Jump to content

There was no crackdown in 2010, says Abhisit witness


webfact

Recommended Posts

There Was No Crackdown in 2010, Says Abhisit Witness
By Khaosod English

14302243821430224843l.jpg
Soldiers in downtown Bangkok on 14 May 2010.

BANGKOK — The military operation that dispersed Redshirt protesters in 2010 and left more than 90 people dead was not a "crackdown," says a former government official and key witness in an ongoing legal case over the incident.

Thawil Pliensri, who served as director of the National Security Council under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, was called by Thailand’s national anti-graft agency to testify in Abhisit's defense today. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is currently seeking to retroactively impeach Abhisit and his deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, for authorizing the military operation on Redshirt protesters in April - May 2010.

The NACC has charged Abhisit and Suthep with abuse of power for excessive use of force against civilians in the operation. If the NACC proceeds with the case, Thailand's junta-appointed legislature will vote on whether to impeach the former Democrat Party politicians and thereby ban them from politics for five years. If they are found guilty, Abhisit and Suthep will be the first state officials to be held responsible for the 2010 crackdown.

Thawil said he testified to the NACC today that security officers were forced to respond to the protests because armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators and launched attacks on troops, police, and important buildings. He also contested the use of the word "crackdown," a widely accepted term used by Thai and foreign media to describe the events.

"There was no use of force or crackdown on the protests," Thawil said. "I am not saying this to play with words, or because I am avoiding using the term crackdown, but that is what really happened. There was no crackdown."

Thawil continued, "There two events that the protesters refer to as a crackdown, the event on 10 April 2010 around Khok Wua intersection, which was an effort to ask the protesters to return the area [to traffic], and the events between May 11 – 19 2010. That wasn't a crackdown, either. It was an effort to tighten the perimeter around the protest camps. The security officers did not crack down on the protests."

According to Thawil, even the final assault on Redshirt protest camps on 19 May 2010, which involved armored vehicles, was not a crackdown because "the leaders called off the protests on their own."

"After that, a riot broke out," Thawil said. "There were arson attacks in Bangkok. Thirty-seven buildings were burned, and four provincial city halls were burned down too. Security officers stopped the situation at that point. We didn't crack down on the protests."

Although Thawil admitted that live ammunition was used in the military operation, he insisted that security officers resorted to using firearms only after they were attacked by Redshirt-allied militants on the night of 10 April 2010, and that security officers strictly followed rules of engagement.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1430224382&typecate=06&section=

kse.png
-- Khaosod English 2015-04-29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2010 VIOLENCE
Thawil denies forced dispersal of red shirts

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- There was no forced dispersal of anti-government protesters back in 2010 - they just left by themselves, Thawil Pliensri, then secretary-general of the National Security Council, testified yesterday.

Thawil told the National Anti-Corruption Commission that the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration had just sent security forces to observe the rally sites of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and that it was the red-shirt leaders who called off the sit-in on May 19, 2010.

Thawil said he was not trying to mince words but that was really what happened.

He was a witness in the hearings involving Abhisit and his then deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, who presided over the operations to rout the red shirts and led to the deaths of at least 99 people.

As for the real spent bullets and weapons found around Bangkok's Ratchaprasong Intersection, the major rally site, Thawil said he wasn't sure if they belonged to the government's security officers. However, the troops had been instructed not to use live ammunition against the protesters, only batons and shields.In many cases, the "men in black" had been seen mingling with the crowds of protesters and had used war-grade weapons including grenades against security officers, he added.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thawil-denies-forced-dispersal-of-red-shirts-30258975.html

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2015-04-29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so if this guy doesn't like the words "crack down", or "use of force", then how about open fire? or fire at will? but I'm sure they wont be ok either.

We asked them to leave, they left on their own, it was just a security tightening.

Strange considering that some think the term "crack down" is not strong enough rather than launch an assault on the protesters?

How about the words, White wash, Sanitized, Deluded, and strait up lies?

Hers an option, find the documents that ordered the (operation, Offensive, Strike, or ones the Americans like is Prosecute) and use them as term of reference? I wonder if they'll ever see the light of day? or they also went conveniently floating off in floods like all the other incriminating evidence?

Waiting for the usual suspects to come in and defend this SPIN, or one could use the word Insult to the dead and injured and their family's.

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Everyone knows the army pulled back. The black shirts then shot at the protesters so that the protesters could claim later that there was a crackdown.

Of course. Everyone knows that the army was pulled back knowing that the reds would regroup, get more provocative which would justify the eventual army crackdown (the one that never happened).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the guy in Abu Dabhi expected as an outcome using the MIB to provoke a response from the soldiers. MIB and disguised MIB in red was sneaking in and out of the red shirt crowds shooting live rounds at the soldiers. I guess the gloves was off and everything went, as his party had been subjected to yet another coup, although this time by using the judiciary and anti corruption institutions.

Edited by AlQaholic
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the troops had been instructed not to use live ammunition against the protesters"

Abhisit testified before the court: "As the CRES chief, Mr. Suthep was in charge of the army officers and he outlined how the officers should use their weapons....Troops were told to shoot below a person’s knee without intent to kill and not to fire a weapon when protesters were mingling with innocent people, Mr. Abhisit said."

Obviously, innocent people became collateral damage, whether the military intended so or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so if this guy doesn't like the words "crack down", or "use of force", then how about open fire? or fire at will? but I'm sure they wont be ok either.

We asked them to leave, they left on their own, it was just a security tightening.

Strange considering that some think the term "crack down" is not strong enough rather than launch an assault on the protesters?

How about the words, White wash, Sanitized, Deluded, and strait up lies?

Hers an option, find the documents that ordered the (operation, Offensive, Strike, or ones the Americans like is Prosecute) and use them as term of reference? I wonder if they'll ever see the light of day? or they also went conveniently floating off in floods like all the other incriminating evidence?

Waiting for the usual suspects to come in and defend this SPIN, or one could use the word Insult to the dead and injured and their family's.

.

post-170405-14302758075482_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thawill was Chief of the NSC during the "crackdown" in 2010.

Article 34 of the military coup's 2006 Interim Constitution changed the name of the military junta known as the Council for Democratic Reform to the Council for National Security.

Not only is his testimony suspect but one might ask why he wasn't charged in connection with the civilian deaths in the 2010 "crackdown."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where else have I heard that Thawil Pliensri name recently?coffee1.gif

Thawil Pliensri, who served as director of the National Security Council under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, was called by Thailand’s national anti-graft agency to testify in Abhisit's defense today.

So the NACC charges Abhisit, then calls a witness in his defense?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators"

Interesting choice of words. The posters in these forums who constantly demonise the entire red shirt movement as "terrorist", "violent" etc, should note this. Even a key person 'on the other side' talks in terms of infiltration, meaning that the MIB (etc) did not represent the majority aims and tactics of the protesters. And yet, it was mostly nurses, journalists, and other unarmed civilians who died in that crackdown-that-was-not-a-crackdown.

But all the reds support Thaksin and he ordered the MiB to kill innocent people and soldiers so therefore all the reds are violent and in support of terrorism. Flawless logic, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""