Don't involve military on amnesty: Prayuth

[Lite Beer]

Don't involve military on amnesty: Prayuth

BANGKOK: -- Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha on Monday reminded opposing camps that they should not try to involve the military on amnesty issue.

"Soldiers are not one of the disputed parties in the political mayhem, hence amnesty is not relevant to them," he said.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

-- The Nation 2013-10-28

[ratcatcher]

So, there was an SOE in place in 2010 when the Redshirts for Peace quietly occupied Ratchaprasong for 2 months

Abhisit expected everyone to do his duty.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

So, who's to blame?

[kimamey]

From all the evidence I've seen so far on the deaths they occurred when soldiers acted outside of the ROE. At the moment it doesn't look like they will have to answer for this as I believe the DSI have said they will not be charged. They are only interested in going after Abhisit and Suthep and not getting to the truth whatever that may be.

[Artisi]

So, there was an SOE in place in 2010 when the Redshirts for Peace quietly occupied Ratchaprasong for 2 months

Abhisit expected everyone to do his duty.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

So, who's to blame?

Who's to blame, easy - the ones who were causing havoc, endeavouring to bring Bkk to a stand-still, enforcing the will of a fugitive criminal without any thought for the majority of Thai people. Not that difficult, is it?

[ratcatcher]

So, there was an SOE in place in 2010 when the Redshirts for Peace quietly occupied Ratchaprasong for 2 months

Abhisit expected everyone to do his duty.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

So, who's to blame?

Who's to blame, easy - the ones who were causing havoc, endeavouring to bring Bkk to a stand-still, enforcing the will of a fugitive criminal without any thought for the majority of Thai people. Not that difficult, is it?

So, let's wait for the counsel for defense to appear.

[gemini81]

Lots of coups; but sir, this time it is a great time to toss these bloody crooks called PTP the heck out, once and for all! Before there is nothing left but a dictatorship with the armed forces fully under control; as if that isn't underway.

Military leaders need to be brash and have balls, and stand up for what is right, and stop what is wrong here. Democrats aren't taking much of a serious stand.

[Nickymaster]

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

That's why AV is not intimidated by Thaksin's/Tharit's murder charge game. Hence, doesn't support the controversial amnesty.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Nickymaster

[Spare]

It is undeniable that the Red were heavily armed terrorists at the time of shooting.

So I don't see anything wrong with shooting down terrorists that threaten National Securities.

The american SEAL / GI Joe / marines, etc would have done the same.

[fab4]

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

That's why AV is not intimidated by Thaksin's/Tharit's murder charge game. Hence, doesn't support the controversial amnesty.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

From the horses' mouth as it were, you can't catch me, I've got insurance.

Edited October 28, 2013 by fab4

[Thai at Heart]

So, there was an SOE in place in 2010 when the Redshirts for Peace quietly occupied Ratchaprasong for 2 months

Abhisit expected everyone to do his duty.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

So, who's to blame?

Who's to blame, easy - the ones who were causing havoc, endeavouring to bring Bkk to a stand-still, enforcing the will of a fugitive criminal without any thought for the majority of Thai people. Not that difficult, is it?

You do realise that that argument isn't much better than the one where, a farang wouldn't have had a car accident if he hasn't visited Thailand.

[siampolee]

Could this be interpreted as a gentle warning to be extremity careful when matters reach the court concerning the 2010 crackdown on the looting arsonists who had held Bangkok and its people among other places and peope in a state of siege?

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

In that quote above rests the ultimate defence of any person or persons or groups who may be accused of criminal acts concerning the crowd control operations.

''The crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men.''

Civil order had to be reimposed to contain and halt arson and wholesale looting and civil disorder.

Many warnings were issued to the protesters, some of those warnings were heeded by some and some people choose to ignore those warnings.

Every action, or in this case inaction, has a consequence. Those who were involved and suffered due to their ignoring those warnings and ceasing their unlawful activities and departing the areas only have themselves and their sponsors and assorted leaders to blame .

The sponsor and the assorted leadership of the Red Shirt movement also need, nay must be put in the dock.Their actions and motives were the catalyst for the injuries and deaths as a result of this matter from the start to the end.

[Nickymaster]

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

That's why AV is not intimidated by Thaksin's/Tharit's murder charge game. Hence, doesn't support the controversial amnesty.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

From the horses' mouth as it were, you can't catch me, I've got insurance.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

As I said, AV is covered because there were armed men shooting at soldiers. Simple as that... dude!

Edited October 28, 2013 by Nickymaster

[fab4]

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

That's why AV is not intimidated by Thaksin's/Tharit's murder charge game. Hence, doesn't support the controversial amnesty.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

From the horses' mouth as it were, you can't catch me, I've got insurance.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

As I said, AV is covered because there were armed men shooting at soldiers. Simple as that... dude!

Did you miss the bit in bold - "if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate". Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

[gemini81]

Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In response to heavily armed thugs who stole army weapons & killed soldiers.

Incessant trolling and recreating events will fool no one on here. A 2nd job, or a hobby writing novels might benefit you.

[Robby nz]

Did you miss the bit in bold - "if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate". Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

But you and the other red supporters don't seem to think that there was anything wrong with killing unarmed civilians and army by the armed faction of the reds by shooting and lobbing grenades around.

Can you not understand that if you attack an army, a country even, with weapons of war that you can expect retaliation in kind, in any country civilized or not

When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot.

[siampolee]

Robby NZ post # 15.

When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot.

If you seek that clip it is in the public domain.

Seek and ye shall find.

However to some the truth is unpalatable unless it has come from the puppet master.

[fab4]

Did you miss the bit in bold - "if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate". Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

But you and the other red supporters don't seem to think that there was anything wrong with killing unarmed civilians and army by the armed faction of the reds by shooting and lobbing grenades around.

Can you not understand that if you attack an army, a country even, with weapons of war that you can expect retaliation in kind, in any country civilized or not

When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot.

I don't know how many times I have said that I would strongly support the sentencing of any UDD supporter found responsible for anybody killed during the events of 2010. As per usual the post degenerates into handkerchief wringing hyperbole and not worth further consideration.

[bigbamboo]

Using the army against unarmed civilians was bad but using unarmed civilians as cover for the men in black was worse.

Edited October 28, 2013 by bigbamboo

[gemini81]

Did you miss the bit in bold - "if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate". Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

But you and the other red supporters don't seem to think that there was anything wrong with killing unarmed civilians and army by the armed faction of the reds by shooting and lobbing grenades around.

Can you not understand that if you attack an army, a country even, with weapons of war that you can expect retaliation in kind, in any country civilized or not

When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot.

I don't know how many times I have said that I would strongly support the sentencing of any UDD supporter found responsible for anybody killed during the events of 2010. As per usual the post degenerates into handkerchief wringing hyperbole and not worth further consideration.

Really? I thought you said they were so innocent and unarmed? I can hand you the paint brush if you wanna keep painting yourself into the corner, haha.

[marell]

General Prayuth is only issuing a friendly reminder that the army remains totally in charge, their power is non-negotiable and they not subject to silly decisions made by inane politicians.

Edited October 28, 2013 by marell

[Robby nz]

As per usual the post degenerates into handkerchief wringing hyperbole and not worth further consideration.

See what we get when there is no suitable quote from the red book and 'but the Dems' doesn't fit.

And this from someone who calls what others posts dross.

You must try to do better fab4 or you may be replaced in the next round of red supporters reshuffle.

[Bluespunk]

"Don't involve military on amnesty: Prayuth"

Get told!

[GeorgeO]

So, there was an SOE in place in 2010 when the Redshirts for Peace quietly occupied Ratchaprasong for 2 months

Abhisit expected everyone to do his duty.

Prayuth said he deemed it unfair to blame the soldiers for cracking down on the red shirts in 2010.

So, who's to blame?

Well, if we use the RTP logic when it comes to farang incidents/accidents ... if we hadn't been there, the incident/accident wouldn't have happened. Then just replace the farang element with the redshirt element...!

[fab4]

Did you miss the bit in bold - "if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate". Shooting and killing unarmed people in most civilised parts of the world would be regarded as just that, let alone the establishment of live fire zones and the use of snipers. We'll see, if he ever manages to get himself and his mate to court.

But you and the other red supporters don't seem to think that there was anything wrong with killing unarmed civilians and army by the armed faction of the reds by shooting and lobbing grenades around.

Can you not understand that if you attack an army, a country even, with weapons of war that you can expect retaliation in kind, in any country civilized or not

When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot.

I don't know how many times I have said that I would strongly support the sentencing of any UDD supporter found responsible for anybody killed during the events of 2010. As per usual the post degenerates into handkerchief wringing hyperbole and not worth further consideration.

Really? I thought you said they were so innocent and unarmed? I can hand you the paint brush if you wanna keep painting yourself into the corner, haha.

Yes I said that - if you read my post properly instead of trying to score points with yours fellow anti - Thaksin/UDD/PTP obsessives you would see what I said is exactly the same.

" I would strongly support the sentencing of any UDD supporter found responsible for anybody killed during the events of 2010 "

How many red shirts have been imprisoned or charged with the killing of anybody during the events of 2010? Somebody threw grenades at Col.Romklao on the 10th April, that's obvious but who?. Somebody threw a grenade that injured the dutch journalist and some soldiers but who? Someone fired a grenade amongst a group of multi colour shirts and killed a lady but who? The obvious answer on here is the Red Shirts but there is just as much credence in the theory of the grenade coming from Chulalongkorn Hospital as reported by of all people, ASTV.

I believe that the only two shooting deaths of soldiers were one definite "friendly fire" incident and whoever shot Gen. Sae Daeng probably normally wears khaki too (http://asiancorrespondent.com/32376/who-shot-sae-daeng/).

Of all the UDD supporters that were killed and have had inquests none were armed when killed.

I agree that there were armed "civilians" about (I use the parenthesis, as there is a theory the "black shirts", who definitely were armed, were serving military personnel) but I cannot and will not accept that the existence of these people gives carte blance for the security forces to kill at will either lightly armed (I recall the image of one dead body with a catapult by his side) or unarmed civilians as appears to be the case in all the victims so far and most likely to come.

[fab4]

As per usual the post degenerates into handkerchief wringing hyperbole and not worth further consideration.

See what we get when there is no suitable quote from the red book and 'but the Dems' doesn't fit.

And this from someone who calls what others posts dross.

You must try to do better fab4 or you may be replaced in the next round of red supporters reshuffle.

When you contribute to the debate instead of attacking the poster I might get round to debating with you. In the meantime please explain how this

"When you have a pack of cowardly riot leaders using people as human shields and even trying to provoke the army by putting a young (terrified) child on top of their barricade as a target ( a target which you will note the army did not shoot at ) then it is a miracle more reds were not shot."

can be described as anything other than hyperbole?

Where were the people being used as human shields for the UDD leaders? When was this child put on top of a barricade as a target to provoke the army into shooting it? You have got to be on drugs to believe that BS.

Yes a picture was taken of a child who had been stupidly put on top of a pile of tyres, but the rest,well what can you say.

Pure Unadulterated Dross.

[kimamey]

It is undeniable that the Red were heavily armed terrorists at the time of shooting.

So I don't see anything wrong with shooting down terrorists that threaten National Securities.

The american SEAL / GI Joe / marines, etc would have done the same.

Actually those killed that have had inquests would appear not to have been armed, were moving away from the military or were journalists.

I doubt that the various US military groups you mention would have intentionally shot people like that but then they would never have been in that position anyway.

[kimamey]

Without amnesty shield, the soldiers were confident to clear their names through the judicial process because crowd control operations took place in the face of unidentified armed men, he said.

That's why AV is not intimidated by Thaksin's/Tharit's murder charge game. Hence, doesn't support the controversial amnesty.

Well actually it's because he should might be covered by the Emergency Decree

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

From the horses' mouth as it were, you can't catch me, I've got insurance.

You've been a little selective in your quotes there. You missed this bit “I’m willing to face the charges and fight and prove my innocence in court. And I will respect the verdict,” he said.

I think he might be using the immunity to bring charges against the DSI as if he is covered by immunity, even if he isn't going to use it then it would be wrong for the DSI to bring charges knowing that there is no legal reason for it. If he does have immunity then I assume he can waive it.

There's also this quote.

While the army stated that soldiers could only shoot militants with weapons in hand or in self-defense as a last resort, Human Rights Watch said that in practice the rules were ignored and snipers targeted unarmed protesters.

This seems to be backed up by the inquests so far in which case the army can't claim they were just carrying out orders. This should mean that the soldiers that carried out the killings should be taken to court but I seem to remember that it was said that they wouldn't be prosecuted . And who said that? Well of course it's our old friend Tarit.

[webfact]

Army Chief calls for public restraint, distances himself from Amnesty Bill

BANGKOK, 29 Oct 2013 (NNT) - Army Commander in Chief General Prayuth Chan-Ocha has urged all sides to refrain from violence while the scrutiny committee is wrapping up on details of the Amnesty Bill,which is expected to be submitted to the House of Representatives for the 2nd and 3rd readings in November.

During the Monday meeting of the committee scrutinizing the Amnesty Bill, the minority committee expressed concerns that the details of Section 3 in the amended bill were still vague on the nullification of charges imposed by individuals or organizations set up by those who staged the 2006 coup. The minority committee also showed disagreement ove the abrupt conclusion of the scrutinizing committee’s meeting.

Head of the scrutinizing committee Samart Kaeo-mechai, however, affirmed that the scrutiny had been conducted in accordance with the parliamentary regulations. He suggested the minority committee reserve their rights to speak on the matter during the second reading of the bill.

Meanwhile, General Prayuth Chan-Ocha refused to speculate on the outcome of the Amnesty Bill whether it would bring unity or chaos. He urged all sides to exercise restraint and reaffirmed that the military were not political archrivals of anybody and were ready to fight through all juridical means.


-- NNT 2013-10-29

[Nickymaster]

fab4 wrote in post #24: " I would strongly support the sentencing of any UDD supporter found responsible for anybody killed during the events of 2010 "

How many red shirts have been imprisoned or charged with the killing of anybody during the events of 2010? Somebody threw grenades at Col.Romklao on the 10th April, that's obvious but who?. Somebody threw a grenade that injured the dutch journalist and some soldiers but who? Someone fired a grenade amongst a group of multi colour shirts and killed a lady but who? The obvious answer on here is the Red Shirts but there is just as much credence in the theory of the grenade coming from Chulalongkorn Hospital as reported by of all people, ASTV.

Here you go my red friend fab4!:

The deaths caused by red shirts include the killing of five soldiers at Khok Wua Intersection on April 10, an M79 attack on Silom Skytrain station, which killed one woman, two drive-by shootings in which two policemen were killed, an ambush on a military vehicle that saw one soldier killed, and an M79 attack near Lumpini Park in which one soldier died.Included in the eight cases is an arson attack on CentralWorld, in which one person was killed, and a post-protest bomb attack in front of Big C Rajdamri that killed a man, said DSI Director-General Tharit Phengdit (In Nov, 2010)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/17/politics/Reds-%E2%80%98men-in-black%E2%80%99-involved-in-eight-cases-of-30142435.html

Have a nice day and let's hope that Tharit will find the murderers..............

Edited October 29, 2013 by Nickymaster

[gemini81]

It is undeniable that the Red were heavily armed terrorists at the time of shooting.

So I don't see anything wrong with shooting down terrorists that threaten National Securities.

The american SEAL / GI Joe / marines, etc would have done the same.

Actually those killed that have had inquests would appear not to have been armed, were moving away from the military or were journalists.

I doubt that the various US military groups you mention would have intentionally shot people like that but then they would never have been in that position anyway.

Well, instead they were busy taking middle class peoples' arms under martial law in Boston as well as in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, instead of disarming thugs and gangsters who cant shoot too well.