Amnesty International clearly sees a problem

[KhorTose]

Thai soldiers must immediately stop firing live ammunition into several large areas in Bangkok where anti-government protesters are gathered, Amnesty International said today.

 

"Eye-witness accounts and video recordings show clearly that the military is firing live rounds at unarmed people who pose no threat whatsoever to the soldiers or to others," said Benjamin Zawacki, Amnesty International's Thailand specialist. "This is a gross violation of a key human right--the right to life".

 

"Deliberately firing live ammunition at unarmed people, whether they be protesters or otherwise and who pose no credible threat to anyone else, is unlawful", said Zawacki..."The government cannot allow soldiers to essentially shoot at anyone within an area it wishes to control", said Zawacki. . .

 

"This is unacceptable under international law and standards, which provide that firearms may be used only as a last resort, when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others, and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. Outside of clear situations of self-defence, riot control should be performed by trained police using non-lethal equipment, not by soldiers using live ammunition," said Zawacki."

 

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...of-lethal-force

[Gaybutton]

I don't quite follow the logic. Of course I certainly agree that nobody should be shooting unarmed people, but haven't there been incidents of civilians lobbing grenades and shooting at the soldiers? I think Amnesty International should also have said it works both ways. The soldiers shouldn't have to be targets either. I've seen videos on YouTube that show Red-Shirts shooting at soldiers and I saw one that showed a group of Red-Shirts stop a military truck, pull out the soldier who was driving, and they shot and killed him.

 

Where's John Adams when you need him?

 

As an aside, I've never understood how sites like YouTube don't allow sex and nudity, but videos of someone being murdered . . . no problem.

[Guest]

As an aside, I've never understood how sites like YouTube don't allow sex and nudity, but videos of someone being murdered . . . no problem.

 

Are you kidding? The religious right is still in control of the USA and they believe in wars and killing the innocent (as long as not the unborn innocent). They are against sex and nudity as they believe that is the reason the society is in decline.

[Guest]

Some of the protesters appear to be armed.

 

They are stood behind razor wire & burning things.

 

They have had adequate opportunity to disperse and are trying to bring down what appears to be a democratically elected coalition.

 

They are also ruining other peoples lives.

 

 

The use of heavy force therefore appears to be justified.

[Guest beachlover]

I don't quite follow the logic. Of course I certainly agree that nobody should be shooting unarmed people, but haven't there been incidents of civilians lobbing grenades and shooting at the soldiers? I think Amnesty International should also have said it works both ways. The soldiers shouldn't have to be targets either. I've seen videos on YouTube that show Red-Shirts shooting at soldiers and I saw one that showed a group of Red-Shirts stop a military truck, pull out the soldier who was driving, and they shot and killed him.

 

Was that this video?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPreVPw80Cc

 

I'm not sure the soldier/s was/were killed but it does look like one was killed. I wonder why it wasn't reported much in the media.

 

That was a shocker, very cold blooded of the protesters, I don't get it... The worst bit is the soldiers could well have defended themselves. They were armed. They probably just didn't think it would escalate to the point where they would be killed... probably didn't think the protesters actually wanted to kill them.