Thai Yellow Shirts Face Court Over Airport Rallies

[webfact]

Thai 'Yellow Shirts' face court over airport rallies

by Thanaporn Promyamyai

BANGKOK, April 29, 2013 (AFP) - A Thai court on Monday postponed the trial of dozens of royalist activists facing charges relating to their roles in 2008 rallies that paralysed Bangkok's main airports stranding thousands of tourists.

Nearly 100 members of the nationalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) "Yellow Shirt" group appeared at the Criminal Court over a wave of demonstrations against allies of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra almost five years ago.

But the court agreed to wait until July 29 to hear from the defendants, after it emerged that some of those charged did not have legal representation.

"The defendants have said they want to appoint their own lawyers because they face serious charges with maximum sentence of the death penalty. The hearing cannot continue if defendants have no lawyers," said the presiding judge.

The Yellow Shirts, who boast support from Bangkok elites and elements in the military, are planning to deny the charges against them, according to lawyer Puangtip Boonsanong, who represents some of the defendants.

Key members of the group, including the group's media mogul founder Sondhi Limthongkul, face terrorism charges over their alleged role in occupying the airports.

Some observers were forced to stand at Monday's hearing, as lawyers, journalists and about 20 Yellow Shirt supporters filled the room, according to an AFP reporter in the court.

A total of 114 defendants face charges over the 2008 anti-government protests, which included the seizure of two airports, a blockade of parliament and the storming of Government House. Monday's hearing applied to 96 defendants, while cases against a further 18 have yet to reach court.

The airport siege was the Yellows' last major show of force on the Thai capital's streets, which frequently play host to the nation's sharply divided politics.

Criminal investigations against the arch nationalist group have been sluggish, prompting claims of double standards by their rival "Red Shirts" -- allies of Thaksin, whose sister Yingluck Shinawatra is Thailand's current premier.

Many leaders of the mainly rural, working class Reds were swiftly locked up on terrorism charges after their street protest in the heart of Bangkok in 2010 which came to a bloody end after an army crackdown.

Yellow Shirts helped claim the scalps of three governments in under five years.

Having taken to the streets in the run up to Thaksin's removal in a 2006 military coup, the Yellows heaped pressure on his allies in government in 2008.

In late November of that year they blocked Don Mueang airport on the northern outskirts of Bangkok before moving to occupy the larger Suvarnabhumi Airport for a week.

The Yellow Shirts abandoned the blockade after a decision by Thailand's Constitutional Court resulted in the dismissal of then prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law, from office.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-04-29

[Locationthailand]

If my memory serves me correctly the sequence of events was Swampy was seized and then Don Muang. And PAD have not been very active in the past few years. But charging them with 'terrorism'? Hardly - unlawful demonstration more like it. Then compare them to the RED rabble with spiked bamboo, burning of tyres and then the city buildings, grenades being thrown - now there is a prime example of 'terrorism'. And their leaders now govern Thailand? Goes to show what should be rather than the digressing into this YELLOW rabble. Either way they should all be charged. But with RED PTP being the prosecutors, it is easy to see who is being charged.

[chainarong]

If my memory serves me correctly the sequence of events was Swampy was seized and then Don Muang. And PAD have not been very active in the past few years. But charging them with 'terrorism'? Hardly - unlawful demonstration more like it. Then compare them to the RED rabble with spiked bamboo, burning of tyres and then the city buildings, grenades being thrown - now there is a prime example of 'terrorism'. And their leaders now govern Thailand? Goes to show what should be rather than the digressing into this YELLOW rabble. Either way they should all be charged. But with RED PTP being the prosecutors, it is easy to see who is being charged.

I Agree

[Robby nz]

Fair enough charge the leaders, but terrorism is taking it a bit far.

Still it sets a precedent and when the time comes for the red leaders to stand up before the courts, what they did should then be seen against the so called terrorism of the yellows.

The killing, shooting, grenade throwing, burning, threats and intimidation would then have to be seen as terrorism + 10.

And yes the red leaders time will come to answer for their actions, it may take several years as it has taken for this court action against the yellows.

But it will come, the country will not forget.

[FarangTalk]

Taking over an international airport = terrorism.

Simples.

[whybother]

Taking over an international airport = terrorism.

Simples.

Taking over an international airport = protesters.

[Just1Voice]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

[whybother]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

So there are a lot of terrorist taxi drivers and baggage handlers around the world.

[whybother]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

I have found a few references that state that interference of normal operation of an international airport is a "criminal offence". I haven't found anything that states that it's an "act of terrorism".

Can you please point me to your reference?

[Ricardo]

helping to claim the scalps of three governments in under five years.

OK, the PPP-led coalition-governments of the late former-PM Samak & former-PM Somchai, but which were the third one?

The military-coup of September-2006, to which PAD-protests might be seen as having preceeded, is now several years ago, isn't it ?

Perhaps AFP is trying to compete with the Nation, on accuracy !

[Ricardo]

Taking over an international airport = terrorism.

Simples.

and going to the airport, to welcome back the PM from an overseas-trip, is also terrorism ?

Yay for Red 'true democracy' !

[NongKhaiKid]

If my memory serves me correctly the sequence of events was Swampy was seized and then Don Muang. And PAD have not been very active in the past few years. But charging them with 'terrorism'? Hardly - unlawful demonstration more like it. Then compare them to the RED rabble with spiked bamboo, burning of tyres and then the city buildings, grenades being thrown - now there is a prime example of 'terrorism'. And their leaders now govern Thailand? Goes to show what should be rather than the digressing into this YELLOW rabble. Either way they should all be charged. But with RED PTP being the prosecutors, it is easy to see who is being charged.

Couldn't agree more but TIT. Amazing isn't it from whipping up a crowd to riot and commit arson to government ministers in a relatively easy move. The situation is easy to read though as PTP and the reds now make the rules and if there are any in existence that doesn't suit them they will be ignored and action taken against any judges who try to enforce the law

[NongKhaiKid]

Taking over an international airport = terrorism.

Simples.

Taking over an international airport = protesters.

I remember a BBC report from the airport where a very annoyed American told a young yellow shirt lady that he only wanted to go back to his country and she answered that they were only trying to protect theirs. It was wrong but hardly terrorism

[MunterHunter]

They are just trying to make something stick against the Yellow shirts to give them a better position to force through an Amnesty deal.

Lay as many charges as possible, for whatever they can get to stick, then when everyone is locked up in jail they will garner support for an Amnesty

[NCFC]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

I have found a few references that state that interference of normal operation of an international airport is a "criminal offence". I haven't found anything that states that it's an "act of terrorism".

Can you please point me to your reference?

"The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppresion of International Terrorism"

the international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:

• The 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
• The 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
• The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• The 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
• The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
• The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
• The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
• The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
• The 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism

These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:

(a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act - this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;

( they all focused on actions by non-State actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism - the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and

© they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes

[gemini81]

Wow. Defining the term 'Banana republic.'

Hope this administration gets handed theirs when they're not in office next.

[yellow1red1]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

yes, it's on the books as terrorism [ez to find in Wikipedia] ; however, since when is Thailand a signatory? Thailand wasn't on the list of signatories when I looked this matter up a few years ago.

[FarangTalk]

Some posters are unable (most likely unwilling due to political affiliations/Thaksin obsession (delete as appropriate)) to make a distinction between an international airport and another venue; one that does not involve civil and commercial aviation, a high level of security and is not subject to international laws and principles.

It's really quite fair and simple to comprehend.

No use crying over spilt milk now.

However the vast majority of Red Shirts were not involved in terrorist activities, and I expect those that were; bombings, grenade attacks etc, should be charged accordingly.

[whybother]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

I have found a few references that state that interference of normal operation of an international airport is a "criminal offence". I haven't found anything that states that it's an "act of terrorism".

Can you please point me to your reference?

"The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppresion of International Terrorism"

the international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:

• The 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
• The 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
• The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• The 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
• The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
• The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
• The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
• The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
• The 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism

These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:

(a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act - this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;

( they all focused on actions by non-State actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism - the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and

© they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes

The "1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation" defines certain acts at airports as "unlawful". It doesn't say that it is "terrorism".

[whybother]

Some posters are unable (most likely unwilling due to political affiliations/Thaksin obsession (delete as appropriate)) to make a distinction between an international airport and another venue; one that does not involve civil and commercial aviation, a high level of security and is not subject to international laws and principles.

It's really quite fair and simple to comprehend.

No use crying over spilt milk now.

However the vast majority of Red Shirts were not involved in terrorist activities, and I expect those that were; bombings, grenade attacks etc, should be charged accordingly.

Who has compared the protests at the airport to other venues?

[MunterHunter]

Wasn't the protest at the airport (mostly) peaceful? As i remember the Aviation Authority decided to close the airport - the Yellows originally went there to greet/capture/heckle someone, their intention was not to close the airport or stay there. When the Aviation authority decided to close the airport i guess the yellows decided to stay.

Of course, its not like the truth plays any part in the Red Democracy, so the reason for them going there will probably become irrelevant, even if the truth in this instance will be hotly contended by anyone not sympathetic to the Yellow shirt cause.

[FarangTalk]

Wasn't the protest at the airport (mostly) peaceful? As i remember the Aviation Authority decided to close the airport - the Yellows originally went there to greet/capture/heckle someone, their intention was not to close the airport or stay there. When the Aviation authority decided to close the airport i guess the yellows decided to stay.

Of course, its not like the truth plays any part in the Red Democracy, so the reason for them going there will probably become irrelevant, even if the truth in this instance will be hotly contended by anyone not sympathetic to the Yellow shirt cause.

That's utter nonsense. I saw the first 'yellows' arriving and can explicitly state it certainly was their intention to close the place down. They were barricading the roads leading to the terminal building as I arrived, stopping and checking vehicles. This first group I saw was an armed militia, so much so I initially thought they were actually Thai Army or some other military performing an assigned task. Upon closer inspection I saw they were dressed unusually with their faces covered and armed with more rudimentary weapons including machetes, sticks and clubs.

It was well organised and they knew exactly what they were doing.

It should be noted that these armed thugs started operations well before the main group of protesters arrived, they were young and there were no old grannies with hand-clappers among them as the fantasists who weren't there like to imagine.

Edited April 29, 2013 by FarangTalk

[dickyknee]

Taking over an international airport = terrorism.

Simples.

well, whenever the term "Terrorism" is used, it's not simples. have a read of the wiki on the subject.

[Thai at Heart]

Not bothering to get your own lawyer postpones the case? Amazing Thailand.

[virtualtraveller]

IN the post 9/11 era 'terrorism' is used very loosely and one mention of it and you're sure to get the sympathy of CNN and BBC. Neither the siege of an airport or a commercial district is acceptable. There are plenty of perfectly practical places to protest. The main planners of both were pretty aggressive, the Reds had a tendency to terrorise the public, but the PAD weren't innocent hand clappers either. Important thing is that both lots be put on trial simultaneously and their cases proceed without delay and that any amnesty is only granted AFTER the trial is concluded. Try them on the damages done and abuse of protest privilege, mentioning 'terrorism' is simply politically motivated nonsense. That way we can be sure future events like this don't happen again.

[Confuscious]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

I have found a few references that state that interference of normal operation of an international airport is a "criminal offence". I haven't found anything that states that it's an "act of terrorism".

Can you please point me to your reference?

"The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppresion of International Terrorism"

the international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:

• The 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
• The 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
• The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• The 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
• The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
• The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
• The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
• The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
• The 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism

These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:

(a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act - this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;

( they all focused on actions by non-State actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism - the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and

© they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes

It SUCKS for some people when the truth is written so clearly black on white.

[Locationthailand]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

What about seizure of a city or city block? Or is that a demonstration only? Ii thought that was an act of war!

[whybother]

It SUCKS for some people when the truth is written so clearly black on white.

Point out where any of the protocols say that protesting (and anything else that you want to say that the yellow shirts did) at an airport is terrorism if it is so black and white.

[philw]

It SUCKS for some people when the truth is written so clearly black on white.

Point out where any of the protocols say that protesting (and anything else that you want to say that the yellow shirts did) at an airport is terrorism if it is so black and white.

You are of course right, occupying the airport was a benign act intended not to damage the government of the time and wholly altruistic in it's motives.

Harmless fun in the mode of "sanuck"

[rubl]

Ah a harmless, sanuck occupation and a few grenades thrown-in for emphasize