Abhisit, Suthep Face More Murder Charges Over 2010 Strife

[nicknostitz]

"Murders' by persons unknown, no shooters found or charged, death resulting from civil unrest (read terrorism) and the executive being charged? What sort of Kangaroo Courts system/lawlessness is this? So bring it on and whilst at it, charge Thaksin, for paying the mercenaries and giving the order to shoot, and burn Bangkok over the deaths of the soldiers and other collateral damage. That is no different to any terrorist organisation. DSI should be emptied out of these peasant-politically-motivated management and real people put there. What a complete mockery of actual justice.

Before leveling such accusations against the court system, i would suggest to go into the details of the individual cases for which the military was ruled having fired the bullets.

1) in the case of Pan Kumkong (and the of the 14 year old boy and the cabdriver - same incident) the prosecution has, in addition to witness and forensic evidence, presented to the court a video which has shown how the soldiers have shot at the van. There just was no other ruling possible

2) In the case of Channarong Ponsrila there were many eye witnesses, including foreign journalists and Thai journalists, forensic evidence, photos and videos of the incident from several angles, one which has shown bullets fired from the military side hitting a wall behind which protesters, and several journalists including me were taking cover. The argumentation of the military - that a shooter from Samliem Dindaeng has shot Channarong - would have made it necessary, from the position of Channarong and the angle of the entry wound, that the bullet made a sharp curve in midair, just before entering his stomach. Which is quite impossible.

3) Chatchai Chalao was shot a in front of at least a dozen journalists (including me) who accompanied a group of maybe 60 Red Shirts protesters walking towards a military line at Rama IV road. None of the protesters was armed and/or shot a firearm at the soldiers.It was more than clear that the only bullets fired were fired from the military lines 100 or so meters away.

4) in the case of Narongrit Sala, who was shot and died in front of me, the prosecutors have also presented a video which has shown a soldier firing bursts of automatic fire from his rifle at protesters (who were throwing stones and bottles at security forces on the street below) on the tollway an hour or so before the death of Narongrit (which injured one man who was shot in the head but survived. This video has quite clearly proven how careless and undisciplined the soldiers acted that day.

5) in the case of Thanuthat Assawasiri-mankong the court ruled that he died from an illness, but he was paralyzed after having been shot by soldiers. I have visited him in late 2010 or early 2011 in his apartment in Bon Gai. I have interviewed him and several witnesses of the incident.

In the two cases the courts ruled the cause of death as inconclusive, but did not explicitly absolve the military. It could simply not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the military fired the bullets that killed the people.

The court rulings may go against your and others believe system and political convictions, but this is about proof and evidence. Just because the cases were not highlighted much, and investigations were slowed down until after the change of government a new investigation commission was set up does not make the judgements political. What was 'political' was the pressure to finally bring the cases to court, after such a long time.

But they were judged according to the evidence, or in the inconclusive cases by lack of evidence. Which should also make it quite clear that the judgements were not political, as if that were to be true, all cases would have been ruled against the military. Which they weren't.

The only thing that is political here in this discussion is to attack how the courts have ruled in these cases.

Agree with you, in that the courts ruled on the evidence presented. However, how many times have the leaders of the government in another country been charged with murder based on similar scenarios? The DSI is completely poitically motivated and should be purged urgently.

If you take part in riots and acts of terrorism you do put yourself at serious risk. If you throw stones, petrol bombs, use sling shots etc you increase the risk of the situation escalating. There have been many instances of people being killed when this happens - US students prostesting against Vietnam war, Irish republican supporters on Bloody Sunday, many Palestinians in clashes with the IDF. The countries I've used as examples would all claim to be supporters of democracy, freedom and justice. Yet not one former or in office PM, President, or senior Minister has been charged with murder.

Maybe that's because they have a sworn duty to uphold the law and protect their people from attacks from criminals, terrorists, and those trying to pervert the constitution to empower themselves.

The DSI makes Thailand a laughing stock with these clearly politically motivated charges. It might have more credibility if similar charges were brought against those who financed and directed the rioters, and clearly did break laws.

I guess it depends on the situation as well, especially regarding on who was the executive in charge, and who gave which orders. While i am not familiar enough with the incidents of the countries you mentioned in order to state anything of worth here, i am quite familiar with what occurred on the streets in Bangkok during 2010 (and all other incidents during the past 7+ years of the present conflict.

I am only aware through second hand information on what took place in CRES councils and in the 11th infantry regiment, but we do have had the situation in 2010 in which the CRES was *directly* overseen by Abhisit and especially Suthep, and not delegated. This particular situation makes it quite logical that both Abhisit and Suthep are charged. They were not just in government, and let others deal with the situation - they directly commanded through their CRES directorship the security forces.

What i personally believe is a somewhat political interpretation of the law is the decision not to charge the for the tactics and strategy responsible military officers in CRES. And i have my own thoughts which i am not voicing here on why that particular decision has been made.

What you here pre-judge as "terrorism" the courts have to rule first on. And these trials are presently taking place in the criminal courts.

Again, trials are not based on what i or you believe, or what political convictions we carry - but on evidence and interpretation of existing laws.

What i have seen so far in the cases related to 2010 (and some of them i have directly observed in court) is that the courts were apart from a few details (such as rejecting in several cases bail where there was no reason to) working quite well, based on evidence and not on politics. I can only repeat my suggestion to attend these trials and to observe them, which would be a lot more useful than debating mere opinions here on this forum.

[Baerboxer]

As the DSI seems to do the charging, speaking against it is not speaking against the court. The court may or may not accept the charges, and even when accepting them may still rule to drop the charges or really get into it.

With the courts at the moment only concluding inquests on what the DSI called the easy cases, the results should not be surprising. The 'clean up' action got less proper with the almost daily attacks with grenades and the 'unknowns' appearing by nightfall.

The only political part here is the translation of 'military bullet' into 'charge Abhisit/Suthep for murder'.

The courts have ruled these inquests in who fired the bullets that killed those people. The cases are now back at the DSI, which will investigate further, and then hand them to the prosecution which will decide (together with the DSI) if additional charges will be made. What here may be somewhat political is that only the two responsible people in government - Suthep and Abhisit - are charged - while the responsible soldiers are allowed to slip through a loophole in the law and are not charged.

Culpability, etc, are then decided by the courts. I would suggest to wait and see what the courts rule in those cases before judging them.

Right now though these rulings in the inquests now are heavily attacked by some people here, under complete disregard of the evidence that was presented at court, and on which those rulings were based upon.

But the courts have to rule over the cases of the deaths of these people. Or are you suggesting here that the courts should not get involved in these cases, or completely ignore evidence, just because you and others do not like Red Shirts?

As already 5 cases were ruled against the military, what do you suggest to do? Don't file additional charges against the people who at the time issued orders for the soldiers to crack down on the Red Shirts because you agree politically with them and don't like the Red Shirts?

Do you have any proof that those cases were misjudged and the soldiers did not fire the bullets that killed these people - a fact that over the past three years many posters on Thaivisa have disputed?

The judgements stand, regardless of some of you people are left with egg in your faces given your relentless defense of the indefensible, and constant attacks and attempts of character assassination against anyone who dared to differ with your version of the events.

Not political?

How would you explain Tarit's role in all this as a member of the same committee that made the decision to deploy troops as those charged?

Your having a laugh!!!!

It is quite funny how the same people that applauded Tarit under the Abhisit government are now attacking Tarit under the PT government. Are you surprised that he is just doing what he has always done?

While there were quite a few most likely politically motivated or inspired decisions by Tarit, such as stalling the cases against the military under the Abhisit government, and now following backroom deals of only charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder, and letting the responsible solders off, the cases themselves are based on evidence - forensic-, witness-, video- and photo-, and are judged by the courts based on the presented evidence and *not* on politics.

If the charges against Abhisit and Suthep would be purely politically motivated, then these two will be declared innocent by the courts, and you shouldn't worry about them or the charges.

They are certainly more political than the criminal conviction and outstanding criminal charges levied against a certain fugitive!

[nicknostitz]

As the DSI seems to do the charging, speaking against it is not speaking against the court. The court may or may not accept the charges, and even when accepting them may still rule to drop the charges or really get into it.

With the courts at the moment only concluding inquests on what the DSI called the easy cases, the results should not be surprising. The 'clean up' action got less proper with the almost daily attacks with grenades and the 'unknowns' appearing by nightfall.

The only political part here is the translation of 'military bullet' into 'charge Abhisit/Suthep for murder'.

The courts have ruled these inquests in who fired the bullets that killed those people. The cases are now back at the DSI, which will investigate further, and then hand them to the prosecution which will decide (together with the DSI) if additional charges will be made. What here may be somewhat political is that only the two responsible people in government - Suthep and Abhisit - are charged - while the responsible soldiers are allowed to slip through a loophole in the law and are not charged.

Culpability, etc, are then decided by the courts. I would suggest to wait and see what the courts rule in those cases before judging them.

Right now though these rulings in the inquests now are heavily attacked by some people here, under complete disregard of the evidence that was presented at court, and on which those rulings were based upon.

But the courts have to rule over the cases of the deaths of these people. Or are you suggesting here that the courts should not get involved in these cases, or completely ignore evidence, just because you and others do not like Red Shirts?

As already 5 cases were ruled against the military, what do you suggest to do? Don't file additional charges against the people who at the time issued orders for the soldiers to crack down on the Red Shirts because you agree politically with them and don't like the Red Shirts?

Do you have any proof that those cases were misjudged and the soldiers did not fire the bullets that killed these people - a fact that over the past three years many posters on Thaivisa have disputed?

The judgements stand, regardless of some of you people are left with egg in your faces given your relentless defense of the indefensible, and constant attacks and attempts of character assassination against anyone who dared to differ with your version of the events.

Not political?

How would you explain Tarit's role in all this as a member of the same committee that made the decision to deploy troops as those charged?

Your having a laugh!!!!

It is quite funny how the same people that applauded Tarit under the Abhisit government are now attacking Tarit under the PT government. Are you surprised that he is just doing what he has always done?

While there were quite a few most likely politically motivated or inspired decisions by Tarit, such as stalling the cases against the military under the Abhisit government, and now following backroom deals of only charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder, and letting the responsible solders off, the cases themselves are based on evidence - forensic-, witness-, video- and photo-, and are judged by the courts based on the presented evidence and *not* on politics.

If the charges against Abhisit and Suthep would be purely politically motivated, then these two will be declared innocent by the courts, and you shouldn't worry about them or the charges.

I've never applauded Tarit in my life.

And if authorising live fire in self defence is murder then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I've yet to see any evidence that proves beyond doubt that the army killed anyone. The evidence points that way for sure but is purely circumstantial.

Tarit has a massive conflict of interest here too.

It's quite easy not to have seen the evidence when you did not make the effort to look.

During the trials the evidence has been presented, some of which i have described in my first post here. The next step in the trials will decide upon if these situations were self defense situations or not. What i can tell you here, based on what i have quite clearly seen, is that more than a few of those situations were *not* in self-defense ( a few incidents were though), and the evidence is overwhelming - video, photo, forensic, etc.

For example - i was not shot at in self defense (unless you call my camera as a weapon), and so was not Chaiwat - the Nation photographer, who was clearly identifiable as such, and who was crippled for life on just on the opposite side of the road from where i was - which was the case of Channarong Ponsrila, who was killed there.

[nicknostitz]

Quite frankly, based on reading more of your posts, you need to grow up. It's awful that anybody gets killed like this. But, those breaking the law i.e the red shirts are just as guilty as any slodier who looses dicipline and fires indesrimanantly. However, the soldiers have a right to protect themselves and the rioting criminals were given warnings of the consequences of their actions.

Wasn't the DSI leader part of the emergency management team? Don't see any charges against him. Perhaps he's above the law, like his no found political friends.

The PM's speech in Mongolia is an attempt to re-write history and present a one sided view. These DSI actions add to the message - disagree with us at your peril. Intimadation, threat, supression, via rent a thugs or quasi so called departments of justice are the methods of many former political parties - communist and facist. The one thing they share is a thirst for power at any cost, dictatorial power and the ability to write history as they see it.

Unbiased journalists are few and far between and again we can see that here. I don't support any colour shirts (apart from sports) but I do comment about blatant misuse of power in the name of justice, and clear political propoganda.

Would you mind staying within the limits of politeness. Just because i do not agree with you does not give you the right to tell me that i "need to grow up", or suggest that i may be biased.

[Pi Sek]

They are certainly more political than the criminal conviction and outstanding criminal charges levied against a certain fugitive!

Thaksin's obvious guilt in his corruption conviction (and the contrast between his implausible deniability and Abhisit/Suthep's plausible deniability in the outstanding ones) shouldn't really have any direct bearing on this discussion. But we all know it does.

[Baerboxer]

Quite frankly, based on reading more of your posts, you need to grow up. It's awful that anybody gets killed like this. But, those breaking the law i.e the red shirts are just as guilty as any slodier who looses dicipline and fires indesrimanantly. However, the soldiers have a right to protect themselves and the rioting criminals were given warnings of the consequences of their actions.

Wasn't the DSI leader part of the emergency management team? Don't see any charges against him. Perhaps he's above the law, like his no found political friends.

The PM's speech in Mongolia is an attempt to re-write history and present a one sided view. These DSI actions add to the message - disagree with us at your peril. Intimadation, threat, supression, via rent a thugs or quasi so called departments of justice are the methods of many former political parties - communist and facist. The one thing they share is a thirst for power at any cost, dictatorial power and the ability to write history as they see it.

Unbiased journalists are few and far between and again we can see that here. I don't support any colour shirts (apart from sports) but I do comment about blatant misuse of power in the name of justice, and clear political propoganda.

Would you mind staying within the limits of politeness. Just because i do not agree with you does not give you the right to tell me that i "need to grow up", or suggest that i may be biased.

Happy to do so, and no impoliteness intended. Might I politely suggest you read through some of your posts and perhaps consider if accusing people of not making the effort to luck etc could also be taken as impolite.

People are free to make comments. Some research things carefully, some from experiences, whilst others may be expressing an opinion based on their world view. All should be welcome and stimulate the discussion.

Hopefully none of this should detract from discussing seriuosly the direction that Thailand seems to be heading for which affects all of us and our families who live here.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Baerboxer

[pgrahmm]

A total Farce .............................

[khunken]

To paraphrase Mr Nostitz 'somebody has to be charged' - I would have thought that was the purpose of the current court investigations into each case - to find the guilty party. If the finding is 'the army', unknown, accidental or whatever, then, given the army's protection under the Emergency law, that concludes the case.

Using the DSI under Tarit to instigate prosecutions is pure political vendetta. It is rather clear given the other trumped-up charges they are levelling against Abhisit & Suthep. It is worse when Tarit himself was involved in the CRES when the laws governing the army were invoked.

To my knowledge there has been no investigation into who controlled the red shirts, where the money for paying many of them came from, the command of the MIB & the collusion of the police with the red short leaders & in failing to do their job.

Whether Abhisit or Suthep will ever be found guilty is not the point which is why they are being targetted. It's not hard to understand why.

[looping]

This is all so wrong and so predictable. I remember in the 2010 'Shindig', Abhisit had agreed to an election, but the reds said they didn't believe him and the govt was eventually forced to play into Thaksin's hands by issuing a crackdown.

After all, how could an Amnesty be accepted if only one side has wrongdoings?

With Abhisits life on the line, the Democrats will be forced into submission. As usual a grim assessment.

[nicknostitz]

Without KNOWING who fired the bullets then the individual responsible remains as persons unknown.

The subject here is Abhisit and Suthep being charged with murder. And that's a political and trumped up charge.

Is it so difficult to understand that as Abhist and Suthep were both *directly* overseeing CRES (Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation), they are responsible for the orders given. Given that unarmed protesters were ruled by the courts as having been killed by soldiers during the by CRES ordered actions against the Red Shirt protesters, and are by nature a violation of the rules of engagement.

It is the duty of investigators and the courts to find out if the orders given by CRES were violations, or not. So, these charges, based on the results of inquests are unavoidable. If Abhisit or Suthep get convicted or not depends on what comes to light during the trial. Simple as that.

To advocate not to charge them is attempting to squash the truth of what took place in 2010. For this reason i have no problem with the charges against the UDD leadership, the same way - they will get convicted or exonerated depending on evidence.

Anyone who advocates only to charge the UDD leadership, but not the leadership of CRES over 2010 should really think about logic and why we have courts. People died, and society has the right to find out as much of the truth as possible - and that is generally done in the courts.

[whybother]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged?

Sent from my Phone.

[Skywalker69]

IMO Thaksins revenge

So far about the only thing the DSI hasn't accused the Democrats of is causing all the deaths and injuries over Songkran

Quiet please, don´t give them any ideas.

[khunken]

Without KNOWING who fired the bullets then the individual responsible remains as persons unknown.

The subject here is Abhisit and Suthep being charged with murder. And that's a political and trumped up charge.

Is it so difficult to understand that as Abhist and Suthep were both *directly* overseeing CRES (Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation), they are responsible for the orders given. Given that unarmed protesters were ruled by the courts as having been killed by soldiers during the by CRES ordered actions against the Red Shirt protesters, and are by nature a violation of the rules of engagement.

It is the duty of investigators and the courts to find out if the orders given by CRES were violations, or not. So, these charges, based on the results of inquests are unavoidable. If Abhisit or Suthep get convicted or not depends on what comes to light during the trial. Simple as that.

To advocate not to charge them is attempting to squash the truth of what took place in 2010. For this reason i have no problem with the charges against the UDD leadership, the same way - they will get convicted or exonerated depending on evidence.

Anyone who advocates only to charge the UDD leadership, but not the leadership of CRES over 2010 should really think about logic and why we have courts. People died, and society has the right to find out as much of the truth as possible - and that is generally done in the courts.

People died, and society has the right to find out as much of the truth as possible - and that is generally done in the courts.

No it's not. At best (which is even more unlikely in Thailand) the courts can only rule on what is presented to them. When the presentation is one-sided, no truth can emerge. I'm not referring to the current court cases which are only endeavouring to find out how each person died.

When a politically motivated organisation like the DSI is involved in deciding who to charge, all pretence of fairness & justice goes out the window.

What should have happened is an independent body set up to determine the overall & more detailed causes of the deaths. Something similar to a Royal Commission in the UK. Yes, the previous government should have set it in motion.

The prosecution of the red shirt leaders is farcial (without going into it here). That would be equivalent to prosecuting the Army commanders, which is not possible under the law. Bringing Abhisit & Suthep into the equation misses bringing in the overall leader(s) of the red shirts & MIB. In other words, it is a political decision, not based on justice.

[Thait Spot]

Without KNOWING who fired the bullets then the individual responsible remains as persons unknown.

The subject here is Abhisit and Suthep being charged with murder. And that's a political and trumped up charge.

Is it so difficult to understand that as Abhist and Suthep were both *directly* overseeing CRES (Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation), they are responsible for the orders given. Given that unarmed protesters were ruled by the courts as having been killed by soldiers during the by CRES ordered actions against the Red Shirt protesters, and are by nature a violation of the rules of engagement.

It is the duty of investigators and the courts to find out if the orders given by CRES were violations, or not. So, these charges, based on the results of inquests are unavoidable. If Abhisit or Suthep get convicted or not depends on what comes to light during the trial. Simple as that.

To advocate not to charge them is attempting to squash the truth of what took place in 2010. For this reason i have no problem with the charges against the UDD leadership, the same way - they will get convicted or exonerated depending on evidence.

Anyone who advocates only to charge the UDD leadership, but not the leadership of CRES over 2010 should really think about logic and why we have courts. People died, and society has the right to find out as much of the truth as possible - and that is generally done in the courts.

By that same token, is it so difficult to understand that Tarit isn't being charged as a key member of CRES..

You are using the terms 'unarmed' and 'protesters' in a general manner and that's misleading as is the term 'CRES ordered'

I'm afraid your bias has discredited you

[metisdead]

Posts in which the quoted content was mis-attributed have been removed as well as inflammatory in nature posts.

[nicknostitz]

Without KNOWING who fired the bullets then the individual responsible remains as persons unknown.

The subject here is Abhisit and Suthep being charged with murder. And that's a political and trumped up charge.

Is it so difficult to understand that as Abhist and Suthep were both *directly* overseeing CRES (Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation), they are responsible for the orders given. Given that unarmed protesters were ruled by the courts as having been killed by soldiers during the by CRES ordered actions against the Red Shirt protesters, and are by nature a violation of the rules of engagement.

It is the duty of investigators and the courts to find out if the orders given by CRES were violations, or not. So, these charges, based on the results of inquests are unavoidable. If Abhisit or Suthep get convicted or not depends on what comes to light during the trial. Simple as that.

To advocate not to charge them is attempting to squash the truth of what took place in 2010. For this reason i have no problem with the charges against the UDD leadership, the same way - they will get convicted or exonerated depending on evidence.

Anyone who advocates only to charge the UDD leadership, but not the leadership of CRES over 2010 should really think about logic and why we have courts. People died, and society has the right to find out as much of the truth as possible - and that is generally done in the courts.

By that same token, is it so difficult to understand that Tarit isn't being charged as a key member of CRES..

You are using the terms 'unarmed' and 'protesters' in a general manner and that's misleading as is the term 'CRES ordered'

I'm afraid your bias has discredited you

Excuse my generalization - out of the 5 persons ruled by the courts having been shot dead by the military 2 were unarmed protesters, one was a uninvolved minor, one an uninvolved adult (as far as i know Pan was not a protester), and one was a soldier.

I use the term 'unarmed protester' as opposed to 'armed militant', which would have been by all means legal targets.

But none of the cases so far ruled by the courts were such armed militants. 3 of those were shot in front of me, and i can assure you that none were armed (other than Priv. Narongrit, of course, but he wasn't an armed militant, but a soldier on duty).

The soldiers were acting on orders of CRES, by chain of command, or would you suggest here that somebody else we don't know about ordered the soldiers? Otherwise i do not see what your problem is with my use of the term 'CRES' ordered.

As to your accusation of me being "biased" - it gets stale and boring. But nevertheless - it is a flame, and i am not amused.

Edited May 6, 2013 by nicknostitz

[nicknostitz]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

[whybother]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

[khunken]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

Exactly

[nicknostitz]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

If your relative would have been killed by the army would you also think that it is alright not to charge the ones responsible?

Therefore, no, i don't think that it should stop there.

And i am not even going here at this place into the problems concerning the emergency decree, when it was issued, it's legal definitions, the curtailing of civil rights, and if issuing this emergency decree was actually justified by law, or a far too liberal interpretation of the law, and/or abuses of the law that seem to have been conveniently covered by the laws ruling the emergency decree (such as blocking Prachatai, quite direct threats against the media by the government on subjects that we are not to cover, and how to cover other subjects, etc).

This would be rather off topic, but i would suggest to privately look into these matters.

[nicknostitz]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

Exactly

Quite fascinating how some of you people here seem to support and justify Thailand's culture of impunity...

[AleG]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

Exactly

Quite fascinating how some of you people here seem to support and justify Thailand's culture of impunity...

That would be PTP pushing to go after Abhisit and Suthep instead of the Army so they can score political points, truth and justice be da#ned.

[longtom]

Thank you nicknostitz for the valuable information about the court cases, I'm glad to hear that they are handled in a not too biased way (it's very difficult to get any information about these ongoing cases).

I also always appreciate your personal eywitness accounts of the events.

No reasonable person would deny that the military killed many protesters, as decided in these cases.

But I just cannot agree on your insisting that that Abhisit/Suthep (as much as I loath the 2nd) must be held responsible for that. It is insane to put a PM on the stand for a lowly soldier killing a protestor in a country where the military has so much power (or in any country !).

My comments are very simple, I know, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if many TV members would agree (maybe preposterous).

Again, I very much appreciate your engagement and reports of these events (and your books). I'm sure you'll have your place in history.

[Thai at Heart]

Much as I disagree with Nick's stance on most things, the logic in this post regarding whether or not Abhisit and Suthep should be charged is undeniable. The Chalerm idea of "let's just forget about it" isn't going to fix anything.

There should be no reason that neither Abhisit nor Suthep should be charged with murder, especially given their public stance that they were always willing to answer for their actions during 2010. If the courts are neutral - and I have no reason to think they won't be - then a fair judgement can be given and the country can move on to the next accused (if not guilty) or the next issue (if guilty). Personally I think they have nothing to be worried about, their rules of engagement were clearly stated prior to any operations and if any of the soldiers were over-zealous on the triggers it was probably caused by panic. The least that all of the higher echelons of the CRES have is "plausible deniability", which is more than the UDD leaders can offer.

So, the question remains, who else should be charged (argument goes for both sides)? Of course, there should be plenty of others. Some have been charged, some haven't, and some have been charged without good reason - and that is where both the partisan nature of the Thai political divide and the lack of impartiality of the DSI under both Democrat- and Peua Thai-led governments have stifled and continue to stifle hopes for reconciliation.

There is also the question of evidence. In court things have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on existing laws. Just the believe that one side did something will not lead to a conviction. In many cases there simply is not enough evidence available - given the chaos of many of the incidents. This counts for both sides, naturally.

I personally believe it will be very hard to prove Abhisit's and Suthep's guilt, especially when excluding the military from charges. I cannot see either that terrorism charges against Red Shirt leaders can hold up in court, as the courts will have to prove that there is a direct link between armed militants and the UDD leadership.

Several trials that would have been conductive for terrorism charges have already collapsed, such as the Central World burning trials. I have closely followed the Saichon and Pinit case - and what was presented in court against the two was not just only thin, it was absolutely nothing (such as Saichon having been arrested based on a photo that has shown a completely different person, who held a fire extinguisher, and not even an incendiary device), begging to question why those two spent almost three years in prison, and bail requests were consistently refused.

Convicting them in murder charges is going to be virtually impossible.

The issue should be investigated is whether the actions of the army were in accordance with the rules of engagement, and whether ask soldiers and their commanding officers were completely aware of the rules of engagement.

[nicknostitz]

That would be PTP pushing to go after Abhisit and Suthep instead of the Army so they can score political points, truth and justice be da#ned.

To some extend i agree with this sentiment.

Only two caveats - PT is not a unified block, and behind the scenes

there are strong disagreements in the party over this particular issue.

Many of the Red Shirts in the party are not happy about this, while the

purely parliamentary wing has never been part of the Red Shirts, and

does not like the Red Shirts either, and does not agree with the Red

Shirt's aims.

Secondly, i would not use the term "to go after

Abhisit and Suthep instead". It was quite clear that both will be facing

charges, both have always maintained as well that they are willing to

explain themselves at court. It only came as a surprise that the army

sailed so easily through not being charged. There may be reasons for

that which i am not going into here other than saying that the Thai army

can be seen as a state within the state. Nevertheless, under the army

there are strong disagreements over this issue as well, and many

soldiers would like to see the army charged.

Things aren't simple in this conflict.

[nicknostitz]

Thank you nicknostitz for the valuable information about the court cases, I'm glad to hear that they are handled in a not too biased way (it's very difficult to get any information about these ongoing cases).

I also always appreciate your personal eywitness accounts of the events.

No reasonable person would deny that the military killed many protesters, as decided in these cases.

But I just cannot agree on your insisting that that Abhisit/Suthep (as much as I loath the 2nd) must be held responsible for that. It is insane to put a PM on the stand for a lowly soldier killing a protestor in a country where the military has so much power (or in any country !).

My comments are very simple, I know, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if many TV members would agree (maybe preposterous).

Again, I very much appreciate your engagement and reports of these events (and your books). I'm sure you'll have your place in history.

Thanks for the comment.

I believe that Abhisit and Suthep should be charged.

If they should be and/or can be held responsible is then up to the court to decide, and it will depend on the evidence presented. I do not know enough about the inner workings of the CRES to state that Abhisit and/or Suthep are to be held responsible, legally. I just hope that part of the trial will be that more of the inner workings on CRES are made public, such as orders, decision making processes, etc

[nicknostitz]

Convicting them in murder charges is going to be virtually impossible.

The issue should be investigated is whether the actions of the army were in accordance with the rules of engagement, and whether ask soldiers and their commanding officers were completely aware of the rules of engagement.

I agree, especially what you said regarding the rules of engagement.

I personally have difficulties to see convictions against Abhisit or Suthep. But i am neither a lawyer, nor in possession of CRES documents, which could possibly say a lot. I also do not know of course what documents the DSI and the prosecution got hold of in order to support their decision to charge the two.

A trial will hopefully bring more clarity and transparency.

[Sayonarax]

Stand by folks, the apologists and Red Shirt fans will arrive soon.

Please do share your wisdom, oh wise master..

[Thai at Heart]

Thank you nicknostitz for the valuable information about the court cases, I'm glad to hear that they are handled in a not too biased way (it's very difficult to get any information about these ongoing cases).

I also always appreciate your personal eywitness accounts of the events.

No reasonable person would deny that the military killed many protesters, as decided in these cases.

But I just cannot agree on your insisting that that Abhisit/Suthep (as much as I loath the 2nd) must be held responsible for that. It is insane to put a PM on the stand for a lowly soldier killing a protestor in a country where the military has so much power (or in any country !).

My comments are very simple, I know, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if many TV members would agree (maybe preposterous).

Again, I very much appreciate your engagement and reports of these events (and your books). I'm sure you'll have your place in history.

Thanks for the comment.

I believe that Abhisit and Suthep should be charged.

If they should be and/or can be held responsible is then up to the court to decide, and it will depend on the evidence presented. I do not know enough about the inner workings of the CRES to state that Abhisit and/or Suthep are to be held responsible, legally. I just hope that part of the trial will be that more of the inner workings on CRES are made public, such as orders, decision making processes, etc

They could be charged with all sorts of things potentially, but murder is a huge stretch. Much like charging the reds with terrorists had all sorts of legal ramifications for other issues, charging these guys for murder is very unlikely to succeed.

[khunken]

Just because the army can't be charged, doesn't mean that they weren't responsible. Why does someone else need to be charged? Sent from my Phone.

Well, i completely agree that the army should be charged as well.

If an inquest finds that the army was responsible and given that the army apparently can't be charged, shouldn't it stop there?

Sent from my Phone.

Exactly

Quite fascinating how some of you people here seem to support and justify Thailand's culture of impunity...

Equally fascinating how you deliberately misrepresent others' views.

I do not support any 'culture of impunity' as you so simply put it. What I do support is justice & fairness, which is in short supply in the current political environment here today.

You support Abhisit & Suthep being tried for murder or accessories to murder. You do not explain how they might receive a fair trial. You also seem to have a very selective agenda regarding who should be made responsible for the riots & protests in 2010. Nothing about the power behind the red shirts & MIB who are at the equivalent level to Abhisit & Suthep.

Using the politicised DSI to investigate & instigate charges (along with all the other trumped-up charges which you choose to ignore) is not going to satisfy real justice - only the revenge type of 'justice' sought by some sections of the red shirts.

The major problem is the impunity allowed under the law for the military. That is where the blame is & shifting the blame to find someone else to take it is part of Thailands ' culture of scapegoatism'.