Panel Looking Into Thaksin Petition Has Vested Interests

[SICHONSTEVE]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

He made it his baby when he announced the policy as being his initiative. And no, he didn't act alone, but he was the only one with the ultimate power to either give it the go-ahead or to veto it. The top of the chain. Shouldn't be the only one to take responsibility, but should be the first.

Unfortunately forum rules prevent me from debating this further, all I can say is there are doubts as to who is the top of the chain in this case.

In other words "you have lost the argument" and are attempting to hide behind a smoke screen!!!!

[anterian]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

He made it his baby when he announced the policy as being his initiative. And no, he didn't act alone, but he was the only one with the ultimate power to either give it the go-ahead or to veto it. The top of the chain. Shouldn't be the only one to take responsibility, but should be the first.

Unfortunately forum rules prevent me from debating this further, all I can say is there are doubts as to who is the top of the chain in this case.

In other words "you have lost the argument" and are attempting to hide behind a smoke screen!!!!

Is that really so? Then all I can say is that your understanding of this topic is sadly lacking. Your glee is childishly misplaced.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

Please tell me - just why is my understanding of this topic "sadly lacking" - what, do you know??? something that nobody else does!!! When you stop fantasising and pretending that you are a "world authority" on the subject with "secret insights" into the matter then maybe you can contribute something useful to the debate. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!:jap:

[anterian]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

Please tell me - just why is my understanding of this topic "sadly lacking" - what, do you know??? something that nobody else does!!! When you stop fantasising and pretending that you are a "world authority" on the subject with "secret insights" into the matter then maybe you can contribute something useful to the debate. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!:jap:

Another juvenile response, did my reference to Thomas Becket mean nothing to you?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/thomas_becket.htm

Why do you say I claim to be a "world authority", with "secret insights"? These are simply unfounded childish taunts. Where have I ever made either of these claims?

[Buchholz]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

He made it his baby when he announced the policy as being his initiative. And no, he didn't act alone, but he was the only one with the ultimate power to either give it the go-ahead or to veto it. The top of the chain. Shouldn't be the only one to take responsibility, but should be the first.

Thanks for the setting the record straight. It's sadly necessary to correct all these misrepresentations and obfuscations as indeed, he initiated it, he supervised it, and he claimed the credit for what was supposedly the complete eradication of all drugs country-wide.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

He made it his baby when he announced the policy as being his initiative. And no, he didn't act alone, but he was the only one with the ultimate power to either give it the go-ahead or to veto it. The top of the chain. Shouldn't be the only one to take responsibility, but should be the first.

Thanks for the setting the record straight. It's sadly necessary to correct all these misrepresentations and obfuscations as indeed, he initiated it, he supervised it, and he claimed the credit for what was supposedly the complete eradication of all drugs country-wide.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4689897

Quite!!!!

I hope that Anterian is starting to get the message now that his views are misguided and patently wrong on this!!!!!! Careful though as this is probably top-secret even though it is in the public domain and you may be getting yoursef into problems with the Thai Visa rules, apparently, or something like that, I think!!!.

Please don't tell me I'm being childish again, as I will start regressing back to my childhood and it will be all your fault (or maybe somone else's as well)!!

C'mon Anterian!! "Ballpoint" is hanging around patiently, waiting for your retort. I'm sure, with a moniker like that that he's got other things to write about as well!!!!.

It's too late - he's gone!!!!!!

Edited September 11, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[Emptyset]

"After the 2006 coup, the military junta ordered another investigation into the anti-drug campaign. The committee concluded that as many as 1400 of the 2500 killed had no link to drugs. However, while giving the opinion that orders to kill came from the top, the panel failed to establish sufficient evidence to charge Thaksin or anybody in the Cabinet or police force with the murders".

The figure usually given for the War on Drugs killings - around 2500 - is actually the total number of murders from the period. The average was about 400 murders per month, the War on Drugs was 2 and a half months, so it's likely at least 1200 deaths during the period were not as a result of the War on Drugs. So the actual figure for the WOD is more likely around the 1370 figure listed below. Which is, of course, still an outrageous figure, and one of the greatest human rights abuses in Thailand's modern history (unfortunately there's quite a lot to choose from). If people want to talk about Thaksin's crimes, then this was by far the worst, the others just pale in comparison: murder, bodies piling up on the streets... it's clear enough.

"During the three months of the war's duration, the rate of murder increased by 88 per cent. The ICID found that of the 2559 cases totaling 2873 deaths (from February to April), drug related cases accounted for 1187, totaling 1370 murders. In 29 cases suspects had been arrested, while 47 suspects were at large. Of the remaining 1111 cases, no perpetrators had been identified. In the remaining 1372 non-narcotic related cases, totaling 1449 deaths, 791 suspects had been identified or arrested, demonstrating that few resources were allocated to 'drug' murders. The ICID reported that of the extra-judicial executions in this period, 41 were drug related and 11 were for unidentified causes."

http://sovereignmyth...r-on-drugs.html

Edit: more on this figure here - http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from.html

The comment by Azwar Thi is excellent though, fully agree:

'Q - "If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed?"

A - No, because merely playing with the numbers misses the point.

Numbers games always prove problematic in human rights advocacy. In the Philippines at the moment there is a great deal of argument about the number of persons killed as a result of a tacit army policy to murder trade unionists, peasant leaders, human rights defenders and left-wing politicians. The talk about numbers confuses and derails the more important discussion about the details of how and why the killings are occurring and what sorts of government policies, practices and language permit them to continue.

Similarly, in Thailand discussion about the number of killings, even the number of "wars"--while relevant--sidetracks attention from the systematic manner in which the killings were carried out and what policies and practices enabled them. In June 2003, the Asian Legal Resource Centre released a report in which it pointed to the policy--the orders signed by Thaksin that endorsed killings by rewarding state officers for the death of alleged dealers and constant threats and encouragement for police and local officials to overstep the legal boundaries; the language--constant iterations by Thaksin, Wan Mohammad Noor and others that the lives of drug dealers were worthless; and the pattern of killing in different parts of the country--1. name on a blacklist; 2. invited for questioning; 3. allowed to go home; 4. killed shortly thereafter, often in public or at home; and, 5. police fail to conduct proper inquiry and concentrate on obtaining evidence to prove that the victim was a drug dealer, where necessary, by planting the evidence--i.e. the ubiquitous blue plastic bag with a small quantity of Yaba inside.

I think this sums it up:

"Behind the worst atrocities in history lies the mentality that there exists a class of persons who can be eradicated simply because they are deemed socially undesirable--in this case, alleged drug dealers. Irrespective of what a person is said to have done, if they and their kind are pursued without regards for due process, a deep social crisis is sure to follow." (p. 41)'

Edited September 11, 2011 by Emptyset

[hanuman1]

He made it his baby when he announced the policy as being his initiative. And no, he didn't act alone, but he was the only one with the ultimate power to either give it the go-ahead or to veto it. The top of the chain. Shouldn't be the only one to take responsibility, but should be the first.

Unfortunately forum rules prevent me from debating this further, all I can say is there are doubts as to who is the top of the chain in this case.

In other words "you have lost the argument" and are attempting to hide behind a smoke screen!!!!

Is that really so? Then all I can say is that your understanding of this topic is sadly lacking. Your glee is childishly misplaced.

This is how LM neuters meaningful political debate in this country. A pivotal influence in much of what has happened is kept strictly out of bounds. Might as well discuss the weather without ever mentioning the sun.

[Siam Simon]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

Please tell me - just why is my understanding of this topic "sadly lacking" - what, do you know??? something that nobody else does!!! When you stop fantasising and pretending that you are a "world authority" on the subject with "secret insights" into the matter then maybe you can contribute something useful to the debate. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!:jap:

Steve, either you are pretending that you don't know what anterian is alluding to, or you genuinely don't know. If you don't know, then I suggest you read up on the subject before continuing with your line of debate. You will soon find out anterian's meaning.

[Siam Simon]

This is how LM neuters meaningful political debate in this country. A pivotal influence in much of what has happened is kept strictly out of bounds. Might as well discuss the weather without ever mentioning the sun.

Sadly, it's the framework we have to debate in until times (and laws) change.

[anterian]

Thaksin did not act alone, he had high level support. But when public opinion turned against him he was abandoned and left holding the baby.

Please tell me - just why is my understanding of this topic "sadly lacking" - what, do you know??? something that nobody else does!!! When you stop fantasising and pretending that you are a "world authority" on the subject with "secret insights" into the matter then maybe you can contribute something useful to the debate. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!:jap:

Steve, either you are pretending that you don't know what anterian is alluding to, or you genuinely don't know. If you don't know, then I suggest you read up on the subject before continuing with your line of debate. You will soon find out anterian's meaning.

Whilst this may not apply to Steve, it is a common tactic to pretend ignorance in the hope that the other person may be provoked into both forum and LM transgressions by giving further details. However, in view of the tone of his mocking comments to me I am reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[geriatrickid]

The pardon does not relate to the allegations arising from the counter insurgency against the drug gangs. Why is there even a discussion of that subject? The pardon relates to the judgement rendered in respect to a completely different financial affairs matter. The pardon will be considered in respect to that case. If the pardon was to be considered on the conduct of the anti drug campaign, Mr. Thaksin nwould have had a pardon long ago if it had been required. In that regard, he has and had the support of the entrenched powers in Thailand in respect to the drug campaign.

[Emptyset]

The general that was pardoned and then went on to become the Democrats darling in the Senate led his coup against General Prem. There are some very powerful people onside with the proposed pardon that some assume are anti Thaksin.

Supposedly just before the Revolutionary Party took control (this is the 81 coup attempt), Manoon and Prajark paid Prem a visit at Si Sao Thewes, asking Prem to lead a coup against himself. When Prem refused, Gen Prajark apparently decided to kill him, but Prem asked to be allowed to go upstairs and change before they did the deed, and he was able to place a phone call to an 'influential person' who begged Manoon to stop Prajark killing Prem. Manoon pushed the gun away, defused the situation and after that Prem escaped to Korat. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's a good story. Prajark was apparently a lunatic and it's well known they did visit him in the hours before the coup.

Have to remember it was the Young Turks (Manoon, Prajark etc) who forced Kriensak to resign and brought Prem to power. Before that he was a fairly obscure Maj Gen in the south. But Prem proved to be more than the puppet that they expected him to be, and was trying to build a powerbase outside the Young Turks. Hence the coup attempt. If Prem had done what they asked and lead a coup against himself, he would've been no more than a puppet with the Young Turks holding the real power.

I actually think Manoon been pardoned twice. Once for the above coup, which came through parliament I believe (but Prem was behind it, reason being that Young Turks had made so many attempts on Prem's life, they decided to call a truce which included a pardon for Manoon). Then he got the royal pardon for the 1985 coup when he was living in Germany. I'll have to check with a friend to be sure of this though, when he got pardoned and by whom.

[hanuman1]

The general that was pardoned and then went on to become the Democrats darling in the Senate led his coup against General Prem. There are some very powerful people onside with the proposed pardon that some assume are anti Thaksin.

Supposedly just before the Revolutionary Party took control (this is the 81 coup attempt), Manoon and Prajark paid Prem a visit at Si Sao Thewes, asking Prem to lead a coup against himself. When Prem refused, Gen Prajark apparently decided to kill him, but Prem asked to be allowed to go upstairs and change before they did the deed, and he was able to place a phone call to an 'influential person' who begged Manoon to stop Prajark killing Prem. Manoon pushed the gun away, defused the situation and after that Prem escaped to Korat. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's a good story. Prajark was apparently a lunatic and it's well known they did visit him in the hours before the coup.

Have to remember it was the Young Turks (Manoon, Prajark etc) who forced Kriensak to resign and brought Prem to power. Before that he was a fairly obscure Maj Gen in the south. But Prem proved to be more than the puppet that they expected him to be, and was trying to build a powerbase outside the Young Turks. Hence the coup attempt. If Prem had done what they asked and lead a coup against himself, he would've been no more than a puppet with the Young Turks holding the real power.

I actually think Manoon been pardoned twice. Once for the above coup, which came through parliament I believe (but Prem was behind it, reason being that Young Turks had made so many attempts on Prem's life, they decided to call a truce which included a pardon for Manoon). Then he got the royal pardon for the 1985 coup when he was living in Germany. I'll have to check with a friend to be sure of this though, when he got pardoned and by whom.

Makes the current situation look pretty mundane...

[scorecard]

The pardon does not relate to the allegations arising from the counter insurgency against the drug gangs. Why is there even a discussion of that subject? The pardon relates to the judgement rendered in respect to a completely different financial affairs matter. The pardon will be considered in respect to that case. If the pardon was to be considered on the conduct of the anti drug campaign, Mr. Thaksin nwould have had a pardon long ago if it had been required. In that regard, he has and had the support of the entrenched powers in Thailand in respect to the drug campaign.

Total rubbish.

[Emptyset]

Makes the current situation look pretty mundane...

Yeah, I guess military influence declined after 1992 and faction rivalry was never quite so intense again. That is at least up until 2006, but generals aren't as arrogant as they used to be. The Young Turks acted as if they had a natural right to run the country, same with Suchinda I suppose. Whilst in 2006 and since then, generals have interfered 'reluctantly' or at least they've tried to make it look as if they didn't want to involve themselves in political matters but were left with no choice but to intervene to 'save the country'.

Although factional rivalry is still important, of course. I think we saw some of that in last year's red shirt protests, where some Generals from Wong Thewan (allegedly) supported Thaksin & the red shirts as against the currently dominant Burapha Phayak clique, and rumour has it may have been behind the Men in Black on April 10th*.

But I'd say the 50s and the 70s are the most interesting decades in modern Thai history. Another anecdote I enjoy: after Sarit staged a coup in 57, Chatchai (Choonhavan, Kraisak's dad, who later became PM and was ousted by Suchinda), who was a Col. in the calvary at that time rode his horse into the room where Sarit's people were gathered, threw a glass of whiskey against the wall and rode out. He was then exiled to Argentina.

*On that note, was reading this Wikileaks cable: 'When the Ambassador noted that the Puea Thai party had successfully enlisted a handful of retired generals into its ranks in recent weeks, Panitan dismissed the generals in question as marginal figures at best. According to Panitan, those 25 or so former military officials were just a drop in the bucket when one considered that the Thai armed forces stood more than 300,000 strong. Furthermore, the generals in question all had one thing in common: they were lazy and incompetent during their careers and had only demonstrated an interest in enriching themselves. Moreover, as former generals, they would not take orders from party politicians. For these reasons, the Democrat party leadership was delighted with this development. The generals were, in other words, perfect candidates to join a party like Puea Thai in Panitan's mind.'

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=10BANGKOK178&q=india

I wonder if any of these generals were also involved with the men in black? Perhaps Panitan was wrong to be so complacent.

[hanuman1]

...

Edited September 11, 2011 by hanuman1

[Siam Simon]

The pardon does not relate to the allegations arising from the counter insurgency against the drug gangs. Why is there even a discussion of that subject? The pardon relates to the judgement rendered in respect to a completely different financial affairs matter. The pardon will be considered in respect to that case. If the pardon was to be considered on the conduct of the anti drug campaign, Mr. Thaksin nwould have had a pardon long ago if it had been required. In that regard, he has and had the support of the entrenched powers in Thailand in respect to the drug campaign.

Total rubbish.

Total rubbish? Let's have a look.

"The pardon does not relate to the allegations arising from the counter insurgency against the drug gangs. Why is there even a discussion of that subject?"

You think that it's a petition requesting a pardon over allegations?

"The pardon relates to the judgement rendered in respect to a completely different financial affairs matter. The pardon will be considered in respect to that"

This is undisputed fact.

"If the pardon was to be considered on the conduct of the anti drug campaign, Mr. Thaksin nwould have had a pardon long ago if it had been required."

This is pure speculation of course. But it's a non-issue imo because imo Thaksin will never face charges on this issue as long as he is breathing and talking.

"In that regard, he has and had the support of the entrenched powers in Thailand in respect to the drug campaign."

This is undisputed fact. Anyone unaware of this should read the media from the relevant period before making themselves look foolish.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Buchholz]

Officially launched in February 2003, the government crackdown has resulted in the unexplained killing of more than 2,000 persons, the arbitrary arrest or blacklisting of several thousand more, and the endorsement of extreme violence by government officials at the highest

levels.

Upon taking office in February 2001, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra declared the “prevention and suppression” of narcotic drugs as one of his top priorities. He pledged that the government would strictly enforce drug trafficking laws and remove legal and other barriers to drug treatment and rehabilitation. Despite his rhetorical commitment to humane responses to Thailand’s drug problem, Thaksin’s anti-drug campaign quickly evolved into a violent and murderous “war on drugs.”

Beginning in February 2003, the Thaksin government instructed police and local officials that persons charged with drug offenses should be considered “security threats” and dealt with in a “ruthless” and “severe” manner. The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings, which the government blamed largely on gangs involved in the drug trade; arbitrary inclusion of drug suspects on poorly prepared government “blacklists” or “watchlists;” intimidation of human rights defenders; violence, arbitrary arrest, and other breaches of due process by Thai police; and coerced or mandatory drug treatment.

At the outset of the war on drugs, Prime Minister Thaksin sought to distinguish between drug users, who he said should be treated as “victims” and “patients,” and drug traffickers, who were to be harshly punished. In practice, drug users along with drug traffickers became the targets of state-sponsored killings and ill-treatment. Many drug users were coerced into treatment during the drug war under fear of arrest. Those who enrolled were given substandard treatment, often consisting of military-style drills in hastily established treatment “boot camps.”

Police and other officials were offered cash incentives for arrests and seizures, while senior officials such as governors and police chiefs stood to lose their jobs if targets were not met. The Prime Minister said of the cash incentives that “at three Baht [u.S.$0.07] per methamphetamine tablet seized, a government official can become a millionaire by upholding the law, instead of begging for kickbacks from the scum of society.”

Thaksin’s near monopoly over state and private broadcast media hid most of the campaign’s worst abuses from public view and allowed the government’s message that all of those killed and targeted were dangerous criminals—and not men, women, and children against whom no charge had been laid—to gain popular acceptance.

- Human Rights Watch

.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

The general that was pardoned and then went on to become the Democrats darling in the Senate led his coup against General Prem. There are some very powerful people onside with the proposed pardon that some assume are anti Thaksin.

Supposedly just before the Revolutionary Party took control (this is the 81 coup attempt), Manoon and Prajark paid Prem a visit at Si Sao Thewes, asking Prem to lead a coup against himself. When Prem refused, Gen Prajark apparently decided to kill him, but Prem asked to be allowed to go upstairs and change before they did the deed, and he was able to place a phone call to an 'influential person' who begged Manoon to stop Prajark killing Prem. Manoon pushed the gun away, defused the situation and after that Prem escaped to Korat. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's a good story. Prajark was apparently a lunatic and it's well known they did visit him in the hours before the coup.

Have to remember it was the Young Turks (Manoon, Prajark etc) who forced Kriensak to resign and brought Prem to power. Before that he was a fairly obscure Maj Gen in the south. But Prem proved to be more than the puppet that they expected him to be, and was trying to build a powerbase outside the Young Turks. Hence the coup attempt. If Prem had done what they asked and lead a coup against himself, he would've been no more than a puppet with the Young Turks holding the real power.

I actually think Manoon been pardoned twice. Once for the above coup, which came through parliament I believe (but Prem was behind it, reason being that Young Turks had made so many attempts on Prem's life, they decided to call a truce which included a pardon for Manoon). Then he got the royal pardon for the 1985 coup when he was living in Germany. I'll have to check with a friend to be sure of this though, when he got pardoned and by whom.

None of the aforementioned involved someone being convicted in court, then requesting a Royal Pardon, before any prison time.

None of the aforementioned involving a Royal Pardon request that was submitted by a disallowed source.

[Buchholz]

The general that was pardoned and then went on to become the Democrats darling in the Senate led his coup against General Prem. There are some very powerful people onside with the proposed pardon that some assume are anti Thaksin.

Supposedly just before the Revolutionary Party took control (this is the 81 coup attempt), Manoon and Prajark paid Prem a visit at Si Sao Thewes, asking Prem to lead a coup against himself. When Prem refused, Gen Prajark apparently decided to kill him, but Prem asked to be allowed to go upstairs and change before they did the deed, and he was able to place a phone call to an 'influential person' who begged Manoon to stop Prajark killing Prem. Manoon pushed the gun away, defused the situation and after that Prem escaped to Korat. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's a good story. Prajark was apparently a lunatic and it's well known they did visit him in the hours before the coup.

Have to remember it was the Young Turks (Manoon, Prajark etc) who forced Kriensak to resign and brought Prem to power. Before that he was a fairly obscure Maj Gen in the south. But Prem proved to be more than the puppet that they expected him to be, and was trying to build a powerbase outside the Young Turks. Hence the coup attempt. If Prem had done what they asked and lead a coup against himself, he would've been no more than a puppet with the Young Turks holding the real power.

I actually think Manoon been pardoned twice. Once for the above coup, which came through parliament I believe (but Prem was behind it, reason being that Young Turks had made so many attempts on Prem's life, they decided to call a truce which included a pardon for Manoon). Then he got the royal pardon for the 1985 coup when he was living in Germany. I'll have to check with a friend to be sure of this though, when he got pardoned and by whom.

Makes the current situation look pretty mundane...

Also makes it a different and dissimilar set of circumstances to today, although it's an interesting bit of unrelated history.

[Siam Simon]

The general that was pardoned and then went on to become the Democrats darling in the Senate led his coup against General Prem. There are some very powerful people onside with the proposed pardon that some assume are anti Thaksin.

Supposedly just before the Revolutionary Party took control (this is the 81 coup attempt), Manoon and Prajark paid Prem a visit at Si Sao Thewes, asking Prem to lead a coup against himself. When Prem refused, Gen Prajark apparently decided to kill him, but Prem asked to be allowed to go upstairs and change before they did the deed, and he was able to place a phone call to an 'influential person' who begged Manoon to stop Prajark killing Prem. Manoon pushed the gun away, defused the situation and after that Prem escaped to Korat. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's a good story. Prajark was apparently a lunatic and it's well known they did visit him in the hours before the coup.

Have to remember it was the Young Turks (Manoon, Prajark etc) who forced Kriensak to resign and brought Prem to power. Before that he was a fairly obscure Maj Gen in the south. But Prem proved to be more than the puppet that they expected him to be, and was trying to build a powerbase outside the Young Turks. Hence the coup attempt. If Prem had done what they asked and lead a coup against himself, he would've been no more than a puppet with the Young Turks holding the real power.

I actually think Manoon been pardoned twice. Once for the above coup, which came through parliament I believe (but Prem was behind it, reason being that Young Turks had made so many attempts on Prem's life, they decided to call a truce which included a pardon for Manoon). Then he got the royal pardon for the 1985 coup when he was living in Germany. I'll have to check with a friend to be sure of this though, when he got pardoned and by whom.

Makes the current situation look pretty mundane...

Also makes it a different and dissimilar set of circumstances to today, although it's an interesting bit of unrelated history.

[mca]

and his involvement in the 300 or more tak bai deaths.

Not trivializing the Tak Bai incident in anyway but I think you'll find the death toll was in the 80s.

[mca]

By the way he is not Mr. "know it all", he is Mr. "thinks he knows it all" as he seems to be extremely proficient at using so-called facts that are blatantly flawed, and then twisting them around to fit into his version of events.

Perhaps you might offer some concrete facts regarding your own statement below then. Anything will do. League tables from the Ministry of Education at Anuban, Prathom and Mattayom level by province. University rankings. Something like that. Cheers

The reason that local opinion here in sunny Sichon reflect these views is because the education is far superior to that offered up in the North and North East of the country and the people can see what Pheu Thai REALLY stand for!!!!

Edited September 12, 2011 by mca

[hammered]

Did Manoonkrit receive a pardon?

Yes, and it was while he was in exile. No jail time served. General Manoonkrit's crimes were far more serious than Thaksin, as his coup of 1985 had significant bloodshed. He also had a history of participating in the coups of 1976 and 1977. His track record went bad in the coup attempts of 1981 and 1985. Maybe that's why he ran for senate leader and was closely aligned with the Democrats. A rather nasty piece of work he was. His colleague General Surayud who was accused of ordering the death of Bangkok residents also received a pardon. No trial, no jail time in that case.

He's not alone, as General Suchinda who was a PM and harshly put down protests in 1995 also received a pardon without jail time. He gave Thailand Black May with dead bodies littering the streets.

Unfortunately, the precedent for seeking a pardon was set long ago by the Thai armed forces. This is something that the people saying Thaksin is being accorded special treatment don't grasp. If anything, Thaksin is not getting special treatment otherwise he would have had his pardon as quickly as those implicated in the past coups and deaths of Thai citizens received theirs. It might be wrong in a farang's view, but it is not unusual or really that special, particulalry since Thaksin is a non violent alleged offender.

Thanks for the info. So the question is then which of these was Veera refering to and why didnt he name that person and why do Abhisit and the Dems insist on saying they have never known of it happening.

[Buchholz]

Did Manoonkrit receive a pardon?

Yes, and it was while he was in exile. No jail time served. General Manoonkrit's crimes were far more serious than Thaksin, as his coup of 1985 had significant bloodshed. He also had a history of participating in the coups of 1976 and 1977. His track record went bad in the coup attempts of 1981 and 1985. Maybe that's why he ran for senate leader and was closely aligned with the Democrats. A rather nasty piece of work he was. His colleague General Surayud who was accused of ordering the death of Bangkok residents also received a pardon. No trial, no jail time in that case.

He's not alone, as General Suchinda who was a PM and harshly put down protests in 1995 also received a pardon without jail time. He gave Thailand Black May with dead bodies littering the streets.

Thanks for the info. So the question is then which of these was Veera refering to and why didnt he name that person and why do Abhisit and the Dems insist on saying they have never known of it happening.

Perhaps Veera, like so many others before him, simply delights in playing the juvenile "I've got a secret, but I'm not telling" game. It's not like it was that difficult to find out, much like the other juvenile game of, "with a last name beginning with a "M".

Chai Pattana's Sanan also insists like the Democrats. They probably say this because of the dissimilarities between the cases in regards to being convicted by the Supreme Court.

Even though precedence doesn't come into play here as much as other places, at least oranges should be compared to oranges (more than just one aspect of a case).

Was Manoonkrit ever even charged, let alone, convicted?

.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[Babcock]

No one can ever say that the request for a pardon is out of the ordinary because pardons have been given before.

That doesn't apply to anyone being convicted in court, be it the Supreme Court, as in the case with Thaksin, or any other court for that matter.

That's never occurred before.

A pardon not in compliance by being requested by the allowable persons to do so, such as is the case with the Red Shirts, has also never occurred before.

.

I believe the generals were not convicted by a court as is the case with Mr T. Forget about comparisons between the crimes & popular mandates. Mr T was convicted in a court of law & did not appeal. He has since shown no remorse nor offered an apology which seems to be the norm for those who receive a royal pardon apart from the fact that those who do receive pardons are in jail. I believe Mr T is trying to get an amnesty such as those which the generals bestow on themselves after a coup.

Thaksin was not allowed an appeal. New evidence profferred by Thaksin's lawyers was rejected I seem to recall.

[Buchholz]

I believe the generals were not convicted by a court as is the case with Mr T. Forget about comparisons between the crimes & popular mandates. Mr T was convicted in a court of law & did not appeal. He has since shown no remorse nor offered an apology which seems to be the norm for those who receive a royal pardon apart from the fact that those who do receive pardons are in jail. I believe Mr T is trying to get an amnesty such as those which the generals bestow on themselves after a coup.

Thaksin was not allowed an appeal. New evidence profferred by Thaksin's lawyers was rejected I seem to recall.

Thaksin was allowed to appeal, but no appeal was ever filed.

No new evidence was ever proffered.

No rejection was ever made.

tick tock, tick tock.... only 3 days left to deadline

Ratchada Land Case: Thaksin's Lawyers Await Instruction on Appeal Request

As the 30-day deadline for an appeal to be filed against a guilty verdict in the Ratchadapisek land case approaches, lawyers of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra are reported to be ready to file for an appeal as soon as Thaksin gives them the go ahead.

Thaksin won't appeal corruption conviction

Ousted Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra will not appeal his conviction and two-year jail sentence for corruption, his lawyer said as the deadline passed for any legal action.

Thaksin, toppled in a military coup in 2006, was on October 21 sentenced in absentia to two years in jail for conflict of interest after helping his then-wife Pojaman buy state-owned land when he was premier.

"I have been informed today that Thaksin will not appeal his case and that he will explain his reasons to his supporters soon," said Kamnuan Chalopatham, a member of Thaksin's legal team in Thailand.

His lawyers had 30 days from the conviction to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Thaksin is currently staying in Dubai, his aide said Monday (local time), after fleeing Thailand in August.

He had been living in Britain, but London this month revoked his visa, leaving the multi-millionaire scrambling around for a new home.

The ousted leader is due to address his supporters in a telephone speech on December 14 to lay out his future plans, his allies have said.

"Thaksin will talk to his supporters at National Stadium and will declare his political comeback," said Jatuporm Prompan, a leader of the pro-Thaksin group.

"He will re-enter politics after he was ousted in the 2006 coup."

Thaksin's fortunes appeared to get bleaker when it was announced last week that he and his wife of 32 years were getting a divorce, although family and intelligence sources claimed the split was for financial or legal reasons.

Thaksin's shadow remains over Thai politics, with his detractors in the People's Alliance for Democracy still holding disruptive protests in central Bangkok against the current government, which is made up of Thaksin's allies.

- AFP / 31 minutes ago

Edited September 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Thanks for the setting the record straight. It's sadly necessary to correct all these misrepresentations and obfuscations as indeed, he initiated it, he supervised it, and he claimed the credit for what was supposedly the complete eradication of all drugs country-wide.

Of course Thaksin was the prime mover and as Prime Minister must take responsibility.However talking of misrepresentation and obfuscation, it's simply not true that Thaksin was not encouraged by some very powerful supporters.The history to this is in fact quite well documented.The urgency to demonise Thaksin for political reasons has obscured the context of the campaign,why it happened when it did , who gave overt support and why there was never a snowball's chance of hell of Thaksin being charged for it.

[Buchholz]

Thanks for the setting the record straight. It's sadly necessary to correct all these misrepresentations and obfuscations as indeed, he initiated it, he supervised it, and he claimed the credit for what was supposedly the complete eradication of all drugs country-wide.

Of course Thaksin was the prime mover and as Prime Minister must take responsibility.However talking of misrepresentation and obfuscation, it's simply not true that Thaksin was not encouraged by some very powerful supporters.The history to this is in fact quite well documented.The urgency to demonise Thaksin for political reasons has obscured the context of the campaign,why it happened when it did , who gave overt support and why there was never a snowball's chance of hell of Thaksin being charged for it.

That's good you recognize the initiator of the action which began with:

Prime Minister's Order

No. 29/2546

Re: The Fight to Overcome Narcotic Drugs

Not sure what you mean with the "simply not true" bit....as the statement that follows it was never made by anyone in the post you quoted, or in the missing quotes it was in reply to.