Abhisit faces court over people killed during 2010 crackdown

[fab4]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

[ggold]

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

Where is that written proof, or is this another spurious claim?

Again, another spurious claim? I provide links to back up my points unlike some others on here, I can't help it if you don't read or believe them.

I have provided this link before, but here it is again

According to Point 2.5 in the document,

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

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.

Army spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd admitted that the classified document was authentic, but expressed doubts about the real motivation of those who had leaked it.

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

I fail to see that pasting a section of what obviously are the rules of engagement doesn't in itself constitute Suthep signing orders for Soldiers to kill people as you keep trying to claim. So again where is the proof that Suthep signed orders for those soldiers to kill civilians.

[ggold]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

Bangkok was burning and there were no grounds for issuing orders to clear the reds! Actions were not proportional to the threat faced! trying to re write history are we?

[kimamey]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

Robert Amsterdam has suggested that the ROE breeched the UN guidelines for law enforcement agencies and having looked at them both it does seem that at the very least they were close to that point. The guidelines are for law enforcement agencies or those acting as such. To start with the army would appear to have been doing just that but I would have thought at the time the killings occurred they might be considered to have moved beyond that.

Thai law often seems to make no sense so in posting views I try to use logic that may not actually exist.

I would have thought that since there was incitement to violence from red leaders that allowing the military to use live fire in certain circumstances was not unreasonable. Of course that's not what they seem to have done. Police go fully armed to stop people on bikes at checkpoints and to go shopping in Tesco so it would seem a bit odd not to let the army carry weapons.

I'm not sure that comparing Thailand to other countries in terms of crowd control is worthwhile to be honest. The police do seem a bit different here as do the politics.

[ggold]

Where is that written proof, or is this another spurious claim?

Again, another spurious claim? I provide links to back up my points unlike some others on here, I can't help it if you don't read or believe them.

I have provided this link before, but here it is again

According to Point 2.5 in the document,

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

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.

Army spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd admitted that the classified document was authentic, but expressed doubts about the real motivation of those who had leaked it.

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

They lazily ask for proof without bothering to research the matter and prove you wrong. Nevertheless, you provided information that they will undoubtedly contest.

Facts are anathema to delusional Suthepistas and anti-Thaksinistas. Their feeling and opinions (no matter how outlandish) will always be a "solid" argument to them.

Never mind that people inside a Wat common innocent folks, the wounded and even nurses (not fighters) were killed by sniper fire from positions held by the army. Just to cite one of such egregious abuse of power.

The anti-Thaksinistas will always revert to the burning of Central World (act to be condemned by a sane mind) to justify the actions of the Abhisit, Suthep and their agent: the Thai Army.

Is that an attempt to close down the argument?

[commie Joe]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

Bangkok was burning and there were no grounds for issuing orders to clear the reds! Actions were not proportional to the threat faced! trying to re write history are we?

No it wasn't burning at the time the shootings started .dear me trying to rewrite history are we

[Local Drunk]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

Bangkok was burning and there were no grounds for issuing orders to clear the reds! Actions were not proportional to the threat faced! trying to re write history are we?

No it wasn't burning at the time the shootings started .dear me trying to rewrite history are we

And the Red Shirt's reasoning behind the "everyone bring a liter of petrol" was?

edited for an apostrophe

Edited March 25, 2014 by Local Drunk

[fab4]

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

On the other hand I'm aware than in every country security forces use deadly force to counteract armed terrorists. If you had a gram of intellectual honesty in your body you wouldn't obfuscate the issue by calling it "crowd control".

Just using the language of the courts. My, you get feisty when your poster boy is challenged don't you.

The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010.

I take it you follow the dem government line of the "500 armed terrorists" not, as in their case, to justify their deadly crackdown but presumably so you can keep a straight face whilst writing your polemic posts

The use of the word “terrorist” is an effort to tap into a public fear that already exists. This has been done before. In the 1970s, the specter of communism afforded the military bureaucracy extra legroom from its citizens to dictate policy. Strategic allegations of “communism” and “anti-monarchism” at this time dehumanized leftist student protesters enough in the eyes of those pulling the triggers to allow the massacres of 1973 and 1976. These words have a single enabling purpose: to cast a political “other” worthy of violent repression. Decha Premrudeelert, a leading NGO advisor in the Northeast, reaffirmed the context for the government’s current tactic. “In the struggle for power, you have to create an identity for the opposition. In the Cold War, it was communists. Now it is terrorists.” Calling the Red Shirt leaders “terrorists” and claiming there were 500 more within Ratchaprasong gave the military a blank check for violent intervention. The highly charged word was used to convince the public that the military wasn’t taking the lives of human beings when it shot indiscriminately into the crowd—it was simply fighting terrorism. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/28/thailand’s-terrorists/

[citizen33]

Some ask if people who don't like what the army did in 2010 were in LOS at that time: from the grasp of chronology others have, I wonder if they were on the moon.

[monkeycountry]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever of K_Abhisit ever giving such an order. Yet, in the same 2010 timeframe, there is clearly recorded evidence from other notorious individuals of orders to burn Bangkok, attempts on the then-PM's life, etc etc, and even a proclamation from UDD's new Secretary General that he would take responsibility for their actions.

Tarit at the DSI is pushing this charge as hard as possible, without producing any evidence, which is strange, considering that he was a pivotal member of the CAPO, too anyway.... You got something to hide, Mr. Tarit?

Perhaps you would like to revisit "your no evidence of abhisit giving such an order" gambit. The authorisation of snipers by CRES is documented. That is not part of normal "crowd control practises" nor are live fire zones.

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

Edited March 25, 2014 by monkeycountry

[rubl]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Edited March 25, 2014 by rubl

[fab4]

Is that an attempt to close down the argument?

If you've got anything to add feel free.

[fab4]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Well if that happens we'll see won't we, rubl. Personally speaking I would suspect that as the charges were made when government was not sitting that is why, I don't know, I'm just speculating like you. I am curious as to why abhisit was so adamant on having the NACC charge him and suthep though? Maybe recent events provide a clue................

[monkeycountry]

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

Where is that written proof, or is this another spurious claim?

Again, another spurious claim? I provide links to back up my points unlike some others on here, I can't help it if you don't read or believe them.

I have provided this link before, but here it is again

According to Point 2.5 in the document,

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

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.

Army spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd admitted that the classified document was authentic, but expressed doubts about the real motivation of those who had leaked it.

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

Good job finding that document. Is there anyting you find strange in the document? Where is the order to kill unarmed protesters? To me it seems like an order for snipers to shoot at armed targets who are shooting/bombing stuff, in case ordinary troops can't do the job? Or did I read it wrong?

It even prohibits the use of firearms, when innocent people are in danger of becoming collateral damage!

[Thait Spot]

My take on reading this thread was that Abhisit and Suthep could be charged with abuse of power........

Maybe I'm reading between the lines and missing something........

You are missing something. The court is saying that he issued orders without reasonable grounds for doing so i.e his actions were not proportionate to the threat faced. This means that any "protection" afforded abhist, suthep and any the security forces by the State of Emergency is nullified.

I believe that to be a figment of your immagination.

The charge of murder may well give way to the significantly lesser one of "abuse of power"

[whybother]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

If you expect "legitimate crowd control practices" then you need a "legitimate crowd".

When some of the crowd are armed with military weapons, you can't expect authorities to go in with riot shields and water cannons.

[Thait Spot]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Well if that happens we'll see won't we, rubl. Personally speaking I would suspect that as the charges were made when government was not sitting that is why, I don't know, I'm just speculating like you. I am curious as to why abhisit was so adamant on having the NACC charge him and suthep though? Maybe recent events provide a clue................

Looks more to me like the PTP, DSI and red shirts wanted to take Suthep's and Abhisit's case up with as many legal institutions as they possibly could. That coupled with the fact that it makes no sense for several trials to take place for the same charge leaves things as they are today.

Who took this up with the NACC?

EDIT - OAG took this up with NACC

Edited March 25, 2014 by Thait Spot

[monkeycountry]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Well if that happens we'll see won't we, rubl. Personally speaking I would suspect that as the charges were made when government was not sitting that is why, I don't know, I'm just speculating like you. I am curious as to why abhisit was so adamant on having the NACC charge him and suthep though? Maybe recent events provide a clue................

It has finally dawned on you guys that Abhisit will be declared not guilty, which most of us predicted long ago, so now you do as the PTP/UDD, and declare in advance that if he is found not guilty, it must be because of some technicality/bias. Which means after he is found not guilty you get to say "see, I told you so!", thereby ensuring that Abhisit cannot win no matter what the court decides.

Sorry guys, that tactic may work well with the gullible red shirts, but everyone else, can see straight through it.

Edited March 25, 2014 by monkeycountry

[fab4]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever of K_Abhisit ever giving such an order. Yet, in the same 2010 timeframe, there is clearly recorded evidence from other notorious individuals of orders to burn Bangkok, attempts on the then-PM's life, etc etc, and even a proclamation from UDD's new Secretary General that he would take responsibility for their actions.

Tarit at the DSI is pushing this charge as hard as possible, without producing any evidence, which is strange, considering that he was a pivotal member of the CAPO, too anyway.... You got something to hide, Mr. Tarit?

Perhaps you would like to revisit "your no evidence of abhisit giving such an order" gambit. The authorisation of snipers by CRES is documented. That is not part of normal "crowd control practises" nor are live fire zones.

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

You've been reading too much cartalucci, there's not a conspiracy behind everything. I referred to abhisit as he is the ultimately in charge of CRES and he is the subject of the OP. He set it up and participated in the decisions on military tactics to be used in the crackdown. He was ultimately responsible for reigning the army in, which he didn't do.

[Local Drunk]

"BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court yesterday warned that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could have committed an abuse of authority if he had failed to follow crowd control practices or issue orders without reasonable grounds in connection with the deadly military crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010."

"Could" and "if", which remain to be proven.

I'm not aware of any country where the use of live fire zones and snipers are regarded as legitimate crowd control practices. There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.

That could be a difficult action to defend in a court, one would imagine.

I think that the problem there is that there were signs and borders designating the live fire zones. You cross at your own peril, it's as simple as that.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Local Drunk

[HonestQuietBob]

He shouldn't have taken on a job that was beyond his meager capabilities and he wouldn't be in the mess he currently finds himself in.

On the upside, seeing as though he is going to beat Suthep to prison - he gets first choice for top or bottom bunk.

[Local Drunk]

He shouldn't have taken on a job that was beyond his meager capabilities and he wouldn't be in the mess he currently finds himself in.

On the upside, seeing as though he is going to beat Suthep to prison - he gets first choice for top or bottom bunk.

He went to Oxford... where did you get your degree?

edited to say BOB!

Edited March 25, 2014 by Local Drunk

[monkeycountry]

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

You've been reading too much cartalucci, there's not a conspiracy behind everything. I referred to abhisit as he is the ultimately in charge of CRES and he is the subject of the OP. He set it up and participated in the decisions on military tactics to be used in the crackdown. He was ultimately responsible for reigning the army in, which he didn't do.

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

[HonestQuietBob]

A bought degree does not a leader of men make.

[Local Drunk]

A bought degree does not a leader of men make.

That's the lame excuse for those who can't.

[monkeycountry]

He shouldn't have taken on a job that was beyond his meager capabilities and he wouldn't be in the mess he currently finds himself in.

On the upside, seeing as though he is going to beat Suthep to prison - he gets first choice for top or bottom bunk.

Oh, see there are still a few hopefull. Several of your mates seem to have finally realised that there will be no jail for Abhisit (see above posts)

[rubl]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Well if that happens we'll see won't we, rubl. Personally speaking I would suspect that as the charges were made when government was not sitting that is why, I don't know, I'm just speculating like you. I am curious as to why abhisit was so adamant on having the NACC charge him and suthep though? Maybe recent events provide a clue................

BS, my dear fabs.

At the time we had PM and DPM. If they were deemed to have overstepped their authority than that would be as government officials, not as private persons.

[fab4]

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

You've been reading too much cartalucci, there's not a conspiracy behind everything. I referred to abhisit as he is the ultimately in charge of CRES and he is the subject of the OP. He set it up and participated in the decisions on military tactics to be used in the crackdown. He was ultimately responsible for reigning the army in, which he didn't do.

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

[fab4]

"The court said Abhisit could have committed an abuse of authority in accordance with the Criminal Code or offences under the Emergency Decree law if he issued wrongful or unreasonable orders after having imposed the state of emergency."

Since k. Abhisit / Suthep are charged as private persons, they seem to be deemed to have had no authority and therefor could not abuse said lack of authority. On the other hand if the court deems the two acted under their PM/DPM authority than it would seem the correct procedure would have been to involve the NAAC instead of having the DSI indict the two and urge the OAG to file charges for 'premeditated murder'.

Yet another case dropped for failure to follow correct procedures? One may wonder what effect on other cases such 'drop' would have.

Well if that happens we'll see won't we, rubl. Personally speaking I would suspect that as the charges were made when government was not sitting that is why, I don't know, I'm just speculating like you. I am curious as to why abhisit was so adamant on having the NACC charge him and suthep though? Maybe recent events provide a clue................

BS, my dear fabs.

At the time we had PM and DPM. If they were deemed to have overstepped their authority than that would be as government officials, not as private persons.

Well if your legal expertise is correct, abhisit and suthep get off on a legal technicality and all is right with the world. Come on, it's not important , it's not as if anybody died..............

Edited March 25, 2014 by fab4

[monkeycountry]

In an earlier comment above you wrote "There is written proof that suthep as Head of CRES signed the authorisation for the use of snipers.". Then now that you are after Abhisit, you again refer to that order, except this time you left "Suthep" out, leaving everyone to believe it was now Abhisit who signed the order. You seem to have great knowledge of that signed order, so who was it? Abhisit, Suthep, both, none of them? Do you even have proof that the signed order exists?

Anyway, even if the order does indeed exist, there is big difference between authorising deployment of snipers, which is done all the time as a security measure in most countries I know of (I believe 24/7 by Obama's secret service), and then ordering those snipers to kill someone.

Further, snipers may not be part of "normal crowd control" practises, but some believe the red shirts were violent armed terrorists and therefore not a "normal crowd" to control - let's leave that decision to the court.

You've been reading too much cartalucci, there's not a conspiracy behind everything. I referred to abhisit as he is the ultimately in charge of CRES and he is the subject of the OP. He set it up and participated in the decisions on military tactics to be used in the crackdown. He was ultimately responsible for reigning the army in, which he didn't do.

Remember your exact argument when the courts will decide who is ultimately in charge of the rice scam (not that it is relevant in this thread, just wan't to remind you in advance)

And no, I have not read any "cartalucci". I do not even know who it is

Yingluck was titular head. As far as I am aware she had no input into its planning or implementation. abhisit was directly involved. The first is a reference to a failed rice subsidy programme the second is a reference to the CRES planned crackdown and subsequent killing of civilians by security forces. I know which one I put more ethical and moral weight on.

And you and rubl talk about getting off the hook on technicalities

You may be right though, afterall Yingluck does not seem to have any input into the planning or implementation of anything whatsoever. I assume that is what makes her such a great (former) PM in your eyes

Edited March 25, 2014 by monkeycountry