“In a nutshell, from my layman’s point of view, Amsterdam has no case in Thai courts, or, international courts:
(a) The Thai authorities were acting with utmost restraint to maintain public order; and
(b) The Red leaders were guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of “inciting violence”.”
(a) How is using weapons made for war with a foreign nation on it’s own people “utmost restraint”? Coupled with setting up live fire zones, which are technically restraint free zones, you sound a little silly – some people were shot dead clearly because 0 restraint was being used.
There’s also reason to believe the Thai army may have set bombs off in its own camp, killing it’s own soldiers, in order to justify harsher and uneccessary messure – that is, of course, speculation, but these are the reasons why the ICC is needed, to clarify this.
(b) Then put them before an unbiased court, also. Has it never occured to you that people on both sides of the playing field may be guilty of crimes? Or are you going to stick with a good Vs. evil view where only one side can be guilty?
“This is what really gets me about the whole debate. Why is it that I can’t criticise Robert Amsterdam for hypocrisy without being on the Thai government side? I know why nobody’s pursuing the cases mentioned. It doesn’t make Robert Amsterdam’s article any less vile.
There’s too much lying on both sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate are dominated by demagogic megalomaniacs, in my opinion, and both sides need to be called out whenever they make outrageous statements.”
This is ridiculous. Robert is hired to act as a lawyer and legal council for Thaksin and the UDD. It’s not his job to build a case against Thaksin, it’s Thaksin’s opposition’s job. They’ve thus far failed to do so in any credible sense.
There’s no reason you can’t criticise Robert or Thaksin, but no intelligent person is going to believe just because Thaksin may be guilty of crimes it excuses all other people of their crimes.
You ought to quote specifically what outrageous statements have been made by Robert or Thaksin. If you’re reffering to the article at hand, I do not see how pushing for an unbiased court to deal with a serious situation is outrageous.
In saying that Dan should ask why the present government is not prosecuting the war on drugs killings, I am not trying to score points. I’m glad to hear that Dan was not trying to excuse the present Thai government for its crimes.
But forgive me for jumping to that conclusion. I see so much of this sort of dialogue.
“The Abhisit government has committed crimes.”
“Thaksin committed worse crimes”.
Crimes should be prosecuted whoever commits them.
Amsterdam has been paid to prosecute one side. The government should prosecute the war on drugs and Tak Bai and properly investigate the April/May killings. It won’t happen though.
Don’t forget not to lower yourself to their level, my fellow Reds. Innocent until proven guilty – that doesn’t mean you have to like any of them, by do not pass judgement so swiftly until the case has been conducted and is closed. It’s people doing just that which have brought us to this mess.
Never has a case seemed so clear to me, and never had I had such a strong belief that it ought to be taken up by the ICC. This will be a true test of credability for the involved organizations.
The Thai legal system is failing us, let us hope the international community is able to step up for human rights where others have failed.
There is too much attempts at ‘point scoring’ on forums as these.
Though I must add that recently, I have grown to really admire and respect Acharn Somsak on this forum; he is few of those red shirt people who don’t buy into the hype that this is “purely” for democracy, but will also make an impassioned speech that problems need to be cleared by a combination of the ballot box (as a first because it is a democracy) and then through political reform and if a government isn’t working for the public interest then the public gets to go back to the ballot box to implement its will; as opposed to an elitist structure when you have powerful and untouchable people imposing their will on an entire nation.
I don’t like Robert Amsterdam as much as you; but he’s a hired lawyer, and he doesn’t have to be impartial in his analysis. He represents one side, and he does it to the best of his ability. In forums like this, he should be criticized for his exaggerations and blindness to the wrong-doings on “his” employer side; and it would be ok if he continues to stay blind to his side faults.
What shocks me is that supposedly open-minded people on sites like this start attacking people like Dan who is just calling it as he sees it. There are a lot of shades of gray involved, its not black and white; and when the dark Gray turns black, Dan is calling it black.
Is that really the democracy you want? Shut out every opinion that you disagree with? (no attack to Nick and Andrew, they do allow a wide range of opinions here; especially those of Esarn Secessionists, but to those posters who attack every opinion that doesn’t fall within the paradigm of the argument that says:
Elite + Yellow = Very very Bad
Thaksin + Red = Good and Righteous
Thanks.
I have always covered both sides of the divide, to understand the divisions in Thai society properly i think it is important not to just stick with one side.
As to their claims – i have no idea who is more right than the other over the border issue. I have also no intentions to become an expert on the more than complex border conflicts of both countries. Far more learned people than me arguing to the teeth over this topic, and i doubt that i have a chance to get more than superficial understanding of the issue. I will just stick with reporting the views and positions of whoever has an opinion on this. My own opinions on this issue are simply not educated enough to be relevant.
“Marco”:
Fortunately not all PAD protesters dislike me, i have some that understand my situation, and with whom i have a very friendly relationship (there are also in the PAD people i have known long before the Red/Yellow divisions began).
PAD relationship with foreign media is more difficult and tense than the relationship with Red Shirts and foreign media (apart from some quite openly pro PAD biased journalists). Partly this is a result of a ideological rejection by wide sectors in the PAD of “western” philosophies on state and society, and also the impression that western media may be biased towards the Red Shirts.
There are some problems though also in the relationship with the Red Shirts. It sounds rather ironic, but they like us too much, and expect from us what we will not, and cannot deliver. Many Red Shirts perceive us as “helping” or “supporting” them. A standard discussion i have with many Red Shirts is to explain that it is not in our professional description to support one or the other side, but to investigate, to witness and to report as objectively as we possibly can manage to.
What makes my life difficult is that there is the myth that i were a “Red Shirt”, and that my reporting would therefore be false. It has, and partly still is, convenient for some quarters to discredit me personally instead of dealing with some of the inconvenient facts i present. I have to accept that as the nature of the beast. It pissed me off though – what begins in some cocktail party as a normal slagging off of somebody one does not agree with, can turn on the street level quite dangerous for me. I have to spend far more time and effort to counter these allegations than i want to, so i can continue to work. Basically – i just want to take photos and write about stuff, and not having to play effing politics.
I am always glad when somebody corrects a fact that i may have gotten wrong, i am tired though of having to deal with personal attacks based on opinion – which often come from people that i never, or hardly ever, see in the field.
Don’t know if they’ve begun work on housing for Chinese workers in Thailand yet or not. Probably waiting for the Democrats and Bhumijaithai to buy the land first, then for the Kingdom of Thailand to buy it from the Democrats/Bhumijaithai using money lent by the Chinese government.
Ian and TupTim, Thanks for the clarification – I’ve modified the text accordingly. The important thing here is that, on both sides of the river, this “propaganda” or “fabulous story” has stuck. It contextualises the Lao joke about the statue and, I am suggesting, may help to understand the statue’s design.
After the defeat of Chao Anouvong, Bankgok was very suspicious of Korat. So to ease the worries of Bangkok. The authorities of Korat came up with a fabulous story.
I am amazed that Ya Mo is being presented as someone who actually bought down Chao Anouvong. It is now well established that this historical information was created by the Thais during the Phibul government period. There was a Ph.D dissertation written by a Thai that clearly indicates that the whole story was simply propoganda.
Reversing the joke, though, perhaps Anouvong has been made so large and muscular in order to regain his – and Laos’ – manhood after being so comprehensively defeated, and emasculated, at the hands of a woman?
That just makes him look all the more ridiculous, really!
Great to read your reports again, Nick. What a difference in the reception you receive on both sides of the colour divide. While it’s greatly appreciated, I feel sorry for you having to also be there among these haters.
“Maybe Dan should ask the Thai government why they aren’t prosecuting Thaksin or anyone else for the extra-judicial murders.”
This is what really gets me about the whole debate. Why is it that I can’t criticise Robert Amsterdam for hypocrisy without being on the Thai government side? I know why nobody’s pursuing the cases mentioned. It doesn’t make Robert Amsterdam’s article any less vile.
There’s too much lying on both sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate are dominated by demagogic megalomaniacs, in my opinion, and both sides need to be called out whenever they make outrageous statements.
[…] Mandala is featuring the English-language version of an article I wrote published on the front page of Thai newspaper Khao Sod today. For decades, […]
Thanks for this update Simon. Just wondering, when reading this, about the state of affairs/debate concerning the apparent plans of a Ho Chi Minh statue in Lao. When in Viet Nam early this year, newspapers reported that government delegates from both countries had agreed on erecting such a statue on Lao soil, but not sure what happened next.
I hope Mr. Robert can make a different for those killed at red shirts’ encampment. I was there few times, never see any weapons or anything violent except food, music, and loving people there! I hope those not died in vein! Thailand is crying for help to bring back democracy. Current situation is not good when govern by the Untouchable Elite! All people must be united and kick this Abby gov out and called for election! As for exPM Thaksin, he is only one really care for the poor and show these people their live as worthy as everyone else!
Their position was that accepting the border MOU of 2000 would mean that Thailand would accept the French drawn map as a de facto border, and that Thailand would lose huge tracts of land.
Is there any truth to this assertion?
They also claimed that since last year’s clash at the border near Preah Vihear they have talked many times with local leaders who organised the resistance against the group, and that now these leader’s would support the “Thai Patriot Network” in its stand against the Thai-Cambodian MOU.
I read of another ‘clash’ between the PAD expeditionary force from Bangkok and the local leaders just prior to this action. There was actually no coverage of the clash other than notice that it occurred.
Is there any reason to believe this assertion either?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Size matters
Here is Matichon’s supposedly translated version of this article.
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1288966798&grpid=01&catid=
Interestingly, it translated everything except the flood joke and little controversy surrounding Ya Mo.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
“In a nutshell, from my layman’s point of view, Amsterdam has no case in Thai courts, or, international courts:
(a) The Thai authorities were acting with utmost restraint to maintain public order; and
(b) The Red leaders were guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of “inciting violence”.”
(a) How is using weapons made for war with a foreign nation on it’s own people “utmost restraint”? Coupled with setting up live fire zones, which are technically restraint free zones, you sound a little silly – some people were shot dead clearly because 0 restraint was being used.
There’s also reason to believe the Thai army may have set bombs off in its own camp, killing it’s own soldiers, in order to justify harsher and uneccessary messure – that is, of course, speculation, but these are the reasons why the ICC is needed, to clarify this.
(b) Then put them before an unbiased court, also. Has it never occured to you that people on both sides of the playing field may be guilty of crimes? Or are you going to stick with a good Vs. evil view where only one side can be guilty?
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
“This is what really gets me about the whole debate. Why is it that I can’t criticise Robert Amsterdam for hypocrisy without being on the Thai government side? I know why nobody’s pursuing the cases mentioned. It doesn’t make Robert Amsterdam’s article any less vile.
There’s too much lying on both sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate are dominated by demagogic megalomaniacs, in my opinion, and both sides need to be called out whenever they make outrageous statements.”
This is ridiculous. Robert is hired to act as a lawyer and legal council for Thaksin and the UDD. It’s not his job to build a case against Thaksin, it’s Thaksin’s opposition’s job. They’ve thus far failed to do so in any credible sense.
There’s no reason you can’t criticise Robert or Thaksin, but no intelligent person is going to believe just because Thaksin may be guilty of crimes it excuses all other people of their crimes.
You ought to quote specifically what outrageous statements have been made by Robert or Thaksin. If you’re reffering to the article at hand, I do not see how pushing for an unbiased court to deal with a serious situation is outrageous.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Dan and Dickie Simpkins,
In saying that Dan should ask why the present government is not prosecuting the war on drugs killings, I am not trying to score points. I’m glad to hear that Dan was not trying to excuse the present Thai government for its crimes.
But forgive me for jumping to that conclusion. I see so much of this sort of dialogue.
“The Abhisit government has committed crimes.”
“Thaksin committed worse crimes”.
Crimes should be prosecuted whoever commits them.
Amsterdam has been paid to prosecute one side. The government should prosecute the war on drugs and Tak Bai and properly investigate the April/May killings. It won’t happen though.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Don’t forget not to lower yourself to their level, my fellow Reds. Innocent until proven guilty – that doesn’t mean you have to like any of them, by do not pass judgement so swiftly until the case has been conducted and is closed. It’s people doing just that which have brought us to this mess.
Never has a case seemed so clear to me, and never had I had such a strong belief that it ought to be taken up by the ICC. This will be a true test of credability for the involved organizations.
The Thai legal system is failing us, let us hope the international community is able to step up for human rights where others have failed.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Dan #1o
Wholeheartedly agreed.
There is too much attempts at ‘point scoring’ on forums as these.
Though I must add that recently, I have grown to really admire and respect Acharn Somsak on this forum; he is few of those red shirt people who don’t buy into the hype that this is “purely” for democracy, but will also make an impassioned speech that problems need to be cleared by a combination of the ballot box (as a first because it is a democracy) and then through political reform and if a government isn’t working for the public interest then the public gets to go back to the ballot box to implement its will; as opposed to an elitist structure when you have powerful and untouchable people imposing their will on an entire nation.
I don’t like Robert Amsterdam as much as you; but he’s a hired lawyer, and he doesn’t have to be impartial in his analysis. He represents one side, and he does it to the best of his ability. In forums like this, he should be criticized for his exaggerations and blindness to the wrong-doings on “his” employer side; and it would be ok if he continues to stay blind to his side faults.
What shocks me is that supposedly open-minded people on sites like this start attacking people like Dan who is just calling it as he sees it. There are a lot of shades of gray involved, its not black and white; and when the dark Gray turns black, Dan is calling it black.
Is that really the democracy you want? Shut out every opinion that you disagree with? (no attack to Nick and Andrew, they do allow a wide range of opinions here; especially those of Esarn Secessionists, but to those posters who attack every opinion that doesn’t fall within the paradigm of the argument that says:
Elite + Yellow = Very very Bad
Thaksin + Red = Good and Righteous
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
“john francis lee”:
Thanks.
I have always covered both sides of the divide, to understand the divisions in Thai society properly i think it is important not to just stick with one side.
As to their claims – i have no idea who is more right than the other over the border issue. I have also no intentions to become an expert on the more than complex border conflicts of both countries. Far more learned people than me arguing to the teeth over this topic, and i doubt that i have a chance to get more than superficial understanding of the issue. I will just stick with reporting the views and positions of whoever has an opinion on this. My own opinions on this issue are simply not educated enough to be relevant.
“Marco”:
Fortunately not all PAD protesters dislike me, i have some that understand my situation, and with whom i have a very friendly relationship (there are also in the PAD people i have known long before the Red/Yellow divisions began).
PAD relationship with foreign media is more difficult and tense than the relationship with Red Shirts and foreign media (apart from some quite openly pro PAD biased journalists). Partly this is a result of a ideological rejection by wide sectors in the PAD of “western” philosophies on state and society, and also the impression that western media may be biased towards the Red Shirts.
There are some problems though also in the relationship with the Red Shirts. It sounds rather ironic, but they like us too much, and expect from us what we will not, and cannot deliver. Many Red Shirts perceive us as “helping” or “supporting” them. A standard discussion i have with many Red Shirts is to explain that it is not in our professional description to support one or the other side, but to investigate, to witness and to report as objectively as we possibly can manage to.
What makes my life difficult is that there is the myth that i were a “Red Shirt”, and that my reporting would therefore be false. It has, and partly still is, convenient for some quarters to discredit me personally instead of dealing with some of the inconvenient facts i present. I have to accept that as the nature of the beast. It pissed me off though – what begins in some cocktail party as a normal slagging off of somebody one does not agree with, can turn on the street level quite dangerous for me. I have to spend far more time and effort to counter these allegations than i want to, so i can continue to work. Basically – i just want to take photos and write about stuff, and not having to play effing politics.
I am always glad when somebody corrects a fact that i may have gotten wrong, i am tired though of having to deal with personal attacks based on opinion – which often come from people that i never, or hardly ever, see in the field.
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
It’s very good that you cover the PAD events Nick. Thanks very much.
Railroad ready to roll in Laos
The Chinese seem to have taken the development of their railroad to the Gulf of Thailand completely in hand.
Laos scraps full rail link to Nong Khai
Don’t know if they’ve begun work on housing for Chinese workers in Thailand yet or not. Probably waiting for the Democrats and Bhumijaithai to buy the land first, then for the Kingdom of Thailand to buy it from the Democrats/Bhumijaithai using money lent by the Chinese government.
Size matters
Ian and TupTim, Thanks for the clarification – I’ve modified the text accordingly. The important thing here is that, on both sides of the river, this “propaganda” or “fabulous story” has stuck. It contextualises the Lao joke about the statue and, I am suggesting, may help to understand the statue’s design.
Size matters
After the defeat of Chao Anouvong, Bankgok was very suspicious of Korat. So to ease the worries of Bangkok. The authorities of Korat came up with a fabulous story.
Size matters
I am amazed that Ya Mo is being presented as someone who actually bought down Chao Anouvong. It is now well established that this historical information was created by the Thais during the Phibul government period. There was a Ph.D dissertation written by a Thai that clearly indicates that the whole story was simply propoganda.
Size matters
Reversing the joke, though, perhaps Anouvong has been made so large and muscular in order to regain his – and Laos’ – manhood after being so comprehensively defeated, and emasculated, at the hands of a woman?
That just makes him look all the more ridiculous, really!
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
Great to read your reports again, Nick. What a difference in the reception you receive on both sides of the colour divide. While it’s greatly appreciated, I feel sorry for you having to also be there among these haters.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
“Maybe Dan should ask the Thai government why they aren’t prosecuting Thaksin or anyone else for the extra-judicial murders.”
This is what really gets me about the whole debate. Why is it that I can’t criticise Robert Amsterdam for hypocrisy without being on the Thai government side? I know why nobody’s pursuing the cases mentioned. It doesn’t make Robert Amsterdam’s article any less vile.
There’s too much lying on both sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate are dominated by demagogic megalomaniacs, in my opinion, and both sides need to be called out whenever they make outrageous statements.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
[…] Mandala is featuring the English-language version of an article I wrote published on the front page of Thai newspaper Khao Sod today. For decades, […]
Size matters
Thanks for this update Simon. Just wondering, when reading this, about the state of affairs/debate concerning the apparent plans of a Ho Chi Minh statue in Lao. When in Viet Nam early this year, newspapers reported that government delegates from both countries had agreed on erecting such a statue on Lao soil, but not sure what happened next.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
I hope Mr. Robert can make a different for those killed at red shirts’ encampment. I was there few times, never see any weapons or anything violent except food, music, and loving people there! I hope those not died in vein! Thailand is crying for help to bring back democracy. Current situation is not good when govern by the Untouchable Elite! All people must be united and kick this Abby gov out and called for election! As for exPM Thaksin, he is only one really care for the poor and show these people their live as worthy as everyone else!
Size matters
Idiot warrior princes bringing ruin upon their people. How many millenia of that sort of history have we?
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
Their position was that accepting the border MOU of 2000 would mean that Thailand would accept the French drawn map as a de facto border, and that Thailand would lose huge tracts of land.
Is there any truth to this assertion?
They also claimed that since last year’s clash at the border near Preah Vihear they have talked many times with local leaders who organised the resistance against the group, and that now these leader’s would support the “Thai Patriot Network” in its stand against the Thai-Cambodian MOU.
I read of another ‘clash’ between the PAD expeditionary force from Bangkok and the local leaders just prior to this action. There was actually no coverage of the clash other than notice that it occurred.
Is there any reason to believe this assertion either?