Bringing Thaksin To Account

[younghusband]

New Anti-Drug Campaign Risks Abuses : Human Rights Watch

By The Nation, Thu, November 13, 2008 : Last updated 15:06 hours

Thai Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's new anti-drugs campaign is likely to lead to serious human rights violations without major changes in policy and personnel, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday.

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to end punitive treatment of drug abusers, carry out major reforms in policing, and provide justice for the close-to-3,000 extrajudicial killings during a similar campaign in 2003.

Unquote

Let us hope it,s not more of the same for everyone deemed possible suspects !!!!!!!!!!!!!

marshbags and still

Excellent response from Human Rights Watch(HRW), one organisation which has consistently cut through the lies and obfuscation that shroud human rights in Thailand.I endorse every word.

< completely off-topic news article snipped >

It's terrific you've learned how to post news in the News Clippings Forum, but now you just need to learn which thread to post the news into. If you peruse the forum closely, I think there might be one, possibly two, PAD-related threads.

Thanks very much and I owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing me in the direction of net tutorials.

I wondered whether my last post was off topic but thought there was a strong case for highlighting the excellent Human Rights Watch connection

< further off-topic comments snipped >

Something to realize when posting news in the News Clipping forum is that it is the actual news itself that is tied to the topic, not the source of the news.

Human Rights Watch is one of the most authoritative organisations to document the illegal drugs war, Thaksin's greatest crime.It is entirely appropriate briefly to refer members to HRW commentaries on current Thai politics;I didn't intend a long discussion on it.You weigh in as a faux moderator but it would be evident to anyone why you are so agitated about this thread, namely HRW has directly criticised PAD for the appalling organisation it is.

[sriracha john]

New Anti-Drug Campaign Risks Abuses : Human Rights Watch

By The Nation, Thu, November 13, 2008 : Last updated 15:06 hours

Thai Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's new anti-drugs campaign is likely to lead to serious human rights violations without major changes in policy and personnel, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday.

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to end punitive treatment of drug abusers, carry out major reforms in policing, and provide justice for the close-to-3,000 extrajudicial killings during a similar campaign in 2003.

Unquote

Let us hope it,s not more of the same for everyone deemed possible suspects !!!!!!!!!!!!!

marshbags and still

Excellent response from Human Rights Watch(HRW), one organisation which has consistently cut through the lies and obfuscation that shroud human rights in Thailand.I endorse every word.

< completely off-topic news article snipped >

It's terrific you've learned how to post news in the News Clippings Forum, but now you just need to learn which thread to post the news into. If you peruse the forum closely, I think there might be one, possibly two, PAD-related threads.

Thanks very much and I owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing me in the direction of net tutorials.

I wondered whether my last post was off topic but thought there was a strong case for highlighting the excellent Human Rights Watch connection

< further off-topic comments snipped >

Something to realize when posting news in the News Clipping forum is that it is the actual news itself that is tied to the topic, not the source of the news.

Human Rights Watch is one of the most authoritative organisations

< further still off-topic comments snipped >

It may well be, but they issue lots of press releases and I hope you can see that it would detract from being on-topic if we all of a sudden started mixing and matching various topics of their varying news into totally unrelated topics. That would be inappropriate.

[younghusband]

New Anti-Drug Campaign Risks Abuses : Human Rights Watch

By The Nation, Thu, November 13, 2008 : Last updated 15:06 hours

Thai Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's new anti-drugs campaign is likely to lead to serious human rights violations without major changes in policy and personnel, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday.

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to end punitive treatment of drug abusers, carry out major reforms in policing, and provide justice for the close-to-3,000 extrajudicial killings during a similar campaign in 2003.

Unquote

Let us hope it,s not more of the same for everyone deemed possible suspects !!!!!!!!!!!!!

marshbags and still

Excellent response from Human Rights Watch(HRW), one organisation which has consistently cut through the lies and obfuscation that shroud human rights in Thailand.I endorse every word.

< completely off-topic news article snipped >

It's terrific you've learned how to post news in the News Clippings Forum, but now you just need to learn which thread to post the news into. If you peruse the forum closely, I think there might be one, possibly two, PAD-related threads.

Thanks very much and I owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing me in the direction of net tutorials.

I wondered whether my last post was off topic but thought there was a strong case for highlighting the excellent Human Rights Watch connection

< further off-topic comments snipped >

Something to realize when posting news in the News Clipping forum is that it is the actual news itself that is tied to the topic, not the source of the news.

Human Rights Watch is one of the most authoritative organisations

< further still off-topic comments snipped >

It may well be, but they issue lots of press releases and I hope you can see that it would detract from being on-topic if we all of a sudden started mixing and matching various topics of their varying news into totally unrelated topics. That would be inappropriate.

OK that's a fair and measured comment which one can respect.But actually HRW hasn't from memory issued that many press releases on Thailand this year, four or five at most.And I'm afraid most will deduce that your real concern here is not a procedural issue but the exposure by a universally respected organisation of PAD's dark underside.

[animatic]

If you had posted the HRW article with Drug War comments here

with edits

... HRW ref. new and old drugwar ...

showing it as excerpts,

and then the HRW PAD comments in a PAD thread with the same

... HRW ... PAD .... < showing excerpts)

as excerpts there would be no issue and it would keep in topic for

BOTH threads and your info is disseminated with more directness.

I agree with most all HRW said in the article by the way.

Maybe not 100%, but they do see clearly.

Edited November 13, 2008 by animatic

[CuttySark]

I just can't wondering, if the Klongtoey bombing has something to do with rival DRUG LORD disagreement on their profit split. It is a common knowledge (you can quote me on this) that Klongtoey is one of the largest drug wholeales area of Bangkok, if not Thailand.

Is this a result of the aborlishment of WAR ON DRUG? Just my guessing.

[animatic]

Doesn't seem likely.

Usually drug wars are gun related hits, or street battles with knives and clubs.

Not chaos causing public bombings. This seems directed at the protesters there.

[sriracha john]

New Anti-Drug Campaign Risks Abuses : Human Rights Watch

By The Nation, Thu, November 13, 2008 : Last updated 15:06 hours

Thai Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's new anti-drugs campaign is likely to lead to serious human rights violations without major changes in policy and personnel, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday.

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to end punitive treatment of drug abusers, carry out major reforms in policing, and provide justice for the close-to-3,000 extrajudicial killings during a similar campaign in 2003.

Unquote

Let us hope it,s not more of the same for everyone deemed possible suspects !!!!!!!!!!!!!

marshbags and still

Excellent response from Human Rights Watch(HRW), one organisation which has consistently cut through the lies and obfuscation that shroud human rights in Thailand.I endorse every word.

< completely off-topic news article snipped >

It's terrific you've learned how to post news in the News Clippings Forum, but now you just need to learn which thread to post the news into. If you peruse the forum closely, I think there might be one, possibly two, PAD-related threads.

Thanks very much and I owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing me in the direction of net tutorials.

I wondered whether my last post was off topic but thought there was a strong case for highlighting the excellent Human Rights Watch connection

< further off-topic comments snipped >

Something to realize when posting news in the News Clipping forum is that it is the actual news itself that is tied to the topic, not the source of the news.

Human Rights Watch is one of the most authoritative organisations

< further still off-topic comments snipped >

It may well be, but they issue lots of press releases and I hope you can see that it would detract from being on-topic if we all of a sudden started mixing and matching various topics of their varying news into totally unrelated topics. That would be inappropriate.

OK that's a fair and measured comment which one can respect.

< further even still off-topic comments snipped >

It's good you finally understand.

[mc2]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it. Good article by the way.

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

Edited November 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[younghusband]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You are just making a fool of yourself.It's apparent to all that you want to remove the Humsan Right Watch's damning indictment of PAD.The irony is of course that through your efforts a large number of puzzled members will have picked up the reference who otherwise wouldn't have noticed it.

[mc2]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

Yes, forum protocol. I see.

However I am still a little confused as to this recent isolated post of yours which has nothing to do with the topic it was posted in, namely, the UK CANCEL THAKSIN AND WIFE VISA thread. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why this seemingly off topic post of yours meets the high standard of forum integrity you set.

- 2Bangkok.com / 2008-11-13 translation

Obama vs Thaksin - Matichon newspaper

Top: This is the guy who the world wants to bring world harmony.

Bottom: This is guy who all Thai people pray will not destroy Thai harmony.

[Plus]

After visa cancellation Thaksin promised full blown revenge, how's that not relevant?

HRW article is what, two months old?

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You

< flaming snipped >

As said, the bickering seems one-sided and pursuing compliance with forum protocol is all that I seek.

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

Yes, forum protocol. I see.

However I am still a little confused as to this recent isolated post of yours which has nothing to do with the topic it was posted in, namely, the UK CANCEL THAKSIN AND WIFE VISA thread. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why this seemingly off topic post of yours meets the high standard of forum integrity you set.

- 2Bangkok.com / 2008-11-13 translation

Obama vs Thaksin - Matichon newspaper

Top: This is the guy who the world wants to bring world harmony.

Bottom: This is guy who all Thai people pray will not destroy Thai harmony.

There are multiple comments in that thread including those just prior to that post regarding Thaksin and his continued involvement in Thai politics and the disharmony he's creating while searching for a location other than the UK that has rejected him. Political cartoons have been used for decades to reflect the issues on a topic.

[younghusband]

[quote name='sriracha john' date='2008-11-14 09:36:25' post='2330663'

As said, the bickering seems one-sided and pursuing compliance with forum protocol is all that I seek.

I would commend to you the military maxim "never reinforce failure".You have made a fool of yourself and are just digging yourself in deeper.Get over it.

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You

< flaming snipped >

As said, the bickering seems one-sided and pursuing compliance with forum protocol is all that I seek.

I would commend to you

< further flaming snipped >

Probably best to stop. You've realized your off-topic news posting was inappropriate. There's been no need for any further of this.

Edited November 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[younghusband]

Probably best to stop. You've realized your off-topic news posting was inappropriate. There's been no need for any further of this.

Suggest let others review - if they are truly bored - this exchange to determine position on HRW article and why you are so determined to exclude it.You and I have said more than enough.

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You

< flaming snipped >

As said, the bickering seems one-sided and pursuing compliance with forum protocol is all that I seek.

I would commend to you

< further flaming snipped >

Probably best to stop. You've realized your off-topic news posting was inappropriate. There's been no need for any further of this.

Suggest let others review - if they are truly bored - this exchange to determine position on HRW article and why you are so determined to exclude it.You and I have said more than enough.

I agree that would should have been a simple lesson in what forum protocol is has dragged unnecessarily long. I never sought to exclude it (as the lengthy, off-topic post had already been posted). My posts were only to remind you, for future purposes, that its posting was off-topic, inappropriate, and not in compliance with forum protocol. Hopefully, you've finally realized that and that no further off-topic or flaming posts from you are necessary to clarify that.

Edited November 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[animatic]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You are just making a fool of yourself. It's apparent to all that you want to remove the Humsan Right Watch's damning indictment of PAD.The irony is of course that through your efforts a large number of puzzled members will have picked up the reference who otherwise wouldn't have noticed it.

The flame was un-needed.... Another thing un-acceptable at TVF.

Second, it is NOT apparent to all the intent was that it should be deleted from the forum as a whole.

Simply that it should be MOVED.

It's quite clear the intention was to keep on topic and in context.

Third you were not being told don't post about the PAD issue,

just post THAT part in a PAD thread. On topic and with out the OTHER off topic parts.

HRW was not writing to fit TV forum protocol, but for general news release.

So they grouped subjects for news media dissemination. In which

case news EDITORS pick what they want to fit their articles or editorial formats.

Hense the need to edit to fit TVF, which is NOT to censor it,

except in cases referring to HRM etc.

You called someone who clearly is acting inteligently something quite derogatory,

implying lack of any inteligence, and did it simply because you disagree with him.

When you do that you diminish your own following arguments substancially.

You were not protecting freedoms od speach by flaming like that.

You are making it less likely thoughtful people will read your arguments.

ESPECIALLY if you start a post with a flame as the above.

Edited November 14, 2008 by animatic

[younghusband]

I agree that would should have been a simple lesson in what forum protocol is has dragged unnecessarily long. I never sought to exclude it (as the lengthy, off-topic post had already been posted). My posts were only to remind you, for future purposes, that its posting was off-topic, inappropriate, and not in compliance with forum protocol. Hopefully, you've finally realized that and that no further off-topic or flaming posts from you are necessary to clarify that.

Just drop it.It's for others to judge whether your position is motivated by your devotion to forum protocol or for other reasons, specifically the damning indictment of PAD in the HRW report.We've heard your spiel umpteen times already.I know you can't bear not to have the last word so at least make a new or interesting point.

I feel like Tim in the British version of the office when he is forced to throw Gareth's stapler out of the window!

[younghusband]

You called someone who clearly is acting inteligently something quite derogatory,

implying lack of any inteligence, and did it simply because you disagree with him.

When you do that you diminish your own following arguments substancially.

You were not protecting freedoms od speach by flaming like that.

You are making it less likely thoughtful people will read your arguments.

ESPECIALLY if you start a post with a flame as the above.

I don't think SRJ lacks intelligence and yes he has made a fool of himself in this exchange I'm afraid.

OK by responding to him several times I probably have as well!

The other points you made are fair, and I accept them.Nevertheless the suspicion remains that this slightly absurd kerfuffle is prompted by the content of the HRW report which skewers the PAD comprehensively.

[sriracha john]

What I dont understand is this endless bickering. So the article can be better posted in another thread. geez, get over it.

No bickering in any of my responses, just pointing out forum protocol, which should have been clear with the first response. However, I can appreciate that some posters are still learning and thus I patiently reiterated the reasons.

You

< flaming snipped >

As said, the bickering seems one-sided and pursuing compliance with forum protocol is all that I seek.

I would commend to you

< further flaming snipped >

Probably best to stop. You've realized your off-topic news posting was inappropriate. There's been no need for any further of this.

Suggest let others review - if they are truly bored - this exchange to determine position on HRW article and why you are so determined to exclude it.You and I have said more than enough.

I agree that would should have been a simple lesson in what forum protocol is has dragged unnecessarily long. I never sought to exclude it (as the lengthy, off-topic post had already been posted). My posts were only to remind you, for future purposes, that its posting was off-topic, inappropriate, and not in compliance with forum protocol. Hopefully, you've finally realized that and that no further off-topic or flaming posts from you are necessary to clarify that.

Just drop it.

< further still flaming snipped >

Indeed.

[Plus]

Jeez, YH, you re-posted one month old article that is completely unrelated to extra judicial killings during drug war.

What did you do that for?

[Moonrakers]

I agree that would should have been a simple lesson in what forum protocol is has dragged unnecessarily long. I never sought to exclude it (as the lengthy, off-topic post had already been posted). My posts were only to remind you, for future purposes, that its posting was off-topic, inappropriate, and not in compliance with forum protocol. Hopefully, you've finally realized that and that no further off-topic or flaming posts from you are necessary to clarify that.

Just drop it.It's for others to judge whether your position is motivated by your devotion to forum protocol or for other reasons, specifically the damning indictment of PAD in the HRW report.We've heard your spiel umpteen times already.I know you can't bear not to have the last word so at least make a new or interesting point.

I feel like Tim in the British version of the office when he is forced to throw Gareth's stapler out of the window!

He he.

[younghusband]

Jeez, YH, you re-posted one month old article that is completely unrelated to extra judicial killings during drug war.

What did you do that for?

Read the early exchanges before it started getting silly.My position is explained very clearly.

[hammered]

HRW criticise all regardless of politics in Thailand. They have a lot of stuff on the drug war and claim the government report had the names of politicans who egged the police on removed after the PPP won the election. HRW have listed and condemned the UDD and whatever elese it is known as for countless acts of politcal intimidation. They also criticised the Thaksin government for countless human rights abuses beyond the abhorent massacre labelled the drug war. HRW have also criticised the PAD for its use of violence. They also criticsied the coupists etc etc

Human Rights watch has in the past been criticsed for being selective in what it investigates and reports but that is mostly to do with turning a blind eye to the somewhat systemic slaughter of Syrian guest workers in the Lebannon by pro-western gvernment supporters. I have not seen any claim with similalrly compelling evidence about their reporting in Thailand and doubt I will as none of the groups in the current little debacle in Thailand are exactly a threat to western governmental interests.

I think we should accept th findings of HRW and Amnesty and other neutral groups as factual unless proved otherwise. Peopel on both sides of the current divide are often too emotional and subjective in their assumptions. At times it brings us all down to earth to read a reprot based on facts by a neutral body. Note I say report based on evidence and not analysis as I regard all analysis as potentialy and indeed probably flawed.

It seems to me that all sides and all groupings in the sides have used and will continue to use violence as and when it suits them. Of course there are degrees of violence and I wouldnt for a minute deny the drug war stands at the pinnacle of this but just because one side can use more violence than the other doesnt mean the other side should use as much as it can.

We are quite likely to see some nasty events in the coming months which will further sicken many observers and we are almost certainly going to see an ending that is not to the liking of many if not all and which whoever finaly wins wont exactly enshrine more than a few cursory elements of democracy into short term Thai politcal development and anyone who has any notion of that there will be such things as freedom of speech and an informed environemtn in which to make voting decisions should forget it. Whoever wins or even if there is a compromise selling the myth and maintaining control will be order of the day and all forms of propoganda disemination will be employed to control this.

Dark days ahead and in the meantime dont expect Thaksin to be brought to account for the drug war unless he manages to enter one of the countries where you can be tried for crimes committed elsewhere! In the meantime lets hope the lunatics stirring the pot dont end up giving us a degree of violence that makes even the drug war pale.

[animatic]

You called someone who clearly is acting inteligently something quite derogatory,

implying lack of any inteligence, and did it simply because you disagree with him.

When you do that you diminish your own following arguments substancially.

You were not protecting freedoms od speach by flaming like that.

You are making it less likely thoughtful people will read your arguments.

ESPECIALLY if you start a post with a flame as the above.

I don't think SRJ lacks intelligence and yes he has made a fool of himself in this exchange I'm afraid.

OK by responding to him several times I probably have as well!

The other points you made are fair, and I accept them.Nevertheless the suspicion remains that this slightly absurd kerfuffle is prompted by the content of the HRW report which skewers the PAD comprehensively.

If he has, then you have in equal degree... kettle and teapot

HRW scewered ALL sides rather thoroughly.

Not the least Thaksin and his Police cronies actions.

But was largely off topic, except for some sections pertaining to THIS topic.

Those should have been left in and extraneous topics edited and put where appropriate.

His basic argument was correct. Continuing to argue with you was the foolish thing.

.And as is apparent,

posting the FULL text with it's off topic stuff,

HAS cause topic drift from

Bringing Thaksin To Account.

His playground is now being diminished by forces external to Thailand

and that indicates that the international; sphere regards his convictions as legitimate until

he is pardoned or appeals aquit him. This Racha case is about to expire for ANY appeal.

In which case the governments of the world will weight in with their full foreign ministerial force.

Edited November 14, 2008 by animatic

[animatic]

Timed out during an edit.

....In which case the governments of the world will weight in with their full foreign ministerial force.

As his movements are restricted, his ability to do business will also likely take a dive.

His access to Thailand's media, while not curtailed as of yet, is the BEST hope for ending

his control of divisional forces. If there is no hope of his return to power,

by his making it APPEAR possible through the media, then the populace will naturally

move one to the next talking head that pleases them.

Right now, Somchai is enabling this continued control through media propagation.

But erase his leverage and access to propaganda tools, and Thaksin fades to the background.

[sriracha john]

UPDATE... and it's a biggie

fake witnesses... fake evidence... abuse of power...

Thaksin Could Face Charges As DSI Links Police To Drug War Killings

The Department of Special Investigation has evidence linking police to four extra-judicial killings during deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drugs in 2003. Ex-premier Thaksin could face charges of incitement. DSI director-general Sunai Manomai-udom said on Monday that all four cases were transferred from the police to the DSI which began its investigation in December 2006 following complaints lodged by victims' families. The four cases were the death of a 9-year old boy, alias Nong Fluke, on Feb 23, 2003 and the subsequent disappearance of his mother; the killings of Nikhom Ounkaew and his wife Khanraya, in Nakhon Ratchasima's Khon Buri district on March 28, 2003; the deaths of Pongthep and Ampaiwan Rukhongprasert in Tak's Mae Sot district on May 18, 2003; and the killing of educator Samarn Thongdee in Tak's Muang district in April 2003.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=116924

UPDATE...

DRUGS WAR VICTIMS

Slain couple innocent, top sleuth says

A couple slain in Tak during the Thaksin government's war on drugs were innocent victims, says a top detective.

Police brought false accusations of being involved in drug trafficking against Pongthep and Ampaipan Rukhongprasert, slain in Tak's Mae Sot district on May 18, 2003, says Piyawat Kingket, Head of Special Criminal Cases for the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

The DSI would decide its stance on the case next week before forwarding it to an anti-graft commission.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/120...top-sleuth-says

[Briggsy]

Without knowing the details of the Mae Sot case of the murder of Pongthep and Ampaipan Rukhongprasert , it seems a bit of a jump to then charge Thaksin.

I thought provincial lists were drawn up by provincial police and provincial governors and then checked by the military before the list of extra-judicial execution targets was given the green light. So surely any prosecution should be of those police that decided to include them on the list.

It would be interesting to know why someone put them on the list. To grab their assets and eliminate a business rival always sounds plausible when dealing with the Thai police.