2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE

CRES was simply maintaining law and order in 2010 : Thawil

File photo : Thawil

BANGKOK: -- Former National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri insisted on Thursday that the previous government's leaders should not face murder charges related to 2010 political violence, pointing out that the authorities were simply maintaining law and order.

Thawil, who is also a former secretary to the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), said he himself was ready to face legal action related to the CRES operations to restore law and order in April and May 2010.

Thawil said he felt uneasy about the Department of Special Investigation's decision to charge former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban in relation to the CRES operations to restore law and order. Suthep was the CRES director.

Thawil said he was a former CRES member and he was willing to face action related to the operations. He said no CRES members should escape responsibility if action were taken against Suthep, as former CRES director, for the operations.

Thawil said DSI chief Tarit Pengdit could not escape responsibility either, because Tarit was also on the CRES panel.

-- The Nation 2012-12-13

Let the fun begin for Tarit

Had the police acted in a responsible manner and done the job they are supposedly employed to do in relation to upholding the law, it would never have needed the input of the CRES who had no choice but to step in and stop what was happening and got worse by the hour prior to the goverment having to take action.

Let no one forget the violence and armed opposition the unlawful protestors were using against the soldiers and anyone else who stood in their way / tried to calm then down ect. ect.

What happened IMHO should first and foremost be the responsibility of Thaksin, the police and the red apologists who went far beyond trying the patience of the government and were hell bent on the violent destruction that went way beyond the limits of tolerance.

As was demonstrated during the recent Pitac " peaceful " protests they are more than capable of controlling protesters, long before confrontation got to the levels of 2010.

Then again as we all know in the first instance re Aphisit and Suthep it was for the benefit of one person in exile AKA leader, for whom they consistanly ( and openly ) admit to favouring and pledging allegiance to ect. ect.

In the latter it was for the benefit of his opposers, did not favour Thaksin and the police in this instance did not hesitate to enforce the law.

As and when Aphisit nd Suthep are charged, they must surely do likewise in all the other cases in previous disorder and extra judicial killings and charge all those ex officials and PMs and offices supposedly protecting the public, not least of all the those Thaksin personally oversaw and encouraged, even after knowing the muderous build up and still refusing to stop it from the tragic loss of lives as in the infamous EJK,s ect. ect.

marshbags

P.S.

May I suggest the government and it,s institutions of law show non bias in relation to what they have orchestrated re the charges ( on behalf of a fugitive from outside the country ) against Aphisit and Suthep and as to suppossedly why by immediately issuing an arrest warrant for Thaksin and the police act in a manner that compliments all Thai and lawful adminstration of their duties as and when they visit him.

Edited December 13, 201213 yr by marshbags

Ref post # 3

Your post is well written and makes perfect sense.

thanks marshbags

Another moral person, thats 3 so far. Maybe, just maybe this is the start of a groundswell of support for honesty and accountability in Thai politics.

The Australian media are reporting that they have now been officially charged with murder.

Thawil Pliensri,is indeed a man of honour. A rare in in fact I would say an endangered species in this land at this time.

An amazing breath of fresh air let into the situation by someone who plainly was privy to all that was discussed and the subsequent sequence of events.

The cowardly misconduct of the police was blatant as was their bias which was proved yet again in the recent Pitak Siam rally..

Indeed the C.R.E.S. were actually carrying out their duties as their mandate demanded, restoring peace to the street ts so as people could resume a normal life without fear from a rabid cannon fodder mob intent on looting and arson and many other criminal acts which they thought they would never face retribution for. Due of course their valiant leaders exhortations and promises of jam tomorrow.

Hopefully there is a groundswell starting concerning the kangaroo court and the professional liars that abound in this current maladministration, let's hope that they will be washed away like the rotten flotsam and jetsam they are.

.

.

Edited December 13, 201213 yr by siampolee

UPDATE

Thawil: drop DSI action against ex-leaders

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Former National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri yesterday insisted that the leaders of the previous government should not face murder charges related to the 2010 political violence as the authorities were simply keeping law and order.

Thawil, who served as the secretary of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation, said he himself was ready to face legal action related to the CRES operations to restore law and order in April and May 2010.

Thawil said he felt uneasy about the decision of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to charge former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban in relation to the CRES's operations to restore order. Suthep was the CRES director.

Thawil said he was a former CRES member and was willing to face action related to the operations. He said no CRES member should escape responsibility if action were taken against Suthep. Thawil said DSI chief Tarit Pengdit could not escape responsibility either, because Tarit was also on the CRES panel.

In fact, no one should be subject to legal action related to the CRES operations because it was clear that the red-shirt demonstrators were not rallying peacefully, Thawil said.

He said the DSI had built its case against Abhisit and Suthep on incomplete information. The legal action would affect the morale of government officials who tried to restore peace, and infringe on people's rights. It would also send a message that those who violated the law during demonstrations would be protected, he said.

Thawil insisted that the CRES had not intended to kill anyone, as charged by the DSI, but said the other side intended to cause deaths and injuries.

Thawil said Tarit should withdraw himself as the chief investigator in the case against Abhisit and Suthep because Tarit himself was on the CRES panel.

Tarit could be subject to criticism either way - for taking action against former CRES members or sparing them, Thawil said.

Tarit could be suspected of siding with the CRES, for which he worked, or of trying to please the current government by acting against the previous administration, he said.

-- The Nation 2012-12-14

Glad to see that good sense is being used in this case. Making them guilty only advocates free reign for red shirts and their ilk to do whatever terrorist activities they want to.

Ref post # 3

Your post is well written and makes perfect sense.

thanks marshbags

+1

Another moral person, thats 3 so far. Maybe, just maybe this is the start of a groundswell of support for honesty and accountability in Thai politics.

Even the longest tripp start with one step.

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elsewhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. It serves the agenda of those who like to characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests".

(620)

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by righteous

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elswhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. Along the same line as when they characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests"

(620)

I am wondering why their main demand was for Abhisit to step down if their protest was about the coup? Abhisit had nothing to do with the coup after all, and there had already been elections since the coup. Why didn't they have anti-coup protests in 2008?

The red shirts obviously don't understand democracy if they want to use violence to force a legal government to step down.

"2012, March to May Mayhem"

"Pro-democracy grenade lobbing party"

"bring your own bottle party" (being Dutch obviously this is my favorite :-) )

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elsewhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. It serves the agenda of those who like to characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests".

(620)

Sigh x2

_{Looks to me like this all could come back and bite the present Govt hard in the future.}

_{If they are convicted then it will set a precedent that will last a long time.}

_{As I said in another post seems like this the only thing that the present mob think they can make stick, not for want of trying to find something.}

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elsewhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. It serves the agenda of those who like to characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests".

(620)

Speaking of mindless, your post sets the bar to new heights my friend. By the way would you be from Canada?

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by Pimay1

Speaking of mindless, your post sets the bar to new heights my friend. By the way would you be from Canada?

Why would that be relevant? If he was, I wouldn't label all Canadians as being mindless.

Speaking of mindless, your post sets the bar to new heights my friend. By the way would you be from Canada?

Why would that be relevant? If he was, I wouldn't label all Canadians as being mindless.

Point well taken and agree. I was just wandering of he was from Calgary.

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elsewhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. It serves the agenda of those who like to characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests".

(620)

Speaking of mindless, your post sets the bar to new heights my friend. By the way would you be from Canada?

Canada like in calgaryll?

Just to prove that we're open minded (to let the rain in), here the interesting take on things as presented to the ICC by Robert A. c.s. Mind you, I'm a wee bit puzzled by the 'recently filed charges' mentioned in this December 13th webpage. It's only yesterday that k. Abhisit has been formally informed that charges will be filed against him. Did the criminal court already get a charge lodged ?

"Social media is abuzz with reactions to an interview that former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave to the BBC. Looking flustered in answering the uncomfortable questions posed by interviewer Mishal Husain, Mr. Abhisit described the charges of pre-meditated murder recently filed against him as "far fetched."

In light of the coverage generated by the BBC interview, we are releasing to the public the content of a letter my firm submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 31 October 2012. The letter focuses exclusively on Mr. Abhisit's criminal liability, providing a comprehensive treatment of Mr. Abhisit's involvement and individual responsibility for the commission of crimes against humanity in April and May 2010."

http://robertamsterd...inal-liability/

The heading on this article simply states "2010 political violence'.

I have seen similar references elsewhere. A case can be made, that this is misleading.

It supports one side of the political divide to describe it as such. It serves the agenda of those who like to characterize the protesters/Demonstrators as a non-political, anarchic rabble. Just "political Violence" with no context.

However, when one considers its' context, as being a protest against a previous coup, against being governed by an electoral minority, with a principle demand being that of an election, makes the whole thing much more than mindless "political violence". And serves to avoid serving a particular agenda.

So what would be a better descriptor?.....How about "2010 pro-democracy protests".

(620)

Speaking of mindless, your post sets the bar to new heights my friend. By the way would you be from Canada?

Canada like in calgaryll?

You sure a smart feller there Skywalker69. You read between the lines supberly.

Just to prove that we're open minded (to let the rain in), here the interesting take on things as presented to the ICC by Robert A. c.s. Mind you, I'm a wee bit puzzled by the 'recently filed charges' mentioned in this December 13th webpage. It's only yesterday that k. Abhisit has been formally informed that charges will be filed against him. Did the criminal court already get a charge lodged ?

"Social media is abuzz with reactions to an interview that former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave to the BBC. Looking flustered in answering the uncomfortable questions posed by interviewer Mishal Husain, Mr. Abhisit described the charges of pre-meditated murder recently filed against him as "far fetched."

In light of the coverage generated by the BBC interview, we are releasing to the public the content of a letter my firm submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 31 October 2012. The letter focuses exclusively on Mr. Abhisit's criminal liability, providing a comprehensive treatment of Mr. Abhisit's involvement and individual responsibility for the commission of crimes against humanity in April and May 2010."

http://robertamsterd...inal-liability/

From his letter:

he [Abhisit] is responsible for crimes committed by the security forces pursuant to such orders.

If the security personnel were following orders, then they weren't committing any crime. The court found, in the case of the taxi driver, that the security personnel didn't commit a crime.

So, unless their orders were illegal, Abhisit has no case to answer.

The CRES realised that dead people don't break many laws. So yes they were trying to maintain law and order, just breaking the law themselves to achieve it.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by Time Traveller

The CRES realised that dead people don't break many laws. So yes they were trying to maintain law and order, just breaking the law themselves to achieve it.

How did they break the law in achieving it?

An off topic post has been removed as well as the replies.

simple truth - you had a government legally in charge of thailand and a terrorist mob bent on destroying Bangkok using lethal force, they were told to disperse after ridiculous amount of time that no government in the world would have allowed - they refused and they were removed by force as forwarned - mob rule doesn't work

That was the function of C.R.E.S. at the time while under a an emergency act

(on topic)

simple truth - you had a government legally in charge of thailand and a terrorist mob bent on destroying Bangkok using lethal force, they were told to disperse after ridiculous amount of time that no government in the world would have allowed - they refused and they were removed by force as forwarned - mob rule doesn't work

That was the function of C.R.E.S. at the time while under a an emergency act

(on topic)

Good post, thanks.

simple truth - you had a government legally in charge of thailand and a terrorist mob bent on destroying Bangkok using lethal force, they were told to disperse after ridiculous amount of time that no government in the world would have allowed - they refused and they were removed by force as forwarned - mob rule doesn't work

That was the function of C.R.E.S. at the time while under a an emergency act

(on topic)

Good post, thanks.

And funny enough that these supposed Innocent Red shirts who were so blatantly abused by the then said government and that a poor taxi driver died and Abishit and Suthep are accused of HIS murder ...Funny that they day before Abishit and Suthep had to present themselves at the DSI that the court case against these 24 Red Shirts was YET AGAIN POSTPONNED till today and today this is the result

Thai 'Red Shirt' protest leaders go on trial

BANGKOK, Dec 14, 2012 (AFP) - A terrorism trial against Thai leaders of the 2010 "Red Shirt" protests began on Friday, a day after the nation's former premier was charged over his role in the deadly unrest.

The 24 accused, who include five current lawmakers, could in theory face the death penalty in the case, which was delayed again on Thursday because of the absence of key witnesses.

All but one defendant was present at Bangkok Criminal Court on Friday, according to an AFP reporter at the court.

All but one defendant was present at Bangkok Criminal Court on Friday, according to an AFP reporter at the court.

I'll put very good odds on he didn't come down with a severe case of good taste poisoning.