Suthep freed on bail for charges relating to 2010 killings

[rubl]

Thaksin hasn't lost until the concept of one man one vote is removed. When that happens the country has lost.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Absolutely. The military can try and break the back of people as much as it likes, but eventually there will be elections and whenever that maybe, there will be only one winner and we all know who that will be.

The winner is (or at least should be) ... ... THE PEOPLE OF THAILAND

That has nothing to do with unelected elite, Amply Rich fellows or criminal fugitives.

[fab4]

True, true. They should have asked to leave the country to watch the World Cup Football in Brasil, promise to come back after and jump bail. Just like that great example Thaksin.

Firstly you may remember that suthep, ex bag man and ex deputy PM for the dems, has spent the past 6 months or so avoiding acknowledging charges of pre meditated murder because he was busy trying to overthrow a caretaker government and generally creating the excuse for a coup. I trusted sutheps word that he would surrender to the authorities after he had finished committing insurrection about as much as I think that abhisit is a unsullied truthful politician.

Secondly you appear to confuse charges of premeditated murder with being sentenced to 2 years jail for countersigning your ex wifes legitimate property purchase, in terms of severity.

Of course as you're talking about Lord Voldemort na Dubai you probably think that is perfectly sound reasoning.

[wolf5370]

But only charged from documents lodged by a crooked DSI under Tarit/Thaksin.

When the Judges see the lack of evidence, Tarit will be arrested for issuing falsified charges.

So, what you are saying is that now of these Thai people dies in the Army Crackdown??? Someone ordered the Crackdown!!! Unless you think that some 150 army soldiers took it upon themselves to open fire. If not the government at the time in control, that would be Abhisit and Suthep - then someone in the upper ranks of the Army took it upon themselves - Anupong Paochinda or Prayuth Chan-ocha (as he supported the crackdown).

But not to worry - as Thailand still can not take a single member of the PAD group to court for shutting down the airports - postponed again until December

They do not have to "take it upon themselves" the order just needs to be defensive in nature as opposed to offensive - an order such as "shoot any apparently armed protestor" would be offensive, and order of "shoot only to protect yourselves and your comrades" would be defensive. A soldier is not obliged to sit still and be blown to pieces or shot to death, like anyone else, they have a right to defend themselves. Trying to make it black and white is an attempt to make a lie out of a situation by forcing an answer that ill-fits a description of what happened. Being under live fire attack is not a black and white situation - and commanders on the ground can take control to protect their men - and rightly so.

The case, therefore, can only be, two fold: Was there an offensive order given; and did any soldiers act inappropriately : open fire when they (or their comrades) were not directly under threat or shoot unarmed or innocent protestors.

The former would constitute a righteous charge of officially mandated murder; the later would be down to the soldier involved.

IMO there is no evidence of the former - or it would have been aired long ago - and there is no interest in pursuing the latter (though that is the mostly likely scenario if any wrong doing was done at all wrt the army).

So you are saying that it is perfectly ok to murder an unarmed medical nurse who is attending to a wounded person. Or that it is ok to fire into a temple and kill unarmed persons who are sheltering in there. This sort of thinking was endemic with the SS during WW2. You should be shunned and ashamed.

No not saying anything like that - you need to learn to read stuff other than Red propaganda pamphlets! I have not stated my opinion as to the morality at all - show me where I did in my post above? I stated that the premise that either soldiers acted on their own volition or were ordered to kill protestors was flawed by the simple fact they are not the only two options. If you can argue against my logic above, then do so - I will be interested to debate it.

You make no attempt to though - you just throw out of context hyperbole instead. You might garner likes from you mates, attempting to make everything emotive and twisting both the sentiment and the content of posts, but really it just makes you look foolish - it suggests that you either did not understand the content or you can not debate it.

[rubl]

True, true. They should have asked to leave the country to watch the World Cup Football in Brasil, promise to come back after and jump bail. Just like that great example Thaksin.

Firstly you may remember that suthep, ex bag man and ex deputy PM for the dems, has spent the past 6 months or so avoiding acknowledging charges of pre meditated murder because he was busy trying to overthrow a caretaker government and generally creating the excuse for a coup. I trusted sutheps word that he would surrender to the authorities after he had finished committing insurrection about as much as I think that abhisit is a unsullied truthful politician.

Secondly you appear to confuse charges of premeditated murder with being sentenced to 2 years jail for countersigning your ex wifes legitimate property purchase, in terms of severity.

Of course as you're talking about Lord Voldemort na Dubai you probably think that is perfectly sound reasoning.

Since you didn't seem to have much problem with Pheu Thai MPs guaranteeing the bail amount for UDD leaders, I would expect you to have no problem with Suthep being able to bail himself out. Same charges, same rhetoric.

BTW Suthep didn't avoid acknowledging charges, he was just too busy protesting against a government which tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill which suddenly even coverec Thaksin's last two years in/out of office AND the first two years of Yinglucks (mis)administration.

[fab4]

True, true. They should have asked to leave the country to watch the World Cup Football in Brasil, promise to come back after and jump bail. Just like that great example Thaksin.

Firstly you may remember that suthep, ex bag man and ex deputy PM for the dems, has spent the past 6 months or so avoiding acknowledging charges of pre meditated murder because he was busy trying to overthrow a caretaker government and generally creating the excuse for a coup. I trusted sutheps word that he would surrender to the authorities after he had finished committing insurrection about as much as I think that abhisit is a unsullied truthful politician.

Secondly you appear to confuse charges of premeditated murder with being sentenced to 2 years jail for countersigning your ex wifes legitimate property purchase, in terms of severity.

Of course as you're talking about Lord Voldemort na Dubai you probably think that is perfectly sound reasoning.

Since you didn't seem to have much problem with Pheu Thai MPs guaranteeing the bail amount for UDD leaders, I would expect you to have no problem with Suthep being able to bail himself out. Same charges, same rhetoric.

BTW Suthep didn't avoid acknowledging charges, he was just too busy protesting against a government which tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill which suddenly even coverec Thaksin's last two years in/out of office AND the first two years of Yinglucks (mis)administration.

Oh for pity's sake, give it a rest. Who is the next anti Thaksin "hero" that you are going to jump on the bandwaggon with?

"too busy protesting" to answer murder and insurrection charges and that's all right - transfer an anti-government civil servant and it's against the law. I suggest you have a close look at your ethics.

[rubl]

True, true. They should have asked to leave the country to watch the World Cup Football in Brasil, promise to come back after and jump bail. Just like that great example Thaksin.

Firstly you may remember that suthep, ex bag man and ex deputy PM for the dems, has spent the past 6 months or so avoiding acknowledging charges of pre meditated murder because he was busy trying to overthrow a caretaker government and generally creating the excuse for a coup. I trusted sutheps word that he would surrender to the authorities after he had finished committing insurrection about as much as I think that abhisit is a unsullied truthful politician.

Secondly you appear to confuse charges of premeditated murder with being sentenced to 2 years jail for countersigning your ex wifes legitimate property purchase, in terms of severity.

Of course as you're talking about Lord Voldemort na Dubai you probably think that is perfectly sound reasoning.

Since you didn't seem to have much problem with Pheu Thai MPs guaranteeing the bail amount for UDD leaders, I would expect you to have no problem with Suthep being able to bail himself out. Same charges, same rhetoric.

BTW Suthep didn't avoid acknowledging charges, he was just too busy protesting against a government which tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill which suddenly even coverec Thaksin's last two years in/out of office AND the first two years of Yinglucks (mis)administration.

Oh for pity's sake, give it a rest. Who is the next anti Thaksin "hero" that you are going to jump on the bandwaggon with?

"too busy protesting" to answer murder and insurrection charges and that's all right - transfer an anti-government civil servant and it's against the law. I suggest you have a close look at your ethics.

Transfer an civil servant in order to place a relative in his position is a matter of 'conflict of interest'. A PM should stand above such things, it's a matter of ethics.

So, starting anti-government protests and immediately being branded as 'undemocratic', having fools shoot at you and drop grenades, having police meddling a bit and having Pheu Thai rhetoric calling you terrorists, etc., etc. makes it true? You one of those who always believes everything a government tells you? Somewhat naive I'd say.

[fab4]

Oh for pity's sake, give it a rest. Who is the next anti Thaksin "hero" that you are going to jump on the bandwaggon with?

"too busy protesting" to answer murder and insurrection charges and that's all right - transfer an anti-government civil servant and it's against the law. I suggest you have a close look at your ethics.

Transfer an civil servant in order to place a relative in his position is a matter of 'conflict of interest'. A PM should stand above such things, it's a matter of ethics.

So, starting anti-government protests and immediately being branded as 'undemocratic', having fools shoot at you and drop grenades, having police meddling a bit and having Pheu Thai rhetoric calling you terrorists, etc., etc. makes it true? You one of those who always believes everything a government tells you? Somewhat naive I'd say.

If you think (I had to pause there) that I rely on the "government" as a sole source of news you are sadly mistaken, but you knew that anyway, didn't you.

[rubl]

Oh for pity's sake, give it a rest. Who is the next anti Thaksin "hero" that you are going to jump on the bandwaggon with?

"too busy protesting" to answer murder and insurrection charges and that's all right - transfer an anti-government civil servant and it's against the law. I suggest you have a close look at your ethics.

Transfer an civil servant in order to place a relative in his position is a matter of 'conflict of interest'. A PM should stand above such things, it's a matter of ethics.

So, starting anti-government protests and immediately being branded as 'undemocratic', having fools shoot at you and drop grenades, having police meddling a bit and having Pheu Thai rhetoric calling you terrorists, etc., etc. makes it true? You one of those who always believes everything a government tells you? Somewhat naive I'd say.

If you think (I had to pause there) that I rely on the "government" as a sole source of news you are sadly mistaken, but you knew that anyway, didn't you.

Terribly sorry and all that, I completely forgot you have your 'own' sources of information.

Anyway, like the UDD leaders who in 2010 needed the police to get them to court, k. Suthep was escorted by the Army.

Now at least the court can proceed with planning the case proceedings, get witness lists from prosecutor and defense council, invite people, etc., etc. Just like they are doing for the UDD leader case on terrorism. At least for the rest of the year no one should be in a position to claim parliamentary immunity, it would seem.

[raybal5]

600,000 baht is petty cash to Suthep. It's amazing how low the bail is for the 'hi-so' Thais no matter how serious the charge is. Whenever a Farang has to post bail it's several million..

There are probably legal maximums and guidelines for bail. A foreigner is a greater flight risk, and often impossible to extradite if they go to their home country - hence the greater bail amount. A Thais passport can be cancelled and their assets frozen, and family/friends used for relocating a run away. Common sense really.

Really? Common sense? How do you think the families of the victims feel?

A person's life in Thailand apparently has a value. This value for a life has been set by the court to be 600,000 / 98, or approximately 6,122 Baht (US$200) each.

So go tell each of the families that their deceased loved one is worth a mere pittance. Let's see how common sense is greeted then.

IMO, the court erred (again, as usual) by granting bail.

Oh Gumball. I suppose you are going to tell me that the American court system is perfect and would never grant bail to a person with similar charges. Your argument about the worth of a life based on the bail amount is without merit. Bail is merely a method of incentivising the defendant to appear in court. The judges will then hear the evidence, make a judgement, and if guilty, determine a penalty. Then you could correctly mount a case for 'what is a life worth'.

By commenting that the court has erred is to prejudge the final outcome. I am sure the authorities in Thailand would welcome your detailed advice on how perfect the USA legal system is.

[raybal5]

Do try to keep up all the major players had their assets posted a few months back. Suthep was the only one with less assets than money he owed.

Try to stick to the reality not your misguided biased sense of politics. Or what you think happened in the past. The records clearly show he is in the hole.

Hahaha. The records more often than not, do not reflect the reality. There have been countless instances of corrupt people hiding assets. Do you really think people keep their corrupt income in their own name and easy to find? I laugh at your naivety.

[kimamey]

But only charged from documents lodged by a crooked DSI under Tarit/Thaksin.

When the Judges see the lack of evidence, Tarit will be arrested for issuing falsified charges.

So, what you are saying is that now of these Thai people dies in the Army Crackdown??? Someone ordered the Crackdown!!! Unless you think that some 150 army soldiers took it upon themselves to open fire. If not the government at the time in control, that would be Abhisit and Suthep - then someone in the upper ranks of the Army took it upon themselves - Anupong Paochinda or Prayuth Chan-ocha (as he supported the crackdown).

But not to worry - as Thailand still can not take a single member of the PAD group to court for shutting down the airports - postponed again until December

They do not have to "take it upon themselves" the order just needs to be defensive in nature as opposed to offensive - an order such as "shoot any apparently armed protestor" would be offensive, and order of "shoot only to protect yourselves and your comrades" would be defensive. A soldier is not obliged to sit still and be blown to pieces or shot to death, like anyone else, they have a right to defend themselves. Trying to make it black and white is an attempt to make a lie out of a situation by forcing an answer that ill-fits a description of what happened. Being under live fire attack is not a black and white situation - and commanders on the ground can take control to protect their men - and rightly so.

The case, therefore, can only be, two fold: Was there an offensive order given; and did any soldiers act inappropriately : open fire when they (or their comrades) were not directly under threat or shoot unarmed or innocent protestors.

The former would constitute a righteous charge of officially mandated murder; the later would be down to the soldier involved.

IMO there is no evidence of the former - or it would have been aired long ago - and there is no interest in pursuing the latter (though that is the mostly likely scenario if any wrong doing was done at all wrt the army).

Actually there is evidence of the order. I haven't got them now but the ROE were available and I'll try to find them. I may have got them from Robert Amsterdam's site as he thinks they broke UN rules. From memory they permit shooting if there is danger to life or property. Abhisit and Suthep have been charged but Tarit said the army will only be witnesses.