Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Duch And Long Visalo: Are They Credible Witnesses?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Editorial by Khmerization
On the web at http://khmerization.blogspot.com
"Long Visalo’s claims of being a prisoner was incorrect. He was certainly not the victim of the Khmer Rouge, but an accomplish to the Khmer Rouge crimes at best, and a perpetrator and an architect of the Khmer Rouge crimes at worst."
The Hor Namhong-Sam Rainsy’s legal dogfight has entered a critical phase - gathering evidences and assembling witnesses.

The opposing camps are actively working hard to gather evidences to boost their legal chance. And one side has claimed to have assembled and lined up a troop of witnesses. While both sides seem to be so sure that they have enough evidences to prove their respective case, it is not sure if what they have got have any legal weight commensurate with international standard to prove such a defamation case.

On the one hand, the Sam Rainsy camp seemed to have enough documented evidences to back up his accusations against Hor Namhong. He can still find victims and survivors of the Boeng Trabek Prison who can testify for him. But to convince and to persuade them to come forward and testify against Hor Namhong would be an uphill task, considering that Cambodia and the Cambodian courts are at Hor Namhong‘s disposal.

On the other hand, the Hor Namhong camp has declared that they have solicited the supports of two (not) high profile witnesses: Duch and Long Visalo. Many written accounts seemed to suggest that these two were both perpetrators of heinous crimes, not victims of those crimes as they had claimed. So many people would be of the view that the testimonies of these two witnesses, due to their associations with the Khmer Rouge crimes in the past, lack credibility.

Let’s look at the history and profile of these two individuals. First, let’s examine Duch’s past. Duch was a director of one of the most notorious extermination centres in the world, where in excess of 16,000 prisoners were brutally tortured, then executed. He is currently being detained awaiting trial on crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. In any sense, a criminal who was accused of the same crimes that he will be called to testify against would not be a credible witness. He is being detained and guarded by the Cambodian police, and therefore he is at the mercy of the Cambodian authority and so would say anything to get a good deal for his upcoming sentence. As such, in an independent judiciary, his testimony would be tainted and inadmissible as evidences.

It is rather interesting for another witness, Long Visalo, to re-emerge at this critical time of truth-searching for the Khmer rouge crimes. He will not be a credible witness either because he was part of the crimes that he is called to defend. One does not need to look any further than Visalo’s own admission to prove that he was the perpetrator of the Khmer Rouge brutalities, and not the victim of those crimes. With such admission as “I was assigned to prepare a re-education camp in Boeng Trabek” proved that Long Visalo was not a prisoner of Boeng Trabek, but in fact an administrator of this re-education centre. To re-phrase Visalo's own words, he was the one who set up the Boeng Trabek Prison. Visalo went on to say that “I undertook several political sessions with Angkar’s leading cadre when I lived in Phnom Penh between 1976-1979”. These admissions proved that he was a leading Khmer Rouge cadre, who was actively participating in the Khmer Rouge day-to-day’s affairs such as administering the Boeng Trabek Prison and training and indoctrinating Khmer Rouge cadres.

It must be noted that only leading Khmer Rouge cadres were ever allowed to take part in a political sessions with ‘Angkar’s leading cadre” because the Khmer Rouge regime was a very secretive organisation. No one from outside, let a lone a prisoner like Long Visalo, would be allowed to take part in those very secretive political sessions.

Long Visalo’s shady pasts have been revealed by many Western historians and experts of the Khmer Rouge regime. In many books written by experts of the Khmer Rouge regime, it was claimed that, during the Khmer Rouge regime, Long Visalo worked at the Foreign Ministry and held a position equivalent to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. He worked along side Ieng Sary and was very close to him. As an official of the Foreign Ministry, Visalo’s day-to-day job was to train Khmer Rouge cadres in foreign affairs and international relations at either the Institut Technique Khmer-Sovietique or at the former University of Phnom Penh.

Long Visalo’s claims of being a prisoner was incorrect. He was certainly not the victim of the Khmer Rouge, but an accomplish to the Khmer Rouge crimes at best, and a perpetrator and an architect of the Khmer Rouge crimes at worst.

So, are Duch and Long Visalo credible witnesses in the Hor Namhong’s defamation case against Sam Rainsy? The answer is a resounding "no"!

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not nice to take Ah Duch to be CPP Party witness.Hahaha

Anonymous said...

ជូនចំពោះ អាអគ្គមហាសេវាដៃចោរ ខូចសរសៃប្រសាទឈ្មោះហ៊ុន សែន,

ពេលនេះ អាខូចសរសៃប្រសាទ ឈ្មោះហ៊ុន សែនគួរតែ គិតគូរដោះស្រាយ បញ្ហាទំនិញឡើងថ្លៃ ទើបត្រឹមត្រូវ ព្រោះជារឿង ដែលប្រជាពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរ ទូទាំងប្រទេស កំពុងខ្វាយខ្វល់។ ប៉ុន្តែ អាខ្ញុំយួនរូបនេះ បែរជាគិតគូរ អារឿងគ្មានអ្នកខ្វាយខ្វល់ ទៅវិញ ដូចជា ការ "បំបាត់រាជស័ព្ទ�" ជាដើម ។
នេះចំជាអាហ៊ុន សែនខូចសរសៃប្រសាទ មែនហើយ!
ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរ សូមអញ្ជើញ អាហ៊ុន សែន ទៅពេទ្យកាល់មែត ដើម្បីលោកអ៊ុំហេង តៃគ្រី តំរង់សរសៃប្រសាទ អាហ៊ុន សែន ឡើងវិញទៅ ព្រោះដោយសារ អាខូចសរសៃប្រសាទ ហ្នឹងហើយ ដែលចុះហត្ថលេខា អោយដីខ្មែរទៅយួន អោយពួកយួន ចូលនៅខុសច្បាប់ នៅប្រទេសកម្ពុជា។
ងាប់អោយស្រឡះទៅ អាអគ្គមហាសេវាដៃចោរ ខូចសរសៃប្រសាទ ឈ្មោះហ៊ុន សែន។
គ្មានខ្មែរណាស្រណោះ អាក្បត់ជាតិហ៊ុន សែនឯងទេ។

Anonymous said...

Certainlty these two individuals, who were complicit with the KR crimes, are not credible witnesses. According to the article, Duch was a mass murderer and Long Visalo was a high-ranking KR official. So, criminals can't be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Dear friends,
It's time for them to stick together for the last air. I'm your good neighbor also knew that your ennemie follow KI info closely. If you don't fight for your country who will do for you? Best way all of Khmer democracy got to stick together too. You have enough smart people that can help, but I only see a few that relly care about your country and do all good action to protect your land. A few know only talk but no action etc... My best friend stop thinking about your own benefit, start to joint hand together now it's time before it's too late. You all have to set up your priority.
Your country came fisrt or what? If your country fall into your ennemie's hand such as khmer krom then it will be to late for you to wake up and try to get it back. I'm not better than you guy.

Good luck and I knew you can do it.

Your good neighbor.

Anonymous said...

9:09 AM, you are right. Maybe, after becoming the witness, he might be released and become ministers like Hor Namhong, Keat Chhon and other CPP ministers. Who knows.

Anonymous said...

Oh, stuff it, Gorilla Fuckers. If Dutch credibility is so bad, then why Ah Liar Sam Rainsy begging him to be his witness, huh?

Anonymous said...

Two criminals trying to defend another criminal will not work in an independent court. It only work in the CPP-controlled courts.

Anonymous said...

True, that is why we must send Ah Criminal Xam Rainxy back to France after this election.

Anonymous said...

Khmerization editorial is a pure and laughable fabrication! Visalo was not even a leader of a group of tree (Prothean Pourk) in Boeng Trabaek. A mere student from Budapest who chose to come back to the country at a wrong time as thousands of them. The Khmerization’story is a pure joke for those who lived in Boeng Trabaek and survived and live right now in Cambodia, or in Europe or elsewhere. The opposition as a credible alternative to the government? But for a few hundred of those who survive Khmer Rouge Gulag, “Kherization”’s story is very funny! It’s incredible mockery of Visalo and anyone in Boeng Trabaek. How the guys know so much a bout Boeng Trabaek? Ieng Sary can testify for him if he deems credible for “Khmerization”!

Anonymous said...

Never mind Khmerization. He gets his info second-hand and then spins a story around it. He should go tend to his sheep rather than try to write half-assed, silly editorials.

Anonymous said...

LOST IN TRANSLATION
"I was assigned to prepare a re-education camp in Boeng Trabek known as “B-3." We should read "I was told to be prepared to go to Boeng Trabaek reeducation camp, known as B-3". And we should add: "Because those overseas people were treated as CIA spies or KGB agents, they should go to the camps to be brainwashed there, or be killed if they make mistakes and proved to be the ennemies". That ways, it is close to the reality in that time.

Anonymous said...

Now what do you say to that?

Anonymous said...

Perjury is a crime! Even if a witness is sympathetic to the opposition, he can not invent anything to suit the story. You can not promote the national unity that way. When you lie, people know and you loose your credibility. Lying is irresponsibility. And you can not be a leader if you are not a responsible person?

Anonymous said...

Hear, hear.

Anonymous said...

7:43PM, how you know so much about Boeng trabek is debatable. Are you one of the jailers or prisoners there? Visalo was working at the KR foreign ministry. He trained KR cadres at one of the former high instittutes in Phnom Penh and there are KR documents showing that Visalo was actively participating in a negotiation with Viet on border issues in 1977. So he was a very important KR official.
Ieng Sary is not a credible witness for Hor Namhong becuase he is currently a prisoner of Hor Namhong. In an independet court such a witness will be challenged by the defense attorney. A prisoner cannot testify for the jailer (nahmong)because he will be too scared to say anything against Namhong, but will say anything good to secure a good trial for him at the ECCC.

Anonymous said...

People know that you are lying. We do not need to do it that way. It’s not good for national unity. Who will be the winners? I can not say. But national unity is certainly weaker. You are strong when you say the truth, not lying.