Yingluck must answer herself, NLA insists

[djjamie]

Bashir was nothing compared to his father.

Now ask yourself why after arming all the Syrian opposition groups, the US and the CIA are back peddling and realised that ISIS capitalised on this, to the extent they control the North of Iraq mate?

You don't really know too much about Middle East History either, or Europe for that matter.. some guy in Germany in the 1940's ? well that narrows it down a bit to oh say 10+ million people!!

If you're going to use Germany in the 1940's ( that's a whole decade by the way) as an example then could you please also include the reference to a group or a particular person, that way we might just get a bit more to what you're trying to highlight Jamie.

please stop this bullshit about the vote buying, it's a red herring, are you saying that for a days wages over a 4 year period, it's caused all the issues today? So for a tick in the box, they got a days wage, and do you think that was enough to make a significant impact on their lives over the space of two elections?

The PTP got in as the others just were not good enough to secure votes through better policies, you know Jamie, losers whine, winners go home and pump the prom queen.. The democrats can ONLY win through intervention, the demography of the country is what they don't win, the elite are every bit as bad when it comes to dirty tricks, and blatantly flipping their noses at the law, but I guess that you don't see that, as your bias prevents it.

It's not about the little people, it's about the Rich and powerful in Thailand taking the piss, just like they have been doing for generations, it's not about to stop anytime soon, whether they be red/yellow or Khaki/Black in their colours.

Bashir was nothing compared to his father.

But Al-Bashir was elected. That was my point.

some guy in Germany in the 1940's

A slow night for you Haggis is it?

please stop this bullshit about the vote buying

Very slow night obviously. I never mentioned vote buying.

The democrats can ONLY win through intervention

Wonderful. I am glad you got that off your chest.

I am talking about an elected government committing crimes carte blanche and some thinking they can justify these crimes because they were elected.

[BigBadGeordie]

Let's just cool down here a little chaps. Whilst we all have the right to free speech (on an anon internet forum), perhaps we should put the views into context.

I assume you are all now, or have been, political activists in your home country?

I assume you all express similar point (equally opposite) on the inequalities within the political systems in other nations?

I assume that unlike the various factions that you refer to, you have no axe to grind?

My politics are my own opinion, although I do admit they are slightly left of Lenin, but I cannot change the outcome of the politcal/economic situation in a country where I am not a citizen.

We can all blow smoke up our own arse.

My 2 bobs worth.

[marcusd]

If the yellow dems were so confident that she is corrupt then why were they so scared to take the argument to the people?

That way the People could have thrown her and the PTP out on their ears however by his own words Suthep conspired with the general to bring the democratically elected government down.

So now all the ducks are in place for this illegal farce and no judgements on anyone yellow red or any other colour show be acknowledged from this kangaroo court.

. I feel there I far more to this military takeover to create national stability than merely disposing of yingluck.

We shall see the true reasons in the coming months.

If yinny wasn't disposed of, there would be total,anarchy shortly.

Now there will not.

That's what this whole charade I about.

Read between the lines. Yinny,out. Generals in. Farmers paid. No,more shootings. No more protests. No more threats. No more reds armies.

People happy and accepting.

As they will need to be

[TheClog]

Yingluck doesn't need to answer herself.

Canny to see her take advantage of a proviso that was most likely put there as a get out of jail card for any democrat PM.

No place for Mob Rule in a democracy..............oh hold on.

[chooka]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble. Ask your mates to rewrite the constitution in a few days compelling her to attend.

[rixalex]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

[Fatty123]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

You seem to forget that the Junta ousted a democratically elected PM (the 'accused' in this case). So, how could she be offered a fair trial? Are you aware of how the courts were restructured by the military? Obviously not. And do you not feel that a coup is more serious offence? Taking over the capital? An army that kills more of its own citizens than enemy combatants? Are these not bigger issues?

Btw. we're not all 'red fanatics'. Many of us (including me) don't like 'em one bit. Some of us just feel that it's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that she would not get a fair trial.

[rubl]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

You seem to forget that the Junta ousted a democratically elected PM (the 'accused' in this case). So, how could she be offered a fair trial? Are you aware of how the courts were restructured by the military? Obviously not. And do you not feel that a coup is more serious offence? Taking over the capital? An army that kills more of its own citizens than enemy combatants? Are these not bigger issues?

Btw. we're not all 'red fanatics'. Many of us (including me) don't like 'em one bit. Some of us just feel that it's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that she would not get a fair trial.

So, will we get answers from Ms. Yingluck on the self-financing RPPS which lost the country 700 billion Baht?

None of that seems to have anything to do with what lots of posters bring up. Even a restructuring of courts no one knows about is brought up as if that explains 700 billion Baht lost.

[rubl]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble. Ask your mates to rewrite the constitution in a few days compelling her to attend.

So, no answers on 700 billion Baht lost? Ms. Yingluck doesn't make it easier for herself, now does she. No explanation, 700 billion lost on a 'self-financing' scheme. Even in democratic countries the minimum would be a verdict of 'totally negligent' with possibilities of 'defrauding the Nation'

[binjalin]

so.. what a towering angel of robustness, Torrance and equanimity? how does she stand such bitterness? such pressure? such bullying? maybe she is INNOCENT? wow there is such a concept you dogs of vindictiveness...

[rixalex]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

You seem to forget that the Junta ousted a democratically elected PM (the 'accused' in this case). So, how could she be offered a fair trial? Are you aware of how the courts were restructured by the military? Obviously not. And do you not feel that a coup is more serious offence? Taking over the capital? An army that kills more of its own citizens than enemy combatants? Are these not bigger issues?

Btw. we're not all 'red fanatics'. Many of us (including me) don't like 'em one bit. Some of us just feel that it's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that she would not get a fair trial.

It's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that on the charge that we are discussing here, negligence in relation to the rice pledging scheme, Yingluck's guilt is as plain as the nose on her face, and so the issue of how fair the trial is, becomes somewhat moot.

Mooter still when considering how the Shinawatra clan have in the past done their own restructuring of the sorts of institutions there to keep things checked and balanced, by way of installing friends, relatives and mates into top positions, and have, thanks to these appointments, avoided numerous charges, penalties and punishment that otherwise they would have fallen foul of. Anyone who unfairly rigs things in their favor, loses the right to moan and cry about unfairness when their power to abuse in this way is lost.

[surangw]

no coaching form her controllers ?

[The stuttering parrot]

Don't worry never sure about djamie and his comments he lost all credibility after he accused Yinglluck of being a convicted criminal and denied it however after asking me to prove it he done a suthep and went into hiding leaving his mates to defend him.

Just to clear this up if abhisit or a yellow dem was in the same position as Ying I would be making the same comments on their behalf.

Now I know that's never going to happen because suthep by his own words conspired with the general to bring down a democratically elected government because they can't win and think they are just entitled to rule.

All this chatter about the PTP be a minority is delusional and i expect nothing else from junta cheerleaders and their propaganda .

The next election will prove me right.

[chooka]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

Just for your info I don't support the reds or the shins and I don't support the Junta. Why do people automatically label others as reds if they don't support coups, martial law and dictatorships.

[draftvader]

Flames posts and a post describing Thailand in a negative light (and a response to that post) have been removed.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

2) You will not use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

If you are unsure of the forum rules then please read them again.

[redandyellow]

Sorry, guys, hate to gloss over an old topic, but...Yingluck....would ya?? hehehe...

[chooka]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble. Ask your mates to rewrite the constitution in a few days compelling her to attend.

So, no answers on 700 billion Baht lost? Ms. Yingluck doesn't make it easier for herself, now does she. No explanation, 700 billion lost on a 'self-financing' scheme. Even in democratic countries the minimum would be a verdict of 'totally negligent' with possibilities of 'defrauding the Nation'

It is not a court just a bunch of numbnuts who got together. If they want people to answer questions then set up a proper justice system to investigate and not just a couple of self centred bozo ' s on a personal vendetta. If she has done something wrong put her before a real court and be ready for all he'll to break lose.

[chooka]

How can two wrongs make a right?

The Junta committed a serious crime by overthrowing the government. It has power only because it has the military behind it.

I believe that YS is guilty of negligence at the very least. I just can't understand why so many people support a military dictatorship which is purging red shirts in favor of yellow shirts at gunpoint. It is purging members of the RTP who aren't in favor, but not cleaning up the RTP.

This is an illegal kangaroo court which has presented YS with questions which are illegal in that they are leading, and they reach a conclusion of guilt before there's a trial. Read them.

The illegal pot wants to try an incompetent and perhaps corrupt kettle without legal standing to do it.

How can so many support an illegal military dictatorship? How can so many think it isn't also corrupt?

The Junta committed a serious crime by overthrowing the government.

The Junta committed a serious crime if it did not stop a government allowing terrorism to continue with impunity.

Do you release it DID NOT arrest one terrorist that suppoprted the "government"?

Do you realize it DID arrest 100% of the terrorists that didn't support the government.

Do you realize that it is a serious crime to not arrest anyone that kills children?

I cannot understand why so many people support an elected government that use that one premise of democracy to defend every other broken democratic premise they purport to represent.

How can so many support an illegal military dictatorship? How can so many think it isn't also corrupt?

That "so many" you refer to is called a majority. Although it does not suit your agenda so it is questioned and denounced.

How can so few (7%) support an unelected, accused mass murderer, accused terrorist and convicted criminal fugitive.

At least your starting to see the majorities point of view. It may hurt, but like a rotten tooth when it is removed one will feel so much better when the rottenness is removed.

I Google Yingluk and mass murderer but not came up. What mass murder was she responsible for? I don't like her either but I don't fabricate stuff against her.

[jayboy]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

You seem to forget that the Junta ousted a democratically elected PM (the 'accused' in this case). So, how could she be offered a fair trial? Are you aware of how the courts were restructured by the military? Obviously not. And do you not feel that a coup is more serious offence? Taking over the capital? An army that kills more of its own citizens than enemy combatants? Are these not bigger issues?

Btw. we're not all 'red fanatics'. Many of us (including me) don't like 'em one bit. Some of us just feel that it's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that she would not get a fair trial.

It's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that on the charge that we are discussing here, negligence in relation to the rice pledging scheme, Yingluck's guilt is as plain as the nose on her face, and so the issue of how fair the trial is, becomes somewhat moot.

Mooter still when considering how the Shinawatra clan have in the past done their own restructuring of the sorts of institutions there to keep things checked and balanced, by way of installing friends, relatives and mates into top positions, and have, thanks to these appointments, avoided numerous charges, penalties and punishment that otherwise they would have fallen foul of. Anyone who unfairly rigs things in their favor, loses the right to moan and cry about unfairness when their power to abuse in this way is lost.

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

[tom21]

if you want to combat corruption you start at the bottom and work up. not start at the top and think you have fixed it

[rixalex]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

Just for your info I don't support the reds or the shins and I don't support the Junta. Why do people automatically label others as reds if they don't support coups, martial law and dictatorships.

There's no "automatic labeling" going on, well not in your case anyway. You have made over 9000 posts. More than enough from which to get a very clear picture of where your sympathies lie. I imagine you could probably say the same about me. Now, you and I may have formed accurate or inaccurate pictures of what the other thinks, but one thing that is certain, you or i coming on here and stating i believe this, or, i support that, or, i don't support this, is probably not going to cut any ice, not if there are hundreds or may even thousands of posts in the past that have painted a different picture.

Nobody, not even the most deluded fanatical, really thinks thank Yingluck is not guilty of negligence, right? So all this fuss about exactly how fair her impeachment trial is, seems like a strange thing to be expending energy on. Not that the principle of everyone being given a fair trial no matter how guilty they are isn't an important one, but really, when there are plenty of cases out there around the world of people who are actually innocent and not being given a fair trial, and when the person's family in concern here has itself in the past happily twisted justice in its favour, it seems a strange cause to be taking up and fighting so passionately for, don't you think?

I do and i can't imagine why anyone bar her supporters would really be losing any sleep over this.

[rixalex]

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

Since it can be argued that pretty much every case, both those cases that have been against the "Shinawatra side", and those cases against the "anti Shinawatra side", in the last decade or so, have been driven by some sort of an underlying political motivation, i'm not sure it really bears much mention. Does any politician here get brought before the courts without an underlying political motivation? Rarely i suspect, because without that drive, they simply use their position of power and influence to wriggle off the hook.

I'm therefore personally more interested in examining how much weight there is behind the charges and what evidence there is, rather than what forces are helping bring the case to the court. I appreciate though that focusing on underlying forces is a good way of shifting the focus.

[Trouble]

Many of the questions are nothing but political posturing and others not worthy of high school students. There are only a few really relevant question in the lot.

[rubl]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble. Ask your mates to rewrite the constitution in a few days compelling her to attend.

So, no answers on 700 billion Baht lost? Ms. Yingluck doesn't make it easier for herself, now does she. No explanation, 700 billion lost on a 'self-financing' scheme. Even in democratic countries the minimum would be a verdict of 'totally negligent' with possibilities of 'defrauding the Nation'

It is not a court just a bunch of numbnuts who got together. If they want people to answer questions then set up a proper justice system to investigate and not just a couple of self centred bozo ' s on a personal vendetta. If she has done something wrong put her before a real court and be ready for all he'll to break lose.

The NLA represents parliament and Senate. As such they can handle an impeachment case. They can request people to come answer questions. Failure to do so could easily be seen as obstruction and intent to hide information.

This is not political, not a vendetta. This is about a 'self-financing' scheme which cost the state 700 billion Baht. That's close to criminal. To be unable to provide answers or be unwilling to do so seems strange. A former PM unwilling to answer a few simple questions or unable to do so? How could a 'self-financing' scheme lose 700 billion Baht?

[jayboy]

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

Since it can be argued that pretty much every case, both those cases that have been against the "Shinawatra side", and those cases against the "anti Shinawatra side", in the last decade or so, have been driven by some sort of an underlying political motivation, i'm not sure it really bears much mention. Does any politician here get brought before the courts without an underlying political motivation? Rarely i suspect, because without that drive, they simply use their position of power and influence to wriggle off the hook.

I'm therefore personally more interested in examining how much weight there is behind the charges and what evidence there is, rather than what forces are helping bring the case to the court. I appreciate though that focusing on underlying forces is a good way of shifting the focus.

It depends whether one is more concerned with the superficial aspects or the underlying causes.An ant crawling across a mosaic is aware of and "personally more interested" in the incidental detail in front of it but remains totally oblivious to the overall pattern, context and meaning.

[rubl]

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

You seem to forget that the Junta ousted a democratically elected PM (the 'accused' in this case). So, how could she be offered a fair trial? Are you aware of how the courts were restructured by the military? Obviously not. And do you not feel that a coup is more serious offence? Taking over the capital? An army that kills more of its own citizens than enemy combatants? Are these not bigger issues?

Btw. we're not all 'red fanatics'. Many of us (including me) don't like 'em one bit. Some of us just feel that it's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that she would not get a fair trial.

It's totally obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that on the charge that we are discussing here, negligence in relation to the rice pledging scheme, Yingluck's guilt is as plain as the nose on her face, and so the issue of how fair the trial is, becomes somewhat moot.

Mooter still when considering how the Shinawatra clan have in the past done their own restructuring of the sorts of institutions there to keep things checked and balanced, by way of installing friends, relatives and mates into top positions, and have, thanks to these appointments, avoided numerous charges, penalties and punishment that otherwise they would have fallen foul of. Anyone who unfairly rigs things in their favor, loses the right to moan and cry about unfairness when their power to abuse in this way is lost.

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

The underlying motivation is getting answers on how a 'self-financing' scheme could lose 700 billion Baht. Plus of course 'justice for all'.

[rubl]

Many of the questions are nothing but political posturing and others not worthy of high school students. There are only a few really relevant question in the lot.

If only Ms. Yingluck had been a bit better in 'administration' with her 'self-financing' scheme. Even her handpicked cabinet 'knowledge', 'capabilities' and 'potential' seemed to have been insufficient to cover 'administration'.

[rixalex]

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

Since it can be argued that pretty much every case, both those cases that have been against the "Shinawatra side", and those cases against the "anti Shinawatra side", in the last decade or so, have been driven by some sort of an underlying political motivation, i'm not sure it really bears much mention. Does any politician here get brought before the courts without an underlying political motivation? Rarely i suspect, because without that drive, they simply use their position of power and influence to wriggle off the hook.

I'm therefore personally more interested in examining how much weight there is behind the charges and what evidence there is, rather than what forces are helping bring the case to the court. I appreciate though that focusing on underlying forces is a good way of shifting the focus.

It depends whether one is more concerned with the superficial aspects or the underlying causes.An ant crawling across a mosaic is aware of and "personally more interested" in the incidental detail in front of it but remains totally oblivious to the overall pattern, context and meaning.

Think you have that somewhat upside down.

The merit of each case and the weight of evidence, is the main aspect.. or at least it should be. What mechanisms drive a case to be tried, or rather what mechanisms prevent a case from being swept under the carpet, as they usually are allowed to be, and as this case surely would have been had the Shins stayed in power, is the more superficial stuff.

[Baerboxer]

She isn't compelled to attend so why should she attend this rabble.

If she were innocent and able to answer questions more complex than state your name, of course she would attend, because, even if things were rigged against her as you red fanatics would have us believe, she would have a platform from which to explain her side of things and to shoot to pieces the groundless accusations that she was facing.

Just for your info I don't support the reds or the shins and I don't support the Junta. Why do people automatically label others as reds if they don't support coups, martial law and dictatorships.

They don't - they label people as Shin supporters and apologists based on the content of their posts.

I don't like Juntas, dictators, suppresses of free speech' nor do I like blindingly obvious nepotism, corruption, self enrichment and abusing public office for personal and family game.

Not a lot of choices left. But, some insist PTP/Thaksin puppet parties are some kind of 'socialist people's party trying to bring a truly fair open and democratic society to the impoverished masses". That is the biggest load of <deleted> ever. They are not the slightest bit interested in anyone but themselves.

[jayboy]

But actually since I don't believe it has been mentioned recently the underlying motivation is of course nothing to do with the rice pledging scheme at all.It is really about banning Yingluck from politics as part of the attempt to exterminate the influence of Thaksin once and for all.To this end the courts, so called independent agencies and unelected establishment cohorts have joined forces.There is no question that the current impeachment process is driven by that political objective.That is not to say the rice pledging scheme was not a disastrous failure, ill conceived and poorly implemented,as well as being bedevilled by corruption.All these abuses should of course be investigated and if appropriate punished.But the concept itself though populist was not illegal just ill considered.There is a complication for the hard line zero sum game guys in that the army itself is split on how Yingluck should be dealt with, the more realistic being aware that there are enough major difficulties facing the government without risking reactivating the quiescent redshirts.There are also persistent reports of a deal with Thaksin in the pipeline which would in simple terms buy his acquiescence and return his fortune.I have no idea whether there is substance to these reports but mention them only to illustrate the complexity the government has to deal with.In short there is a tension between the hardline anti Thaksin cultists and the more pragmatic elements.

Since it can be argued that pretty much every case, both those cases that have been against the "Shinawatra side", and those cases against the "anti Shinawatra side", in the last decade or so, have been driven by some sort of an underlying political motivation, i'm not sure it really bears much mention. Does any politician here get brought before the courts without an underlying political motivation? Rarely i suspect, because without that drive, they simply use their position of power and influence to wriggle off the hook.

I'm therefore personally more interested in examining how much weight there is behind the charges and what evidence there is, rather than what forces are helping bring the case to the court. I appreciate though that focusing on underlying forces is a good way of shifting the focus.

It depends whether one is more concerned with the superficial aspects or the underlying causes.An ant crawling across a mosaic is aware of and "personally more interested" in the incidental detail in front of it but remains totally oblivious to the overall pattern, context and meaning.

Think you have that somewhat upside down.

The merit of each case and the weight of evidence, is the main aspect.. or at least it should be. What mechanisms drive a case to be tried, or rather what mechanisms prevent a case from being swept under the carpet, as they usually are allowed to be, and as this case surely would have been had the Shins stayed in power, is the more superficial stuff.

On the contrary I agree with you that the case should in a judicial sense be perceived and processed in a self contained way.But in terms of understanding, it would be misleading to disregard the broader context - in this instance a coordinated political vindictiveness - as it would be to disregard the prevalent anti semitism of nineteenth century French society in the case against Colonel Dreyfus.

And to make the obvious and necessary point it's almost possible for this impeachment process to be fully "self contained" given the political motivation underlying it.

Edited January 18, 2015 by jayboy