Do You Agree With The Pheu Thai Party's Amnesty Campaign?

[473geo]

The question becomes then, does it make it to members of the government in the form of the House of Parliament. Chalerm is speaking of an Executive Decree, which is an edict issued by the Prime Minister and does not, I believe, require House approval.

It definitely does not require a national referendum for its approval

As long as this process is understood

I doubt that it is.

Many people, including the forum members here, seem to have the notion it would be an amnesty bill, as was opposed by the Jatuporn in the earlier quote, that would be raised, discussed, debated, and decided upon by vote in the House and Senate.

If it's an Executive Decree, it won't go through that process. Chalerm is working on it now with the potentiality that it could be finished in time for it to be signed off on the same day Yingluck assumes office (if she does).

I guess it is lucky the confused members of the forum carry no influence......

[Buchholz]

The question becomes then, does it make it to members of the government in the form of the House of Parliament. Chalerm is speaking of an Executive Decree, which is an edict issued by the Prime Minister and does not, I believe, require House approval.

It definitely does not require a national referendum for its approval

As long as this process is understood

I doubt that it is.

Many people, including the forum members here, seem to have the notion it would be an amnesty bill, as was opposed by the Jatuporn in the earlier quote, that would be raised, discussed, debated, and decided upon by vote in the House and Senate.

If it's an Executive Decree, it won't go through that process. Chalerm is working on it now with the potentiality that it could be finished in time for it to be signed off on the same day Yingluck assumes office (if she does).

I guess it is lucky the confused members of the forum carry no influence......

I presume you're speaking for yourself, but, irregardless, it's unfortunate that so many Thais are misled by PTP's shenanigans, going against an earlier proposed House bill, but now supporting an Executive Decree, which was Thaksin's favorite tool of abuse, ruling by proclamations.

[lanna2011]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

As it happens, I agree - arrest the coup leaders and make them go through a process. Whilst I think that their oaths to protect the monarchy would act as a legitimate reason to break the Law by ousting Thaksin, they should be brought to account and made to answer questions as to why the coup (which, even pro-military types will agree, should be a last option) was necessary and let the Judiciary decide, even if it is a particular commission within the Judiciary to focus on the military's involvement in politics.

If the coup wasn't the last resort afterall - and there were other realistic more democratic options on the table - then yes, the coup leaders should be punished.

Subjective I know, but personally I think that the coup was necessary to advance democracy given the barmy circumstances at the time. (Others would strongly disagree.)

If I understand the Oath of Office for the military (and I am pretty sure I do ) Their oath is first to the monarchy and second to the "state" --- note it is my understanding that the state means Thailand ... not the government nor the constitution, Making it quite different than in other places (I will use the US for the example) where the oath is to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

therein lies the issue

[lanna2011]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

Actually, although it was at the time illegal (it certainly wasn't constitutional!) they have adroitly managed not to be liable for those actions they took. The oath of office sworn by the military would probably get them off the hook anyways. I certainly don't see letting them off the hook for violence that occurred under their watch.

In fact, look at the posts above ... the only people I see all reasonable people wanting to see prosecuted are those responsible for inciting violence or participating in violence. Those that led the coup did neither.

Isn't it fun to figure out where to draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere, and violence seems to be the rationale line in the sand.

yes it was illegal - you seem to like to pick and choose how you apply this where and when it meets your opinion

[whybother]

yes it was illegal - you seem to like to pick and choose how you apply this where and when it meets your opinion

Yes, the coup was illegal (at the time).

Does that make Thaksin any less guilty of corruption?

[bungalownights]

As long as the amnesty doesn't include Thaksin then I am ok with it.

As far as myself and most of my yellow shirt friends are concerned Thaksin is essentially the same as Hitler, Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer.

[mrtoad]

There is nothing wrong with an amnesty if it is for the right reasons. Unfortunaley, I have seen nothing so far to suggest anything other than an amnesty to allow Thaksin to be absolved of his crimes. My own feeling is that those that have been involved in Civil Disobedience / Terrorism / Rioting should take responsibility for their own actions, if they believe them to be so right, and should be prepared to go to jail for it. Funnily enough, none of them have ever wanted to take responsibility, and have always been pushing for amnesty to absolve them of their actions.

[jdinasia]

ok then let them arrest the coup leaders? the Generals etc.? logically you must support this as their action was illegal

Actually, although it was at the time illegal (it certainly wasn't constitutional!) they have adroitly managed not to be liable for those actions they took. The oath of office sworn by the military would probably get them off the hook anyways. I certainly don't see letting them off the hook for violence that occurred under their watch.

In fact, look at the posts above ... the only people I see all reasonable people wanting to see prosecuted are those responsible for inciting violence or participating in violence. Those that led the coup did neither.

Isn't it fun to figure out where to draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere, and violence seems to be the rationale line in the sand.

yes it was illegal - you seem to like to pick and choose how you apply this where and when it meets your opinion

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. They absolved themselves of any crime. I could care less if they (the Generals) were brought up on charges for the coup. If they could be brought up on charges I would not want to see them get an amnesty. (I also am of the opinion that given the oath of office a Thai military officer takes, that the courts would have absolutely no option but to dismiss the case .. but that is my opinion of my understanding of both the oath and Thai law ... ) Like I said above .. a line has to be drawn somewhere, and violence seems to be the line that fits with most people's reasoning.