Inside Scoop Breaking News Video Blog Index Participate Humor
Home Bangkok Pundit Thai foreign minister faces lawsuit over Bangkok airport seizure
+ Follow Me

Bangkok Pundit

BP

Location: Bangkok, Thailand

My Posts | My RSS feed


Thai foreign minister faces lawsuit over Bangkok airport seizure

Thai foreign minister faces lawsuit over Bangkok airport seizure
+ enlarge
Dec. 09 2009 - 06:00 pm
View comments (4)

1

2


The Bangkok Post:

Thai Airways International has filed a civil suit against 36 people, including Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, demanding 575 million baht in damages for the People's Alliance for Democracy's blockades of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports from Nov 24 to Dec 3 last year.

Lawyer Bampen Sappasri, who was appointed by THAI president Piyasvasti Amranand, filed the lawsuit on Nov 24, the last day of the one-year statutory period, THAI sources said.

Named defendants in the lawsuit include Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pibhop Dhongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somsak Kosaisuk, Chaiwat Sinsuwong, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Amornthep Amornrattananond, Samran Rodphet, Maleerat Kaewka, Praphan Khoonmee, Gen Pathompong Kesornsuk, Therdphum Jaidee, and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya.

The lawsuit states that on Nov 24 last year yellow-shirted demonstrators led by the 36 blockaded Don Mueang airport, which the then government under Somchai Wongsawat had used as a temporary office since the PAD had occupied Government House.

BP: Interesting they wanted until the last possible day, but what will this mean for the PAD and Kasit, in particular? Piyasvasti was the Democrat's choice to become THAI President so will be interesting to see who the PAD finds is at fault here and how they respond...

ASTV Manager, the PAD's unofficial mouthpiece, has more details, in Thai, of the case including the list of all the defendants. In the comments and what the PAD say elsewhere is that hey didn't close the airport, it was the airport authorities that closed the airport. As blogged previously though this argument is unlikely to be accepted:

On a semantic and clintonian level, he is right PAD didn't close the airport, but I am not aware that anyone is saying they closed the airport or that there is a criminal offence of "closing the airport". However, the airport didn't close until PAD had breached police lines and were entering the airport. You can't have armed thugs roaming the airport. What is important is that PAD caused the closure and not who ordered the airport to be closed (there were certainly grounds to close it).



  Comment It |     |    Email it    Print it   


Related Stories


Idris Jala, a Minister reporting to a Minister (story by Rocky's Bru)
Thai Stock at 14 Times this “Crazy” Year Earnings: Cheap or Not? (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Thai Governmet Advising Board says New Politics Not Right: Highest Level Disapproval so Far (story by Thai Intelligent News)
Foreign Governments on the Rohingya (story by Bangkok Pundit)
Thaksin Has Confidence in the Thai Judicial System (story by Bangkok Pundit)
Foreign Media on Thaksin (story by Bangkok Pundit)


Comments



by davidb98
on 12/09/2009 07:31 pm

and where are the criminal charges?

including against even the "innocent unarmed" illegally supporting and participating in the occupation.


by CrystalContrail
on 12/10/2009 01:43 am

I remember Chamlong showing the open letter demanding that the Airport stayed open. That's not consistent with closing the airport by PAD. THAI should also sue AOT for undue closing of the airport.


by Anonymous
on 12/10/2009 10:31 am

This is like an armed mob breaking into a store and demanding the customers stay and shop and the owner stick around to service everyone. I think most people would find the Chamlong open letter argument ludicruous, but it doesn't really matter since the PAD are right about everything and don't need to follow any laws.


by StanG
on 12/10/2009 10:35 am
http://siampolitics.wordpress.com/

I'm not aware of Chamlong's pleas to keep the airport open, would love to hear more. I don't remember breaking through police lines to reach the terminal either.

Prosecution could argue that letter is one thing, a mob of armed thugs roaming about is another.

It's going to be an interesting argument - the decision had been made by AOT. They could argue that PAD had caused it and PAD would argue that we tried to stop you from making that decision, you made it yourself and so you should be responsible for consequences, not us.

Criminal charges are a different matter, there was a breach of criminal law or there wasn't, you don't have to analyze some third person judgment and pin your whole case on it.




Name:

E-mail:
(optional)
Comment:

Allowed HTML tags: <B></B>, <I></I>, <A></A>
Are you human? 




designed by Fusion