At a minimum this document will make respectable western leaders in true democracies, re-evaluate PM Mark V, the smooth talker from Eaton; and perhaps they will refrain from shaking hands with him or have the undersecretary of foreign affairs meet with him instead of having direct meetings least their associations with him could come back to haunt them.
[…] movement and others to notify the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court with regard to the situation of recent political violence, arguing that an investigation into the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by the […]
“rock every institution his attention focuses on”? haha
A tad too sanguine surely. I concede he does seem to attract a not insignificant following though.
His writing and activities proclude him, in my opinion, from being taken seriously as an academic. As some have pointed out here his written work is simplistic and sometimes seriously flawed. It is inflammatory political ranting, as opposed to sober, balanced analysis. Some may feel his experience justifies the tone of his output, but that doesn’t make it sound. No other writer that contributes to this site shares these characteristics, in spite of the moral positions some of them openly take.
They pretty much brought the deaths upon themselves.
The report is a propaganda piece funded by Thaksin, so it is understandable that facts that portray the UDD in a negative light are omitted.
Thaksin is trying to get back into power in Thailand, and Pheu Thai Party members have openly admitted that that is their number one goal. Most of the innocent poor supporters are being used as pawns in the power struggle.
Darren #20. I live in Buriram Province, and it could well be that the locals are slightly out of step with the rest of Issan and those in the North. This could well be due to the heavy political influence of the “blues’ run by the Chitchop family. As a farang it is difficult to tell what the Thai political hoi poloi are thinking.
As for Sia Oh I confess that I had no idea as to what you were referring, however it would appear to be a nickname, and if it is who I think it is, as has been suggested, then of course I can make no comment whatsoever.
The question comes to mind in reading this book of how to characterise Nattawut’s political thinking, because little of that thinking is on display here.
I have no real knowledge of any of the ” Red Shirt Leaders’ ” politics. I view them as I view all the TRT/PPP/PT professionals, as opportunists .
In my view one or more of the ‘leadership’ snatched defeat from the jaws of victory toward the end of what turned out to be the May Massacre. My feeling is that it was Jatuporn, whose name got associated with Suthep’s feint to the DSI and the blurred focus after Abhisit made his foolish/false offer of an election in November. They didn’t keep their eyes on the ball… and I think it was on purpose.
Democracy in Thailand, democracy everywhere, awaits its accomplishment bottom-up. That’s a simple tautology. If we don’t want it enough to accomplish it ourselves we won’t have it. No one will, no one can, do it for us.
The detailed point “Nobody” (#3) makes is perfectly true. Furthermore, while I deplore the actions of the Thai government and military, in the whole scheme of things internationally it is (unfortunately) pretty small beer and no one, least of all the ICC, is going to get over excited about it. Whatever Abhisit may be , he is not a Milosevic, a Charles Taylor or a Bashir! The publicity may do some good and that is surely Amsterdam’s main aim, but the issues will only ultimately be solved internally in Thailand.
Yesterday was a diplomatic home run for the government…
I disagree.
I think that yesterday was Yet Another Day That Will Live In Infamy For The UN.
Just another occasion on which the UN has proven to be the stooge, the tool, the back scratcher of the Powers That Be, certainly not a tool of the world’s peoples. The UN has only the most tenuous of connections to the world’s humanity and, like the majority of the others of the world’s governmental bodies, it is a predator prey relationship.
I do agree that this document, and others to follow, will valuable as a concise and accurate archives of events.
And don’t forget: Nattawut Saiku got his notoriety from his public admission that Baht 1o0 million cash (presumably from Thaksin) was a temptation too juicy to reject, and his career as a full-time utterly dedicated Red leader was thus launched period.
Barry I have a house in “rural Issan” too.Lived there for over a decade.Chaiyaphum to be exact.You never heared “stories” about Sia O ? Come on now.Really ?
To Darren. I can only comment on what I see and hear at a ‘grass roots’ level here in Isaan. I would well imagine that Thais living in the U.K. with whom you associate would have a different attitude to th monarchy than those living as ‘rural peasants’ in Isaan. I have never been to a ‘red’ rally and have no intention of ever doing so, for a start my Thai is not good enough. You may well be correct that some of the red leaders may have become anti royalty, but I do not see it with ordinary people with whom I assocate.
well done Craig! I knew Nuttawut well early on in the anti-fascist movement post coup and visted him occasionally in prison some months ago. He is a person of great integrity, enthusiasm and maturity in his thinking. Although I had long respected much of the Midnight Uni philosophy I hasten to note Nidhi’s intellectual side-stepping from blurred yellow margins (though disgustingly on Abhisit’s national reform committee) into making authoritative statements of apparent empathy to red leaders…
The Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime.
The Court has jurisdiction over individuals accused of these crimes. This includes those directly responsible for committing the crimes as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute.
The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:
тАвThe accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
тАвThe crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
тАвThe United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.
The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.
Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
When Kraisak called for ratification in 2006 nothing came of it. Thailand hasnt ratified just like several other signatories to Rome which means for the case to move ahead it would need the security council to push it, which isnt going to happen.
Also yesterday Ban Ki Moon the UNs top diplomat gave the thumbs up to the internal investigation, which would also appear to scupper things on complementarity. Oh and if by any chance it came to court which is as near impossible as anything, how many seconds later would the precedent be used to lay the case against Thaksin on the 2500?
Nothing will come of this except publicity, which is the aim anyway.
Yesterday was a diplomatic home run for the government, so in the international arena there has to be a reposnse.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
I wonder if, in light of this report, Cameron will stay bring his family out to Thailand to spend his Xmas holidays with the “good chap Mark”….
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
At a minimum this document will make respectable western leaders in true democracies, re-evaluate PM Mark V, the smooth talker from Eaton; and perhaps they will refrain from shaking hands with him or have the undersecretary of foreign affairs meet with him instead of having direct meetings least their associations with him could come back to haunt them.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
[…] movement and others to notify the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court with regard to the situation of recent political violence, arguing that an investigation into the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by the […]
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Charles –
“rock every institution his attention focuses on”? haha
A tad too sanguine surely. I concede he does seem to attract a not insignificant following though.
His writing and activities proclude him, in my opinion, from being taken seriously as an academic. As some have pointed out here his written work is simplistic and sometimes seriously flawed. It is inflammatory political ranting, as opposed to sober, balanced analysis. Some may feel his experience justifies the tone of his output, but that doesn’t make it sound. No other writer that contributes to this site shares these characteristics, in spite of the moral positions some of them openly take.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Why is there no mention at all in the report about the UDD’s speeches that incited the crowd to commit acts of violence?
e.g.:UDD (“Red Shirt”) terrorism speech excerpts with English subtitles
They pretty much brought the deaths upon themselves.
The report is a propaganda piece funded by Thaksin, so it is understandable that facts that portray the UDD in a negative light are omitted.
Thaksin is trying to get back into power in Thailand, and Pheu Thai Party members have openly admitted that that is their number one goal. Most of the innocent poor supporters are being used as pawns in the power struggle.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Darren #20. I live in Buriram Province, and it could well be that the locals are slightly out of step with the rest of Issan and those in the North. This could well be due to the heavy political influence of the “blues’ run by the Chitchop family. As a farang it is difficult to tell what the Thai political hoi poloi are thinking.
As for Sia Oh I confess that I had no idea as to what you were referring, however it would appear to be a nickname, and if it is who I think it is, as has been suggested, then of course I can make no comment whatsoever.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
Vichai N (c6), searching diligently for a source for your “Baht 100 million” assertion, I found just one – you*. Would you like to point out another?
* http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSTRE64G4RK20100517
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
I have no real knowledge of any of the ” Red Shirt Leaders’ ” politics. I view them as I view all the TRT/PPP/PT professionals, as opportunists .
In my view one or more of the ‘leadership’ snatched defeat from the jaws of victory toward the end of what turned out to be the May Massacre. My feeling is that it was Jatuporn, whose name got associated with Suthep’s feint to the DSI and the blurred focus after Abhisit made his foolish/false offer of an election in November. They didn’t keep their eyes on the ball… and I think it was on purpose.
Democracy in Thailand, democracy everywhere, awaits its accomplishment bottom-up. That’s a simple tautology. If we don’t want it enough to accomplish it ourselves we won’t have it. No one will, no one can, do it for us.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
The detailed point “Nobody” (#3) makes is perfectly true. Furthermore, while I deplore the actions of the Thai government and military, in the whole scheme of things internationally it is (unfortunately) pretty small beer and no one, least of all the ICC, is going to get over excited about it. Whatever Abhisit may be , he is not a Milosevic, a Charles Taylor or a Bashir! The publicity may do some good and that is surely Amsterdam’s main aim, but the issues will only ultimately be solved internally in Thailand.
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
You can always reach PPT and other similar sites by using Firefox’s HTTPS Everywhere extension.
1) Download Firefox (you shouldn’t be using any other browser anyway!)
2) Go to https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere to download the extension. Restart Firefox.
3) Go to http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/ and Firefox automatically uses the HTTPS encryption protocol to bypass Thailand’s firewalls.
4) Spread the word.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Yesterday was a diplomatic home run for the government…
I disagree.
I think that yesterday was Yet Another Day That Will Live In Infamy For The UN.
Just another occasion on which the UN has proven to be the stooge, the tool, the back scratcher of the Powers That Be, certainly not a tool of the world’s peoples. The UN has only the most tenuous of connections to the world’s humanity and, like the majority of the others of the world’s governmental bodies, it is a predator prey relationship.
I do agree that this document, and others to follow, will valuable as a concise and accurate archives of events.
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
Still laughing, thanks for the light relief thomas.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
And don’t forget: Nattawut Saiku got his notoriety from his public admission that Baht 1o0 million cash (presumably from Thaksin) was a temptation too juicy to reject, and his career as a full-time utterly dedicated Red leader was thus launched period.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Barry I have a house in “rural Issan” too.Lived there for over a decade.Chaiyaphum to be exact.You never heared “stories” about Sia O ? Come on now.Really ?
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
barry – 18
If you went to the 19th Sep rally you would see a lot of “ambiguous” writing on the floor and wall, I think that’s where Ji get his assumption from.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
I am not a fan of this guy. Logic and honesty are generally missing in his rhetoric.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
To Darren. I can only comment on what I see and hear at a ‘grass roots’ level here in Isaan. I would well imagine that Thais living in the U.K. with whom you associate would have a different attitude to th monarchy than those living as ‘rural peasants’ in Isaan. I have never been to a ‘red’ rally and have no intention of ever doing so, for a start my Thai is not good enough. You may well be correct that some of the red leaders may have become anti royalty, but I do not see it with ordinary people with whom I assocate.
Review of Nattawut Saikua biography
well done Craig! I knew Nuttawut well early on in the anti-fascist movement post coup and visted him occasionally in prison some months ago. He is a person of great integrity, enthusiasm and maturity in his thinking. Although I had long respected much of the Midnight Uni philosophy I hasten to note Nidhi’s intellectual side-stepping from blurred yellow margins (though disgustingly on Abhisit’s national reform committee) into making authoritative statements of apparent empathy to red leaders…
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
From the courts own information:
The Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime.
The Court has jurisdiction over individuals accused of these crimes. This includes those directly responsible for committing the crimes as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute.
The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:
тАвThe accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;
тАвThe crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or
тАвThe United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.
The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.
Even where the Court has jurisdiction, it will not necessarily act. The principle of “complementarity” provides that certain cases will be inadmissible even though the Court has jurisdiction. In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction. However, a case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. For example, a case would be admissible if national proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility. In addition, a case will be inadmissible if it is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
When Kraisak called for ratification in 2006 nothing came of it. Thailand hasnt ratified just like several other signatories to Rome which means for the case to move ahead it would need the security council to push it, which isnt going to happen.
Also yesterday Ban Ki Moon the UNs top diplomat gave the thumbs up to the internal investigation, which would also appear to scupper things on complementarity. Oh and if by any chance it came to court which is as near impossible as anything, how many seconds later would the precedent be used to lay the case against Thaksin on the 2500?
Nothing will come of this except publicity, which is the aim anyway.
Yesterday was a diplomatic home run for the government, so in the international arena there has to be a reposnse.
UMNO dies defending Putrajaya
Thanks Neptunian,
Your scenario building is similar to the ones I’ve heard.
It looks like Najib is prepared to take that route if push comes to shove, to stay in power.
I’m wondering how the international community will react – especially the US and Australia?
It would be difficult for Najib to do it though if Pakatan Rakyat had a decisive win – e.g. a 2/3 majority.