Before We Can Get Anywhere In These Political Debates

[rixalex]

Sometimes one has to choose between the best of a bunch of lousy options

Why? Nobody forces you to choose one of the lousy options, much less argue vigourously in their defence.

Because if you don't vote for the best option, you very well might end up with the worst one. This is not just true in Thailand, but all over the world.

Is that how you ended up with George W Bush?

[Ulysses G.]

Exactly.

[johncitizen]

(And by the way, nobody is stopping Thaksin from returning to his country - he is free to return any time he wishes. He chooses not to do so because he is unable to swing the courts in his favour at this time)

I'm not so sure. The fact is that the legal system in this country has proven that it is capable of overthrowing a democratically elected government, taking down a prime minister for an appearance on a cooking show and charging police officers with using excessive force when dispersing a yellow-shirt crowd occupying Government House... but is unable to bring PAD members to justice for occupying the seat of parliament and two national airports, or standing up to the political wing of the army (aka. the army).

Something tells me that if Thaksin ever allowed himself to be taken to face "justice" he would get more than was "advertised..." ie. more magical charges appearing while he is in custody and unable to escape, or a short flight off a tall balcony.

There is no disputing either point that the first poster raised... I just find it eerie that a democratically elected government was brought down by a group calling themselves an alliance for Democracy.

Peoples Democratic Republic of Thailand, anyone?

jc.

[rixalex]

(And by the way, nobody is stopping Thaksin from returning to his country - he is free to return any time he wishes. He chooses not to do so because he is unable to swing the courts in his favour at this time)

Something tells me that if Thaksin ever allowed himself to be taken to face "justice" he would get more than was "advertised..." ie. more magical charges appearing while he is in custody and unable to escape, or a short flight off a tall balcony.

Whilst in power, Thaksin showed that it was possible to have charges against him magically disappear, so i suppose what you suggest about charges manifesting themselves magically can't be ruled out - but the question is, why would it be necessary? There's a back-log of charges that have been stalled due to his absence and that seem legitimate to all but Thaksin and his fan club, so why waste time concocting new false ones?

[Ulysses G.]

(And by the way, nobody is stopping Thaksin from returning to his country - he is free to return any time he wishes. He chooses not to do so because he is unable to swing the courts in his favour at this time)

Something tells me that if Thaksin ever allowed himself to be taken to face "justice" he would get more than was "advertised..." ie. more magical charges appearing while he is in custody and unable to escape, or a short flight off a tall balcony.

Whilst in power, Thaksin showed that it was possible to have charges against him magically disappear,

Him, and every other Prime Minister. If he had not been illegally forced from office, we all know that he would never have been convicted of anything.

His detractors call him a criminal. Is he guilty? Very likely he is guilty of something, but with the enemies that he has, he would be found guilty of anything that he is charged with - regardless of the evidence. In Thailand, corruption works more than one way.

[rixalex]

Him, and every other Prime Minister.

Must we really return to that old chestnut of yours of excusing Thaksin of crimes on the basis that others in the past have also commited crimes? Why not fight for all criminals to be convicted, rather than fight for them all to have the right to evade justice?

If he had not been illegally forced from office, we all know that he would never have been convicted of anything.

Absolutely true. I might not be happy at the way he had to be removed, but i sure am jubilous that he no longer can break the law with impunity!

[Ulysses G.]

Him, and every other Prime Minister.

Must we really return to that old chestnut of yours of excusing Thaksin of crimes on the basis that others in the past have also commited crimes? Why not fight for all criminals to be convicted, rather than fight for them all to have the right to evade justice?

Because, TIT.

[jumnien]

There is a reason why free speech activist Supinya considered the junta/PAD/Dems as "far more dangerous than Thaksin ever was." A critical look at what is happening now shows why this is so. Her recent thoughts on this matter are very interesting for those inclined. This is not the place to discuss it.