Old Thaksin cases could be revived retroactively, says Deputy PM

[candide]

4 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

So you're really saying everything (repeat everything) from the past should be investigated/ re-investigated and taken to trial.

 

I very much doubt your idol and his ruthless cronies would like that to happen. Just one example a re-investigation of the paymasters war on drugs, and many many more. 

 

Careful what you wish for el.

Any idea why there will never be an investigation on the war on drugs? Check on wikipedia and don't tell the answer.....

[scorecard]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

Any idea why there will never be an investigation on the war on drugs? Check on wikipedia and don't tell the answer.....

 

-

Edited October 10, 2017 by scorecard

[JAG]

1 minute ago, Get Real said:

Thanks! I love this one. Can I take it as that is why there is so much talk and no action. 

Well yes - I mean that for the junta disentangling themselves from office, with no retribution will be very difficult, and yes that is very probably one reason why they show no interest in doing so.

Of course just as they tore up the rule book when they seized power, so can whoever replaces them tear up their amnesty. The more animosity involved in their eventual departure, the more likely that is to happen. Ironically the longer they remain the more animosity will be created. I don't think a proper "Combat Appreciation" is amongst their military skills.

[Eric Loh]

41 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

which is a good think because doing a runner shouldn't be rewarded by non prosecution.

It is a good think if judgement not based on political expediency. 

[Orton Rd]

vindictive waste of time and money.

[NanLaew]

8 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

... They are certainly showing prospective future rulers how the game is played. ...

Prospective what now?

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The accused has the right to appear in person and robustly defend all charges in every case.

 

But given the detail of some of those cases, that might prove a little difficult to defend and mean the result could be inconvenient without the appearance of more pastry boxes which don't seem acceptable.

 

"A spokesman for the Attorney General said yesterday: “Trials in absence are not new — they are already allowed under the national law of European countries, including the UK."

Source: The Telegraph 101017.

 

Seems many countries don't see the law and it;s cornerstones as you imagine.

of course you would try to give the impression you don't understand my point. the cornerstone is not referring to a trial in absence. the cornerstone being violated is change the law, and retroactively apply it to cases that refer and happened when trial in absence were not possible....

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Only apparently if you're a billionaire and member of a rich family.

No.. as this law only applies to crimes committed by political office holders, so a cop killer for instance can remain outside of Thailand waiting for the statue of limitations to expire. granted that one is also a member of a rich family... funny how the junta singles out one particular category of crimes. yet you confused people still claim the trials are not politically motivated. hillarious.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Applying laws enacted today to apply in previous cases is selective persecution, not justice.  The bad news knows no end in this country. 

The Prayut government just keeps adding more reasons why there is political persecution by the military. This latest announcement by the Prayut government further justifies political asylum for Thailand opposition leaders.

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

No.. as this law only applies to crimes committed by political office holders, so a cop killer for instance can remain outside of Thailand waiting for the statue of limitations to expire. granted that one is also a member of a rich family... funny how the junta singles out one particular category of crimes. yet you confused people still claim the trials are not politically motivated. hillarious.

 

Funny how you confused people think any crime committed by  a politician can be defended by the claim "it was political" - ludicrous.

 

The point I was making, which you seem to have confused, was that it's easier for a billionaire member of a very well connected family for avoid facing a court than an average person who doesn't have private planes, mansions to live in and vast bank accounts to rely on.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Srikcir said:

The Prayut government just keeps adding more reasons why there is political persecution by the military. This latest announcement by the Prayut government further justifies political asylum for Thailand opposition leaders.

 

I'm sure they'll try to claim that. And hope that any examining court doesn't probe the individual case details too far.

 

" O K so I illegally lent treasury money to a foreign country, governed at the time by a military junta, at less than market rates, so that they could by telecoms equipment from my family business. Then did a runner so I couldn't be taken to court and wouldn't be tried. But it was before the law was made allowing trials in absentia"

 

"It's all political and I've never done anything wrong, ever" - sounds much better eh?

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

of course you would try to give the impression you don't understand my point. the cornerstone is not referring to a trial in absence. the cornerstone being violated is change the law, and retroactively apply it to cases that refer and happened when trial in absence were not possible....

"the cornerstone being violated is change the law, and retroactively apply"

 

Are you suggesting countries don't change their laws?

[sjaak327]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

 

Funny how you confused people think any crime committed by  a politician can be defended by the claim "it was political" - ludicrous.

 

The point I was making, which you seem to have confused, was that it's easier for a billionaire member of a very well connected family for avoid facing a court than an average person who doesn't have private planes, mansions to live in and vast bank accounts to rely on.

This IS political, they even changed the law and apply it retroactively, yet only for political crimes, not for normal crimes. how much more factual evidence do you need ? the people that introduced the law are criminals too, yet I don't see you screaming for them to face trial. 

 

 

You still don't get it do you, justice cannot work when it is applied like this. Of course the point of this post will likely be ignored and accusations of defending Thaksin will be the focus of any reaction. missing the point, not because you are too dumb to see it, but because it does not fit your agenda.

[Chris Lawrence]

How is the General's nephew? New laws come thru that takes any blame off him yet? The biggest problem is that the laws are made after an event to persecute an opposition. What it does then is give a lot of haters onto the TV pages to say 'see I told you he was a criminal'; however this is only after a law is passed to validate the claim. Like a kangaroo court. I saw one that popped up the other day, made a comment and then it disappeared along with my comment. The balance is not there in the political sphere, together with our mods finding it hard to adjudicate on what is right and wrong. What it really boils down to is that the original judgements went back into the courts with a new set of rules. The major crime was rubbing the hi-So noses in it after the windfall on the stock exchange.

 

But no one talks about the 950+ people that died during the crime walls or the laying of people down on top of each other in the truck down south. Why is that, you may think?

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

"the cornerstone being violated is change the law, and retroactively apply"

 

Are you suggesting countries don't change their laws?

No, but no country with a functioning justice system would allow cases to be recommenced using those new laws. as it violates the mentioned cornerstone of justice. one should be put to trial on laws that were active during the time the crimes were committed...

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

He was convicted before the military was in power

The military has never since 1932 been "out of power." Maybe out of sight in between 20 coups.

But not out of mind with its self-ordained "extra-constitutionality" that can intimidate any elected government to its own political will.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

So you're really saying everything (repeat everything) from the past should be investigated/ re-investigated and taken to trial.

 

I very much doubt your idol and his ruthless cronies would like that to happen. Just one example a re-investigation of the paymasters war on drugs, and many many more. 

 

Careful what you wish for el.

On the contrary, I wish that all corruption should be investigated and taken to trial as long as the judiciary and investigating agencies are independent. I dislike corruption as much as you do. I come from a country that see corruption as unacceptable in society. But corruption must not be used as political leverage and should not be selective sparing same that are politically aligned, wealthy and well connected. This is see in Thailand especially in this junta government who shield themselves, families and allies with legal procrastination and amnesty. I see you defending frantically those military corruption and those political allies. That's a shame.

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

So it is ok to flee the country and wait so long that your can't be prosecuted again?

Since that was effectively the law at the time he committed those offences, the answer is yes. 

 

Some people don't even have to flee, they just pass a law giving them amnesty for past and future times. 

[Baerboxer]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

This IS political, they even changed the law and apply it retroactively, yet only for political crimes, not for normal crimes. how much more factual evidence do you need ? the people that introduced the law are criminals too, yet I don't see you screaming for them to face trial. 

 

 

You still don't get it do you, justice cannot work when it is applied like this. Of course the point of this post will likely be ignored and accusations of defending Thaksin will be the focus of any reaction. missing the point, not because you are too dumb to see it, but because it does not fit your agenda.

 

The political aspect is the selectivity in it's application. Which is always the case here.

 

The justice system here is totally alien to most foreign people whether they originate in a country with a common law or civil law tradition. However, citizens of certain other primarily Asian countries may find it more familiar.

 

You may not like the people who introduced the law, but at the moment, they aren't criminals. They don't have convictions or outstanding cases AFAIK. The fact they also granted themselves immunity, ostensibly for leading a coup, but apparently somewhat wider, whilst unpalatable to Westerners, isn't illegal here.

 

Justice can never work unless it is independent of the Executive, impartial, and applies the law to all with equal fairness and unbiased application to any that are brought before it. Does that appear the situation here, whatever court or charge?

 

Thaksin is undoubtedly a crook who has used his political positions for massive personal gain at the expense for the people he claims to love. But he's far from the only one. That though doesn't excuse him, nor should it be an acceptable defense. Fleeing to avoid court cases has become common for politicians, who rely on using the political connection to claim persecution and avoid extradition. It is time that loophole was changed.

 

However, it should not be applied to only one person. Others, who have avoided, are avoiding, or will avoid court cases by the same fleeing, must be dealt with in the same manner. 

 

 

 

 

[halloween]

Sorry, I don't get how stopping people from evading prosecution is violating a cornerstone of justice. Is someone mistakenly thinking the charges they will face were not in force at the time the crime was committed?

The only change is removing the requirement that criminals be present to hear the charges against them, after they are given ample opportunity to make themselves available.

[sjaak327]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The political aspect is the selectivity in it's application. Which is always the case here.

 

The justice system here is totally alien to most foreign people whether they originate in a country with a common law or civil law tradition. However, citizens of certain other primarily Asian countries may find it more familiar.

 

You may not like the people who introduced the law, but at the moment, they aren't criminals. They don't have convictions or outstanding cases AFAIK. The fact they also granted themselves immunity, ostensibly for leading a coup, but apparently somewhat wider, whilst unpalatable to Westerners, isn't illegal here.

 

Justice can never work unless it is independent of the Executive, impartial, and applies the law to all with equal fairness and unbiased application to any that are brought before it. Does that appear the situation here, whatever court or charge?

 

Thaksin is undoubtedly a crook who has used his political positions for massive personal gain at the expense for the people he claims to love. But he's far from the only one. That though doesn't excuse him, nor should it be an acceptable defense. Fleeing to avoid court cases has become common for politicians, who rely on using the political connection to claim persecution and avoid extradition. It is time that loophole was changed.

 

However, it should not be applied to only one person. Others, who have avoided, are avoiding, or will avoid court cases by the same fleeing, must be dealt with in the same manner. 

 

 

 

 

But they are not. the loophole has only been changed for crimes committed by political office holders, for those crimes people can now be prosecuted in absentia, and I believe those are also not covered by a statue of limitations. 

 

And as much as you or I might hate it, the fact that crimes of some political office holders are being fast tracked and even now retroactively being put to trial again, whilst others are protected by an amnesty (and your attempt to claim this is all legal is ludicrous) excuses Thaksin. 

 

 

The minute Prayuth and co are put to trial, is the minute I support extraditing and putting to trial Thaksin, as long as both are put to trial based on existing laws at the times of their crimes of course.

Edited October 10, 2017 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

8 minutes ago, halloween said:

Sorry, I don't get how stopping people from evading prosecution is violating a cornerstone of justice. Is someone mistakenly thinking the charges they will face were not in force at the time the crime was committed?

The only change is removing the requirement that criminals be present to hear the charges against them, after they are given ample opportunity to make themselves available.

It is no surprise you don't get it. the violation is changing rules and then retroactively trying to apply those new laws to cases 10 years ago, that is not justice at all. 

[Baerboxer]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

But they are not. the loophole has only been changed for crimes committed by political office holders, for those crimes people can now be prosecuted in absentia, and I believe those are also not covered by a statue of limitations. 

 

And as much as you or I might hate it, the fact that crimes of some political office holders are being fast tracked and even now retroactively being put to trial again, whilst others are protected by an amnesty (and your attempt to claim this is all legal is ludicrous) excuses Thaksin. 

 

 

The minute Prayuth and co are put to trial, is the minute I support extraditing and putting to trial Thaksin.

 

You are aware they have a separate court for political office holders? So it would, I guess in their logic, seem appropriate to have specific laws for political office holders too. Especially as politicians in particular have fled to avoid prosecution. 

However, they should really consider changes to other criminal laws too so people like the Red Bull boy couldn't escape by fleeing and hiding. But that's just an opinion.

 

The fast tracking etc is the selectivity which is the part that's wrong.

 

Not sure you understand or chose to not understand but I don't claim that granting themselves is legal.AFAIK it hasn't been claimed to be illegal here and laws of other countries are irrelevant.

 

Have the members of the Junta been charged with anything? You don't like them but that doesn't count. Westerners don't like coups, but again, doesn't count for anything here. If they are charged, even retrospectively in the future than they will have to stand trial or be tried in absentia. But that doesn't mean Thaksin can hop off until that happens.

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Baerboxer

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You are aware they have a separate court for political office holders? So it would, I guess in their logic, seem inappropriate to have specific laws for political office holders too. Especially as politicians in particular have fled to avoid prosecution. 

However, they should really consider changes to other criminal laws too so people like the Red Bull boy couldn't escape by fleeing and hiding. But that's just an opinion.

 

The fast tracking etc is the selectivity which is the part that's wrong.

 

Not sure you understand or chose to not understand but I don't claim that granting themselves is legal.AFAIK it hasn't been claimed to be illegal here and laws of other countries are irrelevant.

 

Have the members of the Junta been charged with anything? You don't like them but that doesn't count. Westerners don't like coups, but again, doesn't count for anything here. If they are charged, even retrospectively in the future than they will have to stand trial or be tried in absentia. But that doesn't mean Thaksin can hop off until that happens.

 

 

 

Of course they haven't been charged with anything, they cannot be charged as they have amnesty from prosecution ! and just as the coup mongers in 2007, that amnesty is enshrined into the constitution, the minute some politician with a mandate tries to alter that section, is the minute the tanks are back on the street. Or maybe this time the fully appointed senate would simply send the government du jour packing. 

 

As to the legality of the coup, dying to see the relevant section of the 2007 constitution that states staging a coup is legal. 

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Of course they haven't been charged with anything, they cannot be charged as they have amnesty from prosecution ! and just as the coup mongers in 2007, that amnesty is enshrined into the constitution, the minute some politician with a mandate tries to alter that section, is the minute the tanks are back on the street. Or maybe this time the fully appointed senate would simply send the government du jour packing. 

 

As to the legality of the coup, dying to see the relevant section of the 2007 constitution that states staging a coup is legal. 

 

Perhaps you'd be better trying to find sections of the constitution that actually state staging a coup is illegal!

 

Have any coup leaders been prosecuted in Thailand since 1932?

 

But this isn't about coups and the Junta. It's about trying to bring one former, seemingly very corrupt, PM to justice.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Baerboxer

[halloween]

19 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

It is no surprise you don't get it. the violation is changing rules and then retroactively trying to apply those new laws to cases 10 years ago, that is not justice at all. 

But the changes don't affect the charges they will face. What is closer to "not justice at all" allowing rich criminals to evade prosecution because of an archaic loophole, or prosecuting them in absentia after they have been given ample opportunity to present themselves to the court?

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Perhaps you'd be better trying to find sections of the constitution that actually state staging a coup is illegal!

 

Have any coup leaders been prosecuted in Thailand since 1932?

 

But this isn't about coups and the Junta. It's about trying to bring one former, seemingly very corrupt, PM to justice.

You are right, and that section does exist, quite logically of course. why do you think that amnesty was needed in the first place. at least the 2006 coup buddies did not grant themselves amnesty for future crimes !

 

The very corrupt ex PM is getting justice, the retroactive law change makes that impossible. and again, justice should apply to everyone equally, otherwise it cannot possibly be called justice. 

 

 

Not sure why they are wasting time, no country would extradite under these circumstances. the Shinawatra claim about the motivation of the trials have now been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[sjaak327]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

But the changes don't affect the charges they will face. What is closer to "not justice at all" allowing rich criminals to evade prosecution because of an archaic loophole, or prosecuting them in absentia after they have been given ample opportunity to present themselves to the court?

That's no excuse, they committed those charges at a time when lawmakers thought it ok to avoid prosecution by just fleeing the country, so closing that loophole should only apply to crimes committed AFTER the law came into effect, not before, surely not a concept that is awfully difficult to understand, even for a coup hugger...

 

Some people don't even have to flee to avoid prosecution, they just pass an amnesty....

Edited October 10, 2017 by sjaak327

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

You are right, and that section does exist, quite logically of course. why do you think that amnesty was needed in the first place. at least the 2006 coup buddies did not grant themselves amnesty for future crimes !

 

The very corrupt ex PM is getting justice, the retroactive law change makes that impossible. and again, justice should apply to everyone equally, otherwise it cannot possibly be called justice. 

 

 

Not sure why they are wasting time, no country would extradite under these circumstances. the Shinawatra claim about the motivation of the trials have now been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Of course they all award themselves immunity - but that should be an immunity from actions connected with implementing the coup. Not a general amnesty for everything past, present and future!

 

Your last sentence is your opinion only. Of course you are entitled to that but in today's fast changing political climate, wouldn't be too sure on that. The UAE, which isn't a democracy, not even close to one, also has an interesting legal system. 

[sjaak327]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Of course they all award themselves immunity - but that should be an immunity from actions connected with implementing the coup. Not a general amnesty for everything past, present and future!

 

Your last sentence is your opinion only. Of course you are entitled to that but in today's fast changing political climate, wouldn't be too sure on that. The UAE, which isn't a democracy, not even close to one, also has an interesting legal system. 

Well, the junta and Abhisit's government had about 7 years in total, and Thaksin is still not back. by the way the NCPO's amnesty does cover any future crimes, during the whole period of their rule, the 2006 coup did not.

Edited October 10, 2017 by sjaak327