Pheu Thai says it's ready to offer ideas for new charter

[sjaak327]

I support justice. I don't agree with an amnesty for corruption. I also don't support an amnesty for a coup. I especially don't support "you got away with it so I should be able to get away with it too".

Being outraged at the junta giving themselves amnesty for the coup, then supporting an amnesty for corruption really just shows how two faced some people are.

I don't support amnesty for corruption or staging a coup either I too support justice. My main point however remains that everyone should be held accountable equally. Which simply means that if some people are punished for one particular offence (violation the 2007 constitution) whilst others guilty of the same offence walk free, by definition that isn't justice. There is really no other way of looking at it.

If the coup mongers enjoy amnesty for this, any attempt to punish others of the same crime is not legitmate, not fair and has nothing to do with justice, on the contrary it is grave injustice.

Justice isn't punishing people you think deserved to be pubsihed, it is people guilty of the same crime receive equal justice.

Edited November 15, 2014 by sjaak327

[Stradavarius37]

I wonder what the very aptly named "Democracy" party will suggest to turn their miserable minority into the new Government of Thailand ? . something more subtle than a military take over one would hope

I think its futile on their part. Watch how many people are in favour of the Junta/Democrats when they have a chance to vote , I doubt 93% as the "Polls" suggest

There won't be a vote anytime soon.

The Junta will roll out Suthep again, get him to cause a bit of trouble, and then say they are postponing an election for security and safety purposes, and because national reconciliation has not been achieved.

Yeah but who are they going to protest against, The Junta ? As long as PTP play the game , Thaksin calling for reconciliation and telling Reds to be good a couple of months ago. I think this was the last throw of the dice and although they still hold power , as soon as elections happen them and their ilk are history

You really haven't been paying attention have you - poor old soul.

[whybother]

I support justice. I don't agree with an amnesty for corruption. I also don't support an amnesty for a coup. I especially don't support "you got away with it so I should be able to get away with it too".

Being outraged at the junta giving themselves amnesty for the coup, then supporting an amnesty for corruption really just shows how two faced some people are.

I don't support amnesty for corruption or staging a coup either I too support justice. My main point however remains that everyone should be held accountable equally. Which simply means that if some people are punished for one particular offence (violation the 2007 constitution) whilst others guilty of the same offence walk free, by definition that isn't justice. There is really no other way of looking at it.

If the coup mongers enjoy amnesty for this, any attempt to punish others of the same crime is not legitmate, not fair and has nothing to do with justice, on the contrary it is grave injustice.

Justice isn't punishing people you think deserved to be pubsihed, it is people guilty of the same crime receive equal justice.

You're using "violation of the constitution" as a catch all for the crimes you want to give amnesty for.

Corruption is against the law, but not specifically a "violation of the constitution". If you're saying it is, then murder is also probably a "violation of the constution" and murderers should be included as well.

[sjaak327]

I support justice. I don't agree with an amnesty for corruption. I also don't support an amnesty for a coup. I especially don't support "you got away with it so I should be able to get away with it too".

Being outraged at the junta giving themselves amnesty for the coup, then supporting an amnesty for corruption really just shows how two faced some people are.

I don't support amnesty for corruption or staging a coup either I too support justice. My main point however remains that everyone should be held accountable equally. Which simply means that if some people are punished for one particular offence (violation the 2007 constitution) whilst others guilty of the same offence walk free, by definition that isn't justice. There is really no other way of looking at it.

If the coup mongers enjoy amnesty for this, any attempt to punish others of the same crime is not legitmate, not fair and has nothing to do with justice, on the contrary it is grave injustice.

Justice isn't punishing people you think deserved to be pubsihed, it is people guilty of the same crime receive equal justice.

You're using "violation of the constitution" as a catch all for the crimes you want to give amnesty for.

Corruption is against the law, but not specifically a "violation of the constitution". If you're saying it is, then murder is also probably a "violation of the constution" and murderers should be included as well.

One would think murders are not handled by the constitution but by criminal law. You know damm well what we are taking about here, murders aren't the subject.

[whybother]

One would think murders are not handled by the constitution but by criminal law. You know damm well what we are taking about here, murders aren't the subject.

Corruption and coups would be covered by criminal law also.

The junta have given themselves amnesty for committing the coup, not for violations of the constitution. You want to give politicians amnesty for corruption, not for violations of the constitution.

The point is, you want to pick and choose which crimes are given amnesty.

[scorecard]

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

13/11/14 Plodprasob - "The Pheu Thai party will not participate in any activities staged by the government set up by the military junta, including the drafting of a new constitution"

2 days later - The Pheu Thai Party yesterday advised the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee of its willingness to meet with the CDC and provide input on the new charter.

Even when they are not in power they have no direction, no commitment, no synergy and no hope.

I assume Chalerm will promise to behead himself if they are involved in the charter tomorrow.

What a profession outfit the PTP are!!!

At least they don't hide in temples pretending to be monks!! width=32 alt=coffee1.gif>

Monks, temples?

Doesn't change the fact that pt and it's previous concoctions are nothing more than a salaried get real rich real quick club, the only qualification need to join is a serious lack of morals and the ability to keep your mouth shut, and jump high immediately your told to jump, usually through Skype.

[sjaak327]

One would think murders are not handled by the constitution but by criminal law. You know damm well what we are taking about here, murders aren't the subject.

Corruption and coups would be covered by criminal law also.

The junta have given themselves amnesty for committing the coup, not for violations of the constitution. You want to give politicians amnesty for corruption, not for violations of the constitution.

The point is, you want to pick and choose which crimes are given amnesty.

I don't want to pick and choose. I mentioned one specifically. Staging a coup is a clear violation of the constitution, as is abolishing it and writing your own.

Back to the 38 senators currently in the process of being impeached:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/776890-nacc-agrees-to-allow-3-out-of-38-former-senators-facing-impeachment-to-continue-nlanrc-roles/

You got to love "Thai Justice". The 3 ex senators concerned are part of the current administration, not only do they not have to resign (even though one is currently part of the NLA and could therfore vote no on his own impeachement !) if found guilty those 3 will not receive a ban from politics whilst the other 35 will. The reason given is that they are no longer acting as a senator. Which sets a precedent for Yingluck (which I specifically didn't mention before). If impeached, she too shouldn't receive a 5 year ban, after all she isn't the acting PM anymore.

It's idiocy like this that supplies the amnunition. And you really believe this current lot cares about corruption reconciliation or Thailand ? They are the same as the previous lot, but now without an electoral mandate..

Edited November 16, 2014 by sjaak327

[whybother]

I don't want to pick and choose. I mentioned one specifically. Staging a coup is a clear violation of the constitution, as is abolishing it and writing your own.

Back to the 38 senators currently in the process of being impeached:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/776890-nacc-agrees-to-allow-3-out-of-38-former-senators-facing-impeachment-to-continue-nlanrc-roles/

You got to love "Thai Justice". The 3 ex senators concerned are part of the current administration, not only do they not have to resign (even though one is currently part of the NLA and could therfore vote no on his own impeachement !) if found guilty those 3 will not receive a ban from politics whilst the other 35 will. The reason given is that they are no longer acting as a senator. Which sets a precedent for Yingluck (which I specifically didn't mention before). If impeached, she too shouldn't receive a 5 year ban, after all she isn't the acting PM anymore.

It's idiocy like this that supplies the amnunition. And you really believe this current lot cares about corruption reconciliation or Thailand ? They are the same as the previous lot, but now without an electoral mandate..

We started off this conversation about amnesty for all PTP members. Which of the 38 senators are PTP members?

Recommendation #1 - amnesty for all Pheu Thai members???

Why not ? After all all NCPO members already written amnesty for themselves in the interim constitution.

[sjaak327]

I don't want to pick and choose. I mentioned one specifically. Staging a coup is a clear violation of the constitution, as is abolishing it and writing your own.

Back to the 38 senators currently in the process of being impeached:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/776890-nacc-agrees-to-allow-3-out-of-38-former-senators-facing-impeachment-to-continue-nlanrc-roles/

You got to love "Thai Justice". The 3 ex senators concerned are part of the current administration, not only do they not have to resign (even though one is currently part of the NLA and could therfore vote no on his own impeachement !) if found guilty those 3 will not receive a ban from politics whilst the other 35 will. The reason given is that they are no longer acting as a senator. Which sets a precedent for Yingluck (which I specifically didn't mention before). If impeached, she too shouldn't receive a 5 year ban, after all she isn't the acting PM anymore.

It's idiocy like this that supplies the amnunition. And you really believe this current lot cares about corruption reconciliation or Thailand ? They are the same as the previous lot, but now without an electoral mandate..

We started off this conversation about amnesty for all PTP members. Which of the 38 senators are PTP members?

Recommendation #1 - amnesty for all Pheu Thai members???

Why not ? After all all NCPO members already written amnesty for themselves in the interim constitution.

None. Remember I said repeatedely all people, that includes the senators, members of PTP or members of all the other parties. This is about equal justice. You know full well the first post was a knee-jerk reaction to the post in question, I believe I have made my intention perfectly clear in subsequent posts, and again it should be clear that amnesty for crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone, and yes that indeed includes PTP members and the Senators, as well as anyone else accused of the same crime.

By the way, as supporter of Justice what would be your opinion on the content of the thread I linked to in the previous post, and don't you think that they are damaging the concept of justice and at the same time put doubts into any impeachment proceeding carried out by the same agency ?

Edited November 16, 2014 by sjaak327

[Baerboxer]

13/11/14 Plodprasob - "The Pheu Thai party will not participate in any activities staged by the government set up by the military junta, including the drafting of a new constitution"

2 days later - The Pheu Thai Party yesterday advised the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee of its willingness to meet with the CDC and provide input on the new charter.

Even when they are not in power they have no direction, no commitment, no synergy and no hope.

I assume Chalerm will promise to behead himself if they are involved in the charter tomorrow.

What a profession outfit the PTP are!!!

At least they don't hide in temples pretending to be monks!!

No they simply stated they would not abide by court rulings they didn't like, didn't bother to turn up when it suited them and encouraged their military wing to intimidate judges and make threats about what would happen if they didn't like the verdicts. All while pretending to be a government.

[whybother]

None. Remember I said repeatedely all people, that includes the senators, members of PTP or members of all the other parties. This is about equal justice. You know full well the first post was a knee-jerk reaction to the post in question, I believe I have made my intention perfectly clear in subsequent posts, and again it should be clear that amnesty for crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone, and yes that indeed includes PTP members and the Senators, as well as anyone else accused of the same crime.

By the way, as supporter of Justice what would be your opinion on the content of the thread I linked to in the previous post, and don't you think that they are damaging the concept of justice and at the same time put doubts into any impeachment proceeding carried out by the same agency ?

"crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone" ... Fine, amnesty for all those who committed a coup. Even if you're using "violation of the constitution" then it would only include the 38 senators, not any PTP members.

Why should any amnesty include corruption crimes? If it includes corruption crimes, what other crimes should it include, or is it just the ones that will get PTP members off?

Amnesty for protesters that committed crimes for being at protests I can understand, particularly because it covers all sides and "nothing" crimes.

Amnesty for protesters charged with the likes of arson or for politicians charged with corruption doesn't make sense. Just because the coup junta gave themselves amnesty for the coup doesn't make it right to give amnesty for corruption and arson.

edit: As I said before:

Being outraged at the junta giving themselves amnesty for the coup, then supporting an amnesty for corruption really just shows how two faced some people are.

Edited November 16, 2014 by whybother

[sjaak327]

None. Remember I said repeatedely all people, that includes the senators, members of PTP or members of all the other parties. This is about equal justice. You know full well the first post was a knee-jerk reaction to the post in question, I believe I have made my intention perfectly clear in subsequent posts, and again it should be clear that amnesty for crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone, and yes that indeed includes PTP members and the Senators, as well as anyone else accused of the same crime.

By the way, as supporter of Justice what would be your opinion on the content of the thread I linked to in the previous post, and don't you think that they are damaging the concept of justice and at the same time put doubts into any impeachment proceeding carried out by the same agency ?

"crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone" ... Fine, amnesty for all those who committed a coup. Even if you're using "violation of the constitution" then it would only include the 38 senators, not any PTP members.

Why should any amnesty include corruption crimes? If it includes corruption crimes, what other crimes should it include, or is it just the ones that will get PTP members off?

Amnesty for protesters that committed crimes for being at protests I can understand, particularly because it covers all sides and "nothing" crimes.

Amnesty for protesters charged with the likes of arson or for politicians charged with corruption doesn't make sense. Just because the coup junta gave themselves amnesty for the coup doesn't make it right to give amnesty for corruption and arson.

Actually the former house speaker is not only a PTP member, he is in the process of being impeached for the very same crime we are discussing here. The junta did not just receive amnesty for staging a coup, this includes violating the constitution.

Not sure why you bring up the red shirts, as far as I know they didn't violate the 2007 constitution in any way. They did indeed cause arson and violence and they did receive violence before even a single building was burnt down, in all fairness this needs to be pointed out.

Suthep and co however, did violate that constitution by depriving the constitutional right to vote and run for office as well as sabotaging the elections through various means. They did not commit a crime just for being at protest as that too is a constitutional right, no need for amnesty there.

This isn't about corruption (allthough staging a coup would be one of the worst cases of corruption) and you know it. It isn't about getting PTP members getting away with anything.

This has everything to do with people being impeached for crimes others are free to commit.

You ignored my question by the way, I wonder why.

Edit: stop putting words in my mouth, I never claimed people should get amnesty for corruption crimes, they should receive the same amnesty the coup leaders currently enjoy, which includes violating the 2007 constitution.

You are deliberatly trying to put words in my mouth. I am not two faced and I have clarified my stance clear enough. Equal justice is what this is about.

Edited November 16, 2014 by sjaak327

[whybother]

None. Remember I said repeatedely all people, that includes the senators, members of PTP or members of all the other parties. This is about equal justice. You know full well the first post was a knee-jerk reaction to the post in question, I believe I have made my intention perfectly clear in subsequent posts, and again it should be clear that amnesty for crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone, and yes that indeed includes PTP members and the Senators, as well as anyone else accused of the same crime.

By the way, as supporter of Justice what would be your opinion on the content of the thread I linked to in the previous post, and don't you think that they are damaging the concept of justice and at the same time put doubts into any impeachment proceeding carried out by the same agency ?

"crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone" ... Fine, amnesty for all those who committed a coup. Even if you're using "violation of the constitution" then it would only include the 38 senators, not any PTP members.

Why should any amnesty include corruption crimes? If it includes corruption crimes, what other crimes should it include, or is it just the ones that will get PTP members off?

Amnesty for protesters that committed crimes for being at protests I can understand, particularly because it covers all sides and "nothing" crimes.

Amnesty for protesters charged with the likes of arson or for politicians charged with corruption doesn't make sense. Just because the coup junta gave themselves amnesty for the coup doesn't make it right to give amnesty for corruption and arson.

Actually the former house speaker is not only a PTP member, he is in the process of being impeached for the very same crime we are discussing here. The junta did not just receive amnesty for staging a coup, this includes violating the constitution.

Not sure why you bring up the red shirts, as far as I know they didn't violate the 2007 constitution in any way. They did indeed cause arson and violence and they did receive violence before even a single building was burnt down, in all fairness this needs to be pointed out.

Suthep and co however, did violate that constitution by depriving the constitutional right to vote and run for office as well as sabotaging the elections through various means. They did not commit a crime just for being at protest as that too is a constitutional right, no need for amnesty there.

This isn't about corruption (allthough staging a coup would be one of the worst cases of corruption) and you know it. It isn't about getting PTP members getting away with anything.

This has everything to do with people being impeached for crimes others are free to commit.

You ignored my question by the way, I wonder why.

I ignored your question because it's off topic, and has nothing to do with our discussion, but aren't NLA members banned from politics for 5 years anyway?

I brought up the protesters in general because that's what the PTP amnesty was generally about. It isn't necessarily a constitutional right to be at a protest when there are laws that say that you can't be there. I don't know what burning buildings down has to do with "receiving violence". They committed violence when they invaded parliament and Thaicom before anything happened against them.

Can you please point out the constitution clause that says that you can't commit a coup. I'm not saying it isn't illegal, just that it isn't your catch all "violation of the constitution".

If this isn't about corruption, the only people your suggesting that should get amnesty are the 38 (or 35) senators?

Oh ... Suthep should get an amnesty too because he "violated the constitution" and you want to give amnesty to everyone that did that. But PTP and the red shirts didn't "violate the constitution" so they don't get any amnesty.

[sjaak327]

None. Remember I said repeatedely all people, that includes the senators, members of PTP or members of all the other parties. This is about equal justice. You know full well the first post was a knee-jerk reaction to the post in question, I believe I have made my intention perfectly clear in subsequent posts, and again it should be clear that amnesty for crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone, and yes that indeed includes PTP members and the Senators, as well as anyone else accused of the same crime.

By the way, as supporter of Justice what would be your opinion on the content of the thread I linked to in the previous post, and don't you think that they are damaging the concept of justice and at the same time put doubts into any impeachment proceeding carried out by the same agency ?

"crimes commited by the Junta should not be punisheable for anyone" ... Fine, amnesty for all those who committed a coup. Even if you're using "violation of the constitution" then it would only include the 38 senators, not any PTP members.

Why should any amnesty include corruption crimes? If it includes corruption crimes, what other crimes should it include, or is it just the ones that will get PTP members off?

Amnesty for protesters that committed crimes for being at protests I can understand, particularly because it covers all sides and "nothing" crimes.

Amnesty for protesters charged with the likes of arson or for politicians charged with corruption doesn't make sense. Just because the coup junta gave themselves amnesty for the coup doesn't make it right to give amnesty for corruption and arson.

Actually the former house speaker is not only a PTP member, he is in the process of being impeached for the very same crime we are discussing here. The junta did not just receive amnesty for staging a coup, this includes violating the constitution.

Not sure why you bring up the red shirts, as far as I know they didn't violate the 2007 constitution in any way. They did indeed cause arson and violence and they did receive violence before even a single building was burnt down, in all fairness this needs to be pointed out.

Suthep and co however, did violate that constitution by depriving the constitutional right to vote and run for office as well as sabotaging the elections through various means. They did not commit a crime just for being at protest as that too is a constitutional right, no need for amnesty there.

This isn't about corruption (allthough staging a coup would be one of the worst cases of corruption) and you know it. It isn't about getting PTP members getting away with anything.

This has everything to do with people being impeached for crimes others are free to commit.

You ignored my question by the way, I wonder why.

I ignored your question because it's off topic, and has nothing to do with our discussion, but aren't NLA members banned from politics for 5 years anyway?

I brought up the protesters in general because that's what the PTP amnesty was generally about. It isn't necessarily a constitutional right to be at a protest when there are laws that say that you can't be there. I don't know what burning buildings down has to do with "receiving violence". They committed violence when they invaded parliament and Thaicom before anything happened against them.

Can you please point out the constitution clause that says that you can't commit a coup. I'm not saying it isn't illegal, just that it isn't your catch all "violation of the constitution".

If this isn't about corruption, the only people your suggesting that should get amnesty are the 38 (or 35) senators?

Oh ... Suthep should get an amnesty too because he "violated the constitution" and you want to give amnesty to everyone that did that. But PTP and the red shirts didn't "violate the constitution" so they don't get any amnesty.

You know full well what I meant with my remark about the red shirts, or you are maybe not willing to see, either way the red shirts are indeed off topic as I never claimed I would support amnesty for them.

I did however claim that I fully support amnesty for 38 senators, not just 3, which makes it as on topic as it could possible be. Refer to earlier post in case you misread the several post where I mentioned them. Not all of the three members are indeed members of the NLA and nice you seem to completely missed the obvious conflict of interest.

Abolishing the 2007 does not constitute a violation of the 2007 constitution in your view ? If so what the hell is. Is voting yes on a controversial amnesty clause one, the NACC seems to think so.

Your last line finally seem to get my point, violating the 2007 constitution is being ignored for coup mongers, so indeed the 38 senators and the former house speaker as well as Suthep and co, who all violated the constitution of 2007 or allegedgly violated it, should not be prosecuted.

Edited November 16, 2014 by sjaak327

[fab4]

Plodprasob says Pheu Thai will not join charter writing process

yesterday

Pheu Thai says it's ready to offer ideas for new charter

Today

Looks like PTP are still operating like a well oiled machine, clear cohesive policies and a clear vision.

Yesterday? Actually 13th November:

Thai PBS 13th November

Plodprasob says Pheu Thai will not join charter writing process

He pointed out that the party could not send an official representative to meet the CDC but could, at best, offer some general views about the charter such as protection of the liberty and right for equal treatment and a true democratic rule.

Mr Plodprasob further said that any official view of the party concerning the charter would have to be discussed in the party or, at least, in the executive committee. He suggested that the martial law be eased to allow political parties to hold meetings.

The Nation 15th November

The Pheu Thai Party yesterday advised the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee of its willingness to meet with the CDC and provide input on the new charter.

The CDC had requested the party's cooperation.

But Pheu Thai expressed concerns over the National Council for Peace and Order's ban on political gatherings, saying it affected the party's ability to discuss the issue.

"The Pheu Thai Party is pleased to cooperate and take part in providing views regarding the drafting of the new constitution in order make it most democratic and in order [that the charter] can be a guarantee for justice for the country and people from all sides in accordance to what the party and the international community adhere to and accept," it said in a letter to the committee.

The party also urged the CDC to coordinate with the NCPO and the Election Commission to allow party members to meet in order to discuss the charter.

So there we have it, rather than ramrod711's skewed take on proceedings in an attempt to make political "points" where there are none to be made, what we actually have is, same story, same outcome, different media sources...............................

So, Pheu Thai WAS a bit peeved off after all

BTW I like your "If they send an "official" representative to meet the CDC they would be endorsing the process, hence no show." in the Plodprasob thread. Not easy to keep up with 'your' side zigzagging along, now its it ?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/776291-plodprasob-says-pheu-thai-will-not-join-charter-writing-process/page-2#entry8669129

The key word is JOIN, rubl. I'm afraid you really don't understand the ramifications of the role of an "official representative" of the PTP joining the junta endorsed charter rewrite process, do you?

Hardly zigzagging rubl, just learn to read and understand.

Edited November 16, 2014 by fab4

[whybother]

You know full well what I meant with my remark about the red shirts, or you are maybe not willing to see, either way the red shirts are indeed off topic as I never claimed I would support amnesty for them.

I did however claim that I fully support amnesty for 38 senators, not just 3, which makes it as on topic as it could possible be. Refer to earlier post in case you misread the several post where I mentioned them. Not all of the three members are indeed members of the NLA and nice you seem to completely missed the obvious conflict of interest.

Abolishing the 2007 does not constitute a violation of the 2007 constitution in your view ? If so what the hell is. Is voting yes on a controversial amnesty clause one, the NACC seems to think so.

Your last line finally seem to get my point, violating the 2007 constitution is being ignored for coup mongers, so indeed the 38 senators and the former house speaker as well as Suthep and co, who all violated the constitution of 2007 or allegedgly violated it, should not be prosecuted.

Excuse my confusion, but I thought you supported Yingluck's blanket amnesty ... which included a heap of corruption cases and also included the red shirts.

You and I both know that they will never be held accountable, as any future law abiding governments have no way of doing that due to the amnesty that will carry over in the next charter. Hence a blanket amnesty law does sound logical in Thailand's case.

So you oppose the junta giving themselves amnesty, but it's OK as long as others get amnesty, including the senators, corruption cases and protesters. I'm pretty sure they are words that came out of your mouth.

[sjaak327]

You know full well what I meant with my remark about the red shirts, or you are maybe not willing to see, either way the red shirts are indeed off topic as I never claimed I would support amnesty for them.

I did however claim that I fully support amnesty for 38 senators, not just 3, which makes it as on topic as it could possible be. Refer to earlier post in case you misread the several post where I mentioned them. Not all of the three members are indeed members of the NLA and nice you seem to completely missed the obvious conflict of interest.

Abolishing the 2007 does not constitute a violation of the 2007 constitution in your view ? If so what the hell is. Is voting yes on a controversial amnesty clause one, the NACC seems to think so.

Your last line finally seem to get my point, violating the 2007 constitution is being ignored for coup mongers, so indeed the 38 senators and the former house speaker as well as Suthep and co, who all violated the constitution of 2007 or allegedgly violated it, should not be prosecuted.

Excuse my confusion, but I thought you supported Yingluck's blanket amnesty ... which included a heap of corruption cases and also included the red shirts.

You and I both know that they will never be held accountable, as any future law abiding governments have no way of doing that due to the amnesty that will carry over in the next charter. Hence a blanket amnesty law does sound logical in Thailand's case.

So you oppose the junta giving themselves amnesty, but it's OK as long as others get amnesty, including the senators, corruption cases and protesters. I'm pretty sure they are words that came out of your mouth.

Claiming it isn't as outrageous as claimed is not a statement of support. Neither is claiming it is logical. At least not in my view. Blanket in this context might be the wrong term, it should be amnesty for a specific crime that is applicable to anyone being accused of commiting that specific crime, in other words real justice, not selective justice.

I never said anything about any corruption cases, I did mention the senators, the house speaker and Suthep and co for a reason whilst refraining from mentioning Yingluck's case as she isn't being impeached for the same crime. The key word again is SAME amnesty, not amnesty for unrelated different crimes.

In any case, since the NACC now seems to think that because the three ex senators aren't senators anymore, they should not receive a five year ban when found quilty, I expect this agency to extend Yingluck with the same courtesy.

Of course this will never happen and will give people plenty of room and ammunition to cast doubt about the NACC and the impeachment procedure. They simply cannot help themselves..

[whybother]

Claiming it isn't as outrageous as claimed is not a statement of support. Neither is claiming it is logical. At least not in my view. Blanket in this context might be the wrong term, it should be amnesty for a specific crime that is applicable to anyone being accused of commiting that specific crime, in other words real justice, not selective justice.

I never said anything about any corruption cases, I did mention the senators, the house speaker and Suthep and co for a reason whilst refraining from mentioning Yingluck's case as she isn't being impeached for the same crime. The key word again is SAME amnesty, not amnesty for unrelated different crimes.

In any case, since the NACC now seems to think that because the three ex senators aren't senators anymore, they should not receive a five year ban when found quilty, I expect this agency to extend Yingluck with the same courtesy.

Of course this will never happen and will give people plenty of room and ammunition to cast doubt about the NACC and the impeachment procedure. They simply cannot help themselves..

"Amnesty for a specific crime" is very different to "the blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

The "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration" included corruption cases, and you said that is "not so outrageous".

OK, so lets clear this up.

You're against the junta giving themselves amnesty, but since they have, the Senators should have amnesty as well. I'm not sure if you think Suthep and co. should also get amnesty, but no one else is included because they didn't "violate the constitution".

[sjaak327]

Claiming it isn't as outrageous as claimed is not a statement of support. Neither is claiming it is logical. At least not in my view. Blanket in this context might be the wrong term, it should be amnesty for a specific crime that is applicable to anyone being accused of commiting that specific crime, in other words real justice, not selective justice.

I never said anything about any corruption cases, I did mention the senators, the house speaker and Suthep and co for a reason whilst refraining from mentioning Yingluck's case as she isn't being impeached for the same crime. The key word again is SAME amnesty, not amnesty for unrelated different crimes.

In any case, since the NACC now seems to think that because the three ex senators aren't senators anymore, they should not receive a five year ban when found quilty, I expect this agency to extend Yingluck with the same courtesy.

Of course this will never happen and will give people plenty of room and ammunition to cast doubt about the NACC and the impeachment procedure. They simply cannot help themselves..

"Amnesty for a specific crime" is very different to "the blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

The "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration" included corruption cases, and you said that is "not so outrageous".

OK, so lets clear this up.

You're against the junta giving themselves amnesty, but since they have, the Senators should have amnesty as well. I'm not sure if you think Suthep and co. should also get amnesty, but no one else is included because they didn't "violate the constitution".

I did mention three times at least, including in the last post that I indeed support amnesty for Suthep and co for violating the 2007 constitution. Why do you have so much trouble reading ?

And yes, anyone quilty of that same crime that the Junta received or better assigned amnesty for, should either be punished (which would mean invalidating the amnesty) or if that is somehow not on the books, no-one should be prosecuted for the same crime.

How many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's hardly difficult to comprehend one would think.

In any case, I won't bother spelling it out again. I am done repeating myself over and over.

[whybother]

Claiming it isn't as outrageous as claimed is not a statement of support. Neither is claiming it is logical. At least not in my view. Blanket in this context might be the wrong term, it should be amnesty for a specific crime that is applicable to anyone being accused of commiting that specific crime, in other words real justice, not selective justice.

I never said anything about any corruption cases, I did mention the senators, the house speaker and Suthep and co for a reason whilst refraining from mentioning Yingluck's case as she isn't being impeached for the same crime. The key word again is SAME amnesty, not amnesty for unrelated different crimes.

In any case, since the NACC now seems to think that because the three ex senators aren't senators anymore, they should not receive a five year ban when found quilty, I expect this agency to extend Yingluck with the same courtesy.

Of course this will never happen and will give people plenty of room and ammunition to cast doubt about the NACC and the impeachment procedure. They simply cannot help themselves..

"Amnesty for a specific crime" is very different to "the blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

The "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration" included corruption cases, and you said that is "not so outrageous".

OK, so lets clear this up.

You're against the junta giving themselves amnesty, but since they have, the Senators should have amnesty as well. I'm not sure if you think Suthep and co. should also get amnesty, but no one else is included because they didn't "violate the constitution".

I did mention three times at least, including in the last post that I indeed support amnesty for Suthep and co for violating the 2007 constitution. Why do you have so much trouble reading ?

And yes, anyone quilty of that same crime that the Junta received or better assigned amnesty for, should either be punished (which would mean invalidating the amnesty) or if that is somehow not on the books, no-one should be prosecuted for the same crime.

How many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's hardly difficult to comprehend one would think.

In any case, I won't bother spelling it out again. I am done repeating myself over and over.

Excuse me for getting confused that you only want to include the Senators (and Suthep) when you start off with the "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

[sjaak327]

Claiming it isn't as outrageous as claimed is not a statement of support. Neither is claiming it is logical. At least not in my view. Blanket in this context might be the wrong term, it should be amnesty for a specific crime that is applicable to anyone being accused of commiting that specific crime, in other words real justice, not selective justice.

I never said anything about any corruption cases, I did mention the senators, the house speaker and Suthep and co for a reason whilst refraining from mentioning Yingluck's case as she isn't being impeached for the same crime. The key word again is SAME amnesty, not amnesty for unrelated different crimes.

In any case, since the NACC now seems to think that because the three ex senators aren't senators anymore, they should not receive a five year ban when found quilty, I expect this agency to extend Yingluck with the same courtesy.

Of course this will never happen and will give people plenty of room and ammunition to cast doubt about the NACC and the impeachment procedure. They simply cannot help themselves..

"Amnesty for a specific crime" is very different to "the blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

The "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration" included corruption cases, and you said that is "not so outrageous".

OK, so lets clear this up.

You're against the junta giving themselves amnesty, but since they have, the Senators should have amnesty as well. I'm not sure if you think Suthep and co. should also get amnesty, but no one else is included because they didn't "violate the constitution".

I did mention three times at least, including in the last post that I indeed support amnesty for Suthep and co for violating the 2007 constitution. Why do you have so much trouble reading ?

And yes, anyone quilty of that same crime that the Junta received or better assigned amnesty for, should either be punished (which would mean invalidating the amnesty) or if that is somehow not on the books, no-one should be prosecuted for the same crime.

How many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's hardly difficult to comprehend one would think.

In any case, I won't bother spelling it out again. I am done repeating myself over and over.

Excuse me for getting confused that you only want to include the Senators (and Suthep) when you start off with the "blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration".

Let me help you and post the whole quote instead of just a portion:

"Maybe in light of this, the blanket amnesty law proposed by the Yingluck administration isn't so outrageous as claimed, at least it wouldn't just benefit a few generals."

Again trying to pin me for something I never claimed.

Edit: Heck you tricked me in repeating myself once again, which I claimed I wouldn't bother with anymore. Guess I couldn't let your manipulation and questionable debating techniques go unanswered.

Edited November 16, 2014 by sjaak327