Proving Thaksin conspiracy far-fetched: Chulasingh

[webfact]

POLITICS
Proving Thaksin conspiracy far-fetched: Chulasingh
Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul
Piyanut Tumnukasetchai
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is a fugitive living abroad, and therefore it is far-fetched to think that he can be tried as a conspirator on terrorism charges, retired chief prosecutor Chulasingh Vasantasingh said yesterday.

The accused is not living in Thailand and from a legal point of view, it is very difficult to link him to terrorism involving local protesters, who are capable of carrying out activities independently," Chulasingh said.

In testifying to the House of Representatives subcommittee on political development, Chulasingh cited an analogy to justify his decision not to try Thaksin in connection with the 2010 political mayhem.

Should a chairman of a movement give an instruction from abroad, local people could still decide for themselves whether or not to heed such an order, he said.

Local people are fully capable of running protests, he added, arguing that the rallies had the potential to spiral out of control regardless of what Thaksin said or did.

Chulasingh said he was well aware that a lot of people would disagree with his decision, but dropping the terrorism charge against Thaksin was based on an unbiased prosecution review sanctioned by the Constitution.

"The attorney general is empowered to have the final say on a case being tried," he said.

Chulasingh, who dropped the charge and closed the case against Thaksin just before his retirement last month, said that when making a decision to prosecute, he only had the legal merits of the case in mind - not the expediency of those being prosecuted just to please a certain political movement.

Some of his past decisions, such as the Philip Morris cigarette-tax case, had displeased the Pheu Thai Party, he said.

Reacting to Chulasingh's decision, chief investigator Thawil Mangkang said the investigation report had recommended trying Thaksin. The report, compiled by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), outlined the statements from witnesses that leading protest organisers had sought and received Thaksin's instructions, Thawil said.

In submitting the investigative report for prosecution review, DSI director-general Tarit Pengdith endorsed the indictments against 26 suspects, including Thaksin. The indictments were based on alleged terrorist activities and alleged attempts to overthrow the government.

The DSI-collected evidence included a series of contacts between Thaksin and the late Maj-General Kattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol, seen as a proponent of arming the red guards.

However, the prosecution review cited Thaksin's phone-in as weak evidence to link him to the violence that erupted.

Prosecutors took almost three years to decide to dismiss the charge against Thaksin, despite having previously ruled to try the 23 other suspects in the case. Because of his death, the charge against Kattiya was dropped.


-- The Nation 2013-10-12

[sustento]

Does anyone believe anything that any of these nonces on either side of the argument say? I'm certain that ordinary Thai people don't.

[NongKhaiKid]

More rubbish is the form of weak, unbelievable justifications and throwing in the comment about " unbiased prosecution review " just makes it worse.

I agree people can get instructions from overseas and decide not to act on them, this in fact applies to instructions originating anywhere but I can't see the cabinet after a Skype session saying " No, what he wants isn't on so let's not bother ".

[slapout]

There must be a lot of families of Imprisoned/dead terroist who will beat a path to this mans door to employee him , to attempt to get death payments for the wrongful deaths/imprisoned loved ones.

The argument that if your not in the vicinity/country of criminal/terroist acts of those in your service/employee, from this learnered man, will upset the International law enforcement groups around the world.

[klubex99]

I suppose Osama Bin Laden must of had to been innocent too. He didn't live in the US as far as I'm aware.

What a stitch up eh!

Edited October 11, 2013 by klubex99

[tominbkk]

So having you on a live video screen In front of several hundred red followers telling them to burn down Bangkok, while sitting in his palace in Dubai, can't be considered terrorism?

[Robby nz]

Wonder if K Chulasingh will be in line for a cabinet post or will he we next see him as an elected senator?

[Misterwhisper]

What is this, a new twist on the Nuremberg defense?

Yes, he was a fugitive living in a foreign country at the time he gave his instructions via Skype and video call. But he cannot be indicted, because his acolytes and henchmen back home would have - at any time - had the power NOT to follow his orders? Does that wash his hands of any guilt? It seems so.

After this great revelation by Mr. Chulasingh, I think we also need to review the terrorist activities Osama bin-Laden allegedly had instigated in other countries from abroad. Hitler, Goering, et al also should be vindicated, because after all, the SS units who committed atrocities all across Europe could have chosen not to follow the orders.

Please forgive me for saying so, but sometimes people in this country have a very, very strange sense of justice, of what's right and wrong.

[Stradavarius37]

There all guilty - so they might as well be all innocent as well. Just don't bother me day to day, and Im fine.

[slapout]

In my stay in Thailand I have seen and listened to some pretty lame excuses for inaction by authorities , the accused goes into the temple, we cannot locate the accused/convicted, the statue of limitation expired, witnesses recanted/cannot be found, the accused is deceased, another government agency is responsible, another government agency is not cooperating with us, the paperwork was not received, injured party did not press charges, accused absconded, accused is ill, but this is the first " he is not in Thailand when the offense took place".This may go down in the legal texts as an example of a complete breakdown of what should be a fair legal system. The judical system is there to interpert and police the aspects of a charge, not the gophers .

On top of this, we have a delayed report of the nonaction, which is very similar to the replaced passport report action, the divorce feasco, the assit concealment decision, the commission of perjury., etc.

The man is pictured as being bullied, falsely accused, a savior for Thailand, which by the way, he and his family/cronies have lead for the majority of the past decade. While he has been declared a unacceptable part and resident or a couple businesses/countries and found his line of bull was not accepted nor would the overseas Thais even allow him to attend his attempt to charge them to attend his cry for money and support.dinner.

[Tatsujin]

What is this, a new twist on the Nuremberg defense?

Yes, he was a fugitive living in a foreign country at the time he gave his instructions via Skype and video call. But he cannot be indicted, because his acolytes and henchmen back home would have - at any time - had the power NOT to follow his orders? Does that wash his hands of any guilt? It seems so.

After this great revelation by Mr. Chulasingh, I think we also need to review the terrorist activities Osama bin-Laden allegedly had instigated in other countries from abroad. Hitler, Goering, et al also should be vindicated, because after all, the SS units who committed atrocities all across Europe could have chosen not to follow the orders.

Please forgive me for saying so, but sometimes people in this country have a very, very strange sense of justice, of what's right and wrong.

Unfortunately, "justice" is a foreign concept here, and as for "right" and "wrong", they don't have a clue.

[animatic]

The charade continues apace.

[hellodolly]

More rubbish is the form of weak, unbelievable justifications and throwing in the comment about " unbiased prosecution review " just makes it worse.

I agree people can get instructions from overseas and decide not to act on them, this in fact applies to instructions originating anywhere but I can't see the cabinet after a Skype session saying " No, what he wants isn't on so let's not bother ".

Would like to disagree with getting instructions from over seas and not acting on them.

Not only did they get instructions they received money and their was armed goons to make sure they earned their pay.

It was similar to the slavery in the South in the states. The slave could refuse to listen to his master because he was in Europe but he had an overseer to make sure he did the job any way.

[mrtoad]

So having you on a live video screen In front of several hundred red followers telling them to burn down Bangkok, while sitting in his palace in Dubai, can't be considered terrorism?

I also remember that he was offering 500 baht to turn up as well.

You couldn't make this shit up, it's an insult to people's intelligence.

[hellodolly]

What is this, a new twist on the Nuremberg defense?

Yes, he was a fugitive living in a foreign country at the time he gave his instructions via Skype and video call. But he cannot be indicted, because his acolytes and henchmen back home would have - at any time - had the power NOT to follow his orders? Does that wash his hands of any guilt? It seems so.

After this great revelation by Mr. Chulasingh, I think we also need to review the terrorist activities Osama bin-Laden allegedly had instigated in other countries from abroad. Hitler, Goering, et al also should be vindicated, because after all, the SS units who committed atrocities all across Europe could have chosen not to follow the orders.

Please forgive me for saying so, but sometimes people in this country have a very, very strange sense of justice, of what's right and wrong.

Unfortunately, "justice" is a foreign concept here, and as for "right" and "wrong", they don't have a clue.

There you go again projecting your self on to 66,000,000 people.

In the Thai Government right or wrong makes no difference it is a business that attracts people like that.

It is not the average every day working Thai. Unless you are one of the malcontents who insist on forcing your culture on the Thai's. Then you will claim that all 66,000,000 Thais are the same.

[Baerboxer]

Three years to come up with a lame excuse like this to drop the charges! All others prosecuted apart from Seh Deang who was shot dead. Wow, wonder who told him it would be hard to prosecute a corpse?

Well, I guess we will see Chulasingh pop up shortly in a new lucrative role following his retirement after years of dedicated service to the Thai people.

If PTP get there way, all constitutional protests against them would have to vetted by the AG's office, and approved before being sent to the Constitutional Court. Hmmm, would be not too busy at the court based on applying logic like this.

Inciting riot, arson, terrorism or treason - not if you support PTP it's not.

[tomross46]

Three years to come up with a lame excuse like this to drop the charges! All others prosecuted apart from Seh Deang who was shot dead. Wow, wonder who told him it would be hard to prosecute a corpse?

Well, I guess we will see Chulasingh pop up shortly in a new lucrative role following his retirement after years of dedicated service to the Thai people.

If PTP get there way, all constitutional protests against them would have to vetted by the AG's office, and approved before being sent to the Constitutional Court. Hmmm, would be not too busy at the court based on applying logic like this.

Inciting riot, arson, terrorism or treason - not if you support PTP it's not.

I thought K. Chalerm told the world press that Sen Deang was executed by police snipers. From where did the kill order come? Was it from overseas? If you have the AG, Police the prosecutors the PM and the parliament in your pocket, you have no problem.

[khunken]

It's no wonder that rich and well-connected people here (e.g. Mr Red Bull) rarely get more than a slap on the wrist (a ludicrous file and suspended sentence at most) with the quality of prosecutors like Mr Chulasingh.

By his 'argument' any Mr big - drug dealer, contract killer hirer & the like - can operate from overseas without any legal comeback from Thailand.

This is the worst legal 'justification' of non-action I've heard since Blair's refusal to act against BAE,

Edited October 12, 2013 by khunken

[pedro01]

So having you on a live video screen In front of several hundred red followers telling them to burn down Bangkok, while sitting in his palace in Dubai, can't be considered terrorism?

I don't think that actually happened - unless you can link to the video.

Other people - yes - they said that but not Thakky himself.

[Berek]

What is this, a new twist on the Nuremberg defense?

Nah more like the Chewbacca defense. There's no Wookiees in Dubai.

[Muhendis]

I agree absolutely that the terrorist activities of the "red shirts" are the work of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But this is Thailand and no matter what I and the rest of the world may think, this is the route down which the constitution has decided to go.

For those amongst you that are interested to know what the rest of the world may be thinking take a look at this link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/asia/thaksin-shinawatra-of-thailand-wields-influence-from-afar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Local Drunk]

The charade continues apace.

Keep them uneducated, block all portals to information, distract them with the pounding promises of useless wants and let them go to be bed with a pledge of a full belly. Then agitate them with the contrasts between rich and poor and we will own them then and they shall serve our desires. They will serve a master, they but will not be the master of their own destiny.

Yep, the charade continues.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Local Drunk

[Baerboxer]

I agree absolutely that the terrorist activities of the "red shirts" are the work of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But this is Thailand and no matter what I and the rest of the world may think, this is the route down which the constitution has decided to go.

For those amongst you that are interested to know what the rest of the world may be thinking take a look at this link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/asia/thaksin-shinawatra-of-thailand-wields-influence-from-afar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why don't these NYT journalists bother to research their facts. Thaksin is a fugitive from a criminal conviction. There are indeed more serious outstanding charges which he is also no doubt keen to avoid. But, the first reason he went on the run was to avoid the prison sentence he received from the conviction. The journalist doesn't mention this.

Also, he was not PM when he was forcibly removed from holding on to power illegally as a self-appointed caretaker PM. The current government have also acted illegally in issuing a new passport to him, and refuse to answer questions on it. There has been no attempt to seek extradition. Most civilized countries would find it unpalletable for members of government and senior police officers to openly associate with and admit to taking orders from a convicted criminal fugitive. None of this was commented on.

If the likes of US, UK, France, Russia and Thailand tolerate a country governed by a criminal fugitive via Skype and his collection of cell phones having a seat at the UN Security council, then all hope really has gone.

[fab4]

I agree absolutely that the terrorist activities of the "red shirts" are the work of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But this is Thailand and no matter what I and the rest of the world may think, this is the route down which the constitution has decided to go.

For those amongst you that are interested to know what the rest of the world may be thinking take a look at this link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/asia/thaksin-shinawatra-of-thailand-wields-influence-from-afar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why don't these NYT journalists bother to research their facts. Thaksin is a fugitive from a criminal conviction. There are indeed more serious outstanding charges which he is also no doubt keen to avoid. But, the first reason he went on the run was to avoid the prison sentence he received from the conviction. The journalist doesn't mention this.

Also, he was not PM when he was forcibly removed from holding on to power illegally as a self-appointed caretaker PM. The current government have also acted illegally in issuing a new passport to him, and refuse to answer questions on it. There has been no attempt to seek extradition. Most civilized countries would find it unpalletable for members of government and senior police officers to openly associate with and admit to taking orders from a convicted criminal fugitive. None of this was commented on.

If the likes of US, UK, France, Russia and Thailand tolerate a country governed by a criminal fugitive via Skype and his collection of cell phones having a seat at the UN Security council, then all hope really has gone.

Also, he was not PM when he was forcibly removed from holding on to power illegally as a self-appointed caretaker PM. The current government have also acted illegally in issuing a new passport to him, and refuse to answer questions on it. There has been no attempt to seek extradition. Most civilized countries would find it unpalletable for members of government and senior police officers to openly associate with and admit to taking orders from a convicted criminal fugitive. None of this was commented on.

Lets just say you as a existing PM decide to hold a snap election but the opposition such as they were boycott that election and the PM wins the election, suprise. OK, that election is then declared null and void so the "caretaker" PM (as he now is until a new election has been held and a PM elected) and a new Election Commission arrange another one set for October (subsequently pushed back to November) which is Royally accepted. So far everything legal and above board - until the Coup.

So which part of that realife process do you find backs up your claim to Thaksins status as

"not PM when he was forcibly removed from holding on to power illegally as a self-appointed caretaker PM"?

Likewise what does your allegation that

"The current government have also acted illegally in issuing a new passport to him"

bear to reality when it has been stated quite clearly that the passport revoked by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs back in 2008 was his Diplomatic Passport. His ordinary passport was revoked in 2009 because he was at the time, according to the MOF, deemed a potential threat to the country.

What is illegal about the present government presumably deciding that Thaksin is no longer deemed "a threat to the country" and handing him his passport back?.

I won't comment on your "most countries" and "convicted fugitive" speech here as I have done so already in another thread.

Edited October 13, 2013 by fab4