Pheu Thai party tells US impeachment against Ms Yingluck illegal

[rubl]

Who's better to clarify the impeachment by an appointed corruption agency and NLA than Khun Ruangkrai. He himself was a former appointed senator and a close friend of the Dem Party. He knows how these establishment work especially with retro active laws and interpreting laws to suit their agenda.

Absolutely!

BTW, on 2012-07-10 we had

"Former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana yesterday requested the Constitution Court dissolve six political parties and probe the work of two independent organisations related to the constitution amendment case.

The parties are Pheu Thai, the Democrats, Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Pattana and Phalang Chon - and the two agencies are the Ombudsman and the Election Commission, because of their involvement in the charter amendment case."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Ruangkrai-wants-court-to-dissolve-six-parties-prob-30185831.html

[darren84310]

The Shinawatras are very good at ignoring the International community when they want and grovelling for help when they want.

[Mango Bob]

A person is impeached even when they are not in office - How is that possible.

So if this is the case I guess Obama could seek impeachment of Nixon.

Leader of a coup that overthrows an legally elected government appoints those who will impeach someone who is not in office. How is that possible.

No law or constitution for impeachment, but that's okay according to NCAA.

And you wonder why Thailand is having the problems it has.

Make up the rules as you go along is not going to help with reconsideration of the country.

[2fishin2]

When it comes to ''illegal matters the U.S.A. is indeed expert in the matter.

Just how many countries have they ( the U.S.A.) invaded illegally so as to implement democracy?

How many people have their C.IA. personnel murdered illegally ?

Been one decidedly dubious presidential election result in the recant past too.

Hasn't one of their leading politicians(Sheldon Silver) just been busted for corruption too?

Ah,indeed the P.T.P must be feeling totally at home rubbing shoulders with another bunch of political degenerates.

Obviously not enough, I think they missed one.

[Eric Loh]

Who's better to clarify the impeachment by an appointed corruption agency and NLA than Khun Ruangkrai. He himself was a former appointed senator and a close friend of the Dem Party. He knows how these establishment work especially with retro active laws and interpreting laws to suit their agenda.

Absolutely!

BTW, on 2012-07-10 we had

"Former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana yesterday requested the Constitution Court dissolve six political parties and probe the work of two independent organisations related to the constitution amendment case.

The parties are Pheu Thai, the Democrats, Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Pattana and Phalang Chon - and the two agencies are the Ombudsman and the Election Commission, because of their involvement in the charter amendment case."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Ruangkrai-wants-court-to-dissolve-six-parties-prob-30185831.html

Yes, who's better. He has been fair and balance in his past criticism and went after Thaksin in many instances. This man saw something legally wrong in the impeachment case and he has the credibility plus knowledge to explain to the US government. I must say he has the guts too.

[brucec64]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

[halloween]

A person is impeached even when they are not in office - How is that possible.

So if this is the case I guess Obama could seek impeachment of Nixon.

Leader of a coup that overthrows an legally elected government appoints those who will impeach someone who is not in office. How is that possible.

No law or constitution for impeachment, but that's okay according to NCAA.

And you wonder why Thailand is having the problems it has.

Make up the rules as you go along is not going to help with reconsideration of the country.

Right Bob. Resignation should allow an office-holder a free pass for their negligence and criminal behaviour. Why? Because that's what the Americans do.

[Mango Bob]

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

A person is impeached even when they are not in office - How is that possible.

So if this is the case I guess Obama could seek impeachment of Nixon.

Leader of a coup that overthrows an legally elected government appoints those who will impeach someone who is not in office. How is that possible.

No law or constitution for impeachment, but that's okay according to NCAA.

And you wonder why Thailand is having the problems it has.

Make up the rules as you go along is not going to help with reconsideration of the country.

Right Bob. Resignation should allow an office-holder a free pass for their negligence and criminal behaviour. Why? Because that's what the Americans do.

If you think before you write you would realize she was removed by the The Constitutional Court court not by resignation. Please get the facts straight.

[trogers]

The Shinawatras are very good at ignoring the International community when they want and grovelling for help when they want.

Ahhh... and now - "The US is my father"

[smedly]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

do you actually believe the stuff you post on here or is it a wind up

[brucec64]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

do you actually believe the stuff you post on here or is it a wind up

I actually beleive it, and it is also the viewpoint of most of the western world. Try getting your information from other than government propoganda sources and maybe you will be surprised.

Start with this one: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/04/national/keidanren-mission-meets-thai-junta-leader-urges-return-civilian-rule/

No doubt you will read, and beleive, the junta version where japan "understands" the situation.

Edited February 4, 2015 by brucec64

[halloween]

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

A person is impeached even when they are not in office - How is that possible.

So if this is the case I guess Obama could seek impeachment of Nixon.

Leader of a coup that overthrows an legally elected government appoints those who will impeach someone who is not in office. How is that possible.

No law or constitution for impeachment, but that's okay according to NCAA.

And you wonder why Thailand is having the problems it has.

Make up the rules as you go along is not going to help with reconsideration of the country.

Right Bob. Resignation should allow an office-holder a free pass for their negligence and criminal behaviour. Why? Because that's what the Americans do.

If you think before you write you would realize she was removed by the The Constitutional Court court not by resignation. Please get the facts straight.

The point still applies. Why does removal, by any means, absolve an office holder from facing the consequences of their actions? Because you don't like it? Because it doesn't work that way where you come from?

[smedly]

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

A person is impeached even when they are not in office - How is that possible.

So if this is the case I guess Obama could seek impeachment of Nixon.

Leader of a coup that overthrows an legally elected government appoints those who will impeach someone who is not in office. How is that possible.

No law or constitution for impeachment, but that's okay according to NCAA.

And you wonder why Thailand is having the problems it has.

Make up the rules as you go along is not going to help with reconsideration of the country.

Right Bob. Resignation should allow an office-holder a free pass for their negligence and criminal behaviour. Why? Because that's what the Americans do.

If you think before you write you would realize she was removed by the The Constitutional Court court not by resignation. Please get the facts straight.

The point still applies. Why does removal, by any means, absolve an office holder from facing the consequences of their actions? Because you don't like it? Because it doesn't work that way where you come from?

If an MP PM for indeed a government disgraces themselves in the west - they don't need to be forcibly removed - they have the decency to realise they have done wrong and immediately resign - another of the many reasons why Thailand has a constant cycle of coups

[metisdead]

NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTING IN THAILAND NEWS

Thailand remain under Martial Law and the rules related to Social Media and posting on Thaivisa will follow the guidelines set forth by the Thai government and the military. Here are some things that you should consider when posting:

All suspects in lese majeste cases, national security cases, violators of NCPO orders will face court martial.

Any discussion of the Monarchy or members of the royal family in a political context will result in a ban. This includes vague comments that could be construed as referring to the Monarchy.

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Posters violating these rules, and the forum rules will receive a warning, a possible suspension of posting privileges or a ban from the site.

Please check the entire list of forum rules: http://www.thaivisa....tion=boardrules

Some posts have been removed.

[rickirs]

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

This would not happen in my homeland in Mongolia, we are democratic not like here, going just like North Korea

## Its a long way to Ulaanbaatar

Its a long way to go.

Its long way to Ulaanbaatar

to the sweetest land I know

Good bye Rachadami farewell Siam square

Its long long way to Ulaanbaatar

But my heart is there##

Mongolian Food is the Best. It gives you a nice "Buuz."

Edited February 4, 2015 by rickirs

[rubl]

Who's better to clarify the impeachment by an appointed corruption agency and NLA than Khun Ruangkrai. He himself was a former appointed senator and a close friend of the Dem Party. He knows how these establishment work especially with retro active laws and interpreting laws to suit their agenda.

Absolutely!

BTW, on 2012-07-10 we had

"Former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana yesterday requested the Constitution Court dissolve six political parties and probe the work of two independent organisations related to the constitution amendment case.

The parties are Pheu Thai, the Democrats, Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Pattana and Phalang Chon - and the two agencies are the Ombudsman and the Election Commission, because of their involvement in the charter amendment case."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Ruangkrai-wants-court-to-dissolve-six-parties-prob-30185831.html

Yes, who's better. He has been fair and balance in his past criticism and went after Thaksin in many instances. This man saw something legally wrong in the impeachment case and he has the credibility plus knowledge to explain to the US government. I must say he has the guts too.

Oh come on Eric. This former Senator frequently questioned and petitioned courts and commission whenever he 'felt' like it. I probably missed the cases where his petitions were not rejected.

This suggests he has neither the credibility nor the knowledge to explain.

One thing I agree with you, k. Ruangkrai has the guts and doesn't seem to care.

[rubl]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

The impeachment might be internationally viewed as politically motivated, too many have said so till it's believed whether true or not. That's not the same as seeing it as illegitimate.

No one though seems to disagree with the actual reasoning for the impeachment, but then Ms. Yingluck didn't give reasoning for a self-financing scheme to lose 700 billion Baht.

[brucec64]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

The impeachment might be internationally viewed as politically motivated, too many have said so till it's believed whether true or not. That's not the same as seeing it as illegitimate.

No one though seems to disagree with the actual reasoning for the impeachment, but then Ms. Yingluck didn't give reasoning for a self-financing scheme to lose 700 billion Baht.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/US-envoy-invited-to-meet-NLA-30253104.html

Kitti, a former ambassador, said political remarks made by Assistant State Secretary for Asia and the Pacific Daniel Russel had affected Thailand and the committee wanted an explanation. Russel, who visited Thailand briefly last week, urged the Thai government to lift martial law and cast doubts on the legitimacy of the impeachment of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra by the junta-appointed NLA.

But don't let facts get in the way of bring an obstinate contrarian.

[tbthailand]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

Halloween misses the fact completely that there is no connection between the style of government and the ability to stop violence, pursue criminals, root out corruption, or change the system. They aren't related. It's a fake premise.

On the other hand, posters like you and others have pointed out that characteristics like transparency and information via a free and open media are helpful in rooting out corruption and chasing the criminal elements, but they are less likely to be present under certain forms of governance...

The 'interventionists' use the same excuses again and again for justifying their actions (even to the point of being "forced" to act), but in the end, they are still just excuses and not reasons....

[aussieinthailand]

Since Ruangkrai Leekitwattana is a member of the Pheu Thai legal team may I assume that the letter contains a wee bit more than just "I tell you so" ? References to legal documents, laws and so?

Can I ask you a very simple question? or 3, a simple answer yes or no, not ( opinions, ) that is what the law is supposed to work on fact, apparently

Q. Is an impeachment lodged against a person that holds office and an investigation on grounds for (whatever the case may be) and supporting evidence and a possible removal of the defendant depending on the findings of said holder of that office or not?

A.

Q2. Was YL holding office of PM at the time of impeachment?

A.

Q3. do you support retroactive laws, legislation after the fact to come into play as being fair and legal?

A.

I'm gunna take a wild guess here, there will be a few that choose to spin and answers in long winded quatrain's, instead of just saying YES or NO...

[Baerboxer]

Poor old Bob...... we have been listening/reading your drivel for many months... give up mate... no-one believes you or your sidekick S/P in the slightest ... Welcome to the real world...! The impeachment process is 100% legal under the current governments rules... If you are not happy with this.... Over there is the door... shut it behind you... Give us all a rest... and grow up... and a wee tip... Don't believe your wife... Long live the King..!

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

Do you think a government openly allowing a convicted criminal fugitive, on the run from a prison sentence and 15 more serious outstanding court charges to manage and run it, select cabinet ministers and dictate all policy was viewed as legitimate internationally?

Do you think a PM/DM who refuses to answer Ombudsman's questions about her cousin the foreign minister illegally issuing a new passport to her brother, the said criminal fugitive and then hand delivered it to him. was viewed as legitimate internationally?

Do you think all the crap Chalerm and Tarit dreamed up attempting to intimidate the judiciary into making favorable decisions for the Shins or any who dare oppose and speak out against them was viewed as legitimate internationally?

PTP wined to the UN, the US and anyone who would listen before. They obviously think it very unfair people no longer accept their continued lying at will, distortions, scams, incompetency and thorough corruption. No one internationally swallowed their lies, pleas and bull shit version of events then, and no one sprang to their defense as they hoped.

No one from a democracy wants to see a Junta, a police or military state with freedoms restricted (although people's freedoms in most Western democracies have been significantly eroded). That's why they urge democracy, elections, freedom of speech etc be established as soon as possible. (I won't say return because government by a non elected criminal who won't return home unless all his crimes are whitewashed for the benefit of one family is hardly democracy).

Hopefully the US will treat this with the contempt it deserves. Maybe it's time the UN, ICJ started to re-examine the executions and massacres carried out during Thaksin's official tenure as PM.

[Baerboxer]

Since Ruangkrai Leekitwattana is a member of the Pheu Thai legal team may I assume that the letter contains a wee bit more than just "I tell you so" ? References to legal documents, laws and so?

Can I ask you a very simple question? or 3, a simple answer yes or no, not ( opinions, ) that is what the law is supposed to work on fact, apparently

Q. Is an impeachment lodged against a person that holds office and an investigation on grounds for (whatever the case may be) and supporting evidence and a possible removal of the defendant depending on the findings of said holder of that office or not?

A.

Q2. Was YL holding office of PM at the time of impeachment?

A.

Q3. do you support retroactive laws, legislation after the fact to come into play as being fair and legal?

A.

I'm gunna take a wild guess here, there will be a few that choose to spin and answers in long winded quatrain's, instead of just saying YES or NO...

Do you support a blanket amnesty for all, as proposed by PTP ?

[Baerboxer]

When you have a junta government, with a section 44 of a self-imposed interim constitution making anything legal, then, yes, you are right, internally the process was "legal". However, that does not mean that it satisfies the criteria for rule of law, which also requires an unbiased judiciary and equal application of the law. That is why the process is seen internationally as illigitimate, and why this current government struggles to achieve international legitimacy, (except for China and North Korea, of course).

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

Halloween misses the fact completely that there is no connection between the style of government and the ability to stop violence, pursue criminals, root out corruption, or change the system. They aren't related. It's a fake premise.

On the other hand, posters like you and others have pointed out that characteristics like transparency and information via a free and open media are helpful in rooting out corruption and chasing the criminal elements, but they are less likely to be present under certain forms of governance...

The 'interventionists' use the same excuses again and again for justifying their actions (even to the point of being "forced" to act), but in the end, they are still just excuses and not reasons....

Fair enough. PTP chose not to stop the attacks on protesters or judges by their supporters, failed to ensure the police did their duty in protection and detection, allowed corruption, or make any changes other than ones that would benefit themselves especially the weakening of checks and balances.

Nothing to do with style of government - simply their choices. Makes sense.

That gave the military and those politically aligned with them the excuse to move in albeit they have stopped the attacks, and made arrests of suspects, at the price of free speech, elections, etc.

Do you really think there was any transparency under PTP - they simply lied, issued any figures they fancied, contradicted themselves and threatened the press with legal action?

One gang replaced by an older, bigger, better armed one.

[petercool]

A flame post and post quoting it were removed. Keep it civil please.

[Ricardo]

I do see the temptation to try to declare the impeachment illegal, but i think it is mistaken, because she was PM at the time she ignored all the warnings about faults in the scheme, and she was supposed to be chairing the committee & attending its meetings.

Would a bank-robber be charged & appear in-court, only to tell the judge that they were innocent & the charges illegal, simply because they weren't now actually still in the process of committing the crime ? I doubt that that defense would be accepted then, either.

I myself look forward to seeing the evidence, of her having benefited personally from the corruption, because I find it hard to believe that she would have been so silly as to blatantly benefit directly. Then again, sometimes people-in-power can over-estimate their invulnerability, especially if ill-advised by others whom they trust implicitly, say lawyers or political-advisers or close relatives.

It will be interesting to follow the criminal-charges, as they proceed ever-so-slowly through the courts.

[tbthailand]

So your basis of argument is "coup bad, therefore everything that comes from it must be bad." Stopping the political violence, pursuing criminals and reforming the political system to prevent it being rorted in the future all suffer the same taint. Especially when they are applied to your favourite criminals.

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

Halloween misses the fact completely that there is no connection between the style of government and the ability to stop violence, pursue criminals, root out corruption, or change the system. They aren't related. It's a fake premise.

On the other hand, posters like you and others have pointed out that characteristics like transparency and information via a free and open media are helpful in rooting out corruption and chasing the criminal elements, but they are less likely to be present under certain forms of governance...

The 'interventionists' use the same excuses again and again for justifying their actions (even to the point of being "forced" to act), but in the end, they are still just excuses and not reasons....

Fair enough. PTP chose not to stop the attacks on protesters or judges by their supporters, failed to ensure the police did their duty in protection and detection, allowed corruption, or make any changes other than ones that would benefit themselves especially the weakening of checks and balances.

Nothing to do with style of government - simply their choices. Makes sense.

That gave the military and those politically aligned with them the excuse to move in albeit they have stopped the attacks, and made arrests of suspects, at the price of free speech, elections, etc.

Do you really think there was any transparency under PTP - they simply lied, issued any figures they fancied, contradicted themselves and threatened the press with legal action?

One gang replaced by an older, bigger, better armed one.

your last line seems to be the closing argument of "same same but different" when comparing an elected government under a system of self-rule and an unelected, self-imposed military government.

I don't agree with that argument.

[scorecard]

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

What earthly difference does this being explained to the us embassy make. They have their own political scientist to analyse this stuff and they have drawn their own conclusions.

Another of your attempts to divert the actual subject of discussion. Failed.

[rubl]

At this point, most of what is coming from the coup is bad. The NLA impeachment is viewed internationally as illegitimate, and the current reforms are non-inclusive and are seen as a current rorting of the political system, not a prevention of future rorting. Also, the political violence has been suspended by threat of force, but the underlying issues are not being addressed, and the non-inclusive reforms could lead to increased violence down the road.

The junta still has the opportunity to make it right, but there are no indications as of now that this will happen.

The impeachment might be internationally viewed as politically motivated, too many have said so till it's believed whether true or not. That's not the same as seeing it as illegitimate.

No one though seems to disagree with the actual reasoning for the impeachment, but then Ms. Yingluck didn't give reasoning for a self-financing scheme to lose 700 billion Baht.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/US-envoy-invited-to-meet-NLA-30253104.html

Kitti, a former ambassador, said political remarks made by Assistant State Secretary for Asia and the Pacific Daniel Russel had affected Thailand and the committee wanted an explanation. Russel, who visited Thailand briefly last week, urged the Thai government to lift martial law and cast doubts on the legitimacy of the impeachment of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra by the junta-appointed NLA.

But don't let facts get in the way of bring an obstinate contrarian.

Mr. Russel was said to have cast doubts on the legitimacy which as far as I know is not the same as 'seeing the impeachment as illegitimate'. It would seem he didn't even talk about 'legitimacy or illegitimacy.

Full text of speech still online, part on impeachment was

" I'd add that the perception of fairness is also extremely important and although this is being pretty blunt, when an elected leader is removed from office, is deposed, then impeached by the authorities -- the same authorities that conducted the coup -- and then when a political leader is targeted with criminal charges at a time when the basic democratic processes and institutions in the country are interrupted, the international community is going to be left with the impression that these steps could in fact be politically driven.

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2015/01/236308.htm

So, the government has to work on perception only

"

Edited February 4, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Since Ruangkrai Leekitwattana is a member of the Pheu Thai legal team may I assume that the letter contains a wee bit more than just "I tell you so" ? References to legal documents, laws and so?

Can I ask you a very simple question? or 3, a simple answer yes or no, not ( opinions, ) that is what the law is supposed to work on fact, apparently

Q. Is an impeachment lodged against a person that holds office and an investigation on grounds for (whatever the case may be) and supporting evidence and a possible removal of the defendant depending on the findings of said holder of that office or not?

A.

Q2. Was YL holding office of PM at the time of impeachment?

A.

Q3. do you support retroactive laws, legislation after the fact to come into play as being fair and legal?

A.

I'm gunna take a wild guess here, there will be a few that choose to spin and answers in long winded quatrain's, instead of just saying YES or NO...

Objection your honour. These are leading questions phrased to suggest even a moron would be able to give the 'right' answer.