Last push to save Yingluck from legal action

[gemini81]

The NLA is also scheduled to proceed with the impeachment charges against Yingluck next Wednesday.

Offer her a deal, if her brother will return to face charges, she walks, free and clear. I imagine Thaksins reply to be something along the line of; Sorry sis, but my ego will not allow me to face a trial, bon voyage!

She should just pull a Suthep and not show up.

Or she could have the balls to protest the charges, and take to the street with courage like he did (never!)

Edited November 6, 2014 by gemini81

[harrry]

Why has Thailand never attempted to arrest this "fugitive" through Interpol and other means. In reality he is not a fugitive, but an exiled man.

What nonsense. Absolutely delusional. "In reality", of course he's a fugitive. He was convicted of a crime and fled the country. NOT sent from it; NOT forced from it; FLED from it; on his own initiative. No one exiled him. The government would be thrilled to have him return. There's a jail cell - and I believe additional charges - waiting for him. I doubt Interpol would be willing to get involved, and not sure what "other means" you're referring to. Thai law enforcement obviously has no jurisdiction outside their own borders.

Having said that, I'm sure there are some - and I can understand the sentiment - who're just happy to have him out of sight and out of mind, as he's pretty much congenitally part of the problem (the main problem, actually) rather than part of any solution (except those involving his own private balance sheet).

I'm not even sure "exile" (as in, exile outside the country) is an internationally accepted sanction anymore. Wouldn't that effectively render a person stateless? Exile can also mean banishment or virtual confinement I guess to some remote location still within the national territory - 'wonder if Thailand has a deserted island somewhere they could banish him to. Nah. That wouldn't last 10 min.

They used to use Kho Tau. Now it is much too respectable place to house criminals.

[mikemac]

So does this apply to the current regime, who found it necessary to grant themselves an amnesty for violations under the old law? It seems that the precedent has already been set. Or is this different because you happen to support this side and different ethics apply?

So they have granted themselves amnesty therefore are immune to prosecution under the old law.

You may not have noticed but what caused all the trouble and the protests was the fact that the Yingluck Govt attempted to grant themselves and he brother amnesty for all crimes over a 4 year period... They failed because the people would not accept them absolving themselves from all their crimes.

See the difference ?

So now the time has come for the crimes of the Thaksin proxy rich elite administration to be revealed and hopefully punished, for these crimes are mainly against the people and the country.

Or do you not believe this because you happen to support this side and different ethics apply?

Hahaha. Hilarious concept particularly from the perspective of the fact that this would automatically criminalise anyone holding a coup.

Just because the crime happened under and old constitution doesn't mean it can't be prosecuted under a new one.

Absolutely bloody hilarious. Bring it on, prosecute all the old coup makers for breaking a law under a previous constitution.

But but but......

So you think that that if a crime is committed against the law that is in place at the time it is committed, then the law is changed the crime has no longer been committed.

This isn't about coup makers it is about Yingluck not doing the job she took on herself and whether she should be held accountable for not doing that job.

As yet she has been formally charged with nothing, and her lawyers (including one who is on a jail sentence) are trying to keep it that way by saying that even though she may have done something wrong under the law of the time what she did then is not covered by the law now.

Well that does not hold water, if she broke the law then, she still broke the law regardless of any changes.

"Just because the crime happened under and old constitution doesn't mean it can't be prosecuted under a new one."......????????????????

It is comments such as this which keep some of us on TVF rolling around on the floor laughing ! Please keep them coming !

(and does that mean that all crims have to do is commit crimes then lay low until the next version of the constitution is drawn up ? Then walk the streets again untouchable ?)

[Robespiere]

At the end of the day, she is as guilty as sin and must be punished. Failure to do so will undermine the 'so called' reforms completely.

Tens of millions want her to face the music, not only for the sake of punishment, but also to send a strong message that times are changing. Politicians will need to pull themselves together or face similar.

No punishment, then there may as well just scrap the reforms, reinstate the old constitution and hold an election immediately and wait for the civil war.

Half a dozen yellow peanuts on TVF does not equal "tens of millions".

Please identify these "Half a dozen yellow peanuts" so we know who you are actually flaming.

I'm sure you're more than capable of identifying the other 5 by yourself.

[AleG]

Hahaha. Hilarious concept particularly from the perspective of the fact that this would automatically criminalise anyone holding a coup.

Just because the crime happened under and old constitution doesn't mean it can't be prosecuted under a new one.

Absolutely bloody hilarious. Bring it on, prosecute all the old coup makers for breaking a law under a previous constitution.

But but but......

So you think that that if a crime is committed against the law that is in place at the time it is committed, then the law is changed the crime has no longer been committed.

This isn't about coup makers it is about Yingluck not doing the job she took on herself and whether she should be held accountable for not doing that job.

As yet she has been formally charged with nothing, and her lawyers (including one who is on a jail sentence) are trying to keep it that way by saying that even though she may have done something wrong under the law of the time what she did then is not covered by the law now.

Well that does not hold water, if she broke the law then, she still broke the law regardless of any changes.

Now that would make an interesting angle for the hypothetical argument that PTP was actually pushing for a coup, so they could turn around and claim all cases against them are politically motivated by the "elites" yadda yadda yadda.

Also it took the hot potato of them screwing their voter base (Red Shirts with the "Amnesty Bill" and farmers with the Rice Scheme debacle) and dropping it on the Junta's lap, even now we see people that were defending PTP's rice scheme blaming its fallout on the Junta.

The Democracts, IMHO, didn't want to take part on an election because of these scenarios. If they would had won the very first thing PTP would had done was attack and vilify them for stopping the Rice Scheme, pumping out propaganda on how the Evil Elites TM want to keep farmers poor and how much better things were while their Ponzi Rice Scheme was going on.

It's not such a bad deal so far, they are keeping their loot, they can leverage the Junta's desire for stability to have their criminality overlooked and they can milk the situation for sympathy and votes later on. Yes, it's immoral and detrimental to the country and its people, but helping the country and the people is not why they signed up for politics to begin with.

[chuang]

As used witch hunting