Jump to content

Tarit shrugs off court decision to reject case against Abhisit, Suthep


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

Tarit shrugs off court decision to reject case against Abhisit, Suthep
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The former head of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), Tarit Pengdith, has shrugged off the Criminal Court's decision to reject the murder charge filed against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban.

"In the end, things will depend on the Supreme Court's ruling," Tarit said yesterday. He spoke up after the Criminal Court on Thursday rejected the charges on grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Initiated by the DSI, the complaint accused Abhisit and Suthep of murder for their roles in the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES)'s operations against red-shirt demonstrators in 2010. Both Abhisit and Suthep were holders of top political posts at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Dozens of red shirts were killed during the 2010 political unrest.

According to the Criminal Court, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) should be the agency handling such a case.

Tarit said the Criminal Court did not suggest that the DSI had done anything wrong - it just recommended that the NACC handle the case.

Abhisit has accused Tarit of having an ulterior motive for pushing for the murder charges against him and Suthep.

"I have long explained that Suthep and I had simply carried out our duty in giving orders to the CRES to control the situation," Abhisit said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Tarit-shrugs-off-court-decision-to-reject-case-aga-30242113.html

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2014-08-30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tarit showing his last moves before having to face justice himself. He and his buddy Chalerm damaged Thailand big time, spreading fear and intimidating normal Thai people for merely feeling sympathy for the demonstrators against his shinaclan.

He is one of the leaders that imo MUST be put behind bars. Preferably for a looooooooooong time.

What has happened over his land encroachment ? The building was demolished but is that it, nothing has been reported as far as I know that he will face criminal charges ?

That's what you call FACE safety

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Tarit showing his last moves before having to face justice himself. He and his buddy Chalerm damaged Thailand big time, spreading fear and intimidating normal Thai people for merely feeling sympathy for the demonstrators against his shinaclan.

He is one of the leaders that imo MUST be put behind bars. Preferably for a looooooooooong time.

What has happened over his land encroachment ? The building was demolished but is that it, nothing has been reported as far as I know that he will face criminal charges ?

And while we are about it, what happened NKK about that imported luxury car parts scam

Also neglect of duty in the extreme over the ' investigation ' of the ex-monk who was allowed to get away with all his money and wasn't exactly pursued to the ends of the earth.

it all stacks up against him or at least should but ... ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

Edited by fab4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

Not that simple when you have someone pulling his strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

'The evidence exists.'

How's that fabie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

'The evidence exists.'

How's that fabie?

It's fab4. Your colloquial use of my user name suggests a familiar bond between us that I can assure you does not, nor will ever, exist.

Now, Are you saying the evidence does not exist?

"We have evidence that showed that Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep ordered security forces to disperse the protesters and authorized the use of weapon and live ammunition," said spokesman Nanthasak Poonsuk of the attorney general's office.

The attorney general's office said that although the deaths and injuries at the protests took place on different days, they were a "direct" consequence of the orders of both men.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163603342725302

It may be worth you and others reflecting on what the Criminal Court also said when deciding that their court was not the right place for jurisdiction of their case

On August 28, 2014, the criminal court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to try former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban because they were political officeholders at the time. International human rights treaties to which Thailand is a party make clear that official status cannot justify immunity from legal responsibility for serious human rights violations.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

And you know for a fact that the charges are not bogus.

Out of curiousity when did you get your lawyers qualification in Thailand and access to all the court documents including the evidence on this particular case?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is now the problem

First the fact that these charges were invented in the first place by Thaksin through his lap dog Tarit as an attempt to create leverage even though any reasonable thinking person would know they are bogus leaves the victims and families actually thinking there was a case to answer

Now Thaksin can use these victims gullibility to pursue a disruptive course and make trouble just like in 2010, I wouldn't put it beyond a possibility, all these people need is an excuse and what they see as a just cause and it could easily boil over into the streets of the capital and that would not be good for anyone - remember there is pure evil at work here, Thaksin doesn't give a (deleted) who he kills uses and abuses to cause trouble

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

And you know for a fact that the charges are not bogus.

Out of curiousity when did you get your lawyers qualification in Thailand and access to all the court documents including the evidence on this particular case?

Oh that's an easy question - the Robert 'database'. E&OE and twists aplenty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

evidence exists of premeditated murder.... Yeah right fab4.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

did someone roll over a large stone - what a horrible man

That's no way to describe Abhisit, or Suthep for that matter.They may have blood on their hands but this need to be determined or otherwise in the courts.There must be a presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

But I appreciatre your disgust and revulsion at the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why should he be worried, he did what his boss paid him to do and made up and filed bogus charges, probably already spent his bonus for doing it anyway. What a weasel of a man this piece of excrement really is.

If the charges were "bogus" the OAG wouldn't have presented them to the court and the court would not have accepted them. Whatever you think of the man, the evidence exists, and as he says, it is now, or should be, up to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to deal with the case. This is where the NACC truly shows it's colours.

Please, as you write about showing its true colours, could you remind us about the ones the AG has shown, and whether he served the one who put him in that place well, ...f.i. in accepting to present bogus charges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.









×
×
  • Create New...
""