I saw an MP response to a dissapearance soemthing about following the law

[mmh8]

It was a recent case, just wanted to know other tv members views on how they would feel in their respective home countries about following the law instead of all this fredom of speech and human rights nonsense?

my tuppence is that a country that used to go around colonising places actually developed a civilian government to combat this type of thing. If a civilan government really gets in the way of progress for a developing coutnry as these military types tell me, does that mean that Thailand is actually 300 years or so behind the western coutnries in its development?

[IMA_FARANG]

All countries always regard their security as more important then the "freedom of speech" of their citizens when they feel threatened.

If you doubt this, look up the history of Japanese American citizens living in the U.S. in 1942 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

It is a fact of history that when "democratic" governments feel threatened they feel their security is of more immediate importance than their citizens "freedoms".

That has been proved again and again.

May be sad, but true.

[gamini]

what you mean by development. In many ways Thailand is way ahead of many developed countries. If you mean a political system, then it is perhaps somewhat behind developed countries. But this is because Western countries have tried to force a democratic system which is not suitable for Thailand. The present government is trying to come up with one that is. As far as freedom of speech is concerned Thailand is far more free than Singapore, where democracy is non-existent. but you can't call Singapore undeveloped and 300 years behind.

[Enoon]

All countries always regard their security as more important then the "freedom of speech" of their citizens when they feel threatened.

If you doubt this, look up the history of Japanese American citizens living in the U.S. in 1942 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

It is a fact of history that when "democratic" governments feel threatened they feel their security is of more immediate importance than their citizens "freedoms".

That has been proved again and again.

May be sad, but true.

So you think that the US government "felt threatened" after Pearl Harbor, and that internment procedures were put in place because the government wanted to protect itself and not the territorial and socio-political integrity of the US?