Selective justice for drug-war killers

war-on-drugs-victim.jpg

ความยุติธรรมที่ถูกเลือกสำหรับมือสังหารในสงครามยาเสพติด

A high-level committee in Thailand is gearing up to recommend that people who enabled the killing of thousands in 2004 and thereafter be held criminally liable. It has in its sights former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and other parties to his “war on drugs.”

The committee is waiting for a new government to be formed in 2008 before presenting its findings.

At a glance, the committee seems like a good idea. Lots of people were killed thanks to government policies at the time [like the victim shown above], yet no one has been prosecuted. The anti-drugs war has quickly become another yawning hole in the country’s modern history. Any efforts to do something about it should be welcomed.

But the question that it begs is why did the thousands of murders, and a government policy to encourage them, not rouse Thailand’s existing multifarious investigating agencies? Why must this committee, with no actual authority, do their work for them?

Evidently, Thailand’s investigators have remained inert because there are categories of persons to whom the ordinary laws do not automatically apply. They include police, soldiers, certain bureaucrats and politicians, business elites and mafia figures. Most can conceivably be charged and tried, but only where a clear signal has been sent that they have forfeited their rights to special treatment.

The former prime minister and his allies lost their rights when they were ejected from government last year. Once fully protected, now they are fair game. The committee investigating the war on drugs is a part of the project to get them. But although scrutinizing their abuses is allowed, scrutinizing those of the army or interim government is not.

For one thing, investigating soldiers and paramilitaries who kill people is absolutely not okay. Military spokesmen vigorously rebut claims for redress when civilians are killed, such as the two young men and two boys shot dead by a militia unit in Yala on April 9. They were right to shoot, the army said, as the youths had attacked them with “sticks and stones.”

Four days later, troops killed two 15-year-olds and wounded three other teenagers in a neighboring province. Local and provincial authorities, including the governor, acknowledged that the soldiers were in error, as did the army. In neither this nor the former case have criminal charges been brought before the courts.

Investigating soldiers who assault and torture people also is not okay. Numerous detailed reports of abuse at army camps in the south have been swept under the mat. Most cannot be publicized because of the risks to victims. In July, coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin reportedly ordered that yet another committee was needed to look into allegations about the Ingkhayuthboriharn army camp in Pattani, saying that genuine incidents would be referred to “the justice system.”

Nor has the case of a boy assaulted at an army checkpoint in the north this August as yet been referred to the prosecutor’s office, even though it was broadcast on national television and recorded by the police immediately thereafter.

The reasons that criminal justice has failed in each of these cases are the same as those in the aftermath of the war on drugs. The accused are all exempted from the ordinary workings of law until and unless a senior official indicates otherwise. Where the perpetrators are low-ranking personnel it is occasionally possible, with persistent effort and a bit of luck, to make some progress. But the further up the food chain they are, the more difficult it becomes.

Take General Pallop Pinmanee. Last year, a Pattani court found that he and two of his subordinates — Colonel Manas Kongpan and Lieutenant Colonel Tanaphat Nakchaiya — were responsible for the deaths of 28 men during an army assault on a mosque in April 2004. Under Thailand’s criminal procedure, the case went back to the public prosecutor and then to the police for further work. After that the chief prosecutor must choose whether or not to file charges.

That’s the principle, anyhow. In reality, nothing has been heard of this case since it left the Pattani court. Letters and appeals from human rights groups in Thailand and abroad to the justice minister and others have gone unanswered. Meantime, General Pallop again took up a senior internal security posting and has said that he intends to stand for a seat in the upcoming election. Apparently he is not expecting to hear from the police any time soon.

The message to the public that such cases send — whether large or small, in the south or north and east — is that “no one can really protect you.” People learn from personal experiences and observing those of others that judges and lawyers, human rights commissioners and members of Parliament talk nicely and command respect, but real power is not with them. It lies elsewhere.

That’s why a mother whose son is killed by the police in Thailand today is less likely to go to an advocate for help than to a senior officer who can settle things behind closed doors. Even if she goes to the lawyer, she may be advised to do the same. A victim of torture in an army camp is brought not before a judge but to a regional commander. A soft look or a kind word from someone high up becomes more important than the letter of the law or a written order from an authorized official.

And that’s also why the special committee on the war on drugs will be a fruitless exercise. Like its predecessors, it has no mandate to address any of the systemic causes of human rights abuse in Thailand. It is just another cog in the wheels of selective justice. And selective justice is no justice at all.

By next year, the committee will call for a few politicians and perhaps some officials to be held to account by the very same agencies that should have acted in the first place. Will the new government pay it any heed? Who knows, by the time it presents its report, General Pallop Pinmanee could be a member of Parliament. Why not make him justice minister?

Source: Selective justice for drug war killers

Advertisements

6 responses to “Selective justice for drug-war killers

  1. Pingback: Drug war 2,500 toll blamed on Thaksin government « thai folitics, food and fiction

  2. Unless Thailand can demonstrate that rule of law exists, the spirit of the Thai constitution (whichever version) would be hollow. The culture of impunity accorded ‘special categories of Thai elite’ makes a mockery of Thailand, its constitution, and its democratic aspirations.

  3. More on this from Bangkok Pundit:
    War on Drugs

    and here

  4. Pingback: Thaksin unremorseful « thai folitics, food and fiction

  5. Pingback: Ignoring Human Rights Issues in Thai Election « thai folitics, food and fiction

  6. Cops charged in death of ‘Nong Fluke’ freed
    Bangkok Post, 23 February 2008

    The Criminal Court yesterday freed three police officers charged with killing a nine-year-old boy, Nong Fluke, during a police sting operation to arrest his father on drug trafficking charges. The court ruled the boy died of a gunshot that ripped through his heart and lung while police were carrying out their duty.

    According to the court, investigators in the case could not identify the gun which killed Chakrapan Srisa-ard, nicknamed Nong Fluke, on the night of Feb 23, 2003. The bullet which killed the boy did not match the guns of the police officers, while the plaintiff did not argue that the police changed their guns.

    [Perhaps Nong Fluke shot himself.]

    On Feb 23, police undertook a sting operation involving 6,000 methamphetamine pills from Nong Fluke’s father, Sathaporn Srisa-ard, alongside Lan Luang road near Saphan Khao market in Bangkok.

    Nong Fluke was shot dead when police opened fire on a car driven by his fleeing mother, Pornwipa Koedrungruang.

    The mother escaped and disappeared, but the father was arrested.

    Relatives of Nong Fluke then petitioned the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to investigate the case as they believe the boy was killed by police.

    Mr Sathaporn told the court he saw police fire at his car from behind as his wife pulled away. His son was asleep on the rear seat of the car.

    The court ruling into the cause of Nong Fluke’s death yesterday was considered final.

    The public prosecutor who filed the lawsuit may not appeal the case, said a Criminal Court source.

    [Why should the public prosecutor bother with police killing children when there are all those criminal protestors to pursue?]

    However, a damaged party or Nong Fluke’s relatives may file a lawsuit against the police officers if they believe Nong Fluke’s death was due to those officers abusing their authority or if there was an intention to murder Nong Fluke, the source said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s