DSI seeks arrest of Suthep over 2010 deadly crackdown on Redshirts

[Mentors]

Suthep take note and learn from Yingluck: this is how you handle protests... not with a bloodbath.

+ 1

[SICHONSTEVE]

What exactly are they trying to charge him with? The orders were given in an official capacity, there isn't anything he could be legitimately charged with that's within the jurisdiction of the DSI or the criminal court.

It happened on his shift he has to take the good?with the bad.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

OK, no double standards (as Yingluck has asked for) - under who's shift exactly did these current 20 or so murders happen to fall on???

Are you thick or what ?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No I'm not - if they didn't fall under Yingluck's shift who was in charge - OK, I think I get your drift, Thaksin then. To add to the other 2,700 murder victims he was responsible for!!!!

[fab4]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:27, said:

"I only followed orders. I'm not responsible. I wasn't present at all meetings. As far as I know."

Well, that clears the sky of course.

BTW even the head of CRES is part of it, like Pol. Captain Chalerm is head and part of CMPO.

You see rubl, that's why I italicized the word "part". It means "suthep is not merely part of CRES, he is Head of it".

The italics emphasise the word, not deny it but that's a subtlety in the English language which has likely passed you by, likewise the phrase "clears the air" .

Regarding your sarcasm wrt "I only followed orders": it was clearly pointed out that the plenary meetings that Tharit attended did not deal with orders regarding the implementation of orders.

Again

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings

The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants.

Of course if you're not going to believe it, you're not going to believe it.

I'd just ask you if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with suthep and abhisit why are you not clamouring for the other civilian members of CRES to be prosecuted also? How about the lying Army spokesman, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd. Why not everybody in CRES?

well, you see fab4, both Suthep and Tarit were part of CRES with Suthep even the head of it. In my original post I had "as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team". Than you replied "suthep was not part of the CRES team, he was Head of it".

Now of course if you want to imply that the head of CRES is not part of CRES ... ...

As for the 'Tharit' quote (from which you removed the first two lines which indicate Tharit is saying this), well I guess it's only in a real 'democracy' like Thailand that a member of an organisation is allowed to lead the investigation of that organisation after having excused himself of any wrongdoing. In other countries I know said 'member' would only be allowed as witness (or possibly whistle blower ).

The "if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with Suthep and Abhisit" is just your assumption as I've never said I think Tharit should be charged with murder.

BTW I meant "clears the sky", of flying pigs that is

I don't know where they taught you English comprehension but can you get your money back?

[kikoman]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

You make a habit to misrepresent every thing!

It is common knowledge that Yingluck ordered no violence to dislodge the protesters, and the CNN video documents the riot police were unarmed, (No firearms) when they came under grenade and live fire attacks they hide behind their riot shield and the six to eight offices armed with shot gun fired on the protesters in response to the protesters use of deadly force.

The protesters ambushed and fired on the security forces, the security force fired back in self defence, in the Democrats case they ordered the army to clear out the protesters, knowing lives would be lost in the process!

Cheers

[djjamie]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

You make a habit to misrepresent every thing!

It is common knowledge that Yingluck ordered no violence to dislodge the protesters, and the CNN video documents the riot police were unarmed, (No firearms) when they came under grenade and live fire attacks they hide behind their riot shield and the six to eight offices armed with shot gun fired on the protesters in response to the protesters use of deadly force.

The protesters ambushed and fired on the security forces, the security force fired back in self defence, in the Democrats case they ordered the army to clear out the protesters, knowing lives would be lost in the process!

Cheers

It is common knowledge that the Honorable Khun Abhisit ordered no violence to dislodge the protestors in 2010 until after the protestors threatened to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, took 2 police hostage, burned fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and attacked a truck full of injured soldiers.

​Either way I think it is ridicules that the PTP or the DEM leaders be held responsible for restoring peace. Both are political agenda's being played out and as sure as Chalerms' head is still attached to his body all of these cases will be thrown out of court.

[Fat Haggis]

The difference is the two are seperate scenarios, the current spate of killings are done by persons unknown, obviously someone does, but nobody has claimed responsibility at the moment they're nothing more than common murders, they have to be caught, and tried and interrogated as to whom/why they have been lobbing grenades into central Bangkok.

The 2010 case is that the Military was under the orders to use whatever force neccessary.

Yingluck hasn't given any such order to either the Police, or the individuals responsible, hell, that's like saying she's responsible for all the deaths on the roads due to poor road conditions.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The difference is the two are seperate scenarios, the current spate of killings are done by persons unknown, obviously someone does, but nobody has claimed responsibility at the moment they're nothing more than common murders, they have to be caught, and tried and interrogated as to whom/why they have been lobbing grenades into central Bangkok.

The 2010 case is that the Military was under the orders to use whatever force neccessary.

Yingluck hasn't given any such order to either the Police, or the individuals responsible, hell, that's like saying she's responsible for all the deaths on the roads due to poor road conditions.

You seem to have missed some words out.

'use whatever force necessary........to defend yourselves!!!

[djjamie]

Suthep take note and learn from Yingluck: this is how you handle protests... not with a bloodbath.

I wonder what yingluck would have done if the PDRC protestors threatened to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks?

Yep, the same thing as the Honorable Abhisit did.

[Fat Haggis]

I don't disagree with that Steve at all, when public order breaks down and there is a situation bordering combat, then dramatic steps have to be taken to restore it.. Giving an order or a command to openfire isn't an easy one, even when the situation is as such that lives are about to be taken..

I believe the arguments against both would be thrown out once the bigger picture is presented, although I do believe there's copies of the ROE's for 2010 available that doesn't mention anything about sef defence..

The ROE's and RUF I've used do indeed state that Deadly Force can be used in self defence and also in defence of others

I believe the words " Nothing in these rules inhibits your rights to defend yourself", many US Military personnel were literally getting away with murder in Iraq due to the wording in their ROE's mate, all they needed to say to justify using deadly force was " I believed my life was at risk" and that more or less covered their actions from a legal point.

There's a huge difference when the Military have to resort to using deadly force, as there's normally a command authorisation, and written orders , someone has to assume that responsibility.

You could technically argue the case that the incident where the Police and the protestors clashed and deaths were the result, in that the Police used live ammunition in "self defence".

The current violence against the protestors there's no such authority that can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as to who is responsible, you cannot blame Yingluck for these deaths, when they're not goverened by any legal process.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Fat Haggis

[Fat Haggis]

Where I think there's an issue in the 2010 case is that within the ROE's, and these are kind of Generic no matter what Army you serve in, the ROE's or the "Yellow Card" as it was called in Northern Ireland as far as I can recall something like .

You may open fire without warning if he/she is commiting an act/about to commit an act that will endanger the lives of you, or other civilian personnel

If you have to open fire you must " POSITIVELY IDENTIFY you target"

You must fire "AIMED" shots.

Now I'm going back to my time in the 1980's with these, and over the years they didn't really change that much.

In Iraq, prior to being sent overseas Military personnel and DOD contractors had to go through an induction course, and one of the topics was given by the JAG, the military Lawy makers, and again, they showed videos and scenarios where you had to decide if there was a threat and under what premise you could open fire, if at all. It was a real eye opener, I'd been in Iraq for 2 years already with a Brit Company, and a stark contrast as to how the US Mil/US DoD operated their ROE's.

Civilian Security contractors don't operate with ROE's they use RUF, called Rules in the Use of Force, and as part of that process you have what's called GF, or Graduated Force, it's how to go from flash to bang legally. But the basic principles of RUF and ROE's are the same, in that you still have to positively identify if that person you're about to shoot is a threat to you, your colleague/fellow soldiers, or the civilian population, for example,in the RUF and the ROE's you cannot shoot a person just because they're carrying a weapon, they have to be percieved as a threat first, this is where many Law Enforcement Agencies come unstuck, depending on the laws on carrying weapons in public. Someone already informed me that as long as you had a licence, you could carry a weapon on your person, as it was within the law. I've asked about this as to where the PDRC stand legally with their armed guards??

Okay, back to that person carrying a weapon, is he carrying it in an aggresive manner? Can you make the split second decision to decide whether he is a threat or not? It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6 is an age old mantra that many Mil people live by.. now if that person is acting in a manner that is aggresive and is pointinting that weapon in an aim,at you, your colleagues or members of the public then under the ROE's /RUF you can use up to and including deadly force.

This is great if you're a serving soldier or a Law enforcement officer/Security Contractor as you have these Rules as topcover and as long as you can back up your reason for using deadly force, then you will in most cases be exhonerated when/if it goes to trial.

If you're a civilain, then you have no Rules in which to adhere to, the PDRC guards have no accountability if they were to take a life by opening fire, remembering that the Mil/LEO's are supposed to POSITIVELY IDENTIFY their targets, and fire only AIMED shots.

With the setting up of free fire zones, it pushes the boundaries of the ROE somewhat, and I believe that's where there's a very big issue with regards to the 2010 protests, VCP's in Iraq were pretty much the same, as in free fire zones, they had all the warning signs and lights and huge armoured vehicles, and it didn't stop hundreds and I really mean hundreds of Iraqi's who were not armed and who were not a threat dying in these checkpoints particularly at night, in the early days, down to the simple fact that many were illiterate and simply could not read nor understand the warning and caution signs, and all it took was the young 18 year old PFC behind a .50 cal to see a car hurling towards him and is buddies and making a snap decision based on his ROE's and engaging a car full of women and children, who was at fault? The PFC for believing he was under a threat, or the illiterate driver who couldn't read the stop/warning signs?

Hence why you cannot compare the actions of the perpetrators today, to the same perpetrators in 2010, the scenarios up until now are like chalk and cheese.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I don't disagree with that Steve at all, when public order breaks down and there is a situation bordering combat, then dramatic steps have to be taken to restore it.. Giving an order or a command to openfire isn't an easy one, even when the situation is as such that lives are about to be taken..

I believe the arguments against both would be thrown out once the bigger picture is presented, although I do believe there's copies of the ROE's for 2010 available that doesn't mention anything about sef defence..

The ROE's and RUF I've used do indeed state that Deadly Force can be used in self defence and also in defence of others

I believe the words " Nothing in these rules inhibits your rights to defend yourself", many US Military personnel were literally getting away with murder in Iraq due to the wording in their ROE's mate, all they needed to say to justify using deadly force was " I believed my life was at risk" and that more or less covered their actions from a legal point.

There's a huge difference when the Military have to resort to using deadly force, as there's normally a command authorisation, and written orders , someone has to assume that responsibility.

You could technically argue the case that the incident where the Police and the protestors clashed and deaths were the result, in that the Police used live ammunition in "self defence".

The current violence against the protestors there's no such authority that can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as to who is responsible, you cannot blame Yingluck for these deaths, when they're not goverened by any legal process.

OK, I'll tell you what I truly think. I don't think that Yingluck is responsible for the deaths.....but in the same vein, neither are Suthep and Abhisit. They were (the soldiers), as I understand it, told to use live ammunition in order to defend themselves. There is no disputing that the army were attacked by the 'men in black' - I saw this with my own eyes. Several soldiers lost their lives (including General Romleau or whatever his name was). I don't know who was behind these men in black (could have been Thaksin, maybe Sae Dengue) but the army were attacked.

In summary, none of those up for murder issues are responsible, it is a consequence of opposing factions intent on winning the battle with some, unfortunately, bringing live weapons into the fray with the disastrous outcomes!!!

[rubl]

You see rubl, that's why I italicized the word "part". It means "suthep is not merely part of CRES, he is Head of it".

The italics emphasise the word, not deny it but that's a subtlety in the English language which has likely passed you by, likewise the phrase "clears the air" .

Regarding your sarcasm wrt "I only followed orders": it was clearly pointed out that the plenary meetings that Tharit attended did not deal with orders regarding the implementation of orders.

Again

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings

The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants.

Of course if you're not going to believe it, you're not going to believe it.

I'd just ask you if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with suthep and abhisit why are you not clamouring for the other civilian members of CRES to be prosecuted also? How about the lying Army spokesman, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd. Why not everybody in CRES?

well, you see fab4, both Suthep and Tarit were part of CRES with Suthep even the head of it. In my original post I had "as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team". Than you replied "suthep was not part of the CRES team, he was Head of it".

Now of course if you want to imply that the head of CRES is not part of CRES ... ...

As for the 'Tharit' quote (from which you removed the first two lines which indicate Tharit is saying this), well I guess it's only in a real 'democracy' like Thailand that a member of an organisation is allowed to lead the investigation of that organisation after having excused himself of any wrongdoing. In other countries I know said 'member' would only be allowed as witness (or possibly whistle blower ).

The "if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with Suthep and Abhisit" is just your assumption as I've never said I think Tharit should be charged with murder.

BTW I meant "clears the sky", of flying pigs that is

I don't know where they taught you English comprehension but can you get your money back?

Now, now, my dear fabs, you're a fine one to speak like that.

Did you already come with an explanation how to re-instate a person in 2008 when he was dismissed in 2009? Did you already manage to check up on k. Abhisit's legal position in 2008 as opposition leader with PM's Samak and Somchai? Did you already 'find' those posts you explained "why abhisit was ordered to reappoint the National Police Chief in 2008"?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/709243-supreme-administrative-court-rules-in-favour-of-thawil/page-2#entry7537151

Of course, maybe in your case it is not a matter of comprehension but more of plain lying

[fab4]

I don't know where they taught you English comprehension but can you get your money back?

Now, now, my dear fabs, you're a fine one to speak like that.

Did you already come with an explanation how to re-instate a person in 2008 when he was dismissed in 2009? Did you already manage to check up on k. Abhisit's legal position in 2008 as opposition leader with PM's Samak and Somchai? Did you already 'find' those posts you explained "why abhisit was ordered to reappoint the National Police Chief in 2008"?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/709243-supreme-administrative-court-rules-in-favour-of-thawil/page-2#entry7537151

Of course, maybe in your case it is not a matter of comprehension but more of plain lying

My mistake 2009 not 2008. Somchai sacked him in 2008, but the case was taken on by abhisit, who finally sacked him in 2009.

Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures.

Patcharawat, like Thani, is scheduled to retire in September. Therefore, Abhisit must decide whether to proceed with the case or to support Suthep – which would stop the investigation just where it is.

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

Somchai was sacked.

abhisit was asked to reinstate the Police Chief in 2009, he didn't at that time, satisfied?

The explanation still stands. Substitute 2009 for 2008 and it makes no difference to how the article should be read.

and don't call me a liar, rubl, the posts are here;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514931,

here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514817

and here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7508664

Edited March 9, 2014 by fab4

[rubl]

I don't know where they taught you English comprehension but can you get your money back?

Now, now, my dear fabs, you're a fine one to speak like that.

Did you already come with an explanation how to re-instate a person in 2008 when he was dismissed in 2009? Did you already manage to check up on k. Abhisit's legal position in 2008 as opposition leader with PM's Samak and Somchai? Did you already 'find' those posts you explained "why abhisit was ordered to reappoint the National Police Chief in 2008"?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/709243-supreme-administrative-court-rules-in-favour-of-thawil/page-2#entry7537151

Of course, maybe in your case it is not a matter of comprehension but more of plain lying

My mistake 2009 not 2008. Somchai sacked him in 2008, but the case was taken on by abhisit, who finally sacked him in 2009.

Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures.

Patcharawat, like Thani, is scheduled to retire in September. Therefore, Abhisit must decide whether to proceed with the case or to support Suthep – which would stop the investigation just where it is.

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

Somchai was sacked.

abhisit was asked to reinstate the Police Chief in 2009, he didn't at that time, satisfied?

The explanation still stands. Substitute 2009 for 2008 and it makes no difference to how the article should be read.

and don't call me a liar, rubl, the posts are here;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514931,

here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514817

and here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7508664

For one I didn't call you a liar, just wondering if you might be one.

You kept on insisting on 2008 and blaming Abhisit with your interpretation of "guilty of dereliction of duty". Now you merely shrug of the 2008 as a typo.

Even now you still have a problem with comprehending the subject:

PM Abhisit sacked national police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan in October 2009. In December 2009 the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged. Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him. But Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said. However, the then-prime minister still failed to take any action on the matter. Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court, asking for the defendant to honour the Police Commission decision that called for his dismissal order to be revoked.

The court ruled that the former NPC should be re-installed. The court didn't rule or mention 'intentional negligence'. The court failed to point out how a private person can re-instate a former NPC.

[fab4]

My mistake 2009 not 2008. Somchai sacked him in 2008, but the case was taken on by abhisit, who finally sacked him in 2009.

Patcharawat was appointed national police chief in the Samak Sundaravej government. He was removed by the succeeding PM Somchai Wongsawat for failing to stop the rallies of the Sondhi-led People’s Alliance for Democracy, the yellow shirts, which led to the airport seizures.

Patcharawat, like Thani, is scheduled to retire in September. Therefore, Abhisit must decide whether to proceed with the case or to support Suthep – which would stop the investigation just where it is.

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/to-sack-or-not-to-sack-national-police-chief/

Somchai was sacked.

abhisit was asked to reinstate the Police Chief in 2009, he didn't at that time, satisfied?

The explanation still stands. Substitute 2009 for 2008 and it makes no difference to how the article should be read.

and don't call me a liar, rubl, the posts are here;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514931,

here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7514817

and here, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/707780-court-faults-abhisit-over-sacking-of-police-chief/?view=findpost&p=7508664

For one I didn't call you a liar, just wondering if you might be one.

You kept on insisting on 2008 and blaming Abhisit with your interpretation of "guilty of dereliction of duty". Now you merely shrug of the 2008 as a typo.

Even now you still have a problem with comprehending the subject:

PM Abhisit sacked national police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan in October 2009. In December 2009 the Police Commission found Patcharawat did not in fact commit severe disciplinary wrongdoing in connection with the incident, as had been alleged. Patcharawat said in a petition filed with the court that he had informed Abhisit in writing seven times about the Police Commission decision not to pursue severe disciplinary action against him. But Abhisit told Patcharawat that the Council of State, the government's legal advisory agency, had to be consulted first before the dismissal order could be cancelled, the petition said. However, the then-prime minister still failed to take any action on the matter. Patcharawat's petition said it appeared Abhisit had been intentionally negligent and acted too slowly on the matter. So he took the case to court, asking for the defendant to honour the Police Commission decision that called for his dismissal order to be revoked.

The court ruled that the former NPC should be re-installed. The court didn't rule or mention 'intentional negligence'. The court failed to point out how a private person can re-instate a former NPC.

You really cannot read , can you.

My "typo" of 2008 derives from the date of the original case for sacking Patcharawat by Somchai as I stated. The case was taken over in 2009 by abhisit as I stated.

abhisit was Chairman of the Police Commission in 2009 as well as being PM at that time. The Police Commission decided that abhisit had sacked Patcharawat wrongly. They told abhisit to reinstate the police chief in a certain timeframe. He didn't.

The Court found abhisit guilty of dereliction of duty - period. I know he's your poster boy but suck it up.

And finally, this, the 4th time of explanation, the court had no reason to point out "how a private person can re-instate a former NPC" because they are referring to what abhisit should have done in 2009 - he wasn't a private person then !

The Central Administrative Court on Friday ruled that ex Prime Minister Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva was guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to reinstate former police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwon...............The court yesterday ruled that Mr. Abhisit had a duty to follow the Police Commission’s resolution to reinstate Pol Gen Patcharawat. http://http://thailandnewsworth.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/thai-ex-pm-abhisit-guilty-says-court/

See that verb had? It's a past particple, i.e referring to an event in the past, not now.

You may still have time to get your money back for that comprehension course..............................