Khmer Rouge fighter relates "killing fields" horror

[Coventina]

Source: Reuters

PHNOM PENH (Reuters) - A former fighter for the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s told a Cambodian court Wednesday how he was suspected of turning against the Pol Pot regime, arrested and beaten unconscious, waking up beneath bodies in a burial pit.

Phork Khan, 57, was testifying at the trial of Duch, head of the Khmer Rouge's S-21 interrogation center in Phnom Penh, who faces life in prison if convicted on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and homicide.

Duch has admitted his part in the thousands of deaths at the prison but says he was only following orders. He has also questioned the reliability of some of the witnesses.

Phork Khan said he had become a fighter in 1971. "In Phnom Penh, in 1975, I took part in the liberation," he said. "At first I was quite happy, but after seeing the forced evacuation of the people and spraying of bullets to kill people by Khmer Rouge soldiers, I wasn't satisfied with that change in the situation."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5672I620090708

---

Please read the entire article.

Thank you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. That seems like a rather bizarre defense -

'If they had been there, they'd be dead now.'

I pray such madness never seizes this country - but I know it could happen, anywhere, any time. The one thing we should never say is "it could not happen here."

[thunder rising]

2. I thought you were talking about "following orders" as a defense. Works now apparently.

[Rebubula]

3. No...

...it could not happen here.

Too many people with too many personal guns and 100 years of personal freedoms.

That does not mean that someone would not try....

[Coventina]

4. I agree, we could devolve into violence, but not THAT kind of violence.

Although, the collapse of our civilization could be equally (if not even more) violent, it would be in a different form.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. You do understand, don't you, that though they were the government

at the time (using the term loosely) it was their easy access to guns that MADE them the government. The Khmer Rouge seized power FROM the government. They were the people, and the people had guns.

What's different here?

The biggest difference is that instead of a population of 20 million we have a heavily armed population of 300 million. Instead of two million dead, we'd have 20 million.

Don't think it can't happen here. We're NOT that special.