Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[boomerangutang]

If anything, Abhisit and Suthep should explain why they they continued to be so patient, putting up with over 2 months of intransigence before taking dynamic action (except for one incident). If Abhisit deserves to be vilified, it would be because he was too nice and too open to negotiations.

Then surely Yingluck will be qualified to be in our nice list as she was patient for 7 months and 22 days and still did not ordered the military to intervene inspite of violence at the Parliment House and at pooling stations. And she even agreed to dissolve Parliment and yet the military staged a coup. All planned, no?

Abhisit had to deal with the commandeering of a large sector of downtown Bkk, including armed insurgents hiding behind make-shift barricades soaked with petrol, for two months. Armed garrisons sortied out to storm a hospital, as well as a petrol station. Yingluck had to deal with a much less dire situation consisting of sporadic, mostly-peaceful small demonstrations.

How many recall that, a year prior to the 2010 barricading of Bkk, the same Red Shirts rioted and, among other things, commandeered a bus and a fully loaded LPG truck. Everyone knows which man funded and essentially controlled those riots, and what his agenda was.

[JAG]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I'm not sure it was so violent but if it was then yes the army (since the police aren't weren't capable) should be sent in. We don't know why Yingluck didn't do this. It could have been concern over possible deaths and injuries. It might also have been because if the army did start shooting people then she would find herself in the same position as Abhisit. Accused of murder, allegedly committed by the military but without them being investigated.

Of course Abhisit and Suthep need to explain themselves and let's not forget Tarit as well since he was there but let's not have a farce like the previous investigations.

Of course the chances of that happening right now don't seem too good. Maybe Abhisit and Suthep will have to wait a while to have their say.

The courts blocked Yingluk

I'd forgotten about that but I think she could still have sent in the army if she'd used the Emergency Decree.

I think that she knew that whatever power she may or may not have had the army would have refused to act, because the people in command of the part of the army on the ground in Bangkok supported the other side. It was as simple as that.

[rubl]

An official report makes it clear ....

It was wholesale murder

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos

Read when you can ...especially the rounds chosen and the particular troops .

It's straight out of darkest Nazi Germany in terms of organised death inflicted on fellow citizens .

Oh come on, pluto. The darkest NAZI Germany in terms of organised death?

Even hardliners don't compare the UDD with it's militant supporters with NAZI Germany.

[rubl]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

But the Red Shirts did have access tgo tavors... some were confiscated on April 10/. Methee was caught with one the next week.

Yes I know they had access to them, but so did the PDRC security last year which kind of makes it irrelevant by associating the Tavors to just the red shirts.

I don't think that PDRC guards having Tavors from December 2013 to May 2014 has much relation with Red Shirts having them in their 'protest' from March to May 2010. Maybe PDRC guards learned from the past and the usefulness of the devices?

[Fat Haggis]

It was more about where they obtained them uncle Rubs, as many here would have you believe that the red shirts are the only ones who got their hands on them, which isn't quite the case is it? ?

Of course thee weapons are available on the black market but where did they obtain them from?

[rubl]

How skeptical of you. Do you not know that it is criminal offense for a lawyer to enter an innocent plea if they believe their client to be guilty? Likewise it would be criminal for Amsterdam to present evidence to the ICC he believed to be false. I think you will find that you just committed libel against Amsterdam by saying that he would sing a different tune if the money came from other side.

As you probably know, lawyers never really lie, they just manage to convey a suggestion, almost a vision which puts the truth in a light seldom done by other more straightforward people. Robert A. doesn't lie, he just implies that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow, and accordingly it might be in the interest of people that the possibility would be investigated. With such 'skill' it's easy to phrase depending on what your client wants.

Even the ICC report has title "Application to investigate the situation in the Kingdom of Thailand with regards to the Commission for Crimes Against Humanity". Clear as mud.

If you can't understand the difference between an application and a report then it is bound to all seem a little muddy to you. Sorry mate but that title is clear as day to me.

"that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow" YES, international crimes listed in international conventions to be seen by the International Courts to which he was applying to request them to investigate!

The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC). There's no request. The application was submitted in the form of a report. Robert A. c.s. have submitted additional reports including the very interesting one where witness reports were combined as coming from one person. The various 'eye witness' reports have a lot of own interpretation by those eye witnesses and somehow eye witnesses seem to have been selected for the 'right' type of interpretation. The report is so one-sided, shows such bias as to be virtually useless in a court.

I think it's about two years ago that Robert A. stated that the ICC had the application under 'investigation' or maybe even 'active investigation'. Of course the very fact that the ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction here doesn't help. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD co-leader Dr. weng tried to push a 'temporary authorisation' to allow the ICC to investigate and convict for a special case only, but he didn't get much support.

As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'. You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts.

It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped. I enquired in 2012, but got a nice reply stating as much (or should I say 'as little'). As it is the case seems to have been filed.

[rubl]

The courts blocked Yingluk

I'd forgotten about that but I think she could still have sent in the army if she'd used the Emergency Decree.

I think that she knew that whatever power she may or may not have had the army would have refused to act, because the people in command of the part of the army on the ground in Bangkok supported the other side. It was as simple as that.

You guys go off from the topic and even make some interesting assumptions.

The Yingluck Government used the Emergency Decree. On 2014-01-07 Ms. Yingluck stated it to be the last resort and it was raised on 2014-01-21 for a 60 day period. It was replaced by the Internal Security Act late March, 2014.

When raising the ED we had

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said there was no plan to give the army a leading role under the decree, which will come into force from Wednesday.

"That's why we're focusing on the police force, to avoid violence like in 2010," she told reporters. "The authorities will start with negotiations."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/10586935/Protest-hit-Thailand-declares-state-of-emergency.html

[rubl]

It was more about where they obtained them uncle Rubs, as many here would have you believe that the red shirts are the only ones who got their hands on them, which isn't quite the case is it? ?

Of course thee weapons are available on the black market but where did they obtain them from?

I'm sure that further investigations in the 'protests' in 2010 will need to try to discover where the non-peaceful part of the protesters had acquired their arsenal. The forces which 'dispersed' the protesters were Army personel, so it's a bit more clear where they got their weapons from.

[bkkcanuck8]

It was more about where they obtained them uncle Rubs, as many here would have you believe that the red shirts are the only ones who got their hands on them, which isn't quite the case is it? ?

Of course thee weapons are available on the black market but where did they obtain them from?

I'm sure that further investigations in the 'protests' in 2010 will need to try to discover where the non-peaceful part of the protesters had acquired their arsenal. The forces which 'dispersed' the protesters were Army personel, so it's a bit more clear where they got their weapons from.

The 3rd party "with guns" at the reds and the pdrc protests.... my guess.... are mostly military moonlighting.... When you saw people with masks, they were probably just making sure their first employer did not recognize them.

[Plutojames88]

An official report makes it clear ....

It was wholesale murder

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos

Read when you can ...especially the rounds chosen and the particular troops .

It's straight out of darkest Nazi Germany in terms of organised death inflicted on fellow citizens .

Oh come on, pluto. The darkest NAZI Germany in terms of organised death?

Even hardliners don't compare the UDD with it's militant supporters with NAZI Germany.

Lets leave ( if you can ) the fixation of childish deceit .

The article was not addressing nor I the red shirt behaviour .

It's in poor taste to audaciously dismiss the lives of the slain in that way

Edited March 23, 2015 by Plutojames88

[rubl]

An official report makes it clear ....
It was wholesale murder

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos

Read when you can ...especially the rounds chosen and the particular troops .

It's straight out of darkest Nazi Germany in terms of organised death inflicted on fellow citizens .

Oh come on, pluto. The darkest NAZI Germany in terms of organised death?


Even hardliners don't compare the UDD with it's militant supporters with NAZI Germany.

Lets leave ( if you can ) the fixation of childish deceit .

The article was not addressing nor I the red shirt behaviour .
It's in poor taste to audaciously dismiss the lives of the slain in some smart Alex way.

You may not agree with remarks but please don't twist it into a grooming that you are practiced obviously at that childishly pretends my remarks were aimed at Reds .

The slaughter of Thai protesters deserve better than that response that lacks honesty ....to say the least.

Oh, but I do agree that the killing of people deserves better than responses which lack honesty. Why do you think I post and reply here?

The interesting part is that the OP only has Abhisit/Suthep to answer for their actions in an 'abuse of power' charge filed at the Supreme Court of Political Office Holders. There has been no new information on the March to May 2010 riots. I have been having discussions at least two dozen times with mostly the same (returned) posters and always some see the need to lie, to twist the truth, to insinuate. That's demeaning.

[halloween]

An official report makes it clear ....

It was wholesale murder

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos

Read when you can ...especially the rounds chosen and the particular troops .

It's straight out of darkest Nazi Germany in terms of organised death inflicted on fellow citizens .

Oh come on, pluto. The darkest NAZI Germany in terms of organised death?

Even hardliners don't compare the UDD with it's militant supporters with NAZI Germany.

Lets leave ( if you can ) the fixation of childish deceit .

The article was not addressing nor I the red shirt behaviour .

It's in poor taste to audaciously dismiss the lives of the slain in that way

Its even poorer taste to make exaggerated claims about those deaths for cheap political propaganda.

[kimamey]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I'm not sure it was so violent but if it was then yes the army (since the police aren't weren't capable) should be sent in. We don't know why Yingluck didn't do this. It could have been concern over possible deaths and injuries. It might also have been because if the army did start shooting people then she would find herself in the same position as Abhisit. Accused of murder, allegedly committed by the military but without them being investigated.

Of course Abhisit and Suthep need to explain themselves and let's not forget Tarit as well since he was there but let's not have a farce like the previous investigations.

Of course the chances of that happening right now don't seem too good. Maybe Abhisit and Suthep will have to wait a while to have their say.

The courts blocked Yingluk

I'd forgotten about that but I think she could still have sent in the army if she'd used the Emergency Decree.

I think that she knew that whatever power she may or may not have had the army would have refused to act, because the people in command of the part of the army on the ground in Bangkok supported the other side. It was as simple as that.

That's possible of course but there's no way of being sure. PTP were obviously scared of the military as they wouldn't investigate them regarding the deaths in 2010. My guess is there wasn't just one reason.

I remember shortly before the coup quite a few on here were adamant that there couldn't be a coup because although the military leadership might want one there was too much support for PTP and the redshirts amongst the ranks as many came from the north and north east.

[Skywalker69]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

Why are you rehashing an issue that has already been addressed by the NACC? There was an investigation. Why bring up an unrelated issued? Why are you afraid to deal with this specific subject?

You see Gerry there have been those who have been asking for, demanding even, equal justice, in particular the red leaders and PT politicians.

Therefor it would seem reasonable that while questions are being asked about the need to disperse the rioters and the methods involved, that the red leaders also be asked questions concerning their part in organizing the riots and why they did not disperse peacefully once achieved their stated objective of an early election had been achieved.

There are also the questions regarding the armed element among them which are pertinent, for had there been no attacks on the army and unarmed civilians going about their business with weapons of war there would have been need for retaliation in kind by the army.

Equal justice therefor equal questioning for both sides.

The Reds, like any group, contains an element of extremists. During 2010 maybe 50 or a hundred may have committed acts of violence.

Over 15 million Thais voted for Yingluck.

By your logic, denying the rights of millions because of the actions of very, very, very few is the right thing to do.

Guess what - it's not!

They were bought to wote PTP, bought with taxpayers money and they and their kids will have to pay it back the coming 50 years.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Skywalker69

[Shawn0001]

How skeptical of you. Do you not know that it is criminal offense for a lawyer to enter an innocent plea if they believe their client to be guilty? Likewise it would be criminal for Amsterdam to present evidence to the ICC he believed to be false. I think you will find that you just committed libel against Amsterdam by saying that he would sing a different tune if the money came from other side.

As you probably know, lawyers never really lie, they just manage to convey a suggestion, almost a vision which puts the truth in a light seldom done by other more straightforward people. Robert A. doesn't lie, he just implies that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow, and accordingly it might be in the interest of people that the possibility would be investigated. With such 'skill' it's easy to phrase depending on what your client wants.

Even the ICC report has title "Application to investigate the situation in the Kingdom of Thailand with regards to the Commission for Crimes Against Humanity". Clear as mud.

If you can't understand the difference between an application and a report then it is bound to all seem a little muddy to you. Sorry mate but that title is clear as day to me.

"that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow" YES, international crimes listed in international conventions to be seen by the International Courts to which he was applying to request them to investigate!

The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC). There's no request. The application was submitted in the form of a report. Robert A. c.s. have submitted additional reports including the very interesting one where witness reports were combined as coming from one person. The various 'eye witness' reports have a lot of own interpretation by those eye witnesses and somehow eye witnesses seem to have been selected for the 'right' type of interpretation. The report is so one-sided, shows such bias as to be virtually useless in a court.

I think it's about two years ago that Robert A. stated that the ICC had the application under 'investigation' or maybe even 'active investigation'. Of course the very fact that the ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction here doesn't help. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD co-leader Dr. weng tried to push a 'temporary authorisation' to allow the ICC to investigate and convict for a special case only, but he didn't get much support.

As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'. You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts.

It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped. I enquired in 2012, but got a nice reply stating as much (or should I say 'as little'). As it is the case seems to have been filed.

"The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC)."

Only to you does it suggest that. What it actually means is that they are applying to (in other words requesting), that the ICC investigate whether or not the Thai government themselves COMMISSIONED crimes against humanity. You have misquoted the title, it should read, " the commission OF crimes against humanity and is being used in the sense of authorize not in the sense of an executive body as you erroneously believed.

"There's no request."

To quote from the ICC petition, "This Application is submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to request the launch of a preliminary investigation into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand."

Note the use of the word "request"? Do try to at least read the whole first page before claiming to know what is not in there. LOL

"As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'."

No I mean the breaking of international laws as accepted as binding in International relations. Thailand is a signatory member of the ICC but not a ratified member, however as they have not explicitly stated that they do not intend to ratify their membership they are still expected to obey the laws. They are however a ratified party to the Geneva Conventions. International laws do apply in Thailand and a guilty charge in the ICC would not be good for international agreements, that is the only real power the ICC has, to expose and shame, it is extremely unlikely that an arrest warrant would actually result in an arrest in Thailand. It is up to other nations how the react though and it would not be good for Thailand to have former leader charged with crimes against humanity.

"You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts."

No, I don't, as that was not commissioned by the government, obviously criminal actions, but not a case for the ICC but a case for the Thai courts. I refer to the official orders given to troops. What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care. All international crimes and if, as is alleged, these orders did come from the top, then this is a case that the ICC would be willing to investigate and try as the Thai government cannot be expected to be trusted to investigate or try themselves.

"It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped."

The ICC is notoriously slow.

[rubl]

It was more about where they obtained them uncle Rubs, as many here would have you believe that the red shirts are the only ones who got their hands on them, which isn't quite the case is it? ?

Of course thee weapons are available on the black market but where did they obtain them from?

I'm sure that further investigations in the 'protests' in 2010 will need to try to discover where the non-peaceful part of the protesters had acquired their arsenal. The forces which 'dispersed' the protesters were Army personel, so it's a bit more clear where they got their weapons from.

The 3rd party "with guns" at the reds and the pdrc protests.... my guess.... are mostly military moonlighting.... When you saw people with masks, they were probably just making sure their first employer did not recognize them.

Nice guess, almost as good as that of anonymous witness #22.

BTW anything after your guess is even more guesswork and less reliable than the original guess. I'm afraid that you will not be invited to deposit your expert statement.

[rubl]

The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC). There's no request. The application was submitted in the form of a report. Robert A. c.s. have submitted additional reports including the very interesting one where witness reports were combined as coming from one person. The various 'eye witness' reports have a lot of own interpretation by those eye witnesses and somehow eye witnesses seem to have been selected for the 'right' type of interpretation. The report is so one-sided, shows such bias as to be virtually useless in a court.

I think it's about two years ago that Robert A. stated that the ICC had the application under 'investigation' or maybe even 'active investigation'. Of course the very fact that the ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction here doesn't help. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD co-leader Dr. weng tried to push a 'temporary authorisation' to allow the ICC to investigate and convict for a special case only, but he didn't get much support.

As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'. You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts.

It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped. I enquired in 2012, but got a nice reply stating as much (or should I say 'as little'). As it is the case seems to have been filed.

"The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC)."

Only to you does it suggest that. What it actually means is that they are applying to (in other words requesting), that the ICC investigate whether or not the Thai government themselves COMMISSIONED crimes against humanity. You have misquoted the title, it should read, " the commission OF crimes against humanity and is being used in the sense of authorize not in the sense of an executive body as you erroneously believed.

"There's no request."

To quote from the ICC petition, "This Application is submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to request the launch of a preliminary investigation into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand."

Note the use of the word "request"? Do try to at least read the whole first page before claiming to know what is not in there. LOL

"As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'."

No I mean the breaking of international laws as accepted as binding in International relations. Thailand is a signatory member of the ICC but not a ratified member, however as they have not explicitly stated that they do not intend to ratify their membership they are still expected to obey the laws. They are however a ratified party to the Geneva Conventions. International laws do apply in Thailand and a guilty charge in the ICC would not be good for international agreements, that is the only real power the ICC has, to expose and shame, it is extremely unlikely that an arrest warrant would actually result in an arrest in Thailand. It is up to other nations how the react though and it would not be good for Thailand to have former leader charged with crimes against humanity.

"You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts."

No, I don't, as that was not commissioned by the government, obviously criminal actions, but not a case for the ICC but a case for the Thai courts. I refer to the official orders given to troops. What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care. All international crimes and if, as is alleged, these orders did come from the top, then this is a case that the ICC would be willing to investigate and try as the Thai government cannot be expected to be trusted to investigate or try themselves.

"It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped."

The ICC is notoriously slow.

The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request. Even the sentence you quote shows that 'application to request'. What we have if suggesting that this is very serious while 'applying' to 'request' a 'preliminary' investigation into 'the situation' in Thailand. Clear as mud.

You jump the gun in the second paragraph as the ICC has no jurisdiction here unless the UN files a request. Why do you think Dr. weng was musing about the temporary acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the ICC over a clearly defined case, namely the conduct of the army. Also for almost three years we only had a 'democratic' elected government, they also could not be trusted to investigate? More likely they didn't really wanted investigations, seeing their blanket amnesty bill would have made further discussions irrelevant.

BTW it's also an international crime to lob grenades on Army personel. Somehow most government show a distinct lack of sense of humour when that happens.

INSERT (sorry forget some in your paragraph three)

Official orders and "What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care."

"The authorities in Thailand have said security forces will open fire on anyone attempting to loot or commit arson after protesters set fire to dozens of buildings across Bangkok."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/131167-thailand/

ENDINSERT

The ICC may be notoriously slow, but without the correct legal framework frivolous applications to request a preliminary investigation will most likely be filed as is.

PS the title indeed has 'commission for' not 'of'. I didn't do a cut and past of the cover page of the PDF, I rewrote and made a typo.

Edited March 23, 2015 by rubl

[bkkcanuck8]

It was more about where they obtained them uncle Rubs, as many here would have you believe that the red shirts are the only ones who got their hands on them, which isn't quite the case is it? ?

Of course thee weapons are available on the black market but where did they obtain them from?

I'm sure that further investigations in the 'protests' in 2010 will need to try to discover where the non-peaceful part of the protesters had acquired their arsenal. The forces which 'dispersed' the protesters were Army personel, so it's a bit more clear where they got their weapons from.

The 3rd party "with guns" at the reds and the pdrc protests.... my guess.... are mostly military moonlighting.... When you saw people with masks, they were probably just making sure their first employer did not recognize them.

Nice guess, almost as good as that of anonymous witness #22.

BTW anything after your guess is even more guesswork and less reliable than the original guess. I'm afraid that you will not be invited to deposit your expert statement.

Hard to prove, I seem to remember navy members being apprehended by police with weapons which were quickly repatriated to the barracks with the lame excuse that it was some drug operation (policing). Thailand has a huge military, and there is a large military based mafia (which makes a lot of people rich) and I know a number of them that do moonlight as security for bars etc. It is not a stretch to think that some of those services would be in "protection services"....

I guess you would have us believe that the military is staffed by people with a lot of rich aunties that have willed their wealth to them on their deathbed...

Edited March 23, 2015 by bkkcanuck8

[rubl]

I'm sure that further investigations in the 'protests' in 2010 will need to try to discover where the non-peaceful part of the protesters had acquired their arsenal. The forces which 'dispersed' the protesters were Army personel, so it's a bit more clear where they got their weapons from.

The 3rd party "with guns" at the reds and the pdrc protests.... my guess.... are mostly military moonlighting.... When you saw people with masks, they were probably just making sure their first employer did not recognize them.

Nice guess, almost as good as that of anonymous witness #22.

BTW anything after your guess is even more guesswork and less reliable than the original guess. I'm afraid that you will not be invited to deposit your expert statement.

Hard to prove, I seem to remember navy members being apprehended by police with weapons which were quickly repatriated to the barracks with the lame excuse that it was some drug operation (policing). Thailand has a huge military, and there is a large military based mafia (which makes a lot of people rich) and I know a number of them that do moonlight as security for bars etc. It is not a stretch to think that some of those services would be in "protection services"....

I guess you would have us believe that the military is staffed by people with a lot of rich aunties that have willed their wealth to them on their deathbed...

Nice try to deflect and distract.

Now let us return to the events in 2010 and the chance Abhisit and Suthep will finally get to explain their decisions in the correct court .

Edited March 23, 2015 by rubl

[bkkcanuck8]

The 3rd party "with guns" at the reds and the pdrc protests.... my guess.... are mostly military moonlighting.... When you saw people with masks, they were probably just making sure their first employer did not recognize them.

Nice guess, almost as good as that of anonymous witness #22.

BTW anything after your guess is even more guesswork and less reliable than the original guess. I'm afraid that you will not be invited to deposit your expert statement.

Hard to prove, I seem to remember navy members being apprehended by police with weapons which were quickly repatriated to the barracks with the lame excuse that it was some drug operation (policing). Thailand has a huge military, and there is a large military based mafia (which makes a lot of people rich) and I know a number of them that do moonlight as security for bars etc. It is not a stretch to think that some of those services would be in "protection services"....

I guess you would have us believe that the military is staffed by people with a lot of rich aunties that have willed their wealth to them on their deathbed...

Nice try to deflect and distract.

Now let us return to the events in 2010 and the chance Abhisit and Suthep will finally get to explain their decisions in the correct court .

I have already said that unless there is evidence that the Army was ordered to use deadly force, that it should not even make it to court. I don't believe failure or incompetence in handling situations (even causing death) but the government in power should be handled by courts. If they handled it wrong it is up to the electorate to force them out.

Army should not be involved in policing though..... they are not trained in the use of non-lethal force to control situations like this (though the police in Thailand seem to be lacking training as well).

[rubl]

Nice guess, almost as good as that of anonymous witness #22.

BTW anything after your guess is even more guesswork and less reliable than the original guess. I'm afraid that you will not be invited to deposit your expert statement.

Hard to prove, I seem to remember navy members being apprehended by police with weapons which were quickly repatriated to the barracks with the lame excuse that it was some drug operation (policing). Thailand has a huge military, and there is a large military based mafia (which makes a lot of people rich) and I know a number of them that do moonlight as security for bars etc. It is not a stretch to think that some of those services would be in "protection services"....

I guess you would have us believe that the military is staffed by people with a lot of rich aunties that have willed their wealth to them on their deathbed...

Nice try to deflect and distract.

Now let us return to the events in 2010 and the chance Abhisit and Suthep will finally get to explain their decisions in the correct court .

I have already said that unless there is evidence that the Army was ordered to use deadly force, that it should not even make it to court. I don't believe failure or incompetence in handling situations (even causing death) but the government in power should be handled by courts. If they handled it wrong it is up to the electorate to force them out.

Army should not be involved in policing though..... they are not trained in the use of non-lethal force to control situations like this (though the police in Thailand seem to be lacking training as well).

So, if Abhisit/Suthep handled the situation incorrectly than the only 'right' way you see is an election? Well, we had that. Even if the army was granted permission to defend itself that's OK with you? You probably had no problem with the blanket amnesty bill either, I guess?

There should indeed not have been a valid reason to order the army to be involved like it was in 2010. Unfortunately the police was more then useless and that's why the government of the day ordered the army to take over some of the police functions. Especially the protection of the non-red-shirt public against unknown militant was something the police didn't manage (and still haven't learned). Of course the Abhisit government also carries some of the blame of the ineffective police, just like the Somchai government before.

All this suggest that while there may not be a case of 'abuse of power' both Abhisit/Suthep and Somchai have been charged with, but at least the proper court is now handling the cases. Even without convictions we should have a better insight in what happened. That may not be important to most posters here, but it is for Thai.

[bkkcanuck8]

I have already said that unless there is evidence that the Army was ordered to use deadly force, that it should not even make it to court. I don't believe failure or incompetence in handling situations (even causing death) but the government in power should be handled by courts. If they handled it wrong it is up to the electorate to force them out.

Army should not be involved in policing though..... they are not trained in the use of non-lethal force to control situations like this (though the police in Thailand seem to be lacking training as well).

So, if Abhisit/Suthep handled the situation incorrectly than the only 'right' way you see is an election? Well, we had that. Even if the army was granted permission to defend itself that's OK with you? You probably had no problem with the blanket amnesty bill either, I guess?

There should indeed not have been a valid reason to order the army to be involved like it was in 2010. Unfortunately the police was more then useless and that's why the government of the day ordered the army to take over some of the police functions. Especially the protection of the non-red-shirt public against unknown militant was something the police didn't manage (and still haven't learned). Of course the Abhisit government also carries some of the blame of the ineffective police, just like the Somchai government before.

All this suggest that while there may not be a case of 'abuse of power' both Abhisit/Suthep and Somchai have been charged with, but at least the proper court is now handling the cases. Even without convictions we should have a better insight in what happened. That may not be important to most posters here, but it is for Thai.

I am against amnesty for anyone that counts, be it yellows, reds .... or greens. The last constitution, and probably this one will include amnesty..... for the greens..... I personally believe that if you believe you are doing it for the right reasons -- even if you are breaking the law -- that you should be willing to take the punishment that comes with breaking the law....

If the Army was "defending itself" and not going on the offensive, then there would be no reason to say... we were only armed with non-lethal force.... That already discredits their account of the situation. If they shot armed people in self defense they would have said so.... they did not, they pretended it was some imaginary force that shot their own people.

Edited March 23, 2015 by bkkcanuck8

[rubl]

I have already said that unless there is evidence that the Army was ordered to use deadly force, that it should not even make it to court. I don't believe failure or incompetence in handling situations (even causing death) but the government in power should be handled by courts. If they handled it wrong it is up to the electorate to force them out.

Army should not be involved in policing though..... they are not trained in the use of non-lethal force to control situations like this (though the police in Thailand seem to be lacking training as well).

So, if Abhisit/Suthep handled the situation incorrectly than the only 'right' way you see is an election? Well, we had that. Even if the army was granted permission to defend itself that's OK with you? You probably had no problem with the blanket amnesty bill either, I guess?

There should indeed not have been a valid reason to order the army to be involved like it was in 2010. Unfortunately the police was more then useless and that's why the government of the day ordered the army to take over some of the police functions. Especially the protection of the non-red-shirt public against unknown militant was something the police didn't manage (and still haven't learned). Of course the Abhisit government also carries some of the blame of the ineffective police, just like the Somchai government before.

All this suggest that while there may not be a case of 'abuse of power' both Abhisit/Suthep and Somchai have been charged with, but at least the proper court is now handling the cases. Even without convictions we should have a better insight in what happened. That may not be important to most posters here, but it is for Thai.

I am against amnesty for anyone that counts, be it yellows, reds .... or greens. The last constitution, and probably this one will include amnesty..... for the greens..... I personally believe that if you believe you are doing it for the right reasons -- even if you are breaking the law -- that you should be willing to take the punishment that comes with breaking the law....

If the Army was "defending itself" and not going on the offensive, then there would be no reason to say... we were only armed with non-lethal force.... That already discredits their account of the situation. If they shot armed people in self defense they would have said so.... they did not, they pretended it was some imaginary force that shot their own people.

With your zigzagging around you might be a relative of Heybruce, he does the same.

So, when does the "abuse of power" case against Abhisit/Suthep start?

[bkkcanuck8]

I have already said that unless there is evidence that the Army was ordered to use deadly force, that it should not even make it to court. I don't believe failure or incompetence in handling situations (even causing death) but the government in power should be handled by courts. If they handled it wrong it is up to the electorate to force them out.

Army should not be involved in policing though..... they are not trained in the use of non-lethal force to control situations like this (though the police in Thailand seem to be lacking training as well).

So, if Abhisit/Suthep handled the situation incorrectly than the only 'right' way you see is an election? Well, we had that. Even if the army was granted permission to defend itself that's OK with you? You probably had no problem with the blanket amnesty bill either, I guess?

There should indeed not have been a valid reason to order the army to be involved like it was in 2010. Unfortunately the police was more then useless and that's why the government of the day ordered the army to take over some of the police functions. Especially the protection of the non-red-shirt public against unknown militant was something the police didn't manage (and still haven't learned). Of course the Abhisit government also carries some of the blame of the ineffective police, just like the Somchai government before.

All this suggest that while there may not be a case of 'abuse of power' both Abhisit/Suthep and Somchai have been charged with, but at least the proper court is now handling the cases. Even without convictions we should have a better insight in what happened. That may not be important to most posters here, but it is for Thai.

I am against amnesty for anyone that counts, be it yellows, reds .... or greens. The last constitution, and probably this one will include amnesty..... for the greens..... I personally believe that if you believe you are doing it for the right reasons -- even if you are breaking the law -- that you should be willing to take the punishment that comes with breaking the law....

If the Army was "defending itself" and not going on the offensive, then there would be no reason to say... we were only armed with non-lethal force.... That already discredits their account of the situation. If they shot armed people in self defense they would have said so.... they did not, they pretended it was some imaginary force that shot their own people.

With your zigzagging around you might be a relative of Heybruce, he does the same.

So, when does the "abuse of power" case against Abhisit/Suthep start?

I am zigzagging around because you asked questions which I answered - apparently you did not agree with my answers and kept on diverting the conversation or trying to start arguments based on preconceived notion that everyone is with you or they are against you and it is all colour coded politics. A very narrow and simplistic view. I often find your positions parroting a specific line with little deviation for original thought on any specific issues.

[rubl]

So, if Abhisit/Suthep handled the situation incorrectly than the only 'right' way you see is an election? Well, we had that. Even if the army was granted permission to defend itself that's OK with you? You probably had no problem with the blanket amnesty bill either, I guess?

There should indeed not have been a valid reason to order the army to be involved like it was in 2010. Unfortunately the police was more then useless and that's why the government of the day ordered the army to take over some of the police functions. Especially the protection of the non-red-shirt public against unknown militant was something the police didn't manage (and still haven't learned). Of course the Abhisit government also carries some of the blame of the ineffective police, just like the Somchai government before.

All this suggest that while there may not be a case of 'abuse of power' both Abhisit/Suthep and Somchai have been charged with, but at least the proper court is now handling the cases. Even without convictions we should have a better insight in what happened. That may not be important to most posters here, but it is for Thai.

I am against amnesty for anyone that counts, be it yellows, reds .... or greens. The last constitution, and probably this one will include amnesty..... for the greens..... I personally believe that if you believe you are doing it for the right reasons -- even if you are breaking the law -- that you should be willing to take the punishment that comes with breaking the law....

If the Army was "defending itself" and not going on the offensive, then there would be no reason to say... we were only armed with non-lethal force.... That already discredits their account of the situation. If they shot armed people in self defense they would have said so.... they did not, they pretended it was some imaginary force that shot their own people.

With your zigzagging around you might be a relative of Heybruce, he does the same.

So, when does the "abuse of power" case against Abhisit/Suthep start?

I am zigzagging around because you asked questions which I answered - apparently you did not agree with my answers and kept on diverting the conversation or trying to start arguments based on preconceived notion that everyone is with you or they are against you and it is all colour coded politics. A very narrow and simplistic view. I often find your positions parroting a specific line with little deviation for original thought on any specific issues.

Definitely, he could be sitting right next to you offering advise at how best to rephrase and suggest. BTW when investigating a case we do not need, nor do not want original thoughts, we want the truth.

Anyway, my question on the date of the court case was incorrect. The Nation article has "Parnthep said Abhisit and Suthep must either make their clarifications in person or in writing by Wednesday.". So that's by this coming 25th of March. What is unclear though (unless I missed it) is whether the clarifications are regarding questions/issues raised by the NACC, or just open and left to the duo,. I would expect the first.

[rubl]

Duplicate post, blanked on purpose

Edited March 23, 2015 by rubl

[Shawn0001]

The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC). There's no request. The application was submitted in the form of a report. Robert A. c.s. have submitted additional reports including the very interesting one where witness reports were combined as coming from one person. The various 'eye witness' reports have a lot of own interpretation by those eye witnesses and somehow eye witnesses seem to have been selected for the 'right' type of interpretation. The report is so one-sided, shows such bias as to be virtually useless in a court.

I think it's about two years ago that Robert A. stated that the ICC had the application under 'investigation' or maybe even 'active investigation'. Of course the very fact that the ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction here doesn't help. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD co-leader Dr. weng tried to push a 'temporary authorisation' to allow the ICC to investigate and convict for a special case only, but he didn't get much support.

As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'. You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts.

It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped. I enquired in 2012, but got a nice reply stating as much (or should I say 'as little'). As it is the case seems to have been filed.

"The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC)."

Only to you does it suggest that. What it actually means is that they are applying to (in other words requesting), that the ICC investigate whether or not the Thai government themselves COMMISSIONED crimes against humanity. You have misquoted the title, it should read, " the commission OF crimes against humanity and is being used in the sense of authorize not in the sense of an executive body as you erroneously believed.

"There's no request."

To quote from the ICC petition, "This Application is submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to request the launch of a preliminary investigation into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand."

Note the use of the word "request"? Do try to at least read the whole first page before claiming to know what is not in there. LOL

"As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'."

No I mean the breaking of international laws as accepted as binding in International relations. Thailand is a signatory member of the ICC but not a ratified member, however as they have not explicitly stated that they do not intend to ratify their membership they are still expected to obey the laws. They are however a ratified party to the Geneva Conventions. International laws do apply in Thailand and a guilty charge in the ICC would not be good for international agreements, that is the only real power the ICC has, to expose and shame, it is extremely unlikely that an arrest warrant would actually result in an arrest in Thailand. It is up to other nations how the react though and it would not be good for Thailand to have former leader charged with crimes against humanity.

"You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts."

No, I don't, as that was not commissioned by the government, obviously criminal actions, but not a case for the ICC but a case for the Thai courts. I refer to the official orders given to troops. What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care. All international crimes and if, as is alleged, these orders did come from the top, then this is a case that the ICC would be willing to investigate and try as the Thai government cannot be expected to be trusted to investigate or try themselves.

"It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped."

The ICC is notoriously slow.

The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request. Even the sentence you quote shows that 'application to request'. What we have if suggesting that this is very serious while 'applying' to 'request' a 'preliminary' investigation into 'the situation' in Thailand. Clear as mud.

You jump the gun in the second paragraph as the ICC has no jurisdiction here unless the UN files a request. Why do you think Dr. weng was musing about the temporary acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the ICC over a clearly defined case, namely the conduct of the army. Also for almost three years we only had a 'democratic' elected government, they also could not be trusted to investigate? More likely they didn't really wanted investigations, seeing their blanket amnesty bill would have made further discussions irrelevant.

BTW it's also an international crime to lob grenades on Army personel. Somehow most government show a distinct lack of sense of humour when that happens.

INSERT (sorry forget some in your paragraph three)

Official orders and "What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care."

"The authorities in Thailand have said security forces will open fire on anyone attempting to loot or commit arson after protesters set fire to dozens of buildings across Bangkok."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/131167-thailand/

ENDINSERT

The ICC may be notoriously slow, but without the correct legal framework frivolous applications to request a preliminary investigation will most likely be filed as is.

PS the title indeed has 'commission for' not 'of'. I didn't do a cut and past of the cover page of the PDF, I rewrote and made a typo.

"The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request."

This semantic debate is a little dull but just to clarify here is the Oxford Dictionary definition.

"Application 1 - A formal request to an authority."

Believe me now? I'm afraid it really does not matter what the word means to you just as long as the ICC understand as that is who was being written to, and I somehow think their staff will have a better comprehension of English than you. You are struggling just to get through the title, I wonder what kind of misunderstandings have you made in the rest of the petition?

No, the ICC does not have jurisdiction, just an expectation. And obviously Yinlucks government could not be trusted nor did they want to ratify their membership with the ICC as that would have meant Thaksin would suffer the same fate for his crimes against humanity, crimes which the ICC have been asked to investigate long before Abhist and Suthep and crimes which there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating his guilt. This is the problem in Thailand, neither side really wants justice as it means they might get implicated as well!

Yes, lobbing grenades is a crime, but international or not this is not the purpose of the ICC who only deal with political leaders. If there is some evidence that Yingluck ordered those crimes then yes, that would be a case for ICC as well. The thing with the case of the crackdown is that there could be a clear chain of command between Abhisit, Suthep and the military, and that the orders the gave were criminal. The other militants doing all sorts of atrocious things may well of been acting on their own, that would not be of interest to the ICC as it would be expected that Thailand would deal with things they do not approve of themselves.

Official statements from the government were regarding the live fire zones and likes of arsonists etc. What is alleged in Amsterdam's application/ request/ petition/ report/ call it what you will, is that the orders went far beyond that. It is alleged that they were ordered to fire on medics and journalists, that they were ordered to execute people who refused to be stopped and searched. And journalists reports do confirm at least some of that activity, whether there is actually any evidence that those orders come from the top or not is another matter and the purpose of starting the investigation.

The investigation can go ahead despite of Thailand's status within the ICC, it would merely hamper any action being taken afterwards. The ICC has investigated and found guilty head of states from non signatory states in the past, they have not however been able to secure an arrest, even when those people have traveled to fully ratified states. So it probably is all a bit futile if not to satisfy those who believe that Abhisit and Suthep were criminal in their actions. The same goes for Thaksin, it would not be difficult to prove that he ordered the executions of suspected drug dealers but arresting him and extraditing him will be impossible, but would the guilty verdict not be at least a little satisfying?

[rubl]

The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC). There's no request. The application was submitted in the form of a report. Robert A. c.s. have submitted additional reports including the very interesting one where witness reports were combined as coming from one person. The various 'eye witness' reports have a lot of own interpretation by those eye witnesses and somehow eye witnesses seem to have been selected for the 'right' type of interpretation. The report is so one-sided, shows such bias as to be virtually useless in a court.

I think it's about two years ago that Robert A. stated that the ICC had the application under 'investigation' or maybe even 'active investigation'. Of course the very fact that the ICC doesn't have any jurisdiction here doesn't help. Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD co-leader Dr. weng tried to push a 'temporary authorisation' to allow the ICC to investigate and convict for a special case only, but he didn't get much support.

As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'. You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts.

It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped. I enquired in 2012, but got a nice reply stating as much (or should I say 'as little'). As it is the case seems to have been filed.

"The title suggests that the situation in Thailand might have elements which might be of interest to and be in line with the work of the Commission for Crimes against Humanity (which I assume is part of the ICC)."

Only to you does it suggest that. What it actually means is that they are applying to (in other words requesting), that the ICC investigate whether or not the Thai government themselves COMMISSIONED crimes against humanity. You have misquoted the title, it should read, " the commission OF crimes against humanity and is being used in the sense of authorize not in the sense of an executive body as you erroneously believed.

"There's no request."

To quote from the ICC petition, "This Application is submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to request the launch of a preliminary investigation into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand."

Note the use of the word "request"? Do try to at least read the whole first page before claiming to know what is not in there. LOL

"As for 'international crimes' you probably mean 'crimes internationally recognised as such'."

No I mean the breaking of international laws as accepted as binding in International relations. Thailand is a signatory member of the ICC but not a ratified member, however as they have not explicitly stated that they do not intend to ratify their membership they are still expected to obey the laws. They are however a ratified party to the Geneva Conventions. International laws do apply in Thailand and a guilty charge in the ICC would not be good for international agreements, that is the only real power the ICC has, to expose and shame, it is extremely unlikely that an arrest warrant would actually result in an arrest in Thailand. It is up to other nations how the react though and it would not be good for Thailand to have former leader charged with crimes against humanity.

"You probably refer to activities of the cowardly militants who supported the UDD with grenade attacks on non-red-shirts."

No, I don't, as that was not commissioned by the government, obviously criminal actions, but not a case for the ICC but a case for the Thai courts. I refer to the official orders given to troops. What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care. All international crimes and if, as is alleged, these orders did come from the top, then this is a case that the ICC would be willing to investigate and try as the Thai government cannot be expected to be trusted to investigate or try themselves.

"It's a pity the ICC doesn't comment on cases they have not made a decision on yet whether to accept or not, not even on cases dropped."

The ICC is notoriously slow.

The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request. Even the sentence you quote shows that 'application to request'. What we have if suggesting that this is very serious while 'applying' to 'request' a 'preliminary' investigation into 'the situation' in Thailand. Clear as mud.

You jump the gun in the second paragraph as the ICC has no jurisdiction here unless the UN files a request. Why do you think Dr. weng was musing about the temporary acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the ICC over a clearly defined case, namely the conduct of the army. Also for almost three years we only had a 'democratic' elected government, they also could not be trusted to investigate? More likely they didn't really wanted investigations, seeing their blanket amnesty bill would have made further discussions irrelevant.

BTW it's also an international crime to lob grenades on Army personel. Somehow most government show a distinct lack of sense of humour when that happens.

INSERT (sorry forget some in your paragraph three)

Official orders and "What is alleged is that the order was given to shoot all moving targets regardless of threat, prevent photographic evidence and to prevent medical care."

"The authorities in Thailand have said security forces will open fire on anyone attempting to loot or commit arson after protesters set fire to dozens of buildings across Bangkok."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/131167-thailand/

ENDINSERT

The ICC may be notoriously slow, but without the correct legal framework frivolous applications to request a preliminary investigation will most likely be filed as is.

PS the title indeed has 'commission for' not 'of'. I didn't do a cut and past of the cover page of the PDF, I rewrote and made a typo.

"The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request."

This semantic debate is a little dull but just to clarify here is the Oxford Dictionary definition.

"Application 1 - A formal request to an authority."

Believe me now? I'm afraid it really does not matter what the word means to you just as long as the ICC understand as that is who was being written to, and I somehow think their staff will have a better comprehension of English than you. You are struggling just to get through the title, I wonder what kind of misunderstandings have you made in the rest of the petition?

No, the ICC does not have jurisdiction, just an expectation. And obviously Yinlucks government could not be trusted nor did they want to ratify their membership with the ICC as that would have meant Thaksin would suffer the same fate for his crimes against humanity, crimes which the ICC have been asked to investigate long before Abhist and Suthep and crimes which there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating his guilt. This is the problem in Thailand, neither side really wants justice as it means they might get implicated as well!

Yes, lobbing grenades is a crime, but international or not this is not the purpose of the ICC who only deal with political leaders. If there is some evidence that Yingluck ordered those crimes then yes, that would be a case for ICC as well. The thing with the case of the crackdown is that there could be a clear chain of command between Abhisit, Suthep and the military, and that the orders the gave were criminal. The other militants doing all sorts of atrocious things may well of been acting on their own, that would not be of interest to the ICC as it would be expected that Thailand would deal with things they do not approve of themselves.

Official statements from the government were regarding the live fire zones and likes of arsonists etc. What is alleged in Amsterdam's application/ request/ petition/ report/ call it what you will, is that the orders went far beyond that. It is alleged that they were ordered to fire on medics and journalists, that they were ordered to execute people who refused to be stopped and searched. And journalists reports do confirm at least some of that activity, whether there is actually any evidence that those orders come from the top or not is another matter and the purpose of starting the investigation.

The investigation can go ahead despite of Thailand's status within the ICC, it would merely hamper any action being taken afterwards. The ICC has investigated and found guilty head of states from non signatory states in the past, they have not however been able to secure an arrest, even when those people have traveled to fully ratified states. So it probably is all a bit futile if not to satisfy those who believe that Abhisit and Suthep were criminal in their actions. The same goes for Thaksin, it would not be difficult to prove that he ordered the executions of suspected drug dealers but arresting him and extraditing him will be impossible, but would the guilty verdict not be at least a little satisfying?

As usual you're clutching at straws. Of course the investigation based on possibly and alleged issues which are clearly stated by witnesses who interpreted for themselves is so clear, allegedly that is. The ICC has nothing else to do and would love the job. If anything was clear that 31st of January, 2011, it was that the ICC almost had begged Robert A. to submit his fairy tale.

As it is the ICC would only get involved if the UN would ask them based on real evidence that Thailand's society and government had collapsed. Has it? Should the UN send in troops?

So, by Wednesday Abhisit/Suthep must have submitted their explanation of the 'dispersal of the red-shirts', I assume based on direct questions from the NACC. I can only hope they are a bit more clear in their answers than something like 'the plan worked to the satisfaction of all and reached those targeted and all are happy'

[bkkcanuck8]

It is not close to the point where the ICC would feel compelled to get involved.... won't happen, they have bigger fish to fry.

[rubl]

It is not close to the point where the ICC would feel compelled to get involved.... won't happen, they have bigger fish to fry.

As long as no one with the right authority asks them, there is no need for the ICC to do anything. The ICC is governed by the Rome Statute. Read it, you can download a PDF from their site. Lots of info on what they are busy with at the moment.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/EN_Menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx