The Legal Licence To Kill

[Flashermac]

by Voranai Vanijaka

 

 

If we were to view the charges against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former national security chief Suthep Thaugsuban relating to the death of an innocent bystander during the political crisis of April and May 2010 from a moral perspective, supporters on both sides of the political divide would yell at each other until the end of days, and nothing would get solved.

 

However, if we were to view the charges from a legal perspective, we must examine the nature of the emergency decree, and we might find an answer there, which, of course, would still be unacceptable to many people.

 

In its primitive form, the world is anarchic. The desire to bring order to chaos is why we form societies, with governments and laws. However, a society may descend into a state of chaos for any of a number of reasons.

 

As such, declaring a state of emergency is a government's last resort when it wants to restore order amid chaos. When making such a declaration, a government will never specifically say that this gives the state a "licence to kill". But the decree does suspend basic rights and give the government the power to use force to restore order. Using force can and often does lead to deaths, in the interest of restoring order.

 

Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, noted: "The emergency decree makes it possible for soldiers and police officers to get away with murder."

 

From a legal perspective, an emergency decree enables the state to commit capital punishment without the due process of law. From a moral perspective, this would, of course, be seen as inhumane, an infringement on human rights, an abuse of power.

 

While emergency decrees are by their nature controversial, every country reserves the right to use them. Human rights are guaranteed by manmade laws, and these can be abused in any society. When society falls and order degenerates into chaos the death of human rights is guaranteed.

 

As such, while we may decry emergency decrees as unjust and inhumane, for a government whose priority is to maintain order, issuing one is not a question of morality, but of a duty to society, to law and order.

 

As prime minister of Thailand, Mr Abhisit was the commander-in-chief. As head of national security, Mr Suthep oversaw security operations. Both men are ultimately responsible for any government actions taken during the political violence of April and May 2010.

 

Charges were dismissed against authorities following the shootings at Kent State in Ohio in 1970. Authorities were never charged following Derry's Bloody Sunday and Belfast's Springhill Massacre in 1972 in Northern Ireland.

 

In all three incidents, unarmed protesters and civilians were shot down by the authorities. These actions might have been deemed immoral in reports and investigations concerning the incidents, but ultimately they were not considered illegal.

 

And accordingly, by virtue of the emergency decree, both Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep are protected. Here, the matter is closed, but only from a legal perspective.

 

However this begs the question of whether the situation warranted an emergency decree? To answer this, let's lay down the facts in no particular order, without laying blame.

 

Protesters marched and called for a general election. M79 grenade attacks took place. A military crackdown near Phan Fa bridge left 25 dead, including a Japanese journalist and five soldiers. Protesters stormed and seized the Thaicom satellite's uplink station. Protesters blocked off Ratchaprasong intersection and posted armed guards, while there were daily shootings and bombings. Protesters entered and ransacked Chulalongkorn Hospital. Civilians had to leave their homes and businesses were closed down.

 

Both Col Romklao Thuwatham and Col Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawatdiphol were assassinated. Mysterious men in black acted as snipers from buildings. Protest leaders turned down the offer of a general election, saying that any criminal charges against them must be dropped first and that additional charges should be laid against Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep.

 

These events and others led to the May 19 crackdown.

 

Without arguing about who is right or wrong in this situation, take the simple facts above and ask: Did matters descend to a point of chaos warranting the emergency decree, a law that is a government's last resort to restore order?

 

That said, while the law is the law, we should not hesitate to question its validity make amendments in the interests of humanity. An emergency decree should not mean open season. It might be a licence to kill, but not to do so indiscriminately.

 

In the battles, where troops clashed with protestors, people died. At Wat Pathum Wanaram, or any other place where defenceless, unarmed people took refuge, not even the emergency decree should protect the shooters. While we understand the need for an emergency decree, we should never discard our humanity.

 

With all due respect to those who lost their lives and were injured, their families and loved ones _ protesters, soldiers, police and innocent bystanders _ cases such as Wat Pathum Wanaram are the ones on which the Department of Special Investigation should focus.

 

The fact that the DSI back-pedalled from the Wat Pathum Wanaram case, while instead zeroing in on the death of an innocent bystander, should tell us something.

 

Trace the Wat Pathum Wanaram trail and it might lead to people the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin Shinawatra cannot afford to upset. It was perhaps deemed more politically astute to trace whatever trail was available to get to Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party. This is to make them see a blanket amnesty for all those involved in the political crisis since the 2006 coup in a more favourable light.

 

This then might eventually lead to the return and exoneration of Thaksin Shinawatra, without too much opposition or mass demonstrations. This instead of bullying the bill through parliament and ensuring an outraged opposition in parliament that could bring about mass demonstrations in the streets. No, this is not about justice. No, this is not about the emergency decree. No, this is not about the deaths of 90 plus people. This is just a political game, whether or not it is a well played one, however, will depend on the results.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/326384/licence-to-kill-from-legal-arguments-to-moral-demands/page-2/