Concerns over trying civilians in Thai military court

[webfact]

Concerns over trying civilians in military court
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Holding closed-door trials in military court for civilian defendants and forbidding observers from taking notes in other cases undermines the due process of law, two human-rights activists said.

They voiced these concerns after the military court sentenced two anti-coup protesters to suspended prison terms on Monday, while instructing both local and foreign observers to not take notes during the trial. The court also said it would proceed with four lese majeste cases behind closed doors.

"This is a cause for serious concern and goes against the National Council for Peace and Order's assurance that the military court would follow due process [of law]," Sunai Phasuk from Human Rights Watch (HRW), said.

He said he was most concerned about whether those facing serious charges, such as violating the lese majeste law, would be tried fairly, as they cannot appeal given that the military court is the court of first and last instance.

Yingcheep Atchanont, project manager at iLaw, an NGO advocating legal reform, on Monday went to observe the trial and sentencing of the two anti-coup protesters but was instructed not to take any notes.

Chainarin Kularbum was given a three-month suspended sentence for joining a protest of more than five persons against the coup, while Yodyiam Srimanta was give a six-month suspended sentence for not reporting to the military junta's summonses.

Yingcheep speculated that the judges might have banned observers from taking notes because they know this is not something the international community would appreciate.

New Zealand and Belgium embassies sent officials to observe the trial that day, he added.

"My guess is that the court is also afraid, as they're being watched by the media and the international community. The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community," Yingcheep said.

He added that he believes the right to fair trial has been compromised by the very fact that note-taking is forbidden and that the four lese majeste cases are being heard behind closed doors, without any observers or media.

"It's bad enough that civilians are being tried in a military court," Yingcheep pointed out.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Concerns-over-trying-civilians-in-military-court-30246569.html

-- The Nation 2014-10-30

[chainarong]

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of the junta controlled Government , if they want to impress the international community and show that their Coup was the right way to go , hiding court trials behind closed doors , not allowing press freedom or international observers is not a winning ticket and goes to show what it was all about, a junta that doesn't want the world to know what is really going on and you whinge about a drop off in tourists, its a wonder Thailand has any visitors or friends, when reading this type of behaviour is happening.

[jaltsc]

"... undermines the due process of law..."

How can there be due process if the laws are enacted differently for those who are wealthy and have influence and those who have to struggle just to survive?

[JOC]

I really really want to post on this topic!!

But then again, to comply with forum rules, I think I will refrain..................

[tbthailand]

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of the junta controlled Government , if they want to impress the international community and show that their Coup was the right way to go , hiding court trials behind closed doors , not allowing press freedom or international observers is not a winning ticket and goes to show what it was all about, a junta that doesn't want the world to know what is really going on and you whinge about a drop off in tourists, its a wonder Thailand has any visitors or friends, when reading this type of behaviour is happening.

yes... and if they did not want to be accused of possible human rights violations they would not arbitrarily detain people at undisclosed locations in complete isolation for 7 days - or even longer if the folks like it so much that they volunteer to stay.

Call me skeptical, ... Hmmm do you think they really care that much about the international community? That is a problem they can fix when they finally hire a PR firm

[rubl]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

[tx22cb]

Don't be silly.

What's the point of going to all the bother of staging a military coup and imposing martial law if you don't fully make use of all your powers, especially when you have granted yourselves blanket amnesty?

The Haters are going to hate, so best to ignore/ban/prosecute them

[englishoak]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

But they are, there is still a law and court system that can be used for civilians.

The very existence of and trials going ahead on civilians in a closed Military Junta Court makes it political.

Edited October 30, 2014 by englishoak

[jollyhangmon]

>Holding closed-door trials in military court for civilian defendants and forbidding observers from taking notes in other cases undermines the due process of law, two human-rights activists said.<

... well, of course it does, that's why it happens that way ...

... or rather it would if there was a thing like 'due process of law' here ...

[richusa]

I think to save some face from this corrupt Thai system (as with many others). Having a representative that knows Thai or any other countries.

Would set at least some positive outlook as the representatives would let the world know whether it was fair. And any tourist can judge whether to come here. As opposed to closed court convictions.

[dominique355]

The Martial Law itself has no foundation in this or any constitution. The law itself is unconstitutional so what can we expect from a basically illegal situation? Certainly not the protection of basic human rights such as due process

[fab4]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

So what part of protesting against a coup which has overthrown the democratic rule of government with the King as a Head of State, do you find not political, rubl?

The junta stated that Military Courts would only be used for cases of threats to National Security or Lese Majeste. A protest against a coup is a threat to National Security? No, rubl, these are political trials.

Edited October 30, 2014 by fab4

[donmuang37]

Rules for military courts martial are well known around the world: "Carefully consider the evidence and then hang the guilty devil."

Historical fact: Dictators normally don't give a hoot about international opinion.

[lvr181]

Satisfy HRW's concern by not trying the criminals and let them go free. No problem. Will HRW then ensure that they are given a "proper" trial elsewhere?

If not, then HRW, BUTT OUT! "When in Rome do as the Romans do" whether you like it or not, it ain't going to change. Deal with it.

[rickirs]

And to think that the Junta was upset that Thailand didn't get membership to the UN Human Rights Council. There is justice in the world - just not in Thailand.

[Fred Flinstone]

Barbaric jungle law - and draconian ones at that -

Soon tourists will be facing such fates for things like wearing a Democracy T- shirt

[tbthailand]

Satisfy HRW's concern by not trying the criminals and let them go free. No problem. Will HRW then ensure that they are given a "proper" trial elsewhere?

If not, then HRW, BUTT OUT! "When in Rome do as the Romans do" whether you like it or not, it ain't going to change. Deal with it.

Satisfy HRW's concern by not trying the criminals and let them go free. No problem. Will HRW then ensure that they are given a "proper" trial elsewhere?

Do you realise that these 'criminals' were tried for nothing more criminal than protesting the 'intervention'. One was tried fro not reporting to the 'NCPO' and the other for joining a protest group of more than 5 people.

And they didn't list the 4 LM charges, but in the rest of the world, LM is not a crime. And in Thailand, it is not a crime where you are convicted because of what you said or did, but you are convicted for how other people feel about what you said or did.

And these are the kind of cases going behind closed doors, no cameras, observers, or media.

In other words, a 'proper' trial would be to release all of these people immediately and pay compensation for being wrongly imprisoned.

[Chris Lawrence]

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

You make the call.

[Thai at Heart]

Yay and happiness for the junta.

Getting closer to North Korea every day. Why can't these cases be held in civilian court.

[lvr181]

Satisfy HRW's concern by not trying the criminals and let them go free. No problem. Will HRW then ensure that they are given a "proper" trial elsewhere?

If not, then HRW, BUTT OUT! "When in Rome do as the Romans do" whether you like it or not, it ain't going to change. Deal with it.

Satisfy HRW's concern by not trying the criminals and let them go free. No problem. Will HRW then ensure that they are given a "proper" trial elsewhere?

Do you realise that these 'criminals' were tried for nothing more criminal than protesting the 'intervention'. One was tried fro not reporting to the 'NCPO' and the other for joining a protest group of more than 5 people.

And they didn't list the 4 LM charges, but in the rest of the world, LM is not a crime. And in Thailand, it is not a crime where you are convicted because of what you said or did, but you are convicted for how other people feel about what you said or did.

And these are the kind of cases going behind closed doors, no cameras, observers, or media.

In other words, a 'proper' trial would be to release all of these people immediately and pay compensation for being wrongly imprisoned.

I do not totally disagree with HRW concern, but that is not reality!

Perhaps HRW should address more pressing concerns (e.g. ISIL) and see how they get on? That is also reality! And a far bigger problem than Thailand or anyone else that HRW wishes to single out.

A golden rule, he who has the gold rules!

Edited October 30, 2014 by lvr181

[Magnify]

Barbaric jungle law - and draconian ones at that -

If it was as bad as you paint it, the red shirt leader would have never had his sentence suspended.

Yodyiam Srimanta was given a six-month suspended sentence

[bangrak]

'Had you been warned?' 'Yes, but...!' 'But what? You din't take it seriously? Sorry for you, your mistake. Next!' Here no excuses and subterfuges nor 'class justice' like in normal Courts, at some crucial times, sadly, examples have to be made, to mark the minds, and it has been done in the same way in many a Western country too under comparable circumstances, whether those 'kind spirits' want to remind or not...I do remember a saying: 'You cannot fight the devil with good intentions only!', it did not originate from Siam, but from 'the Holy Church of Rome', not that long time ago in History... So, please no 'politically correct' sweet talk! N.B.: I am Belgian, and I consider the general attitude of EU countries towards the junta to be depicably hypocritical!

[h90]

well suspended terms...so they go free.....What was the concern again?

[rubl]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

So what part of protesting against a coup which has overthrown the democratic rule of government with the King as a Head of State, do you find not political, rubl?

The junta stated that Military Courts would only be used for cases of threats to National Security or Lese Majeste. A protest against a coup is a threat to National Security? No, rubl, these are political trials.

Too simple, my dear fabs.

If the 'junta' excludes politicians how can any case by deemed a political case? Also the label 'political trial' sounds more negative than it really is. If a politician is justly trialed and convicted for say corruption, that trial would be a political trial already.

Wiki starts with

"A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. A composite definition of a political trial might be "an examination before a court concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government."^[1] T. Becker writes that "in a sense, all trials are political. Since courts are government agencies and judges are part of the 'system' all judicial decisions can be considered political."^[2] A political trial is characterized by the fact that public opinion and public attitudes on one or more social questions will inevitably have an effect on the decision.^[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_trial

PS for your information we still have a government "with the King as a Head of State". I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into this?

[tbthailand]

well suspended terms...so they go free.....What was the concern again?

I believe that the concern was that they should not have been arrested and tried in the first place. And then there would have been the time they spent in prison already not to mention the costs of defending themselves against such spurious charges along with the possibility of spending years in prison with no recourse.

Not to mention the plan to have 4 more LM trials in secret.

[fab4]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

So what part of protesting against a coup which has overthrown the democratic rule of government with the King as a Head of State, do you find not political, rubl?

The junta stated that Military Courts would only be used for cases of threats to National Security or Lese Majeste. A protest against a coup is a threat to National Security? No, rubl, these are political trials.

Too simple, my dear fabs.

If the 'junta' excludes politicians how can any case by deemed a political case? Also the label 'political trial' sounds more negative than it really is. If a politician is justly trialed and convicted for say corruption, that trial would be a political trial already.

Wiki starts with

"A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. A composite definition of a political trial might be "an examination before a court concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government."^[1] T. Becker writes that "in a sense, all trials are political. Since courts are government agencies and judges are part of the 'system' all judicial decisions can be considered political."^[2] A political trial is characterized by the fact that public opinion and public attitudes on one or more social questions will inevitably have an effect on the decision.^[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_trial

PS for your information we still have a government "with the King as a Head of State". I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into this?

You provide an answer (albeit from wikipedia) yourself and then ignore it? If you want to believe it is perfectly acceptable that people arrested for protesting against the coup were a threat to National Security and therefore should be tried in a military court who am I to disabuse you? But to then claim that the trials are not political is an act of self delusion at best (however, to be expected in keeping with your acceptance of the coup and all it's ramifications).

I didn't drag anything into this - you may be aware of Section 68 of the 2007 Constitution? My phrase is directly taken from the English translation of that Section (which was in place at the time of the coup) and was used to illustrate that the coup had rode roughshod (to say the least) over this section i.e protesting against a coup which was overthrowing a democratic regime must be a political act with political implications. The mere fact that a military coup decides to try these protesters in a military court as opposed to a criminal court is neither here nor there - it is still a political trial. A political trial has negative implications for a reason. Can you explain why you think that protesting against a coup in a peaceful manner is worthy of arrest and trial?

You can't just support parts of a coup, rubl, it's all or nothing.

[rubl]

"The military court is aware that these are political trials, and that it would not look good in the eyes of the international community"

Calling them political trials doesn't make them so.

So what part of protesting against a coup which has overthrown the democratic rule of government with the King as a Head of State, do you find not political, rubl?

The junta stated that Military Courts would only be used for cases of threats to National Security or Lese Majeste. A protest against a coup is a threat to National Security? No, rubl, these are political trials.

Too simple, my dear fabs.

If the 'junta' excludes politicians how can any case by deemed a political case? Also the label 'political trial' sounds more negative than it really is. If a politician is justly trialed and convicted for say corruption, that trial would be a political trial already.

Wiki starts with

"A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. A composite definition of a political trial might be "an examination before a court concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government."^[1] T. Becker writes that "in a sense, all trials are political. Since courts are government agencies and judges are part of the 'system' all judicial decisions can be considered political."^[2] A political trial is characterized by the fact that public opinion and public attitudes on one or more social questions will inevitably have an effect on the decision.^[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_trial

PS for your information we still have a government "with the King as a Head of State". I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into this?

You provide an answer (albeit from wikipedia) yourself and then ignore it? If you want to believe it is perfectly acceptable that people arrested for protesting against the coup were a threat to National Security and therefore should be tried in a military court who am I to disabuse you? But to then claim that the trials are not political is an act of self delusion at best (however, to be expected in keeping with your acceptance of the coup and all it's ramifications).

I didn't drag anything into this - you may be aware of Section 68 of the 2007 Constitution? My phrase is directly taken from the English translation of that Section (which was in place at the time of the coup) and was used to illustrate that the coup had rode roughshod (to say the least) over this section i.e protesting against a coup which was overthrowing a democratic regime must be a political act with political implications. The mere fact that a military coup decides to try these protesters in a military court as opposed to a criminal court is neither here nor there - it is still a political trial. A political trial has negative implications for a reason. Can you explain why you think that protesting against a coup in a peaceful manner is worthy of arrest and trial?

You can't just support parts of a coup, rubl, it's all or nothing.

You should also not just use only the negative aspects of the politicised term 'political trial', its all or nothing.

Any way it would almost seem you complain that a coup is not democratic and having Martial Law is also not democratic. True, but a matter of fact. The 'protest' even in a peaceful manner was against the law in place at the moment. That law was legal even if undemocratically imposed.

PS the 'democratic regime' was a slip of the pen I guess and you meant 'democratic government'

[lvr181]

Pedanticism is rife here

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[lvr181]

Pedanticism is rife here

And a lack of understanding of reality!