Abhisit, Suthep sued over crackdown temple deaths

[Robby nz]

According to court inquest last year, the soldiers who were stationed on the BTS track opposite the temple fired their weapons into the sanctuary and subsequently killed the six civilians, despite the government's designating the temple as a "safe zone". Several volunteer medics are among the dead

Not the way I read the courts decision.

The court said those in the temple were killed with military style weapons, not whose hands those weapons were in.

We know for a fact from photos and videos that men in black were also in a position where they could have shot into the temple and we also know that they had access to military style weapons.

From there you have to look at reasons and motivation for shooting into the temple and the mindset of those who would do such a thing.

If you can start from there and not from a standpoint of 'one or the other did it' then you will get a better idea of the probability of who actually did the shooting.

[Thai at Heart]

You still seem to be avoiding the question of who gave the orders to shoot people in the temple who were posing no threat. The allowing of live ammunition isn't enough as there are rules that applied to this. Those seem to have been broken.

Live ammunition is allowed all the time in most countries including Thailand and it can be used against nationals of those countries including Thais in Thailand. If a Thai tried to kill Yingluck or the king do you think the gaurds would ask for their ID or passport first?

Thai police are armed even whilst doing their shopping in Tesco so unless those are water pistols the government have given them rules covering the discharge of those weapons. That doesn't mean if a policeman shoots an armed robber Yingluck is guilty of murder.

Live ammunition was appreoved for use under rules of engagment. Live ammunition is permitted all over the world under rules of engagment for all sorts of law enforcement? What do you think Starsky and Hutch use? Popguns?

But break the rule and it is the perpetrator not the commander who is under accusation.

[Tatsujin]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Yes there is proof.

Suthep signed the papers that allowed the army to use live ammunition against protesters.

Since the Nuremberg trials established that those giving the orders, and not necessarily with their finger on the trigger, are guilty of crimes against humanity. Since Nuremberg the international courts have brought several cases against those who ordered crimes against humanity.

It is up to the courts to judge but my option is there is prima facia evidence that there is a direct link between giving an order to allow the use of live ammunition and civilians gunned down in the sanctuary of a temple.

The soldiers who opened fire need to be prosecuted as so the officers in charge, all the way up to Abhisit and Suthep with the greatest penalties reserved for those at the top.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

So you would make Thailand the laugh of every country in the world, setting a presedence like this. Yingluck would face the same fate

Every Government in the world that sent soldiers to war and shot some one not firing at them would be open for the same charges

Unless you have a signed order to kill people at the temple

This is a layers scam to part fools and their money

Shooting to death a nurse treating an injured man 5 times inside a temple designated as a safe haven is murder.

Those soldiers should be indicted for murder and those who gave them their orders.

This wasn't a war yet.

If it was indeed the soldiers that did it, I would agree. I'm not convinced though that they were indeed the ones that shot and killed "all" of those that died during the protests.

The case is being brought by relatives of those slain in the temple so naturally that is the subject of this topic.

Tezza suggests no army could go to war in such circumstances but even wars are subjected to ground rules. Break those rules and you can face international courts.

But we are not even talkin of a war situation against external enemies but of soldiers firing at their own countrymen and women taking refuge in a place of religious worship. How low can you go to shoot and kill a nurse when she is trying to save lives?

The responsibility lies with those who gave the orders whether it was to open fire or allow live ammunition to be used.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You still seem to be avoiding the question of who gave the orders to shoot people in the temple who were posing no threat. The allowing of live ammunition isn't enough as there are rules that applied to this. Those seem to have been broken.

Live ammunition is allowed all the time in most countries including Thailand and it can be used against nationals of those countries including Thais in Thailand. If a Thai tried to kill Yingluck or the king do you think the gaurds would ask for their ID or passport first?

Thai police are armed even whilst doing their shopping in Tesco so unless those are water pistols the government have given them rules covering the discharge of those weapons. That doesn't mean if a policeman shoots an armed robber Yingluck is guilty of murder.

Just a reminder for people:

"Protest leaders once again warned of civil war if the army attempted to storm their camp. Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight."

[Tatsujin]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

You need to learn the facts before commenting.

The Army were absolved from prosecution by the Govt prior to the failed amnesty bill you mention.

Now go learn which Govt that was.

[fab4]

According to court inquest last year, the soldiers who were stationed on the BTS track opposite the temple fired their weapons into the sanctuary and subsequently killed the six civilians, despite the government's designating the temple as a "safe zone". Several volunteer medics are among the dead

Not the way I read the courts decision.

The court said those in the temple were killed with military style weapons, not whose hands those weapons were in.

We know for a fact from photos and videos that men in black were also in a position where they could have shot into the temple and we also know that they had access to military style weapons.

From there you have to look at reasons and motivation for shooting into the temple and the mindset of those who would do such a thing.

If you can start from there and not from a standpoint of 'one or the other did it' then you will get a better idea of the probability of who actually did the shooting.

Still in denial and banging the same drum robbynz?

The inquest by the Bangkok South Criminal Court said that four men and one woman, mostly "Red Shirt" protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets fired by Thai soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/inquest-6-killed-thai-soldiers-during-protests

How do you read that one?

In case you still have doubts go to this site for a detailed description of this despicable event http://prachatai.com/english/node/3462. Harrowing testimonies of people who were there, not pontificating on a forum.

[kimamey]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

I believe but I'm not certain that there is an amnesty for the army that was in the constitution. Tarit of the DSI I think said he wouldn't investigate the army. Whilst the wording of the blanket amnesty might have included the army I don't think the dropping of that would affect the army.

Suthep didn't get the amnesty scrapped he and Abhisit just said they didn't want it. Suthep was a member of the opposition up against the PTP with a majority plus the the members of the coalition. I don't think he could have got it scrapped if he'd wanted to.

One of the reasons the amnesty failed is because the government supporters didn't like the inclusion of Abhisit and Suthep who they'd been convinced were responsible for the killings. That sparked the protests that have lead to the current position. Then there's the fact that Abhisit and Suthep are unlikely to be found guilty with the current evidence.

Oh the irony of it.

[fab4]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

You need to learn the facts before commenting.

The Army were absolved from prosecution by the Govt prior to the failed amnesty bill you mention.

Now go learn which Govt that was.

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

[fab4]

[

Just a reminder for people:

"Protest leaders once again warned of civil war if the army attempted to storm their camp. Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight."

Just how many of the 80 plus dead civilians were in these live fire zones when they were shot and killed?

[rubl]

If the OAG on behalf of the DSI already filed 'premeditated murder' charges for these particular deaths, how can the duo be charged again? did I miss something here ?

[rubl]

[

Just a reminder for people:

"Protest leaders once again warned of civil war if the army attempted to storm their camp. Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight."

Just how many of the 80 plus dead civilians were in these live fire zones when they were shot and killed?

Why the restriction of "civilian deaths" or "civilians" at all? Don't the soldiers who got shot at or grenades lobbed on them count in your eyes?

Do you want to imply that in 2013/2014 protests also only the civilian deaths count and those police officers killed just had bad luck?

A bit more consistency in your ramblings, please

Edited March 14, 2014 by rubl

[Tatsujin]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

You need to learn the facts before commenting.

The Army were absolved from prosecution by the Govt prior to the failed amnesty bill you mention.

Now go learn which Govt that was.

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

ah, so it follows then that Yingluck's response was also disproportionate in these more recent protests when civilians were killed.

But I was actually referring to which Govt allowed the Army off the hook.

[Tatsujin]

[

Just a reminder for people:

"Protest leaders once again warned of civil war if the army attempted to storm their camp. Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight."

Just how many of the 80 plus dead civilians were in these live fire zones when they were shot and killed?

Ask the Men in Black ...

[kimamey]

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

You need to learn the facts before commenting.

The Army were absolved from prosecution by the Govt prior to the failed amnesty bill you mention.

Now go learn which Govt that was.

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

I think Robert Amsterdam has mentioned the fact that the ROE doesn't abide by the guidelines given by the UN for law enforcement agencies. The army can be included if they are performing the function of the law enforcement agencies. Whilst that may have been the case to start with I doubt that could be said at the time of the deaths.

If the killings were carried out in contravention of the ROE then it's difficult to see how they could be connected to the setting up of live fire zones and snipers. The deaths seem to have been due to not obeying the rules rather than the zones and snipers.

Just my view of course.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the emergency degree.

[Basil B]

If the OAG on behalf of the DSI already filed 'premeditated murder' charges for these particular deaths, how can the duo be charged again? did I miss something here ?

The DSI are trying to prove criminal actions, this is a civil action, all about relatives wanting money.

[rubl]

If the OAG on behalf of the DSI already filed 'premeditated murder' charges for these particular deaths, how can the duo be charged again? did I miss something here ?

The DSI are trying to prove criminal actions, this is a civil action, all about relatives wanting money.

Thanks, missed that.

Still, I would then assume that the proceedings of the civil charge would be put on hold while the charge on 'criminal intent' is being processed.

BTW money? Didn't the government already paid out loads of money? Oh, forgot, the recipients had to sign not to sue 'that' government only.

[kimamey]

Wasn't that amnesty given by the PTP government?

So far as I recall, it was included in the Amensty Bill that Suthep got scrapped. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Oh the irony of it!

You need to learn the facts before commenting.

The Army were absolved from prosecution by the Govt prior to the failed amnesty bill you mention.

Now go learn which Govt that was.

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

I've just had a quick look at an English translation of the Emergency Decree so this is just my first thoughts based on that.

The Emergency Decree on Government Administration in States of Emergency B.E. 2548 (2005) was the legislation used so it wasn't written by Abhisit or the Democrats so he didn't personally give an amnesty to the military as it was already part of the decree. I don't know who was involved in the writing of the decree but it was countersigned by

Pol. Lt. Col Thaksin Shinawatra

Prime Minister

I'm still nor certain that it could be applied in the cases in the OP as it only covers people if the 'act is performed in good faith, is non discriminatory and is not unreasonable in the circumstances exceeding the extent of necessity but does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful acts of officials.'

Looking at that the government might be liable for compensation. The army might not be covered if they acted outside their orders.

[kimamey]

You still seem to be avoiding the question of who gave the orders to shoot people in the temple who were posing no threat. The allowing of live ammunition isn't enough as there are rules that applied to this. Those seem to have been broken.

Live ammunition is allowed all the time in most countries including Thailand and it can be used against nationals of those countries including Thais in Thailand. If a Thai tried to kill Yingluck or the king do you think the gaurds would ask for their ID or passport first?

Thai police are armed even whilst doing their shopping in Tesco so unless those are water pistols the government have given them rules covering the discharge of those weapons. That doesn't mean if a policeman shoots an armed robber Yingluck is guilty of murder.

Live ammunition was appreoved for use under rules of engagment. Live ammunition is permitted all over the world under rules of engagment for all sorts of law enforcement? What do you think Starsky and Hutch use? Popguns?

But break the rule and it is the perpetrator not the commander who is under accusation.

I'm a bit confused. I thought that was roughly what I said apart from the bit about Starsky and Hutch and poguns.

I don't think Starsky and Hutch are real anyway so those weren't real guns and they probably didn't have rules of engagement and they'd have been too busy learning their lines anyway.

[bigbamboo]

Abhisit and Suthep continue to call Thaksin's bluff. They didn't go for the amnesty for all ploy and eventually he will have no choice but to back down unless he wants to leave both himself and his sister open to the same charges.

So who will crack first.... the Geordie or the Chinaman?

[kimamey]

Abhisit and Suthep continue to call Thaksin's bluff. They didn't go for the amnesty for all ploy and eventually he will have no choice but to back down unless he wants to leave both himself and his sister open to the same charges.

So who will crack first.... the Geordie or the Chinaman?

I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of a Geordie. Especially an educated one.

[fab4]

[

Just a reminder for people:

"Protest leaders once again warned of civil war if the army attempted to storm their camp. Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight."

Just how many of the 80 plus dead civilians were in these live fire zones when they were shot and killed?

Why the restriction of "civilian deaths" or "civilians" at all? Don't the soldiers who got shot at or grenades lobbed on them count in your eyes?

Do you want to imply that in 2013/2014 protests also only the civilian deaths count and those police officers killed just had bad luck?

A bit more consistency in your ramblings, please

Grasping at straws to make a political point again rubl. I do wish I did not have to explain everything to you. Follow this slowly:

Tatsujin posted about live fire zones near the UDD and that protesters i.e UDD would be shot on site if they entered the zones, as if this was normal procedure during crowd control in an urban environment (an important point in abhisit and sutheps upcoming murder trial).

I asked the question as to how many protesters were actually killed inside these zones. You see the point I was making there was, that out of the 80 plus civilians killed very few were killed entering these live fire zones i.e supposedly doing something illegal where they knew they would be killed if they did so. How those pathetic signs stating "life fire zone" were supposed to convey that message, I don't know, were they aimed at English speaking red shirts with a death wish?

Anyway the point is the majority of those killed were killed elsewhere, where Tatsujins' implied "legitimacy" of "life fire zones" didn't apply.

So don't try and apply the guilt trip of "Don't the soldiers who got shot at or grenades lobbed on them count in your eyes" it's faux outrage projection on your part and doesn't work on me I'm afraid. Soldiers weren't likely to be shot and killed in their own "life fire zones"

And there you go again, more faux outrage, "Do you want to imply that in 2013/2014 protests also only the civilian deaths count and those police officers killed just had bad luck"

No, I don't rubl, I made no mention of that whatsoever. You have lurched from bad comprehension to fabrication of implied statements.

[fab4]

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

I've just had a quick look at an English translation of the Emergency Decree so this is just my first thoughts based on that.

The Emergency Decree on Government Administration in States of Emergency B.E. 2548 (2005) was the legislation used so it wasn't written by Abhisit or the Democrats so he didn't personally give an amnesty to the military as it was already part of the decree. I don't know who was involved in the writing of the decree but it was countersigned by

Pol. Lt. Col Thaksin Shinawatra

Prime Minister

I'm still nor certain that it could be applied in the cases in the OP as it only covers people if the 'act is performed in good faith, is non discriminatory and is not unreasonable in the circumstances exceeding the extent of necessity but does not preclude the right of a victim to seek compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful acts of officials.'

Looking at that the government might be liable for compensation. The army might not be covered if they acted outside their orders.

Did I say that abhisit had personally written the SOE? The short answer is No.

I'd like to see your link to the SOE they used because I am pretty damn sure they would not be using one that was countersigned by Thaksin. Think about it for heavens sake. How would the SOE be legal if it was countersigned by Thaksin, Prime Minister? It doesn't take a lot of thinking about, surely?

I suspect the SOE you are quoting is not the one raised by abhisit.

[fab4]

The Emergency Decree raised by abhisit on the 7th April 2010 actually provides immunity from prosecution (why do you think he chose that date to enact the SOE, just before the army were given ROE including the use of live ammunition on the 10th by suthep/abhisit). That is of course providing that the courts judging abhisit and suthep for murder do not judge the actions taken as disproportionate to the threat faced - that could be a difficulty, what with live fire zones, the use of snipers and the fact that around 80 civilians were killed.

I think Robert Amsterdam has mentioned the fact that the ROE doesn't abide by the guidelines given by the UN for law enforcement agencies. The army can be included if they are performing the function of the law enforcement agencies. Whilst that may have been the case to start with I doubt that could be said at the time of the deaths.

If the killings were carried out in contravention of the ROE then it's difficult to see how they could be connected to the setting up of live fire zones and snipers. The deaths seem to have been due to not obeying the rules rather than the zones and snipers.

Just my view of course.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the emergency degree.

The rules of engagement were modified by CRES and signed by suthep to give the go ahead to use snipers, or as they preferred to call them, marksmen.

The Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation officially approved the use of snipers during its crackdown on the red shirts in 2010, according to one of its own classified documents, despite the Army Chief’s recent ‘no snipers’ claim.

The document, stamped as classified and very urgent, was submitted to the CRES on 17 April 2010 by its Military Operations Section, asking for approval of a modified plan for military action against the red-shirt protesters, in light of the unanticipated loss of lives and injuries inflicted on the military side on 10 April 2010, which has always officially been attributed to ‘black shirts’ by both the military and the then-in-power Abhisit Vejjajiva government

The document was approved by the CRES on 18 April 2010, signed by then Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsuban, among other high-ranking military officers.

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3330

Snipers had a significant influence on the deaths of civilians in 2010, as discussed in this critique of the NHRC report

But the worst thing about the report does not lie in what the NHRC’s report says, but in what it omits. The report neglects to mention some crucial facts – for example, the fact that nearly all of the protesters killed had no weapons, and most were killed by single shots into the head or into crucial points on the upper body.

While the NHRC indulges in describing the deaths and injuries of soldiers and detailing how the protesters “caused troubles”, the NHRC avoids discussing the protesters’ deaths in any detail. The 11 civilian deaths on 15 May 2010 are glossed over in only one paragraph. The 8 civilian deaths on 16 May, likewise, are discussed in one paragraph. And the 19 civilian deaths on 19 May are discussed in only five paragraphs. By contrast, the NHRC spends 5 pages discussing the UDD’s unwarranted search of Chulalongkorn hospital.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3670

Edited March 14, 2014 by fab4

[dickyknee]

If the OAG on behalf of the DSI already filed 'premeditated murder' charges for these particular deaths, how can the duo be charged again? did I miss something here ?

The DSI are trying to prove criminal actions, this is a civil action, all about relatives wanting money.

Thanks, missed that.

Still, I would then assume that the proceedings of the civil charge would be put on hold while the charge on 'criminal intent' is being processed.

BTW money? Didn't the government already paid out loads of money? Oh, forgot, the recipients had to sign not to sue 'that' government only.

I'm thinking a parallel in the OJ Simpson case. They couldn't get him in a criminal case but did in the civil case. They would wait to file the civil case if they knew the criminal case was concrete, the civil case would then become a no-brainer.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[Prbkk]

I understand grief and the need for justice but at some point, in the interests of reconciliation, these tit for tat law suits will have to stop or things will never be resolved

[dickyknee]

I understand grief and the need for justice but at some point, in the interests of reconciliation, these tit for tat law suits will have to stop or things will never be resolved

it's tit-for-tat? The charges here are murder, the others are abuse of power at the highest level, and corruption involving billions.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[Prbkk]

I understand grief and the need for justice but at some point, in the interests of reconciliation, these tit for tat law suits will have to stop or things will never be resolved

it's tit-for-tat? The charges here are murder, the others are abuse of power at the highest level, and corruption involving billions.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Are you a member of a tribe that has lost the ability to make fire? Read the reports....murder and murder. Try thinking about what people are posting rather than letting your tedious and tiresome bias get in the way.

[dickyknee]

I understand grief and the need for justice but at some point, in the interests of reconciliation, these tit for tat law suits will have to stop or things will never be resolved

it's tit-for-tat? The charges here are murder, the others are abuse of power at the highest level, and corruption involving billions.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Are you a member of a tribe that has lost the ability to make fire? Read the reports....murder and murder. Try thinking about what people are posting rather than letting your tedious and tiresome bias get in the way.

the tat is murder, the tit is corruption on a massive scale. Were both plebs so don't get too much sand in ya vag.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[YoghurtLX]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Yes there is proof.

Suthep signed the papers that allowed the army to use live ammunition against protesters.

Since the Nuremberg trials established that those giving the orders, and not necessarily with their finger on the trigger, are guilty of crimes against humanity. Since Nuremberg the international courts have brought several cases against those who ordered crimes against humanity.

It is up to the courts to judge but my option is there is prima facia evidence that there is a direct link between giving an order to allow the use of live ammunition and civilians gunned down in the sanctuary of a temple.

The soldiers who opened fire need to be prosecuted as so the officers in charge, all the way up to Abhisit and Suthep with the greatest penalties reserved for those at the top.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Nuremberg was a show. A bad one too.

If this was a real trial, Churchill and others should be there as well. That includes the rocket scientist Wernher from Braun too.

How does it come that using slave workers and suggesting to Hitler that using Penemunde as secret research base, well knowing that every worker will be killed when completed isn't related to a crime ?

Bombing Dresden was also a simple war crime as it was the fire storm on Frankfurt by US bombers or dropping the bombs on two Japan cities.

In WW2, the US army had a research program, finding out how to inflame best German buildings and cities. This knowledge was used than in many bombardments, including Frankfurt.

Not to mention the civilian killings in all the US lead wars, starting at WW2, continuous in Vietnam where complete villages where destroyed and killed and goes straight to Afghanistan where civilians are killed daily.

Strange that only a few cases did fit for the international courts when in fact every US government is guilty in committing war crimes.

So don't come up with Nuremberg and justice since than. There is none.

On the other hand, Abhisit and Suthep orders where more or less justified, even if executed very poorly.

There is enough video proof available that armed protesters and even some kind of under ground army was present.

Videos of black guys run around with rifles and civilians using mortars sure still available on youtube.

At the nearby BTS station, CNN did film there armed civilians right before the temple killings, partly in army clothings or black, but clearly not Thai army.

A German newspaper did bring up an interview and this guys where telling proudly that they have well trained and armed supporters at the rally site.

All evidence that Abhisit and Suthep had to act and the burnings/luting at the end show very well how peaceful this protesters where.

I was very close to the rally site in Bangkok at this time and saw my self armed civilians in army like clothing. In my view the government acted to late, way to late.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It should also include the Chief of the Army. His man did the shooting.

Has anyone filed charges against Thaskin Shinawatra and he's little sorty down south and a Temple massacre

[whybother]

The ONLY way this becomes more than a complete waste of time, is if someone, somewhere has a written order telling the soldiers to shoot people and can produce it in Court.

Other than that, if the Govt (as has been shown previously) ordered safe zones, no shooting etc then it's the soldiers that should be on trial.

Oh wait, can't do that, they already had a blanket amnesty for that.

Case closed.

Yes there is proof.

Suthep signed the papers that allowed the army to use live ammunition against protesters.

Since the Nuremberg trials established that those giving the orders, and not necessarily with their finger on the trigger, are guilty of crimes against humanity. Since Nuremberg the international courts have brought several cases against those who ordered crimes against humanity.

It is up to the courts to judge but my option is there is prima facia evidence that there is a direct link between giving an order to allow the use of live ammunition and civilians gunned down in the sanctuary of a temple.

The soldiers who opened fire need to be prosecuted as so the officers in charge, all the way up to Abhisit and Suthep with the greatest penalties reserved for those at the top.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It's a big jump going from approving the army to use live ammunition to ordering the army to kill unarmed people.