Anti-Coup Scholars Deny Trying To Help Thaksin

[webfact]

Anti-coup scholars deny trying to help Thaksin

By The Nation

A group of law lecturers from Thammasat University yesterday denied that their call for the expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup was aimed at winning amnesty for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Nitiraj (Law for People) group said in a statement they had called for the expunging of coup-related decrees and decisions on academic grounds to express their stand against undemocratic seizures of power.

The group comprises seven law lecturers including Worajet Phakirat, Janjira Iammayura and Thapanan Nipitthakul. They said it had decided to issue another statement because its original demand was misrepresented by certain media as a move to help Thaksin escape justice.

The group insisted it did not seek amnesty for anyone. It said it simply wanted the orders of the coup-makers to be annulled and those who have committed wrongdoing to be the subject of legal proceedings based in normal laws, rather than coup-makers' orders.

In yesterday's statement, the group said it had earlier called for the annulment of Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter following the coup because the two articles granted amnesty to the coup-makers and provided legitimacy to the coup.

The group insisted that its demand could be achieved by enacting a law similar to one passed in post-war Germany declaring all court rulings made during the Nazi period to be void.

The group insisted that it was opposed to all coups, but had only called for the annulments of actions flowing from the 2006 coup because it still had effects on Thai society.

The Nitiraj group said its call was based on the legal concept of the "pouvoir constituant", which holds that the people have the legitimate right to undo the actions of coup-makers.

"The proposals of the Nitiraj are based on the principles of and respect for the right to due legal process, the principle of legal stability and protection of the faith in the rule of law, as well as the principle of the equal enforcement of laws," the statement said.

The group held a press conference at the Faculty of Law at 1 pm. The Pridi Kasemsup meeting room was jam-packed with red shirts.

Janjira said the four proposals of the group announced last week led to criticisms, so the group had to issue another statement to clarify its stand.

She said people without prejudice and without a stake in the coup should have understood the proposals of the group.

She said the proposals were aimed at clearing the political impasse to allow the society to peacefully exit the political crisis and avoid another coup. Her group would also invite those who disagreed with the proposals to a discussion to exchange opinions.

-- The Nation 2011-09-26

[Roadman]

The Nitiraj (Law for People) group said in a statement they had called for the expunging of coup-related decrees and decisions on academic grounds to express their stand against undemocratic seizures of power.

So here we go with the same old merry go round.

This group wish to express their stand against the coup but cannot get their head around that Thaksin was already well down the path of

undemocratic seizures of power

with only the Army standing in the way of a Thaksin brought and controlled or fear controlled civil service.

[whybother]

The group insisted it did not seek amnesty for anyone. It said it simply wanted the orders of the coup-makers to be annulled and those who have committed wrongdoing to be the subject of legal proceedings based in normal laws, rather than coup-makers' orders.

Was Thaksin charged with breaking any laws that were enacted by the coup-makers?

I thought he was charged with breaking laws from the 1997 constitution.

[MILT]

The group insisted it did not seek amnesty for anyone. It said it simply wanted the orders of the coup-makers to be annulled and those who have committed wrongdoing to be the subject of legal proceedings based in normal laws, rather than coup-makers' orders.

Was Thaksin charged with breaking any laws that were enacted by the coup-makers?

I thought he was charged with breaking laws from the 1997 constitution.

He was! If people do the research on Thaskin's Political debut and follow it through until coup the facts speak for themselves. This is all smoke and mirrors to secure a safe plane ride back to Thailand. All this just stinks to high heaven.

[tig28]

. All this just stinks to high heaven.

Why??

Not seeking to argue -- nor even necessarily disagree -- I am interested to learn why you oppose this move so strongly??

[whybother]

. All this just stinks to high heaven.

Why??

Not seeking to argue -- nor even necessarily disagree -- I am interested to learn why you oppose this move so strongly??

Because Thaksin was found guilty of breaking 1997 constitution laws. Just because the investigation was initiated by the coup government doesn't make him any less guilty.

[tig28]

. All this just stinks to high heaven.

Why??

Not seeking to argue -- nor even necessarily disagree -- I am interested to learn why you oppose this move so strongly??

Because Thaksin was found guilty of breaking 1997 constitution laws. Just because the investigation was initiated by the coup government doesn't make him any less guilty.

Hi whybother

That is precisely I am at a loss to understand why his name is even mentioned in this matter ---- which is aimed at "expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup".

What has this got to do with Thaksins potential return??

Are you suggesting that expunging these matters would in some way serve to advantage Thaksins legal position??

As you point out -- he was convicted under preexisting laws.

[hammered]

It is possible to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista albeit not in the eyes of the anti-Thaksinista thought police. In fact to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista is a pretty principled place to be imho

[backtonormal]

. All this just stinks to high heaven.

Why??

Not seeking to argue -- nor even necessarily disagree -- I am interested to learn why you oppose this move so strongly??

Because Thaksin was found guilty of breaking 1997 constitution laws. Just because the investigation was initiated by the coup government doesn't make him any less guilty.

Hi whybother

That is precisely I am at a loss to understand why his name is even mentioned in this matter ---- which is aimed at "expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup".

What has this got to do with Thaksins potential return??

Are you suggesting that expunging these matters would in some way serve to advantage Thaksins legal position??

As you point out -- he was convicted under preexisting laws.

Maybe Thaksins name is mentioned in everypost bcos its in the script for that day

[nurofiend]

"Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter following the coup" "the two articles granted amnesty to the coup-makers and provided legitimacy to the coup."

no need to comment.

[Siripon]

It is possible to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista albeit not in the eyes of the anti-Thaksinista thought police. In fact to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista is a pretty principled place to be imho

But sometimes life gives us no choices, or rather the choices we have both have flaws. As in the coup, many who supported the coup were also those who opposed Sujinda in 1992 and some older ones opposed the 3 tyrants in 1973. But there was no other way to overthrow Thaksin, so although the country has been chaotic the last few years I still feel that's better than how it would have continued under Thaksin.

[metisdead]

A post containing defammatory/libellous content has been removed as well as the replies to that post.

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

[tig28]

"Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter following the coup" "the two articles granted amnesty to the coup-makers and provided legitimacy to the coup."

no need to comment.

Not just for Coup related matters ---- this "get out of goal free" pass so wisely enshrined in the 2006 Charter also served to provide immunity from prosercution for illegal actions carried out long after the Coup.

Early in the post-coup election campaign it was revealed that the Council for National Security had created a plan to illegally restrict the activities of the PPP. Though this was strongly denied by coup makers at the time, documentation later confirmed the plot as genuine, and an EC sub-committee ruled that they had acted illegally.

They escaped punishment under the immunity granted by Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter.

[phiphidon]

Because Thaksin was found guilty of breaking 1997 constitution laws. Just because the investigation was initiated by the coup government doesn't make him any less guilty.

Hi whybother

That is precisely I am at a loss to understand why his name is even mentioned in this matter ---- which is aimed at "expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup".

What has this got to do with Thaksins potential return??

Are you suggesting that expunging these matters would in some way serve to advantage Thaksins legal position??

As you point out -- he was convicted under preexisting laws.

As Nurofiend points out in a later post "Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter following the coup" "the two articles granted amnesty to the coup-makers and provided legitimacy to the coup."

Presumably the democrat supporters on this forum would accept that all "checks and balances" in place must be sufficient as we have had a couple of years of Democrat Rule and they did not seek to change anything regarding the constitution.

So if Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter are removed there shouldn't be an outcry as the necessary "checks and balances" are in place* and the only difference is that any future "coups" would be declared illegal and their instigators brought before the courts as is only right in a modern democratic society.

(* they must be, as the coup allegedly only happened because Thaksin was riding roughshod over the existing constitution. This was replaced by a military written one, which as I say,the Democrats have done nothing to change)

So why the outcry over changing this part of the constitution?

Could it be that the Democrat Party who generally fail to win proper elections need fallbacks, the military coup and the judicial one, to help them back into power. Get rid of the military coup and that leaves you with only the judicial coup to rely on and that is not so certain these days. Given the protests on this forum of widespread "buying" of the election no proof has arisen and no excuse has been given to go down the party dissolution route.

[otherstuff1957]

So, why would the "anti-Thaksinistas" oppose this move? Here's why:

The well intentioned lawmakers make this proposal. It's put before Parliament. While Parliament is making a lot of noise Thaksin quietly sends a message to a few Generals: "If you invalidate my conviction, I won't invalidate articles 36 & 37".

The end result, Thaksin comes back and no-one is charged for any coup-related crimes.

[hammered]

Because Thaksin was found guilty of breaking 1997 constitution laws. Just because the investigation was initiated by the coup government doesn't make him any less guilty.

Hi whybother

That is precisely I am at a loss to understand why his name is even mentioned in this matter ---- which is aimed at "expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup".

What has this got to do with Thaksins potential return??

Are you suggesting that expunging these matters would in some way serve to advantage Thaksins legal position??

As you point out -- he was convicted under preexisting laws.

As Nurofiend points out in a later post "Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter following the coup" "the two articles granted amnesty to the coup-makers and provided legitimacy to the coup."

Presumably the democrat supporters on this forum would accept that all "checks and balances" in place must be sufficient as we have had a couple of years of Democrat Rule and they did not seek to change anything regarding the constitution.

So if Articles 36 and 37 of the interim charter are removed there shouldn't be an outcry as the necessary "checks and balances" are in place* and the only difference is that any future "coups" would be declared illegal and their instigators brought before the courts as is only right in a modern democratic society.

(* they must be, as the coup allegedly only happened because Thaksin was riding roughshod over the existing constitution. This was replaced by a military written one, which as I say,the Democrats have done nothing to change)

So why the outcry over changing this part of the constitution?

Could it be that the Democrat Party who generally fail to win proper elections need fallbacks, the military coup and the judicial one, to help them back into power. Get rid of the military coup and that leaves you with only the judicial coup to rely on and that is not so certain these days. Given the protests on this forum of widespread "buying" of the election no proof has arisen and no excuse has been given to go down the party dissolution route.

The Democrat party were founded, entirely existed and been a constant part of Thailand's managed demcoracy period which is now coming to an end it seems. The transition to a party that must function in a full democracy is going to be difficult for many insiders, but is important for Thailand as the country needs an opposition unfettered by links to extra-parliamentary power players and fully answerable to and selectable by the people.

The Democrats biggest errors have been around not utterly condemning the coup as a party that operates within a democracy should and then to allow themselves to pushed into government in a barrack room deal. It is now time for them to not repeat these mistakes which have already undermined their electability in the short term and to move on with an aim of being an electable alternative to the powerful Thaksinista party in the medium term. A start would be in backing calls like these while if they wish pointing out it if they deem it necessary that changes shouldnt result in whitewashing convicted criminals.

Few people point out as has been done here that the mentioned articles are actually a prevention of check and balance, and their very existence gives credence to charges of double standards that the red shirts point out. Of course this being the real world I wouldnt expect prosecution of those who carried out the coup to happen, but if they can be absolved of their crimes (and coups are illegal), then why cant others? And that question is the one that hangs over the whole issue of the power struggle. If you are some are powerful enough to not have the law apply to them then ....

[OzMick]

The point is while you are related to a Shinawatra you will NEVER be found guilty of anything because the criminals are running the country..

No appeal in the Pojamun tax case - what a bloody surprise !

[lannarebirth]

It is possible to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista albeit not in the eyes of the anti-Thaksinista thought police. In fact to be anti-coup and not a Thaksinista is a pretty principled place to be imho

But sometimes life gives us no choices, or rather the choices we have both have flaws. As in the coup, many who supported the coup were also those who opposed Sujinda in 1992 and some older ones opposed the 3 tyrants in 1973. But there was no other way to overthrow Thaksin, so although the country has been chaotic the last few years I still feel that's better than how it would have continued under Thaksin.

Isn't that the guy always droning on about realpolitik? In that context, just who was the anti-coup, anti-Thaksinista party/ PM candidate in the July 3, 2011 elections?

[tig28]

The Democrat party were founded, entirely existed and been a constant part of Thailand's managed demcoracy period which is now coming to an end it seems. The transition to a party that must function in a full democracy is going to be difficult for many insiders, but is important for Thailand as the country needs an opposition unfettered by links to extra-parliamentary power players and fully answerable to and selectable by the people.

The Democrats biggest errors have been around not utterly condemning the coup as a party that operates within a democracy should and then to allow themselves to pushed into government in a barrack room deal. It is now time for them to not repeat these mistakes which have already undermined their electability in the short term and to move on with an aim of being an electable alternative to the powerful Thaksinista party in the medium term. A start would be in backing calls like these while if they wish pointing out it if they deem it necessary that changes shouldnt result in whitewashing convicted criminals.

Few people point out as has been done here that the mentioned articles are actually a prevention of check and balance, and their very existence gives credence to charges of double standards that the red shirts point out. Of course this being the real world I wouldnt expect prosecution of those who carried out the coup to happen, but if they can be absolved of their crimes (and coups are illegal), then why cant others? And that question is the one that hangs over the whole issue of the power struggle. If you are some are powerful enough to not have the law apply to them then ....

Thoughtful.

I am not sure that the Dems would be "electable" even had they had been wise enough to condemn the Coup at the time -- but it certainly would have been of great help and positioned them in a very strong moral position --- a position they currently can not occupy.

[tomross46]

I find it interesting with everyone being anti-coup. The present democratic system was set up in 1932, by a military coup. So if they are anti coup, than go back to the system before 1932 and bring back 100% royal government.

[TAWP]

The group insisted that it was opposed to all coups, but had only called for the annulments of actions flowing from the 2006 coup because it still had effects on Thai society.

Maybe they should take up a class of Law 101 and be surprised...

[MAJIC]

"A group of law lecturers from Thammasat University yesterday denied that their call for the expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup was aimed at winning amnesty for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra"

Well they would say that,wouldn't they?

Strange how the 2006 Constitution, is alledgedly a key reason for preventing his return,and would only leave a possible Amnesty in his favour!

[Siripon]

So, why would the "anti-Thaksinistas" oppose this move? Here's why:

The well intentioned lawmakers make this proposal. It's put before Parliament. While Parliament is making a lot of noise Thaksin quietly sends a message to a few Generals: "If you invalidate my conviction, I won't invalidate articles 36 & 37".

The end result, Thaksin comes back and no-one is charged for any coup-related crimes.

But General Sonthi, the leader of the coup is now retired, actually an MP now.General Prayut maybe interested in your theory, but how can invalidate Thaksin's conviction?

Thaksin's trying every way to overturn his conviction, the 2.5 million people petition,( the personal appeal), possibly sumitting his name in a mass pardon on the King's birthday, citing his age-over 60 as a reason, and this group of 7 Thammasart lawyers, Nitirat, is another channel.

[jayboy]

But General Sonthi, the leader of the coup is now retired, actually an MP now.General Prayut maybe interested in your theory, but how can invalidate Thaksin's conviction?

Thaksin's trying every way to overturn his conviction, the 2.5 million people petition,( the personal appeal), possibly sumitting his name in a mass pardon on the King's birthday, citing his age-over 60 as a reason, and this group of 7 Thammasart lawyers, Nitirat, is another channel.

I'm not disputing your thesis although it's debatable of course.

I am however disputing your suggestion that Nitirat is an agency for promoting Thaksin's interests.It isn't and your suggestion is just plain wrong.You could argue that these Thammasat lawyers are naive or playing into Thaksin's hands, but that's not the same thing at all.

[otherstuff1957]

But General Sonthi, the leader of the coup is now retired, actually an MP now.General Prayut maybe interested in your theory, but how can invalidate Thaksin's conviction?

Thaksin's trying every way to overturn his conviction, the 2.5 million people petition,( the personal appeal), possibly sumitting his name in a mass pardon on the King's birthday, citing his age-over 60 as a reason, and this group of 7 Thammasart lawyers, Nitirat, is another channel.

I'm not disputing your thesis although it's debatable of course.

I am however disputing your suggestion that Nitirat is an agency for promoting Thaksin's interests.It isn't and your suggestion is just plain wrong.You could argue that these Thammasat lawyers are naive or playing into Thaksin's hands, but that's not the same thing at all.

Indeed, the Thammasat fellows are probably honest in their intentions, the fact that they will be helping Thaksin is simply a byproduct of their Ivory Tower disconnect from reality.

As for the generals I mentioned, I should have said "powerful behind the scenes players", but generals was easier to type.

[hammered]

But General Sonthi, the leader of the coup is now retired, actually an MP now.General Prayut maybe interested in your theory, but how can invalidate Thaksin's conviction?

Thaksin's trying every way to overturn his conviction, the 2.5 million people petition,( the personal appeal), possibly sumitting his name in a mass pardon on the King's birthday, citing his age-over 60 as a reason, and this group of 7 Thammasart lawyers, Nitirat, is another channel.

I'm not disputing your thesis although it's debatable of course.

I am however disputing your suggestion that Nitirat is an agency for promoting Thaksin's interests.It isn't and your suggestion is just plain wrong.You could argue that these Thammasat lawyers are naive or playing into Thaksin's hands, but that's not the same thing at all.

It is amazing that anyone or any group who holds an anti-coup view or a pro-democracy attitude is accused of aiding Thaksin. So to be anti-Thaksin you must support coups uncritically and want to see democracy stamped out.

[whybother]

It is amazing that anyone or any group who holds an anti-coup view or a pro-democracy attitude is accused of aiding Thaksin. So to be anti-Thaksin you must support coups uncritically and want to see democracy stamped out.

Not wanting all judicial decisions since the coup reversed (which is what one "academic" group wants) does not make one pro-coup.

[rubl]

The group insisted it did not seek amnesty for anyone. It said it simply wanted the orders of the coup-makers to be annulled and those who have committed wrongdoing to be the subject of legal proceedings based in normal laws, rather than coup-makers' orders.

This doesn't seem to help k. Thaksin. He was prosecuted and convicted using normal laws.

Mind you the "call for the expunging of decrees and judicial decisions that flowed from the 2006 coup" needs an awful lot of explanation on how this can be done fairly and squarely. The remark "Germany could do it after WWII, so could Thailand" is an ivory tower answer. Germany had more than a decade of abuse (and never much of a democracy anyway) and lay in ruins. A 'clean slate' was not only necessary, but could be (painfully) enforced. How does that compare with Thailand, only in some abstract legal construction?

[hammered]

It is amazing that anyone or any group who holds an anti-coup view or a pro-democracy attitude is accused of aiding Thaksin. So to be anti-Thaksin you must support coups uncritically and want to see democracy stamped out.

Not wanting all judicial decisions since the coup reversed (which is what one "academic" group wants) does not make one pro-coup.

My point is about mindset. It is a principled position to oppose coups and want to see anything done by/after a coup undone. Your rationale for holding such an ideal doesnt have to have anything to do with say Thaksin in this case but can be idealistic, and yet so often there is a denial of what is a principled position, and certainly a more principled one than supporting a flawed and convicted leader such as Thaksin or finding reasons to argue an illegal act like a coup was justified.

[rubl]

It is amazing that anyone or any group who holds an anti-coup view or a pro-democracy attitude is accused of aiding Thaksin. So to be anti-Thaksin you must support coups uncritically and want to see democracy stamped out.

Not wanting all judicial decisions since the coup reversed (which is what one "academic" group wants) does not make one pro-coup.

My point is about mindset. It is a principled position to oppose coups and want to see anything done by/after a coup undone. Your rationale for holding such an ideal doesnt have to have anything to do with say Thaksin in this case but can be idealistic, and yet so often there is a denial of what is a principled position, and certainly a more principled one than supporting a flawed and convicted leader such as Thaksin or finding reasons to argue an illegal act like a coup was justified.

Apart from principled we also need to be pragmatic and practical. You cannot undo five year history with the stroke of a pen. If and when the coup has to be 'undone', careful planning, studying of effects, etc., etc. needs to be done first to avoid creating new injustice. It seems to make more sense to continue with what's there and make careful, thought-through, documented and legally approved adjustments.