Peoples Alliance for Democracy in court Part 2

As we continue to look at factors that will weigh in court for the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD), a picture of assumption starts to emerge. What once looked like a huge crime, starts to take on new colors and flavors.

Continued from part 1; During the occupation of the government house by the PAD, situations in Thailand met the definition of Civil war. Below are two definitions and others viewed were essentially the same.

From Stanford

civ|il war (siv-el wôr), n. 1 a violent conflict between organized groups within a country.

1) Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side’s separatist goals, or some divisive government policy.


2) A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Once a state of civil war exists, the rules change. The consideration here will be if the Thai courts accept that a state of civil war existed even if it was not declared by the government. That will be a key factor in how the court will eventually rule.

The red shirts associated with the convicted fugitive Thaksin started a campaign of violence against the PAD. The PAD responded with violence of it’s own. The one key point is the red shirt violence was offensive, and the PAD violence was defensive. Once the PAD returned fire so to speak, the definition of civil war was met. There is no clear line as to when that happened, it more or less came to be over a period of several days where minor skirmishes became more advanced. The use of military ordnance on the PAD made civil war official no matter where you see it from.

So essentially the government house became the main camp of the PAD patriots in a time of war. Although there was a court order given to evict the PAD from the Government house early on, the court rescinded that order when they saw how the police were violently removing the PAD. So essentially for a short period of time the PAD was in violation of a court order. Whether that was before of afer the definition of civil war had been met will be a consideration for the court. The fact the order was rescinded may have totally negated any perceived crime. There is also the consideration that the government was trying to use the court as a political tool of shoot first and ask questions later. The fact that the police did not use restraint at the Government house is certainly a signature associated with Thaksin. As the government was very closely aligned with Thaksin, it became obvious the red shirts and the government were as one.

So as you can see the issue of the PAD at the government house is in a very different light than portrayed. This does set a prescience to the events at the airport when the PAD managed to close it for several days. That will be covered in part 3.

Next Part 3

One Response to Peoples Alliance for Democracy in court Part 2

  1. The red shirts and the (previous) governments (plus the police force!) were as one!