Use of Thai military court defended

[webfact]

Use of military court defended
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- AS THE debate on civilians being tried in military court continues, a source from the Judge Advocate-General's Department defended this practice, which was ordered by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) under Article 44 of the interim charter.

He said one of the key advantages of using the military court was the faster judicial process. It is also important to note that only those who offend the monarch and the royal family, and those pose a threat to national security need to be dealt with swiftly under the current situation, he explained.

A member of staff from the Judge Advocate-General's Depart-ment said the use of a military court to try civilian cases was backed by the NCPO's 37th announcement, which specifies the types of suspects who will face a court martial.

He also pointed out that military court judges were independent and not under anybody's command or influence, and that the court used the same laws and methodology as the Civil Court.

The junta's decision to have civilians tried in a military court has been criticised by the international community, especially Human Rights Watch, which claims there are more than 700 suspects facing a military court. He said this was far from the truth, but added that the court had a limited number of judges and that the number of cases had risen by up to 20 per cent.

He said voicing disapproval was acceptable, but one should not resort to violence.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Use-of-military-court-defended-30257234.html


-- The Nation 2015-04-02

[NongKhaiKid]

"...Military court judges were independent and not under anybody's command or influence... ! " Well of course not.

[zaphod reborn]

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

[trd]

"He said one of the key advantages of using the military court was the faster judicial process."

This is true of all dictatorships. The courts are faster. It often takes only a few minutes to be found guilty and led away to the firing squad.

Edited April 2, 2015 by trd

[JOC]

No wonder Thai people not are allowed to read Orwell!!

[Humberstone]

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

Thailand does not have a common law legal system, there is no binding precedent. The courts base their rulings on the law.

Most of the world use a civil law based legal system and, for the most part, it works just fine. The problem is always the people not the system.

[yellowboat]

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

If a country continues to resort to military law, is it not true the country is still under "martial law" ?

One system is no better than the other? Is that the point ? What about due process? Do military courts offer more or less safeguards for the accused ?

[billd766]

"He said one of the key advantages of using the military court was the faster judicial process."

This is true of all dictatorships. The courts are faster. It often takes only a few minutes to be found guilty and led away to the firing squad.

Can you please tell me how many Thai people have been sent to the firing squad under this government?

[trd]

"He said one of the key advantages of using the military court was the faster judicial process."

This is true of all dictatorships. The courts are faster. It often takes only a few minutes to be found guilty and led away to the firing squad.

Can you please tell me how many Thai people have been sent to the firing squad under this government?

Can you?

[Srikcir]

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

Everything you say is true as it applies to a judicial system that follows case law such as found in the USA.

Thailand judiciary does not follow case law but rather common law such as found in the UK. Common law is influenced by tradition, custom, and current practices that may or may not relate to precedential court decisions. Therefore, a national case reporter system is NOT an indispensable part of judicial decisions. In some ways use of common law allows more precise and modern rulings than those pinned to a generation of outdated and inapporpriate court decisions.

[Srikcir]

It's a sad tribute to the death of democracy in Thailand when a member of staff from the Judge Advocate-General's Department supports the use of a military court to try civilians. Every person in the Thai judicial system should resign in protest to the usurption of civilian justice by military decree. But they originated from previous coups and love their positions above the sovereignty of the Thai people.

A military court is not independent under Article 44. NCPO has the power and right to circumvent any military court procedure, including any court ruling. Civilians are essentially treated as enemy combatants with no right to fair and equal representation, access to government evidence, bail, or right to appeal. The standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply. Military trials can be held in secret and try defendents in absentia.

Who will defend Thai sovereignty? Who will defend Thais rights, and liberties? It certainly will not be the "reformed" Thai judicial system nor the NCPO. It will depend solely on the Thais themselves as to whether they care enough to change their future or be led willingly to the slaughterhouse of subjugation. I can imagine 4 million Malay-Thais chuckling at the conquest of 60 million Thai people with which they have had to endure for decades. It might be especially ironic to see the military apply their Thung Yang Daeng model throughout all Thailand.

[Humberstone]

I haven't seen anything which would support the proposition that the results from trials before the Thai military justice courts are in any way inferior to the results from the Thai civilian court system. For the most part, the Thai civilian court judges make the law up by themselves, because the nation lacks a national reporter system. A national case reporter system is an indispensable part of stare decisis, or court precedent. How is a judge supposed to determine prior Supreme Court precedent where there is no reporter system or indexing system by which applicable prior court decision can be researched? Moreover, the judges don't have clerks to do the intensive research required to have a firm grasp of prior precedent. The civilian courts decisions are completely random, that's why you have rulings such as the injunction prohibiting the screening of Fast and Furious 7. The civilian judges just do what they want, regardless of common sense or prior binding appellate rulings.

Everything you say is true as it applies to a judicial system that follows case law such as found in the USA.

Thailand judiciary does not follow case law but rather common law such as found in the UK. Common law is influenced by tradition, custom, and current practices that may or may not relate to precedential court decisions. Therefore, a national case reporter system is NOT an indispensable part of judicial decisions. In some ways use of common law allows more precise and modern rulings than those pinned to a generation of outdated and inapporpriate court decisions.

Sorry, what you have said is completely incorrect. Both the USA and the UK use a common law legal system. Both these jurisdictions use judicial prededent (from case law) to decide cases.

Thailand uses a civil law system where the laws of the land are codefied and the judge(s) will use these laws to decide a case. The judge has little scope to use previous cases as a 'precedent' for the cases he is looking after.

There are pros and cons with both systems. Most of what was previously the British Empire (including the USA) use a common law system. The majority of other countries use a civil law system or hybrids of both such as South Africa.