Jump to content

Abhisit ponders lawsuit against Tarit Pengdit


Recommended Posts

Posted

Abhisit ponders lawsuit against Tarit Pengdit

5-3-2014-1-43-11-PM-wpcf_728x413.jpg

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is considering appealing against the Criminal Court’s verdict rejecting his malfeasance lawsuit against former head of the Department of Special Investigation Tarit Pengdit for charging him and his former deputy, Suthep Thuagsuban, of murder in connection with the crackdown on red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010.

His planned appeal of the court’s dismissal of his case against Mr Tarit came after the Criminal Court on Thursday dismissed the murder case filed against Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep for ordering the crackdown of the protesters resulting to at least three deaths on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to deliberate the case which should have been deliberated by the Supreme Court’s criminal division for political office holders.

Mr Abhisit further said that he had not yet considered whether similar lawsuit would be lodged against former attorney-general Atthapol Yaisawang who endorsed the indictment of Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep for the murder of the red-shirt protesters.

The Democrat party leader declined to comment on the opinion of one of the sitting judges of the case who maintained that the Criminal Court had the authority to deliberate the case against him.

He said that he was waiting for the response of the Office of the Attorney-General whether it would appeal against the Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss his case or not.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/abhisit-ponders-lawsuit-tarit-pengdit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=abhisit-ponders-lawsuit-tarit-pengdit

thaipbs_logo.jpg
-- Thai PBS 2014-08-29

  • Like 1
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

It seems that Mr. Tarit, despite being head of the DSI under two different administrations, doesn't know enough about the law to file charges with the proper court. Another demonstration of the quality of political appointees in both Democrat and Thaksin puppet governments, i.e. very low quality. My schadenfreude will be in the extreme if I live to see Mr. Tarit's Karma played out in this life-time.

  • Like 1
Posted

It's curious that you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your version of events does not have an intellect.

Intellect by definition implies a capacity for reasoning. Your assertion that "Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands" shows a complete lack of objective understanding unless of course you regard abhisits refusal to countenance a ceasefire managed by the UN asked for by the UDD leaders and his further refusal to agree with peace talks proposed by Senators and agreed by the UDD, as "giving in to all their demands".

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

However, the court found that Abhisit’s and Suthep’s decisions to authorize security forces to use live ammunition had led to the high number of casualties and that dispersal operations did not follow international standards on the use of lethal force. Prosecutors can appeal the criminal court’s ruling denying jurisdiction.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

Oh come on, Fabby, the courts didn't agree he should have been charged, it's not up to them to agree or disagreeing when the OAG charges persons. THe courts must decide based on the law if they have the jurisdiction and if yes they will run the case and rule.

Here the courts ruled they don't have the jurisdiction. No more, no less. Even the remarks on what the court may or may not have found seems suspect as that seems more part of the OAG charge and reasoning,rather than the courts.

BTW from the article you quote

"“Letting Thailand’s leaders during the 2010 violence off the hook merely because of their positions is an affront to basic justice and international law,”"

Having people charged as individual persons rather than as PM and Dept. PM seems an affront to basic justice and international law.

  • Like 2
Posted

As anyone(with an intellect) who was around at the time knows well Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands...Bangkok at the time was overrun with terrorists bombing, shooting and towards the end looting.i Believe he showed extraordinary patience, few countries east or west would have given so much leeway to the rabble-he should never have been charged in the first place.

It's curious that you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your version of events does not have an intellect.

Intellect by definition implies a capacity for reasoning. Your assertion that "Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands" shows a complete lack of objective understanding unless of course you regard abhisits refusal to countenance a ceasefire managed by the UN asked for by the UDD leaders and his further refusal to agree with peace talks proposed by Senators and agreed by the UDD, as "giving in to all their demands".

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

However, the court found that Abhisit’s and Suthep’s decisions to authorize security forces to use live ammunition had led to the high number of casualties and that dispersal operations did not follow international standards on the use of lethal force. Prosecutors can appeal the criminal court’s ruling denying jurisdiction.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

There is no doubt that Abhisit waited and waited and in fact waited far too long. The moment that the Red Shirts started damaging Public and Private Property and used armed resistance by firing rifles and rocket launchers at the Security Forces, which they instigated without being fired upon themselves, Abhisit should have given the order to disperse what had by then become a lethal mob, supported by armed terrorists, with the minimum of force deemed necessary under the given circumstances. If the Security Forces experienced armed resistence, they should have then been order to use live ammunition to protect themselves, the Public and to achieve the objective. These are the common Rules of Engagement used in most of the developed World and are totally defendable in any Court. The rest of who spoke to who to negotiate a peace is irrelevant in the specific case of being charged with attempted. murder.

Posted

Funny, but post #6 received 16 "likes" and post #8 none. whistling.gif

Pure prejudice, unfounded bias, a conspiracy. An afrrond to law and order and a personal insult to my dear friend Fab4 esq.sad.png

  • Like 2
Posted

As anyone(with an intellect) who was around at the time knows well Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands...Bangkok at the time was overrun with terrorists bombing, shooting and towards the end looting.i Believe he showed extraordinary patience, few countries east or west would have given so much leeway to the rabble-he should never have been charged in the first place.

It's curious that you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your version of events does not have an intellect.

Intellect by definition implies a capacity for reasoning. Your assertion that "Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands" shows a complete lack of objective understanding unless of course you regard abhisits refusal to countenance a ceasefire managed by the UN asked for by the UDD leaders and his further refusal to agree with peace talks proposed by Senators and agreed by the UDD, as "giving in to all their demands".

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

However, the court found that Abhisit’s and Suthep’s decisions to authorize security forces to use live ammunition had led to the high number of casualties and that dispersal operations did not follow international standards on the use of lethal force. Prosecutors can appeal the criminal court’s ruling denying jurisdiction.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

Did the red shirt leaders here at the time, not those delivering bile from the safety of luxury overseas shopping malls,make an agreement with Abhisit? Did they then welch on that agreement when dear leader instructed them to as it didn't suit his agenda?

UN peacekeepers - ? A little grandiose. This was a group of terrorists and criminals who were being manipulated and stirred up to suit their paymasters agenda.Trying to legitimize their criminal actions by involving the UN won't fly.

Didn't Yinggy or cousin number 1 call for UN intervention again this time round? Are they that dumb and/or arrogant to think people can't see through their pretences?

  • Like 1
Posted

Unfortunately Abhisit has not been vindicated.

The action by Tarit & the PTP was malicious and intended to discredit him, I am sure Abhisit really wants his day in court to clear his name.

Posted

Unfortunately Abhisit has not been vindicated.

The action by Tarit & the PTP was malicious and intended to discredit him, I am sure Abhisit really wants his day in court to clear his name.

If he is really out for revenge he might consider contacting "Dial-a-terrorist" and sending them to Bangkok. Thaksin has their number. whistling.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

Unfortunately Abhisit has not been vindicated.

The action by Tarit & the PTP was malicious and intended to discredit him, I am sure Abhisit really wants his day in court to clear his name.

Unfortunately he can't win, which may have been the intention. If he doesn't get hs day in court the evidence won't be heard and if he does his opponents will just say the courts are biased.

Posted

One inflammatory post has been removed

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"

Arnold Judas Rimmer of Jupiter Mining Corporation Ship Red Dwarf

Posted

Funny, but post #6 received 16 "likes" and post #8 none. whistling.gif

Pure prejudice, unfounded bias, a conspiracy. An afrrond to law and order and a personal insult to my dear friend Fab4 esq.sad.png

I must say I am really quite impressed by Fabby, kicked in the nuts many times, but comes back for more, one would have thought with his political loyalties, he would have run away or changed sides by now as the rest of his brethern do...you never know if Brother #1 ever gets back into power, highly unlikely I know, he may award fabby PR or even give him a free passport for his support or even make him minister for Rice scam Scheme part deux...thumbsup.gif

I must admit this gave me a laugh.

To be fair to fab4 I often don't agree with him but he does usually bring some facts with him when he posts.

If I'm nice to him maybe he can arrange for me to be in charge of women's prisons. crazy.gif.pagespeed.ce.dzDUUqYcHZ.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

I can understand why Abhisit and Suthep's case couldn't be heard in the Criminal Court and should have gone to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. The clue is in the name although that seems to have gone over the heads of Tarit and the former Attorney General.

Did this not have to since Tarit's post wasn't a political position?

Posted

As anyone(with an intellect) who was around at the time knows well Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands...Bangkok at the time was overrun with terrorists bombing, shooting and towards the end looting.i Believe he showed extraordinary patience, few countries east or west would have given so much leeway to the rabble-he should never have been charged in the first place.

It's curious that you imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your version of events does not have an intellect.

Intellect by definition implies a capacity for reasoning. Your assertion that "Abhisit waited and waited gave into all their demands-then they changed their demands" shows a complete lack of objective understanding unless of course you regard abhisits refusal to countenance a ceasefire managed by the UN asked for by the UDD leaders and his further refusal to agree with peace talks proposed by Senators and agreed by the UDD, as "giving in to all their demands".

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

However, the court found that Abhisit’s and Suthep’s decisions to authorize security forces to use live ammunition had led to the high number of casualties and that dispersal operations did not follow international standards on the use of lethal force. Prosecutors can appeal the criminal court’s ruling denying jurisdiction.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

Maybe English isn't your first language, but I don't see anything in that quote that says that they should have been charged.

Not following international standards doesn't make it murder.

Posted

Funny, but post #6 received 16 "likes" and post #8 none. whistling.gif

Pure prejudice, unfounded bias, a conspiracy. An afrrond to law and order and a personal insult to my dear friend Fab4 esq.sad.png

What's funny is that my post is post #7. coffee1.gif

Posted

Maybe English isn't your first language, but I don't see anything in that quote that says that they should have been charged.

Not following international standards doesn't make it murder.

Perhaps you should read it more slowly. If it helps, try reading aloud. Alternatively you could read the link.

  • Like 1
Posted

Tarit is a spineless chameleon. He changes color depending on who has the power at the time.

Or to say it another way, he is a civil servant. The DSI is responsible to the government.

The problem here, in this thread, is that the charges against Abhisit and whatshisname did not originate with the DSI, but with the (equally spineless although non-chameleon) National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC recommended murder charges, and picked the DSI as its agent, presumably (although it never said publicly) because the police and OAG both were involved because they, too, were under Abhisit's authority at the time of the 2010 violence and deaths.

Abhisit is certainly entitled to sue, and we all know that no case ever should be dropped. And Tarit, who is and will be nothing ever again in his career, can be pilloried, etc. But it's the NACC that will suffer, because the government civil servants and Tarit himself will certainly point back to where the murder charges originated - not with Tarit, not with the DSI, not with the justice ministry or Yingluck cabinet, all of whom certainly were in the chain - but with the fine, upstanding, non-political, completely independent NACC.

And that's a problem.

If I were General Sarit, I wouldn't want has-been politicians dragging my independent NACC into the mud of a court case.

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

They most certainly did not. The courts "agree" on nothing at all in this case. One judge of one court pondered for 20 months and then ruled, as was his right, that the charges did not belong in his court. He made no comment or ruling on whether such a charge should be filed elsewhere, or at all. And no other judge and no other court has given any opinion or ruling.

His ruling may be appealed to the next higher court. The OAG may take up the case and re-file in another court. The DSI may re-file in another court. The only thing we know FOR CERTAIN about this case is that it will NOT be heard in the Bangkok Criminal Court. We know nothing else about this case from judges or courts (or anyone else) at all.

.

  • Like 1
Posted

Tarit is a spineless chameleon. He changes color depending on who has the power at the time.

Or to say it another way, he is a civil servant. The DSI is responsible to the government.

The problem here, in this thread, is that the charges against Abhisit and whatshisname did not originate with the DSI, but with the (equally spineless although non-chameleon) National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC recommended murder charges, and picked the DSI as its agent, presumably (although it never said publicly) because the police and OAG both were involved because they, too, were under Abhisit's authority at the time of the 2010 violence and deaths.

Abhisit is certainly entitled to sue, and we all know that no case ever should be dropped. And Tarit, who is and will be nothing ever again in his career, can be pilloried, etc. But it's the NACC that will suffer, because the government civil servants and Tarit himself will certainly point back to where the murder charges originated - not with Tarit, not with the DSI, not with the justice ministry or Yingluck cabinet, all of whom certainly were in the chain - but with the fine, upstanding, non-political, completely independent NACC.

And that's a problem.

If I were General Sarit, I wouldn't want has-been politicians dragging my independent NACC into the mud of a court case.

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

They most certainly did not. The courts "agree" on nothing at all in this case. One judge of one court pondered for 20 months and then ruled, as was his right, that the charges did not belong in his court. He made no comment or ruling on whether such a charge should be filed elsewhere, or at all. And no other judge and no other court has given any opinion or ruling.

His ruling may be appealed to the next higher court. The OAG may take up the case and re-file in another court. The DSI may re-file in another court. The only thing we know FOR CERTAIN about this case is that it will NOT be heard in the Bangkok Criminal Court. We know nothing else about this case from judges or courts (or anyone else) at all.

.

OK, looks like Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch will be next in court for misrepresentation.

Posted

Funny, but post #6 received 16 "likes" and post #8 none. whistling.gif

Pure prejudice, unfounded bias, a conspiracy. An afrrond to law and order and a personal insult to my dear friend Fab4 esq.sad.png

What's funny is that my post is post #7. coffee1.gif

... after a post got removed by the mods.

Anyway its almost 21:00 (aka 9PM) so instead of coffee burp.gif

Posted

Maybe English isn't your first language, but I don't see anything in that quote that says that they should have been charged.

Not following international standards doesn't make it murder.

Perhaps you should read it more slowly. If it helps, try reading aloud. Alternatively you could read the link.

I don't know what you're reading, but there is nothing in the link suggesting that the court said they should be charged either.

  • Like 1
Posted

Nothing more despicable than Abhisit. Lawsuits is all he's good at. Developing electable policies, now that's another thing.

I truly love these "no brainer" comments where one can interchange a name. In this case it sounds more realistic when changing the name.

Nothing more despicable than thaksin. Lawsuits is all he's good. Developing sustainable electable policies, now that's another thing...

Like the good farmers said in 2011. "If the DEM's offered us 41% above market value we would have voted for them". Because the only way the accused terrorist, accused mass murderer, convicted criminal fugitive can get the votes is offering 7% of the population 90% of the policies.

I for one hope there are less law suits on both sides of the equation.

  • Like 1
Posted

I don't know what you're reading, but there is nothing in the link suggesting that the court said they should be charged either.

From the link

However, the court found that Abhisit’s and Suthep’s decisions to authorize security forces to use live ammunition had led to the high number of casualties and that dispersal operations did not follow international standards on the use of lethal force. Prosecutors can appeal the criminal court’s ruling denying jurisdiction.

The ruling on excessive force by the security forces, which could open the door to criminal prosecutions of those involved in the bloody crackdown, was more promising.

See also http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/756007-tarit-shrugs-off-court-decision-to-reject-case-against-abhisit-suthep/?view=findpost&p=8319632

Posted

Tarit is a spineless chameleon. He changes color depending on who has the power at the time.

Or to say it another way, he is a civil servant. The DSI is responsible to the government.

The problem here, in this thread, is that the charges against Abhisit and whatshisname did not originate with the DSI, but with the (equally spineless although non-chameleon) National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC recommended murder charges, and picked the DSI as its agent, presumably (although it never said publicly) because the police and OAG both were involved because they, too, were under Abhisit's authority at the time of the 2010 violence and deaths.

Abhisit is certainly entitled to sue, and we all know that no case ever should be dropped. And Tarit, who is and will be nothing ever again in his career, can be pilloried, etc. But it's the NACC that will suffer, because the government civil servants and Tarit himself will certainly point back to where the murder charges originated - not with Tarit, not with the DSI, not with the justice ministry or Yingluck cabinet, all of whom certainly were in the chain - but with the fine, upstanding, non-political, completely independent NACC.

And that's a problem.

If I were General Sarit, I wouldn't want has-been politicians dragging my independent NACC into the mud of a court case.

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

They most certainly did not. The courts "agree" on nothing at all in this case. One judge of one court pondered for 20 months and then ruled, as was his right, that the charges did not belong in his court. He made no comment or ruling on whether such a charge should be filed elsewhere, or at all. And no other judge and no other court has given any opinion or ruling.

His ruling may be appealed to the next higher court. The OAG may take up the case and re-file in another court. The DSI may re-file in another court. The only thing we know FOR CERTAIN about this case is that it will NOT be heard in the Bangkok Criminal Court. We know nothing else about this case from judges or courts (or anyone else) at all.

.

OK, looks like Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch will be next in court for misrepresentation.

Or to say it another way, he is a civil servant. The DSI is responsible to the government.

Nah, don't need to say it another way. Tarit persecuted 281 red shirts with a vendetta. He loved it. He wanted to see those red shirts suffer. He was working for Ahbisit.

As soon as the PTP bribed the electorate with unsustainable polices Tarit changed sides. Remember Tarit with complete conviction wanted to see those red shirts suffer. He wanted them persecuted. When his new boss came on the scene everything changes. See my previous comment for his ability to remove those charges against the terrorists.

As Tarit changes his view point some will change there stance depending on what the PTP and UDD narrative is..

A civil servent in Australia or the UK or the USA as you fondly like to compare the PTP too cannot be compared to Tarit. Tarit was a pawn, a boss, a leader and a major player. He was not a civil servant and to think that is showing that the only ministry of the PTP that was successful was the ministry of propaganda. The last ministry of propaganda was 70 years ago and they needed it too!

That is why I pity some. Not because they support terrorists, but because they have weak minds that follow a terrorist narrative.

As you you Fabie…I hope we can share a beer on Soi 11 at the TV bar.

I have a beer ready for you and I will pay for it. Rest assured I will not throw sh@t on you like the red shirts would if we disagree! I will pat you on the back and say………..

May peace and reconciliation be with you my dear dear friend because that's what people that don't support terrorists say.

What we don't do is condescend. Look at your previous 6 posts to see what I mean about condescension.

  • Like 1
Posted

Tarit is a spineless chameleon. He changes color depending on who has the power at the time.

Or to say it another way, he is a civil servant. The DSI is responsible to the government.

The problem here, in this thread, is that the charges against Abhisit and whatshisname did not originate with the DSI, but with the (equally spineless although non-chameleon) National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC recommended murder charges, and picked the DSI as its agent, presumably (although it never said publicly) because the police and OAG both were involved because they, too, were under Abhisit's authority at the time of the 2010 violence and deaths.

Abhisit is certainly entitled to sue, and we all know that no case ever should be dropped. And Tarit, who is and will be nothing ever again in his career, can be pilloried, etc. But it's the NACC that will suffer, because the government civil servants and Tarit himself will certainly point back to where the murder charges originated - not with Tarit, not with the DSI, not with the justice ministry or Yingluck cabinet, all of whom certainly were in the chain - but with the fine, upstanding, non-political, completely independent NACC.

And that's a problem.

If I were General Sarit, I wouldn't want has-been politicians dragging my independent NACC into the mud of a court case.

Even the courts agree he should have been charged, despite their court not deemed the correct place to do so

They most certainly did not. The courts "agree" on nothing at all in this case. One judge of one court pondered for 20 months and then ruled, as was his right, that the charges did not belong in his court. He made no comment or ruling on whether such a charge should be filed elsewhere, or at all. And no other judge and no other court has given any opinion or ruling.

His ruling may be appealed to the next higher court. The OAG may take up the case and re-file in another court. The DSI may re-file in another court. The only thing we know FOR CERTAIN about this case is that it will NOT be heard in the Bangkok Criminal Court. We know nothing else about this case from judges or courts (or anyone else) at all.

.

OK, looks like Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch will be next in court for misrepresentation.

Fab4 and little sis Wanda4 playing mixed doubles together. Now that is sweet ! cheesy.gif

Seems like they know more about Thai politics than the entire government, past and present, combined. What a shame the politicians did not know how to use Google as well as some. whistling.gif

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 40

      What's cheaper nowadays?

    2. 26

      Introspection: Are You a Chronic Complainer, or Are These Just Minor Inconveniences?

    3. 16
    4. 0

      BP U Turn: Shifts Strategy Slashing Green Investments to Prioritize Oil and Gas

    5. 0

      Watch: Five-Minute Heist: The £4.8m Golden Toilet Stolen in Daring Raid

    6. 0

      Taiwan Detains Chinese Crewed Vessel Suspected of Severing Undersea Cable

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...