15 hours ago, DrTuner said:

Let's see after the next inevitable countercoup. Prayuth might consider buying a house next to Thaksin while in London, Thais like to flock together.

Would that be on Soi Sabai? 

That decision really shocked me. I thought it would get up (Tongue in cheek) If it did the judge would be looking for a new job I would say. The Pm was so worried about the decision he even was not in the country when it was handed down

14 hours ago, PREM-R said:

Could they be Century Steve and DJ Jamie?

Or maybe Costas?

9 hours ago, SABloke said:

I would argue that at the point (at the army club meeting with Yingluck) when Prayuth committed treason, the NCPO did not yet exist and and so at that time he was breaking the law.

One might also argue (based on eleven prior successful military coupes) that by the time of that meeting, the NCPO already existed and agreement made to protect the junta from punishment. That meeting was staged with no intent to allow Yingluck or PTP remain in power. The Interim Charter was merely the public formalization to legitimize (not necessarily synonymous with "satisfy") the actions of the NCPO before the Thai people and Western democracies.

 

On 6/22/2018 at 1:44 PM, worgeordie said:

Those two Farangs walking with him,must be MI6,

for protection in case he bumps into a Shinawatra.

regards Worgeordie

I think they are more worried that he "bumps into" anything, considering his choice of eyewere.

 

Edited June 23, 20188 yr by Vacuum

well, it's a disgrace. Presumably the Doi Suthep factor kicking in.

 

Of course it was treason.

It's funny how a photo can capture so much of the essence of a person. That picture just oozes 'Criminal! Gangster! Hoodlum! Mafioso!' 

And that's being kind!

 

Edited June 23, 20188 yr by Eligius

On 6/22/2018 at 12:42 PM, darksidedog said:

No surprise in this one. Despite the amnesty he gave himself, AFTER, breaking the law. One more piece of proof that the law in Thailand is very flexible when it wants to be.

 

It's unfortunate that the exceedingly brief Khaosod article here gives absolutely no clue of what legal rationale, if any, that the high court gave in dismissing the case.

 

I certainly would have liked to know how the court legally justifies extra-legal coups as anything other than insurrection.

 

Perhaps they fell back to the familiar old chestnut -- the winners make the rules, and the losers are vanquished.

 

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It's unfortunate that the exceedingly brief Khaosod article here gives absolutely no clue of what legal rationale, if any, that the high court gave in dismissing the case.

 

I certainly would have liked to know how the court legally justifies extra-legal coups as anything other than insurrection.

 

Perhaps they fell back to the familiar old chestnut -- the winners make the rules, and the losers are vanquished.

 

Totally agree with you. I, too, would have liked to read a fuller description of the court's 'justification' for their decision. It seems, though, that they are so arrogant now that they don't even feel much need to justify their actions at all: it is enough for them to say: 'The coup was not against the law' - and everyone has to just shut up and accept it.

 

Poor Thailand.