New Mandala

28 responses so far ↓

• 1 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 12, 2008 at 7:36 am

  Of course, abduction and [probable] extrajudicial killing is wrong; however, I must ask if I’m the only one who feels uncomfortable with lionizing someone, who, essentially, was just a glorified “mob lawyer” for Islamic terrorists?

  If Mr. Neelaphaijit is to be celebrated for his taking cases pro bono, then one must ask, cui bono?

• 2 Awzar Thi // Mar 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  Lleij Samuel Schwartz — Your link to an irrelevant article on mob lawyers in the US betrays your confusion about Somchai Neelaphaijit; your throwaway line about Islamic terrorists betrays your bias towards him and his clients and a lack of understanding about the conditions in which he was working.

  Before being forcibly disappeared, Somchai was the deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of Thailand as well as an advisor to the Senate Human Rights and Justice Subcommittee, and was held in high esteem by his peers for his work on human rights cases. In 2003 he received a national award from the Lawyers Society of Thailand in recognition of this work. Although there are plenty of mafia lawyers in Thailand, Somchai was not one of them.

  Among those “Islamic terrorists” whom he represented, the five torture victims whose case led to his disappearance were all found to be unconnected with the crime of which they were accused; in 1995 three Iranians he represented who were accused of a terrorist plot against the Israeli embassy were all acquitted; in 1994, out of five teachers accused of separatist activities in southern Thailand whom he represented, four were acquitted; and in 1993, four persons accused of arson attacks on schools in the south were all acquitted. Oh, and by the way, he also represented Burmese political exiles who were accused of crimes in Thailand in connection with the struggle against dictatorship in their own country… hmm, they weren’t Muslims, but what’s your opinion–”freedom fighters” or “terrorists”? Oh dear, looks like cause for more confusion.

• 3 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  Re: Awzar Thi

  First and foremost, thank you for the “Wikipedia-style” hagiography of Somchai Neelaphaijit. It didn’t contain any information I wasn’t aware of previously, but thank you nonetheless.

  Secondly, I don’t think my link to the Time Magazine article was “irrelevant” at all. As I understand that I am writing in a blog with an international audience, I realize that some readers may not be familar with the term “mob lawyer,” and thus, might not understand the analogy I was drawing. Just as you misinterpreted my employment of the term as literally labeling him, in your words, a “mafia lawyer”.

  As for my third point, your defense of him seems to revolve around the fact that his clients were acquitted. That Mr. Neelaphaijit’s clients were acquitted doesn’t mean they didn’t commit the crime; it merely speaks to his skill as a criminal defense lawyer and courtroom rhetorician.

  Now, I believe in the right of the accused to have adequate representation in court. Mr. Neelaphaijit’s work as a criminal defense lawyer for the underprivileged is not in dispute; however, and this is where you refuse to answer the question I posit in my first comment, if Mr. Neelaphaijit and his Muslim Lawyers Club of Thailand offer pro bono services, then it implies that he and the other lawyers who take up such cases do so for parties they feel some sympathy for. Now let’s be honest here, many of Mr. Neelaphaijit’s clients were not naif schoolboys ; are not plotting to blow up embassies, “separatist activities,” and “arson attacks” acts of terrorism? Would not the defendants in such cases be referred to as “accused terrorists”? Even acknowledging the massive corruption that exists in the Thai judicial system, I find it hard to believe that the defendants were chosen at random.

  Again, I ask cui bono? Who benefits? How was the defense of three Iranians who plotted to bomb the Israeli embassy a “human rights” issue? Or did Mr. Neelaphaijit’s reputation preceed him in every case he argued? If Mr.Neelaphaijit sincerely believed those men were innocent, then I am within my rights to consider him naive; if he defended them, either knowing they committed the crime or merely out of anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist sentiment, then I am within my rights to consider his choice to defend them morally repugnant. Either way, I feel his canonization to be in error.

  In short, and I hope the following truth doesn’t prove to be too confusing for you, even if a particular country’s justice system is corrupt, that does not mean that every defendant that appears before those courts is innocent. Unfortunately, in my opinion, many times in his career Mr. Neelaphaijit was fighting the good fight for bad men.

  Finally, as for your attempt to smear me by insinuating that I am a bigot, that fits the definition of “throwaway line[s]” much more closely than anything I have previously written.

  With metta,
  Lleij Samuel Schwartz (Abu Ali Asad ibn Aswad al-Amriki)

• 4 Srithanonchai // Mar 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  This outburst makes me wonder whether LSS holds some religio-racist grudge. Must have been one of the more ideologically disgusting contributions to this blog…

• 5 Awzar Thi // Mar 12, 2008 at 5:48 pm

  First and foremost, thank you for the “Wikipedia-style” hagiography of Somchai Neelaphaijit. It didn’t contain any information I wasn’t aware of previously, but thank you nonetheless.

  You’re welcome. I’m glad that you are well-informed.

  Secondly, I don’t think my link to the Time Magazine article was “irrelevant” at all. As I understand that I am writing in a blog with an international audience, I realize that some readers may not be familar with the term “mob lawyer,” and thus, might not understand the analogy I was drawing. Just as you misinterpreted my employment of the term as literally labeling him, in your words, a “mafia lawyer”.

  Indeed, the analogy was lost.

  As for my third point, your defense of him seems to revolve around the fact that his clients were acquitted. That Mr. Neelaphaijit’s clients were acquitted doesn’t mean they didn’t commit the crime; it merely speaks to his skill as a criminal defense lawyer and courtroom rhetorician. Now, I believe in the right of the accused to have adequate representation in court…

  So we can agree that defendants have a right to a lawyer, and that Somchai was entitled to represent them, and do so to the best of his ability.

  … Either way, I feel his canonization to be in error.

  It is sad that to recall a life lost and appeal for the rudiments of criminal justice can be mistaken as “canonization”.

  In short, and I hope the following truth doesn’t prove to be too confusing for you, even if a particular country’s justice system is corrupt, that does not mean that every defendant that appears before those courts is innocent…

  The trial of the five police accused of abducting Somchai being a case in point. But nor does it mean the opposite, as implied by your initial remark about “a glorified mob lawyer for Islamic terrorists”.

  Finally, as for your attempt to smear me by insinuating that I am a bigot, that fits the definition of “throwaway line[s]” much more closely than anything I have previously written.

  No smear or insinuation was intended.

• 6 Bangkok Pundit // Mar 12, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  I want to be careful what I say here, but I slightly agree with what LSS says about the singling out Somchai to make him a cause celebre although I disagree with the rest of what he says. For me it is more the amount of coverage that his given to his situation and not that his situation is not worth highlighting.

  Defendants have the right to representation and I am not too fussed which clients that Somchai take on as long as he complies with their professional and legal obligations. If lawyers break the law when defending their clients they can be prosecuted - ala Lynne Stewart.

  LSS - you should shift the blame to the incompetence of the Thai police* in gathering evidence for terrorism cases - well in fact most cases as they always invariably revert to a confession and gathering minimal evidence if you think the Iranian concerned was guilty. The evidence they had against him was weak.

  *Alternatively, it might not have been police incompetence though as many suspect more government pressure for an acquittal as they caved to Iranian pressure for better bilateral relations.

• 7 Grasshopper Corleone // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm

  I must commend Awzar Thi for his rational and accommodating response to the outburst of LSS. The disappearance and death of Neelphaijit is like having a cog which rotates for the promotion of universal rights, lose one of it’s teeth.

  LSS, I am inclined to think that Somchai Neelaphaijit acted pro deo. And a good job he did too. Are you saying that the people he defended are not human? Because quite clearly they are. Just as human as one who confuses the Zionist movement with productive, liberal values — which are values one must observe if one believes in the UDHR as an instrument for good (just in case you or others were not aware, seeing as this is an international blog and all).

  If Mr.Neelaphaijit sincerely believed those men were innocent, then I am within my rights to consider him naive; if he defended them, either knowing they committed the crime or merely out of anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist sentiment, then I am within my rights to consider his choice to defend them morally repugnant. Either way, I feel his canonization to be in error.

  This is like the speculative justice found in the Pentagon! Do you work for them, or are you angling for a job with the DoD? I plead with you that the values you hold regarding rights are not to be so rigid as to mirror the mentality of a suicide cult!

  Again, I ask cui bono? Who benefits? How was the defense of three Iranians who plotted to bomb the Israeli embassy a “human rights” issue?

  They’re human!? *mouse with violin in background yet again* Or is it that because the UDHR was created in an attempt to prevent more holocausts, like the one suffered by Jewish peoples, given Zionists the ‘right’ to say what is human and what is not?!

  Moreover, must you bring Israel into everything? Last time I checked South East Asia was nowhere near the Middle East. Just for the record, it is possible to be Muslim and not have an opinion on Israel! Did you spend time in Southern Thailand? I did and I asked a husband and wife who were Muslim what they thought of Palestine/Israel and they shrugged their shoulders with sincere indifference as much as I did. This is not to say that the men Somchai defended were good or bad, or not extremists against Zionism, it’s just Rawlsian, and I think it would prove useful for you (because clearly he cannot have influenced you thus far) to take a good look into one of your American academics that did not have selective hearing/reading.

  I suppose this will be taken as an antagonistic response. But I am surprised you maintain such ugly, contradictory ethics.

  *kiss*

• 8 Grasshopper // Mar 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm

  Upon reading all of this again, I have to say I agree with what Srithinonchai and Bangkok Pundit have written as responses. Without doubt I shall soon be labeled an anti-Semite because foolishly I took the bait, and I am ashamed to have lowered myself to respond to such an egregiously ignorant comment with as much credit and repetitiveness as I have.

  LSS, this post is to do with Thai police rather than any connotation and connection you make between terrorism and the mafia justice. Your words written here which have taken this whole issue out of context utterly disgust me.

• 9 Bangkok Pundit // Mar 12, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  Awzar: In case you haven’t seen it, courtesy of Thai Rath, the head of DSI is quoted as saying that next week there should be good news (หน้าจะมีข่าวดี) in the case as good progress has been made (มีความคืบหน้ามากขึ้น). He says they are trying to prove that Somchai is dead.

  Sources report that the evidence that will be discussed next week is about the location of where the “bad people” killed him.

  BP: Do they have proof of a body/his death? (which is what has been holding them back)

• 10 Grasshopper // Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

  I must write a better response to this.

  Again, I ask cui bono? Who benefits? How was the defense of three Iranians who plotted to bomb the Israeli embassy a “human rights” issue?

  In 1997 there were some terrorism laws! (here are some examples: http://www.nesl.edu/intljournal/VOL4/CS.HTM) Wow, Ok, since we have that established - do you think terrorism laws were defined enough in United Nations statutes to protect a persons human dignity? I didn’t think so either - hence, there is a human rights lawyer, who ensures that whatever ‘justice’ happens to those three persons is acceptable to those little dot points made within the declaration!

  Your question was infinitely limited to start questioning anyones ability to start handling a truth, because obviously the truths contained within your vague words were so loaded with semitic elitism that I have had to keep reading this over and over to make sure that I am not mis-judging what you have written, and to refine my expressions of outrage.

• 11 Srithanonchai // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  The Nation, 12 March 2008:

  Missing Lawyer Somchai
  Angkhana Neelaphaichit delivers a statement at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, on the fourth anniversary of the disappearance of her husband, Somchai, on Wednesday
  While this statement is read, I am at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council session in Geneva, Switzerland, to present a report on the human rights situation in Thailand and also to report on the latest developments and obstacles in the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Somchai Neelapaichit, which was taken up by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (UNWGED) four years ago.
  “The first trial implicating five police officers in the disappearance of Somchai Neelapaichit, who were charged with coercion and robbery, ended two years ago and the First Court’s verdict stated that there was a police officer together with another three to five persons who forced Somchai into a car before he disappeared on March 12, 2004.
  “This court case is now under the consideration of the Court of Appeal. The Department of Special Investigations has been in charge of investigating the case and pressing further charges. In addition, the DSI has requested that the Office of the National Counter Corruption Commission investigate police officers who were allegedly torturing Somchai’s clients in January 2004.
  “It is believed that Somchai was abducted because of his complaint against the torture allegations.
  “The present government of Samak Sundaravej sacked Mr Sunai Manomai-udom and appointed Police Colonel Tawee Sodsong as acting director of the Department of Special Investigations, and Police General Sombat Amornwiwat as an advisor to the Ministry of Justice. Police Colonel Tawee Sodsong stated in an interview to the media that he will give priority to the Somchai Neelapaichit case.
  “In commemoration of Somchai’s disappearance four years ago, I would like to make the following appeal to the Thai government and the DSI:
  “1. To request that the Thai government and the DSI be sincere in bringing justice to this case and prosecuting the wrongdoers, including high-ranking police officers, as it is my belief that his enforced disappearance is a heinous crime against humanity.
  “2. To request that the DSI be courageous and to call Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra, former prime minister of Thailand, to give testimony as a witness in this case. Information has been received that a close colleague of Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra went to search for information and a picture of Mr Somchai Neelapaichit at the Government Identification Information Centre. In addition, Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin, himself, stated in an interview to all media on January 13, 2006, the day after the verdict of the First Court, that he knows “that Somchai has passed away because evidence suggests so…”
  “As Thaksin was prime minister at that time, this interview must be credible and he must have had enough evidence before saying this.
  “3. Contained in the verdict of the First Court, the testimony of a plaintiff witness reveals that “…Police Major General Krisada Phankongchuen received information from Police Lieutenant Colonel Wannaphong Kotcharath that Police Lieutenant Colonel Charnchai Likhitkhanthasorn had met with a known group of people in front of the Crime Suppression Unit, who informed him that they were going to abduct a corrupt lawyer. Later, Police Lieutenant Colonel Charnchai informed Police Colonel Tawee Sodsong about this information…”
  “Therefore, Police Colonel Tawee Sodsong, who is now the acting director of the DSI, has the responsibility to clarify whether he knew of Somchai Neelapaichit’s disappearance.
  “4. To request that the DSI be very careful in this case and to try to compile strong evidence so that the wrongdoers will be prosecuted. The DSI should not hurry to pursue the case in court without relevant and strong evidence. A lack of strong evidence means that the real culprits will not be prosecuted, or that innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit.
  “5. To request that the Thai government ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in order to guarantee the safety and protection of everyone from enforced disappearance.
  “I strongly believe that the success of the Somchai Neelapaichit case will be determined by the sincerity of the government and the effectiveness of the DSI. Of particular concern is the fact that Police General Sombat Amornwiwat, who was the former supervisor of the five accused persons standing trial in the case before, is now an advisor to the Ministry of Justice. “At the same time, I would like to give my support to every officer who works under the rule of law and tries to bring to justice those people who have either committed crimes or give shelter to human rights violators.
  “Lastly, I would like to thank my Thai sisters and brothers who continue to give warm support while facing these obstacles to justice.
  “I and my family are constantly receiving friendship from various people in society. This gives me the strength to keep fighting for justice.
  Thank you.

• 12 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  Re: Awzar Thi, et al.

  Had I known this thread would be policed for ideological thoughtcrime, I would have not expressed my views. I apologize for adding disharmony to the New Mandala hive-mind. From the florid language Awzar Thi uses in his eulogy of the man, it is evident that far from a forced disapperance, Awzar Thi believes that March 12th, 2004 marks the date of Somchai’s apotheosis, when he ascended to heaven upon a winged horse.

  When one uses language like, “In Somchai is Thailand…” It is clear that I cannot engage in a rational discussion for that is not the language of analysis, but of wided-eyed rapture feed by the ecstasy of [unwarrented] moral superiority. Thus, my final contribution to this discussion is to repeat what I said before: I am outraged that in all likelihood some Thai police officers abducted and murdered an innocent man, yet let’s not make Mr. Neelaphaijit more than what he was; at best, he was a good-hearted man whose naivety caused his sense of justice to be manipulated by more nefarious forces, at worst, he was a servant of the blood-soaked Southern insurgents, using his reputation as a human rights defender to garner sympathy for their cases.

  Re: Srithanonchai
  I defy you to provide any evidence based on what I have wrote that I bear ill-will to any one group as a whole; otherwise I would kindly ask that you retract your statement and apologize for such an ugly insinuation.

  Re: Grasshopper
  Ditto as to my comments to Srithanonchai. Furthermore, I find your contribution to this thread odd, as I remember being “disgusted” at your comments on a previous thread concerning Burma, where you argued that “universal human rights” do not exist. Why the change of heart?

  And quite honestly, I have no idea what you are going on about concerning Israel, the UDHR, and the DoD. In my post, the word only came up as I was using the example of the Iranian bombs who happened to target the embassy of said country. I mean, where do you come off saying that I “bring Israel into everything?” Did you just notice that my last name was Schwartz and start frothing at the mouth? If it makes you feel any better, you can always call me Abu Ali, my Palestinian cousin, Jamal does. (He too is a lawyer, who defended Palestinian land rights against the claims of Israeli settlers. After the start of the second Intifada, he was forced to divorce his Jewish wife out of concerns of safety, and now lives in exile in Europe as he refused to take sides in the whole Fatah vs. Hamas struggle and ended up making enemies of both.) Considering that I am Buddhist, I don’t understand why you would think that I have any allegance to “Zionism,” perhaps you could explain that one to me.

  Sincerely,
  Lleij Samuel Schwartz

• 13 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

  Re: Grasshopper post # 10

  Wow, I don’t even know even where to begin. I read the link you provided, and while interesting, I don’t see how it’s particularly germane to the current discussion. One criticism I would have with the Silverman piece is that, in a legal sense, I would consider terrorism to be akin to piracy and privateering (based on the level of nation-state support given to the group. MILF would be closer to pirates; whereas Iran-supported Hezbollah would be closer to privateers). There already exist long standing legal precedent on how to deal with pirates and privateers; i.e., pirates are charged as domestic criminals and privateers are treated as prisoners of war.

  As for human rights and dignity, what I find absolutely ironic in the example that we are arguing is that Iran, along with the other member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have refused to recognize your much vaunted UDHR, instead subscribing to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). As the former Iranian representive to the UN, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, stated, “[the UDHR is] a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.”

  If my comments concerning Mr. Neelaphaijit seem provocative, that is only in contrast to Awzar Thi’s florid praise, confusing him for Gandhi or Martin Luther King. (Both of whom have lost their “sacred cow” status, just as Mr. Neelaphaijit, who at best was a 3rd-string “Gandhi,” will in time, and can be viewed upon critically without being immediately labled as a “Hinduphobe” or “rascist”.) I would elaborate on my criticism of Mr. Neelaphaijit, and connect my points with Bangkok Pundit’s, but somehow I don’t think you are in the mood for that discussion.

  Finally, for someone who is worried that he or she “will be labled an anti-Semite,” I find it absolutely amazing that you would use a term like “semitic elitism.” Just what the hell are you implying? A phrase like that is right from the same page as Jüdische Physik, “lazy negroes,” and the “inscrutible China-man”. Then again, I didn’t see too many New Mandalaians express their outrage at Jopha’s use of the slur “heeb,” so I guess hostility toward things semitic is just part of the atmosphere here at NM. I won’t hold it against you though, for I feel you are currently speaking ab irato. Besides, even though I do have Arab and Berber blood in my veins, much more of my DNA hails from Uttar Pradesh, Ghana, and China, by way of Trinidad and Tobago.

• 14 Grasshopper // Mar 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  LSS,

  Thanks for responding.

  For you to be punching with “When one uses language like, “In Somchai is Thailand…” It is clear that I cannot engage in a rational discussion for that is not the language of analysis, but of wided-eyed rapture feed by the ecstasy of [unwarrented] moral superiority.” Will lead me to say that hory ol’ chestnut ‘it takes one to know one’. But if nothing else in my response, at least answer me this, for what reason of yours was it to digress from the original point of Somchai’s dissapearance to refuting what sort of man he was? Pleading to an international audience on how they should percieve someone? Why? Do you have fears about discriminatory cultural protection? If so, how Buddhist of you!

  Universal human rights do not exist outside liberal frameworks for idolatrous secularism. However, I believe that in reaction to the ludicrous notion of terrorism, the ludicrous notion of human rights is necessary because without it, there would only be victors justice which is what you have articulated throughout #3. The only reason in victors justice on such a large scale is that of ideological righteousness, which is also what you have alluded in #1 by asking “If Mr. Neelaphaijit is to be celebrated for his taking cases pro bono, then one must ask, cui bono?”. The reasons for are so many that you cannot be so uninformed as to be asking for whom without some level of facetiousness towards culturally protective justice. It is quite ironic then that you accuse me of debasing human rights when the words within the 3rd generation of rights are quite capable of doing it for you!

  …and this is where you refuse to answer the question I posit in my first comment, if Mr. Neelaphaijit and his Muslim Lawyers Club of Thailand offer pro bono services, then it implies that he and the other lawyers who take up such cases do so for parties they feel some sympathy for.

  This is a statement re-iterated from your original question which has nothing to do with the original point of the blog post. It implies that you have a position on whether or not Somchai’s sympathy was a good appropriate sympathy or, for you, a bad inappropriate sympathy. As you confirm by saying ‘Either way, I feel his canonization to be in error’, what canonization?! and also ‘Unfortunately, in my opinion, many times in his career Mr. Neelaphaijit was fighting the good fight for bad men.’ The good fight for bad men? What does your value of good and bad have to do with a fight, and more significantly, the dissapearance of Somchai?

  Now let’s be honest here, many of Mr. Neelaphaijit’s clients were not naif schoolboys ; are not plotting to blow up embassies, “separatist activities,” and “arson attacks” acts of terrorism? Would not the defendants in such cases be referred to as “accused terrorists”? Even acknowledging the massive corruption that exists in the Thai judicial system, I find it hard to believe that the defendants were chosen at random.

  “Now let’s be honest here”, I love that. It’s like you assume this is a club where you preech for your honesty (which has digressed from the point of the original entry) to be accepted over what course of action can be taken now… ‘acts of terrorism?’ What is the question mark for? Sure the defendents weren’t chosen at random — why are you suggesting otherwise? It seems as though you have guarded yourself against the argument of the victim, which you have expressed here “Again, I ask cui bono? Who benefits? How was the defense of three Iranians who plotted to bomb the Israeli embassy a “human rights” issue?” It prompted me to take a line that was quite patronizing because your words subvert what is practicable and pure about justice and instead emphasise your own values, whatever they are.

  Furthermore, I ask indignantly, you are surprised and ask for evidence to substantiate my belief that your words are laced? Search for ‘Schwartz’ and ‘Israel’ or ‘Semite’ on this site, and tell me why several times you bring up Israel? Most of the time I have no idea what Israel has to do with posts here on New Mandala. OK, it can be used as a comparitive because you know the details, but sometimes your use is far from topical.. It’s a connection lost one me if I am not sarcastic or faceitious about connecting Israel to everything. It’s got nothing to do with your last name, which I thought was an alias, as on your other site you are ‘Dr Mycroft’?

  Because you are a Buddhist with a Palestinian cousin, you seem to think that your words are more justified? That’s a plea to reason that as you have more vested interest in this whole issue than me, that I should butt out. It’s got nothing to do with with whether I am right or wrong, and attempts to cloud my comments. I feel that to highlight Kymlicka’s argument, that to leave ones culture and assimilate into a new one is much harder than it appears in these times of high travel and superficial multiculturalism, is necessary here. If you have managed to do that, I sincerely congratulate you.

  Of course my spluttering replies here, and previously, are probably not adequate to convey any logical reason in order for you to retract what you have said, but I don’t have time to make more of this than a rant.

• 15 Bangkok Pundit // Mar 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  LSS:

  If Mr.Neelaphaijit sincerely believed those men were innocent, then I am within my rights to consider him naive; if he defended them, either knowing they committed the crime or merely out of anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist sentiment, then I am within my rights to consider his choice to defend them morally repugnant. Either way, I feel his canonization to be in error.

  You are correct when you earlier stated that an acquittal does not establish innocence. An acquittal demonstrates there was not enough admissible evidence to establish the elements of the offence.

  How do you even know the accused were guilty? If you are somehow in the possession of evidence perhaps you should send to the Thai authorities. I wasn’t in the court room and have only news reports about the case, but the news reports point out there was a stunning lack of evidence tying one of the Iranians to the crime scene as mentioned by the Supreme Court. If he was really in the truck, the police could have dusted it for fingerprints or other forensic evidence in the truck. There was also a body found in the truck. If you think the court judgment was somehow wrong you should state so.

  You can consider him naive, but what if he really thought he/they were not guilty of the offences they were accused of?

• 16 Srithanonchai // Mar 13, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  LSS: You end your comment with “Sincerely” — would have “Jokingly” or “Defensively” not be more to the point? First, just relax. Second, if you are sure of your data, analysis, and judgment, please put together 10 pages of systematic text deconstructing the image of Somchai. That would be a lot more worthwhile than to get worked up about some criticism that is based on what you have said yourself. I don’t like if ordinary human beings are put on pedestals and then worshipped, be it Pridi, Puay, the “October People”, the king, or Somchai. And be careful with using words…

• 17 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 14, 2008 at 2:44 am

  Re: Grasshopper
  Search for ‘Schwartz’ and ‘Israel’ or ‘Semite’ on this site, and tell me why several times you bring up Israel?
  I did the search and I found 1 and only 1 other reference to Israel. 1 is not several. If you’re going to spout bullshit, Grasshoper, then be prepared for people to call your bluff. Is it too late to mention that Awzar Thi was the first person to write the name of said country in this thread?

  But if nothing else in my response, at least answer me this, for what reason of yours was it to digress from the original point of Somchai’s dissapearance to refuting what sort of man he was?

  Because his legacy is being appropriated by certain forces whose goals I am in opposition with. In short, among certain circles, Mr. Neelaphaijit’s dissapearance has entered the propaganda machine to justify the violent seperatist goals of the Southern insurgency. I’m sorry that this is an inconvenient truth, but it’s truth nonetheless. Now, I am of the opinion that, while alive, certain aspects of Mr. Neelaphaijit’s work, either wittingly or unwittingly, also supported the goals of the insurgency. Likewise, Awzar Thi’s panegyric, either wittingly or unwittingly, feeds into the same propaganda machine. Of course, if those Thai police officers weren’t stupid, corrupt, and evil-hearted enough to make him into a shaheed, there would have been nothing to feed into the propaganda machine in the first place!

  It is because of this appropration that I am uncomfortable with Awzar Thi’s uncritical praise of his work. I think that this is what Bangkok Pundit is getting at as well, but he had the wisdom to realize that in today’s climate, openly criticizing a man like Mr. Neelaphajit’s work without tons of disqualifers tends to get one labeled an “Islamophobe”. I hope this answers your question.

  Because you are a Buddhist with a Palestinian cousin, you seem to think that your words are more justified? That’s a plea to reason that as you have more vested interest in this whole issue than me, that I should butt out. Yes, at least when you accuse me of being an Islamophobe and/or a pro-Zionist zealot. As for having a more vested interest than you, while there are many parallels with this case that I could draw with my cousin, I’m not at liberty to discuss many of them because his life is currently in danger. So while, I wouldn’t say I have a more vested interest, this might hit a little closer to home to me than to you.

  Of course my spluttering replies here, and previously, are probably not adequate to convey any logical reason in order for you to retract what you have said, but I don’t have time to make more of this than a rant.
  Just what is it that you want me to retract? Let me ask you this; if a human rights attorney in Colombia offered to defend, pro bono, suspected FARC members, and he did this again and again [either out of a sense they were innocent or out of sympathy for FARC's cause], wouldn’t it be likely that he would eventually be known as “the FARC lawyer”? When talking in abstracts, this point is not so controversial, it is only when real-life personalities enter the equation that the point becomes clouded. In sum, I express my uncomfortableness with lionizing Mr. Neelaphaijit because, I feel that there are human rights defenders in Thailand, even in the South, whose work doesn’t have as many uncomfortable questions as his does.

  By the way, I didn’t appreciate finding the severed horse head in my bed this morning.

• 18 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

  Re: Srithanonchai
  And be careful with using words…

  Srithanonchai, I refer you to your comment #4:
  This outburst makes me wonder whether LSS holds some religio-racist grudge.

  Physician, heal thyself! Again, I implore you that if you cannot produce based on what I have wrote that I bear ill-will to any one person or group as a whole based solely on their religion or race, then kindly apologize for your insinuation. I will not “relax” until you do so.

  Second, if you are sure of your data, analysis, and judgment, please put together 10 pages of systematic text deconstructing the image of Somchai.

  The following applies to Bangkok Pundit’s comments as well; you know I am arguing with one hand tied behind my back, since Mr. Neelaphaijit did so well to win accquitals for the previously named clients, for me to openly criticize the Thai court’s decisions would be to flirt with lèse majesté. I’m sorry that I don’t have the gumption of a Somsak or a Republican when it comes to that. However, Srithanonchai, I would invite you to put together 10 pages of systematic text deconstructing my argument, for thus far, all you have contributed to this conversation is insinuating that I am an Islamophobe and posting a cut-and-paste article from the Nation [next time an "a href=" tag would be nice].

  Cura ut valeas,
  Lleij Samuel Schwartz

• 19 Srithanonchai // Mar 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  LSS: “I will not “relax” until you do so.” > Das ist Dein Problem, nicht meines, richtig?

  “for me to openly criticize the Thai court’s decisions would be to flirt with lèse majesté.” > This rather seems to be about “contempt of court.” Your excuse is as lame as your response on my suggestion is cheap. Your comments imply that you have done quite a bit of data collection on Somchai and the cases he was involved in (in case your position is not merely based on emotions, that is). So, why don’t you make all this available to the public in order for us, who have done no such data collection, to get a better understanding of Somchai’s faults, naivite, support of Islamic terrorists, etc. etc.? You could even publish a shorter version in Bangkok Post and get paid for it!

  Mit besten Wuenschen fuer baldige Entspannung…

• 20 Grasshopper // Mar 14, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  LSS, I retract what I have said previously. I also apologize for quickly linking your name with my ‘damning evidence’ which only amounted to the number of links which came up in the search and then leaping to conclusions which have now seen you justifying your position far too extensively. It is probably quite obvious that my line was to damn all who have an opinion that supports oppressive behaviour, and ironically, much like the men who Somchai defended, I have ‘argued’ in an oppressive manner. I am also ashamed that I am now equally an Islamophobe as well as an anti-Semite for trying to get you to admit a need for cultural and ideological protection (on our side of the scale more than the other) on a presumption (spawned from your initial comment) which has now been debunked. I now wonder whether I latently believe in the need for such protections.

• 21 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 15, 2008 at 12:00 am

  Re: Grasshopper and Srithanonchai.

  Thank you for your kind apology, Grasshopper. In the interest of maintaining goodwill on the forum, I’ll concede that my original comment was a bit puckish; however, I maintain it was an error of degree far less than Awzar Thi’s maudlin “O Captain! My Captain!”.

  I’ve expressed my opinion as eloquently as I could muster. [And it seems I can't muster very eloquently.] Since I don’t see any way for the current conversation on this thread to turn productive anytime soon, I’ll end my participation in it. I have no interest in turning this thread into an epic NM flame war.

  Srithanonchai, you can “relax” now.

  Mit Freundlichkeit,
  Lleij Samuel Schwartz

• 22 Gareth // Mar 17, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  Wow, what was all that anyway? I noticed a lot of Latin and German being leveraged

• 23 Srithanonchai // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:05 pm

  It was about the relationship of form and substance in rhetoric/eloquence. To reach the deepest levels of intellectual sediments and nuance , you cannot do without Latin, Greek–and German!

• 24 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 18, 2008 at 1:52 am

  Re: Srithanonchai
  To reach the deepest levels of intellectual sediments and nuance , you cannot do without Latin, Greek–and German!

  This is why German continues to be the language of scholarship in the field of Classics.

• 25 Gareth // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Point taken. I shall work on my German then!

• 26 Awzar Thi // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:59 am

  MURDER WITH IMPUNITY
  By Jon Ungphakorn, Bangkok Post, 9 April 2008

  I could imagine what lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit felt as he gradually realised what was happening to him. I could easily imagine a similar event happening to anyone else in Thailand who dared to challenge the illegal actions of the police

  It is an ordinary Friday morning.

  You leave your office on Ratchadapisek Road at 9am to meet a client at Robinson Department Store, Bangrak. Accompanied by your assistant, you drive along the Expressway and park your car at the South Bangkok Civil Court, where you instruct your assistant to deliver some documents to another client. On arriving at the nearby Robinson Bangrak store, you telephone your client and find out that due to a misunderstanding he is waiting for you at the Robinson Silom store.

  You take a taxi to the store and talk with your client for two hours, then take another taxi to the Central Bankruptcy Court where you meet up with your assistant again. Unknown to you, five mobile phone users are recorded as being close to you throughout the day.

  It’s 2:30pm. You drive back to your office on Ratchadapisek Soi 32, accompanied by your assistant. You stop at a gas station on Chan Road before getting on the Expressway. After spending two hours at the office, you drive to the Chaleena Hotel on Ramkamhaeng Soi 65 to meet a friend. Your assistant goes with you.

  On the way you stop to pray at a mosque near the hotel and have a meal at a nearby restaurant. You arrive at the Chaleena Hotel around 7pm and wait for your friend for well over an hour before deciding to leave. You phone your daughter to tell her you are tired and will be staying the night at your brother’s home nearby.

  At 8:30pm you say goodbye to your assistant at Chaleena Hotel and drive across the Saen Saab Canal to Ramkamhaeng road, where you turn left and drive towards the Lam Salee intersection.

  Suddenly your car is bumped from behind. You get out and see some men seated in a black Toyota sedan which has bumped into the rear of your car. You recognise one of them as a police officer accused of torturing one of your clients. He asks you to accompany the group for some discussions.

  You refuse. He gets out and pushes you towards the rear door of the black Toyota. You shout for help and struggle with the policeman. Some bystanders look on as you are helplessly pushed into the car, which drives away.

  This is what happened to lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit on March 12, 2004, just over four years ago. He was never seen again.

  On Sunday, March 30 of this year, I travelled with a small group led by his wife (and presumed widow), Mrs Angkhana Neelaphaijit and their son and daughters, to retrace the steps of lawyer Somchai on that fateful day. Despite being fully familiar with the events relating to lawyer Somchai’s abduction and disappearance, this was the first time I really felt the horror of the abduction, which took place in a crowded street of Bangkok in front of bystanders.

  I could imagine what lawyer Somchai felt as he gradually realised what was happening to him. I could easily imagine a similar event happening to anyone else in Thailand who dared to challenge the illegal actions of the police, as lawyer Somchai did by publicising the police torture of Muslim suspects who were his clients.

  Five policemen were arrested and tried in connection with the abduction of lawyer Somchai, but eventually only one of them, Police Major Ngern Tongsuk, was convicted of physical coercion and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He is at present appealing the conviction. The other defendants, including his immediate superior, were found not guilty due to insufficient evidence.

  Unfortunately, the defendants could not be charged with kidnapping under Thai law as they had not demanded any ransom. They could not be charged with murder because no body (or remains) was ever recovered. Both the investigation and the prosecution were carried out so poorly that links to higher-ranking officers were never fully explored.

  It is widely believed, however, that a number of top ranking police officers and very possibly some individuals closely linked to the Thaksin Shinawatra administration were aware of, or involved in, the abduction and presumed murder of lawyer Somchai.

  What happened to lawyer Somchai is particularly shocking because he was a prominent middle-class human rights lawyer abducted in the streets of Bangkok. However, the abduction, torture and killing of Muslim separatist suspects are common in the southern border provinces, and are rarely reported in the media.

  One exception is the widely reported case of Imam Yapa Kaseng, who died in Narathiwat province between March 19-21 of this year while in military custody.

  Taking these events together with the more than 2,000 extrajudicial killings that took place during the 2003 official war on drugs, the mass killings in mysterious circumstances of the entire Sabayoi Youth football team on April 28, 2004, and the deaths of 78 demonstrators taken into military custody at Tak Bai on Oct 25 2004, it is obvious that we live in a country where the military and the police are ready to abduct, torture and kill people they perceive as enemies, with complete disregard to lawful procedures.

  While Thai society allows the military, police and their political masters to remain immune from accountability with regard to state violence and murder, we are all responsible for these crimes.

  Jon Ungphakorn is a former elected senator for Bangkok and a Thai NGO activist.

• 27 Srithanonchai // Apr 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  I played with the idea of posting this piece by Jon here on NM, but was too afraid of being bashed badly by LSS.

• 28 colonel jeru // Apr 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  If a criminal lawyer should by conscience only defend those accused he presumes to be innocent . . . that lawyer would surely have lost his “professionalism”.

  Even a self-confessed serial rapist or murderer deserve his day in court . . if only to establish his “sanity” when he committed the crimes and appropriate punishment meted out.

  But in this forum , and following 9/11, there appears to be a growing clamor for “special anti-terrorism laws” that would treat suspected terrorists “differently”. I believe that will be a gross error . . .

  Governments and states will use any excuse, and “terrorism” or “Southern insurgency running amuck” to shackle its citizen’s rights for expediency that would only encourage state incompetence, and worse, unchecked police abuse of basic human rights that only provoke more extremism because there is no longer any constitutional safeguard under a working rule of law.

  Without any rule of law . . . extremism will follow and grow.

Leave a Comment