offence, it cannot be deemed that the doer desired or could have foreseen the effect of such doing.

To commit an act by negligence is to commit an offence unintentionally but without exercising such care as might be expected from a person under such condition and circumstances, and the doer could exercise such care but did not do so sufficiently.

An act shall also include any consequence brought about by the omission to do an act which must be done in order to prevent such consequence."

The other Sections to do with commissioning crimes and the penalties for murder don't really add a lot to strengthen the case but the train of thought seems to be: the accused are guilty of murder because their negligence unintentionally caused them to commission a soldier to murder someone. The clauses re intent seem ruled out as they couldn't possibly have foreseen the death of the taxi driver. That leaves the prosecutors the negligence argument on the basis that the accused didn't exercise sufficient care to prevent the taxi driver's death. On the other hand the defence will argue they had a duty to allow the troops to defend themselves against armed aggressors who were apparently successful in killing and wounding several soldiers and it was impossible to strike a balance whereby no deaths were foreseeable on either side. They can point to the 2009 red shirt riots when no protestors were killed by troops who no need to fire live ammo as they were not attacked by armed men.

The case seems even harder with no shooter to cross examine. No one knows if he: shot the taxi driver under direct orders that emanated from the CRES; shot him as a result of a personal decision that he thought the man was armed and a threat to the troops; shot him as a result of an accidental discharge in the heat of the moment; shot him because he took a personal dislike to him; or even just for fun because he wanted to know what it felt like to kill a man under legal immunity.

I can see a much stronger argument for prosecuting Obama for commissioning the Navy Seals to murder Osama Bin Laden.

Why look elsewhere for a stronger case?. With this rationale the people that were urging their followers to fight to their last drop of blood, burn down the capital and confront the army are in a much more compromised situation.

I don´t think PTP and the UDD leadership are hoping this charges to gain any traction, they would be terrified to set a precedent and be hoisted by their own petard.

This exercise is simply mud slinging in their long campaign of character assassination against Abhisit, they just want the "Abhisit accused of murder" headline and the political capital they can milk out of it.

[rubl]

If Thai law is worth the paper it's written on then this case will go no further than the DSI at which point I'd expect a lot of collapses of those involved and that may include a government - the whole thing is absolute hogwash - AV must be discusted at these people, it's time for Thailand to waken up and see through this debacle of thugery corruption and greed - education might be the way to move the people into realising what a crowd of low lifes they voted to govern this country - it's obvious to most here but how do you get that message out

TS is the single most evil individual in recent times

Strictly speaking the DSI may submit a charge at the criminal court, but the court could decide after due deliberation not to accept the case due to not having enough merit. Of course if that would happen some would cry about double standards, court not objective, or even worse. I mean clearly for all to see, if a red-shirt taxi driver runs out of the house to see who's shooting while in a besieged area surrounded by army personel, with violence having really erupted after some showed their displeasure when the renegade general Seh Daeng was shot two days before, getting caught in a volley of gunshots, it must be a murder attempt by k. Abhisit/Suthep. Obviously

[Arkady]

If Thai law is worth the paper it's written on then this case will go no further than the DSI at which point I'd expect a lot of collapses of those involved and that may include a government - the whole thing is absolute hogwash - AV must be discusted at these people, it's time for Thailand to waken up and see through this debacle of thugery corruption and greed - education might be the way to move the people into realising what a crowd of low lifes they voted to govern this country - it's obvious to most here but how do you get that message out

TS is the single most evil individual in recent times

Strictly speaking the DSI may submit a charge at the criminal court, but the court could decide after due deliberation not to accept the case due to not having enough merit. Of course if that would happen some would cry about double standards, court not objective, or even worse. I mean clearly for all to see, if a red-shirt taxi driver runs out of the house to see who's shooting while in a besieged area surrounded by army personel, with violence having really erupted after some showed their displeasure when the renegade general Seh Daeng was shot two days before, getting caught in a volley of gunshots, it must be a murder attempt by k. Abhisit/Suthep. Obviously

I think the DSI, like the police, have to get the prosecutor to file the charges with the court but the office of the attorney general is notoriously corrupt and pro-TS. So that is not a problem. You make an interesting point that the court could dismiss the charges as being tenuous and lacking evidence of intent or even criminal negligence, let alone active commissioning of soldiers to commit a particular murder. Curiously, even The Nation has not suggested this as a possibility and all media seem to be preparing for a 10 year legal battle through all three levels of the criminal "justice" system. I am don't enough about Thai criminal law to say whether the prosecution can appeal against a decision not to hear a case at all. Surely the appeal court is there to reverse flawed judgments by the lower court, if needs be, but is a decision that there is no case to hear a judgment that can be appealed. I doubt it but I think the media are probably correctly assuming that the lower court won't dare to take heat for throwing out the case and letting things end there but will want to pass the hot potato on to the appeal court as quickly as possible. If throwing out a case meant that it didn't stop there, it would be too easy for judges to throw out all controversial cases and let the prosecution appeal to the next level.

Certainly it should be possible for the taxi driver's wife to file for civil damages, if the criminal prosecution fails, or even if it doesn't. However, I don't think PT would want that as it would be hard to let the army off the hook and it would be dangerous to rile the military top brass at this point. The ISA gives them immunity from criminal prosecution but I am not sure about civil damages. However, from the point of view of the taxi driver's wife and family, civil charges make infinitely more sense and stand a pretty decent charge of success after the court has ruled that the military was to blame.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Arkady

[Arkady]

Why look elsewhere for a stronger case?. With this rationale the people that were urging their followers to fight to their last drop of blood, burn down the capital and confront the army are in a much more compromised situation.

I don´t think PTP and the UDD leadership are hoping this charges to gain any traction, they would be terrified to set a precedent and be hoisted by their own petard.

This exercise is simply mud slinging in their long campaign of character assassination against Abhisit, they just want the "Abhisit accused of murder" headline and the political capital they can milk out of it.

It is an interesting point, particularly after the lower court acquitted two youths accused of burning down Central World, that the red shirt leaders who urged their supporters to bring bottles of gasoline to Bkk and burn the place down, if they didn't get what they want, could also be charged with criminal liability, since they did literally incite arson and should have known that uneducated people made to sit around in the heat all day with mayhem going on around them might have taken them literally.