Anger at acquittal of ex-PMs

[webfact]

Anger at acquittal of ex-PMs

By KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN, 
JAKRAWAN SALAYTOO 
THE NATION

 

 

Yellow-shirt leaders call for appeal against 4 cleared over 2008 crackdown.

BANGKOK: -- YELLOW-SHIRT leaders have called on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to appeal yesterday’s acquittal of four defendants in a case stemming from the fatal 2008 crackdown.

 

However, the NACC – which brought the case to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders after public prosecutors failed to indict the officials – yesterday said commissioners would need to carefully study the verdict before deciding on an appeal.

 

Preecha Lertkamolmart, an NACC member, said anti-graft commissioners would decide after studying the verdict, relevant legal points, witness testimonies, evidence and explanations by the court for the acquittals.

 

NACC president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit yesterday also said commissioners would need to discuss the relevant information carefully before deciding whether to appeal. 

 

Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, his then-deputy Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, then-police chief Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, and then-Metropolitan Police chief Pol Lt-General Suchart Muenkaew were found not guilty in regard to the deadly police crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters in October 2008.

 

 

Somchai is the brother-in-law of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while Patcharawat is the younger brother of Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan.

 

The four defendants were accused of dereliction of duty and malfeasance by the NACC in 2015, which held them responsible for casualties caused by the police operation against protesters. 

 

The court yesterday ruled that the defendants did not intend to inflict casualties in a legitimate operation that aimed to ensure that the Cabinet could fulfil its constitutional duty as well as protect individuals and state property.

 

The nine judges voted eight to one in reaching their decision, according to a source familiar with the case. 

 

Suriyasai Katasila, a former leader of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), yesterday asked the NACC in writing to appeal the verdict.

 

In his letter, Suriyasai outlined three points of contention that he said remained in doubt for members of the public. He disputed arguments that the dispersal of the protest had been conducted in line with international practices, that the demonstration was not peaceful or unarmed, and that the defendants had no intention of causing casualties.

 

Suriyasai also expressed concern that the verdict could set a precedent for authorities to deal with protesters in the future.

 

“It is unfair for most peaceful protesters to conclude that their protest is not peaceful simply because some participants carried guns, without the knowledge of protest leaders,” he said.

 

Tee Saetiao, 77, a yellow-shirt protester who lost his right leg in the police crackdown and attended yesterday’s reading of the verdict, said the police crackdown was “inhumane and unreasonable”.

 

“I have had nightmares for the past nine years. The memories of the incident are still stuck in my head,” he said.

 

Veera Somkwamkid, another yellow-shirt leader, yesterday said that he disagreed with the court ruling and thought it could affect future protests.

 

“Think for yourself, who benefits from this ruling and whether the rights and liberties of the people will be affected,” he said.

 

Somchai, meanwhile, thanked the court yesterday for “serving as a reliable resort for the people”.

 

A group of people who had gathered outside the court shouted “murderer, murderer” when they spotted Somchai nearby. The ex-PM then headed back to the court building, where he was picked up by a limousine.

 

The courtroom yesterday was packed with friends and colleagues of the four defendants as well as PAD members.

 

Some red-shirt supporters showed up to give moral support to Somchai and Chavalit, both key figures in the Pheu Thai Party. Dozens of PAD members were also present around the court building.

 

Unable to walk past the hostile crowd, the four defendants had to take an alternative exit via the second floor of the court building.

 

In their 2008 rally, the yellow-shirt protesters and their umbrella group PAD surrounded the Parliament compound, preventing Somchai from declaring his government policy – a process required by the Constitution before his administration could begin running the country.

 

The dispersal operation left two protesters dead and 471 injured, according to the case file.

 

In a 90-minute verdict reading, the Supreme Court said the demonstration had not been constitutional, considering its violent nature and the fact that some demonstrators were carrying weapons and were aggressive towards officers.

 

It said the government action involving use of teargas was justifiable. 

 

The measures proceeded from light to heavy, the court said, and because water cannon were not available, officers had to use tear gas against aggressive protesters to protect people trapped in the Parliament compound.

 

Although the use of tear gas inflicted casualties, the court regarded the four defendants who ordered the operation as innocent because they did not intend to cause injuries or loss of life.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322608

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-03

[greenchair]

There's those yellow shirts again, outside the court preventing people from leaving a building. Threatening violence and causing people to flee. Where's the army? 

Why weren't they arrested? 

 

[saakura]

Patcharawat Wongsuwan.

[Thailand]

Hopefully they will be protesting Yinglucks accuital later this month.

[rkidlad]

Time for them to all be banned from politics. Reds and yellows. Best thing the PM can do is bring someone new and fresh in and then ban himself and his mates. This country will never be able to move forward as long as the ones in power, and the ones who want to be back in power, only do it for their own benefit. 

[Ricardo]

" Somchai, meanwhile, thanked the court yesterday for “serving as a reliable resort for the people”. "

 

Hopefully he will do the same thing again, after the verdict is given on his sister-in-law's negligence-case later this month, whatever that verdict might be ?

[chainarong]

The truth lies somewhere in between the bottom of a tea cup and a pack of tarot cards , mind the reconciliations isn't going anywhere , that leopard wont change it's spots, however the yellow shirts don't or shouldn't escape lightly , there's the small case of an international airport lock down and some irrelevant yellow shirted  guy that ran off to a temple for an religious experience, who caused mayhem and confusion and even alarmed looks of consternation on the faces of Yinglucks circle of friends, one questions the Junta's wisdom in it's nit picking deliberate harassment of red shirts, even if they are all a team of tosses'........................................... 

[jayboy]

25 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

" Somchai, meanwhile, thanked the court yesterday for “serving as a reliable resort for the people”. "

 

Hopefully he will do the same thing again, after the verdict is given on his sister-in-law's negligence-case later this month, whatever that verdict might be ?

Why should he? The Thai judicial system has been far from independent in recent years and very much subject to political direction.Yesterday's verdict was encouraging but whether true independence has been established can only be seen over a long period of times when a number of decisions can be scrutinised.We should be very wary of placing confidence in a system with such a poor record, and this of course includes Thaksin's time and before.It can not be denied that the judiciary was part of the establishment's process to thwart popular democracy especially given the drawbacks of military coups and street demonstrations.If I was a conspiracy theorist (I'm not) I might even wonder whether yesterday's "soft" decision was an attempt to deflect criticism of a future "hard" decision.So let's see.Cautious optimism is in order but history has shown it's almost impossible to underestimate the selfishness, ruthlessness and violence of those who want to strangle popular democracy in Thailand.

[steven100]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

There's those yellow shirts again, outside the court preventing people from leaving a building. Threatening violence and causing people to flee. Where's the army? 

Why weren't they arrested? 

 

because it's always the red shirts who cause the violence.

[steven100]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Hopefully they will be protesting Yinglucks accuital later this month.

or her conviction ...

[Thailand]

24 minutes ago, steven100 said:

or her conviction ...

Your heroes have already decided.

[Dave67]

They don't like it up em

[robblok]

59 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Why should he? The Thai judicial system has been far from independent in recent years and very much subject to political direction.Yesterday's verdict was encouraging but whether true independence has been established can only be seen over a long period of times when a number of decisions can be scrutinised.We should be very wary of placing confidence in a system with such a poor record, and this of course includes Thaksin's time and before.It can not be denied that the judiciary was part of the establishment's process to thwart popular democracy especially given the drawbacks of military coups and street demonstrations.If I was a conspiracy theorist (I'm not) I might even wonder whether yesterday's "soft" decision was an attempt to deflect criticism of a future "hard" decision.So let's see.Cautious optimism is in order but history has shown it's almost impossible to underestimate the selfishness, ruthlessness and violence of those who want to strangle popular democracy in Thailand.

Typical red response.. if it goes our way its encouraging.. if it goes an other way its political.

 

Same like.. if someone is guilty and we can't deny the facts we call it political.

 

It gets a bit boring. 

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Time for them to all be banned from politics. Reds and yellows. Best thing the PM can do is bring someone new and fresh in and then ban himself and his mates. This country will never be able to move forward as long as the ones in power, and the ones who want to be back in power, only do it for their own benefit. 

agreed; it IS the only thing they know

[LatPhrao]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

Why should he? The Thai judicial system has been far from independent in recent years and very much subject to political direction.Yesterday's verdict was encouraging but whether true independence has been established can only be seen over a long period of times when a number of decisions can be scrutinised.We should be very wary of placing confidence in a system with such a poor record, and this of course includes Thaksin's time and before.It can not be denied that the judiciary was part of the establishment's process to thwart popular democracy especially given the drawbacks of military coups and street demonstrations.If I was a conspiracy theorist (I'm not) I might even wonder whether yesterday's "soft" decision was an attempt to deflect criticism of a future "hard" decision.So let's see.Cautious optimism is in order but history has shown it's almost impossible to underestimate the selfishness, ruthlessness and violence of those who want to strangle popular democracy in Thailand.

Yes, especially this "... I might even wonder whether yesterday's "soft" decision was an attempt to deflect criticism of a future "hard" decision."   My thought also while reading the Nation's hyper-revelations on the dismissals.     And this "... history has shown it's almost impossible to underestimate the selfishness, ruthlessness and violence of those who want to strangle popular democracy in Thailand."  Especially recent history as they jackbooted themselves into power, subverted democracy, bent the judiciary to lay claim to power and criminalized any protest.

[Golgota]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

Typical red response.. if it goes our way its encouraging.. if it goes an other way its political.

 

Same like.. if someone is guilty and we can't deny the facts we call it political.

 

It gets a bit boring. 

This is politic and it is done by the yellow and the JUnta as well... you should open your eyes and understand the verdict of this trial: if they were found guilty, this would mean the Abhisit government and Generals can be also be indicted...

[jayboy]

Why wouldn't he say the Thaksin asset concealment case was political? The judges involved admitted that it was, and there was certainly enough evidence for a conviction despite his sister's perjury.

https://culanth.org/fieldsights/565-judicial-politicization-as-political-conservatism


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[YetAnother]

appears to me, given the logic set out herein, that the verdict is one of the more logical we typically read

[halloween]

15 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

https://culanth.org/fieldsights/565-judicial-politicization-as-political-conservatism


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

If you read your link again, it claims the case involving Thaksin WAS political. And that despite the ample evidence that Thaksin, as usual, broke the electoral laws.

 

I'm still waiting for evidence on either case that they were NOT politically influenced.

 

BTW Thaksin LOST in your CYA article.

Edited August 3, 2017 by halloween

[jayboy]

If you read your link again, it claims the case involving Thaksin WAS political. And that despite the ample evidence that Thaksin, as usual, broke the electoral laws.
 
I'm still waiting for evidence on either case that they were NOT politically influenced.
 
BTW Thaksin LOST in your CYA article.

Don't understand your point.Of course both sets of cases were politically influenced.In the vendetta against Thaksin however judges were in effect directed to advance the anti democratic agenda of the unelected elites.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[binjalin]

Why were they even tried?  they should have cracked down harder!  

[Jai Dee]

Several troll comments and flames have been removed from this thread.

 

Don't get personal please when discussing the topic.

[jayboy]

In your personal attack, since removed, you claimed a poster is the sort to claim the decision which cleared Thaksin was political. Any reasonable person would, so I asked why you would make such a claim.
Now you declare they WERE both political, but one for and one against is a clear case of bias against him. Despite there being clear evidence in both cases of guilt, anything that goes against MUST BE political interference. Do you deny Thaksin clearly broke electoral law in the 2006 election?

I made no personal attack merely pointed out that those very concerned about the country's terrible state are not necessarily "red"

As to 2006 that is completely off topic though why you even raise it is a mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

In your personal attack, since removed, you claimed a poster is the sort to claim the decision which cleared Thaksin was political. Any reasonable person would, so I asked why you would make such a claim.

Now you declare they WERE both political, but one for and one against is a clear case of bias against him. Despite there being clear evidence in both cases of guilt, anything that goes against MUST BE political interference. Do you deny Thaksin clearly broke electoral law in the 2006 election?

By strange circumstances and many said political interference, the Dem was acquitted in the 2006 election of conspiring to gain administrative power by illegal means which was the same charges leveled at TRT, Pattanu Chart Thai and Pandin Thai. That political interference seem to continue even to current PTP cases. I see political biasness when pattern is often repeated like coups. You see different?  

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

By strange circumstances and many said political interference, the Dem was acquitted in the 2006 election of conspiring to gain administrative power by illegal means which was the same charges leveled at TRT, Pattanu Chart Thai and Pandin Thai. That political interference seem to continue even to current PTP cases. I see political biasness when pattern is often repeated like coups. You see different?  

How do you seek to gain administrative power by boycotting an election? Do you think refusing to be involved in a snap election, clearly intended to disadvantage them, and some 14 months after the last should be illegal? Oh wait, don't talk about the evidence, just the result, right? Nor should we consider WHY a snap election was needed, or the blatant corruption of the party in office, right?

Strange, that even when a decision goes your way, you still want to claim bias of the courts.

[greenchair]

They kind of were between a rock and a hard place. 

Convict somchai and Prawit brother is convicted too. 

Absolve Prawit brother, absolve somchai too. 

If there was a way around the dilemma to convict somchai and not convict patcharawat, I'm sure they tried hard to find it. 

 

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, halloween said:

How do you seek to gain administrative power by boycotting an election? Do you think refusing to be involved in a snap election, clearly intended to disadvantage them, and some 14 months after the last should be illegal? Oh wait, don't talk about the evidence, just the result, right? Nor should we consider WHY a snap election was needed, or the blatant corruption of the party in office, right?

Strange, that even when a decision goes your way, you still want to claim bias of the courts.

After the savage beating in the 2005 election, the Dem was smart to boycott the snap election because they can't win. A good strategy to have the south abstain from voting by their boycott. That itself was corruption. Oh, they also got help from the court's acquittal of election fraud. The baton was then passed to the PAD and their violent conducts to try disrupt the election. That failed but the court delivered by annulling the snap election result which TRT won handsomely because of the position of the ballot boxes. Bias, no? 

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

After the savage beating in the 2005 election, the Dem was smart to boycott the snap election because they can't win. A good strategy to have the south abstain from voting by their boycott. That itself was corruption. Oh, they also got help from the court's acquittal of election fraud. The baton was then passed to the PAD and their violent conducts to try disrupt the election. That failed but the court delivered by annulling the snap election result which TRT won handsomely because of the position of the ballot boxes. Bias, no? 

Oh wait, don't talk about the evidence, just the result, right? Nor should we consider WHY a snap election was needed, or the blatant corruption of the party in office, right?

 

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes corruption and electoral fraud.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by halloween

[miafw]

3 hours ago, steven100 said:

because it's always the red shirts who cause the violence.

The red shirts did not exist in 1976 and 1992.  But the people who are still pulling the strings did.

[heybruce]

In viewing the Supreme Court's rationale   https://assets.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2017_08/9f28c42d5a10c5e35f8d4799e64f8167.jpg.080da4f92653826985e1c4a42ee211d5.jpg  it seems they could not convict these defendants without leaving Abhisit and company open to conviction for the actions taken against protesters in 2010.