Thaksin Pardon Panel Has 3 Questions

[rixalex]

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.

The belief at Interpol that the charge of terrorism against Thaksin was purely politically motivated has never been expressed by Interpol themselves, but speculated by people like you who happen to believe that to be true. It's a belief that is at odds with other beliefs of yours, like people sitting in protest at an airport constituting terrorism.

[OzMick]

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.

Keep the big lies coming, if you keep repeating them some will even seem true. The army commander was hit with an M-79 grenade after being laser targetted, a deliberate military-style assault on an army unit preparing for crowd control - evident by their kit of shields and batons.

It's funny how every charge against Thaksin seems to be "politically motivated" as if that washes away the underlying crime. The motivation of the prosecution is completely irrelevant to a judge.

[473geo]

Quite simple really, Thaksin will be allowed back when the real power brokers are ready, or not, difficult to believe conversations have not been taking place for some length of time.....all this speculation....Thaksin will know if the door has been left ajar or is firmly shut.....

[rixalex]

It's funny how every charge against Thaksin seems to be "politically motivated" as if that washes away the underlying crime. The motivation of the prosecution is completely irrelevant to a judge.

And the whole thing is even funnier when you realise that all "politically motivated" actually means, is when somebody who would usually have enough power and influence to wriggle and squirm their way, by use of loop holes and lawyers, out of ever having to abide by the same rules and laws as everyone else, is denied these "perks" and made to face justice.

[ratcatcher]

Quite simple really, Thaksin will be allowed back when the real power brokers are ready, or not, difficult to believe conversations have not been taking place for some length of time.....all this speculation....Thaksin will know if the door has been left ajar or is firmly shut.....

I imagine the real powers that be (not the likes of Chalerm) are very wary of allowing Thaksin back in.

That would be, IMHO, akin to the farmer letting a skunk into his kitchen because it was snowing outside. :-)

[daiwill60]

Hear hear!!!

Round 2 - Abhisit and his colleagues will be charged for their parts in killing of Red Shirts during the riots. ( that should show the red shirt supporters we are on their side) and while the attention is focussed upon where the hell is Abhisit hiding, we can swindle any thing and everything we want to.

Swngs and roundabouts of Thai politics it seems to me.

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:

[looping]

"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.

THIS is what makes me sick. But I do understand that she has to say that or the whole web of lies would fall apart...

I guess at some point she'll have to say "it's amazing that my brother has had his conviction overturned, and what a coincidence that I just happen to be PM. I feel like a break, can anyone suggest a replacement ???"

I know that gambling's illegal in LOS but are Ladbrokes (UK) taking bets on any of this?

[lannarebirth]

"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.

THIS is what makes me sick. But I do understand that she has to say that or the whole web of lies would fall apart...

I guess at some point she'll have to say "it's amazing that my brother has had his conviction overturned, and what a coincidence that I just happen to be PM. I feel like a break, can anyone suggest a replacement ???"

I know that gambling's illegal in LOS but are Ladbrokes (UK) taking bets on any of this?

If any ethical Thai journalist ever catches up with the reclusive Ms. Yingluck, I'd like them to ask her this question: "You've repeatedly insisted that you have no policy or agenda to seek a pardon or amnesty for your brother Thaksin. Howver, your Deputy PM Chalerm vows to get the fugitive Ex-PM Thaksin pardoned. When queried as to why he has made this a priority he states he is working under your orders. So, which one of you is lying? "

[scorecard]

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.

'think it was unfair'...

The man broke a serious law, he deliberately broke a serious law, he (and his wife) knew very well that they were breaking a serious law, his advisers and the officials of the department concerned all knew very well that he, and themselves by implications were breaking a serious law. The officials knew very well that what they processing was highly illegal, no shades gray - illegal.

The law that he broke had nothing to do whatever with a coup or any partisan political situations, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the 'samak cookng show' episode.

The law he broke (not strained, not twisted, BROKE), has been on the statute books of Thailand for decades, and is there for very good reasons, to protect the common wealth of Thailand from being grasped by people in power and especially to protect the common wealth of all Thai people from being grasped by people with no morals and no respect for both what is morally correct, let alone respect for the law.

He broke the law and well as displaying a severe lack of ethics, values and morals! Not exactly a role models for our kids.

He broke a serious law - end of story.

Now are the paymasters lovers and leeches going to accept that? No, because they don't want to accept it, nothing more nothing less. They will continue to say 'it was unfair' forever no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

Chalerm will of course come up with another incredulous version, don't expect anything less.

Edited September 10, 2011 by scorecard

[brianb1944]

Who forms this "pardon panel"?

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

If it is an impartial panel, I wouldnt be in their shoes for quids. I can just see the pickets outside their homes, the veiled, or not, threats to their persons , or their families as soon as any adverse consideration is leaked to the wolf pack.

[daninthai]

Just who exactly are the 'hidden powers' that everyone keeps referring to but no one seems to know anything about?

Pure fantasy maybe?

If you do know, please pass the info on.

[473geo]

Quite simple really, Thaksin will be allowed back when the real power brokers are ready, or not, difficult to believe conversations have not been taking place for some length of time.....all this speculation....Thaksin will know if the door has been left ajar or is firmly shut.....

I imagine the real powers that be (not the likes of Chalerm) are very wary of allowing Thaksin back in.

That would be, IMHO, akin to the farmer letting a skunk into his kitchen because it was snowing outside. :-)

I agree, but more a case of do you want the wolf outside and hungry, or do you let him in to eat from your table........if Thaksin cannot be controlled and cannot be used for the benefit of the country then he should not receive a pardon....(after all the crime of financial manipulation for which he is convicted is not really the issue here).......however if there is good for the country, the power brokers do not feel threatened.....then a pardon/amnesty may possibly be 'arranged'.......

[473geo]

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.

'think it was unfair'...

The man broke a serious law, he deliberately broke a serious law, he (and his wife) knew very well that they were breaking a serious law, his advisers and the officials of the department concerned all knew very well that he, and themselves by implications were breaking a serious law.

The law that he broke had nothing to do whatever with a coup or any partisan political situations, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the 'samak cookng show' episode.

He broke a serious law - end of story.

Now are the paymasters lovers and leeches going to accept that? No, because they don't want to accept it, nothing more nothing less. They will continue to say 'it was unfair' forever no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

[scorecard]

...

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

And there must be a very sizeable number who are abhisit haters for one specific reason - the hatred, often lies, doctored tapes, played over and over again at the red rallies and at the their so called 'democracy schools'.

[looping]

"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.

THIS is what makes me sick. But I do understand that she has to say that or the whole web of lies would fall apart...

I guess at some point she'll have to say "it's amazing that my brother has had his conviction overturned, and what a coincidence that I just happen to be PM. I feel like a break, can anyone suggest a replacement ???"

I know that gambling's illegal in LOS but are Ladbrokes (UK) taking bets on any of this?

If any ethical Thai journalist ever catches up with the reclusive Ms. Yingluck, I'd like them to ask her this question: "You've repeatedly insisted that you have no policy or agenda to seek a pardon or amnesty for your brother Thaksin. Howver, your Deputy PM Chalerm vows to get the fugitive Ex-PM Thaksin pardoned. When queried as to why he has made this a priority he states he is working under your orders. So, which one of you is lying? "

Absolutely! Isn't it crazy that a govt can function on such a basic level, and apparently get away with it.

YL to Chalerm... "you say black, I'll say white, you say I told you to say black, and when they ask me why we not consistant,I'll just avoid the question. It's a plan!"

[scorecard]

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.

'think it was unfair'...

The man broke a serious law, he deliberately broke a serious law, he (and his wife) knew very well that they were breaking a serious law, his advisers and the officials of the department concerned all knew very well that he, and themselves by implications were breaking a serious law.

The law that he broke had nothing to do whatever with a coup or any partisan political situations, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the 'samak cookng show' episode.

He broke a serious law - end of story.

Now are the paymasters lovers and leeches going to accept that? No, because they don't want to accept it, nothing more nothing less. They will continue to say 'it was unfair' forever no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

I don't agree, not at all.

[OzMick]

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?

In the real world, yes.

In Thailand, he will be greeted by a political ingenue who has miraculously become PM, and happens to be his sister, and the new Police Chief who has a miraculous rise through the ranks despite any indication of ability, and happens to be his brother-in-law.

The Police Chief would of course carry out his sworn duty to the King and people of Thailand, but the arrest warrants have been mislaid in an inactive file, and despite having 36 corrupt generals on inactive posts inactively searching for them, they cannot be found.

Note to k. Thaksin. It may be wise during the next election to have the private jet kept on instant standby, engines running. Should the results not go the way they were paid to go, the warrants may be found and executed quite rapidly, and the 6 new judges awaiting appointment might decide that execution is a suitable punishment. To quote Gary Trudeau "The bailiff may fire when ready!"

Actually, I don't think Doonesbury ever portrayed anything as farcical as Thai politics.

[BlackJack]

my 3 questions are

1. are you twuely sorry?

2. are you twuely twuely sorry?

3. are you twuely twuely twuely sorry?

[OzMick]

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.

'think it was unfair'...

The man broke a serious law, he deliberately broke a serious law, he (and his wife) knew very well that they were breaking a serious law, his advisers and the officials of the department concerned all knew very well that he, and themselves by implications were breaking a serious law.

The law that he broke had nothing to do whatever with a coup or any partisan political situations, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the 'samak cookng show' episode.

He broke a serious law - end of story.

Now are the paymasters lovers and leeches going to accept that? No, because they don't want to accept it, nothing more nothing less. They will continue to say 'it was unfair' forever no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

Do the judges on your planet conduct a public opinion poll before handing down decisions?

[OzMick]

my 3 questions are

1. are you twuely sorry?

2. are you twuely twuely sorry?

3. are you twuely twuely twuely sorry?

His reply

1/ I did nothing wrong

2/ I did nothing wrong

3/ even if I did do something wrong, I will get away with it

[473geo]

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

Do the judges on your planet conduct a public opinion poll before handing down decisions?

Why? would it affect the opinion of people if they did, they make decicisions and apply the law, they cannot control the opinion of people regarding that decision.......

[OzMick]

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

Do the judges on your planet conduct a public opinion poll before handing down decisions?

Why? would it affect the opinion of people if they did, they make decicisions and apply the law, they cannot control the opinion of people regarding that decision.......

So "The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go....." is completely irrelevant?

[Buchholz]

Who forms this "pardon panel"?

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

It was just set up this week by the Pheu Thai Party MP Justice Minister.

Their role is advisory and will only make their recommendations to the Justice Minister.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[peterquixote]

Thailand this is a horrid country, there are better places to go than Miracle pay here Thailand.

Better places , Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, India, anywhere by corrupt Thailand

[Buchholz]

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.

Which should make one wonder why, in the intervening 3 years since his conviction, that the legally-mandated requirement that the pardon request be initiated by himself, his spouse, or his offspring has never been done.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

Short of that and considering he has no legal spouse now, if his offspring Oak et al want Dad to receive a Royal Pardon, why have they never requested one???

The red herring you speak of was created by the Red Shirts in their lets get a gazillion signatures endeavor.... when not one of those signers meets the requirement that it originates from one of the above authorized requesters.

.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[473geo]

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

Do the judges on your planet conduct a public opinion poll before handing down decisions?

Why? would it affect the opinion of people if they did, they make decicisions and apply the law, they cannot control the opinion of people regarding that decision.......

So "The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go....." is completely irrelevant?

If opinion can be tranferred into action and the people of the opinion carry influence and can effect a pardon.......yes it is relevant......the Judge which you try to bring into the equation is however irrelevant as soon as he dispences his verdict and sentence........

Should you require any further explanation or assistance please do not hesitate to contact me......

[cutter007]

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.

In or before December he already said he needs to be back for his kids wedding. Is it really necessary to even do a pardon review?

Supreme commander has already spoken.......... laws and other people's opinions are not relevant when in conflict to his wishes.

They should just hurry up and issue a "coupe" pardon, so that we can all get our free iPads.

I love Thailand the politicians are funnier than any comic I have read.

[Buchholz]

up to that point we dont know who did it

It is likely that

love your contradictions

[473geo]

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.

In or before December he already said he needs to be back for his kids wedding. Is it really necessary to even do a pardon review?

Supreme commander has already spoken.......... laws and other people's opinions are not relevant when in conflict to his wishes.

They should just hurry up and issue a "coupe" pardon, so that we can all get our free iPads.

I love Thailand the politicians are funnier than any comic I have read.

ssssshhhhhhhh.........there are people here who take Thai politics very seriously...........

.........all be it in a rather farcical comic way............

[cutter007]

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.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

.

Technically having your clone draft and push it through would be requesting it yourself. Basically approving it himself as well.

Let's be honest thaksin owns this government, and I am sure when he sells it to whoever the takers are, he won't pay taxes of those profits as well.