Impeachment: Judgement day

[Baerboxer]

In order to prevent the threat of national political conflict, the Thai military will overthrow the government, impose martial law, suspend freedom of expression, delay the next elections, .....

Wait, already been there and done that. Regardless of the outcome of Yingluck's impeachment, there will continue to be the confinement of democracy in limbo.

In order to prevent the daily attacks, intimidation and murder of opponents to the Shin clan, and the treasonous talk of splitting the country and raising of private militias, the military will take over from a caretaker government that was fast losing its grip on its more militant factions.

There was no democracy under a Shin rule - do as we say, don't ask questions or else.

[ExPratt]

According to BEEB its done and dusted and they impeached her, unless Ive missed something on this thread

[Jingthing]

You're correct.

She has been IMPEACHED.

[Baerboxer]

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

[rubl]

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

Somehow the concerns do not cover the contents of the case, almost as if everyone agrees that Ms. Yingluck was negligent and should be punished as responsible, accountable PM who started the RPPS.

Reminds me of Sir Humphrey in the "Big Brother" episode of "Yes Minister". To paraphrase "Are you sure this is the right time for an impeachment"?, "Aren't there more important issues?"

[rubl]

" NLA has the legitimacy to rule in the impeachment case"

only because they gave themselves that power

According to the Interim Constitution they represent the Senate.

[jayboy]

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

[Robby nz]

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

It really is a shame that someone who likes to think of themselves as intelligent and educated cant post without insults.

Buts that par for your course inst it.

It would be nice if could post something positive that wasn't attacking someone, or even the truth for once.

You could even include a link that proved yourself wrong, as you have done before.

Have a nice evening.

[binjalin]

" NLA has the legitimacy to rule in the impeachment case"

only because they gave themselves that power

According to the Interim Constitution they represent the Senate.

yup the constitution THEY put in

they also sent in the Army today to stop Yingluck holding a Press Conference no doubt you think that's great too! shame on you

[scorecard]

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

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Well said BB, well said indeed.

[scorecard]

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

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Just your warped opinion jayboy, nothing more.

[jayboy]

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

I don't understand why some cant get it through their heads that impeachment is only a legal term used because she and others were MP's and a PM at the time of their alleged transgressions.

This is an enquiry into wrongdoing while they were in office and the fact that they are not at this time in office has no bearing on that.

It is the same as an enquiry into wrong doing by the head of any other organization after they have been removed from their position, only the name of the enquiry is different because of their political position.

As for the "Cant do this because it was done under a constitution that no longer exists"

Does that mean that the red bull cop killer can no longer be charged because he killed the kop under the previous constitution ?

No it doesent, the law is still the same and it is the law that any offense was committed under that counts.

And 'reconciliation will be set back if you impeach her', that is just a threat and nothing less than intimidation, as is the talk of action from her supporters who refuse to accept the rule of law as they have done several times before.

There can be no reconciliation if the law is to be ignored.

Don't bother letting us have your puerile and ill educated nonsense about the legal issues.You clearly are completely out of your depth as your red cop killer comment shows ( that case is a criminal one and nothing to do with the constitution).Many concerns about the show trial's legality are on the record from legal experts.Furthermore you have the impudent cheek to pontificate on the need to respect the law, ludicrous given your slavish prostration in multiple posts before those who have broken the law ( high treason) and then awarded themselves a free pardon.

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Just your warped opinion jayboy, nothing more.

In other words you are telling me in your boorish way that you don't agree with me.That's your privilege but a more intelligent person might make an argument to support his case.

[rubl]

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Show trial? Was it on television? If yes who asked for it?

[jayboy]

A marvelous example of pompous rhetoric that seeks not only to insult someone who has a different view but to command that person not to dare post. Peppered with lovely hyperbole like "show trial" - even referring to it as Stalinist on another post (he must think the junta to be hard line communists), to color his prose.

How anyone who insults other posters in a pretense of showing their education can claim others have "impudent cheek" is laughable. More like a Blackadder caricature of someone who thinks they're educated.

Obviously a former Oxbridge Law don, giving us his benefit of keen wit and deep understanding. A poster who on many occasions states he's no fan of Thaksin and the Shins but is ready to defend them in his own buffoonish way.

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Show trial? Was it on television? If yes who asked for it?

It was a show trial in the Stalinist sense of the verdict being guaranteed regardless of evidence.The puppet assembly did what was expected.Interestingly there seems to be evidence that Prayuth wanted to take a more pragmatic line than the crazed reactionary elements in the elite - but was blocked or overruled.

The consequences of this gross stupidity are unpredictable.A shameful day for Thailand.

[rubl]

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Show trial? Was it on television? If yes who asked for it?

It was a show trial in the Stalinist sense of the verdict being guaranteed regardless of evidence.The puppet assembly did what was expected.Interestingly there seems to be evidence that Prayuth wanted to take a more pragmatic line than the crazed reactionary elements in the elite - but was blocked or overruled.

The consequences of this gross stupidity are unpredictable.A shameful day for Thailand.

What with Ms. Yingluck never answering questions asked, but only answers to questions she would have liked to be asked (like "was your plan aimed at poor farmers", rather than "why did your plan only reach a very small number of poor farmers"), it's no surprise she got impeached. Personally I still think they were kind to her, too kind. Nothing point to 'negligence' as far as I'm concerned, it's more 'defrauding the State'

As for there seems to be evidence is close to rumours have it. Not good practise to build your statements on that.

So, a former PM taken to task, asked to be accountable and you think that 'stupid'? David Cameron may well agree with you as well as Tony Blair.

[jayboy]

Whether you prefer ill informed and inarticulate nonsense to the opposite is your own concern.Your last post however to put it politely suggests you have not grasped the main points at issue.You seem incapable like many of the foreign devotees of the government of holding more than one thought in your head at a time.So once again - it is possible to be disgusted with the current freak show and yet not be a defender of the Shinawatra clan.

Incidentally the expression "show trial" is entirely appropriate for the current proceedings - and the army appointed nonentities have done as they were directed.

Show trial? Was it on television? If yes who asked for it?

It was a show trial in the Stalinist sense of the verdict being guaranteed regardless of evidence.The puppet assembly did what was expected.Interestingly there seems to be evidence that Prayuth wanted to take a more pragmatic line than the crazed reactionary elements in the elite - but was blocked or overruled.

The consequences of this gross stupidity are unpredictable.A shameful day for Thailand.

What with Ms. Yingluck never answering questions asked, but only answers to questions she would have liked to be asked (like "was your plan aimed at poor farmers", rather than "why did your plan only reach a very small number of poor farmers"), it's no surprise she got impeached. Personally I still think they were kind to her, too kind. Nothing point to 'negligence' as far as I'm concerned, it's more 'defrauding the State'

As for there seems to be evidence is close to rumours have it. Not good practise to build your statements on that.

So, a former PM taken to task, asked to be accountable and you think that 'stupid'? David Cameron may well agree with you as well as Tony Blair.

Usual uninteresting and inconsequential prattle from you which can be ignored.But on one point namely my comment on Prayuth's position I make no claim at all other than rumour has it.It may well not be true.I thought it deserved at least a mention.

[jwongbkk]

endless squabbling between Thai kids

Why can't the govt sit down and focus more on moving forward as a nation and trying to root out the rest of the corrupt people rather than concentrating on one?

They should spend more time, effort and money to think of ways to improve the economy, create jobs, trade and not just thinking of impeaching an incompetent leader

[rubl]

It was a show trial in the Stalinist sense of the verdict being guaranteed regardless of evidence.The puppet assembly did what was expected.Interestingly there seems to be evidence that Prayuth wanted to take a more pragmatic line than the crazed reactionary elements in the elite - but was blocked or overruled.

The consequences of this gross stupidity are unpredictable.A shameful day for Thailand.

What with Ms. Yingluck never answering questions asked, but only answers to questions she would have liked to be asked (like "was your plan aimed at poor farmers", rather than "why did your plan only reach a very small number of poor farmers"), it's no surprise she got impeached. Personally I still think they were kind to her, too kind. Nothing point to 'negligence' as far as I'm concerned, it's more 'defrauding the State'

As for there seems to be evidence is close to rumours have it. Not good practise to build your statements on that.

So, a former PM taken to task, asked to be accountable and you think that 'stupid'? David Cameron may well agree with you as well as Tony Blair.

Usual uninteresting and inconsequential prattle from you which can be ignored.But on one point namely my comment on Prayuth's position I make no claim at all other than rumour has it.It may well not be true.I thought it deserved at least a mention.

Anything you disagree with you seem to need to qualify in a negative way.

Rumour do not deserve to be mentioned even if you think it helps your case.

BTW do you know what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is?

[jayboy]

It was a show trial in the Stalinist sense of the verdict being guaranteed regardless of evidence.The puppet assembly did what was expected.Interestingly there seems to be evidence that Prayuth wanted to take a more pragmatic line than the crazed reactionary elements in the elite - but was blocked or overruled.

The consequences of this gross stupidity are unpredictable.A shameful day for Thailand.

What with Ms. Yingluck never answering questions asked, but only answers to questions she would have liked to be asked (like "was your plan aimed at poor farmers", rather than "why did your plan only reach a very small number of poor farmers"), it's no surprise she got impeached. Personally I still think they were kind to her, too kind. Nothing point to 'negligence' as far as I'm concerned, it's more 'defrauding the State'

As for there seems to be evidence is close to rumours have it. Not good practise to build your statements on that.

So, a former PM taken to task, asked to be accountable and you think that 'stupid'? David Cameron may well agree with you as well as Tony Blair.

Usual uninteresting and inconsequential prattle from you which can be ignored.But on one point namely my comment on Prayuth's position I make no claim at all other than rumour has it.It may well not be true.I thought it deserved at least a mention.

Anything you disagree with you seem to need to qualify in a negative way.

Rumour do not deserve to be mentioned even if you think it helps your case.

BTW do you know what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is?

Don't agree interesting rumours should be off limits in this forum ( unless malicious or invented ) nor do I think this one helps my cause.I am not sure even what my "cause" is - unless you mean peace prosperity and freedom for all Thai people.

Minister of Interior is broadly the same as Home Secretary.