Thai 'Red Shirt' protest leaders go on trial

BANGKOK, Dec 14, 2012 (AFP) - The terrorism trial of leaders of Thailand's 2010 "Red Shirt" protests began Friday, a day after a former premier was charged over his role in the bloody street battles which left scores dead in Bangkok.

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.

About 90 people were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded in a series of street clashes between demonstrators and security forces, which culminated in a military crackdown in May 2010. Two foreign journalists were among those killed.

Tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators occupied parts of central Bangkok for weeks, erecting barricades of sharpened bamboo, before the army ended the standoff.

Proceedings against the Red Shirt leaders will likely drag on for years, with counsel on both sides calling several hundred witness -- although the court is likely to trim the list to around 200 in total.

Hearings can only be held when parliament is not in session since sitting lawmakers have immunity, meaning next Thursday's trial day will be the last until April next year.

The Red Shirt leaders, most of whom surrendered to police after the government sent in armoured vehicles and troops firing live rounds, pleaded not guilty in 2010 and have vowed to prove their innocence.

Key Red Shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan on Thursday told reporters at the court that the group would "fight the case to the end".

"But people of every political group should be granted an amnesty," he said.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was prime minister during the anti-government rallies, and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban were charged with murder on Thursday over the death of a taxi driver shot by soldiers during the violence.

They are the first officials to face court over Thailand's worst political violence in decades. The pair have denied the allegation.

Although Abhisit is unlikely to ever face jail the trial is a breakthrough for Thailand's justice system, according to Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Chulalongkorn University, and signals a challenge to the culture of impunity which pervades the politically polarised kingdom.

"This is the first time government leaders have been held accountable for the death of protesters... future government leaders will think twice before using force against demonstrators," he added.

Thailand has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest.

They accused Abhisit's government of being undemocratic because it took office in 2008 through a parliamentary vote after a court stripped Thaksin's allies of power.

Polls in 2011 brought Thaksin's Red Shirt-backed Puea Thai party to power with his sister Yingluck as premier, sweeping Abhisit into opposition.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-12-14

Key Red Shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan on Thursday told reporters at the court that the group would "fight the case to the end".

From Dubai...

Yawn...

Everyone is a terrorist nowadays.

Boring.

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin was Caretaker Premier, and an illigal one whom refused to let go of power.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by Skywalker69

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin was Caretaker Premier, and an illigal one whom refused to let go of power.

How so ?

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin was Caretaker Premier, and an illigal one whom refused to let go of power.

How so ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atKOkbTLyoeo&refer=top_world_news

Key Red Shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan on Thursday told reporters at the court that the group would "fight the case to the end".

"But people of every political group should be granted an amnesty," he said.

And there you have it.

Innocent people don't need or ask for amnesties.

And the joke is he thinks that by not only including himself and his chums, but also a few others from the other side, that would make it some sort of a noble gesture for the sake of reconciliation. Pathetic.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

but I will stay as caretaker as requested by the Constitution until the day the selection of the prime minister in the House is completed

"But people of every political group should be granted an amnesty," he said.

What have we here? Not so sure of the outcome, it seems!

And the fact that Abhisit and Suthep have been charged with murder starts to look more and more...."motivated".

When will this clown be put out of the circuit?

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by righteous

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to do is dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

There were going to be elections in due time, unless you swallow the Red Shirt propaganda of Abhisit being a ruthless anti-democratic tyrant... oh, wait.

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Negotiations that never occurred beyond an offer never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

Only to the red leaders/terrorists?

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

They wanted an election. They were offered an election. They rejected the offer. What else did they want?

They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

How do you work that out? The last election did not result in an electoral majority. It resulted in a parliamentary majority. Which is what Yingluck rules with, in the same way that Abhisit, Somchai, Samak and Thaksin did also.

P.S. Your posts have a familiar indent.

They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

How do you work that out? The last election did not result in an electoral majority. It resulted in a parliamentary majority. Which is what Yingluck rules with, in the same way that Abhisit, Somchai, Samak and Thaksin did also.

P.S. Your posts have a familiar indent.

But was Abhisit elected by the majority of MPs?

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

If a majority of MPs elected Abhisit as PM, how is that an electoral minority? Can you not understand that coalitions of minor parties can attract more votes/MPs than the party with the largest parliamentary representation? This is a not unusual situation with many precedents outside Thailand.

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

If a majority of MPs elected Abhisit as PM, how is that an electoral minority? Can you not understand that coalitions of minor parties can attract more votes/MPs than the party with the largest parliamentary representation? This is a not unusual situation with many precedents outside Thailand.

Sometimes it becomes painfuly obvious that that some people have no idea how the parliamentary system works. Britain has a minority government, an agreement was made, another party joined the Conservatives who then became the legal government. Canada had a minority government for 7 years previous to the last election, it is a common happening in the parliamentary system. Please try to follow me now, it isn't that difficult, The democrats joined with other parties to form a minority government, a legal government. Thaksin paid people to perform illegal acts, and for some to urge them on to it. They are terrorists pure and simple, creating havoc, burning buildings and blowing up electrical towers that supply hospitals etc. Abhisit and Suthep went to court yesterday to defend them selves, where is the paymaster?

Sometimes it becomes painfuly obvious that that some people have no idea how the parliamentary system works. Britain has a minority government, an agreement was made, another party joined the Conservatives who then became the legal government. Canada had a minority government for 7 years previous to the last election, it is a common happening in the parliamentary system. Please try to follow me now, it isn't that difficult, The democrats joined with other parties to form a minority government, a legal government. Thaksin paid people to perform illegal acts, and for some to urge them on to it. They are terrorists pure and simple, creating havoc, burning buildings and blowing up electrical towers that supply hospitals etc. Abhisit and Suthep went to court yesterday to defend them selves, where is the paymaster?

Actually:

A minority government or a minority cabinet is a cabinet of a parliamentary system formed when a political party or coalition of parties does not have a majority of overall seats in the parliament but is sworn into government to break a Hung Parliament election result.

Abhisit had a majority government, ie a majority of the MPs were part of the government, with the Democrats having the most MPs in the government.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by whybother

Of course any reasonable person who was listening to Deputy Minister Nattawut exhort fellow Red Shirt protesters at Rajprasong to burn down Bangkok in 2010 - specifically the 36 government buildings he read out on TV from a list which included the hospital where the King lives - would find it difficult to draw any other conclusion other than his denials and obfustications are just the latest elements in 'the Big Lie' concocted by Thaksin & Co. that the Red Shirts are merely innocent victims...and of course that Thaksin himself never did anything wrong in his life (except get caught lying, cheating and stealing - his modus operandi is a matter of public record).

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by GazR

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin was Caretaker Premier, and an illigal one whom refused to let go of power.

How so ?

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Good stuff - let us not forget:

Weekly protests ballooned into daily mass rallies after Thaksin's family in January sold its 49.6 percent stake in Bangkok-based telecommunications group Shin Corp. to investors led by Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte.

Tax-Free

The deal netted his family a tax-free $1.9 billion. The same day, a law came into effect raising the limit on overseas ownership in telecommunications companies to 49 percent from 25 percent.

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

They wanted an election. They were offered an election. They rejected the offer. What else did they want?

y

A retorical question, I suppose...

Anyway, Thaksin personally vetoed the likely agreement to Abhisit's proposal for elections in 6 months

because he didn't want Abhisit to be seen in a good light, thus weakening Thaksin claim to the moral high ground.

Of course the irony is that boofhead Thaksin then went and did precisely that by refusing to compromise and eventually instigating terrorist tactics in place of of civil disobedience.

Thaksin's version of...well, Thaksin adds up to ONE BIG LIE - and that is common knowledge.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by GazR

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

The political divisions go back to 2001 and were caused directly by Thaksin attempting to set himself up as an authoritarian figure. It gave rise to the PAD and the coup which was backed by a considerable amount of the middle class.

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

The political divisions go back to 2001 and were caused directly by Thaksin attempting to set himself up as an authoritarian figure. It gave rise to the PAD and the coup which was backed by a considerable amount of the middle class.

I agree, but Ithink there's more. One could also say the current divisions started when the paymaster was found not guilty (by a tiny margin) of hiding his assets, which produced two classic statements:

- From the paymaster - 'It was just an honest mistake'.

- From a member of the judiciary 'How could I find him guilty when he had just won (should read manipulated) an election?'

Or in other words, total disrepect for the law and why it's there, and total disrespect for the judicial process.

...

Weekly protests ballooned into daily mass rallies after Thaksin's family in January sold its 49.6 percent stake in Bangkok-based telecommunications group Shin Corp. to investors led by Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte.

Tax-Free

The deal netted his family a tax-free $1.9 billion. The same day, a law came into effect raising the limit on overseas ownership in telecommunications companies to 49 percent from 25 percent.

And let's not forget that the TRT no morals parliamentarians, en masse, sat there and supported a bill designed to make a big adjustment to a major infrastructure policy, knowing full well this was to benefit one man.

"But people of every political group should be granted an amnesty,"

Followed by a swift mass euthanization of said people....with extreme prejudice.

The trial of the UDD leaders finally starting. When were they informed of charges and when was the case formally submitted at the court?

Can we expect a similar timeframe with the case of Abhisit/Suthep or is judging one death and two people easier and less time consuming? Did the DSI already submit documents to allow a court to formally charge the two?

Key Red Shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan on Thursday told reporters at the court that the group would "fight the case to the end".

"But people of every political group should be granted an amnesty," he said.

And there you have it.

Innocent people don't need or ask for amnesties.

And the joke is he thinks that by not only including himself and his chums, but also a few others from the other side, that would make it some sort of a noble gesture for the sake of reconciliation. Pathetic.

Innocent people don't need or ask for amnesties.

This line says it all. Thats why Abhisit don´t have to agree on the amnesti laws.

Edited December 14, 201213 yr by Skywalker69

"

The kingdom has been racked by sometimes explosive political divisions since a 2006 coup deposed then premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Red Shirts -- mostly supporters of the ousted premier -- were demanding immediate elections in their 2010 protest."

Good to see an accurate statement of cause-and-effect in this article. Although I would quible with the suggestion that most were supporters of the Premier deposed in that coup. Many were, but to highlight it serves to dilute their purpose in 2010.Their principle demand was not the ouster of Abhisit, not the return of the former premier, not anti-Government ---- but elections, pure and simple. They knew they were being governed by an electoral minority, which the last election affirmed.

Their demand for elections to be immediate as stated in this article, was subject to negotiation. Discussions that never occurred beyond an Abhisit offer he never negotiated to an agreement.

I don't agree with Jatuporn that amnesty should attach to all concerned. Justice should apply to all, to give pause for anyone thinking of pulling these stunts again, especially the 2006 idiocy.

Sigh........again.

The trial of the UDD leaders finally starting. When were they informed of charges and when was the case formally submitted at the court?

Can we expect a similar timeframe with the case of Abhisit/Suthep or is judging one death and two people easier and less time consuming? Did the DSI already submit documents to allow a court to formally charge the two?

Dumb question. You already know that it will take forever and a day for anything to happen

The trial of the UDD leaders finally starting. When were they informed of charges and when was the case formally submitted at the court?

Can we expect a similar timeframe with the case of Abhisit/Suthep or is judging one death and two people easier and less time consuming? Did the DSI already submit documents to allow a court to formally charge the two?

Dumb question. You already know that it will take forever and a day for anything to happen

Well, according to the DSI it is a very clear case and my source of inspiration Robert A. agrees with that. So, once the DSI gets around submitting all documentation to the court, the court can set a date to get the two accused formally charged. Mind you parliamentary session starts again next week which may delay things a wee bit. Even if k. Abhisit/Suthep would want to wave their parliamentary immunity, parliament may not agree, just like when the honerable former Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Jatuporn wanted to, and Dr. weng couldn't convince parliament either.