Thaksin Pardon Panel Has 3 Questions

[webfact]

Thaksin pardon panel has 3 questions

By The Nation

The panel set up to review a 2009 petition submitted by the red shirts seeking a pardon for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra will try to answer three key questions, panel member Tongthong Chandransu said yesterday.

"The pardon review in the Thaksin case has dragged on for a long time; the panel will proceed with caution before coming up with its recommendations," he said.

Tongthong said his panel was tasked with compiling a report on which Justice Minister Pracha Promnok can base a final decision.

In its report, the panel will try to decide:

- Whether the petitioners are entitled to petition for a royal pardon as per the Criminal Procedural Code;

- Whether the manner in which the petition was submitted is in accordance with traditions, precedents and prescribed rules and regulations; and

- Whether past pardon cases are applicable to the Thaksin case, such as the issue of serving time before seeking clemency.

On Wednesday, Pracha appointed the nine-member panel to scrutinise the pardon petition. The panel has already convened its first meeting to outline how it will go about its work. Its next meeting will take place in the next few weeks.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the pardon review was business left unfinished by the previous government.

"This is a routine matter for my government to carry on to completion," she said, insisting her government had no policy on seeking or not seeking a pardon for any specific individual - including her brother, Thaksin.

She dismissed speculation that the government was rushing to seek royal clemency for Thaksin.

Democrat MP Thepthai Senpong said supporters of a pardon for Thaksin, such as Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, had erred in assuming that a fugitive could receive a pardon without having served any time.

Legal provisions and precedents regarding pardons were clear, he said: Only incarcerated convicts are entitled to clemency. He said the case of former attorney-general Komain Patarapirom did not serve as a precedent, as Komain's jail term had been suspended, whereas Thaksin's has not.

-- The Nation 2011-09-10

[Ricardo]

So that's three 'NO's' out of three, then ? Time to play the magic joker-card, which reads "whose sister is PM here ?", and await the flashing-lights & bells to announce a new 'winner', Ker-ching !

[Misterwhisper]

"- Whether the petitioners are entitled to petition for a royal pardon as per the Criminal Procedural Code;"

Sure, it happens all the time that 3 million people scramble together to have a convicted felon pardoned.

"- Whether the manner in which the petition was submitted is in accordance with traditions, precedents and prescribed rules and regulations;"

Of course, it must be quite traditional procedure for people being visited at their homes to sign a petition to pardon a man they have neither family ties with nor do personally know.

"- Whether past pardon cases are applicable to the Thaksin case, such as the issue of serving time before seeking clemency."

Excellent point. How many convicted criminals in the past have actually been pardoned before serving even a single day of their sentence? Especially if those convicted criminals have jumped bail even before the verdict was handed down and thus indirectly admitted their guilt and since then have not shown one iota of remorse.

[janverbeem]

Who forms this "pardon panel"?

Is it set up by Democrat members and does it have any power at all?If so...............................Next.

[janverbeem]

Excellent point. How many convicted criminals in the past have actually been pardoned before serving even a single day of their sentence? Especially if those convicted criminals have jumped bail even before the verdict was handed down and thus indirectly admitted their guilt and since then have not shown one iota of remorse.

As I'm for sure no Thaksin fanboy,I'm actually the opposite,but what in my country and many country's over the world actually happens is this.

One who has been convicted in absence will be given a new trial when he returns or get caught which usually results in a much lower sentence.In this particular country where sandwich boxes change hands on a frequent base,the result will be aquittal of all charges.

[Crushdepth]

Thaksin pardon panel has three questions

1. How much money do we get for saying 'yes' ?

2. What will happen to us if we say 'no'?

3. What's for lunch?

[siampolee]

Oooh , look, lunch has arrived fellow committee members. Edited September 10, 2011 by siampolee

[hammered]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

[Crushdepth]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

I don't agree. It's a very straightforward issue: He has a conviction, he did not appeal. Even if you believe the sentence is "unjust", court decisions sometimes go the wrong way against ordinary people and they just have to live with it. If you throw out the law for the benefit of a politician, you have to accept that others may discard the law when selecting methods to oppose it.

Thailand's has all the institutions and legal mechanisms required for a functional democracy. The reason it does not work is because the law is not applied. Making (another) exception to the law for the personal benefit of a corrupt politician is a step backwards and will perpetuate the situation, which is a mess.

[hammered]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

I don't agree. It's a very straightforward issue: He has a conviction, he did not appeal. Even if you believe the sentence is "unjust", court decisions sometimes go the wrong way against ordinary people and they just have to live with it. If you throw out the law for the benefit of a politician, you have to accept that others may discard the law when selecting methods to oppose it.

Thailand's has all the institutions and legal mechanisms required for a functional democracy. The reason it does not work is because the law is not applied. Making (another) exception to the law for the personal benefit of a corrupt politician is a step backwards and will perpetuate the situation, which is a mess.

People are governed and judged under a form of social contract where they allow themselves to be governed and judged by systems they see as fair and benefitting them and society. If conflict arises between any of these things and the people it is the things that need to change and not the people. That is quite simple democratic theory. Or put simply if the people lose faith in any of the branches: executive, legislature, judiciary then it needs to reform. I am not making a judgement call here but pointing out the relationship between the governed and and judged and those who govern and judge. What happens in Thailand is up to the people in final analysis as governmental and judicial bodies are there to serve the people in the people's interest. It is pointless you or I stating that the mechanisms are fine and enough. It is not up to us.

[rubl]

...

What happens in Thailand is up to the people in final analysis as governmental and judicial bodies are there to serve the people in the people's interest. It is pointless you or I stating that the mechanisms are fine and enough. It is not up to us.

And in the best interest of the people this your government has put as priority number one: get back k. Thaksin. The rest can wait

[hammered]

...

What happens in Thailand is up to the people in final analysis as governmental and judicial bodies are there to serve the people in the people's interest. It is pointless you or I stating that the mechanisms are fine and enough. It is not up to us.

And in the best interest of the people this your government has put as priority number one: get back k. Thaksin. The rest can wait

It s not my government and Id rather not see him back, but I accepted Abhisit's let the people decide election promise and thought whoever wins this needs to be able to end this pretty much on their terms and PTP won an overall majority. If for PTP that means bringing Thaksin back then lets just get it over and quick and through agreement preferably. I cant find a single Thai person of any political persuasion who doesnt think the end of the conflict is linked to sorting out the Thaksin question.

In fairness to the government, they have already started working through policy with the scrapping of the oil levy even if some think all they do is talk about Thaksin. That is pretty much Chalerm who has been tasked with that issue (as Kasit was with it in the past government) and Yingluck who cant avoid it (as Abhisit couldnt in the last government) except of course this time it is about returning him rather than chasing him around the world. And of course both governments were hounded by the media about him all the time. Reality is even though Thaksin isnt present he is the most powerful politician in the country by a long long way and has more admirers than any other politician by a long while those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time. That is a very dangerous reality in the world of politics

[rubl]

...

What happens in Thailand is up to the people in final analysis as governmental and judicial bodies are there to serve the people in the people's interest. It is pointless you or I stating that the mechanisms are fine and enough. It is not up to us.

And in the best interest of the people this your government has put as priority number one: get back k. Thaksin. The rest can wait

It s not my government and Id rather not see him back, but I accepted Abhisit's let the people decide election promise and thought whoever wins this needs to be able to end this pretty much on their terms and PTP won an overall majority. If for PTP that means bringing Thaksin back then lets just get it over and quick and through agreement preferably. I cant find a single Thai person of any political persuasion who doesnt think the end of the conflict is linked to sorting out the Thaksin question.

In fairness to the government, they have already started working through policy with the scrapping of the oil levy even if some think all they do is talk about Thaksin. That is pretty much Chalerm who has been tasked with that issue (as Kasit was with it in the past government) and Yingluck who cant avoid it (as Abhisit couldnt in the last government) except of course this time it is about returning him rather than chasing him around the world. And of course both governments were hounded by the media about him all the time. Reality is even though Thaksin isnt present he is the most powerful politician in the country by a long long way and has more admirers than any other politician by a long while those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time. That is a very dangerous reality in the world of politics

In fairness to the government they have started to define their policies more detailed and even start the process of implementation. Still a few minor issues to be handled as they say.

I like the part where you say 'Thaksin isn't present, but the most powerful politician IN the country', you probably forgot his clone is outside Thailand as well, in Brunei

As for your speculation on Thaksin/Abhisit haters/lovers, I'd say that's opinion. It depends on who you ask and in what part of the country

Edited September 10, 2011 by rubl

[rixalex]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

[Crushdepth]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

People's view of "what the locals think" often reflects the circles they move in.

[bapak]

Excellent point. How many convicted criminals in the past have actually been pardoned before serving even a single day of their sentence? Especially if those convicted criminals have jumped bail even before the verdict was handed down and thus indirectly admitted their guilt and since then have not shown one iota of remorse.

As I'm for sure no Thaksin fanboy,I'm actually the opposite,but what in my country and many country's over the world actually happens is this.

One who has been convicted in absence will be given a new trial when he returns or get caught which usually results in a much lower sentence.In this particular country where sandwich boxes change hands on a frequent base,the result will be aquittal of all charges.

He was not convicted in his absence....

[drdoom6996]

Three questions;

1. What time can Taksin be ready to fly.

2. What time is his the taxi to the airport.

3. What time will his plane land in Thailand.

[backtonormal]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

You appear to have a mish mash of whats right and wrong and at what point does the army justify using excessive force. Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master. Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

[rixalex]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

People's view of "what the locals think" often reflects the circles they move in.

Indeed that is true, but from what i understand of hammered's circle, it consists in the main of people who are anything but hardened reds. It's why i'm confused when he talks about this hatred he sees for Abhisit. It's a hatred i have only ever witnessed from hardened reds.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

Why is it a political issue now??? It is PURELY a family issue (and don't forget) Yingluck has stated many times before that EVERYONE should be treated equally and there should be no favours for her brother Thaksin on account of her newly acquired position as leader of the government. Just why is the government involving itself in such an overtly blatant fashion as this anyway by appointing someone (Chalerm) to deal with this charade???

They are 'bang' out of order and abusing a position of trust in what they are doing and any such actions should be dealt with accordingly and their mission to gain Thaksin a pardon shoud cease immediately.

This government 'stinks' and is unworthy of holding office - I can't wait for it to implode and collapse as THAT is clearly in the best interests of the Thai people (even though so many of them don't appreciate this fact, YET)!!!!!!:jap:

[rixalex]

Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism

Erm, no, it does not. Burning it to the ground would have achieved that. Firing guns, throwing grenades, molotov cocktails would do the trick too.

and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master.

The government indeed had no control of the situation.

Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

If you think the Bangkok protests were badly handled last year, you just wait until, god forbid, this current government gets put in a similar position. Abhisit did as well as anyone could have, and a lot better than most. The thought of Yingluck dealing with anything remotely similar is frankly terrifying.

[slapout]

It would appear that recent Thai government coalitions have a few, selected, appointed, or elected individuals who feel they are a gift to the country and fellow humans , as decreed/selected from on high. The history of Thai governments/politics does indicate that the they all come to the same end, eventually.

We have seen a few apparent self proclaimed, born again individual/movements which have, under scrutiny, shown to be 'same same'. I do not foresee this bunch of clowns setting any record of longevity for time in power/office. I feel request for forgiveness/pardon by/for any individual should be a personal thing between the offender and those most affected by his/her actions. To appeal to the public in the way its being done, just shows how dependent some people are on bullshit, misdirection, and the power of the almighty baht.

[Orac]

It seems to me that this panels job is to report quickly not only on if the Royal Pardon should go ahead for Thaksin in its current form but, if not, exactly what needs to be done to get it through.

I for one would not like to see Thaksin return to Thailand as a returning hero coming back at the request of the people which is almost certainly what he wants and what the current plea seems to be aimed at. The question is how far this will be pushed as, once the questions asked have been addressed, it would surely only take a few minor changes to get it through.

If it is decided that a sibling needs to request the pardon I am sure that will not be a problem however it diminishes the effect of it being a request of the people.

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

As for serving a sentence, if it is decided that this is a requirement I am sure a few days under house arrest or in a special jail would not be out of the question though again this distracts from the returning hero story that he wants to portray.

It seems to becoming inevitable that he will return, the only question now seems to be on what terms.

[OzMick]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

You appear to have a mish mash of whats right and wrong and at what point does the army justify using excessive force. Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master. Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

I like your logic ! As the first people killed were members of the military (including their commander) when attacked by Thaksin's mercenary red shirt thugs, and "the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger" then there is no argument that Thaksin should not be charged with terrorism.

[chainarong]

The courts have spoken, the pardon panel is crap, the whole shebang is crap, pardon me.

[hammered]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

You appear to have a mish mash of whats right and wrong and at what point does the army justify using excessive force. Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master. Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

Yes you rightly point out that Abhisit has been Suchinda'd and it isnt a personal with most. It happened on his watch and hence he needs to move on as he is linked to and thereby discredited with having troops on his watch turn their guns on the people. Massive turning point from what I have seen in rejection of Abhisit and then the attempts to lie about what happened in seeing a drift to sympathy for reds

[hammered]

It seems to me that this panels job is to report quickly not only on if the Royal Pardon should go ahead for Thaksin in its current form but, if not, exactly what needs to be done to get it through.

I for one would not like to see Thaksin return to Thailand as a returning hero coming back at the request of the people which is almost certainly what he wants and what the current plea seems to be aimed at. The question is how far this will be pushed as, once the questions asked have been addressed, it would surely only take a few minor changes to get it through.

If it is decided that a sibling needs to request the pardon I am sure that will not be a problem however it diminishes the effect of it being a request of the people.

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

As for serving a sentence, if it is decided that this is a requirement I am sure a few days under house arrest or in a special jail would not be out of the question though again this distracts from the returning hero story that he wants to portray.

It seems to becoming inevitable that he will return, the only question now seems to be on what terms.

Indeed. Agree with all of that although I think a route that avoids pardon will be the vehicle. Even if he agrees to not return as a hero, there will be parties across the red villages etc. It is almost impossible to avoid that now as they will not just be celebrating his return but also a hard fought defeat of the establishment that cost them blood. It may be that a blind eye will have to be turned to that and maybe sympathetic media will agree not to mention or cover the events

[YellowFeverCAD]

If you think the Bangkok protests were badly handled last year, you just wait until, god forbid, this current government gets put in a similar position. Abhisit did as well as anyone could have, and a lot better than most. The thought of Yingluck dealing with anything remotely similar is frankly terrifying.

Only hardened and blinded red shirt supporters which tend to be very poorly educated Thai's or amazingly simple minded expats seem to think the red shirt occupation was handled poorly compared to what has happened elsewhere in the world under the same general circumstances or what will happen if (when?) this gov't faces the same thing.. and make no mistake it's heading that way... anyone that cant' see that simply doesn't want to

Edited September 10, 2011 by YellowFeverCAD

[backtonormal]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

You appear to have a mish mash of whats right and wrong and at what point does the army justify using excessive force. Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master. Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

I like your logic ! As the first people killed were members of the military (including their commander) when attacked by Thaksin's mercenary red shirt thugs, and "the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger" then there is no argument that Thaksin should not be charged with terrorism.

When the 'name and shame committee' have finished their investigation then we can decide who killed who, up to that point we dont know who did it. It is likely that another army unit tossed in the flash grenade to get the army bullets popping. Your argument is somewhat emotional but thats all it is. The fact that the director of Interpol did never issue an arrest warrant due to the belief at Interpol that the charge of terrorism against Thaksin was purely politically motivated. Add this to 'The World Justice Report' ,under the Abhisit Government, was classed as 'politically interfered with'.

Its what we called a fit up.

[bapak]

It seems to me that this panels job is to report quickly not only on if the Royal Pardon should go ahead for Thaksin in its current form but, if not, exactly what needs to be done to get it through.

I for one would not like to see Thaksin return to Thailand as a returning hero coming back at the request of the people which is almost certainly what he wants and what the current plea seems to be aimed at. The question is how far this will be pushed as, once the questions asked have been addressed, it would surely only take a few minor changes to get it through.

If it is decided that a sibling needs to request the pardon I am sure that will not be a problem however it diminishes the effect of it being a request of the people.

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

As for serving a sentence, if it is decided that this is a requirement I am sure a few days under house arrest or in a special jail would not be out of the question though again this distracts from the returning hero story that he wants to portray.

It seems to becoming inevitable that he will return, the only question now seems to be on what terms.

So my question is, should he return under some sort of deal.. amnesty, whatever? Then would he not be immediately arrested for the other charges that are pending against him which have not been pursued to date because of his absence from the jurisdiction?