D S I To File Murder Charges Against Abhisit, Suthep; Fabio Polenghi

[jonclark]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

I suggest all people read the HRW document and then decide what they would have done had they been in charge. It's easy to sit an scoff or praise with the benefit of hindsight and a comfy chair. Leaders, choose to lead, Taksin, Jatuporn, Abhisit were all leaders at the time and all are equally culpable for the deaths of the soldiers, and Redshirts.

" There will be blood on the streets.... our patience is running out, we will take serious measures to retaliate, the dark sky will turn red, red like blood" - Jatuporn Arpil 10 2010.

Would you have sat by idly and been passive, like Chamberlin did with Hitler or would you have been more active? This is not about right or wrong its about whether you'd have quelled serious civil unrest or let it continue if you were a leader. What action would the Americans, French, British or Italians have demanded from their governments, when negotiations failed had the streets of Washington, Pairs, London and Rome been taken over and mass violence threatened?

[Thai at Heart]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

The ROE quoted by the HRW (wrong date quoted by HRW) were those that the Army Spokesman said they were following.

The Army said a lot of things, they hadn't shot anyone, they didn't use live ammunition, they didn't have snipers (they were the more cuddly sounding "marksmen" it turned out), they didn't have any troops on the line above the Wat, they didn't shoot into the Wat, they were fired on from inside the Wat, need I go on.

Just how truthful do you think the Army Spokesman (promoted after the event, presumably for services to the entertainment industry) was?

Well, why doesn't someone subpoena the army spokesman and challenge his patently untrue statements? As yes, that leads to a coup, so can't be done. I don't think there are any pictures of Abhisit or Suthep pulling a trigger anywhere. In fact, one would have to prove that the killings were actually unlawful, which comes back to the terms of engagement.

[Thai at Heart]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

I suggest all people read the HRW document and then decide what they would have done had they been in charge. It's easy to sit an scoff or praise with the benefit of hindsight and a comfy chair. Leaders, choose to lead, Taksin, Jatuporn, Abhisit were all leaders at the time and all are equally culpable for the deaths of the soldiers, and Redshirts.

" There will be blood on the streets.... our patience is running out, we will take serious measures to retaliate, the dark sky will turn red, red like blood" - Jatuporn Arpil 10 2010.

Would you have sat by idly and been passive, like Chamberlin did with Hitler or would you have been more active? This is not about right or wrong its about whether you'd have quelled serious civil unrest or let it continue if you were a leader. What action would the Americans, French, British or Italians have demanded from their governments, when negotiations failed had the streets of Washington, Pairs, London and Rome been taken over and mass violence threatened?

The issue is did Abhisit or Suthep commit murder, not whether the government of the day was justified in calling in the army to break up the protests. The army was given rules of engagement to comply with. Did they comply? In specific cases, no.

So if the orders are broken about how they can effect the clearance of the protest, it is the army in the wrong, NOT Abhisit and Suthep. The obligation is on the prosecution to prove that the soldier who did pull the trigger genuinely believed that the Italian journalist was a terrorist or not, or was he just shooting at anything that moved. If he was ordered to shoot at anything that moved, then his superior is guilty.

It he was shooting at anything that moved, he is in breach of the terms of engagement and is guilty of an unlawful killing, at least manslaughter, possibly murder.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Rich teacher]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

I suggest all people read the HRW document and then decide what they would have done had they been in charge. It's easy to sit an scoff or praise with the benefit of hindsight and a comfy chair. Leaders, choose to lead, Taksin, Jatuporn, Abhisit were all leaders at the time and all are equally culpable for the deaths of the soldiers, and Redshirts.

" There will be blood on the streets.... our patience is running out, we will take serious measures to retaliate, the dark sky will turn red, red like blood" - Jatuporn Arpil 10 2010.

Would you have sat by idly and been passive, like Chamberlin did with Hitler or would you have been more active? This is not about right or wrong its about whether you'd have quelled serious civil unrest or let it continue if you were a leader. What action would the Americans, French, British or Italians have demanded from their governments, when negotiations failed had the streets of Washington, Pairs, London and Rome been taken over and mass violence threatened?

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

[amore]

Is there anything in the universe more ridiculous than Thai politics?

A good question. Even by comparison the 'Monster Raving Looney Party' in the UK are a serious political adversary. To my knowledge only the Zaringian Tharung party for the equality of single cell life forms on Planet Zaring in the Delta Quadrant are anywhere near as ridiculous as PTP.

I can't believe they bother to put up charges that they have virtually zero chance of proving. Of course, they are part of the prosecution service, but it shows how ridiculous the whole system is that you are able to pursue charges that you have a snowballs chance in hell of prevaling with. This goes with the charges of terrorism against the other side.

Charge them with all sorts of things, but murder? All it does is cause massive inconvenience and eventually the dismissal of charges. I would suggest that the prosecutor would, in other parts of the world, be charged with wasting the courts time.

It all depends on whether Amersterdams evidence about the revised ROE is true doesn't it? If it is, Abhisit and Suthep have a lot of explaining to do. Why did they allow the establishment of "live fire" zones (never used as part of crowd control/suppression procedures anywhere in the world before) when they knew the revised ROE would result in more civilian casualties? Why did they allow this to go on for a further 5 days?

[whybother]

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

[Rich teacher]

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

No, because the voter's representatives had been told in no uncertain terms by the Chief of the Army that there was only one choice for PM. They were not acting as representatives of the voters, they were ordered.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

Is there anything in the universe more ridiculous than Thai politics?

A good question. Even by comparison the 'Monster Raving Looney Party' in the UK are a serious political adversary. To my knowledge only the Zaringian Tharung party for the equality of single cell life forms on Planet Zaring in the Delta Quadrant are anywhere near as ridiculous as PTP.

I can't believe they bother to put up charges that they have virtually zero chance of proving. Of course, they are part of the prosecution service, but it shows how ridiculous the whole system is that you are able to pursue charges that you have a snowballs chance in hell of prevaling with. This goes with the charges of terrorism against the other side.

Charge them with all sorts of things, but murder? All it does is cause massive inconvenience and eventually the dismissal of charges. I would suggest that the prosecutor would, in other parts of the world, be charged with wasting the courts time.

It all depends on whether Amersterdams evidence about the revised ROE is true doesn't it? If it is, Abhisit and Suthep have a lot of explaining to do. Why did they allow the establishment of "live fire" zones (never used as part of crowd control/suppression procedures anywhere in the world before) when they knew the revised ROE would result in more civilian casualties? Why did they allow this to go on for a further 5 days?

Well, I found the report from Human Rights Watch where the terms of engagement differ from the one's proffered by Amsterdam. They may have been quite general, but clear enough in my mind under which circumstances the army were allowed to shoot or not.

The issue lies with the soldiers conduct, not whether Abhisit personally murdered anyone.

[amore]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

The ROE quoted by the HRW (wrong date quoted by HRW) were those that the Army Spokesman said they were following.

The Army said a lot of things, they hadn't shot anyone, they didn't use live ammunition, they didn't have snipers (they were the more cuddly sounding "marksmen" it turned out), they didn't have any troops on the line above the Wat, they didn't shoot into the Wat, they were fired on from inside the Wat, need I go on.

Just how truthful do you think the Army Spokesman (promoted after the event, presumably for services to the entertainment industry) was?

Well, why doesn't someone subpoena the army spokesman and challenge his patently untrue statements? As yes, that leads to a coup, so can't be done. I don't think there are any pictures of Abhisit or Suthep pulling a trigger anywhere. In fact, one would have to prove that the killings were actually unlawful, which comes back to the terms of engagement.

"In fact, one would have to prove that the killings were actually unlawful, which comes back to the terms of engagement."

Precisely, and if the revised ROE are recognised as illegal, those responsible for authorising that ROE are ultimately responsible for the deaths that arose from it as they will have been illegal killings, hence the case. Why do you think that every time that the military are found responsible for the killing of a civilian that death is added to the case against Abhisit and Suthep?

[whybother]

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

No, because the voter's representatives had been told in no uncertain terms by the Chief of the Army that there was only one choice for PM. They were not acting as representatives of the voters, they were ordered.

.

Reading to much red shirt propaganda again? Or do you have a recording of this "order"?

[amore]

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

To get through your nitpicking I believe he means the man/woman on the street voters, not the MP voters. People generally vote for a Party not a person. Are you saying that it was the specific intention of those voters that their representative voted for Abhisit as PM because that is plainly ridiculous. They have an expectation of the political flavour of their candidate, they don't expect them to cross over to the opposition just because they are greedy for money and/or a promised position as was the case with the election of Abhisit.

[wprime]

I'm surprised Abhisit doesn't fight back with a criminal defamation suit.

[whybother]

amore, on 30 May 2013 - 12:37, said:

whybother, on 30 May 2013 - 12:26, said:

Rich teacher, on 30 May 2013 - 12:21, said:

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

To get through your nitpicking I believe he means the man/woman on the street voters, not the MP voters. People generally vote for a Party not a person. Are you saying that it was the specific intention of those voters that their representative voted for Abhisit as PM because that is plainly ridiculous. They have an expectation of the political flavour of their candidate, they don't expect them to cross over to the opposition just because they are greedy for money and/or a promised position as was the case with the election of Abhisit.

PPD, in Thailand most people in the country areas (all over) don't vote for a party, they vote for a family. If the family changes party, the people will continue to vote for that family. The smaller parties will back who ever they need to get to the trough.

[bigbamboo]

I'm surprised Abhisit doesn't fight back with a criminal defamation suit.

Abhisit has one advantage over his PT enemies.... intelligence. He is simply biding his time whilst the DSI builds a file of paperwork against him that would be the envy of any Thai Immigration official. Then after a show trial in Thailand he will take his case onto the international stage and sit back and enjoy what's left of this government's credibility being ripped to shreds.

[Baerboxer]

Getting what they Deserve

How many is that now ? but still lots more murder charges to be filed since they were responsible for 90 odd deaths

Guess you can't wait for Obama, Bush, Blair and Cameron to be charged with murdering innocent Afghans, Iraqi's and Pakistani's.

You may not like the dems or their leaders, and may support the ptp and their criminal boss, that's up to you. But think about the implications of what you're posting. So the families of murdered innocents executed in Thaksin's war on drugs, with no trial, should petition the DSI to lay murder charges in addtion to the other outstanding charges against Thaksin and request his immediate extradition

[Baerboxer]

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Given that it was the voters representatives that elected Abhisit PM, then it wasn't against the explicit intention of the voters.

No, because the voter's representatives had been told in no uncertain terms by the Chief of the Army that there was only one choice for PM. They were not acting as representatives of the voters, they were ordered.

.

Reading to much red shirt propaganda again? Or do you have a recording of this "order"?

Good question WB. Of course the "order" only exists in the history as written by Rich Teacher and his red shirt friends.

[jcb2001]

You right regarding the issue. " bullet was fired by a soldier" But they can make test and examinations, if they got the bullet, to see if it match the weapon soldiers used.

Yeah the bullet was or should I say supposed to be army ordnance, in Thailand you could never be sure Jes.

Regardless of mass-production, no two usage patterns for any gun - and therefore the condition of the rifling inside the barrel - are going to be absolutely identical. With the right gear and expertise bullets can be matched to individual guns by examining the rifling marks.

My concern is: Does Thailand really have this technology?

[Baerboxer]

The whole point of this is to get the international headlines "Ex Thai PM Abhisit accused of murder of Italian journalist". Thaksin will cream his shorts when he sees it.

Very erudite comment. This whole pantomime is orchestrated as a mass advertising/propaganda effort to discredit the opposition and help whitewash the activities of the friends and supporters of the government. The speach in Mongolia, red shirts "helping" the killed journalists family to file charges, even though the courts rules the killer could not be indentified.

Nothing to do with justice and democracy, all to do with political propaganda and posturing on behalf of one clear objective.

[Trembly]

You right regarding the issue. " bullet was fired by a soldier" But they can make test and examinations, if they got the bullet, to see if it match the weapon soldiers used.

Yeah the bullet was or should I say supposed to be army ordnance, in Thailand you could never be sure Jes.

Regardless of mass-production, no two usage patterns for any gun - and therefore the condition of the rifling inside the barrel - are going to be absolutely identical. With the right gear and expertise bullets can be matched to individual guns by examining the rifling marks.

Don't they need the gun for that?

Of course . . . so it will never be proven. Just another farcical merry-go-round of tit for tat.

[jonclark]

Existing rules of engagement, which the CRES outlined in April, mandated seven steps of

increasingly “heavy” measures before live ammunition could be fired, and then only in the

air.153 On May 14, the CRES set out new, expanded rules of engagement that liberalized the

use of live fire against the protesters. Under the new rules, soldiers were allowed to use live

ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving

closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

So there you are, did the army shooter have a "clear visual of terrorists"? If not, who broke the rules of engagements. As general as this statement is, if you can't prove it was "clearly" a terrorist, you can't shoot.

I suggest all people read the HRW document and then decide what they would have done had they been in charge. It's easy to sit an scoff or praise with the benefit of hindsight and a comfy chair. Leaders, choose to lead, Taksin, Jatuporn, Abhisit were all leaders at the time and all are equally culpable for the deaths of the soldiers, and Redshirts.

" There will be blood on the streets.... our patience is running out, we will take serious measures to retaliate, the dark sky will turn red, red like blood" - Jatuporn Arpil 10 2010.

Would you have sat by idly and been passive, like Chamberlin did with Hitler or would you have been more active? This is not about right or wrong its about whether you'd have quelled serious civil unrest or let it continue if you were a leader. What action would the Americans, French, British or Italians have demanded from their governments, when negotiations failed had the streets of Washington, Pairs, London and Rome been taken over and mass violence threatened?

In those countries you mention the PM/ Pres has undoubtedly not had his government handpicked and promoted to power by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces against the explicit intention of the voters.

Are you suggesting that the Commander in Chief of the Army handpicked and promoted Khun Samak and Khun Somchai who were the PMs before Abhisit?

They were removed because they broke the rules.

[kimamey]

The whole point of this is to get the international headlines "Ex Thai PM Abhisit accused of murder of Italian journalist". Thaksin will cream his shorts when he sees it.

[amore]

No, because the voter's representatives had been told in no uncertain terms by the Chief of the Army that there was only one choice for PM. They were not acting as representatives of the voters, they were ordered.

.

Reading to much red shirt propaganda again? Or do you have a recording of this "order"?

Oh the innocence of denial - are you really denying that the army had a hand in pushing Abhisit to power? Here's an amusing take on it from the Malaysian Star

If the politicians still need persuasion, arrange for the army chief to “advise” them in his home. But make sure they know the location of the general’s house. If not, a military escort will have to fetch them at a nearby petrol station; and those pesky reporters will find out about this super secret deal.

On the eve of the parliament vote, lock the parliamentarians whose loyalty you’ve secured in a safe hotel. And don’t forget to confiscate their handphones so they do not receive any calls topping up the price of loyalty.

Congratulations, your coalition has won a slender parliamentary majority (235 votes to 198). Now your squeaky clean and very handsome politician is a prime minister.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/20/focus/2857185&sec=focus

Even The Nation recognised it for what it was, why can't you?

Question loom over new Prime Minister's legitimacy

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on December 17, 2008

The problem began on December 6, when Army Chief Gen Anuphong Paochinda invited key politicians to offer them "advice" on what the new coalition should look like. Newin Chidchob, a former Thaksin aide who over the past few months was disenfranchised by his multi-billionaire boss, decided to exploit the situation. The Democrats and the military jumped in as well.

No wonder it is believed that on Monday, a "silent coup" was staged by the military, with backing from Abhisit, Newin, the self-styled People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and their supporters.

This would not have been possible if the PAD had not seized the two airports and if the Constitution Court had not dissolved three parties, including the People Power Party.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/17/politics/politics_30091207.php

Edited May 30, 2013 by amore

[DGIE]

If Mr. abhisit ordered the crackdown and shooting of the red shirts, was Polenghi in favor of the red shirt

so that he should be one of the targets?

[Pi Sek]

A successful prosecution to a murder charge here would have to prove that Abhisit & Suthep ordered the shooting-to-kill of foreign journalists, no?

I thought it was some splinter Red Shirt stages set up after the main one was dispersed on 19 May that was calling for "action" against foreign journalists?

[johnlandy]

It's pathetic. How can a prosecution lawyer prove beyond doubt that the bullet was fired by a soldier. For Murder to stick as a charge they would also have to prove that the bullet was fired at the journalist by a soldier. ABout time the DSI started tackling real crime in this country instead of dreaming up more charges designed to ensure Abhisit does nothing but attend court cases during parliamentary down time.

Everything (the gov't, police, the DSI, the "list is infinite") is pathetic.

AND, to me there is no doubt that it is totally politically motivated.... BUT then again TiT so that says it all

[Thai at Heart]

153 These steps were: informing the protesters that their action violated the law; show of force; use of shields; use of water

cannon; use of high-power amplifiers; use of tear gas; and use of batons and rubber bullets. CRES Press Conference, April 10,

2010. On April 20 and April 27, the CRES announced that more leeway was being given to soldiers to use stronger non-lethal

measures in response to the greater use of various weapons by the UDD demonstrators.

154 An official bulletin of the Prime Minister’s office, “Frequently Asked Questions About the Current Political Situation in

Thailand,” dated after the operation had finished (May 29, 2010), gives a slightly different set of rules:

When the officers started to cordon the protest areas on 13 May, their instructions were clear. Use of live bullets was limited to

three situations only, namely, 1) as warning shots, 2) for self-defense so as to protect the lives of officers and the public when

absolutely necessary, and 3) to shoot at clearly identified individuals armed with weapons, who might otherwise cause harm

to officers and members of the public.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

Just found this hiding in the addendums at the bottom of Page 80. So when is the DSI going to start interviewing soldiers?

Edited May 30, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Chrisswe]

For sure they had the main responsibility as PM and CREST Director for killing 91 people's . The main question is "How given the the order to open fire with Sharp amunition cal.223 !!??

[whybother]

For sure they had the main responsibility as PM and CREST Director for killing 91 people's . The main question is "How given the the order to open fire with Sharp amunition cal.223 !!??

.

Huh?

[NCFC]

It's pathetic. How can a prosecution lawyer prove beyond doubt that the bullet was fired by a soldier. For Murder to stick as a charge they would also have to prove that the bullet was fired at the journalist by a soldier. ABout time the DSI started tackling real crime in this country instead of dreaming up more charges designed to ensure Abhisit does nothing but attend court cases during parliamentary down time.

Everything (the gov't, police, the DSI, the "list is infinite") is pathetic.

AND, to me there is no doubt that it is totally politically motivated.... BUT then again TiT so that says it all

It doesn't really matter who is pathetic or not because it will be the courts who will look at the evidence presented and then make a judgement. Are posters claiming that the courts are biased? Because if they are, isn't that what Thaksin has been claiming all these years? If you beleive the courts are independent then lets just wait until all sides make their case to the judges and the court will make the ruling accordingly.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If you think Abhisit and Suthep will not get a fair trial then you have much more in common with Thaksin than you care to admit.