Bringing Thaksin To Account

[blaze]

" if the coup had never happened a bloodbath certainly would have.

Which would you prefer?"

Well, I would have preferred that the institutions mandated with preventing a blood bath did their job. I would hope that if my house was about to be over run by a horde of pitch fork weilding peasants, those assigned to keep the peace would not simply- evict me.

Furthermore, that statement- that 'there would have been a bloodbath', is not a given. NOBODY can state that with certainty. In fact one could argue that the polls showing the support for the coup would suggest that not many Taksin supporters were all that devoted to him- if you accept those polls. (Which I kind of do). The nonevent which was Constitution day, similarly didn't see peasants in the streets weeping over the expulsion of their Liberator. That these people were about to lay seige to the city - well- I'm not sure. There was some bluster, a bit of posturing maybe- but the kind of menace that leads to a blood bath?

Of course that was the reason given for the coup. It's the reason given all round the world- to maintain order. And stop corruption. And save the nation. Find me a coup which DIDN'T come in to restore order in a disrupted country.

Going back to my earlier post- the assertion that there would have been a blood bath is the same kind of reasoning that said, unless we (Taksin and crew) forget about such Western niceties as 'the law', the whole country will be plunged into drug addiction. And in fact- there might have been more evidence for THAT than for the notion that unless the army overthrew the government there would be a blood bath if the motocyces down on my corner were any indication.

[sriracha john]

Blacklists and Convenient Executions

Human rights officials and others, however, suspect most of the deaths are by police who target people on various secret "blacklists".

Angered by the published complaints and expressions of fear, a grim-faced Mr. Thaksin conceded police might be partly to blame.

"It is common knowledge that some police officers are involved in narcotics rings and might possibly kill ring members out of fear that they could be implicated," the prime minister said.

He promised to investigate all suspicious cases.

Forensic experts, meanwhile, said many bodies were being quickly cremated, without complete autopsies.

- Free Republic, 03/13/2003

-------------------------------------------------------

"He promised to investigate all suspicious cases."

between March 2003 and September 2006, did that ever happen??

[sriracha john]

Are you suggesting that there are 60 year old "veteran" hitmen running about who belong to long clandestine cells of Krating Deng or Nawapol?

Standard issue tools of the hitman trade:

A Glock 9mm:

and

an Acme Deluxe Walker:

[Tony Clifton]

A sniper rifle, combined with the steadiness of a walker, is probably the weapon of choice with the Parkinson's and all.

Edited December 16, 2006 by Tony Clifton

[ColPyat]

Are you suggesting that there are 60 year old "veteran" hitmen running about who belong to long clandestine cells of Krating Deng or Nawapol?

Early fifties, yes.

Navapol, Krating Daeng etc. was very active in the 70s. That makes their younger members early 50s at the time of the drugwar killings.

Luk Sueah Chao Ban are still very active as well, especially with the post '97 increase in nationalism they have had rising numbers again since they have disappeared nearly into oblivion in the late 80s and 90s.

[ColPyat]

Furthermore, that statement- that 'there would have been a bloodbath', is not a given. NOBODY can state that with certainty.

I believe that was anyhow a bit of a strange reason.

Army used tanks to make a bloodles coup, giving the reason that without the coup there would have been a "bloodbath". Why could they not have done what their original job would have been - in case of confrontations using their training and equipment to keep the fractions from fighting other. What usually happens anywhere when such a situation would have occured.

[marshbags]

If Thaksin had really been serious on reducing drugs he would surely have first of all thought it through, consulted experts in drug prevention and adopted a society friendly policy containing sensible guidelines and peaceful means where ever possible.

Some that come to mind are:-

Prevention by cutting the sources off from those who supply the drugs, arrest the main dealers and cut off the supply routes.

Provide safe areas to ensure safety of all who are arrested while ascertaining all they know about their chain of command and provide names and other essential information, if possible.

Provide medical facilities to treat addicts as they arrest them, control and get them off he substances that have put them in their addictive situation and therefore easy to employ as suppliers, due to their vunerability, this vicious circle creates.

Educate the communities and get the families involved in policing their kin and encourage them to work together with the authorities and treat rather than punish the ones who are dependant on drugs.

Make resources available to assist this while making sure it is not misused are corruptly diverted.

In areas where a drug problem exists:-

Form drug squads who are disciplined and teach them peaceful methods on detaining suspects along with clear and strict guide lines on how to handle the different scenarios and only using force when it has to be neccesary.

If situations require the use of firearms then they should be trained to stop via shooting to immobilize without killing the suspects. ( legs, arms ect. as other civilised police forces do.)

Provide drug squads that can be mobilised and sent immediately to other areas that become effected before they have a chance to become established.

Provide a network of professionals, volunteers and prevention experts to ensure and advise on healthier and alternative life styles.

Educate society to make drugs unacceptable while providing accurate information on the harm it causes.

Even when it,s there under the nose it is usually ignored, so again education and awareness are important.

Re enforce prevention and look at the causes, identify them and introduce peaceful alternatives / ways of stamping them out.

Accountability for the main dealers no matter who are what there position in society is.

Without role models who will set an example on the rights and wrongs, condemn them and do not condone them by turning a blind eye, just because they are " Puyai "

These are just a sample of the alteranatives the CEO / government could have organised and introduced had they been sincere in getting at the source without the murderous methods they chose to use.

Without sounding like an old record their intention was to silence and take out the less fortunate who to them had no value as human beings and no rights and consquently took away their lives with indifference.

This is the indictment that the TRT and it,s CEO will be remembered for along with all the other Human rights abuses that happened on their watch.

They should ALL be ashamed of these murders and it,s continuing suffering it has caused to the families.

That,s a better way, now on topic once again

marshbags

Edited December 17, 2006 by marshbags

[jumnien]

Without sounding like an old record ...

marshbags

Sorry, you are sounding like an old record. Try the self-help or buddhism sections of a local bookstore and look for books on dealing with resentment. Remember, life is beautiful!

[ColPyat]

If Thaksin had really been serious on reducing drugs he would surely have first of all thought it through, consulted experts in drug prevention and adopted a society friendly policy containing sensible guidelines and peaceful means where ever possible.

Some of what you have mentioned in you post has actually happened, at least in theory, during the drug war.

Known addicts were sent to specially made up camps for a period of time. It was about 300 000 people. Community education happened, such as Princess Ubolratana's "To be Number One" program. Small dealers that gave themselves up to police stations before the deadline were given amnesty (some of those though were under the murdered).

For the rest of your suggestions, especially regarding the law enforcement side, i am sorry to say - but this is pure fantasy. You overestimate the capabilities of Thailand, and how entrenched corruption in Thailand's police force and military is. Read "Guns, Girls, Gambling, Ganja - Thailand's Illegal Economy and Public Policy" by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker. That will give you an idea.

This book though was published before the drug problem in Thailand was so huge, before the vast profits were possible to be made even by low level cops.

I do not justify the killings, but the reality of the situation was that Thailand had a drug problem that was out of hand. And as i have posted many times - the solution to the problem was how in Thailand's history social problems were always dealt with - with extreme violence. In this you should read up on the "Village Scout Movement", and how this was one of the tools to fight communism in the 70s and 80s, and how extreme the violence employed there often was. And that was before Thaksin played much of a role in Thailand.

Thaksin and the drugwar has to be viewed in this historical context. This explains the wide acceptance of the killings by Thai society. Every little and big wheel here in Thailand had its function during the drug war killings. Opposition came only from a few quarters in academia, NGOs and by a few journos, that all were not significant enough to make a stop.

A proper investigation into the drugwar might be a chance that this circle of violence might be broken one day, but this will not happen when contributing factors, such as the buddhist clergy, or former TRT supporters now turned opponents are left alone. Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening now, if you follow the present public drug war debate.

[Siripon]

" if the coup had never happened a bloodbath certainly would have.

Which would you prefer?"

Well, I would have preferred that the institutions mandated with preventing a blood bath did their job. I would hope that if my house was about to be over run by a horde of pitch fork weilding peasants, those assigned to keep the peace would not simply- evict me.

Furthermore, that statement- that 'there would have been a bloodbath', is not a given. NOBODY can state that with certainty. In fact one could argue that the polls showing the support for the coup would suggest that not many Taksin supporters were all that devoted to him- if you accept those polls. (Which I kind of do). The nonevent which was Constitution day, similarly didn't see peasants in the streets weeping over the expulsion of their Liberator. That these people were about to lay seige to the city - well- I'm not sure. There was some bluster, a bit of posturing maybe- but the kind of menace that leads to a blood bath?

Of course that was the reason given for the coup. It's the reason given all round the world- to maintain order. And stop corruption. And save the nation. Find me a coup which DIDN'T come in to restore order in a disrupted country.

Going back to my earlier post- the assertion that there would have been a blood bath is the same kind of reasoning that said, unless we (Taksin and crew) forget about such Western niceties as 'the law', the whole country will be plunged into drug addiction. And in fact- there might have been more evidence for THAT than for the notion that unless the army overthrew the government there would be a blood bath if the motocyces down on my corner were any indication.

The peasants were not on the street last Sunday because their MPs, canvassers and village headman know it's not the right time as Thaksin's lost power at present.

But you must remember a few things:

1. Thaksin told every TRT MP to prepare 300,000 people to be ready to come to Bangkok.

2. His henchman, Yongyut in charge of the forest rangers, was waiting to attack the PAD rally in Bangkok. Not the first time either. Newin was prepared as well. Any violence would have enabled Thaksin to be able to declare a state of emergency in Bangkok, banning any future protests.

3. It's easy for upcountry leaders, MPs, canvassers and village headmen to rent a mob.

4.The opposition to Thaksin was too strong to accept a state of emergency, clashes would have happened.

5. How many coups had people welcoming them with people taking photos on the tanks with their kids? It's because Thais' experience of this type of crisis in 1973 and 1976 told them a bloodbath was just around the corner and the coup prevented that.

6. Bangkok is not Thailand, there are plenty of people upcountry still devoted to Thaksin.

[hammered]

If Thaksin had really been serious on reducing drugs he would surely have first of all thought it through, consulted experts in drug prevention and adopted a society friendly policy containing sensible guidelines and peaceful means where ever possible.

Some that come to mind are:-

Prevention by cutting the sources off from those who supply the drugs, arrest the main dealers and cut off the supply routes.

Provide safe areas to ensure safety of all who are arrested while ascertaining all they know about their chain of command and provide names and other essential information, if possible.

Provide medical facilities to treat addicts as they arrest them, control and get them off he substances that have put them in their addictive situation and therefore easy to employ as suppliers, due to their vunerability, this vicious circle creates.

Educate the communities and get the families involved in policing their kin and encourage them to work together with the authorities and treat rather than punish the ones who are dependant on drugs.

Make resources available to assist this while making sure it is not misused are corruptly diverted.

In areas where a drug problem exists:-

Form drug squads who are disciplined and teach them peaceful methods on detaining suspects along with clear and strict guide lines on how to handle the different scenarios and only using force when it has to be neccesary.

If situations require the use of firearms then they should be trained to stop via shooting to immobilize without killing the suspects. ( legs, arms ect. as other civilised police forces do.)

Provide drug squads that can be mobilised and sent immediately to other areas that become effected before they have a chance to become established.

Provide a network of professionals, volunteers and prevention experts to ensure and advise on healthier and alternative life styles.

Educate society to make drugs unacceptable while providing accurate information on the harm it causes.

Even when it,s there under the nose it is usually ignored, so again education and awareness are important.

Re enforce prevention and look at the causes, identify them and introduce peaceful alternatives / ways of stamping them out.

Accountability for the main dealers no matter who are what there position in society is.

Without role models who will set an example on the rights and wrongs, condemn them and do not condone them by turning a blind eye, just because they are " Puyai "

These are just a sample of the alteranatives the CEO / government could have organised and introduced had they been sincere in getting at the source without the murderous methods they chose to use.

Without sounding like an old record their intention was to silence and take out the less fortunate who to them had no value as human beings and no rights and consquently took away their lives with indifference.

This is the indictment that the TRT and it,s CEO will be remembered for along with all the other Human rights abuses that happened on their watch.

They should ALL be ashamed of these murders and it,s continuing suffering it has caused to the families.

That,s a better way, now on topic once again

marshbags

Another thing that gets overloked in what contributed to the rapidly increasng sprea of drugs and could have been used to diminish them was policy towards Burma where most of the drugs came from. Under the Chuan Two government, relations with Burma were bad due, and the government were more in line with the international position of isolating Burma. This led to border crossing points being heavily policed and sometimes closed and the military were extremely active in sealing Thailand's borders. The Thaksin government had better relationships with the Burmese government and a policy of engagement. This led to a reduced level of border policing and border sealing. Ironically it may be that the engagement policy of the Thaksin government actually contributed to the heavy influx of drugs that preceded the drug war.

[ColPyat]

1. Thaksin told every TRT MP to prepare 300,000 people to be ready to come to Bangkok.

There is something wrong with the mathematics here.

Anyhow, i have read of the accusations about the forest rangers planning to attack PAD rallies, but i would like to see some proof or evidence of that before i believe this ( the few guns that were loaned by the army to the forest rangers were nothing the army could not have dealth with, it would have been a complete suicide mission to attack the PAD rallies that way).

Don't forget, Sondhi L. also propagated the existence of the "Finland Declaration" widely, which is completely outlandish, no proof whatsoever for the existence of such a conspiracy.

Until i see something more tangible, i treat these accusations simply as the usual baseless rumors used as an excuse to take over power by one network against another.

Yes, a few clashes would have happened most likely, but nothing that the armed forces or police would have had much difficulties to deal with. Clashes between opposing sides and/or the police are nothing unusual in all democracies. The only incidents that happen were played up beyond what they really were. A few bloody noses, nothing else. Anybody who has grown up in Europe during the 60s to 80s has seen far worse, and In Thailand during those years things political violence had also a bit worse results than a few bloody noses.

And if you look at other countries - demonstrations such as the PAD rallies would have been dispursed by the police, and not let go undisturbed as here in Thailand under Thaksin. I have been at far smaller demonstrations when i was a kid in a rich western democracy that were dispursed violently by police, with many people hospitalized with worse injuries than just a bloody nose.

Looking back at the PAD rallies - it is amazing how long they were allowed to go on and Thaksin has done nothing really against them that would have been in his power. I was very surprised how lenient Thaksin was.

The interesting part is going to be what our present government might do in case the ongoing demonstrations might get bigger. Will they deal with these demonstrations with the same restraint Thaksin did?

[ColPyat]

Another thing that gets overloked in what contributed to the rapidly increasng sprea of drugs and could have been used to diminish them was policy towards Burma where most of the drugs came from. Under the Chuan Two government, relations with Burma were bad due, and the government were more in line with the international position of isolating Burma. This led to border crossing points being heavily policed and sometimes closed and the military were extremely active in sealing Thailand's borders. The Thaksin government had better relationships with the Burmese government and a policy of engagement. This led to a reduced level of border policing and border sealing. Ironically it may be that the engagement policy of the Thaksin government actually contributed to the heavy influx of drugs that preceded the drug war.

I am sorry, but the huge spread of drugs did not originate under Thaksin. Under Chuan 2 it was as bad as later under Thaksin. The situation got completely out of hand after the '97 crises during the Chuan administration. By 2001, when Thaksin was elected, drugs were already cheaply available everwhere.

I have followed this situation very closely in my wife's village. Until the crises amphetamines were mostly used only by field laborers during harvest season, and by '98/'99 the whole village used them mainly for recreational purposes. Which was no different than after 2001 until the beginning of the 2003 drugwar killings.

Anyhow, economic policy under Chuan 2 was still "constructive engagement" as set by the national security council in the late 80s. There were only very slight practical differences between Chuan 2 and Thaksin regarding Burma policy. Also, the way how military officers of region 3 have taken part in the drug trade had very little to do with how Bangkok ordered border controls.

[blaze]

1. Thaksin told every TRT MP to prepare 300,000 people to be ready to come to Bangkok.

The PAD was predicting a rally of 500000 at one time. Five hundred thousand people protesting the government. Yet this was not interpreted as a threat to social order. Why then would 300000 demonstrating their support for the "

"His henchman, Yongyut in charge of the forest rangers, was waiting to attack the PAD rally in Bangkok. Not the first time either. Newin was prepared as well. Any violence would have enabled Thaksin to be able to declare a state of emergency in Bangkok, banning any future protests."

This was the rumor- and actually the media reported that he intended to 'confront' the PAD- that doesn't nescessarily mean 'attack'. It may have been intended as nothing more than a show of support. He did not march on Bangkok however- nor has anyone published proof of his intention to do so.

"3. It's easy for upcountry leaders, MPs, canvassers and village headmen to rent a mob. " That is no justification for tearing up the constitution is it?

4.The opposition to Thaksin was too strong to accept a state of emergency, clashes would have happened.

Yes that's possible- though given that the courts were appeasing the PAD (jailing the EC three), that elections were scheduled, that the PAD rallys had become less frequent and less well attended- that the farmers at Mochit had gone home- it's debateable. Yes, clashes might have happened- and still might- and that's one of the reasons countries have armies- to prevent the clashes from getting rough.

5. 5. How many coups had people welcoming them with people taking photos on the tanks with their kids? It's because Thais' experience of this type of crisis in 1973 and 1976 told them a bloodbath was just around the corner and the coup prevented that.

In time, those pictures on the mantle of little Somchai sharing an icecream with a smiling soldier are the most scary thing about this coup. When the tensions in this society resurface- and they will resurface- if for no other reason than economic disparity- that picutre is going to be all it takes to spur little Somchai to say, enough of this democracy crap- lets go back to tradition -what we need- will welcome- is another coup- just like those nice soldiers back in 06/07 And as history should have showed us, one benevolent dictatorship in no way portends another.

Anyhoo- what's all this got to do with the thread? The suppositions provided above for justifying the coup are based largely on rumor and allegation. Rumor and allegation was precisely how many of the victims of the war on drugs ended up on the blacklists. Yes the Rangers might have attacked- and yes- the grocer in Klong Toey might have been selling ya-ba.

[nikster]

Extrajudicial killings aside, the war on drugs worked. Usage plummeted and prices soared. Not sure how many if you were around before and after, but there was a huge difference in terms of the amount of drugs available on the street and in schools.

Yeah it worked great - for about until 3 weeks after the "war" was over at which point dealers and users came back out of their holes and drugs were the same price as before.

For that, 3000 people were killed. I am sure there were some amongst them who deserved it in one way or another but I do believe the vast majority was innocent, failed to pay off police or pay enough, or just got caught in the crossfire. It put the scare in all dealers and users - but I am really very sceptical if any got caught, and besides, what is the law for when the executive ignores it.

It's ridiculous to even consider such a criminal scheme, let alone go through with it.

It was a sad episode in Thailand's history.

The police were told "make up the numbers, or you are fired!" and they did, they did organize death squads and they killed a large number of innocent people. It was an atrocity. Organized by the state.

[ColPyat]

Yeah it worked great - for about until 3 weeks after the "war" was over at which point dealers and users came back out of their holes and drugs were the same price as before.

I am sorry, but that is wrong.

Before the drugwar here in Bangkok the prices of amphetamine was in Klong Toey slum between 35 and 45 Baht a pill, outside between 80 and 100 Baht a pill. During the drugwar prices rose in Klong Toey slum to up to 400 Baht a pill, outside up to 500 Baht. After the first two months the prices seddled slowly to somewhere between 200 and 300 Baht a pill, exactly where they are right now. Since about one year the trade was again a bit more open, but nothing compared to pre drug war.

In the villages though the pills are much harder to come by. I my wife's home village, in which amphetamines were pre drug war between 100 and 150 baht a pill, and most people below 40 habitual users, now you simply don't get them anymore.

In another village i know, pills are available, but to prices between 500 and 1000 baht a pill.

I don't have the exact figures for heroin in my head, i can slightly remember that one 'big' pre drug war was around 5000 to 7000 baht in Klong Toey slum pre drug war, and rose to somewhere around 20 000 to 30 000 baht during the killing spree. I am not sure though what prices are now.

[marshbags]

Without sounding like an old record ...

marshbags

Sorry, you are sounding like an old record. Try the self-help or buddhism sections of a local bookstore and look for books on dealing with resentment. Remember, life is beautiful!

Neither Buddhism or anything else helped all the wasted lives and no life isn,t beautiful for the families left behind.

This is about empathising with all the suffering it caused and the fact that it was sanctioned and carried out by those who would have known better, but didn,t even care.

I,m not Buddhist but i think there is something in the teachings about respecting life and dignity ect. as you will probably know.

There is also a word that hopefully will happen to these evil people in Buddhist teachings

" KARMA "

Resentment, NO, indignation at what happened, YES.

marshbags

Edited December 17, 2006 by marshbags

[pete_r]

So the military had to do their coup in order to prevent a bloodbath. That's called a pre-emptive strike, the theory is made in USA, and it doesn't exactly work. See Irak.

To stay on topic, the war on drug was brutal and horrendous, but not pre-emptive. The drug situation was out of hand, even before Thaksin was elected. I've been digging BBC archives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1160453.stm

8 February 2001

Thai students in grip of 'crazy drug'

A report by the National Primary Education Commission (NPEC) said in 1999, there were more than 660,000 cases of drug-related offences by students - either as users, pushers or addicts. More than 80,000 of these cases involved primary school children.

The NPEC described the figures as extremely alarming - especially as they come during concerted efforts to reverse the trend.

Officials for the United Nations Drug Control Programme say the figures underline the failure of authorities to control the spread of a popular form of amphetamine, known locally as "Ya Ba" - or crazy drug.

The Ya Ba phenomenon has been described as Thailand's number one national security issue and the NPEC's report explains why. [...]

It also says that efforts to halt its spread are failing. [...]

That article is dated 8 February 2001, 2 years before the war on drugs, and discusses figures from 1999, 2 years before Thaksin was elected.

As for Thaksin's responsibility and the silencing of critics, these were already asserted at the time too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2828203.stm

7 March 2003

Thai drug war critic threatened

[...] The Thai Government has also threatened Mr Pradit with impeachment if he continued to criticise government policy openly.

Suranand Vejjajiva, the ruling party spokesman, told the BBC's East Asia Today programme on Thursday that Mr Pradit should be careful.

"If he starts accusing the Prime Minister of being a dictatorship... that that there is state-sponsored violence, that's not right," Mr Vejjajiva said.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has also said Thais should not act at "whistleblowers" or "give away Thailand's independence". [...]

A search for "war on drugs thailand" on the BBC website brings many more such reports of the situation before, during and after.

[sriracha john]

Extrajudicial killings aside, the war on drugs worked. Usage plummeted and prices soared. Not sure how many if you were around before and after, but there was a huge difference in terms of the amount of drugs available on the street and in schools.

Yeah it worked great - for about until 3 weeks after the "war" was over at which point dealers and users came back out of their holes and drugs were the same price as before.

For that, 3000 people were killed. I am sure there were some amongst them who deserved it in one way or another but I do believe the vast majority was innocent, failed to pay off police or pay enough, or just got caught in the crossfire. It put the scare in all dealers and users - but I am really very sceptical if any got caught, and besides, what is the law for when the executive ignores it.

It's ridiculous to even consider such a criminal scheme, let alone go through with it.

It was a sad episode in Thailand's history.

The police were told "make up the numbers, or you are fired!" and they did, they did organize death squads and they killed a large number of innocent people. It was an atrocity. Organized by the state.

you're right, nikster.

...according to the reliable yabapricequote.com the costs per pill have risen only 15% since the

pre-drugwar days...

[ColPyat]

...according to the reliable yabapricequote.com the costs per pill have risen only 15% since the

pre-drugwar days...

Then that reliable yabapricequote.com should check its mathematics.

[Goat Roper]

...according to the reliable yabapricequote.com the costs per pill have risen only 15% since the

pre-drugwar days...

Then that reliable yabapricequote.com should check its mathematics.

Colpyat, who's paying you to stir the shit bucket? Khun Newin of Buriram and TRT fame? You deserve one another............

Edited December 17, 2006 by Goat Roper

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, who's paying you to stir the shit bucket? Khun Newin of Buriram and TRT fame? You deserve one another............

If that accusation would not be so ridiculously outlandish, i would be rather insulted being thrown into one pot with a entirely disgusting figure such as Newin (already long before TRT infamous).

Do you have anything to contribute to the topic matter of extrajudical killings, such as during 'the war on drugs', or just a fixation on me. If the latter is the case, than i would suggest to go to places that cater to people with fixations on other blokes, and please leave me alone.

Therefore, i would suggest to return to the thread topic, which is not ColPyat.

[nikster]

Yeah it worked great - for about until 3 weeks after the "war" was over at which point dealers and users came back out of their holes and drugs were the same price as before.

I am sorry, but that is wrong.

I must admit that I am not an expert on the prices on amphetamines. In the north where I live, when you go to the waterfall, little old village women will sell you heroin. I somehow can't imagine that the prices for that have gone up - Afghanistan heroin production is at an all-time peak and the sale has a long tradition in the golden triangle. Old people will tell you selling opium was an honest trade some 30 years ago.

None of my dope-fiend acquaintances is smoking any less weed than before, so I deducted that the price of that has certainly not changed (they are short on cash too most of the time). I will ask them today.

I do feel like we are discussing the wrong question here though. If it did have an effect, it will wear off the only question is time. And the means to get this perceived result were completely unacceptable no matter how you look at it.

What I mean to say is that it's pointless to argue over whether or not extra-judicial killings have reduced drug crime, temporary or not. If, in your opinion, the killing of 3000 "drug suspects" by a corrupt police force was ethically correct or the right thing to do, we can discuss that. This is the poodle's core.

[JacknDanny]

...according to the reliable yabapricequote.com the costs per pill have risen only 15% since the

pre-drugwar days...

Then that reliable yabapricequote.com should check its mathematics.

Just out of interest, where do you get your 'reliable' information on prices?

[ColPyat]

Just out of interest, where do you get your 'reliable' information on prices?

By having done a long study on the drug problem (never published though, and more focussed on social effects than who is behind the lower level dealers) before and during the drugwar, and briefly afterwards, which meant hanging out with dealers and addicts in the particular locations, especially in Klong Toey slum, mostly the street market of Loc 6 and and the drughouses of Loc 1.

And before you ask, yes, on three occasions i have sampled the the ware, so to speak. Never though in the afore mentioned locations, as this would have been a conflict of interest, and suicidal as police there is more than well informed who is up to what.

[ColPyat]

I do feel like we are discussing the wrong question here though. If it did have an effect, it will wear off the only question is time. And the means to get this perceived result were completely unacceptable no matter how you look at it.

What I mean to say is that it's pointless to argue over whether or not extra-judicial killings have reduced drug crime, temporary or not. If, in your opinion, the killing of 3000 "drug suspects" by a corrupt police force was ethically correct or the right thing to do, we can discuss that. This is the poodle's core.

I do agree very much that the killings were only a temporary solution to a complex problem that had hugely negative side effects such as a dramatic increase in violent crime. And i do not accept such a mass murder as a solution, ethically correct, or the right thing to do.

But, we have to stay with facts and reality, in order to properly find out what led to the whole mess from the beginning, and to attempt prognosing what might happen in the future.

[Siripon]

So the military had to do their coup in order to prevent a bloodbath. That's called a pre-emptive strike, the theory is made in USA, and it doesn't exactly work. See Irak.

To stay on topic, the war on drug was brutal and horrendous, but not pre-emptive. The drug situation was out of hand, even before Thaksin was elected. I've been digging BBC archives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1160453.stm

8 February 2001

Thai students in grip of 'crazy drug'

A report by the National Primary Education Commission (NPEC) said in 1999, there were more than 660,000 cases of drug-related offences by students - either as users, pushers or addicts. More than 80,000 of these cases involved primary school children.

The NPEC described the figures as extremely alarming - especially as they come during concerted efforts to reverse the trend.

Officials for the United Nations Drug Control Programme say the figures underline the failure of authorities to control the spread of a popular form of amphetamine, known locally as "Ya Ba" - or crazy drug.

The Ya Ba phenomenon has been described as Thailand's number one national security issue and the NPEC's report explains why. [...]

It also says that efforts to halt its spread are failing. [...]

That article is dated 8 February 2001, 2 years before the war on drugs, and discusses figures from 1999, 2 years before Thaksin was elected.

As for Thaksin's responsibility and the silencing of critics, these were already asserted at the time too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2828203.stm

7 March 2003

Thai drug war critic threatened

[...] The Thai Government has also threatened Mr Pradit with impeachment if he continued to criticise government policy openly.

Suranand Vejjajiva, the ruling party spokesman, told the BBC's East Asia Today programme on Thursday that Mr Pradit should be careful.

"If he starts accusing the Prime Minister of being a dictatorship... that that there is state-sponsored violence, that's not right," Mr Vejjajiva said.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has also said Thais should not act at "whistleblowers" or "give away Thailand's independence". [...]

A search for "war on drugs thailand" on the BBC website brings many more such reports of the situation before, during and after.

it's not a pr-emptive 'strike', they didn't kill anyone, unlike the Americans in Iraq.

It was a pre-emptive measure!

[Siripon]

Another thing that gets overloked in what contributed to the rapidly increasng sprea of drugs and could have been used to diminish them was policy towards Burma where most of the drugs came from. Under the Chuan Two government, relations with Burma were bad due, and the government were more in line with the international position of isolating Burma. This led to border crossing points being heavily policed and sometimes closed and the military were extremely active in sealing Thailand's borders. The Thaksin government had better relationships with the Burmese government and a policy of engagement. This led to a reduced level of border policing and border sealing. Ironically it may be that the engagement policy of the Thaksin government actually contributed to the heavy influx of drugs that preceded the drug war.

I am sorry, but the huge spread of drugs did not originate under Thaksin. Under Chuan 2 it was as bad as later under Thaksin. The situation got completely out of hand after the '97 crises during the Chuan administration. By 2001, when Thaksin was elected, drugs were already cheaply available everwhere.

I have followed this situation very closely in my wife's village. Until the crises amphetamines were mostly used only by field laborers during harvest season, and by '98/'99 the whole village used them mainly for recreational purposes. Which was no different than after 2001 until the beginning of the 2003 drugwar killings.

Anyhow, economic policy under Chuan 2 was still "constructive engagement" as set by the national security council in the late 80s. There were only very slight practical differences between Chuan 2 and Thaksin regarding Burma policy. Also, the way how military officers of region 3 have taken part in the drug trade had very little to do with how Bangkok ordered border controls.

Chuan never visited Burma, he knew the regime was despicable and he refused to go, unlike Thaksin who couldn't wait to go to realise some deals.

How Thaksin hated General Surayud when he refused to let the Burmese soldiers cross the border into Thailand in pursuit of the Karen. It could have upset his business dealings via Exim Bank with the Burmese government.

[Siripon]

Another thing that gets overloked in what contributed to the rapidly increasng sprea of drugs and could have been used to diminish them was policy towards Burma where most of the drugs came from. Under the Chuan Two government, relations with Burma were bad due, and the government were more in line with the international position of isolating Burma. This led to border crossing points being heavily policed and sometimes closed and the military were extremely active in sealing Thailand's borders. The Thaksin government had better relationships with the Burmese government and a policy of engagement. This led to a reduced level of border policing and border sealing. Ironically it may be that the engagement policy of the Thaksin government actually contributed to the heavy influx of drugs that preceded the drug war.

I am sorry, but the huge spread of drugs did not originate under Thaksin. Under Chuan 2 it was as bad as later under Thaksin. The situation got completely out of hand after the '97 crises during the Chuan administration. By 2001, when Thaksin was elected, drugs were already cheaply available everwhere.

I have followed this situation very closely in my wife's village. Until the crises amphetamines were mostly used only by field laborers during harvest season, and by '98/'99 the whole village used them mainly for recreational purposes. Which was no different than after 2001 until the beginning of the 2003 drugwar killings.

Anyhow, economic policy under Chuan 2 was still "constructive engagement" as set by the national security council in the late 80s. There were only very slight practical differences between Chuan 2 and Thaksin regarding Burma policy. Also, the way how military officers of region 3 have taken part in the drug trade had very little to do with how Bangkok ordered border controls.

Chuan never visited Burma, he knew the regime was despicable and he refused to go, unlike Thaksin who couldn't wait to go to realise some deals.

How Thaksin hated General Surayud when he refused to let the Burmese soldiers cross the border into Thailand in pursuit of the Karen. It could have upset his business dealings via Exim Bank with the Burmese government.

[sriracha john]

By a strange quirk, when I emailed yabapricequote.com about the source of prices, they responded that their prices are derived from an extensive research project being conducted as part of a PhD doctoral thesis by a criminal justice student at the second best university in Thailand who has interviewed hundreds of contacts in all 76 provinces. Very impressive.

They did, however, go on to elaborate that none of the research was conducted under the influence of the subject matter being investigated as they felt that would ruin their credibility.

Edited December 17, 2006 by sriracha john