Bringing Thaksin To Account

[Plus]

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather

Duh, renounce his father!

What else?

Besides Kraisak has never been close to his fathers party and friends.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time.

Which in practice means - NEVER in our lifetimes. Anotrher imposible condition.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently ... The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops)

I don't think this often repeated mantra has any substance. Are you actually saying that Kraisak's work is a sham? He is not alone in this, are other Humam Rights activists shamsters as well?

Maybe Thaksin's team need to adopt your arguments - talking about justice and progress while stalling this same progress with all possible means.

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, under the circumstances, what do you think should have been an acceptable and effective method of neutralising the drug problem? People forget what a scurge the drug problem was. I do not see thaksin as an evil man intentionally willing the murder of innocent people, and indeed i'm convinced that was not the case. on the contrary i appreciate his exhuberence in trying to solve the problem which could have easily entangled him in do-or-die situations. people knock each other off when the power/communication structure is challenged, i think that is at least partially responsible. are there thugs within the police? yes i most certainly think so. were they thaksin's thugs? i doubt it.

Too many people here do not understand that powerful generals, police thugs and mafia bosses continue to run and support the drug trade. They think there are no soldiers guarding the poppy fields! They think there are no millionaire generals this side of the burmese border. you can't possibly get rid of them by getting them arrested, who would dare to? there'd be a bullet in your head before an arrest warrant is issued.

It would have been so simple if western style legal process can be duely applied. do the foreigners here really think thais are so dumb and incapable of solving the drug problem if it were so simple as getting the culprits arrested? i think thaksin had real balls to declare a war on drugs, and also the war on "dark influences", the latter of which i fully expected him to be murdered for. i count these together with his outstanding handling of the tsunami aftermath as some of the high points of his term in office. it is sheer hypocrisy to be attacking him now when the majority actually applauded him for these actions before.

It is a difficult questions to answer. The drug problem indeed slipped completely out of control since the financial crash. I have had to observe this development rather closely, especially in my wife's village, where towards the end nobody below between the ages of 15 and 40 was drug free. Something definitely had to be done, and should have been done earlier. I may be for legalization of drugs, but not under those conditions.

Some parts of the drugwar were indeed well intentioned (and unfortunately badly implemented), while the killings were in my opinion unnecessary. Especially because the enabling informal power network was not dismantled (and ironically - that same system did enable the killings as well).

I have to disagree though about the handling of the tsunami aftermath - i have been in Pang Nga/Takua Pa the day after the tsunami, and remained there for 4 days. Only at the fourth day did we get army in for much needed support. Those soldiers were previous to that busy with doing not much in Phuket, and partly arresting Burmese survivors, herding them like cattle into lorries, and sending them across the Burmese border.

Anyhow, yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in how the drugwar accusations are going now, especially when they come from quarters who have supported him during the killing period. But lets be realistic here - the investigations into the drugwar are not what i would call enthusiastic, the often mentioned slightly dim son of an ex-PM is more for show than anything else.

I have made a few post on the informal power network here that may explain some (but did not get much attention) between page 42 and 44, i'll just repost them here, 'coz i can't bother to repeat myself:

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

I would agree with your post if Thailand would work like other countries.

As you also never fail to point out (when it serves your argumentation wink.gif ) - Thailand has a huge informal network of power at least equal in power and decision making abilities as the government and its head has. In a realistic assessment of the human rights violations this has to be taken into account.

If we don't do that, then we can all be happy that Thaksin gets all the blame, without changing one bit of the underlying system that made such human rights violation possible in the first place, and will so surly in the future as well.

Thailand has a sad record of Human Rights violations, many of them, often worse than the drug war, happened long before Thaksin played any role. Thaksin may have been under delusions that he was the sole dominating power in this country. But he wasn't, as the coup has shown rather clearly. He was permitted to be a figurehead as long as he was of use. During the worst Human Rights violations he was equally permitted, and not opposed by the powers that have removed him more than three years after the drug war. And those powers have collaborated during the drug war, have applauded in public the drug war on many occasions. And now after the overthrow of Thaksin - nothing but committees are formed regarding some of the Human Rights violations.

I prefer to have the enabling system changed, and not just blame a convenient target leaving the system alone. Solely blaming Thaksin is a futile exercise, smokes and mirrors. He has to be blamed, but as a willing participant of a system in a major role that has countless times enabled such brutalities, and which will continue to do so if not changed.

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

Neither was Thaksin the most senior civilian in the chain of command.

The majority of Human Rights violations investigated may have been by the civilian forces. But that does not mean that other forces may not have been involved heavily. In the border areas, and even in Bangkok, many Dor Chor Dor were heavily involved in the drug war (and we do know that their primary loyalty never was with Thaksin), and also other paramilitary forces were involved, such as Or Sor, etc.

So, for example, a few months before the killings Dor Chor Dor from Mae Sot were stationed in Klong Toey Slum, and stayed throughout.

All we talk here in the public debate about the killings by the police. What we rarely talk about are the death squads, who were they, who commanded them, and on whose orders. There is silence on them, because this is a very uncomfortable subject that goes beyond even the relatively simple issue of Human Rights violations.

There is so much about the drug war that the public never was made aware of. Even sort of legit actions never really made into the press, or anywhere, such as regular battles between Army/Dahan Praan and drug caravans. It is rather interesting talking with combat soldiers of region 3 about that subject.

There no chance that the drug war killings will be fully investigated, ever. This would tear the fabric of the country apart. All we will get is committees and sub-commitees, and after a while silence. It will go the way of Task Force 80, Kratingdaeng, Navapol, etc.

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

Very often the police is hindered itself in their investigations, especially when other vested interests in the shadows are involved. I am not saying that the police is clean at all - but no more dirty than others, and cleaner than some.

You cannot blame the police alone and wholesale - the police force is part of a dysfunctional system. That system has not changed, and the coup only reinforced it.

It is convenient to blame all the drug war killings on the police. Nobody blames the Dor Chor Dor for their killings, and who ordered them. The Dor Chor Dor are not to be blamed, even though they have a sad record in Thailand's human rights violations. And yes - they have done good as well in the past, and still do so.

And there are far more shadowy militias and paramilitary organisations in existence of which even most Thais have never heard about.

But don't forget - they act on orders (and at times somewhat independent). Thaksin is a new arrival in Thailand's long history of human rights violations and internal conflicts. The system that enables that is still intact. You may take Thaksin away, but if this system is not dismantled - nothing will change, and the next slaughter is just around the corner.

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

Thailand though does not work along international standards, especially when measured along developed countries.

Informal power networks here are often far more important than what is internationally recognized. Thaksin of course was part of, and made use of those informal networks, but he was a new kid on the block. And as we have seen, he was ousted - so clearly he was not the dominating factor, even though in his delusions he might have thought so.

As long as Thailand is not addressing this uncomfortable issue of informal power networks - nothing will change to the better. Generals simply rolling out tanks when there is a political problem is part of such an informal power network problem. You can't have it both ways - hoping that we have one day a civil society, and at the first sign of a problem using the ultimate measures of an informal and unconstitutional measure.

As long as there are sectors and individuals in this society who not just search for loopholes in the constitution, but are entirely above it, and can step over it with impunity, all attachment of blame to convenient targets while not addressing the enabling system will not lead to development.

I have mentioned here some paramilitary organisations and militias. Some of them are only partially responsible to the formal system, and some are entirely out of that loop, only responsible to informal networks. There is very little reading material about those available. And the few serious studies available that do research the more open and better known organisations all recommend disbanding and incorporating the better trained and disciplined companies into the somewhat more accountable official security services.

Very little though is known about the more clandestine organizations.

What many people underestimate is how high up those networks go. These are not just local mafia groups with private armies. You may think that things have changed here since the 70's. But they have changed only to a certain degree - they are just less obvious. If you want to read up on this system - then just read the few available studies done on what happened in the 70's.

Power distribution has not changed much though, and there the happenings of the 70's can be applied to what happens today. Especially regarding the many human rights violations. You cannot separate what happened under Thaksin and what happened thirty years ago. This has to be seen in context.

Blame Thaksin as much as you want, but that will not address the real issue of a system that is inherently open to abuse by forces above public scrutiny. Thaksin goes, somebody else comes, and the next national problem will be countered the same way it always has - by extra-constitution brutalities.

The drug war under Thaksin's premiership was fought the way it was because it was agreed upon by all sectors of the formal and the informal networks of power that this is the way to counter the severe drug crises. Thaksin may be gone (for the time being) - but all other equally important factors are still in place, as they always were throughout contemporary Thai history, and are untouched, not talked about, not blamed.

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

[Plus]

Those shadowy armed units and networks do not exist for the sake of themselves. Most probably they don't even exist in the traditional sense but are mobilised to perform specific tasks.

There's no way anyone in Thailand can challenge them directly - investigate their structure, chain of command, involvement in EJKs, bring them to courts etc. etc.

What needs to be done is to prevent abuse of these networks by opportunists like Thaksin.

Is it fair that only politicians get the blame for drug wars? Perhaps not, but it's the only possible way. There's no other practical alternative, and the time is rinning fast, soon it will be fifth anniversary.

>>>

Kraisak, former senator and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Commitee who was once tipped to become Thai Foreign Minister is now "slightly dim". What next? Comments on his sexual life?

[Tony Clifton]

Colpyat, didn't the drug problem get much worse, especially in villages, with the appearance of easy to make and discreet production of methamphetamines after the US govt. had pressured local authorities on eradicating poppie culture as part of it's own global war against drugs? (Which I think is a total failure for them at home AND abroad, one only needs to look at Afghanistan's record production while occupied... )

I'm asking so because you mentioned "completely out of control since the financial crash" ('97).

Others may think you are linking the crash to the appearance of methamphetamines.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, didn't the drug problem get much worse, especially in villages, with the appearance of easy to make and discreet production of methamphetamines after the US govt. had pressured local authorities on eradicating poppie culture as part of it's own war against drugs?

Ah yes, now we getting into the complete idiocy of the world wide anti drug laws. And there, i am afraid that we live in the dark ages - i am all for legalization. But it has to be under controlled conditions, and not legalizing the drug networks at the same time. There is a difference between drug use and drug abuse.

When my wife was a child - everyone in the village had a small Ganja garden, no harm done (ganja is actually very good for someone on amphetamine withdrawal until the brain starts producing seratonin again). But that was made illegal. As far as i can remember the amphetamines started being noticeable in the early to mid '90s. In the village it was mostly used by truck drivers and during the sugarcane harvest season. '97/'98 that changed though with the financial crises - no jobs in the cities, less harvest jobs because of automation, and Amphetamines were not used anymore to work harder as a replacement for Bai Kratom, but to escape the dire reality. Families collapsed, and the who village went to <deleted>. It still did not recuperate from that period, but fortunately we have moved three of my wife's brother out of there into the village where we bought land before the killings started.

The drug war is an uncomfortable issue, also personally, for me. I abhor the killings - but something had to be done. I just wish it would have been done without the killings.

The problem now is - that the drug business is rising again here.

[ColPyat]

Those shadowy armed units and networks do not exist for the sake of themselves. Most probably they don't even exist in the traditional sense but are mobilised to perform specific tasks.

There's no way anyone in Thailand can challenge them directly - investigate their structure, chain of command, involvement in EJKs, bring them to courts etc. etc.

What needs to be done is to prevent abuse of these networks by opportunists like Thaksin.

Is it fair that only politicians get the blame for drug wars? Perhaps not, but it's the only possible way. There's no other practical alternative, and the time is rinning fast, soon it will be fifth anniversary.

>>>

Kraisak, former senator and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Commitee who was once tipped to become Thai Foreign Minister is now "slightly dim". What next? Comments on his sexual life?

There we are slowly coming together - at least you acknowledge the existence of those shadow networks.

But i believe that these shadow networks are an abuse itself. And the root of Thailand being dysfunctional.

And no, please - i do not want to know about anyone's sex life, not Kraisak's - not Thaksin's, nobody's!

[hammered]

Kraisak is doing a good job within the system he has to work imho. I dont exactly see too many other so called human rights activists saying anything about drug killings right now. In fact many of them are now allied to who Amnesty and HRW identify as the overseer and organiser of the drug war. Whatever one wants to see Kraisak as, he has maintained his stance on the drug killings throughout while others who backed it have come on board later and others who have condemned it previously have now gone amazingly silent on the matter. Kraisak has been the only consistent activist in this area through different regimes. This has not been helped by the failure of self appointed human rights media organs like Prachathai that cover their front page with every human rights abuse of the Junta and yet amazingly it is difficult to find a story on the drug war killings. Similarly the UDD, sections of which claim to not be linked to the TRT, are forthright in their condemnation of every Junta infringement of human rights and yet not a word on drug deaths at their rallies. Yes there are those who have suddenly jumoped on the ship for politcal expediency too. Again whatever dislike people have for Kraisak he has been just about the only person to not change tact or emphasis on the issue, and for that he does deserve praise. At times he has beeen in both difficult and easy positions because of this but unlike others he hasnt changed his line because of either pressure or politcal opportunism. Who else has actually provided sanctuary in their own home for those willing to speak up, which is a very dangerous thing when to speak up is to challenge extremely powerful people and organizations.

[Plus]

There we are slowly coming together - at least you acknowledge the existence of those shadow networks.

But i believe that these shadow networks are an abuse itself. And the root of Thailand being dysfunctional.

As I said - there's nothing anyone can do about them, or cure Thailand of its dysfuncionalities overnight.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

[thedude]

Thanks Colpyat for that very illuminating compilation of comments on this issue. As an occassional observer of your writings i must commend you on the obvious progress you have made in understanding the true nature of thailand over the past couple of years. Unlike others who fall for local media news, you dig deep and your intellectual honesty shines.

There is no easy way to deal with the drug problem and the answer lies not in seeking "democratic way by changing the law" as Hammered so innocently suggests, as if the legislative system itself is to blame for the drug infestation. Besides, anyone who knows thailand knows that the law is a flexible concept here, so long as it conforms to the overiding perogatives of the "informal network" as you call it. I fully agree with and am further informed by your points on the role played by said network in the war on drugs. But my concern here was not whether thaksin acted alone, or whether he was merely reacting faithfully to the perogatives of the true powers at the time. My real concern on this issue is what could have been done under the circumstances to eradicate the problem.

The effort to stamp out drugs is not something that troubles thailand alone and as "liberal" as i think i am, there are certain issues such as this that i believe can only be solved by taking a hard stance. The means of fighting injustice will always be at loggerheads with civil rights ideals, and rightly so, but while we philosophize over it, thousands if not millions of young lives are being destroyed. This is not amsterdam with all kinds of social safety nets and government assistance when you can actively manage and slowly wean addicts off the drugs. we dont have first world apparatus here, this is something threatening on the scale of a national epidemic, more like the 19th century opium scurge on China as perpetrated by the British East India company trying to counter its trade problem with China. while i agree that the exact way in which the drug war was waged with execution gangs was wrong, given the complete lack of organisational skills and the tendency for hard line implementers to be a bit over the top (culturally induced?), i fail to see how the war could have other wise been fought with any chance of success. i am not making an excuse, but trying to empathise with the circumstances at the time.

[Plus]

The yaba surge was not caused by demand but by availability and marketing. They could have stopped the drugs at the source, or at least tried.

Killing several thousand fellow Thais was easier than standing up to Burmese generals. Even if they were honest about it, it would have been slightly more acceptable. But no, they blamed killings on drug dealers themselves.

[ColPyat]

Thanks Colpyat for that very illuminating compilation of comments on this issue. As an occassional observer of your writings i must commend you on the obvious progress you have made in understanding the true nature of thailand over the past couple of years. Unlike others who fall for local media news, you dig deep and your intellectual honesty shines.

There is no easy way to deal with the drug problem and the answer lies not in seeking "democratic way by changing the law" as Hammered so innocently suggests, as if the legislative system itself is to blame for the drug infestation. Besides, anyone who knows thailand knows that the law is a flexible concept here, so long as it conforms to the overiding perogatives of the "informal network" as you call it. I fully agree with and am further informed by your points on the role played by said network in the war on drugs. But my concern here was not whether thaksin acted alone, or whether he was merely reacting faithfully to the perogatives of the true powers at the time. My real concern on this issue is what could have been done under the circumstances to eradicate the problem.

The effort to stamp out drugs is not something that troubles thailand alone and as "liberal" as i think i am, there are certain issues such as this that i believe can only be solved by taking a hard stance. The means of fighting injustice will always be at loggerheads with civil rights ideals, and rightly so, but while we philosophize over it, thousands if not millions of young lives are being destroyed. This is not amsterdam with all kinds of social safety nets and government assistance when you can actively manage and slowly wean addicts off the drugs. we dont have first world apparatus here, this is something threatening on the scale of a national epidemic, more like the 19th century opium scurge on China as perpetrated by the British East India company trying to counter its trade problem with China. while i agree that the exact way in which the drug war was waged with execution gangs was wrong, given the complete lack of organisational skills and the tendency for hard line implementers to be a bit over the top (culturally induced?), i fail to see how the war could have other wise been fought with any chance of success. i am not making an excuse, but trying to empathise with the circumstances at the time.

The last two years have been an incredible learning period for me. With all that turmoil, and the possibility to meet an converse with all sorts of people one normally does not get to meet, both members and leaders of the informal and the formal systems, and opponents, i was able to get a much clearer picture on Thailand.

What could have been done with the drug problem. Difficult question, very difficult question. How can i answer this without going into gaga-land, and recommend things like a legalization of ganja and such?

First of all - problems with implementation: the drug war was far too hurried. Blacklists have been rushed, and often established by non-professionals, such as Puyai Bans and Or Bor Dors, and because of that many innocents have slipped into the lists.

The separation between dealers and addicts was not done well enough, and not adapted to realities. Many of the murdered dealers were in fact the lowest echelon of the chain, and addicts that should have benefitted from the partial decriminalization of of the use, and not killed as dealers, but sent into the rehabilitation camps. The mid and high level dealers were mostly untouched.

Much horror was caused, for example, by pharmacies having been punished for giving needles to junkies. In Klong Toey slum, for example, after the beginning of the war, i have seen horrible scenes of junkies, who could not get needles anymore, searching through the rubbish trying to find used needles, and shooting up with those when they found some. These are images that will stay forever with me.

Several Junkies i have known there for a while have disappeared in the first two months, never to be seen again. Those were good people, who had a problem. They didn't deserve to be shot.

The basic thing is - the problem hasn't gone away, it just has retreated for a while. Because the fundamental social injustices which are root cause of the drug problem are still there. And the problem is slowly creeping back. Here in Bangkok the business is rising again. Now, even in front of my house at night some kids from nearby slums sell and do drugs at night. At the borders, the trafficking has increased and is much more difficult to fight. Previously it were mostly large drug caravans, and regular battled between army/dahan praan and the drugarmies (the better protected caravans were often led through because they were often better armed and had more soldiers than the army patrols laying in ambush). Nowadays, it's mostly single mules with maybe 30 000 pills, who go over the Mekong. because of the dams in China, many sections of the Mekong you can actually just wade through, and many Hmong, Muser and Akha villages at the border are part of the networks, and very dangerous for the Army to access. They do have protection from corrupt Army officers and Civil servants of the area.

I don't know what should be done, but i think that the problems are the informal power networks in Thailand, and resulting social injustice. It's a catch 22 situation all over. Simply blaming Thaksin for human rights violations without acknowledging the many complex contributing factors just won't help us solving the multi-layered problems. Many of the contributing factors we can't even talk and discuss about openly.

How can we find a solution when we can't even talk about the problem? Under these circumstances nothing we do will change a thing. One short term solution will open up another problem.

So, after the killings there were noticeably less drugs around, but at the same time - there was a huge rise in violent crime after the drug war killings. Kids that previously got high by drugs, suddenly got high by violence. And now we get the drugs back.

And Thailand is slipping more and more into some very instable times, especially politically.

[ColPyat]

The yaba surge was not caused by demand but by availability and marketing. They could have stopped the drugs at the source, or at least tried.

Killing several thousand fellow Thais was easier than standing up to Burmese generals. Even if they were honest about it, it would have been slightly more acceptable. But no, they blamed killings on drug dealers themselves.

I am sorry - but you are wrong.

There was huge demand - and it still is there.

The evil Burmese generals is a simplification of the problem, and a Thai typical avoidance of self reflection. The heaviest investors in the producing areas are clearly identifiable - Mid-ranked Wa State Army officers (over which the Burmese Generals have no control whatsoever), the old Yunnanese Drug Networks, and Mid Ranked Thai officers of Army region 3 - all collaborating with each other to satisfy a huge demand in these countries with enormous social injustices.

Edited August 29, 2007 by ColPyat

[Plus]

There was huge demand - and it still is there.

Pretty much like demand for mobile phones with cameras. Ten years ago they didn't even exist but now there's "huge demand". Do you think there would be similar surge in drug use if instead of popping a couple of pills bought for a few baht on a corner people would have to shoot drugs intravenously?

Price, availability, ease of use - that's what has driven the demand.

The evil Burmese generals is a simplification of the problem, and a Thai typical avoidance of self reflection. The heaviest investors in the producing areas are clearly identifiable - Mid-ranked Wa State Army officers (over which the Burmese Generals have no control whatsoever), the old Yunnanese Drug Networks, and Mid Ranked Thai officers of Army region 3 - all collaborating with each other to satisfy a huge demand in these countries with enormous social injustices.

Burmese generals made a deal and gave the area to Wa to control, isn't it right? Wasn't Thaksin himself beating his chest once and threatening to erase whole Burmese town off the face of the Earth?

I'm not saying it would have been easy, or easier.

[ColPyat]

There was huge demand - and it still is there.

Pretty much like demand for mobile phones with cameras. Ten years ago they didn't even exist but now there's "huge demand". Do you think there would be similar surge in drug use if instead of popping a couple of pills bought for a few baht on a corner people would have to shoot drugs intravenously?

Price, availability, ease of use - that's what has driven the demand.

The evil Burmese generals is a simplification of the problem, and a Thai typical avoidance of self reflection. The heaviest investors in the producing areas are clearly identifiable - Mid-ranked Wa State Army officers (over which the Burmese Generals have no control whatsoever), the old Yunnanese Drug Networks, and Mid Ranked Thai officers of Army region 3 - all collaborating with each other to satisfy a huge demand in these countries with enormous social injustices.

Burmese generals made a deal and gave the area to Wa to control, isn't it right? Wasn't Thaksin himself beating his chest once and threatening to erase whole Burmese town off the face of the Earth?

I'm not saying it would have been easy, or easier.

Not really. The Wa State Army was formerly the Army of the Communist Party of Burma, until the split and made a peace with SLORC in '89 (i think). At no time the Tatmadaw has ever managed to win a war against the UWSA, and it would be doubtful that they ever could.

Some territories closed to the Thai border were taken by the Wa from the SSA (the majority Shan have also made peace with Burma a long time ago), in collaboration with the Tatmadaw, but i would not call that exactly that Burma was, or is, in control there. Most of these areas are still very wild, and even Pao Yu Chan of the Wa only has very limited 'control' there. Very little there is comparable to anything we know, and a better way to view these areas is looking at them as purely feudal warring states.

Most of the ethnic minority armies are involved in the trafficking of drugs, the profits are just too big to resist. And nothing goes without the active collaboration of the Thais.

Yes, of course - demand is created, but not just by availability, but by pre-existing conditions of social desperation. If people would be content with their lives, would they have a need to use drugs in such numbers?

From what i have observed - only since the catastrophic financial crises in '97 did the amphetamines go so massively into the society. And that was not a development that came as a surprise either.

Amphetamines are the perfect drug for people here - the high gives you the illusion of tremendous empowerment - the opposite of what people feel in their realities. The low, the gives you such a deep depression enhancing the already existing feeling of being ruled over and powerless, that you crave a new high.

Solution: empower people, let them be active part of the decision making process, draw them into politics, into development, and don't just feed them ideologies of submission to higher powers and the status quo.

[sriracha john]

Meeting held on Thaksin's war on drugs

A committee set up by the government to probe extra judicial killings under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration called its first meeting on Wednesday morning. The meeting, chaired by committee chairman Kanit na Nakorn, was attended by permanent secretary to the Justice Ministry Jarun Pakdithanakul, former Nakhon Ratchasima senator Kraisak Choonhavan and Kitti Limchaikij, secretary-general of the Narcotics Control Board. Mr Kanit disclosed after the talks that the committee’s main tasks were to investigate whether Mr Thaksin’s “war on drugs” justified the loss of more than 2,500 lives. It will also lay down preventive measures in order to avoid a recurrence of the killings in the future and set up a rehabilitation plan for those who lost loved ones. Mr Thaksin’s human rights record has not always been impressive in the eyes of international rights groups and he has come under serious condemnation since he launched his war on drugs in 2003. He was also criticized for his handling of the southern violence, where a separatist struggle has raged since 2004, leaving 1,700 dead and

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=121204

[jumnien]

"A committee set up by the government"

say no more...

[Siripon]

"A committee set up by the government"

say no more...

Surely as a freedom loving democrat you're not anti -investigations into human rights violations such as the disappearances of hundreds in the South under Thaksin's government, plus over 14 NGOs activists; not to mention the killings of innocents in Thaksin's self proclaimed drugs war?

[Old Man River]

Meeting held on Thaksin's war on drugs

A committee set up by the government to probe extra judicial killings under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration called its first meeting on Wednesday morning. Mr Kanit disclosed after the talks that the committee’s main tasks were to investigate whether Mr Thaksin’s “war on drugs” justified the loss of more than 2,500 lives. It will also lay down preventive measures in order to avoid a recurrence of the killings in the future and set up a rehabilitation plan for those who lost loved ones.

It is interesting to note that the main tasks of this committee is not to investigate the actual killings, but rather to investigate whether the killings were justifiable, measures to prevent them from re-occurring (which would indicate it isn't justifiable) and set up a rehab plan for families.

[sriracha john]

It would seem apparent that the BP article was incomplete regarding the tasking of the panel, which will have SIX areas of responsibilities, including "finding those responsible"....

'Drug war' panel outlines its work

In its first meeting yesterday, an independent committee looking into 2,569 drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government laid out its work agenda and officially appointed heads of six sub-panels.

The 12-member committee, headed by former attorney-general Khanit na Nakhon, repeated that it was authorised to prosecute anyone found to be involved in the killings and would mainly perform a fact-finding role and work out compensatory solutions for relatives of the victims.

Former senator Kraisak Chonhavan, who heads the sub-panel on research and international public relations, said it was better late than never for the committee to be set up.

"The set-up of the Khanit na Nakhon committee signifies the government's sincerity and determination to sort out human rights violations in Thailand," he said.

Kraisak said fewer than 100 complaints had been lodged by relatives of victims - but that reflected public lack of faith in the justice system.

"If the investigation can bring the wrongdoers to justice in only one of two cases, that would mean a historic success."

Narcotics Control Board chief Kitti Limchaikij heads fact-finding Sub-panel A, Department of Special Investigations deputy Tharit Phengdit heads fact-finding Sub-panel B, Justice permanent secretary Charan Phakdi-thanakul heads the sub-panel on finding those responsible. Deputy permanent secretary Kittiphong Kittayarak heads the sub-panel on compensatory solutions, and Thammasat University deputy rector Udom Ratamarit heads the panel on preventative measures. Each will have 15-20 members.

- The Nation

[sriracha john]

...and this morning, the BP publishes a more comprehensive report on who is doing what for the panel... as well as the panel's role in any potential criminal charges being laid down...

Drugs war inquiry chiefs named

Senior officials from various state agencies have been named as heads of six sub-panels to investigate the extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs of Thaksin Shinawatra's government. The Independent Commission for Study and Analysis of the Formation and Implementation of Drug Suppression Policy (ICID), which is headed by former attorney-general Khanit na Nakhon, met for the first time yesterday to discuss its framework. Khanit said his commission was tasked with investigating the Thaksin government's drug suppression policies blamed for the extra-judicial killings, the damage of reputation and property of those involved, analysing the impact of the policies in order to work out measures to prevent any repetition, as well as to help the damaged parties. The commission resolved to set up six sub-panels to carry out the tasks. Among the panels, two will be responsible for determining the facts of the extra-judicial killings. One is chaired by Office of the Narcotics Control Board's secretary-general Kitti Limchaikij and the other is headed by deputy chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) Tharit Pengdit. Another sub-panel, headed by Permanent Secretary for Justice Jarun Pukditanakul, will look into policy makers who were behind the war on drugs. Khanit said his commission is not authorised to punish any officials involved in the killings as such authority rested with police, prosecutors and DSI investigators. He said the independent commission could recommend that criminal action be taken against those involved by passing the findings of its investigations to the DSI or the police.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/30Aug2007_news06.php

================================================================================

Kudos to Kraisak et al for the first-ever investigation at who was responsible.

[jumnien]

Just a guess, but most probably the "investigative team" will limit their conclusions to accusations against political opponents of the military regime. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. Doubt that I will.

[marshbags]

It would seem apparent that the BP article was incomplete regarding the tasking of the panel, which will have SIX areas of responsibilities, including "finding those responsible"....

'Drug war' panel outlines its work

In its first meeting yesterday, an independent committee looking into 2,569 drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government laid out its work agenda and officially appointed heads of six sub-panels.

The 12-member committee, headed by former attorney-general Khanit na Nakhon, repeated that it was authorised to prosecute anyone found to be involved in the killings and would mainly perform a fact-finding role and work out compensatory solutions for relatives of the victims.

Former senator Kraisak Chonhavan, who heads the sub-panel on research and international public relations, said it was better late than never for the committee to be set up.

"The set-up of the Khanit na Nakhon committee signifies the government's sincerity and determination to sort out human rights violations in Thailand," he said.

Kraisak said fewer than 100 complaints had been lodged by relatives of victims - but that reflected public lack of faith in the justice system.

I think in broader terms this would include fear of reprisals from the very people this evil act of atrocity should have apprehended had it been of honest intentions....

In the U.K. we call them " Drug Barons "..In Thailand they are called " Puyai " with vested intererests.

"If the investigation can bring the wrongdoers to justice in only one of two cases, that would mean a historic success."

Narcotics Control Board chief Kitti Limchaikij heads fact-finding Sub-panel A, Department of Special Investigations deputy Tharit Phengdit heads fact-finding Sub-panel B, Justice permanent secretary Charan Phakdi-thanakul heads the sub-panel on finding those responsible. Deputy permanent secretary Kittiphong Kittayarak heads the sub-panel on compensatory solutions, and Thammasat University deputy rector Udom Ratamarit heads the panel on preventative measures. Each will have 15-20 members.

- The Nation

Kraisak is doing a brilliant job in his efforts to get accountability and justice and in no way does the above highlighted comment

criticsize or undermine him.

This is just a personal observation that his position doesn,t afford him to expand on as i have.

That is without inviting unwanted attention that could divert things away from his and the I. Panels objectives, while they are ongoing.

marshbags

Edited August 30, 2007 by marshbags

[hammered]

Meeting held on Thaksin's war on drugs

A committee set up by the government to probe extra judicial killings under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration called its first meeting on Wednesday morning. Mr Kanit disclosed after the talks that the committee’s main tasks were to investigate whether Mr Thaksin’s “war on drugs” justified the loss of more than 2,500 lives. It will also lay down preventive measures in order to avoid a recurrence of the killings in the future and set up a rehabilitation plan for those who lost loved ones.

It is interesting to note that the main tasks of this committee is not to investigate the actual killings, but rather to investigate whether the killings were justifiable, measures to prevent them from re-occurring (which would indicate it isn't justifiable) and set up a rehab plan for families.

Indeed. But we have come a way. It took many many years before people even dared discuss the events of 6 October 1976, and even now there are limits to what can be said. There is however still a way to go.

[Plus]

The Wa State Army was formerly the Army of the Communist Party of Burma, until the split and made a peace with SLORC in '89 (i think). At no time the Tatmadaw has ever managed to win a war against the UWSA, and it would be doubtful that they ever could.

Some territories closed to the Thai border were taken by the Wa from the SSA (the majority Shan have also made peace with Burma a long time ago), in collaboration with the Tatmadaw, but i would not call that exactly that Burma was, or is, in control there. Most of these areas are still very wild, and even Pao Yu Chan of the Wa only has very limited 'control' there. Very little there is comparable to anything we know, and a better way to view these areas is looking at them as purely feudal warring states.

Fine then, if no one claims responsibility, just bomb the factories. It is quite possible to avoid human casualties with enough warnings, leaflets dropped from helicopters, warning shots etc etc. In any case the death toll wouldn't be in thousands.

Yes, of course - demand is created, but not just by availability, but by pre-existing conditions of social desperation. If people would be content with their lives, would they have a need to use drugs in such numbers?

There's no simple correlation - the drug war started in 2003 - right in the middle of the economic boom when drug usage was at his highest and there was no sign of easing up.

These two arguments appear again and again on various subjects - should people take personal responsibility or should the government restrict their freedom? In case of alcohol and smoking it's on a personal level, in case of drug war it was on country level - should Thailand deal with drug addiction itself or should it lash out at Burma - the supplier.

Thaksin decided to go after "dealerships" rather than producers.

Solution: empower people, let them be active part of the decision making process, draw them into politics, into development, and don't just feed them ideologies of submission to higher powers and the status quo.

That's an empty talk when crazed yaba addicts abduct children on a daily basis.

[ColPyat]

The Wa State Army was formerly the Army of the Communist Party of Burma, until the split and made a peace with SLORC in '89 (i think). At no time the Tatmadaw has ever managed to win a war against the UWSA, and it would be doubtful that they ever could.

Some territories closed to the Thai border were taken by the Wa from the SSA (the majority Shan have also made peace with Burma a long time ago), in collaboration with the Tatmadaw, but i would not call that exactly that Burma was, or is, in control there. Most of these areas are still very wild, and even Pao Yu Chan of the Wa only has very limited 'control' there. Very little there is comparable to anything we know, and a better way to view these areas is looking at them as purely feudal warring states.

Fine then, if no one claims responsibility, just bomb the factories. It is quite possible to avoid human casualties with enough warnings, leaflets dropped from helicopters, warning shots etc etc. In any case the death toll wouldn't be in thousands.

Yes, of course - demand is created, but not just by availability, but by pre-existing conditions of social desperation. If people would be content with their lives, would they have a need to use drugs in such numbers?

There's no simple correlation - the drug war started in 2003 - right in the middle of the economic boom when drug usage was at his highest and there was no sign of easing up.

These two arguments appear again and again on various subjects - should people take personal responsibility or should the government restrict their freedom? In case of alcohol and smoking it's on a personal level, in case of drug war it was on country level - should Thailand deal with drug addiction itself or should it lash out at Burma - the supplier.

Thaksin decided to go after "dealerships" rather than producers.

Solution: empower people, let them be active part of the decision making process, draw them into politics, into development, and don't just feed them ideologies of submission to higher powers and the status quo.

That's an empty talk when crazed yaba addicts abduct children on a daily basis.

Empty talk? I think the proponents of the drug war killings would very much agree with you here, their solution was to kill the people who sold amphetamines to those "crazed" addicts.

I would say my proposal is a long term solution to decrease demand grown out of social desperation.

There never is a simple correlation, but the economic boom did not happen in all areas and and economies. By 2003 the drug fueled parallel economy had reached enormous proportions, and many local micro-economies were almost completely feeding the drug industry.

"Burma" as a supplier is a simplification. You had many drug labs in Thailand as well, and most drug labs in Burma may have been in Burmese territory (now are more dispersed over the whole area, also in Laos) but were in fact in warlord land, with heavy investment of Thai Army networks and other corrupt parts of Thai society. Not that easy to find them in the first place - they were well hidden, some of them mobile labs even, and very well protected by heavily armed forces. Amphetamine labs are not like Heroin labs - no need for expensive chemists, you just need water, electricity and a pill making machine. Very easy and cheap to be built up, and move all over.

And then of course you might risk a terrible border war, not just with the highly trained and very experienced UWSA, but also with the Tatmadaw. Thai Burmese relations are strained, and such attacks can easily escalate into something Thailand might easily lose badly.

I think you have a rather mistaken idea of the territory, its conditions and population where you propose to "simply" attack and bomb.

I sometimes really wonder why you argue so against the drug war killings. Most of the points you bring up are an exact copy of the drug war proponents, and especially the more radical ones, who shift all blame to Burma while desperately avoiding to look at the home grown reasons for the mass drug addiction.

[hammered]

The Wa State Army was formerly the Army of the Communist Party of Burma, until the split and made a peace with SLORC in '89 (i think). At no time the Tatmadaw has ever managed to win a war against the UWSA, and it would be doubtful that they ever could.

Some territories closed to the Thai border were taken by the Wa from the SSA (the majority Shan have also made peace with Burma a long time ago), in collaboration with the Tatmadaw, but i would not call that exactly that Burma was, or is, in control there. Most of these areas are still very wild, and even Pao Yu Chan of the Wa only has very limited 'control' there. Very little there is comparable to anything we know, and a better way to view these areas is looking at them as purely feudal warring states.

Fine then, if no one claims responsibility, just bomb the factories. It is quite possible to avoid human casualties with enough warnings, leaflets dropped from helicopters, warning shots etc etc. In any case the death toll wouldn't be in thousands.

Yes, of course - demand is created, but not just by availability, but by pre-existing conditions of social desperation. If people would be content with their lives, would they have a need to use drugs in such numbers?

There's no simple correlation - the drug war started in 2003 - right in the middle of the economic boom when drug usage was at his highest and there was no sign of easing up.

These two arguments appear again and again on various subjects - should people take personal responsibility or should the government restrict their freedom? In case of alcohol and smoking it's on a personal level, in case of drug war it was on country level - should Thailand deal with drug addiction itself or should it lash out at Burma - the supplier.

Thaksin decided to go after "dealerships" rather than producers.

Solution: empower people, let them be active part of the decision making process, draw them into politics, into development, and don't just feed them ideologies of submission to higher powers and the status quo.

That's an empty talk when crazed yaba addicts abduct children on a daily basis.

Empty talk? I think the proponents of the drug war killings would very much agree with you here, their solution was to kill the people who sold amphetamines to those "crazed" addicts.

I would say my proposal is a long term solution to decrease demand grown out of social desperation.

There never is a simple correlation, but the economic boom did not happen in all areas and and economies. By 2003 the drug fueled parallel economy had reached enormous proportions, and many local micro-economies were almost completely feeding the drug industry.

"Burma" as a supplier is a simplification. You had many drug labs in Thailand as well, and most drug labs in Burma may have been in Burmese territory (now are more dispersed over the whole area, also in Laos) but were in fact in warlord land, with heavy investment of Thai Army networks and other corrupt parts of Thai society. Not that easy to find them in the first place - they were well hidden, some of them mobile labs even, and very well protected by heavily armed forces. Amphetamine labs are not like Heroin labs - no need for expensive chemists, you just need water, electricity and a pill making machine. Very easy and cheap to be built up, and move all over.

And then of course you might risk a terrible border war, not just with the highly trained and very experienced UWSA, but also with the Tatmadaw. Thai Burmese relations are strained, and such attacks can easily escalate into something Thailand might easily lose badly.

I think you have a rather mistaken idea of the territory, its conditions and population where you propose to "simply" attack and bomb.

I sometimes really wonder why you argue so against the drug war killings. Most of the points you bring up are an exact copy of the drug war proponents, and especially the more radical ones, who shift all blame to Burma while desperately avoiding to look at the home grown reasons for the mass drug addiction.

I think you should include the word "selectively" in that sentence. drug dealers linked to TRTespecially the ones that delivered them seats in the parliament were never really at risk and as things went down the line local friends and partnesr of those doing the killing could ge a pass too. The lists obviusly helped to ensure no political allies or business partnesr were ever dealt with. Obviously soem who had no link to drug dealing were also put to death either by error, or for being personal, business or politcal enemies of those doing the killing. But I digress and should apoliogise for making any distinction between alleged drug dealers and those who probably were not as everyone is innocent until proven guilty under Thai law as protected by the then constitution so in fact everyone who was offed was actually an innocent person.

My question would be on this matter why did nobody think of making the laws and penalties dealing with drugs and drug related crime a lot harsher? That would be the way forward in a democratic system probably also linked to going easy on users. This would have been very easy for a governemtn with a huge majority in the legislature to actually do, but was never even considered.

[ColPyat]

I think you should include the word "selectively" in that sentence. drug dealers linked to TRTespecially the ones that delivered them seats in the parliament were never really at risk and as things went down the line local friends and partnesr of those doing the killing could ge a pass too. The lists obviusly helped to ensure no political allies or business partnesr were ever dealt with. Obviously soem who had no link to drug dealing were also put to death either by error, or for being personal, business or politcal enemies of those doing the killing. But I digress and should apoliogise for making any distinction between alleged drug dealers and those who probably were not as everyone is innocent until proven guilty under Thai law as protected by the then constitution so in fact everyone who was offed was actually an innocent person.

My question would be on this matter why did nobody think of making the laws and penalties dealing with drugs and drug related crime a lot harsher? That would be the way forward in a democratic system probably also linked to going easy on users. This would have been very easy for a governemtn with a huge majority in the legislature to actually do, but was never even considered.

Almost none of the midlevel dealers got killed, whichever party or power network they were connected to. Many of them, especially the ones in the forces, did actually kill their own low level dealers at the time as well. And, it most definately was not a top level decision to let TRT connected dealers get off free, but local informal patronage network decisions.

Here in bangkok for example they have all gotten advance notice of what was in store. Police stations called the dealers in 2 weeks before the war started. Most mid and high level dealers did escape to rural areas or to foreign countries, leaving low level addict dealers who could not go anywhere.

In this dug war debate we forget that it was not just killings, as far as i remember punishments for dealing were made harsher just before the war. And for the first time there was a rather clear separation made between dealing and addiction. I don't exactly remember the amount of pills, what i remember though was that suddenly street dealers carried not more than the specified amount of pills in order to be treated as addicts when caught, the rest hidden and brought to customers by runners who were paid with pills.

Addicts were sent during the war to special "rehabilitation" camps, mostly led by the army. I think the number during the first three months of the drug war was country wide about 300 000 people. 50 000 people were arrested and sent to prison. For Heroin addicts there were also an increased (though insufficient) offer of Methadone therapies in hospitals and government recognized clinics. Those under the programs also got cards issued in case of police controls and urine tests.

As horrible the killings were, this was not the entire drug war. There were many well thought through (and unfortunately badly implemented) programs as well.

[sriracha john]

Thai Burmese relations are strained, and such attacks can easily escalate into something Thailand might easily lose badly.

Which I would agree with and is attributable to defense budget cuts during his entire tenure that left the armed forces dilapidated and weak, a situation that is now only being corrected... not unexpectedly to howls of protest.

[Plus]

Long term solutions were useless in 2003, just like recommending a better diet to patients with a high fever.

When people say "something must be done" they surely don't mean empower people, draw them into decision making process etc. etc.

And no matter how you try, demand in 2003 wasn't driven by desperation.

Drug war had wrong priorities - like bringing tons of porn into your house and at the same time trying to stop your son from masturbating.

[thedude]

Almost none of the midlevel dealers got killed, whichever party or power network they were connected to. Many of them, especially the ones in the forces, did actually kill their own low level dealers at the time as well. And, it most definately was not a top level decision to let TRT connected dealers get off free, but local informal patronage network decisions.

Here in bangkok for example they have all gotten advance notice of what was in store. Police stations called the dealers in 2 weeks before the war started. Most mid and high level dealers did escape to rural areas or to foreign countries, leaving low level addict dealers who could not go anywhere.

In this dug war debate we forget that it was not just killings, as far as i remember punishments for dealing were made harsher just before the war. And for the first time there was a rather clear separation made between dealing and addiction. I don't exactly remember the amount of pills, what i remember though was that suddenly street dealers carried not more than the specified amount of pills in order to be treated as addicts when caught, the rest hidden and brought to customers by runners who were paid with pills.

Addicts were sent during the war to special "rehabilitation" camps, mostly led by the army. I think the number during the first three months of the drug war was country wide about 300 000 people. 50 000 people were arrested and sent to prison. For Heroin addicts there were also an increased (though insufficient) offer of Methadone therapies in hospitals and government recognized clinics. Those under the programs also got cards issued in case of police controls and urine tests.

As horrible the killings were, this was not the entire drug war. There were many well thought through (and unfortunately badly implemented) programs as well.

if your numbers are correct - 300,000 into rehab, 50,000 imprisoned, then the scale would really put into context the 2,500 killed (less than 1% of all those apprehended during the first 3 months). this obviously wasn't a crazed shooting gallery mass execution type scenario like some forumers like to portray. not making an excuse for summary killings per se, just trying to understand what happened.

WRT separation of dealing and addiction i recall that back in 2004 a delinquent brother of my maid was caught with some pills, and to teach him his lesson she refused to bribe the police to "make one zero dissappear" from the number of pills being stated in the police report, which was in the hundreds. if it was just 10 or 20 he would have been charged under a different category which carried a lighter sentence, so he ended up being imprisoned now for over 2 years. no one put a bullet in him and he obviously went throught the system.