Thai Army chief says soldiers did not kill 6 Wat Pathum victims

[webfact]

Army Chief Says Soldiers Did Not Kill 6 Wat Pathum Victims

By Khaosod Online

BANGKOK: -- The chief of Royal Thai Army insisted that the military was not involved in the deaths of 6 civilians shot dead as they sought shelter inside a temple during the 2010 military crackdown.

His comment contradicts the recent court inquest which confirmed that the 6 victims, including a volunteer nurse, were killed by soldiers stationed near Wat Pathumwanararm Temple. The military has always denied any involvement, despite stacks of evidences and witness′ accounts.

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

He acknowledged that the court decision has to be accepted and the process should proceed ‘in accordance with the legal system’. Nonetheless, the army chief insisted that he never gave order to kill civilians. None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian, he added.

“What happened during the protest was that the army only tried to keep the situation under control” said Gen.Prayuth, “We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.”

Earlier, the mother of the volunteer medic shot dead inside the temple compound returned to Wat Pathum to conduct a ceremony in tribute to her daughter, accompanied by relatives who lost their loved ones in other incidents throughout the violence in April-May 2010. [read more...]

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM05qQTBPVGd3TVE9PQ==

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-08-10

[Pikeybkk]

The courts ruling is not final, what will you do, have a coup?

[gl555]

That would be great seeing how corrupt and inept the present PTP government is!

The courts ruling is not final, what will you do, have a coup?

[smutcakes]

Didn't the army refuse to answer any questions on this, or provide their guns for analysis? Funny, on the one hand the army chief says it was not the army, and on the other do no cooperate with the investigation which i presume could fairly easily exonerate them from any blame.

[Curt1591]

" ... the army chief insisted that he never gave order to kill civilians. ... "

Sounds like the argument from "A Few Good Men".

[FarangTalk]

The military has always denied any involvement, despite stacks of evidences and witness′ accounts.

I am waiting for the usual suspects to explain why we should have a coup to remove an elected government when arrogant denials like these shows us the last people we want in charge are psychopaths like the General.

Sometimes you have to acknowledge your obsession about a single man blinkers your ability to see the forest for the trees.

[Bluespunk]

We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.

Erm, you're no longer the accused. You've been found guilty, no ones accusing you any more.

[soundman]

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

Not at all surprised at the verdict given this.

[h90]

We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.

Erm, you're no longer the accused. You've been found guilty, no ones accusing you any more.

The court tells that the army did it because the bullets were the same size as the army uses. Complete ignoring that anyone can use the same ammunition.

The General know every single soldier and know that there isn't any rouge one against his order. And people should look somewhere else.

That is complete ridiculous from both sides.

[smutcakes]

We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.

Erm, you're no longer the accused. You've been found guilty, no ones accusing you any more.

The court tells that the army did it because the bullets were the same size as the army uses. Complete ignoring that anyone can use the same ammunition.

The General know every single soldier and know that there isn't any rouge one against his order. And people should look somewhere else.

That is complete ridiculous from both sides.

I think you will find there was a huge amount of witness testimony, not just forensics that led the court to their decision.

[Orac]

We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.

Erm, you're no longer the accused. You've been found guilty, no ones accusing you any more.

The court tells that the army did it because the bullets were the same size as the army uses. Complete ignoring that anyone can use the same ammunition.

The General know every single soldier and know that there isn't any rouge one against his order. And people should look somewhere else.

That is complete ridiculous from both sides.

Did the court not also specifically identify the army units responsible which would not tie in to the bullet size issue.

[Commander Tamson]

Army Chief Says Soldiers Did Not Kill 6 Wat Pathum Victims

By Khaosod Online

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

Submit the weapons used by the soldiers on the bridge for forensic examination - does the court not have the power to insist on this?

[Mrjlh]

Didn't the shooting happen well after the Red shirts stole the weapons including M-16's from the TV station? and where are they all?

[tomross46]

There was a very good photo, in one of the news papers, of the temple. This photo also showed the elevated train tracks overlooking the temple. The photo appears to have been taken from the helicopter pad on the roof of the Police Hospital. Oh! by the way the police also have weapons that fire NATO 5.56 ammo. Last year Pol. Capt. Chalerm told us that the police were the Men in Black, and that the police were the snipers that killed the red shirt Army General.

[unanimosity]

"The military has always denied any involvement, despite stacks of evidences and witness′ accounts."

Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

[pookiki]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

[whybother]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

When said protesters are armed, said "civilized" country will do what is necessary.

How should "civilized" countries deal with armed protesters?

I am not saying that these people killed in the wat were armed, but there were armed protesters that needed to be dealt with.

[Cnxforever]

"None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian, he added."

in case the "general" does not know - it is usually not the commanding officers who do the killing......and no need to tell us again we all know what happened - Suthep explained already how all the civilians murdered "ran into the bullets" that killed them!

Have the Thai armed forces acctually ever fought and killed any foreign "enemies" in recent history? - Or do they kill mostly their own civilian population?

[h90]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

Do you have any examples who civilized countries deal with demonstrators who are armed with AKA47, M79 and M16?

[kimamey]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

Do you have any examples who civilized countries deal with demonstrators who are armed with AKA47, M79 and M16?

It all depends on the demonstrators. If they become violent and pose a threat to those controlling them or anyone else then yes in many countries including my own the UK and probably most western countries they may use lethal force. In most cases however this never arises as the police control the situation before this happens.

I'm not suggesting that was the case here.

[Just1Voice]

FACT:

a) 6 people were killed inside the temple, which was declared a "safe zone" by the army itself.

forensic testing proved that none of the victims had any traces of gunshot residue on their hands.

c) the army, by their own admission, had sealed off the area so that no one who was armed with ANY type of weapon could enter.

d) there were multiple eyewitnesses who clearly stated that there was no gunfire coming FROM the temple, only INTO the temple.

e) the day after the killings, the army displayed weapons they claim they found inside the temple, but refused to turn them over for any type of forensic testing.

f) along with eyewitness accounts, there were a number of photographs and videos which showed soldiers on the elevated tracks shooting down into the temple.

g) the army has consistently refused to participate in the investigation of ANY inquiry into the death of ANY civilian.

Me thinks the good General protests to much.

[Issangeorge]

What reason would the army have to shoot these unarmed protesters? Who were the witnesses? Could the Men in Black not dress in Army Uniforms as easily as they dressed in black ski maslks? Just saying.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Commander Tamson]

FACT:

a) 6 people were killed inside the temple, which was declared a "safe zone" by the army itself.

forensic testing proved that none of the victims had any traces of gunshot residue on their hands.

c) the army, by their own admission, had sealed off the area so that no one who was armed with ANY type of weapon could enter.

d) there were multiple eyewitnesses who clearly stated that there was no gunfire coming FROM the temple, only INTO the temple.

e) the day after the killings, the army displayed weapons they claim they found inside the temple, but refused to turn them over for any type of forensic testing.

f) along with eyewitness accounts, there were a number of photographs and videos which showed soldiers on the elevated tracks shooting down into the temple.

g) the army has consistently refused to participate in the investigation of ANY inquiry into the death of ANY civilian.

Me thinks the good General protests to much.

Is there a word for 'FACT' in the Thai language? And if so, is mentioned anywhere in the Thai judicial code?

Just asking

[Bakseeda]

Didn't the shooting happen well after the Red shirts stole the weapons including M-16's from the TV station? and where are they all?

Someone recently asked me what was the difference between a piece of toast and the Thai Army.. seems you can make soldiers out of a piece of toast..!!

[northernjohn]

We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.

Erm, you're no longer the accused. You've been found guilty, no ones accusing you any more.

The court tells that the army did it because the bullets were the same size as the army uses. Complete ignoring that anyone can use the same ammunition.

The General know every single soldier and know that there isn't any rouge one against his order. And people should look somewhere else.

That is complete ridiculous from both sides.

I think you will find there was a huge amount of witness testimony, not just forensics that led the court to their decision.

Including pictures taken by police who should have been handling the job but were hiding in their stations or far away collecting tea money.

Did any one see the pictures they were so bad that they had to circle the shooters other wise they were not that distinguishable from the rails.

The pictures were so non descriptive they could have been photo shopped to look like any one. Plus there was no attempt by the court to verify them. More than likely under orders from Dubai. The only evidence they have is testimony from witnesses who other than medical reasons had no business being there in the first place. If they had not been taking part in the red shirt coup attempt what were they doing there. Were they Monks stationed there or just common red shirt thugs? We are not going to be given those facts.

[tomross46]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

And what civilized country are you talking about? Please tell us where there this make believe country is. Do not say USA, they use drones to kill Americans.

[unanimosity]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

When said protesters are armed, said "civilized" country will do what is necessary.

How should "civilized" countries deal with armed protesters?

I am not saying that these people killed in the wat were armed, but there were armed protesters that needed to be dealt with.

Civilized countries would never let civil disobedience escalate, or even allow a protest demonstration without a permit, and certainly would not allow such a gathering in the middle of town where emergency services and traffic in general would be severely compromised. Most certainly, they would not allow guns at a demonstration.

Once the protesters were allowed to establish a position it became a tacit approval, they did not confront anyone, did not attack anyone, did not start shooting.

Was it wrong for the protesters to bring arms and establish a defensive position that interfered with the safety of the city as a whole? Absolutely. But it appeared that the gov at that time was operating within the cultural context of avoiding a confrontation and followed a course of inaction. What they failed to understand is that inaction has consequences for which they are responsible. Not to decide is to decide and allowing these people to set up an encampment is fully the fault of the powers that were.

However, being armed in itself presents no threat. The gov apparently made no official requests or negotiations and did not offer any strategy for the citizens to disarm and after being inactive and offering no leadership or plan for resolving the differences, other than trying to agree on a snap election, moved armed soldiers and snipers into a confrontational stance and chose to ignore well established options for non-lethal crowd dispersal, which hardly meets the criteria of civilized.

Your logic seems to be that because a few people dressed in red shirts had guns it excuses the killing of others that fit the same profile whether armed or not, whether they posed a threat cowering behind a wall in a temple or not.

You seem to advocate that killing people because they armed themselves is fine, even if they armed themselves for self-defense. HRW tends to disagree with your notion.

[robertson468]

Army Chief Says Soldiers Did Not Kill 6 Wat Pathum Victims

By Khaosod Online

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

Submit the weapons used by the soldiers on the bridge for forensic examination - does the court not have the power to insist on this?

This would seem the commonsense solution, then the rifling of the weapons can be matched to the bullets, which I understand are very individual to each weapon. But perhaps it has been done, or maybe I am assuming too much with my commonsense solution?

[unanimosity]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

And what civilized country are you talking about? Please tell us where there this make believe country is. Do not say USA, they use drones to kill Americans.

Unsubstantiated.

[kimamey]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

And what civilized country are you talking about? Please tell us where there this make believe country is. Do not say USA, they use drones to kill Americans.

Unsubstantiated.

I don't think the Americans use drones to kill demonstrators.