Crimes committed by SPDC thugs and

People’s Rights of Self Defense

Dr San Oo Aung 

The inability of the successive Military dictators to resolve many political problems using the democratic framework has led to the emergence of numerous protests in Myanmar. The evolution of international human rights law has legitimizes the activities of human rights groups that concentrate exclusively on human rights abuses committed by the state actors. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights mechanisms were developed with the understanding that human rights laws should be applied to restrain governmental action. International law binds governments not only to follow international safeguards and norms, but also to reform national law in conformity with international human rights standards.

A significant proportion of the activities of armed opposition groups can be attributed to the handiwork of official agencies in Myanmar. First, by turning a blind eye to the perfidious activities of USDP Swan Arrshins, the SPDC almost officially sanctions these thug organizations. Second, the SPDC has a direct role in funding and arming its own these auxiliary militant groups. They are Armed  groups affiliated to SPDC, although politically motivated, often engage in purely criminal activities.

I wish to review the legality according to the SOP or Standard Operating Procedures of International Policing method to the use of government affiliated civilian thugs and plain-clothed arm forces and police to obstruct, assault, disturb and arrest of demonstrators, opposition political activists and revered monks. It raises a number of legality questions and fairness at the international level and in the local legal circles on public order operations and the use of force by the Myanmar Military government’s various forces.

The role of maintaining public order within the police force lies with the Riot Police or Loan Hteins. If there were protests or ‘riots’, international standards clearly state that force must be used only as a last resort and that non-violent means must be tried first. Public order police are usually trained to use non-forceful other alternatives such as persuasion, negotiation and mediation. Force is only used when these other methods fail.

Riot Police or Loan Hteins should only gradually increase the use of force depending on the worsening or deteriorating situation. They need to use ‘non-lethal’ weapons first, such as batons, tear gas or water cannons. Using of force level must be proportionate to the level of the force that the protesters or rioters exerted. The police must be equipped with self-defense equipment such as shields, helmets and bullet-proof vests. Proportionate or appropriate level of response could only be achieved if the police have a broad range of techniques available to them.

In many public demonstrations worldwide in the democratic countries, even when some elements in the crowd turn violent, the police in those countries who are properly equipped with the above-mentioned training and equipment are able to deal with the situation without firing a single shot even into the air or at the demonstrators. Just look at the video news footage of South Korea police’s effective passive defense against the generally aggressive protesters, workers and students.

The professional Riot Policy is obviously different to Myanmar Tatmadaw and affiliated thugs who got the 007 Licensed to kill. General Ne Win’s last parting shots as dictator, “Burma Army will aim at the demonstrators in future if they need to shoot. They are not going to shoot into the air,” is the guiding principle of successive military juntas, SLORC and SPDC. This shoot to kill “license” is a waiver of prosecution for doing something unlawful.  

Therefore, even if it can be proven that Myanmar Military used firearms “in self-defense” against the violent aggressors, there is a clear guilt or cruelty on the part of those field commanders, supervisors up to the top Senior General in managing public order operations on the protesters because of their failure to ensure that all the personals involved are adequately equipped to manage the situation in nonviolent way.  

But when we look at the Depayin massacre, Daw Suu led NLD and people were not posing any threat to any one, nonviolent and were peacefully traveling only but SPDC affiliated Kyant Phuts and Swan Arrshins led by General Soe Win as field commander violently attack the convoy without any provocation. Senior General Than Shwe’s central command and approval was clearly seen when the victims were jailed and aggressors were rewarded even with the post of the Prime Minister. But SPDC Junta and Senior General Than Shwe must accept that, Man proposes and God disposed, when PM Soe Win got the reward of fatal Leukaemia for his misdeeds.

In the recent protests, MIs, police and military personals dressed in plainclothes rather than in his uniform to control, disturb, record, assault and arrest the demonstrators joining the hired thugs; ex-convicts, jobless persons and other civilians including Kyant Phuts and Swan Arrshins. 

According to the International norms or standard operating procedure; when carrying out policing functions, a police officer should be in uniform in order to be easily identified by civilians as this sometimes helps to deter people from committing crimes. By not being in uniform, this lends credence to the claim by the opposition that they were part of the team of plainclothes police officers operating as ‘agent provocateurs’ or rebel rousers.

Then appropriate action could be taken by International Criminal Court against those civilian thugs, armed forces disguised as civilians and the higher authorities responsible within the chain of command up to the Senior General. 

The actions of armed SPDC thugs groups pose a challenge to the work of activists in
Myanmar. Major violations of human rights, such as torture, illegal arrests,  extortion, killing, and suppression of freedom of opinion, tried in Kangaroo courts on trumpeted charges, routinely occur in Myanmar. Under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, , the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above- mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages, SPDC police used to arrest the family members so that their wanted person would surrender to them.

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and  degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

All the people of Burma/Myanmar have the right of self defense when confronted with tyranny of the SPDC.  I do not wish to recommend up to the Deadly force, but the protesters and activists suffering unjust violent action of the SPDC thugs have the right of self defense according to the International and common laws. It must be “the last resort” in the sequence of methods of redress for severe violations of one’s rights – rights which are supposed to be available to all the people in a democratic civil society. 

A Government is a tyranny when:

1. It sets itself above the will and judgment of the people and refuses to comply with the wishes of the people.

2. It lies to the people to get what it wants.

3. The traditional rights of the people are treated as obstacles to the objectives of government.

4. It creates animosities among the people.

5. Under what circumstance would the government commit such a flagrant violation of and intrusion into a man’s right of self defense?

6. Who, or what organization has the right to terrorize or intimidate or roughen or prevent or arrest the people of
   Burma and the venerated Monks protect the illegal military government.

According to the Common Law_

The duty of the freemen to preserve the rights of their neighbors is the single most hated attribute of the common law regarding individuals.  The common law expresses and defends the unalienable rights of man.  These however, comprise only a small part of the law.  The greater portion of the law reaches to defending the rights and property of men living together in a society.  In other words if you commit a trespass, tort or crime against another or his property, you pay. 

This law of nature, or mankind and, is of course superior in obligation to any other.   It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times : no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original”.

Rule of Law prohibits by default arbitrary rulings by despots like military dictators of Myanmar. In all cases the common law protects the individuals’ rights to life, liberty and property whether from attack by another individual or government.  Hereinafter, references to ‘the laws of the land’ presume that such laws are indeed constitutional and valid. 

Here again the language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, but by the lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land.  If any person be restrained of his liberty by order or decree of any illegal court or by command of the authorities, governments, or of any of the council e.g. SPDC; he shall, upon demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court or common pleas; who shall determine whether the cause of his commitment be just, and thereupon do as justice shall appertain. Just look at Myanmar, Daw Suu, Min Ko Naing, 88 Generation student leaders and the arrested persons in recent petrolium price hike were not allowed to see any one, their family members and lawers. It shows lawlessness in Myanmar under SPDC. In other democratic country the writ of habeas corpus could lead their release order by a true judge.

Just look at the the detention of Daw Suu after Depayin Massacre. Government announced shamelessly that they need to put her in detention to protect her life, protective custody. From who? Soe Win, USDP, Swan Arrshin, Than Shwe and SPDC junta? Later they changed their story and reason. As SPDC’s tongues have no bone, they twisted their tongue shamelessly as the reason for election. Saw Maung claimed that after the election army will withdraw to the barracks. Later SLORC and SPDC twisted the facts and said that the election was held to draw a constitution. Even if we just accept their lies, why election winners are not allowed freely to draw the new constitution?

Min Mhar Thissar_Luu Mhar Gati, in Burmese means the rulers must keep their promises. Now no wonder, not only the people of Burma, the whole world never trust SPDC Junta’s words.

This writ of habeas corpus prevents the executive (Government) from using his prerogative and Force of Arms under his command to carry out personal agendas of tyranny against individuals.  The writ of habeas corpus is the holy grail of the common law. ”The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the ( Crown or the government).  It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of
England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement”.

William Pitt England

It is the duty of government to prevent injustice – not promote it!

When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he Is justifiable.

These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual unlawfully uses such force and violence.

An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.

The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.

Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.”

Thomas Jefferson

Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

How much force is necessary to defend property from unlawful confiscation of possessions by police officers carrying loaded firearms and who are also trained in martial arts, and will frequently, and without hesitation, use both? Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser there from, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

As is commonly the occurrence, police invade homes and real property without proper, or no warrants when there is no emergency reason to do so. Remember these points of law when the police invade a home to search, seize any things as people, computers, and papers:

An arrest or search made with _ 

1. No warrant or with a defective warrant;

2. or, issued without affidavit;

3. or, fails to allege a crime

4. or, is without jurisdition-        

is a criminal act by police, subject to the right of self defense.      

And so, where there is no available justice system, or where the justice system is actually perpetrating the crime against you, you have a right to use deadly force on the perpetrator, or upon those who have usurped authority to direct deadly force against you, and have a history of doing so, as is the case with.

No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed–nor will we go upon or send upon him–save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

The RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE, especially against tyranny perpetrated by those who represent officers of the government, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Common Law Principle called the “Rule of NECESSITY”. The ultimate “rule of Necessity” is the right to kill to protect your own life.

And the last thing is the police arresting authority must identify themselves with authority card or identification card. They must allow the person to search those authorities first to prevent the notorious, Ban Pyit Phan Dar in Burmese or brought in the “things” and plant the evidence. This law is also valid in Burma/Myanmar.

References:

• http://www.dangeroustruths.com/ruleoflaw.htm 

• http://www.detaxcanada.org/tyranny.htm