Thai court dismisses murder charges against former PM Abhisit

[jayboy]

Maybe the protesters (and you) should learn how PMs are elected in Thailand. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs, the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck.

Did PPP call an election when Samak was forced to step down? No. They went to parliament to elect a new PM.

Did Somchai call an election when he was elected PM? No. I didn't see the red shirts out protesting then.

Did PTP (who were effectively in government after Somchai and PPP was banned) call a general election to elect a new PM? No. They went to parliament to elect a PM. That's when Abhisit was elected by a majority of MPs.

There is an important distinction between the elections of Thaksin, Yingluck on one hand and Abhisit,Samak,Somchai on the other.The former two won a mandate from the Thai people and the latter three did not.The latter certainly were legitimately elected PM by MPs but would have needed to refresh their mandate with the people at large.This is well understood by anyone who understands the parliamentary system of government.It would be pleasant if we could be spared yet more pious lectures on how the system works - which usually tend to omit important background.

It's an irrelevant distinction. They were still all elected by a majority of MPs. For Thaksin (in 2005, not 2001) and Yingluck, that majority came from a single party.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were still all democratically elected PMs.

... and I didn't see the red shirts out protesting against Samak and Somchai.

It's irrelevant in your particular view because you wish to disguise the murky and money nourished path that led Abhisit to power in the interests of his puppet masters.For the more balanced the distinction is not even controversial.When in a parliamentary democracy a PM does not have a personal mandate there is a need to seek one sooner or later.It is not a question of legitimacy but political necessity.In the UK Gordon Brown was a classic example.Thaksin and Yingluck had that national mandate.Samak, Somchai and Abhisit didn't.

Your comment about redshirt protests is however completely irrelevant and if I may say so rather stupid.The point relates to how a parliamentary democracy works in practice not to your prejudiced view of Thai politics.

[billd766]

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

So why did Thaksin run away then?

[khounteen]

The worms are now starting to come out of the woodwork. You can now see how "neutral" junta is.

It's teakwood from PTP/UDD people the 'junta' has been digging out, there are no worms nor termites in teakwood, you're not being 'neutral', just plain biased! Hope 'your guys' will have their day(s) in the Court(s) soon, oh, it might be 'neutral', but, I bet, again, you won't agree with the rulings...

Anyone with a brain can see what is happenning here. Timing of the decision to throw out the case and passing it over to another court. You dont need to support any parties to this madness to see the political hands in these matters. Are you bangkrup of ideas on how to support your idol? Why are you soo touchy in this matters? Is he your god that cant be criticised?

[jayboy]

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

So why did Thaksin run away then?

I would have thought the answer was obvious - he would have served time.Having said that I think his decision was foolish.

Edited August 29, 2014 by jayboy

[AleG]

If you think that ballistic evidence was provided at any of the inquests, you are exceedingly naive. The findings were based on some witnesses and probability. That's not to say they were wrong.

The worst thing is that Tarit totally absolved the army from any possible repercussions and focused on his (PTP-instructed) targets - Abhisit & Suthep. He then compounded his witch hunt by filing charges in the wrong court. Prejudice followed by incompetence.

It's always 'pathetic' when your prejudices fail (others say double-standards) but in this case it is pathetic because of stupidity.

No court can consider charges, no matter how 'serious', that are outside it's jurisdiction. Is that difficult to understand?

As usual shooting off your mouth and thinking without any basis. Autopsy were done on the death and a forensic doctor testified that the death were caused by high velocity bullet fired by war weapons such as M16 and AKA used by the soldiers fired from the direction of the soldiers. The forensic doctor was Air Vice Admiral Dr Wichan, Head Forensic Unit. Is that too difficult for you to understand????

M16s, like these?

[Bluespunk]

@thailandnoob

You said

Tell us who triggered the protests in the first place by Prime Minister without being elected, and then refusing to stand for election (even the previous Prime Minister of my home country, who I consider a reprehensible human being in many ways, had the decency to do this).

The reason the Reds didn't move out of Ratchaprasong was because they didn't believe Abhisit was sincere about his promise to hold elections. If he had shown them that he was serious about elections, then I have no doubt that the Reds would have dispersed.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Me

Lets see: Abhisit was elected during the election and was then voted in as PM after the PPP was dissolved. Now while the fate of the PPP was dubious, the election of Abhisit as PM was not. He was voted in PM the same way every PM is, i.e. by parliament.

The reds leadership didn't accept the offer of an election was because of their preference for a "politics of the street" solution. They felt they could do whatsoever they wished and no one was entitled to a contrary position. Their thuggish storming of a hospital because of the ridiculous claims soldiers were in there was typical of their militia. They were violent, intolerant and determined to force their will on the country. No matter what the cost.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

While PT was calling the shots and Tarit was being a good little boy for them, there was a chance they could go to gaol. Yet Abhisit stayed.

[Robby nz]

This is simply tp ridiculous for words. Do you really believe your own propaganda? Why would K Suthep order the killing of a nurse? And what evidence do you have? None, off course. This is just blind prejudice no doubt posted at the behest of others.

Who did order the killing then? Someone needs to be held responsible for the bloodbath. If it is not Suthep and Abhisit then maybe some military people need to go on trial.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Indeed they do so tell us who ordered the riots started that led to the grenades being fired at the army killing army personnel, an attack which sparked the retaliation from the army.

Tell us who ordered the attack on the sky train station that killed one and injured others.

Tell us why the red leaders refused to pack up and leave after agreeing to do so, for it was that decision and those who made it that must be held responsible for all the deaths and injuries after that time.

There is no doubt about that for if they had gone as agreed there would have been no need to move them on by force.

Tell us who ordered the men in black to fire on the army.

Tell us who supplied the weapons to the red rioters and the funding to use them.

Once you have answered these questions then you will know who must be held responsible.

Tell us who triggered the protests in the first place by Prime Minister without being elected, and then refusing to stand for election (even the previous Prime Minister of my home country, who I consider a reprehensible human being in many ways, had the decency to do this).

The reason the Reds didn't move out of Ratchaprasong was because they didn't believe Abhisit was sincere about his promise to hold elections. If he had shown them that he was serious about elections, then I have no doubt that the Reds would have dispersed.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As you refuse to even consider that the reds could ever do anything wrong then I will have to tell you.

The riots (armed protests are riots) were started on the orders of Thaksin who couldn't stand seeing his proxy parties pushed aside when the small parties deserted him and formed a Govt with the Dems.

As has already been pointed out to you and the others who have fallen for red brainwashing, Abhisit was legally PM at the time.

The red leaders at first accepted the terms for packing up and going home.

In reality it was Abhisit who accepted the reds demands in an attempt to end the riots peacefully without any farther bloodshed.

It was not till the next day that they reversed that decision and decided to stay and sacrifice more of their people.

We can only speculate what went on (frantic phone calls) that caused the change but saying they didn't trust Abhisit was only an excuse.

That decision makes those who made it responsible for everything that happened after the refusal to leave peacefully.

As a measure of proof that it was Thaksin who reversed the decision to leave, there is Sae Daeng's statements that he had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had put him in charge of the reds because he could no longer trust the leaders as they had agreed to leave, this is a matter of record.

Note that Sae Daeng was shot while giving an interview to the press saying just that.

Why was he shot ?

Well for a start by his statements he was proving beyond doubt that Thaksin was in charge of the riots by having the power to hire and fire the leadership.

Then there was the loss of face of the leaders who were being told they were being dumped because they were no longer trustworthy and of course they would have lost there income. (they came out of it with millions).

So who ordered his shooting ? Take your pick, Thaksin or the red leaders.

No it wasn't either the army or Abhisit for Sae Daeng was doing a good job at the time destabilizing the red leadership which could only be to their advantage.

[Roadman]

Some one gave the orders which authorised armed soldiers to shoot unarmed people sheltering in the temple grounds. In that shooting a medic (clearly identifiable as a nurse) was shot.

The person who gave that order is, amongst others, responsible for that killing.

Someone gave orders which authorised armed soldiers to shoot for their own protection. That unarmed people and people sheltering in temples were shot doesn't mean that orders were given to do that.

Correct Whybother edited. However that death out of any was the one that best defined the military going overboard. And why some accountability needs to be extracted from the military. The point of debate is at the time the young lass was shot by a soldier safe above who had a clear view down into the temple of his target and her surrounds. The black rabble at that time were well gone and all that was left was the final remnants of a well beaten red rabble. Their was no 'for their own protection' required at that time. She was an easy selected target who was murdered by an Army arse hole. From where that scumbag was located looking down into that scenario it would have been a turkey shoot. Even being 100% in agreement with the action required to close down Thaksin's attack on Thailand the murder of that young lass absolutely stinks and the scumbag who pulled that trigger should be at least in front of a military court. Edited August 29, 2014 by Roadman

[rubl]

And you're right, Of course I don't doubt that abhisit and suthep acted, 96 deaths attest to that. Where they demonstrated nonfeascance in their duties was their duty of care i.e to order a proportionate response to the perceived threat. The revised ROE's which were authorised on April 18th led to a sharp increase in the number of deaths. They did nothing about it up to the point of refusing a request by Senators for a cease fire and Senate mediated negotiations on the 18th May which resulted in further deaths (including the 6 civilians in the Wat) which could easily have been avoided. That is where their nonfeascance lies.

So tell me, what is the appropriate response to having unknown militants mingling with innocent protesters without the protesters or their leaders acknowledging such fact?

A cease fire by the government forces without the 'peaceful protesters' under UDD leadership even acknowledging violent elements in their midst? The army in heavy gunfights and having grenades lobbed on them by those 'unknowns' in the midsts of the peacefull protesters? Nick Nostitz told us about the firecracker thrown in the midst of a group of reporters and journalists causing them to flee for life as it might have been a grenade with vanderGrift and a few soldiers nearby getting a real grenade moments later, this horrible 19th of May. Easily avoided, true, true. If only the UDD had told their army to lay down their weapons. If only the UDD had accept to offer of late 2010 elections.

Abhisit/Suthep had to do something and had the courage to do it.

[rubl]

The Bangkok Post known for their anti Yingluck stance aptly allowed a politically correct satire cartoon showing Ahbisit and Suterp backs against the Lady of Justice and pouring cold water on her. How appropriate to describe the disdain for justice and double standard pitifully displayed.

Now I'm confused. I thought the cold water part was about collecting money for a good cause?

[rubl]

Not a proportionate response to army personnel being blown up by grenades? How should one deal with protesters armed with military weapons?

Appropriately. That does not include authorising the use of snipers or the establishment of "live fire zones" in my opinion. I also have problems with authorising troops to use lethal force under the umbrella of

"the broadening of circumstances in which officials could use force to protect “other people, official property, and private citizens under their guard”

or

"even unarmed civilians could be shot with “shotguns and rifles” in cases where a large group of demonstrators advanced towards the officials, disregarding a no trespassing order, to the point of creating a dangerous situation"

or

"Officials were also authorized to use live bullets against “suspects” who resisted arrest or refused to submit to a search"

Your argument may have some merit if those killed by the military forces were armed and presenting a deadly threat - just how many of those shot and killed on the 10th April were armed and presenting a deadly threat? Or the 6 in Wat Pathum. Or the taxi driver or the 16 year old boy, whose deaths are the subject of the case against abhisit and suthep?

Maybe in your world you regard that as a proportionate response. I don't.

So, you mean we should continue investigating the murder case of the children who died when cowards attacked anti-government protesters ? Even if somehow the UDD and their paymaster Thaksin who controlled Yingluck is involved? With Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament she is in charge?

Or is that a completely different issue which we should look at in that way and it's not tangible and so on and so forth?

The Men in Black were tangible, the grenade attacks on non-red-shirts as well. Even Nick Nostitz encountered MiB in the night and wrote they were polite because they only asked him not to make photos but didn't kill him.

[Eric Loh]

The Bangkok Post known for their anti Yingluck stance aptly allowed a politically correct satire cartoon showing Ahbisit and Suterp backs against the Lady of Justice and pouring cold water on her. How appropriate to describe the disdain for justice and double standard pitifully displayed.

Now I'm confused. I thought the cold water part was about collecting money for a good cause?

Pace too fast Rubi. Try catching up. Sutherp has done his rounds collecting. Remember that? Stay with the current news and topic.

[Robby nz]

This is simply tp ridiculous for words. Do you really believe your own propaganda? Why would K Suthep order the killing of a nurse? And what evidence do you have? None, off course. This is just blind prejudice no doubt posted at the behest of others.

Who did order the killing then? Someone needs to be held responsible for the bloodbath. If it is not Suthep and Abhisit then maybe some military people need to go on trial.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Indeed they do so tell us who ordered the riots started that led to the grenades being fired at the army killing army personnel, an attack which sparked the retaliation from the army.

Tell us who ordered the attack on the sky train station that killed one and injured others.

Tell us why the red leaders refused to pack up and leave after agreeing to do so, for it was that decision and those who made it that must be held responsible for all the deaths and injuries after that time.

There is no doubt about that for if they had gone as agreed there would have been no need to move them on by force.

Tell us who ordered the men in black to fire on the army.

Tell us who supplied the weapons to the red rioters and the funding to use them.

Once you have answered these questions then you will know who must be held responsible.

Tell us who triggered the protests in the first place by Prime Minister without being elected, and then refusing to stand for election (even the previous Prime Minister of my home country, who I consider a reprehensible human being in many ways, had the decency to do this).

The reason the Reds didn't move out of Ratchaprasong was because they didn't believe Abhisit was sincere about his promise to hold elections. If he had shown them that he was serious about elections, then I have no doubt that the Reds would have dispersed.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As you refuse to even consider that the reds could ever do anything wrong then I will have to tell you.

The riots (armed protests are riots) were started on the orders of Thaksin who couldn't stand seeing his proxy parties pushed aside when the small parties deserted him and formed a Govt with the Dems.

As has already been pointed out to you and the others who have fallen for red brainwashing, Abhisit was legally PM at the time.

The red leaders at first accepted the terms for packing up and going home.

In reality it was Abhisit who accepted the reds demands in an attempt to end the riots peacefully without any farther bloodshed.

It was not till the next day that they reversed that decision and decided to stay and sacrifice more of their people.

We can only speculate what went on (frantic phone calls) that caused the change but saying they didn't trust Abhisit was only an excuse.

That decision makes those who made it responsible for everything that happened after the refusal to leave peacefully.

As a measure of proof that it was Thaksin who reversed the decision to leave, there is Sae Daeng's statements that he had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had put him in charge of the reds because he could no longer trust the leaders as they had agreed to leave, this is a matter of record.

Note that Sae Daeng was shot while giving an interview to the press saying just that.

Why was he shot ?

Well for a start by his statements he was proving beyond doubt that Thaksin was in charge of the riots by having the power to hire and fire the leadership.

Then there was the loss of face of the leaders who were being told they were being dumped because they were no longer trustworthy and of course they would have lost there income. (they came out of it with millions).

So who ordered his shooting ? Take your pick, Thaksin or the red leaders.

No it wasn't either the army or Abhisit for Sae Daeng was doing a good job at the time destabilizing the red leadership which could only be to their advantage.

Maybe Abhisit was "legally" PM, but ethically and morally he should have called an election because he only got the position because of smaller parties crossing the floor. And if his promises to call elections had been serious (and not just a ruse), then why didn't he dissolve Parliament?

Of course the Reds would have gone home if they had believed there were going to be elections (which they would have easily won like in 2011). What more could they have wanted?

And please stop giving me conspiracy theories about Seh Daeng. I can think of a much more plausible reason why he was shot. The army were about to launch their crackdown and didn't want a capable commander at the helm of the Reds.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Pushed the button twice in your excitement to get in a post did you or was it a repeat to try and convince yourself ?

Abhisit did what has been done many times before in many parts of the world, he took the opportunity to form a Govt when the Thaksin proxy party was in a shambles and their coalition partners chose to desert them, perfectly ethical, moral, legal and above board in a democracy.

If you want to talk ethics and morals try explaining why Thaksin organized and funded the riots.

Your conspiracy theory on Sea Daenge killing is far less plausible than the my summery of the facts.

By the way it admits that Sea Daeng was in command of the armed faction of the reds and indeed the reds as a whole (Sae Daeng said Thaksin said)

[jayboy]

At the very least both Abhisit and Suthep never left the country and ran away.

If you know there is not a chance in hell of ever serving a day in prison it doesn't really take much courage not to run away.

While PT was calling the shots and Tarit was being a good little boy for them, there was a chance they could go to gaol. Yet Abhisit stayed.

There was never the slightest chance Abhisit would serve time.Don't confuse the shadow play with the reality.

[whybother]

People seem to have conveniently forgotten the military was using live ammo on protesters very early on when we were being lied to by Abhisit and co. saying there was no live ammo being used and they were firing blanks.

At this time there were no 'men-in-black' nor red shirts armed with firearms.

You could clearly see M16's being fired by soldiers without suppressors attached. The fact that it is impossible to fire blank rounds without one seemed not to be of concern to those feeding mushrooms at the time.

Someone should be responsible for those orders and actions, should it be Abhisit? He was leader of the country at the time.

His lineage seems to be full of little dark secrets, his father being in Suchinda's cabinet for example.

Live ammunition wasn't used until April 10 when the red shirt's armed militia blew up the general with a grenade.

[whybother]

Maybe the protesters (and you) should learn how PMs are elected in Thailand. Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of MPs, the same way as Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck.

Did PPP call an election when Samak was forced to step down? No. They went to parliament to elect a new PM.

Did Somchai call an election when he was elected PM? No. I didn't see the red shirts out protesting then.

Did PTP (who were effectively in government after Somchai and PPP was banned) call a general election to elect a new PM? No. They went to parliament to elect a PM. That's when Abhisit was elected by a majority of MPs.

There is an important distinction between the elections of Thaksin, Yingluck on one hand and Abhisit,Samak,Somchai on the other.The former two won a mandate from the Thai people and the latter three did not.The latter certainly were legitimately elected PM by MPs but would have needed to refresh their mandate with the people at large.This is well understood by anyone who understands the parliamentary system of government.It would be pleasant if we could be spared yet more pious lectures on how the system works - which usually tend to omit important background.

It's an irrelevant distinction. They were still all elected by a majority of MPs. For Thaksin (in 2005, not 2001) and Yingluck, that majority came from a single party.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were still all democratically elected PMs.

... and I didn't see the red shirts out protesting against Samak and Somchai.

It's irrelevant in your particular view because you wish to disguise the murky and money nourished path that led Abhisit to power in the interests of his puppet masters.For the more balanced the distinction is not even controversial.When in a parliamentary democracy a PM does not have a personal mandate there is a need to seek one sooner or later.It is not a question of legitimacy but political necessity.In the UK Gordon Brown was a classic example.Thaksin and Yingluck had that national mandate.Samak, Somchai and Abhisit didn't.

Your comment about redshirt protests is however completely irrelevant and if I may say so rather stupid.The point relates to how a parliamentary democracy works in practice not to your prejudiced view of Thai politics.

In practice, parliamentary democracies allow governments to be formed without "mandates".

[whybother]

The worms are now starting to come out of the woodwork. You can now see how "neutral" junta is.

It's teakwood from PTP/UDD people the 'junta' has been digging out, there are no worms nor termites in teakwood, you're not being 'neutral', just plain biased! Hope 'your guys' will have their day(s) in the Court(s) soon, oh, it might be 'neutral', but, I bet, again, you won't agree with the rulings...

Anyone with a brain can see what is happenning here. Timing of the decision to throw out the case and passing it over to another court. You dont need to support any parties to this madness to see the political hands in these matters. Are you bangkrup of ideas on how to support your idol? Why are you soo touchy in this matters? Is he your god that cant be criticised?

Anyone with a brain can see that charging them as civilians was a stupid idea in the first place.

[fab4]

And you're right, Of course I don't doubt that abhisit and suthep acted, 96 deaths attest to that. Where they demonstrated nonfeascance in their duties was their duty of care i.e to order a proportionate response to the perceived threat. The revised ROE's which were authorised on April 18th led to a sharp increase in the number of deaths. They did nothing about it up to the point of refusing a request by Senators for a cease fire and Senate mediated negotiations on the 18th May which resulted in further deaths (including the 6 civilians in the Wat) which could easily have been avoided. That is where their nonfeascance lies.

So tell me, what is the appropriate response to having unknown militants mingling with innocent protesters without the protesters or their leaders acknowledging such fact?

A cease fire by the government forces without the 'peaceful protesters' under UDD leadership even acknowledging violent elements in their midst? The army in heavy gunfights and having grenades lobbed on them by those 'unknowns' in the midsts of the peacefull protesters? Nick Nostitz told us about the firecracker thrown in the midst of a group of reporters and journalists causing them to flee for life as it might have been a grenade with vanderGrift and a few soldiers nearby getting a real grenade moments later, this horrible 19th of May. Easily avoided, true, true. If only the UDD had told their army to lay down their weapons. If only the UDD had accept to offer of late 2010 elections.

Abhisit/Suthep had to do something and had the courage to do it.

The appropriate response is a proportionate one, something abhisit and suthep obviously had a problem with, unless of course you regard the authorisation for snipers , live fire zones and revised ROE's giving carte blanche to the military, as proportionate. Judging by your previous responses, you do.

The horrible "19th of May" - is that different to the horrible 10th April or the horrible 11th April or any days afterwards up to and including the 19th May, or is it because you can display your shock and horror at the injuries to "Van de Griff and a few soldiers" a trait you don't seem to display when talking about UDD casualties? And you have the gall to question a ceasefire offered to be brokered by the Senators on the 17th/18th May. An offer of a ceasefire preceded by a call from Amnesty International to the military to halt their "reckless use of lethal force", the government having rejected talks called for by UDD Leader, Nattawut Saikua to be moderated by the UN on the 16th May. The response?

"We cannot retreat now," Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said in a televised statement

The government also rejected the Senate talks. If they hadn't, 12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.

Oh and it doesn't take a lot of courage hiding in an army barracks, having the army do your dirty work for you and knowing all along that you'll be protected by the Emergency Decree amnesty

Democrat Party lawmaker Thavorn Senniem criticized the indictments, saying that the two political leaders were acting under the authority given to them by the state of emergency, which grants officials immunity from prosecution from actions under its provisions.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163603342725302

Edited August 30, 2014 by fab4

[whybother]

So tell me, what is the appropriate response to having unknown militants mingling with innocent protesters without the protesters or their leaders acknowledging such fact?

A cease fire by the government forces without the 'peaceful protesters' under UDD leadership even acknowledging violent elements in their midst? The army in heavy gunfights and having grenades lobbed on them by those 'unknowns' in the midsts of the peacefull protesters? Nick Nostitz told us about the firecracker thrown in the midst of a group of reporters and journalists causing them to flee for life as it might have been a grenade with vanderGrift and a few soldiers nearby getting a real grenade moments later, this horrible 19th of May. Easily avoided, true, true. If only the UDD had told their army to lay down their weapons. If only the UDD had accept to offer of late 2010 elections.

Abhisit/Suthep had to do something and had the courage to do it.

The appropriate response is a proportionate one, something abhisit and suthep obviously had a problem with, unless of course you regard the authorisation for snipers , live fire zones and revised ROE's giving carte blanche to the military, as proportionate. Judging by your previous responses, you do.

The horrible "19th of May" - is that different to the horrible 10th April or the horrible 11th April or any days afterwards up to and including the 19th May, or is it because you can display your shock and horror at the injuries to "Van de Griff and a few soldiers" a trait you don't seem to display when talking about UDD casualties? And you have the gall to question a ceasefire offered to be brokered by the Senators on the 17th/18th May. An offer of a ceasefire preceded by a call from Amnesty International to the military to halt their "reckless use of lethal force", the government having rejected talks called for by UDD Leader, Nattawut Saikua to be moderated by the UN on the 16th May. The response?

"We cannot retreat now," Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said in a televised statement

The government also rejected the Senate talks. If they hadn't, 12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.

Oh and it doesn't take a lot of courage hiding in an army barracks, having the army do your dirty work for you and knowing all along that you'll be protected by the Emergency Decree amnesty

Democrat Party lawmaker Thavorn Senniem criticized the indictments, saying that the two political leaders were acting under the authority given to them by the state of emergency, which grants officials immunity from prosecution from actions under its provisions.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163603342725302

When there are armed protesters shooting at the army while in amongst unarmed protesters, snipers are a better solution than soldiers wildly shooting at crowds.

Can you imagine how many thousands would have been killed if the army did that?

[rubl]

The Bangkok Post known for their anti Yingluck stance aptly allowed a politically correct satire cartoon showing Ahbisit and Suterp backs against the Lady of Justice and pouring cold water on her. How appropriate to describe the disdain for justice and double standard pitifully displayed.

Now I'm confused. I thought the cold water part was about collecting money for a good cause?

Pace too fast Rubi. Try catching up. Sutherp has done his rounds collecting. Remember that? Stay with the current news and topic.

You mean Abhisit and Suthep will donate because they poured cold water on others rarther than themselves? I thought I read Abhisit already posted a 'me too' clip. Phra Suthep will probably need to refrain, monks shouldn't do that type of thing in public.

Anyway, the topic seems a criminal court decision on rejecting the "premeditated murder" case against Abhisit/Suthep. I think this was a blanket charge, in that all (relevant) deaths were bunched together for this charge. I wonder if "double jeopardy" will come in play?

[fab4]

When there are armed protesters shooting at the army while in amongst unarmed protesters, snipers are a better solution than soldiers wildly shooting at crowds.

Can you imagine how many thousands would have been killed if the army did that?

Oh yes, you wouldn't want soldiers shooting wildly at crowds - it's a lot easier to have snipers/"marksmen" firing at a small group of unarmed civilians as at Din Daeng

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=123968350962277

Do you really think even abhisit wouldn't have realised that something was amiss if the military had killed thousands by indiscriminate firing into crowds? I presume you're saying everybody should be thankful for the restraint shown by the army in being responsible for only scores of deaths (along with abhisit and suthep of course)..........

Edited August 30, 2014 by fab4

[rubl]

There was never the slightest chance Abhisit would serve time.Don't confuse the shadow play with the reality.

Innocent people shouldn't be subject to harassment or jail, don't you think? That has nothing at all to do with games people here like to play.

[rubl]

When there are armed protesters shooting at the army while in amongst unarmed protesters, snipers are a better solution than soldiers wildly shooting at crowds.

Can you imagine how many thousands would have been killed if the army did that?

Oh yes, you wouldn't want soldiers shooting wildly at crowds - it's a lot easier to have snipers/"marksmen" firing at a small group of unarmed civilians as at Din Daeng

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=123968350962277

Do you really think even abhisit wouldn't have realised that something was amiss if the military had killed thousands by indiscriminate firing into crowds? I presume you're saying everybody should be thankful for the restraint shown by the army in being responsible for only scores of deaths (along with abhisit and suthep of course)..........

Robert A. formulated "fired thousands of rounds into a densely packed group of peaceful protesters" or something similar. He didn't write "after the army colonel with staff got killed by grenades lobbed on them by non-red-shirt related help", neither that the army was forced to retreat under gunfire and returning gunfire.

Anyway, conclusion

- government not giving in to terrorists unacceptable

- army returning gunfire unacceptable

- non-red-shirts killed by grenades no problem

or at least that seems to be what some here think.

In the mean time we had the 'premeditated murder' case thrown out and I wonder about the concept of 'double jeopardy'. As I wrote a few months or more ago if the OAG puts all on one card and loses they may not be able to get a second chance.

[mikemac]

@thailandnoob

You said

Tell us who triggered the protests in the first place by Prime Minister without being elected, and then refusing to stand for election (even the previous Prime Minister of my home country, who I consider a reprehensible human being in many ways, had the decency to do this).

The reason the Reds didn't move out of Ratchaprasong was because they didn't believe Abhisit was sincere about his promise to hold elections. If he had shown them that he was serious about elections, then I have no doubt that the Reds would have dispersed.

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Me

Lets see: Abhisit was elected during the election and was then voted in as PM after the PPP was dissolved. Now while the fate of the PPP was dubious, the election of Abhisit as PM was not. He was voted in PM the same way every PM is, i.e. by parliament.

The reds leadership didn't accept the offer of an election was because of their preference for a "politics of the street" solution. They felt they could do whatsoever they wished and no one was entitled to a contrary position. Their thuggish storming of a hospital because of the ridiculous claims soldiers were in there was typical of their militia. They were violent, intolerant and determined to force their will on the country. No matter what the cost.

...................."The reds leadership didn't accept the offer of an election was because of their preference for a "politics of the street" solution."........................

A lot of people, myself being one of them, believe the total intelligence of the reds leadership would not be enough to form an opinion on anything at all, let mind one such as this. They did what they did because they were ordered to do so by someone hiding out in the desert, who was also funding the entire operation,debacle/disaster/failed coup. Someone who was after revenge and full of spite. Someone who did not care how many lives were lost, from both sides, who was willing to sacrifice them for his vendetta.

Anyone who does not see that and admit it is either blind or paid not to.

....................."They felt they could do whatsoever they wished and no one was entitled to a contrary position. Their thuggish storming of a hospital because of the ridiculous claims soldiers were in there was typical of their militia. They were violent, intolerant and determined to force their will on the country. No matter what the cost.".........................

+1 !!!!!!

[kimamey]

Ok where's the evidence that Suthep ordered the shooting of the nurse?

I've seen the translation of the ROE and it isn't in there. In fact there aren't any orders to kill anyone only permission to shoot in certain circumstances of which hers wasn't one.

I've tried to find the ROE but I can't at the moment but I did find this.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/01/30/expert-testimony-alleges-criminal-acts-by-thai-army-in-april-may-2010/

This seems to be evidence from one of Robert Amsterdam's experts that says the army weren't following orders.

You provided the link to the revised ROE (on the 18th April) that was issued by CRES with abhisits knowledge. If you read those revised ROE's you could see how those ROE's led to the deaths of several people - basically the gloves were taken off and were not seen to be a proportionate response to the perceived threat.

Modified rules of engagement that expanded the range of circumstances in which officials could use live fire were approved by CRES on 18 April 2010.

The document stated that the presence of armed elements within the demonstrators justified the broadening of circumstances in which officials could use force to protect “other people, official property, and private citizens under their guard” and to “allow the provision of medical assistance to the perpetrators according to human rights principles after officials have managed to bring the situation under control.”

Specifically, the regulations allowed officials to shoot anyone seen carrying weapons who disregarded a no trespassing order, posed any danger to others, or prepared to use the weapons against officials or the general public. As a last resort, even unarmed civilians could be shot with “shotguns and rifles” in cases where a large group of demonstrators advanced towards the officials, disregarding a no trespassing order, to the point of creating a dangerous situation.

Officials were also authorized to use live bullets against “suspects” who resisted arrest or refused to submit to a search.

Finally, the order approved the deployment of “marksmen,” or snipers, to elevated positions from which they were authorized to use live ammunition against armed persons mixed with crowds of “innocent people,” whom other officials were not allowed to target.

If the CRES was not ruled to be ordering a proportionate response to the threat (and authorising the use of snipers and live fire zones in a crackdown on a demonstration in an urban environment has got to be seen as a disproportionate response in my opinion) than the "amnesty" provided by the Emergency Decree at the time would be void thus allowing the prosecution of those officials that made up CRES. It should now be up to the NACC to bring these case to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.

It should be noted that the NACC paved the way in 2009 by voting 6-3 that then prime minister Somchai Wongsawad and former deputy PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh violated the Criminal Code’s Article 157 on dereliction of duty by ordering the dispersal of the yellow-shirt protesters. They then forwarded a report to the OAG to file an indictment with the SCCDHPP.

Wonder if they'll have the courage of their "convictions" in this case........................

Thanks for that. I knew you at least would have some facts.

I think there are 2 parts to this.

Firstly were the ROE appropriate for the situation and did they fall within the guidelines set out by the UN and if not does that constitute a criminal offence in Thailand? It probably should but that doesn't mean that it does. The ROE certainly seem to go beyond those guidelines although I can't remember in what respects as I haven't read them for a while but I do remember seeing what I considered possible infringements. I say possible because as in a many of these types of guidelines there is a lot of use of words and phrases such as 'proportionate' 'appropriate' 'other reasonable measures' and 'only if absolutely necessary'. These are always going to be open to interpretation but even so there were parts that did look suspect. The ROE themselves have non exact terms as well.

I don't know who wrote the ROE but I doubt it was Abhisit and Suthep on their own. The army must have had an input and probably lawyers as well.

Secondly were the army following those orders when they fired the shots? There were about 90 deaths I think, so I doubt they are all the same. I think 2 soldiers were killed by friendly fire so those aren't the same and I think some guy was killed when he came out to see what was happening. Not an incredibly sensible thing to do but sad nonetheless but that would seem like an accident.

The army have said it was red shirts that fired the shots and whilst I wouldn't be surprised if they shot some of their own by accident baring in mind the trained soldiers did the same that can't possibly be the case in all the deaths. Maybe in some cases it was lack of training and panic in a frightening situation but in others that's not likely. The evidence, in particular from Robert Amsterdam's expert suggests the army weren't following orders. Under those circumstances whilst there may be a case against A and S regarding the ROE and it's breaking of UN guidelines if the deaths occurred due to not following those orders then the ROE weren't the cause and so the accusation of the PM and DPM causing the deaths wouldn't stand up. If in some cases the deaths took place whilst the soldier was abiding by those rules then that would be different.

There needs to be a proper credible investigation into this which hasn't happened so far. There was one under the Democrat administration but regardless of the quality of that investigation there were serious doubts about the balance and credibility of those conducting it.

This latest fiasco is even worse. Sent to the wrong court and investigated by the DSI which apart from being openly biased isn't as far as I know even entitled to deal with it so if there had been a verdict it would have most likely been thrown out on appeal. Plus of course Tarit was a member of the CRES and therefore subject to investigation himself whilst at the same time making the decision on who to investigate.

Why it was sent to the wrong court I don't know but my guess is that since it was possibly an attempt to use it to pressure Abhisit and Suthep over Thaksin's amnesty it was never intended to go to court. When that didn't work sending it to a court that couldn't hear the evidence would avoid any chance of damaging information coming out regarding the backing of the demonstrators and more particularly the few violent ones and the involvement of the army. Everyone knows about that but the sight of them being shown to be responsible but not included in the charges by the government could be very damaging.

I would have thought that whilst this was originally a demonstration and a largely peaceful one by the time of the army's actions it had gone beyond that although there is still the need to be proportional. There's also the issue of the Emergency Decree which allows for the prevention of gatherings. It may not be something I agree with but it's there and it was signed by Thaksin so it can't really be questioned on the basis of bias.

You're right about the amnesty in the decree as it is only valid if the actions were taken in 'good faith'. How that's interpreted is another matter. I can't see it being valid for the army though.

Everything is there for a proper investigation but I can't see it happening and without that then those involved on all sides won't see justice but will be judged on prejudice as they are on this forum regularly without any research into the facts.

[fab4]

When there are armed protesters shooting at the army while in amongst unarmed protesters, snipers are a better solution than soldiers wildly shooting at crowds.

Can you imagine how many thousands would have been killed if the army did that?

Oh yes, you wouldn't want soldiers shooting wildly at crowds - it's a lot easier to have snipers/"marksmen" firing at a small group of unarmed civilians as at Din Daeng

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=123968350962277

Do you really think even abhisit wouldn't have realised that something was amiss if the military had killed thousands by indiscriminate firing into crowds? I presume you're saying everybody should be thankful for the restraint shown by the army in being responsible for only scores of deaths (along with abhisit and suthep of course)..........

Robert A. formulated "fired thousands of rounds into a densely packed group of peaceful protesters" or something similar. He didn't write "after the army colonel with staff got killed by grenades lobbed on them by non-red-shirt related help", neither that the army was forced to retreat under gunfire and returning gunfire.

Anyway, conclusion

- government not giving in to terrorists unacceptable

- army returning gunfire unacceptable

- non-red-shirts killed by grenades no problem

or at least that seems to be what some here think.

In the mean time we had the 'premeditated murder' case thrown out and I wonder about the concept of 'double jeopardy'. As I wrote a few months or more ago if the OAG puts all on one card and loses they may not be able to get a second chance.

I can only presume an answer to my post #233 is beyond, or beneath you. Still, at least this reply of yours allows you to spout the usual.

Oh, by the way the "premeditated murder" case has not been thrown out, as in dismissed. The court recognised that abhisit and sutheps actions directly led to deaths and that the dispersal operations did not follow international standards. In addition the prosecutors can appeal the decision not to hear the case, not to mention that as there is evidence of abhisits and sutheps actions having led to deaths the NACC should be duty bound to raise the case in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders - but I won't hold my breath, especially in the current "political" climate.

[mikemac]

When there are armed protesters shooting at the army while in amongst unarmed protesters, snipers are a better solution than soldiers wildly shooting at crowds.

Can you imagine how many thousands would have been killed if the army did that?

Oh yes, you wouldn't want soldiers shooting wildly at crowds - it's a lot easier to have snipers/"marksmen" firing at a small group of unarmed civilians as at Din Daeng

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=123968350962277

Do you really think even abhisit wouldn't have realised that something was amiss if the military had killed thousands by indiscriminate firing into crowds? I presume you're saying everybody should be thankful for the restraint shown by the army in being responsible for only scores of deaths (along with abhisit and suthep of course)..........

Another fine example of selective link posting. As I have said many times before, if you look hard enough across the internet you will eventually find a webpage to support your claims, although quite often these pages are worthless trash posted by morons such as fabby's friend Bangkok Pundit..

I actually had a look at the links this tiresome red fan posted and they were the usual low class fodder. The photos in the link - http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/ only did one thing for me, they reminded me what an a**wipe Thaksin was/is for funding such a failed disaster.

These piss poor attempts to wave the red banner are only reminding us what grubs they are.

Edited August 30, 2014 by mikemac

[rubl]

Robert A. formulated "fired thousands of rounds into a densely packed group of peaceful protesters" or something similar. He didn't write "after the army colonel with staff got killed by grenades lobbed on them by non-red-shirt related help", neither that the army was forced to retreat under gunfire and returning gunfire.

Anyway, conclusion

- government not giving in to terrorists unacceptable

- army returning gunfire unacceptable

- non-red-shirts killed by grenades no problem

or at least that seems to be what some here think.

In the mean time we had the 'premeditated murder' case thrown out and I wonder about the concept of 'double jeopardy'. As I wrote a few months or more ago if the OAG puts all on one card and loses they may not be able to get a second chance.

I can only presume an answer to my post #233 is beyond, or beneath you. Still, at least this reply of yours allows you to spout the usual.

Oh, by the way the "premeditated murder" case has not been thrown out, as in dismissed. The court recognised that abhisit and sutheps actions directly led to deaths and that the dispersal operations did not follow international standards. In addition the prosecutors can appeal the decision not to hear the case, not to mention that as there is evidence of abhisits and sutheps actions having led to deaths the NACC should be duty bound to raise the case in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders - but I won't hold my breath, especially in the current "political" climate.

Oh come on, Fabby.

The court didn't recognise anything except that this possible case was not theirs to look into.

From the OP:

"A criminal court in the capital ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because Abhisit and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban were holders of public office at the time and acting under an emergency decree.

It said the only court with the authority to consider the allegations was the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions."

ADD: Although the court ruled not to have jurisdiction in this case, Abhisit/Suthep have been charged, have acknowledged charges and a ruling is made. Seems "double jeopardy" can come into play. IMHO.

Edited August 30, 2014 by rubl

[mikemac]

..........................."12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.".................................

Can someone remind Fab4 (I think he has blocked me because I had the audacity to say that he is a banned troll) that if Thaksin had not have come up with the evil plan in the first place, to have his paid redshirt murderers invade Bangkok and attack the Army, there would not have been ANY deaths and we would be talking about something else now.