Abhisit, Suthep sued over crackdown temple deaths

[fab4]

The problem for abhisit and suthep may lie in the 'ambiguity" of the ROE issued by CRES and signed by suthep wrt the use of snipers - Point 2.5 of the document

I wasn't referring to the shooting in the wat as an individual case. Your pedantic efforts at spin are duly noted.

Here's a few pics of your "peaceful protestors" from 2010 if your memory is getting bad, unfortunately the vast majority of the pics have disappeared from online now for some unknown reason:

01.jpg

02.jpg

03.jpg

04.jpg

05.jpg

06.jpg

How many of the civilians that were killed were in possession of guns or had even been firing them? I'm not making excuses for any civilian who was killed whilst firing at the security forces and never have.

My point which you are trying to avoid is that the army killed innocent unarmed people. And No, I do not accept the use of a slingshot as worthy of a bullet in the head. You're trying to justify their deaths with a handful of images of people with guns. To me that is as bad as denying that the troops killed anyone.

Image copyright of John Le Fevre http://photo-journ.com/thailand-internal-security-act-shows-rattled-thai-government/

[khunken]

This looks very like yet another PTP-Redshirt instigated political case with virtually no chance of it being successful. I've yet to see one case include Tarit, very much involved with the CRES.

Given that it was real soldiers that shot into the Wat indiscriminately (no, not pre-meditated, NCFC) and the army is not co-operating, it just boggles the mind how any court could find a direct linkage from the SOE/ROE via army commanders to the soldiers who allegedly pulled the trigger.

This time I agree with the poster that said it's time to stop the tit-fot-tat frivolous court cases.

[Tatsujin]

The problem for abhisit and suthep may lie in the 'ambiguity" of the ROE issued by CRES and signed by suthep wrt the use of snipers - Point 2.5 of the document

I wasn't referring to the shooting in the wat as an individual case. Your pedantic efforts at spin are duly noted.

Here's a few pics of your "peaceful protestors" from 2010 if your memory is getting bad, unfortunately the vast majority of the pics have disappeared from online now for some unknown reason:

01.jpg

02.jpg

03.jpg

04.jpg

05.jpg

06.jpg

How many of the civilians that were killed were in possession of guns or had even been firing them? I'm not making excuses for any civilian who was killed whilst firing at the security forces and never have.

My point which you are trying to avoid is that the army killed innocent unarmed people. And No, I do not accept the use of a slingshot as worthy of a bullet in the head. You're trying to justify their deaths with a handful of images of people with guns. To me that is as bad as denying that the troops killed anyone.

Image copyright of John Le Fevre http://photo-journ.com/thailand-internal-security-act-shows-rattled-thai-government/

I'm not trying to justify anything fab4, but neither am I completely understating how "peaceful" these protestors actually were. It was anarchy at the time, far far worse than anything we've seen recently.

And let us also not forget that a number of those civilians WERE killed by 3rd parties not soldiers. Let us also not forget that those peaceful unarmed civilians also managed to somehow miraculously kill a number of heavily armed security personnel. Can't quite see how they managed to do that with those slingshots you mention.

[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!

Your recall is incorrect. The immunity from any form of prosecution (not amnesty) is provided by Section 17 of the Emergency Decree whenever this is invoked by the government of the day

You're correct about Section 17 of the Emergency Decree but I don't think it gives immunity from any form of prosecution; or rather it gives immunity with certain provisos:

§ 17

The competent authorities under this Emergency Decree or persons invested with the same authority as

them shall incur no civil, criminal or disciplinary liability for their performance of duties to suppress or

prevent any unlawful act, if such performance is rendered in good faith, does not give rise to discrimination

and does not exceed the reasonability or necessity of the circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the

victims to claim damages from the public sector pursuant to the law on tortious liability of authorities.

If this doesn't give the army immunity then it's down to Tarit who said they wouldn't be investigated as far as I know.

Edited March 15, 2014 by kimamey

[fab4]

I'm not trying to justify anything fab4, but neither am I completely understating how "peaceful" these protestors actually were. It was anarchy at the time, far far worse than anything we've seen recently.

And let us also not forget that a number of those civilians WERE killed by 3rd parties not soldiers. Let us also not forget that those peaceful unarmed civilians also managed to somehow miraculously kill a number of heavily armed security personnel. Can't quite see how they managed to do that with those slingshots you mention.

No really, your spin is too confusing for me. Every time I answer a question it changes. Before you got on to your all red shirts are murdering b'stards rant can you remember what you posted about life fire zones and why you did so?

Can you not see a problem with the army shooting unarmed civilians?

[Tatsujin]

I'm not trying to justify anything fab4, but neither am I completely understating how "peaceful" these protestors actually were. It was anarchy at the time, far far worse than anything we've seen recently.

And let us also not forget that a number of those civilians WERE killed by 3rd parties not soldiers. Let us also not forget that those peaceful unarmed civilians also managed to somehow miraculously kill a number of heavily armed security personnel. Can't quite see how they managed to do that with those slingshots you mention.

No really, your spin is too confusing for me. Every time I answer a question it changes. Before you got on to your all red shirts are murdering b'stards rant can you remember what you posted about life fire zones and why you did so?

Can you not see a problem with the army shooting unarmed civilians?

Yes, I can see you're easily confused and unable to grasp anything other than the red propaganda you subscribe to. Reds, good. Everyone else, bad.

To answer your last question, yes, if the Army exceeded their orders they should be punished. However, in the situations where they are being shot at and are returning fire, well I for one wouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity.

I don't believe either side is completely innocent but from what I saw personally at that time, the red side were absolutely disgusting and merciless. Much as they still are now when their blood gets pumped up by the "leaders".

[Tatsujin]

I'm not trying to justify anything fab4, but neither am I completely understating how "peaceful" these protestors actually were. It was anarchy at the time, far far worse than anything we've seen recently.

And let us also not forget that a number of those civilians WERE killed by 3rd parties not soldiers. Let us also not forget that those peaceful unarmed civilians also managed to somehow miraculously kill a number of heavily armed security personnel. Can't quite see how they managed to do that with those slingshots you mention.

No really, your spin is too confusing for me. Every time I answer a question it changes. Before you got on to your all red shirts are murdering b'stards rant can you remember what you posted about life fire zones and why you did so?

Can you not see a problem with the army shooting unarmed civilians?

Sorry, I missed responding to your "live fire zone" query.

We can argue the right or wrong of such things until the cows come home. The facts are that they were implemented, legally, and people were warned beforehand. There was no misunderstanding about times, locations or what would happen as it was all done in Thai and a little English and broadcast nationally on media and locally by posters and loudspeakers.

It was effectively a war zone, under curfew, if you don't remember that time and weren't there. If you chose to put yourself in those areas, after curfew, and ignored the numerous warnings then I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for anything that happened to people that chose to be there.

It reminded me of similar situations that occurred in Northern Ireland many years ago. Curfews in effect, warnings made, if you chose to ignore them, you got shot.

[tezzainoz]

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.

The point you are missing is that this case has been brought by the families of those who were killed while sheltering in a temple. They were not engaged with the army nor committing any unlawful acts.

The killings were certainly premeditated as these were no random acts. These were not people caught in cross fire but actually hunted down and killed. If you or anyone else were visiting the temple that day you would have become a target and hunting down people in this manner is a crime against humanity, in my opinion

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

How do we ever expect Thais to find peace when users of Thai Visa Forum are 4 times as bad at argueing

Edited March 15, 2014 by tezzainoz

[diehard60]

They obviously did not co-ordinate this one with Yinglucks "can everybody please stop filing law suits against each other - especially me" press conference and PR team. Thailand hub of comedy.

So it is all right in yourmind for them to go ahead and kill and nothing sould ve done about it????

[diehard60]

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?

It would have been but it did not go through. abhisit and suthep are really so stupid and arrogant. The only thing that sutep thinks about is thaksin and because he can not get elleceted.

[diehard60]

Can these courts order the death penalty? If found guilty it would be the appropriate penalty.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

And on what planet would that be appropriate or even where they would be found guilty.

Government says "Temple is a safe sanctuary", Soldier decides to shoot two people, lawyer persuades victims families to charge PM and Dep PM with pre-meditated murder - That will work then...not! Regardless of outcome, the families pay large amount of money to said lawyer, case kicked out of court as garbage after much time wasting, and fees being paid to the courts (and more to the lawyer). Result Lawyer wins and he doesn't give a flying fruit cake that everyone else loses.

End of factual statements, carry on and make it up as you wish as per normal.

The OP says the case is being brought by the families so I am interested to know if we have any legal experts on TV who would know if this action runs in parallel with the other murder charges, replaces them or is a prompt for the govt to get a move with the existing charges.

During the US OJ Simpson case there was a public prosecutors case and a case brought by the victims families. Which they won a substantial payout.

Do the legal experts on TV know whether the families actions are civil or criminal?

My opinion is that the country needs a big wake up call that politicians can't get away literally with murder. Politicians need to be held accountable. The death penalty would send a big message to the corrupt as it does in China.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Well it seems you need to decide what you are talking about because you seem to be getting very mixed up. You are saying Abhisit and Suthep may be getting away with 'Murder', yet you and all the sane people in this country know that is not the case. You then say the death penalty will send a message to the corrupt? Is murder corrupt, was the killing of the two civilians corrupt? What is the corrupt bit in the case you are referreing to? Why would the death penalty be appropriate? I can think of some pretty deserving cases for the death penalty if you just want to set an example and Thaksin is far closer to the top of the list than Abhisit ever will be.

And just who did thaksin kill???? durd dealers? that is called taking out the trash.

[kuthow]

"durd dealers".... Now there's a Freudian slip.

[rubl]

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.

Logic not your strongest point it would seem, neither explanations. Just asking the right questions to put anyone off track. 'fabrication of implied statements' on a simple question which could have been answered with 'no'' but seems to require an insult instead.

Any way your implied understanding is very valid of course, to you that is.

'The live fire zones had been announced in Thai on Thai television and if I remember correctly even been passed on to the UDD leaders to warn their followers. So stop the nonsense on that. Furthermore for two months the army ánd other non-red-shirts were harassed by ''unknowns" who mostly operated in the night. those last days in May even during the day. What should be clear at least is that the army in firefights with militants were forced to operate as if in a warzone. That ímplies'that innocents will be hurt when they are too death, dumb and blind to recognise that those militants were mingling amongst them.

As for the topic well as I wrote before ehen someone put my attention on this being a çivil case rather than a criminal case. I would assume the civil case has to wait for the criminal case to conclude. Mind you those who accepted money from the Yingluck government had to sign that they wouldn't sue that government. A good lawyer should have no problem to let that be interpreted as to include 'the' government. The civil case against Abhisit/Suthep personally while their actions were as government officials would then be dismissed. IMHO.

Of course there are still those who think that charging Abhisit/Suthep for premeditated murder as private persons seems totally correct. Strange, really. At least Ms. Yingluck is being accused of premeditated murder whilst in function.