Bringing Thaksin To Account

[Jai Dee]

RTP ready to open investigation on officers involved in extrajudicial drug killings

The Office of the Royal Thai Police is ready to conduct an investigation into complaints made on officers who were involved in extra-judicial killings during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs.

The Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Pol.Gen. Kovit Wattana (โกวิท วัฒนะ), said that any citizens concerned with the extra-judicial killings committed during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs may forward complaints to the Office of the Royal Thai Police. Pol Gen Kovit said that complaints sent to other agencies will also be handled by the Royal Thai Police. The Commissioner-General added that police were ready to open investigations on officers involved in the extra-judicial killings on a case by case basis.

Pol Gen Kovit also commented on the upcoming political rally on December 10, assuring the public that police and national security operatives will be deployed in the surrounding areas to keep the peace. The Commissioner-General believes that no violence will occur, adding that police have yet to find suspicious incidents.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 December 2006

[hammered]

Do I need to refute that Sondhi was not a "militant oppositionist"???

And he did shamelessly omitted no vote and opposition boycott from his analysis of April 2 elections.

I mean this so called intellectual talks about April elections and doesn't mention opposition boycott?!?!?

Refuting him would only give him undue credence.

I don't think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does not need you to give him "credence", unless you have similar qualifications in a related field, which i seriously doubt.

The reasons and impact of the "no" vote is anymore a very moot point to debate here as no proper and independent research has ever been made on how many meant agreement with the PAD and how many was simply traditional voterbase of the other main parties that have boycotted the vote. Your assumption of attributing the results of the 'no' vote to the PAD alone would not stand up in any serious debate.

And if we look at the pro TRT votes alone, then the 48% or so would be, even though lower than the post tsunami result, would be a result that any party in a multi party system would be delighted of.

And yes, i know that you attribute this result to vote buying and corruption alone, but Giles Ungpakorn has a far more reasonable and diversified argumentation in this subject matter, based actually on research and not just troglodyte peer support of anonymous internet boards.

But yes, i know, poster 'Plus' does not accept Prof. Ungkaporn, because that Professor is too "leftist" for his taste.

I dont want to enter the debate on academics. Just a word of warning on analysing the April 2 "election". The results that we did get, which were never official have been questioned in many circles. Chang Noi and certain cartoonists did some very humorous work on this that coverd the concerns. The usually excellent Thai TV ticker tape result service was also so late to start and after it disappeared there were radical changes in some provinces where the no-vote was doing very well on the ticker tape but later had totally collapsed when the EC and before that Mr. Thaksin declared the unofficial results. The main issues concerning the media and activists and politicians after this "election" were that not all the seats were going to be filled followed by the unconstituionality of the election, so we never really got into a full discussion of the unofficial "results" although some time was spent on the anti-no vote actions of moving the no option to the bottom of the ballot paper in a smaller font than other options. The moving of novote option to the bottom of the paper together with the booth arrangeents where voters could be watched was a canny tactic by the TRT government to limit no votes in its controlled heartland. Probably just as well no real analysis of the "election results" was done or even in the end necessary too with the mess the election was.

[marshbags]

Just to get the thread back on topic may i requote the following taken from J.D,s latest posting:-

Re quote:-

RTP ready to open investigation on officers involved in extrajudicial drug killings

The Office of the Royal Thai Police is ready to conduct an investigation into complaints made on officers who were involved in extra-judicial killings during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs.

The Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Pol.Gen. Kovit Wattana (โกวิท วัฒนะ), said that any citizens concerned with the extra-judicial killings committed during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs may forward complaints to the Office of the Royal Thai Police. Pol Gen Kovit said that complaints sent to other agencies will also be handled by the Royal Thai Police. The Commissioner-General added that police were ready to open investigations on officers involved in the extra-judicial killings on a case by case basis.

Unquote.

Thank you for your ongoing comments and valued contributions on behalf of those effected by this dastardly crime.

marshbags

[younghusband]

Just to get the thread back on topic may i requote the following taken from J.D,s latest posting:-

Re quote:-

RTP ready to open investigation on officers involved in extrajudicial drug killings

The Office of the Royal Thai Police is ready to conduct an investigation into complaints made on officers who were involved in extra-judicial killings during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs.

The Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Pol.Gen. Kovit Wattana (โกวิท วัฒนะ), said that any citizens concerned with the extra-judicial killings committed during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs may forward complaints to the Office of the Royal Thai Police. Pol Gen Kovit said that complaints sent to other agencies will also be handled by the Royal Thai Police. The Commissioner-General added that police were ready to open investigations on officers involved in the extra-judicial killings on a case by case basis.

Unquote.

Very reassuring development.None of that Western nonsense about independent and external bodies to investigate police abuses.Obviously the Royal Thai Police force with its well known reputation for honesty and integrity is the best placed organisation to undertake the investigation.It also makes sense to tackle the alleged killings on a case by case basis with the individual junior officers concerned, because clearly there was no instruction coming from above.It is also quite incorrect to think that complaints will be inhibited by the fact that (a) most of the victims' relatives will be from a poor background and ( in many cases the investigating authority is connected to the guilty party.After all it is a known fact that Thais, particularly when poor and ill educated, are very willing to speak up against their elders and betters.

Edited December 9, 2006 by younghusband

[hammered]

Just to get the thread back on topic may i requote the following taken from J.D,s latest posting:-

Re quote:-

RTP ready to open investigation on officers involved in extrajudicial drug killings

The Office of the Royal Thai Police is ready to conduct an investigation into complaints made on officers who were involved in extra-judicial killings during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs.

The Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Pol.Gen. Kovit Wattana (โกวิท วัฒนะ), said that any citizens concerned with the extra-judicial killings committed during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs may forward complaints to the Office of the Royal Thai Police. Pol Gen Kovit said that complaints sent to other agencies will also be handled by the Royal Thai Police. The Commissioner-General added that police were ready to open investigations on officers involved in the extra-judicial killings on a case by case basis.

Unquote.

Very reassuring development.None of that Western nonsense about independent and external bodies to investigate police abuses.Obviously the Royal Thai Police force with its well known reputation for honesty and integrity is the best placed organisation to undertake the investigation.It also makes sense to tackle the alleged killings on a case by case basis with the individual junior officers concerned, because clearly there was no instruction coming from above.It is also quite incorrect to think that complaints will be inhibited by the fact that (a) most of the victims' relatives will be from a poor background and ( in many cases the investigating authority is connected to the guilty party.After all it is a known fact that Thais, particularly when poor and ill educated, are very willing to speak up against their elders and betters.

Yes there is always aproblem when the police investigate the police, but when it involves thousands of deaths as here you'd think an independent body would be set up. But no even complaints sent to independent bodies will b sent back to the police. To be honest on reading this my first reaction was oh so this is how the police will stop the complaints coming. One can only hope that the government wil see fit to set up an independent body to investigate these cases that is totally independent of the police.

[ColPyat]

Yes there is always aproblem when the police investigate the police, but when it involves thousands of deaths as here you'd think an independent body would be set up. But no even complaints sent to independent bodies will b sent back to the police. To be honest on reading this my first reaction was oh so this is how the police will stop the complaints coming. One can only hope that the government wil see fit to set up an independent body to investigate these cases that is totally independent of the police.

Oh my god, i agree with you!

[hammered]

Yes there is always aproblem when the police investigate the police, but when it involves thousands of deaths as here you'd think an independent body would be set up. But no even complaints sent to independent bodies will b sent back to the police. To be honest on reading this my first reaction was oh so this is how the police will stop the complaints coming. One can only hope that the government wil see fit to set up an independent body to investigate these cases that is totally independent of the police.

Oh my god, i agree with you!

Bizarre 24 hours

[ColPyat]

Bizarre 24 hours

We urently have to create an argument, or the forum is in danger of closing down!

[marshbags]

Yes there is always aproblem when the police investigate the police, but when it involves thousands of deaths as here you'd think an independent body would be set up. But no even complaints sent to independent bodies will b sent back to the police. To be honest on reading this my first reaction was oh so this is how the police will stop the complaints coming. One can only hope that the government wil see fit to set up an independent body to investigate these cases that is totally independent of the police.

Oh my god, i agree with you!

Bizarre 24 hours

As i live and breath, that,s progress Hammered..........................................I think, ......is it C.P. ?

I cannot see them getting much co-operation unless there is some meaningful assurance of I.D. / protection from someone in government who is independent from the police and can be trusted.

They will just be silenced via intimidation ect. otherwise.

There,s an article in todays B.Post relating to the selection of various specialists to take control of regulating of the police force along with sitting on a special commission.

General news >> Saturday December 09, 2006

Quote:-

APPOINTMENTS

Purachai gets seat on Police Commission

WASSAYOS NGAMKHAM

Former deputy prime minister Purachai Piumsombun was yesterday named as one of six ''specialists'' joining the powerful Police Commission that controls all appointments of senior police officers. The Police Commission, chaired by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, must also have as its members six specialists in the fields of law, political science, economics, public administration, criminology and justice management.

National police chief Gen Kowit Wattana, a member of the commission, said yesterday that Mr Purachai was selected as the specialist in criminology.

The other five specialists are Chaikasem Nitisiri (law), Sema Semanant (political science), Varakorn Samakoses (economics), Manuch Wattanakomain (political science), and Somsak Boonthong (justice management).

Police spokesman Lt-Gen Achirawit Supanphesat said the election went smoothly.

Unquote.

For the full version please go to url:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/09Dec2006_news11.php

Regarding the selected specialists their integrity must be reliable to be appointed in the first place.

The prime ministers provision of a means to report other questionable material on corruption ect. anonymously is what,s also needed in this case regarding the war on drugs.

Any positive leads can then be investigated and followed up on, then proved or not proved.

Otherwise how can / will they be encouraged to do so.

Once they get a few names in the hat the rolling snowball will growwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

It may be coincidence but i reckon J.D,s reported statement was intended to marry up with this one and maybe to answer any doubts of transparency. ( as we are all questioning. )

In my humble opinion.

marshbags

Edited December 9, 2006 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

As i live and breath, that,s progress Hammered..........................................I think, ......is it C.P. ?

I cannot see them getting much co-operation unless there is some meaningful assurance of I.D. / protection from someone in government who is independent from the police and can be trusted.

They will just be silenced via intimidation ect. otherwise.

The problem, that should dim your appearant optimism, is that so far all the government has done was blowing lots of wind, nice rethorics, and very little real results. The old game - set up commitees, panels of investigation, subcommitees and whatever else, all staffed by "experts" and "specialists".

The same old story whenever one government was ousted by a coup. And it never led to any substantial improvements, especially improvements that trickled down to the common population. Nothing changes other than a different power clique takes over and does essentially the same the old one did.

It's been nearly 3 months now.

Can you tell me one thing that did change?

Do we have more freedom of the media?

Do we have anyone accused of Human Rights violations brought to trial?

Do we have more "democracy"?

[JacknDanny]

As i live and breath, that,s progress Hammered..........................................I think, ......is it C.P. ?

I cannot see them getting much co-operation unless there is some meaningful assurance of I.D. / protection from someone in government who is independent from the police and can be trusted.

They will just be silenced via intimidation ect. otherwise.

The problem, that should dim your appearant optimism, is that so far all the government has done was blowing lots of wind, nice rethorics, and very little real results. The old game - set up commitees, panels of investigation, subcommitees and whatever else, all staffed by "experts" and "specialists".

The same old story whenever one government was ousted by a coup. And it never led to any substantial improvements, especially improvements that trickled down to the common population. Nothing changes other than a different power clique takes over and does essentially the same the old one did.

It's been nearly 3 months now.

Can you tell me one thing that did change?

Do we have more freedom of the media?

Do we have anyone accused of Human Rights violations brought to trial?

Do we have more "democracy"?

YES

Not yet..more time needed

YES

[marshbags]

Taken from todays B.Post.in reference of tomorrows date and it,s significance with Human Rights and the last Constitution.

General news >> Saturday December 09, 2006

Quote:-

FOCUS / THAILAND'S CONSTITUTION DAY

A spirit of hope, even in adversity

Remembering human rights and the Constitution

By VITIT MUNTARBHORN

Tomorrow, Dec 10, is World Human Rights Day. It is also Thailand's Constitution Day _ a reminder that human rights and the Thai Constitution are inextricably intertwined. Paradoxically perhaps, it is also a day of commemoration and celebration. Commemorating all the pain and suffering caused by a myriad violations experienced by humanity, but celebrating the universal aspiration to be free and to enjoy human rights in full.

It is a day for recalling that Thailand has had more than 15 constitutions and an even larger number of military takeovers, the most recent intervention taking place this year, on Sept 19.

While the 16th Constitution (1997) was abolished in the process, it should be remembered that that charter was generally received and perceived as the most democratic constitution which the country had ever had _ the People's Constitution. There is now an interim constitution pending the drafting of a new one.

In retrospect, the 16th Constitution had a number of strengths. It was the first constitution which introduced the notion of ''human dignity'' as the rationale for human rights, and it established the principle that rights and freedoms may be invoked directly in the courts and that constraints on such rights must not undermine the substance of the rights.

In Part Three of the Constitution, various innovative rights were stipulated. Not only were traditional human rights such as freedom of expression and association listed explicitly, but also the Constitution went beyond the protection of individual rights to encompass the rights of communities, particularly in regard to environmental protection and resource conservation, backed by environmental impact assessment and public hearings.

Various absolute rights, such as the right of the child to be protected against violence, were entrenched for the first time.

Various civil and political rights associated with the Rule of Law, such as access to courts and lawyers, and the stipulation that the authorities are not to detain suspects for more than 48 hours, thus compelling access to the courts thereafter, were welcome guarantees.

These were bolstered by principles to improve the judicial process, such as the provision that the quorum of judges must be fulfilled for judicial deliberations to take place.

That Constitution also incorporated provisions establishing the rules of governance in regard to key instruments of government, particularly the executive, legislative and judicial branches, as well as introducing a number of independent institutions as checks-and-balances against abuse of power, including the Constitution Court, the Counter-Corruption Commission, the Electoral Commission, Ombudsperson and the National Human Rights Commission.

In addition, a system of administrative courts was established to provide quick and accessible remedies to those impugning the acts of State officials, with little cost as compared with that incurred by litigants in the traditional courts.

Yet, that Constitution was undermined by various regrettable policies and vested interests inherent in the regime which preceded the current administration. A multitude of transgressions took place in regard to the anti-drugs campaign which resulted in many extra-judicial killings and disappearances. The regime's insensitive treatment of the culturally-sensitive southern part of Thailand was mired in violence, with a proliferation of negative practices, ranging from abductions to torture, extra-judicial executions and the imposition of martial law on the people of the region.

Unquote.

For the full article ( quite longish. ) please go to the following url:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/09Dec2006_news20.php

Yet another disturbing indictment re Thaksin and his associates of ignoring / bending the objectives of the 1997 constitution.

marshbags

[ColPyat]

Yet another disturbing indictment re Thaksin and his associates of ignoring / bending the objectives of the 1997 constitution.

marshbags

Doesn't it disturb you equally that the 16th constitution in 72 years was thrown out of the window only less than three months ago?

Or, the irony that roads to Bangkok are heavily blockaded, that even road blocks are set up in some changwats to stop stop people from joining demonstrations, and therefore violating the right for assembly, and therefore resulting in exactly the same thing that Thaksin opponents have accused Thaksin of doing?

It is bewildering to read statements of people, who only a few months ago have defended the right to demonstrate, now defending exactly the same actions they have so bitterly accused their opponents of. Or, are only the people who you support allowed to demonstrate?

The irony...

[Plus]

The right to demonstrate is discussed in another, appropriate thread.

[marshbags]

From the B.Post 11.37

Quote:-

PM discusses extra-judicial killings cases

(Bangkokpost.com)

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont chairs a meeting on extra-judicial killings at Department of Special Investigation (DSI) this morning to discuss four controversial cases.

The cases are Surachai Chantarasit, who was disabled after being wounded by a stray bullet during a shootout between police and drug traffickers; Nikhom Ounkaew and his wife Chanchaya, who were killed in Nakhon Ratchasima's Khon Buri district; Pongthep and Ampaiwan Rukhongprasert, who were slain in Tak's Mae Sot district and Samarn Thongdee, an education specialist, who was murdered in Tak's Muang district.

Unquote.

Please go to the following url for the last paragraph of complete article:-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=115091

This indictment will NOT go away and " suspect forged documents " are not applicable in this sad case.

May it continue to a fully accountable outcome for these evil doers. " Top to Bottom " in that order of priority..............................................................please.

marshbags and still

Edited December 14, 2006 by marshbags

[mongoose]

Thu, December 14, 2006 : Last updated 18:59 pm (Thai local time)

The Nation

Home > Headlines > DSI to probe four murders from 'war on drugs'

DSI to probe four murders from 'war on drugs'

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) agreed Thursday to take charge of six cases, four involving people who were murdered or disappeared mysteriously during the Thaksin government's war on drugs three years ago.

Justice Minister Charnchai Likhitjittha said: "When request?d, DSI can provide a protection team for witnesses."

He was speaking after the DSI board convened a meeting and passed a resolution to investigate six cases under the Special Investigation Act.

The first case was the death of nine-year-old Chakraphan Srisaard during a police sting operation in Bangkok and the disappearance of his mother, Pornwipa Kerdrungruang, right after that.

On February 23, 2003, Pornwipa and Chakraphan were in a car when the boy's father got out to deliver illicit drugs to an undercover police officer. After seeing police at the scene, Pornwipa tried to flee in the car.

Police allegedly riddled the car with bullets, one of which killed her son Chakraphan instantly. Pornwipa fled the scene and has never been seen since.

The second case related to the deaths of Nikom Ounkaew and his wife Kanya. The couple from Nakhon Ratchasima won Bt6 million in a government lottery but did not tell anybody about their win. Neighbours were reportedly suspicious about their sudden wealth and suspected they dealt in drugs. On March 28, 2003, both were shot dead in Nakhon Ratchasima.

The third case relates to the death of Samarn Thongdee, who was gunned down on April 9, 2003 in Tak. Samarn's had no record of being involved in drugs or crime, but on his death some illicit drugs were suspiciously found in his pocket.

The fourth case was the fatal shooting of a woman in Tak on May 18, 2003. Ampaipan Rookongprasert also had a clean record, but illicit drugs were found in the sole of her high-heeled shoes at the scene of her death.

Justice Minister Charnchai said Thursday he would consult the Narcotics Control Board about returning the victims' assets to their relatives if it was proven that they had not come from illicit deals.

"Another case that DSI is going to investigate is the shooting of Fakruddin Boto," the minister said.

Caretaker senator Fakruddin was shot and seriously hurt in a driveby shooting in Narathiwat's Rangae district on August 6 this year.

"There has been no progress in this case after an investigation suggested that suspects were military officers," Charnchai said.

He said the sixth case that DSI would take on related to a com?plaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Power P Public Company Ltd for alleged stock manipulation.

Charnchai said DSI would look at accepting more cases related to people killed during the notorious "war on drugs", if victims came forward.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/14...es_30021555.php

Is the problem Charnchai or the Nation reporter?

Most of the victims are dead so how can they come forward with their cases?

[Tony Clifton]

They thought they would be forever clear of charges or investigations thinking the TRT government would be in power for years to come. Give it time.

[asd]

Mr Banjerd criticised Mr Thaksin during the meeting as a dictator, worse than Adolf Hitler.

Hitler, despite being a dictator, had contributed a great deal to Germany, especially in developing a modern infrastructure system.

“What makes Mr Thaksin different from Adolf Hitler was that Hitler did not do things for his own benefit.”

“Hitler killed Jews but he did several things for his country. He was more useful for the country than Mr Thaksin was.”

Mr Banjerd said the stakes were high because the Thaksin system could bring the country to an end.

- Banjerd Singkaneti is Assistant Professor of Law at Thammasat University.

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

Adolf Hitler was the Chancellor of Germany through out World War 2. He was the leader of the Nazi regimen, and thought to be the biggest contributor to the war. He blamed the Jews for Germany's down fall in World War 1; so he began setting up Concentration and death camps throughout Europe. This was known as the Holocaust. An estimated 5 million Jews died during the Holocaust due to Hitler and the Nazi Party. On April 30th, 1945, with the allies less then a mile from his underground bunker, Hitler committed suicide.

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

Human Rights Abuses and the War on Drugs

They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.

—Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, referring to drug dealers, January 20031

In many provinces, there are death squads roaming around killing drug dealers. The rule of law and democracy could disappear overnight.

—Somchai Homlaor, secretary-general, Forum Asia

Thailand’s “war on drugs” began in February 2003 for the official reason of responding to a boom in methamphetamines, locally known as ya baa or “crazy pills.” The country had traditionally been associated with the trade in injected heroin through the Golden Triangle, a vast mountainous region spanning Burma, Thailand, and Laos.

Between 1993 and 2001, methamphetamine use in Thailand rose an estimated 1,000 percent and, according to government estimates, overtook heroin as the drug of choice in the country. Most ya baa was produced and smuggled from neighboring Burma and, to a lesser extent, Laos. By 2002, an estimated 2.4 percent of Thais aged twelve to sixty-five, including 4.5 percent of males, were using methamphetamines.

In December 2002, Thailand’s revered constitutional monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, called on the government to bring the “methamphetamine problem” under control. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra seized the opportunity, announcing on January 28, 2003, that a “war on drugs” would be waged on drug dealers. The use of the term “war” was apt: over the next three months more than 2,000 people in Thailand were killed as the government effectively declared “open season” on those accused of involvement in the drug trade.

The crackdown saw rampant human rights violations, including government promotion of violence against drug suspects, extrajudicial executions, blacklisting of drug suspects without due process, intimidation of human rights defenders, and violence and other breaches of due process by the Royal Thai Police.

Promotion of violence by government officials

Deviating sharply from Thailand's previous efforts to build the rule of law, Thaksin called for his war on drugs to be conducted on the basis of an “eye for an eye.” Prime Minister’s Order 29/B.E. 2546 (2003), signed on January 28, 2003, called for the absolute suppression of drug trafficking by means “ranging from soft to harsh including the most absolutely severe charges subject to the situation.” The document stated that “ If a person is charged with a drug offence, that person will be regarded as a dangerous person who is threatening social and national security.” In the ensuing weeks, the Ministry of the Interior gave each province in the country targets for the number of arrests of suspected drug traffickers and seizures of narcotics.

Police and other officials were offered cash incentives for arrests and seizures, while senior officials such as governors and police chiefs stood to lose their jobs if targets were not met. The Prime Minister said of the cash incentives that “at three Baht [u.S.$0.07] per methamphetamine tablet seized, a government official can become a millionaire by upholding the law, instead of begging for kickbacks from the scum of society.”

This was not what King Bhumibol apparently had in mind when he called for a solution to the methamphetamine problem, as he later expressed misgivings about the ferocity of the government’s program. Thaksin and his government discovered that there were political benefits in taking harsh measures against drugs. Thaksin’s popularity soared, as Thais apparently sought a stronger approach to drug abuse.

Thaksin’s near monopoly over state and private broadcast media hid most of the campaign’s worst abuses from public view and allowed the government’s message that all of those killed and targeted were dangerous criminals—and not men, women, and children against whom no charge had been laid—to gain popular acceptance.

Throughout the drug war, Thaksin and other government leaders repeatedly appeared to give the green light to use violence against suspected drug dealers. “In this war, drug dealers must die,” Thaksin said. “But we don't kill them. It's a matter of bad guys killing bad guys.” Whether in favor or opposed to the crackdown, few in Thailand found this denial credible.

Thaksin made his intentions even clearer in August 2003 when he said that Thai security forces would “shoot to kill” when they encountered Burmese drug traffickers on Thai soil. A regional police commander, Pichai Sunthornsajjabun, was reported as saying in reference to the drug war killings, “a normal person lives for eighty years, but a bad person should not live that long.”

In his January 14, 2003 speech announcing the campaign, the Prime Minister borrowed a quote from a former police chief known for having orchestrated political assassinations in the 1950s. “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do,” he said, adding, “Because drug traders are ruthless to our children, so being ruthless back to them is not a bad thing . . . . It may be necessary to have casualties . . . . If there are deaths among traders, it’s normal.” Then Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha said of drug traffickers, “They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.”

Extrajudicial Killings

In the first three-month phase of the crackdown that began on February 1, 2003, the Royal Thai Police reported that some 2,275 alleged drug criminals had been killed. Most were shot with handguns. The government initially claimed that fifty-one had been killed by police in self-defense and the rest in battles among dealers. In October 2003, Thailand’s foreign minister told the U.S. State Department that 2,593 homicide cases had occurred in the country since the previous February, more than double the normal level of about 400 homicides per month.

On December 15, 2003, after the end of the first phases of the campaign, the Royal Thai Police reported 1,329 drug-related homicides (out of 1,176 separate incidents) since February, of which seventy-two (in fifty-eight incidents) had been killed by police. More than 70,000 people allegedly involved in the drug trade were arrested.

According to witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch, the first murders took place hours before the official start of the war on drugs. Late on January 31, 2003, Boonchuay Unthong and Yupin Unthong were shot and killed as they returned home with their son, Jirasak, eight years old, from a local fair in Ban Rai, Damnoen Saduak district, Ratchaburi. Witnesses described seeing a man on the back of a motorcycle, wearing a ski mask, shoot Yupin, who was riding on the back of the family motorcycle. Boonchuay exhorted Jirasak to run away.

Jirasak hid behind a fence and watched as the gunmen walked up to Boonchuay and executed him with a shot to the head. Convicted for a drug offense, Boonchuay had recently been released after eighteen months in prison. It was subsequently discovered that Yupin and he had been placed on a government blacklist.

The first day of the campaign, February 1, saw four killings. By February 5, six people had been shot dead, and a week later the death toll stood at eighty-seven. Fifteen days into the campaign, the Interior Ministry announced that 596 people had been shot dead since February 1, eight of them by police “in self-defense.”

The deaths of alleged drug dealers, both those killed by police and those killed by others, were included in a February 17 report of the Ministry of the Interior informing the government about the progress of the campaign. The government actively publicized the deaths on state-controlled television and radio as well as in newspapers, claiming that drug dealers were killing their peers to prevent them from leaking information to authorities.

The police’s unwillingness to investigate these deaths, combined with the unusually high number of drug-related homicides compared to years past, cast doubt on the credibility of the government’s story. Medical professionals complained that they were not being allowed to perform autopsies and that bullets were being removed from victims. The head of Thailand’s Forensic Sciences Institute noted that, unlike before the war on drugs, the police were not seeking the Institute’s help in differentiating so-called gangland killings from extrajudicial executions.

While the campaign of extrajudicial executions was broadly popular, some of the killings provoked public concern and revulsion. Among those killed was Chakraphan Srisa-ard, a nine-year-old boy who was shot on February 23 as police fired at a car carrying him and his mother.

On February 26, a sixteen-month-old baby, nicknamed “Ice,” was in her mother’s arms when she and her mother, Raiwan Khwanthongyen, thirty-eight, were shot and killed by an unknown gunman in Sa Dao District, Songkhla.

The killings followed the fatal shooting of Raiwan’s older brother on February 5. Police Lieutenant Phakdi Preechachon, the officer in charge of the investigation, reported that police had assumed the mother’s and infant’s killing was gang-related because of Raiwan’s brother’s involvement in the drug trade. Police in Songkhla declined an interview with Human Rights Watch and, as of this writing, have not found the killer.

On February 24, 2003, just over three weeks into the drug war, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir, expressed “deep concern at reports of more than 100 deaths in Thailand in connection with a crackdown on the drug trade.”

In fact, Thailand’s Interior Ministry had the day before reported the deaths of 993 suspects, 977 of which they attributed to “gangland killings.” Jahangir called for strict limits on the use of lethal force by police, consistent with international law, as well as prompt, transparent, and independent investigations into each individual death. Prime Minister Thaksin retorted, “Do not worry about this. The U.N. is not my father. We as a U.N. member must follow international regulations. Do not ask too much. There is no problem. They can come and investigate.”

To stem an onslaught of negative publicity, on February 26, the Interior Ministry banned the release of statistics on drug-related deaths, though more were later released. On March 2, 2003, police placed the death toll at 1,035, including thirty-one drug suspects shot by officers in self-defense.

At the beginning of May 2003, Prime Minister Thaksin declared “victory” in the war on drugs and announced a second phase that would last until the following December. By that time, the Royal Thai Police announced that 2,275 people had been killed, of whom fifty-one had been shot by police in self-defense.

The Department of Local Administration and the Royal Thai Police fired or disciplined some village chiefs and police officers toward the end of the campaign; however, the government never stopped offering police cash incentives for seized drug assets or disciplining officials who failed to meet arrest targets.

On December 2, 2003, Thaksin again declared “victory” in the war on drugs and presented cash awards to agencies and officials who had taken part in the campaign. He awarded gifts of Thai Baht 50,000 (U.S.$1,275) and B100,000 (U.S.$2,550) respectively to officials who had been injured in the course of combating the drug trade and children of those killed in the campaign. He claimed that while drugs had not disappeared from the country, “[w]e are now in a position to declare that drugs, which formerly were a big danger to our nation, can no longer hurt us.”

Thaksin proceeded to announce a third, ten-month phase of the drug war, the purpose of which was “to maintain the strong communities and the strength of the people for the sustainability in overcoming the drug problem in every area throughout the country.”

Throughout his anti-drug campaign, the Prime Minister repeatedly brushed off allegations of extrajudicial killings. In February 2004, the U.S. State Department reported that Thailand’s human rights record had “worsened with regard to extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests,” claiming that “[t]here was a significant increase in killings of criminal suspects” and that press reports indicated that “more than 2,000 alleged drug suspects were killed during confrontations with police during a 3-month war on drugs from February to April.”

That month, Prime Minister Thaksin called the United States an “annoying friend” for its human rights report and ordered a new round of drug suppression, resulting in the arrest of 839 people in Bangkok in one day on February 27, 2004.32

Case Studies

A full accounting of the deaths of close to 3,000 individuals in the period of Thailand’s war on drugs requires thorough and transparent investigation by trained forensic experts. The following case studies are based on press reports, eyewitness accounts, and detailed interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch researchers. Clearly needed are full investigations by the Thai Ministry of Justice and National Human Rights Commission, supported by the highest levels of the Thai government.

Case Study: The killing of Somjit Khayandee

On February 20, 2003, Somjit Khayandee, a forty-two-year-old grocery shop owner, was shot dead in her shop-house at 212/1, Mu 8, Tambon Ban Laem, Petchburi Province.

A family member present when she was killed told Human Rights Watch:

It was late in the afternoon. Somjit was busy with customers as usual when four men entered the shop. They were wearing black shirts and black pants. All of them had sunglasses and caps. Their hair outside the caps was quite short. They asked Somjit if she had beer and could open the bottles for them. Somjit took two bottles of beer from the refrigerator, opened them and handed the bottles to those men. It was then that one of the men shot her with a pistol.

The first bullet hit her left hand, near her wrist. Somjit fell to the ground. That man jumped over her body and shot seven more rounds at her at point-blank range. The shooting took place in front of me, Somjit’s seven-months pregnant daughter, Somjit’s seven-year-old granddaughter and four other relatives. The four men then left the shop. They drove away in a red Mitsubishi pickup truck. But I could not see the plate number.

About half an hour later, local police arrived at the scene. They did not collect shells or any evidence. However, they said they were confident that it was ka tat ton [a “cut-off” killing, a term used by the government for most killings that took place during the war on drugs, allegedly committed by drug gangs to silence their members from reporting to the authorities]. They also said that Somjit’s name was on the blacklist and she had gone to report to them [the police] three days before she was killed.

I did not know how her name was on the blacklist. When she went to report to the police, she said they gave her a document and told her to sign it as a testimony to assure that she did not have any involvement in drug dealing. They told her that they would remove her name from the blacklist. But Somjit was almost illiterate. She could barely read and write.

The witness told Human Rights Watch that he and others present at the killing were worried about their safety.

I do not think the police can protect us. The killing of Somjit had very bad effects on everyone, especially the little girl [somjit’s seven-year-old granddaughter who saw the shooting]. She is very depressed and sad.

Somjit’s daughter was present at the scene, too. She told Human Rights Watch:

I was seven-months pregnant when Somjit was shot. I saw the shooting. It was very cruel. After my mother was killed, the police asked me to go to the district police station only once. They asked me if she was a drug dealer. I said my mother was a good person, she never sold drugs or knew anyone in that business. She also had no personal conflicts with anyone. That was the only time I was called in to talk to the police about my mother’s death.

The police told me that they had received a tip-off about Somjit. They said a woman called them at night, around 10:00 p.m., on February 16, 2003 and told them that Somjit was a drug dealer and was hiding ya baa [methamphetamine] in her shop house. But the police never came to search our place.

The next day Somjit was called by the police to go to the district police station to verify her name on the blacklist. Then my mother was killed three days later. On February 18, 2003, my neighbor was also killed. He was told to report to the police and verify his name on the blacklist as well. How could he be a drug dealer, he was very old and paralyzed?

I do not understand. If the police believe that my mother was a drug dealer, they should have come and searched our shop house. But they never came until now. They did not seem to be interested in investigating and arresting people that killed my mother although they said she was killed by a drug gang. If the police know that a drug gang killed my mother, they should go and arrest those people.

Our family is very poor. We should have been much better off if my mother was selling drugs as the police said. My mother was in debt, more than one hundred thousand baht. We still have to pay money back to banks, mortgage companies and loan sharks for her until today. If the police come to confiscate our belongings, we will have nothing left to survive.

The daughter was worried about having her possessions confiscated, because it was common during the war on drugs for those killed or arrested to have their money and properties confiscated in a broad interpretation of Thailand’s anti-money laundering law.

To date, no one has been arrested for the death of Somjit, and there is no sign that any serious investigation has ever been conducted.

Case Study: The killings of Sia-Jua Sae Thao, Somchai Sae Thao, Bunma Sae Thao, and Saeng Sae Thao

On February 12, 2003, just after noon, on the route to Wat Dhama Kaya Temple, Ban Neun Village, in Lom Kao District, Petchaborn Province (about fourteen kilometers from the victims’ village), four men were murdered as part of the war on drugs. They were Sia-Jua Sae Thao (forty-five), Somchai Sae Thao (Sia-Jua’s brother), Bunma Sae Thao (fifty-nine, the cousin of Sia-Jua and Somchai), and Saeng Sae Thao (fifty-two, the village chief). All were farmers; all were ethnic Hmong.

The four were killed on the way home from a visit to the district police station. According to official sources, none of the victims had a previous record of drug-related activity. The police summarily classified their murders as “cut-off killings.”

Witnesses said that Sia-Jua had received an order on February 11, 2003, to report to the court in Petchaborn Province the next day in relation to an unlicensed firearms offence for which he had been charged in early December 2002. Sia-Jua went to ask the village chief, Saeng, to go to the court with him to be his bailer. He found that the village chief had also received a letter from Lom Kao district office, saying that Saeng was a drug user and drug dealer of ya baa. Saeng was instructed to report to the district office.

On February 12, 2003, Sia-Jua and Saeng went together to report to the authorities. They traveled in Saeng’s white pickup truck with Somchai, whom Sia-Jua had requested to accompany him. Bunma asked to ride with them to buy medicine for his daughter in town.

A relative of Sia-Jua claims that a court official, who did not want to be named, told him two days later that there was no summons for Sia-Jua. The summons had allegedly been forged. A district official told a family member that the same was true for Saeng, since the official in charge was not present.

Villagers from Ban Neun Village, where the shooting took place, report that they saw police officers in uniform and plain clothes arriving on motorcycles and waiting near the crime scene before Sia-Jua and his colleagues were killed. A witness alleged that on the day the National Human Rights Commission conducted its investigation, these villagers were told by police officers from Lom Kao District police station not to report what they saw or talk to anyone about it.

Relatives of the victims, none of whom wanted to be named in a public report, said that after the shooting they went to the scene and found the bodies of the four men on the roadside. The village chief’s pickup truck was missing. There were police officers from Lom Kao District police station at the scene. All four men had been shot in the head. According to witnesses: the upper part of Sia-Jua’s body had many bruises, his face had bruises, and his jaw was broken;

Bunma’s face had a stab wound. The wound was triangular in shape. The skull on the back of his head was broken. His left hip had a severe burn mark;

Somchai’s neck and shoulder bones were broken; and

Seang’s body had many bruises.

A witness reported that a police officer, whom he did not want to name, told him and another witness, “Please understand, we ( Lom Kao District police officers ) did not kill your father, it was police officers from Lom Sak District ( Petchaboon Province ).”

Bodies of the four men were sent to Yuparaj Hospital in Lom Kao District. However, relatives of the victims did not receive the results of forensic examinations. Only Bunma’s relatives requested Lom Kao District Office to issue a death certificate, which identified the cause of death as “gunshot.”

Sia-Jua had eight children younger than twelve years old. Bunma had fifteen children ( from two wives ), the youngest of whom was a daughter eighteen months old. Three of the families ( excluding the village chief’s ) were very poor. They did not have their own land to farm, but used the land belonging to the Department of Public Welfare. They had been told in early 2003 not to use that land anymore because the Department of Public Affairs would be taking it for reforestation projects.

In spite of the injuries to the men’s bodies and the possibility of witnesses to torture and murder in broad daylight on a well-traveled road, to date there is no sign that any investigation has been conducted into these deaths.

Case study: The killing of Chakraphan Srisa-ard, nine years old

On February 23, 2003, nine year-old Chakraphan Srisa-ard died from bullet wounds after police fired at the car driven by his mother, who was fleeing a drug sting operation in which his father was arrested.

A plainclothes police team had met with Sataporn Srisa-ard, thirty-four, for a purported drug sale in front of the Manangkhasila Residence in Bangkok at around 9:00 p.m. When he delivered 6,000 amphetamine pills, the officers flashed their badges and arrested him.

Pornwipa Kerdrungruang, his wife, waiting in their Honda Accord with their son, saw the arrest and quickly moved from the front passenger seat to the driver seat and sped off, police reported.

According to eyewitnesses, several plainclothes men believed to be police chased after the Honda in a pickup truck. One witness said that men in the pickup truck shouted at the driver to stop, but she failed to do so. The men then fired shots at the car and hit it six times. The car crashed 200 meters away onto the pavement in front of the Paris Theatre. The police reported that Pornwipa got out and fled, leaving behind a gun, B300,000 (U.S.$7,345) in cash and the body of her son, Chakraphan, who apparently died on the spot.

Two bullets hit Chakraphan in the left part of his torso. One of them hit his lung and heart and went through the right side of his body.

Three police officers from the Bang Chan police station were preliminarily charged with manslaughter. Thai law authorizes the use of force by police only for self-defense. Although investigators found traces of gunpowder on the hands of the officers, the police revolvers submitted as evidence were found not to be the ones used to fire at the car.

The police authorities then took advantage of the narcotics aspect of the case to attempt to shield the police officers from prosecution. Investigating police claimed a “third party” had been involved in the shooting and could have been responsible for the boy's death, floating the theory that a man on a motorcycle from the same drug ring had fired at the car and killed the boy. They said that when the officers heard the gunfire, they threw themselves on the ground and only fired shots in the air to frighten the criminals.

Deputy Metropolitan Police Chief Major-General Jakthip quoted the officers as saying that the couple had been secretly accompanied by “bodyguards” who showed up after Sataporn was arrested. “The policemen said they didn't fire at the car, and that the bullets were from the guards of the drug dealers,” Major-General Jakthip said.

Police Lieutenant-Colonel Pakorn Pawilai of the Nang Lerng station, which is in charge of investigating Chakraphan's death, also said that the three officers had insisted they never aimed at the car. Contradicting the initial accounts, the officers said they had been trying to chase the suspect's car on foot. “A man on a motorcycle was also chasing the getaway car and gunshots were fired,” Police Lieutenant-Colonel Pakorn quoted the three officers as saying. “It was unclear if that was an attempt to help the suspects or to silence them. But when the officers heard the gunfire, they threw themselves to the ground and only fired shots in the air to frighten the criminals.”

Police Commission spokesman Major-General Pongsapat later defended the actions of the officers from Bang Chan police station, saying they followed procedure. Implying that the police had in fact fired the fatal shots, he gave the boy's family B20,000 (U.S.$495) to help with funeral costs in an expression of sorrow and regret over the incident. However, he reiterated the police’s commitment to the war on drugs, saying, “police will continue to take tough measures against drug dealers.”

Blacklisting of drug suspects without due process

The foundation of Thailand’s war on drugs was two kinds of lists prepared by government officials: “blacklists,” which included people who had been arrested or named in arrest warrants, and “watchlists,” which included those under investigation. Observers noted that the process of preparing the lists was rushed and open to widespread abuse, potentially used by police and local authorities to settle old disputes. Blacklisted suspects had no mechanism by which to challenge their inclusion on a list.

Under a system of rewards and penalties—part of Prime Minister Thaksin’s widely publicized “CEO” (Chief Executive Officer) style of governance—local and provincial officials were required to meet set quotas in reducing the number of people on the blacklists by a deadline, either through arrest or forced drug treatment.

Interior Minister Wan threatened retaliation against local officials who did not produce results, driving home the point by citing the way a former king dealt with unresponsive officials. “In our war on drugs, the district chiefs are the knights, and provincial governors are the commanders,” he said. “If the knights see the enemies, but do not shoot them, they can be beheaded by their commanders.”

Local officials appeared to use the blacklists to settle old scores. Once on the list, the only way off, according to one human rights activist, was to “buy your way off the list, surrender at a police station or end up with a bullet in your head.” But even surrendering to the police offered no certainty. Many who went to the police to surrender or clear their names were shot by unidentified gunmen on the way home.

Throughout the war on drugs, Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was deluged with complaints of false arrest, improper inclusion in drug blacklists, and related violations of due process. The NHRC received 123 complaints during the two-week period from February 20-March 7, 2003, compared to twelve complaints during the preceding seven weeks. The most common complaints included being named on a blacklist without any involvement in drug activity, death of a family member due to the anti-drug campaign, and false allegations of drug possession by police.

Human Rights Commissioner Pradit Chareonthaitawee spoke out against the drug war, saying, “People are living in fear all over the kingdom.” But when Pradit presented cases of human rights violations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in February 2003, Thaksin called his behavior “ugly” and “sickening” and questioned his authority to communicate with the United Nations. Pradit received threats of impeachment by a spokesman of the ruling Thai Rak Thai party as well as anonymous telephone calls on March 5 and 6 telling him to “stop speaking to the United Nations or die.”

At the beginning of the drug war, the government insisted that the lists had been scrupulously prepared and cross-checked. By late February 2003, however, even senior government officials began to question the accuracy of the government’s drug suspect lists. On February 25, Police Chief General Sant Sarutanond stated that the lists were “poorly prepared and could have affected innocent people.” Interior Minister Wan later admitted that, “some names on the list don’t exist.

Some addresses are out of date, and some people whose names are there have never been involved with drugs.” The Interior Ministry ordered the Office of the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) to check the lists, but there is no evidence that the monitoring of the lists was taken seriously. Killings continued against individuals whose names were on the lists but against whom there was no evidence of drug dealing.

Government investigation of human rights abuses

Throughout the drug war, government agencies charged with investigating extrajudicial killings and other human rights abuses lacked either the independence or the capacity to carry out full and impartial investigations. According to a March 3, 2003 fact sheet on the war on drugs prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Thai government on February 28, 2003, appointed two committees to monitor the implementation of its narcotics policy.

The first, chaired by the secretary-general of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board, Police Lieutenant General Chidchai Vanasathidya, was assigned to monitor police conduct during the drug war. The second, chaired by Attorney General Wichian Wiriyaprasit, was responsible for protecting informants, witnesses, and those who turned themselves in to the authorities.

The fact sheet contained guidelines for investigating extrajudicial killings and stated that “in discharging their duties, law enforcement officials have been instructed to strictly observe the provision of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the use of lethal force only for self-defense.”

By April 1, 2003, with over 1,000 people dead, the Royal Thai Police had not forwarded any reports to the Attorney General’s investigating committee. The committee had requested that all reports be sent by the previous March 28. It was only on April 28, by which time close to 2,000 people had been killed, that the police sent information to the committee. The committee proceeded to establish ten subcommittees to investigate the deaths. In November 2003, Amnesty International reported that “it appears that in most cases investigations have not been completed and that therefore no one has been found responsible for the killings or brought to justice.” Amnesty International was not able at that time to obtain specific information about the progress of investigations.

Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under article 199 of the 1997 Thai Constitution, has the power to investigate complaints of human rights violations and make recommendations based on its findings. During the war on drugs, the NHRC’s small staff did not have the capacity to investigate each allegation it received relating to extrajudicial execution, police abuse, improper inclusion on a blacklist or watchlist, or other human rights violation. However, the commission investigated hundreds of cases and, on November 25, 2003, produced a summary of problems related to the war on drugs and submitted it to the prime minister.

The summary underlined four problem areas of the government’s suppression policy related to the blacklisting of drug suspects, arrests, extrajudicial killings and asset confiscation. In an understated tone, reflecting Prime Minister Thaksin’s attacks on the NHRC and other human rights defenders, the Commission said that the method used to draw up the blacklists had been problematic, as many people who had nothing to do with the illegal drug trade had appeared on the lists. One commissioner told Human Rights Watch:

Most names are drawn from the results of community meetings, which offered an opportunity for officials with conflicts to enter the names of people unrelated to the drug trade. Relatives and friends of those accused are also lumped into the same category. And ethnic minorities were subjected to stereotyped beliefs that they were also involved in the drug trade.

The NHRC summary concluded that some people had been arrested simply because they were accused by others who were already in police custody and were forced to name names. A commission member told Human Rights Watch that there were cases in which evidence had been fabricated, and that “the government had no evidence backing the arrests of many people on the day drug-related killings took place.”

The member was particularly concerned about reported cases in which drugs had been planted on corpses following homicides. “Police officers did not pay attention to the investigation and apprehension of the alleged killers,” the member added, “despite the fact that these are also serious crimes.”

The report further stated that on some occasions, there had been no proper investigation before the assets of suspects were confiscated. “Some of the assets were inherited or accumulated over decades,” said the commission member. “The confiscations included items necessary to daily existence, such as refrigerators and telephones. It reaches such a point that it can be said that nothing was left to help those affected to continue their lives.” The member concluded by stating that Thaksin’s policy had had a “corroding effect” on the judiciary system and urged that any future wars on drugs adhere to the due process of law and judicial system.

Violence and breaches of due process by Thai police

Even before the war on drugs, Thailand’s anti-drug laws provided a pretext for widespread abuses of civil rights of people suspected of drug use or trafficking. According to numerous current and former drug users interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Thai police typically profiled drug users based on factors such as syringe markings on their arms or attendance at a methadone clinic, arrested them, and forced them to confess to drug-related crimes.

Tum N., twenty-four, told Human Rights Watch he had been injecting heroin since he was seventeen. The first time he was stopped by the police was soon after the war on drugs began, when he and his girlfriend accidentally drove through a police checkpoint on his motorcycle.

My girlfriend told me I should go back, and when I did the police checked me and didn’t find anything. They accused me of throwing my stuff away after passing the checkpoint. They handcuffed me, took me to a bathroom inside a restaurant, and beat me. They said, “ Are you trying to be a wise guy, driving through our checkpoint ? ” They punched me and kicked me in the face and head, using their elbows, fists and knees.

Tum N. said the police proceeded to take him to an interrogation room, where they accused him of having stolen a motorcycle. “When they couldn’t get anything out of me, they accused me of stealing my motorbike. They checked the registration, and when they couldn’t pin anything on me, they let me go.”

Human Rights Watch separately interviewed the girlfriend of Tum N., twenty-five-year-old Karn S, who corroborated Tum N.’s account. “I could hear him being beaten,” she said. “I heard the cops say, ‘Don’t fight back, just accept it. If you have drugs, just hand it over.’ When he said he didn’t have any, they said, Why did you throw them away ? Karn S. said that when her boyfriend emerged from the bathroom, “ he came out with handcuffs behind his back, all beaten up. I asked him, ‘Were you beaten?,’ and he said, ‘Yes, by three cops, after they handcuffed me.’”

Karn S. added that while she and her boyfriend were in police custody, the police demanded they participate in a sting operation to capture their alleged drug dealers, a tactic described to Human Rights Watch by a number of drug users. She described the police’s conduct as follows.

The police said, “You’re going to get busted for one thing or another today.” I begged them not to throw us in jail, and they said, “In that case, you have to help us in a sting operation.” So we brought the cops to a drug dealer we knew, but he wasn’t there. I said, “We fulfilled our promise, will you let us go?” At first they wouldn’t, but after a while, for some reason, they did.

Coercing drug users into participating in sting operations was one of a number of abusive tactics used by Thai police to effect drug trafficking arrests before and during the war on drugs. Tai P., twenty-eight, said the police forced him to sign a false confession stating he was a drug dealer even though he denied this charge. He said he had injected heroin for ten years before attempting to quit in March 2004.

On March 17, 2003, the police executed a search warrant on his home and found two vials of heroin and some syringes. Instead of charging him with heroin possession, the police forced him to sign a confession stating that he had been caught trafficking methamphetamines. “I know all too well the search warrant was produced to use me as a scapegoat during the campaign to suppress ya baa,” he said, adding:

The confession said I was dealing drugs, even though I was not caught doing that. When I refused to sign, the police threatened to arrest every other member of my family. They said, “Don’t you love your family? You want to get your family into trouble? Why don’t you take the blame on your own instead of dragging your family into this?” So I confessed.

Tai P. told Human Rights Watch that the information on the search warrant was fraudulent, stating that he had been a ya baa dealer for ten years. He said that the police confiscated his mobile phone and B20,000-30,000 (U.S.$614-$737), saying they would use it as evidence to prosecute him for drug trafficking. “They never produced it in court,” he said. “I think they just took it for their own use.” Tai P. said he spent twenty-five days in pre-trial detention before being sentenced on a drug possession charge.

Jit P., twenty-seven, described a similar incident from September 2002, shortly after the Thai government declared drug suppression to be one of its major policies.

I was riding a motorcycle with my boyfriend, and the police pulled us over. He said, “Your time is up, you have to come with us”. . . . They took me to their car, drove me to the police station, and made me sign a blank piece of paper. I spent time in jail, and afterwards they took me to court. It was then I found out I’d been charged with possession. The police presented evidence that I was a repeat offender, and I was sentenced to eight months in jail. I never saw what was on the piece of paper. Every time, I just sign a blank piece of paper. I never know what charge I’ve gotten.

In addition to coercing false confessions, Thai drug users said that police frequently planted drugs on people they knew to have a drug history. Tum N., twenty-four, said: “I’ve never been arrested with possession of any drug. The two arrests I had, the drugs were planted.” Human Rights Watch heard a description of such an arrest from “A” (his nickname), twenty-five, a former injection drug user who is now living with HIV/AIDS.

I didn’t have heroin on me, I only had a syringe . . . . There was nothing inside the syringe, but I was high [on drugs] when I got arrested. The police couldn’t find any drugs on me, so he put some in my pocket and then took it out and said, “Does this belong to you?” They could tell I was a drug user, so it was easy for them to pin charges on me. The physical signs all said I was a junkie.

“A” noted that his arrest did not occur during the war on drugs, by which time he had stopped using. Other users said, however, that planting of drugs on suspected drug offenders was common during the drug war. “It happens all the time,” said Kor D., twenty-six. “I have nothing against the police, but I know for a fact they are looking for bribes. Once I had nothing on me at all, and the cop just took something from his pocket and put it in mine.”52 Tai P., twenty-eight, told of a case in 2003 in which the police tested the urine of someone in his neighborhood but found no trace of narcotics. “His urine tested negative, but the cop just put some drugs in his pocket and arrested him,” Tai P. said. “He’s still fighting his case.”

Drug users noted that police often abused their authority to test the urine of suspected drug users, sometimes making arrests even when urine tested negative. “It looked like the police wanted to make arrests,” said Tai P. of the war on drugs. “Sometimes, the police just pick up kids on the road, and even if they test negative, they just take their money and cell phone and threaten them with arrest.” Tai P. said that merely associating with suspected drug users was enough to be caught in the police’s net. “There is one kid in my neighborhood who hangs out with two others who do ya baa,” he said. “When the police found drugs . . . they arrested all three of them.”

Several drug users noted that being in possession of drugs during a possession charge was the exception, not the rule. “I was arrested three times . . . for possession of heroin,” said Petch D., twenty-five. “The third time, I was actually in possession of heroin.”54 Karn S., twenty-five, made a similar observation. “When we get caught, we never have any drugs—the police just see us and know we use drugs, so they threaten us with arrest.”

http://hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm

[ColPyat]

Mr Banjerd criticised Mr Thaksin during the meeting as a dictator, worse than Adolf Hitler.

Hitler, despite being a dictator, had contributed a great deal to Germany, especially in developing a modern infrastructure system.

“What makes Mr Thaksin different from Adolf Hitler was that Hitler did not do things for his own benefit.”

“Hitler killed Jews but he did several things for his country. He was more useful for the country than Mr Thaksin was.”

Mr Banjerd said the stakes were high because the Thaksin system could bring the country to an end.

- Banjerd Singkaneti is Assistant Professor of Law at Thammasat University.

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

Statements such as this are beyond believe. Mr. Banjerd should visit a history course for beginners.

Such a statement says a lot about Mr. Banjerd's mindset.

Other than wiping out the trifle of more than 80 % of European jews, Mr. Hitler killed a vast amount of Gypsies, Communists, gays, and anybody who was against him, including the people who had an IQ to low to even be against him under the euthanasia laws.

What he did useful for Germany was building highways and leading Germany into WW2, and the complete destruction of Germany's "modern infrastructure system", and with it about 10% of Germany's population.

I would love to whack a few history volumes over Mr. Banjerd's head.

[sriracha john]

I think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does give him a lot of "credence."

[ColPyat]

I think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does give him a lot of "credence."

Why do you post if you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say?

[JacknDanny]

I think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does give him a lot of "credence."

Why do you post if you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say?

What hes saying is that the guy is a lecturer at the 2nd best university in Thailand, thereby he speaks with some credibility

I understood SJ

[Plus]

Not long time ago that seemed to suffice to back up another collection of absurdities, well spotted, SJ.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Plus

[ColPyat]

I think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does give him a lot of "credence."

Why do you post if you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say?

What hes saying is that the guy is a lecturer at the 2nd best university in Thailand, thereby he speaks with some credibility

I understood SJ

If he is trying to say that, then he should do so, and not say something completely different.

And as Mr. Banjerd is assistent professor for law, then maybe he should stick with subject, and refrain from making statements on subjects that he obviously has not the slightest clue about.

By, the way, does anybody here share Mr. Banjerd's opinion that "Hitler, despite being a dictator, had contributed a great deal to Germany"?

Just enquiring...

[ColPyat]

Not long time ago that seemed to suffice to back up another collection of absurdities, well spotted, SJ.

It is truly a fruitless task to explain you the difference between a properly researched and peer reviewed published paper, and a statement made by an academic that is completely unrelated to his field of expertise.

[sriracha john]

Not long time ago that seemed to suffice to back up another collection of absurdities, well spotted, SJ.

Thank you, but the glaring hypocrisies actually just jump off the page and aren't that difficult to spot. Nevertheless, I chose not to respond to him directly as he's just egging on for another suspension... so I'll leave him alone to his vices and not say anything directly to him. He hasn't seemed to learn any lessons.

Edited December 15, 2006 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

Nevertheless, I chose not to respond to him directly as he's just egging on for another suspension... so I'll leave him alone to his vices and not say anything directly to him. He hasn't seemed to learn any lessons.

Well, keep your constant childish snides directed towards 'him' to yourself.

Maybe then 'he' will keep igoring your incessant blather.

[Plus]

For the benifit of those who missed the point - "well researched" and "peer reviewed" academic paper called Sondhi a militant oppositionist and didn't mention opposition boycott in the review of failed elections at all.

And we were advised to not question its blatant diregard for facts and reasoning because it was written by a professor at second best university.

I agree with Banjerd only that "Hitler did not do things for his own benefit.” Perhaps the long road to hitlership starts with sacrificing small things like common sense for the sake of ideology.

[JacknDanny]

Nevertheless, I chose not to respond to him directly as he's just egging on for another suspension... so I'll leave him alone to his vices and not say anything directly to him. He hasn't seemed to learn any lessons.

Maybe then 'he' will keep igoring your incessant blather.

Pot calling the kettle black!!!!!!!!!

[ColPyat]

I agree with Banjerd only that "Hitler did not do things for his own benefit.” Perhaps the long road to hitlership starts with sacrificing small things like common sense for the sake of ideology.

Unbelievable...