Bringing Thaksin To Account

[Totster]

sriracha john and Younghusband

It's obvious from your posts that you are not going to agree on certain points. For the sake of others and to keep this topic open, agree to disagree.

totster

[ColPyat]

That is what it was really about, let,s be honest about it, if only to ourselves.

marshbags and

Sorry, but that is not 'what it was really about'.

Right now, the problem as i see it, is that all the known horrors of the drugwar killings are solely blamed on Thaksin, and neglecting that there was a large social network already in place only enabling such a monstrosity.

The present propaganda only blaming Thaksin for the killings are deflecting from the fact that the prevelent social forces in Thailand have anabled the killings in the first place, and collaborated willingly.

All the horror stories you post, and especially that most published stories only mention 'innocent' victims, do obfuscate that indeed the majority of victims were connected to the drugtrade, though in a very low position. And it was as wrong to kill them as it was wrong to kill the truly innocent victims.

If these points are not openly adressed, the next massacre is only arond the corner. Simply a convenient scapegoat was found, and there deflecting from the fact that without the complicity of all institutions and the clear support of the vast majority of the Thai population this massacre would not have been possible in the first place.

This was not the first such massacre in very recent Thai history, and i fear it won't be the last. Many people take for granted that Thaksin was actually the sole initiator of the drugwar killings. Not exonerating Thaksin, but i have strong doubts that he acted alone...

[Totster]

Topic reopened - please read the FORUM RULES before continuing to post.

totster

[marshbags]

That is what it was really about, let,s be honest about it, if only to ourselves.

marshbags and

Sorry, but that is not 'what it was really about'.

Right now, the problem as i see it, is that all the known horrors of the drugwar killings are solely blamed on Thaksin, and neglecting that there was a large social network already in place only enabling such a monstrosity.

The present propaganda only blaming Thaksin for the killings are deflecting from the fact that the prevelent social forces in Thailand have anabled the killings in the first place, and collaborated willingly.

All the horror stories you post, and especially that most published stories only mention 'innocent' victims, do obfuscate that indeed the majority of victims were connected to the drugtrade, though in a very low position. And it was as wrong to kill them as it was wrong to kill the truly innocent victims.

If these points are not openly adressed, the next massacre is only arond the corner. Simply a convenient scapegoat was found, and there deflecting from the fact that without the complicity of all institutions and the clear support of the vast majority of the Thai population this massacre would not have been possible in the first place.

This was not the first such massacre in very recent Thai history, and i fear it won't be the last. Many people take for granted that Thaksin was actually the sole initiator of the drugwar killings. Not exonerating Thaksin, but i have strong doubts that he acted alone...

C.P.

I,ll just make a brief observation that is important as most of what you post is old ground that has been debated already.

You quote:-

All the horror stories you post, and especially that most published stories only mention 'innocent' victims, do obfuscate that indeed the majority of victims were connected to the drugtrade, though in a very low position. And it was as wrong to kill them as it was wrong to kill the truly innocent victims.

Unquote

Thanks for acknowledging the unequivocal wrong doings by Thaksin as CEO and his executioners, which i might add where witnessed by many in most KNOWN cases.

They ARE all innocent until tried and found guilty. ( the victims )

Where does obfuscate become relevant, surely you are the one that,s obfuscating.

IT IS by the way all about the Children and their Families left behind that the persuance of accountability and justice for them all is carried out.

As the TRT spokesman quoted an obscene observation in the article about policy concerning their party.

How can you be guilty until it is proved you are NOT innocent.

OBSCENE because

In this case it is more relevant as the poor innocents paid the ultimate penalty and had their lives taken away from them .

( as they had not been tried in a court of law and found guilty just to remind you. )

marshbags and

Edited December 5, 2006 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

I,ll just make a brief observation that is important as most of what you post is old ground that has been debated already.

Do i understand you correctly when i state that you feel sorry for the victims, and therefore Thaksin alone has to be punished?

Because, i do not see you posting even one sentence about monks such as Luang Por Khun who have exonerated the killings by stating that killing drug dealers does not draw negative Karma. Neither do i see you posting about the way how the blacklists were established, nor about the media which mostly has clearly supported the drugwar. I don't see you posting anything about the majority of the Thai population that has supported the drugwar killings, and still does so.

I don't see you questioning even once why former Thaksin supporters, now opponents have never yet distanced themselves from their roles in the drugwar, or even explained them.

Apart from a few exceptions, most of the Thai apparat has been very good and willing collaborators in the killings.

For you that may be "old ground" that has been covered (mostly by flames directed at me), for me though this was the mechanics of the drugwar killings. And these mechanics fall, despite/because all the victim stories and the accusations, completely under the table.

And personally, i believe that this is intended to be so.

[Siripon]

I,ll just make a brief observation that is important as most of what you post is old ground that has been debated already.

Do i understand you correctly when i state that you feel sorry for the victims, and therefore Thaksin alone has to be punished?

Because, i do not see you posting even one sentence about monks such as Luang Por Khun who have exonerated the killings by stating that killing drug dealers does not draw negative Karma. Neither do i see you posting about the way how the blacklists were established, nor about the media which mostly has clearly supported the drugwar. I don't see you posting anything about the majority of the Thai population that has supported the drugwar killings, and still does so.

I don't see you questioning even once why former Thaksin supporters, now opponents have never yet distanced themselves from their roles in the drugwar, or even explained them.

Apart from a few exceptions, most of the Thai apparat has been very good and willing collaborators in the killings.

For you that may be "old ground" that has been covered (mostly by flames directed at me), for me though this was the mechanics of the drugwar killings. And these mechanics fall, despite/because all the victim stories and the accusations, completely under the table.

And personally, i believe that this is intended to be so.

Why should posters have to have an opinion about monks such as Luang Por Khun? This is a monk who is famous for walking on title deeds to increase the land's value, he was not in charge of the drug's war, Thaksin was.

The setting up of the blacklists has been criticised again and again by those in the know, ie people in the civil service close to the operations.

How on earth do you expect TV members to add to that?

The population supported the drugs war, I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing there, but that doesn't mean they were right morally. And what PM Surayud is saying is there has to be the rule of law, of justice. People cannot be allowed to disappear or be killed 'to be silenced'.

He may fail in this mammoth task which involves massive reform of the police, but as an appointed government he undoubtedly has a better chance than an elected one to push through reforms.

Give him a chance.

[ColPyat]

Why should posters have to have an opinion about monks such as Luang Por Khun? This is a monk who is famous for walking on title deeds to increase the land's value, he was not in charge of the drug's war, Thaksin was.

The setting up of the blacklists has been criticised again and again by those in the know, ie people in the civil service close to the operations.

How on earth do you expect TV members to add to that?

The population supported the drugs war, I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing there, but that doesn't mean they were right morally. And what PM Surayud is saying is there has to be the rule of law, of justice. People cannot be allowed to disappear or be killed 'to be silenced'.

He may fail in this mammoth task which involves massive reform of the police, but as an appointed government he undoubtedly has a better chance than an elected one to push through reforms.

Give him a chance.

Because posters have such strong opinions on Thaksin. But i don't see them voicing any opinions on instrumental contributing factors without the drugwar killings would hardly have been possible.

Luang Por Khun was not in charge of the drugwar, but because of his huge following he was instrumental in the wide acceptance of the killings.

Some sectors, or individuals were most definately against the killings, but still the vast majority did not do anything against them, and even openly supported them. Even some police officers i have spoken to, who did killings were against them. It did not change though that the killings happened, with the support of the majority of the police forces. The army collaborated in the killings as well, especially in the border provinces.

The drugwar killings as they have happened would not have been possible without contributing factors. One was also, that the drug situation was in fact out of hand. Well know is the heavy involvement in the drug trade of many very powerful sectors of Thai society and officialdom, and the impunity with which they can/could do that.

Just blaming Thaksin, over and over again, as it happens on this board here, is just repetative and will not lead to understand why and how the drugwar happened. The drugwar was not just Thaksin alone, and should not be simplified as just a TRT problem.

Unfortunately the present public investigations are not aiming at explaining at these instrumental contributing factors which are at the present moment very specific to Thai society's larger problems. I am sure that it would be very painful for Thai society to look into their own dirt, though it is necessary to avoid future incidents such as the drugwar killings.

Surayud may talk about changes in the police, he may have instigated investigations into the drugwar and other human rights violations. But the public drugwar discussion is still clearly only aimed at Thaksin alone.

Missing though are actions that set a clear signal. He has apologised to the south. But the guilty officers of Tak Bai are still out there, not having faced any further punishment than the laughable tranferral under Thaksin.

[Tony Clifton]

Most of the population "supported" the drug war because of fear. Anyone stirring sh!t about it was probably looking at an execution even before his or her name was added to a black list, including the media people, and some farfetched scenario would have been invented as to why the person was killed, as happened on many occasions.

Allowing this to happen and go on for months, even approving of it publicly , as PM, Thaksin, whether it was his or someone else's plan, is just as guilty as everyone all the way down that chain to the motorcycle drive-by shooters. He loved that Pol Lt. Col title until the end, so much it is now coming back to bite his own a55. Worth no more than those useless traffic policemen.

Fear was the reason no one stood up. The same fear that still made people whisper when criticizing Thaksin up until the last elections.

[ColPyat]

Most of the population "supported" the drug war because of fear.

Sorry, but that is absolutely wrong.

They have supported the drugwar because the drug situation was out of hand, and because Thailand already has a long history of solving serious social conflicts with state inflicted violence. Though very little history of solving such problems with due legal process.

[Tony Clifton]

Yeah, WE're always wrong.

[ColPyat]

Yeah, WE're always wrong.

There is no indication that would substantiate your theory. The drugwar killings had as much support under the population as the very similar killings of alleged communists in the 70s. As the abmyssal treatment of Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees.

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but in a country like Thailand that has a very long history of violent solutions for social problems, you will have a high proportion of the population that supports such solutions as they are not used to anything else.

The drugwar killings did achieve in the eye of the population the desired result to a large extend - to get the drugs off the streets and villages. And that is how the drugwar was justified in the eyes of the popolation.

Thaksin's popularity was at its highest after the drugwar - and that is a clear fact.

[sriracha john]

We'll never really know just what percentage of the killing campaign victims were actually involved in the drug trade. The reason we'll never really know is:

1) The suspects are dead.

2) The deaths were never investigated.

Because of the above, we'll never know, and thus to say that most were involved is nothing but unproven speculation.

To say that the killings had a huge impact on the drug trade is exemplified by the utter stupidity of Thaksin's delusional pronouncement that Thailand was completely drug-free as the result of his drug war.

Thaksin didn't personally assasinate all the victims, but as the gang leader, he has first dibs on going to trial. As he didn't act alone, there's no reason for him to be the last or only name to be put onto the docket... but there's lots of reasons for him to be the first.

[younghusband]

It's a fact that the vast majority of Thais of all social classes supported the drug war killings, one reason being they could see no way the dealers could be brought to justice through the courts, what with intimidation and police protection in some cases.

Methamphetamines were rampant a few years ago.

But if the government is able to show the killings were premeditated by the authorities pressurising the local governors and police, based on error-prone lists with a considerable loss of innocent lives, then I think many Thai people will consider it licensed murder from the top.

A police state.

For Khun Surayut to tackle that is a tall order in one year but it's better than doing nothing.

I remember when Thaksin came to power and he said in an aside that the Thammasart clique (ie Chuan Leekpai) had had their turn, now it was the time of the police.

Well, now it's the time of the army again.

I apologise for pulling out for pulling out Siripon's old post but I don't know how other to repudiate the foolish assertion made by the usual suspects that most Thais did not support the drug war killings.Siripon's comments that the vast majiority of Thais supported the drug war killings seem to me absolutely correct, and are not controversial except among those blinded by hatred of Thaksin.

It's really important for all of us engaged in the debate on Thaksin to get the facts right to the extent we possibly can, before moving on to their interpretation.If on a demonstrably clear issue such as the Thai peoples support for the drug war, an attempt is made to rewrite history whether through ignorance or dishonesty, there is little prospect on this forum of reaching some credible conclusions.

Needless to say the fact that most Thais supported these murders does not make them acceptable, nor in any way does it let Thaksin off the hook.

[sriracha john]

Have people asserted on this thread that most Thais didn't support the drug war? I've not really noticed that if they have.

I agree that it doesn't make the murderers acceptable nor let Thaksin escape his responsibility.

[JacknDanny]

Have people asserted on this thread that most Thais didn't support the drug war? I've not really noticed that if they have.

I agree that it doesn't make the murderers acceptable nor let Thaksin escape his responsibility.

Once again you are right SJ.

And once again younghusband is putting words into other peoples mouths in order to try and make a point.

Incidentally younghusband, is it possible for you to make a posting without accusing another poster of being foolish or intellectually inferior to yourself.

I think that SJ and Marshbags make good points, and I do not even have a problem with your rebuttals, except for the fact that they are ALWAYS made with a "holier than thou" attitude.

That is what pi##es people off about you.

Just a bit of friendly advice

[Ijustwannateach]

I'd like to add here that it would be better if ALL posters stuck to making comments about the topic itself rather than the intelligence, state of mind, astuteness, et al of other posters on the topic. If you think that a post makes an inappropriate personal comment, you can always report it to call a mod's attention to the thread.

[younghusband]

Have people asserted on this thread that most Thais didn't support the drug war? I've not really noticed that if they have.

I agree that it doesn't make the murderers acceptable nor let Thaksin escape his responsibility.

Once again you are right SJ.

And once again younghusband is putting words into other peoples mouths in order to try and make a point.

Incidentally younghusband, is it possible for you to make a posting without accusing another poster of being foolish or intellectually inferior to yourself.

I think that SJ and Marshbags make good points, and I do not even have a problem with your rebuttals, except for the fact that they are ALWAYS made with a "holier than thou" attitude.

That is what pi##es people off about you.

Just a bit of friendly advice

Thank you for your observation.I think we have been asked by moderators to avoid personalising an important subject, and suggest we all abide by that request.A quick scan of posts will show there was indeed some misunderstanding for whatever reason about the extent of Thai popular support for the drug war killings, but I think we have now reached a consensus on the correct position.Let's move on, because I think there is a common concern for justice for the victims whether "innocent" or "guilty".Whether this concern is shared by the Thai population as a whole I would rather doubt, but that is a subjective view.

[hammered]

That is what it was really about, let,s be honest about it, if only to ourselves.

marshbags and

Sorry, but that is not 'what it was really about'.

Right now, the problem as i see it, is that all the known horrors of the drugwar killings are solely blamed on Thaksin, and neglecting that there was a large social network already in place only enabling such a monstrosity.

The present propaganda only blaming Thaksin for the killings are deflecting from the fact that the prevelent social forces in Thailand have anabled the killings in the first place, and collaborated willingly.

All the horror stories you post, and especially that most published stories only mention 'innocent' victims, do obfuscate that indeed the majority of victims were connected to the drugtrade, though in a very low position. And it was as wrong to kill them as it was wrong to kill the truly innocent victims.

If these points are not openly adressed, the next massacre is only arond the corner. Simply a convenient scapegoat was found, and there deflecting from the fact that without the complicity of all institutions and the clear support of the vast majority of the Thai population this massacre would not have been possible in the first place.

This was not the first such massacre in very recent Thai history, and i fear it won't be the last. Many people take for granted that Thaksin was actually the sole initiator of the drugwar killings. Not exonerating Thaksin, but i have strong doubts that he acted alone...

Starting at the top in crimes against humanity is a good place to start. It sends out a strong message. It also sets precedents. It also seems to be the way it is done round the world as well looking from Iraq to Yugoslavia to Liberia. Of course others can be punished later and usually some are looking at the world examples although in reality it seems many of those invovled ata lower level are left. Of course Mr. Thaksin should be indicted if there is evidence and it seems there is. Others can be indicted too as eveidence is found. As for the system, that is another issue, but taking western ideas of how to progress in crimes against humanity it usually follows the form of prosecute the top guy and jail him. Then prosecute other major players. And hold elections at a later date. Well we already have the elections at later date worked out, so it leaves prosecuting the top guy and then after that others. In other cases of crimes against humanity around the world the system is usually left to slow change by setting a strong example and precedent and by encouraging constitutional change in the country, which again we have coming here already. Being a victim of the system has never been an acceptable defence in crimes against humanity, where individuals are expected to answer for their actions. As we can see worldwide systems democratic or otherwise can bring to the fore good and bad people. In the case of Thailand the now claimed many thousands of victims of the drug war and southern suppression under the Thaksin regime represents a high point in the number of killings of its own people in Thailand in the past twenty years at least, so certainly needs addressing. Other governments both elected and unelected never oversaw a level of killing anywhere near this in recent history. That the killings also happened under what was generally regarded as the strongest and most powerful elected goverment that Thailand had ever had, and indeed a government that was outside the checks and balances so that it could do whatever it wanted is also a sobering thought.

[Plus]

Demanding that all 95% of Thais who supported the drug war should be tried simultaneously is a sure way to nowhere. It all should start with Thaksin and then work its way down, not from bottom up.

Expanding the scope of investigation and responsibilities is a defence stalling techinique, I have no idea how posters can seriously recommend it instead of getting Thaksin first. What do they hope to achieve?

[younghusband]

Demanding that all 95% of Thais who supported the drug war should be tried simultaneously is a sure way to nowhere. It all should start with Thaksin and then work its way down, not from bottom up.

Expanding the scope of investigation and responsibilities is a defence stalling techinique, I have no idea how posters can seriously recommend it instead of getting Thaksin first. What do they hope to achieve?

I don't think anybody is saying this at all.I agree that Thaksin as PM and presumably prime instigator should be the initial focus of the investigation.If the investigation is transparent and thorough and not just a Stalinist show trial, overt and covert support for the policy from those in influential positions then and now will come out in the process.

I hesitate to make the comparison with the holocaust, and apologise if some find it tasteless, but it would be historically meaningless to accord Hitler with complete responsibilty for the extermination of millions although obviously one would start with him.

[Old Man River]

If the investigation is transparent and thorough and not just a Stalinist show trial, overt and covert support for the policy from those in influential positions then and now will come out in the process.

Overt and covert support of what? There are many who supported the drug war, but few who supported the mercilous killing of innocents.

[younghusband]

If the investigation is transparent and thorough and not just a Stalinist show trial, overt and covert support for the policy from those in influential positions then and now will come out in the process.

Overt and covert support of what? There are many who supported the drug war, but few who supported the mercilous killing of innocents.

I'm sorry to have to keep on repeating this but there can in terms of justice and morality be no distinction between the illegal execution of "innocent" or "guilty" victims.If you say for example, "I supported the illegal murder of drug criminals but not that of the innocent children and other victims who died in the so called crossfire", then you are effectively endorsing Thaksin's policy with the caveat that its execution and compilation of black books was carried out with inexcusable inefficiency.

[ColPyat]

Starting at the top in crimes against humanity is a good place to start. It sends out a strong message. It also sets precedents. It also seems to be the way it is done round the world as well looking from Iraq to Yugoslavia to Liberia.

I do have a slight problem with this. Just look at the futility of the Khmer Rouge trials in Cambodia. I think that South Africa's reconciliation program is a better idea.

Anyhow, the question here is less the issue of trials and evidence. That is something for the courts to solve. And i have doubts that clear proof linking Thaksin to the killings can be found. The question here on the board during our little discussions, and in the public debate is finding out what actually were the mechanics of the drugwar killings, and which factors have led to them in the first place.

And in both cases i see very little will for a public investigation or discussion. Many people here, and in the larger Thai society do not seem to be willing to engage in a debate that goes beyond Thaksin. I am not surprised that this is not happening in Thai society as there are precedents for this. But i am bewildered that even here on this board so many people seem to be content with only debating Thaksin, but leaving the very uncomfortable contributing, albeit instrumental, factors alone.

I read wild speculations where clear facts are distorted to fit into preconceived hypotheses about the drugwar and Thaksin rule, such as the one expressed by Tony Clifton - that the Thai population only supported the drug war out of fear. This is preposterous, there are no indicators or evidence that would support such an outlandish statement.

Another unrealistic hypotheses is that the drugwar did not achieve its aim, to decrease the amount of drugs on the streets. Again, it was clear to see that straight away the amounts decreased, the prices soared and that many (not all) areas were closed to drug free for the time being under the extreme supression. Of course that did not solve the drug problem, as the need for drugs under the population was unchanged.

As long as we here, and Thai society, limits the drugwar debate only to Thaksin and the victims, avoiding though all the other factors - we will never find out what exactly led to the drugwar, and how it can be avoided the next time a big social problem threatens society.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I think this is very applicable to Thailand concerning the drugwar. There were very similar killings already in Thailand's very recent history. They were never investigated. And at the moment public debate does not investigate the drugwar as well. It just limits the debate to Thaksin's guilt.

For some the idea of "punishment" might be enough. Personally though, i believe it is far more important to find explanations.

[Old Man River]

If the investigation is transparent and thorough and not just a Stalinist show trial, overt and covert support for the policy from those in influential positions then and now will come out in the process.

Overt and covert support of what? There are many who supported the drug war, but few who supported the mercilous killing of innocents.

I'm sorry to have to keep on repeating this but there can in terms of justice and morality be no distinction between the illegal execution of "innocent" or "guilty" victims.If you say for example, "I supported the illegal murder of drug criminals but not that of the innocent children and other victims who died in the so called crossfire", then you are effectively endorsing Thaksin's policy with the caveat that its execution and compilation of black books was carried out with inexcusable inefficiency.

I am sorry that you have to repeat yourself, but not all of us agree with you just because you say it. I am not talking about theoretical right and wrong. That is for your textbooks. There is a big difference between those directly involved in the program and those who initially supported it, but withdrew support when the drug war's direction became clearer (the killing of innocents).

[younghusband]

If the investigation is transparent and thorough and not just a Stalinist show trial, overt and covert support for the policy from those in influential positions then and now will come out in the process.

Overt and covert support of what? There are many who supported the drug war, but few who supported the mercilous killing of innocents.

I'm sorry to have to keep on repeating this but there can in terms of justice and morality be no distinction between the illegal execution of "innocent" or "guilty" victims.If you say for example, "I supported the illegal murder of drug criminals but not that of the innocent children and other victims who died in the so called crossfire", then you are effectively endorsing Thaksin's policy with the caveat that its execution and compilation of black books was carried out with inexcusable inefficiency.

I am sorry that you have to repeat yourself, but not all of us agree with you just because you say it. I am not talking about theoretical right and wrong. That is for your textbooks. There is a big difference between those directly involved in the program and those who initially supported it, but withdrew support when the drug war's direction became clearer (the killing of innocents).

I don't really understand your comments on "theoretical right and wrong".Any discussion on morality involves consideration of "theoretical right and wrong", although that would be a slightly unusual way to describe it.If you can clarify your meaning rather more precisely, I will try to address your points.

As to your last sentence, I of course agree there is a huge difference between those who were involved directly in the programme and those that lent it their support, although in Thailand at the upper level of influence and decision taking this distinction is much less clear.But if we are talking about the vast majority of the Thai people, you are obviously correct.I think nevertheless it is misleading to say that the drug wars direction became the killing of "innocents" because the main target was always the "guilty".In terms of any investigation there is no legal or moral distinction between the two categories anyway.

Finally I'm afraid that even there is a large number of Thais who changed their position of support after it became clear the implementation policy was criminal and incompetent resulting inter alia in "innocents" being killed, I suspect the majority would subscribe to the no omelettes without broken eggs argument on the basis that most victims were "guilty".It's not my view but seems to be that of most Thais.

[Night]

Our neighbour accross the road was a young pregnant woman of 28 years old with 2 kids and was shot by an off duty policeman after she accidently cut him off in traffic. That was one of the 2,500.

She din' drink nor smoke and definately did not even know about drugs. On the other hand the actions of the offduty police man were typical of a drug user with that anger and disregard for life.

Anyway my Thai partner says "who cares the dead are dead and taksin is too rich from blood money to ever touch."

[hammered]

Starting at the top in crimes against humanity is a good place to start. It sends out a strong message. It also sets precedents. It also seems to be the way it is done round the world as well looking from Iraq to Yugoslavia to Liberia.

I do have a slight problem with this. Just look at the futility of the Khmer Rouge trials in Cambodia. I think that South Africa's reconciliation program is a better idea.

Anyhow, the question here is less the issue of trials and evidence. That is something for the courts to solve. And i have doubts that clear proof linking Thaksin to the killings can be found. The question here on the board during our little discussions, and in the public debate is finding out what actually were the mechanics of the drugwar killings, and which factors have led to them in the first place.

And in both cases i see very little will for a public investigation or discussion. Many people here, and in the larger Thai society do not seem to be willing to engage in a debate that goes beyond Thaksin. I am not surprised that this is not happening in Thai society as there are precedents for this. But i am bewildered that even here on this board so many people seem to be content with only debating Thaksin, but leaving the very uncomfortable contributing, albeit instrumental, factors alone.

I read wild speculations where clear facts are distorted to fit into preconceived hypotheses about the drugwar and Thaksin rule, such as the one expressed by Tony Clifton - that the Thai population only supported the drug war out of fear. This is preposterous, there are no indicators or evidence that would support such an outlandish statement.

Another unrealistic hypotheses is that the drugwar did not achieve its aim, to decrease the amount of drugs on the streets. Again, it was clear to see that straight away the amounts decreased, the prices soared and that many (not all) areas were closed to drug free for the time being under the extreme supression. Of course that did not solve the drug problem, as the need for drugs under the population was unchanged.

As long as we here, and Thai society, limits the drugwar debate only to Thaksin and the victims, avoiding though all the other factors - we will never find out what exactly led to the drugwar, and how it can be avoided the next time a big social problem threatens society.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I think this is very applicable to Thailand concerning the drugwar. There were very similar killings already in Thailand's very recent history. They were never investigated. And at the moment public debate does not investigate the drugwar as well. It just limits the debate to Thaksin's guilt.

For some the idea of "punishment" might be enough. Personally though, i believe it is far more important to find explanations.

To me a guy at the top who bragged about his drug war on several occaisions as others have highlighted earlier in this thread needs punishing. This does not preclude all of the other stuff you propose, which can be donme later, and if he is convicted we shouldnt underestimate the effect this will have on future governments. Lets not forget that this invovles many thousands of people being killed. That others have gotten away with heading up a government under which similar killings in the past, albeit on a lot smaller scale than Mr. Thaksins, were committed is no justification or excuse. The case at hand is the one to be dealt with. At some point a prime minister in Thailand will be held responsible for crimes under his leadership. Is that time now? I dont know, but when that time comes it will do more to change what leaders in the country do and more to change the system as well as making a point to all in the country that when you have democracy you must have the rule of law.

[ColPyat]

To me a guy at the top who bragged about his drug war on several occaisions as others have highlighted earlier in this thread needs punishing. This does not preclude all of the other stuff you propose, which can be donme later, and if he is convicted we shouldnt underestimate the effect this will have on future governments. Lets not forget that this invovles many thousands of people being killed. That others have gotten away with heading up a government under which similar killings in the past, albeit on a lot smaller scale than Mr. Thaksins, were committed is no justification or excuse. The case at hand is the one to be dealt with. At some point a prime minister in Thailand will be held responsible for crimes under his leadership. Is that time now? I dont know, but when that time comes it will do more to change what leaders in the country do and more to change the system as well as making a point to all in the country that when you have democracy you must have the rule of law.

Thaksin bragging about the drug war, and finding clear proof that he is linked to the extrajudical killings are two seperate matters. This is only circumstantial evidence. Thaksin's explanation was that the killings were gang related silencing killings and not death squads ordered to kill. Obviously i do not believe this for a second. But unless you can prove that Thaksin has given the orders it will be difficult. Anyhow, that is a matter for the courts. And in this the courts have to deal to the letter of the law if this present government does not want to be accused of the same thing that they accuse Thaksin - political influence of the judicary.

What you or i feel needs "punishing" is a matter of the courts to prove in due process, and not influenced by what people feel is necessary.

And i do disagree that the discussion can come later. Usually it doesn't, because it is a very uncomfortable thing to do. The discussion on the mechanics have to be done independent of the legal process.

I have not "justified" the killings by pointing out that similar killings happened in the past (and i do not remember the numbers, but i doubt very much that the communist killings were any smaller scale than the druwar killings). What i have given is a possible explanation for the wide acceptance under almost all sectors of society. There is a difference.

Yes, most Thais do agree that innocent victims should not have been killed. The more imporant problem though is that most Thais still believe that killing the guilty ones is morally not wrong. That shows the basic problem here - that there is very little believe, trust and understanding of the basic human rights and due legal process, and the importance of such in a civilized society.

You don't stop such massacres by just punishing the guilty, and leaving the basic system that enabled it as it is. And it still is very doubtful that the guilty will ever be punished, or see a court. So far it's panels, commitees and subcommitees. You prevent such incidents by having the population convinced that there are better was to deal with a problem than with the gun.

But for this a public debate has to happen.

And this does not happen here. What happens is a barrage of accusations against Thaksin, a barrage of publication of cases of supposedly innocent victims.

Yes, guys flame away, but i am convinced that the majority of victims were clearly drug dealers. Drugdealers were well known, by police (let me remind you - they worked very well together), the neighborhoods and all.

Some innocent victims slipped in, as blacklists were established partly by unprofessionals, and some other business conflicsts were solved that way as well. But basically - the killings were aimed at drug dealers, and most killed were drug dealers.

And to make it clear again, so that i am not again taken out of context - for me the question is not if murdered were drug dealers or not. There is no justification for any drugwar murder - be they innocent or guilty of dealing drugs. If find it utterly disgusting and revolting that even a separation is made between innocent victims and victims who were drug dealers. This reasoning only justifies such a massacre.

[hammered]

To me a guy at the top who bragged about his drug war on several occaisions as others have highlighted earlier in this thread needs punishing. This does not preclude all of the other stuff you propose, which can be donme later, and if he is convicted we shouldnt underestimate the effect this will have on future governments. Lets not forget that this invovles many thousands of people being killed. That others have gotten away with heading up a government under which similar killings in the past, albeit on a lot smaller scale than Mr. Thaksins, were committed is no justification or excuse. The case at hand is the one to be dealt with. At some point a prime minister in Thailand will be held responsible for crimes under his leadership. Is that time now? I dont know, but when that time comes it will do more to change what leaders in the country do and more to change the system as well as making a point to all in the country that when you have democracy you must have the rule of law.

Thaksin bragging about the drug war, and finding clear proof that he is linked to the extrajudical killings are two seperate matters. This is only circumstantial evidence. Thaksin's explanation was that the killings were gang related silencing killings and not death squads ordered to kill. Obviously i do not believe this for a second. But unless you can prove that Thaksin has given the orders it will be difficult. Anyhow, that is a matter for the courts. And in this the courts have to deal to the letter of the law if this present government does not want to be accused of the same thing that they accuse Thaksin - political influence of the judicary.

What you or i feel needs "punishing" is a matter of the courts to prove in due process, and not influenced by what people feel is necessary.

And i do disagree that the discussion can come later. Usually it doesn't, because it is a very uncomfortable thing to do. The discussion on the mechanics have to be done independent of the legal process.

I have not "justified" the killings by pointing out that similar killings happened in the past (and i do not remember the numbers, but i doubt very much that the communist killings were any smaller scale than the druwar killings). What i have given is a possible explanation for the wide acceptance under almost all sectors of society. There is a difference.

Yes, most Thais do agree that innocent victims should not have been killed. The more imporant problem though is that most Thais still believe that killing the guilty ones is morally not wrong. That shows the basic problem here - that there is very little believe, trust and understanding of the basic human rights and due legal process, and the importance of such in a civilized society.

You don't stop such massacres by just punishing the guilty, and leaving the basic system that enabled it as it is. And it still is very doubtful that the guilty will ever be punished, or see a court. So far it's panels, commitees and subcommitees. You prevent such incidents by having the population convinced that there are better was to deal with a problem than with the gun.

But for this a public debate has to happen.

And this does not happen here. What happens is a barrage of accusations against Thaksin, a barrage of publication of cases of supposedly innocent victims.

Yes, guys flame away, but i am convinced that the majority of victims were clearly drug dealers. Drugdealers were well known, by police (let me remind you - they worked very well together), the neighborhoods and all.

Some innocent victims slipped in, as blacklists were established partly by unprofessionals, and some other business conflicsts were solved that way as well. But basically - the killings were aimed at drug dealers, and most killed were drug dealers.

And to make it clear again, so that i am not again taken out of context - for me the question is not if murdered were drug dealers or not. There is no justification for any drugwar murder - be they innocent or guilty of dealing drugs. If find it utterly disgusting and revolting that even a separation is made between innocent victims and victims who were drug dealers. This reasoning only justifies such a massacre.

We just aint going to agree so lets just leave it here.

[Plus]

Realistically there will be no nationwide soul-searching until Thaksin, and by default his policy, are taken to account. No one will accept any responsibility until then. There's no point in demanding it.

Mechanics of the drug war are well known, have been done to death, documented and archived. I dount anyone can add anything substantial to it and I don't think it needs any further elaboration in this thread. It just takes away the focus. But maybe it's the purpose of some posters here.

There are several reasons why SA style of national reconciliation will not work in Thailand. Mainly because it's not a very important issue now. It's being pushed by layers and human rights advocates, the government is too busy with other, more pressing matters. When (or rather if) Thaksin is indicted, the government and the media will (might) tell the people to have a closer look at themselves and their own part of support of drug war.

You can't run until you learn to walk. At the moment Thais are not very concerned about lives of innocent victims, forget about rights of real drug dealers. It's ages away in societal and political development.

One little step at a time.

And I don't think Thai courts are up to the task, they lack credibility. Getting Thaksin's case to international arena is the best option in my view.