Acquittals In Thaksin Share Case Upheld

[lannarebirth]

Which is in contraction to your earlier point. If you didn't believe the judges could do no wrong or were virtuous during Abhisit's tenure, then why are you proclaiming them as myth busters now? What has changed?

In a vain attempt to get any of the anti thaksin brigade to accept that fact by using their logic and exposing their hypocrisy i.e when the judges verdict reflects ones beliefs they are virtuous, any other result they are malleable and can be bought, which has been expressed already in this thread.

Reform of Lese Majeste laws may be a long time in coming, despite the heated atmosphere at present. REAL reform might start with dropping the draconian laws that do not permit one to draw into question or argue a court's verdict without threat of indictment.

[MaiChai]

I expect we are now seeing a process in which all of Thaksin's court cases are being rejected - one by one. There will be loopholes found for everything he is alleged to have done. Soon he will be declared innocent and the Red Shirts will say, "See! We told you so!" ...

Well, until the next coup or the democrats somehow get into power!

Question: how can we farangs live in this country with all these 'inconsistencies' not driving us crazy? Look for the good things and blank out all the bad?

Edited February 1, 2012 by MaiChai

[TAWP]

I think some posters have jumped to some conclusion that this was a thing in supporting Thaksin's stance that he was innocent etc - not true.

This case doesn't concern Thaksin directly, it is about officials not doing their utmost to follow the regulations and at what level the bar of 'allowing lazy before it becomes criminal negligence's should be set.

Nothing else.

[tlansford]

The acquittal was not in favour of the convicted criminal Thaksin and his thief of a wife. It was in favour of five members of the Revenue Department, so no myth busting as the convicted criminal Thaksin is exactly that - a convicted criminal fugitive.

Very good of you to point out the obvious, as it seems some people overlooked it.

This case is (1) not about Thaksin but the officials named above, and (2) not the case for which Thaksin was convicted.

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

[tlansford]

Which is in contraction to your earlier point. If you didn't believe the judges could do no wrong or were virtuous during Abhisit's tenure, then why are you proclaiming them as myth busters now? What has changed?

In a vain attempt to get any of the anti thaksin brigade to accept that fact by using their logic and exposing their hypocrisy i.e when the judges verdict reflects ones beliefs they are virtuous, any other result they are malleable and can be bought, which has been expressed already in this thread.

Well put. Although "vain" is really the key adjective above...

[MAJIC]

Is there a Prize for naming the next person likely for an Acquittal?

Now let me see ..........Hmm... ahh ??? dam_n it, I've forgotten the name now! ...but I could swear it begins with a "T"

Edited February 1, 2012 by MAJIC

[TAWP]

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

VoiceTV is founded via Thaksin's money and managed by his son Aok. So what is your point?

[MAJIC]

I might have my cases confused, as there are so many, but I DO remember there being testimony from Thaksin's driver who corroborated that he traded in shares over the phone each day while PM. My recollection is that many of the transactions concerned his own company, while many others concerned companies that his government was making policies concerning. I'm not sure if a guy like that deserves the firing squad (leaving drug war issues aside), but he certainly deserves a long long stretch in prison.

In most of the Civilised Countries of the World,this would be "Insider Trading" at it's worst,and completely illegal.

[rixalex]

Obviously i can't speak for others but my suspicion would be that the more commonly view held was not that it was totally independent, but that it was more independent than it had been. You are obviously welcome to dispute this.

I'm not sure how that view can be sustained.It was the military constitution of 2007 that accelerated "judicial activism" so that the elite's will could prevail over the democratically expressed views of the Thai people.Under Thaksin certainly there was the assumption the courts were persuaded to support his personal business interests - nothing new there if one examines the relationship between power and the judiciary over the last 50 years.However to suggest the post coup/ militaryconstitution judiciary was in any sense "independent" is stretching credibility.It was a a complete disgrace.

I think the view - not the view that it was totally independent, but the view that it was more independent than it had been - can be sustained on the basis that however serious you consider Thaksin's crimes to have been, he was surely, as the country's PM, the most high profile person of that time to be breaking the law - and quite blatantly - and doing so with impunity for four or five years. Of course you can argue there were other more serious perpetrators of injustice and those more guilty of abuses than him, but i don't think you can dispute that his cases, as leader of nation, were the ones giving most exposure to the susceptibility of the justice system to being interfered with.

This all changed post coup, and this is why for many i think the image of the judiciary improved then, as it was seen to be suddenly capable of fighting back against the highest profile culprit of the last half decade.

[rixalex]

Which is in contraction to your earlier point. If you didn't believe the judges could do no wrong or were virtuous during Abhisit's tenure, then why are you proclaiming them as myth busters now? What has changed?

In a vain attempt to get any of the anti thaksin brigade to accept that fact by using their logic and exposing their hypocrisy i.e when the judges verdict reflects ones beliefs they are virtuous, any other result they are malleable and can be bought, which has been expressed already in this thread.

Your continual and desperate attempts to defend all things Shinawatra, would lead most to believe that when a court finds, albeit indirectly, in their favour, and you proclaim "myth busted!", you say this because it clearly reflects your oft stated opinion on said persons guilt, said persons "trumped up charges" made against him. In an effort to expose other people's hypocrisy, you most clearly expose your own. A kangaroo court when they find against him, myth busters when they find for.

[jayboy]

Obviously i can't speak for others but my suspicion would be that the more commonly view held was not that it was totally independent, but that it was more independent than it had been. You are obviously welcome to dispute this.

I'm not sure how that view can be sustained.It was the military constitution of 2007 that accelerated "judicial activism" so that the elite's will could prevail over the democratically expressed views of the Thai people.Under Thaksin certainly there was the assumption the courts were persuaded to support his personal business interests - nothing new there if one examines the relationship between power and the judiciary over the last 50 years.However to suggest the post coup/ militaryconstitution judiciary was in any sense "independent" is stretching credibility.It was a a complete disgrace.

I think the view - not the view that it was totally independent, but the view that it was more independent than it had been - can be sustained on the basis that however serious you consider Thaksin's crimes to have been, he was surely, as the country's PM, the most high profile person of that time to be breaking the law - and quite blatantly - and doing so with impunity for four or five years. Of course you can argue there were other more serious perpetrators of injustice and those more guilty of abuses than him, but i don't think you can dispute that his cases, as leader of nation, were the ones giving most exposure to the susceptibility of the justice system to being interfered with.

This all changed post coup, and this is why for many i think the image of the judiciary improved then, as it was seen to be suddenly capable of fighting back against the highest profile culprit of the last half decade.

As my post indicated I don't dispute your view on Thaksin's relationship (explotative, perhaps criminal) with the judicial system. I just don't think your description of the judiciary's role after the coup fits in with any recognisable reality.It was enlisted in the political vendetta against Thaksin under which the crushing of his influence was seen as the key objective.Over and above this the judicial activism encouraged by the unelected elites was seen as the most plausible way of thwarting democracy.That doesn't mean there weren't abuses to be dealt with, just that the courts became over politicised and perceived as serving the interests of a very narrow section of society.

[rixalex]

As my post indicated I don't dispute your view on Thaksin's relationship (explotative, perhaps criminal) with the judicial system. I just don't think your description of the judiciary's role after the coup fits in with any recognisable reality.

My description of the judiciary post coup was that it started acting on the highest profile culprit who had been exposing most visibly its ineffectiveness against those in high power.

What part of that view does not fit in with any recognisable reality?

[jayboy]

My description of the judiciary post coup was that it started acting on the highest profile culprit who had been exposing most visibly its ineffectiveness against those in high power.

What part of that view does not fit in with any recognisable reality?

If one is completely preoccupied with Thaksin to the point where he is the only issue and is solely responsible for all Thailand's political and social problems then your interpretation makes some - though in my view not much - sense. I cannot keep repeating my points endlessly about the abuse of the judiciary after the coup and the dangers of judicial activism.I accept that some decent people hoped the judiciary would cut down on politicians' corruption and abuse of power.Good objectives but not likely to be effective when implemented in context of unelected feudal and military elites, both somewhat corrupt, fearfully seeking to clamp down on representative democracy.A more balanced view would see that politically biased judgements set dreadful precedents and to quote Pasuk/Baker "judicial activism joined coups,backstairs intrigue and intimidation as weapons of those who fear the unfettered workings of democracy".

Or you can ignore reality, context, facts and just pipe on about the need to "get Thaksin" as though that somehow was the solution to the country's problems.

[rixalex]

My description of the judiciary post coup was that it started acting on the highest profile culprit who had been exposing most visibly its ineffectiveness against those in high power.

What part of that view does not fit in with any recognisable reality?

If one is completely preoccupied with Thaksin to the point where he is the only issue and is solely responsible for all Thailand's political and social problems then your interpretation makes some - though in my view not much - sense. I cannot keep repeating my points endlessly about the abuse of the judiciary after the coup and the dangers of judicial activism.I accept that some decent people hoped the judiciary would cut down on politicians' corruption and abuse of power.Good objectives but not likely to be effective when implemented in context of unelected feudal and military elites, both somewhat corrupt, fearfully seeking to clamp down on representative democracy.A more balanced view would see that politically biased judgements set dreadful precedents and to quote Pasuk/Baker "judicial activism joined coups,backstairs intrigue and intimidation as weapons of those who fear the unfettered workings of democracy".

Or you can ignore reality, context, facts and just pipe on about the need to "get Thaksin" as though that somehow was the solution to the country's problems.

Once again you fail to understand the point i was making. I'm talking about the image of the judiciary, and i'm talking about how that image was being affected by having the most important person in the country (bar one of course) blatantly abusing the system and getting away with it.

I'm not saying that getting Thaksin - not that of course they did end up succeeding on that front - was the solution to everything, or that achieving that goal would make all the other problems go away, i'm saying that what it did do is to bring about a fresh air and a new clearly visible message of ," you know what, even those who climb as high as it is possible to go, shouldn't count on always being safe from the arms of the law if they do wrong". It made a statement, and one that had hardly ever been heard before. Not surprising therefore that some perceived an improvement (not surprising either that you didn't).

Edited February 2, 2012 by rixalex

[waza]

My description of the judiciary post coup was that it started acting on the highest profile culprit who had been exposing most visibly its ineffectiveness against those in high power.

What part of that view does not fit in with any recognisable reality?

If one is completely preoccupied with Thaksin to the point where he is the only issue and is solely responsible for all Thailand's political and social problems then your interpretation makes some - though in my view not much - sense. I cannot keep repeating my points endlessly about the abuse of the judiciary after the coup and the dangers of judicial activism.I accept that some decent people hoped the judiciary would cut down on politicians' corruption and abuse of power.Good objectives but not likely to be effective when implemented in context of unelected feudal and military elites, both somewhat corrupt, fearfully seeking to clamp down on representative democracy.A more balanced view would see that politically biased judgements set dreadful precedents and to quote Pasuk/Baker "judicial activism joined coups,backstairs intrigue and intimidation as weapons of those who fear the unfettered workings of democracy".

Or you can ignore reality, context, facts and just pipe on about the need to "get Thaksin" as though that somehow was the solution to the country's problems.

Once again you fail to understand the point i was making. I'm talking about the image of the judiciary, and i'm talking about how that image was being affected by having the most important person in the country (bar one of course) blatantly abusing the system and getting away with it.

I'm not saying that getting Thaksin - not that of course they did end up succeeding on that front - was the solution to everything, or that achieving that goal would make all the other problems go away, i'm saying that what it did do is to bring about a fresh air and a new clearly visible message of ," you know what, even those who climb as high as it is possible to go, shouldn't count on always being safe from the arms of the law if they do wrong". It made a statement, and one that had hardly ever been heard before. Not surprising therefore that some perceived an improvement.

It gave the impression that the rule of law applied in Thailand and it applied to all. At least for a little while.

[jayboy]

It gave the impression that the rule of law applied in Thailand and it applied to all. At least for a little while.

Except for the military criminals who launched a treasonable and illegal coup.In some countries they would have been shot.In Thailand they awarded themselves a post facto pardon.So much for your rule of law.

[rixalex]

It gave the impression that the rule of law applied in Thailand and it applied to all. At least for a little while.

If not to all, to the person at the top of the tree, and where better place is there to start in terms of setting examples and precedents?

You start at the top, and you work your way down.

[rixalex]

It gave the impression that the rule of law applied in Thailand and it applied to all. At least for a little while.

Except for the military criminals who launched a treasonable and illegal coup.In some countries they would have been shot.In Thailand they awarded themselves a post facto pardon.So much for your rule of law.

The shooting usually occurs after failed coup attempts, not those that are readily accepted with no resistance.

[waza]

It gave the impression that the rule of law applied in Thailand and it applied to all. At least for a little while.

Except for the military criminals who launched a treasonable and illegal coup.In some countries they would have been shot.In Thailand they awarded themselves a post facto pardon.So much for your rule of law.

Jayboy you are the king of disinformation and misdirection, an Amsterdam boy. I said gave an impression of the rule of law, and gave the hope Thai society would move that way. But it seem that reward for curruption rules. Also its not my rule of law. lastly, the topic was about "Acquittals In Thaksin Share Case", not military criminals who launched a treasonable and illegal coup (misdirection)

[gemini81]

The acquittal was not in favour of the convicted criminal Thaksin and his thief of a wife. It was in favour of five members of the Revenue Department, so no myth busting as the convicted criminal Thaksin is exactly that - a convicted criminal fugitive.

Very good of you to point out the obvious, as it seems some people overlooked it.

This case is (1) not about Thaksin but the officials named above, and (2) not the case for which Thaksin was convicted.

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

That's because they are red shirt supporters, and would rather avoid calling him such things (that he in fact is).

[jayboy]

The shooting usually occurs after failed coup attempts, not those that are readily accepted with no resistance.

Wrong.Harsh punishment is involved in the case of coup attempts not pre approved by military and feudal elites - as General Chalard found out in the 1970's.In the case of the 2006 pre approved coup no problem for the criminals involved.Indeed they were rewarded.

[rixalex]

The shooting usually occurs after failed coup attempts, not those that are readily accepted with no resistance.

Wrong.Harsh punishment is involved in the case of coup attempts not pre approved by military and feudal elites - as General Chalard found out in the 1970's.In the case of the 2006 pre approved coup no problem for the criminals involved.Indeed they were rewarded.

I said "usually" and i stand by that. Have a look at statistics with regards the fate of coup makers, successful versus unsuccessful ones, and you will clearly see the pattern i am alluding to. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

[whybother]

The shooting usually occurs after failed coup attempts, not those that are readily accepted with no resistance.

Wrong.Harsh punishment is involved in the case of coup attempts not pre approved by military and feudal elites - as General Chalard found out in the 1970's.In the case of the 2006 pre approved coup no problem for the criminals involved.Indeed they were rewarded.

General Chalard's coup attempt failed. He was executed. Successful coups don't lead to executions.

[jayboy]

General Chalard's coup attempt failed. He was executed. Successful coups don't lead to executions.

There have been attempted coups which didn't lead to executions.Chalard was executed for two reasons - firstly because his effort had no elite support (my original point) and secondly because his attempt involved some ugly violence.

I'm not sure what to make of your statement that successful coups don't lead to executions other than there's nothing like stating the obvious.As mentioned earlier the officers involved in 2006 awardeded themselves a free pardon.Thailand is of course changing and the tectonic plats are grinding.In the future I'm not so sure coupmaklers will be able to avoid harsh punishment at some point, though probably not the gallows.

[whybother]

General Chalard's coup attempt failed. He was executed. Successful coups don't lead to executions.

There have been attempted coups which didn't lead to executions.Chalard was executed for two reasons - firstly because his effort had no elite support (my original point) and secondly because his attempt involved some ugly violence.

I'm not sure what to make of your statement that successful coups don't lead to executions other than there's nothing like stating the obvious.As mentioned earlier the officers involved in 2006 awardeded themselves a free pardon.Thailand is of course changing and the tectonic plats are grinding.In the future I'm not so sure coupmaklers will be able to avoid harsh punishment at some point, though probably not the gallows.

"there's nothing like stating the obvious."

Why do people go on about the coup makers giving themselves a pardon? Ofcourse they bloody did. What would you expect?

Edited February 2, 2012 by whybother

[rixalex]

General Chalard's coup attempt failed. He was executed. Successful coups don't lead to executions.

There have been attempted coups which didn't lead to executions.Chalard was executed for two reasons - firstly because his effort had no elite support (my original point) and secondly because his attempt involved some ugly violence.

I'm not sure what to make of your statement that successful coups don't lead to executions other than there's nothing like stating the obvious.As mentioned earlier the officers involved in 2006 awardeded themselves a free pardon.Thailand is of course changing and the tectonic plats are grinding.In the future I'm not so sure coupmaklers will be able to avoid harsh punishment at some point, though probably not the gallows.

"there's nothing like stating the obvious."

Why do people go on about the coup makers giving themselves a pardon? Ofcourse the bloody did. What would you expect?

Here's another one: why do people go on about the coup being illegal?; as if some coups are not!

[rixalex]

I'm not sure what to make of your statement that successful coups don't lead to executions other than there's nothing like stating the obvious.

I said that shootings only followed failed coup attempts - ergo they don't follow successful ones, to which you replied "wrong".

[tlansford]

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

VoiceTV is founded via Thaksin's money and managed by his son Aok. So what is your point?

Looks like you got it already...

[tlansford]

The acquittal was not in favour of the convicted criminal Thaksin and his thief of a wife. It was in favour of five members of the Revenue Department, so no myth busting as the convicted criminal Thaksin is exactly that - a convicted criminal fugitive.

Very good of you to point out the obvious, as it seems some people overlooked it.

This case is (1) not about Thaksin but the officials named above, and (2) not the case for which Thaksin was convicted.

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

That's because they are red shirt supporters, and would rather avoid calling him such things (that he in fact is).

Precisely the point. One side of the media denigrates the man, the other elevates him. Purposefully.

[rixalex]

The acquittal was not in favour of the convicted criminal Thaksin and his thief of a wife. It was in favour of five members of the Revenue Department, so no myth busting as the convicted criminal Thaksin is exactly that - a convicted criminal fugitive.

Very good of you to point out the obvious, as it seems some people overlooked it.

This case is (1) not about Thaksin but the officials named above, and (2) not the case for which Thaksin was convicted.

BTW, VoiceTV refers to Thaksin as a "Globetrotter" rather than the "convicted fugitive ex-PM"...

That's because they are red shirt supporters, and would rather avoid calling him such things (that he in fact is).

Precisely the point. One side of the media denigrates the man, the other elevates him. Purposefully.

Why would media not denigrate a man who has been convicted of crime and run away? Not even his fiercest supporters question his guilt. I see no reason why media shouldn't denigrate such a person, indeed i would say it is their duty to do just that, unless it be an in-prison publication like Criminals Weekly... yet you put this forward as evidence of unfair bias.