NACC To Prosecute Former PM For Yellowshirt Crackdown

[whybother]

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

[rubl]

The only reason the yellow shirts are less violent is because the army/courts inevitably give them what they want before it goes that far.

That's why some red-shirts though it justified to target them you mean? A few grenades lobbed in DM airport building before it's too late?

Or are you suggesting the yellow shirts have just grievances and therefore it should be no surprise the courts rule against the others ?

Anyway former PM Somchai will get a chance to clear his name

No i am simply saying that the courts or the army have stepped in on each occasion they have protested and given them exactly what they wanted.

If you are willing to blockade international airports, i don't believe it is much of a stretch to presume their next move could of been more violent had they not got their way, although i presume it was all carefully coordinated anyway between the named parties.

In any respect their is plenty of footage out there of armed persons in the yellow group as well, both sides have their armed crazies, just one side always gets what they want.

Now surely you're not questioning the correctness of court verdicts and rulings, are you?

Anyway, as I say before and again, former PM Somchai will get his chance to clear his actions and name. That's justice.

[rubl]

and in the mean time we do not seem to get any suggestion for a possible alternative. Apart from "let's have elections" that is.

BTW "Pheu Thai members hunted down" ? You mean Ms. Yingluck, the one or two self-exiles and who else?

Some people think elections are a good thing. Not the Democrats or military, but many others.

Among the hundreds of people called in for "attitude adjustment", which political side do you think dominates?

Some people have only one answer "let's have some elections". As if that would help make Thailand a real democracy. Even reforms are being studiously boycotted with argument not to believe in them.

Anyway, the attitude adjustment bit seems to annoy, some even self-exiled it would seem. No real martyrs or heroes found yet, apart from young Oaf of course

So, former PM Somchai gets a change to defend and justify himself. Obviously that's not to the liking of some here

Elections would be a step towards democracy, and a huge improvement over the current state of affairs.

Attitude adjustment an annoyance? You regard being held without charge and incommunicado an annoyance? How about:

"Hundreds of people have been summoned and forced to sign documents that allow the junta to seize their assets if they become involved with “any political movement.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=2

Would you dismiss that as a minor annoyance if it happened to you?

Also, what do you mean by "being studiously boycotted"? Didn't you post:

"2014-11-17

"BANGKOK, 17 November 2014 (NNT) - All political parties have accepted the invitation to discuss the drafting of the new charter and its content, says the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC)."" http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/798513-reformers-hail-chance-to-check-charter-draft/?p=9044507

Whether you think it is or isn't being boycotted (or think both, it seems), these "reforms" clearly designed to weaken the power of elected officials, are proceeding. But that isn't part of this topic.

So, once more we are getting further and further away from the topic which seems to be totally uninteresting to some here. Step by step diverting, seemingly interested directional questioning, and voila, almost forgotten that former PM Somchai gets a fair chance to clear his actions and good name. Justice doesn't seem to interest some posters.

BTW a boycott can take many forms, obstruction by seemingly participating is just as effective as having your grenade lobbers active to scare people away. Also publishing name, telephone numbers and addresses is somewhat menacing. Luckily less crazy folks wandering around in the night.

[rubl]

This may surprise you, but there is no such thing as collective prosecution in thailand. It step by step. With former PM Somchai brough to the Supreme Court on charges of "abuse of power" there's even a better change we will get Abhisit/Suthep on same charges (rather than the somewhat strange "premeditated murder" charge in the Criminal Court). Even Ms. Yingluck can then get the same charge for her non-involvement in the anti-government attacks.

So, former PM Somchai will first get his chance to clear his name.

I'm not surprised at all that there is no such thing as collective prosecution in Thailand, but I'm puzzled why you bring the topic up.

There is such a thing as selective enforcement of the law in Thailand, which is implemented by selective prosecution. It's naive to maintain otherwise.

Your final sentence puzzles me. Is non-involvement in anti-government attacks illegal?

Well the usual round-and-round going I see.

So, the NACC to give the OAG to charge former PM Somchai for "abuse of power". Actually the NACC might already have given the same to get Abhisit/Suthep charged, but they were told to butt out as the DSI wanted the OAG to charge the duo for "premeditated murder" in the Criminal Court. Late last year the court threw it out and suggested to the OAG to follow the correct procedure, do the charging at the Supreme Court first if they thought they'd have a case.

Now you may call that selective and you would be right. Rumour has it the DSI and Tarit were ordered.

As for my 'final' sentence, you probably are not in the mood for some mild sarcasm.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

Actually it was more of a back and forth, until you inserted your strange "might have already" speculation.

Did you miss the part about the person who's judgment on law you are challenging: "Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge..."

So what? Abhisit to be charged as private person for ordering the army to commit premeditated murder for him is OK and a simple impeachment based on facts no one denies for a lady who only talks about political motivation is NOK ?

Now we have former PM Somchai to be charged with "abuse of office", to be charged at the correct court. If the DSI being pressured by 'unknowns (like golf caddies and charter writing Pol. Captains) hadn't pressured the OAG to go for "premeditated murder as private persons" with the Criminal Court, the NACC and OAG together might already have had the charges for "abuse of office" ready for the former PM Abhisit and his Dept.

So, poor former PM Somchai, no one seem to care about him.

Edited February 10, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

You do realize there is a difference between criminal charges and impeachment, do you?

[heybruce]

Some people have only one answer "let's have some elections". As if that would help make Thailand a real democracy. Even reforms are being studiously boycotted with argument not to believe in them.

Anyway, the attitude adjustment bit seems to annoy, some even self-exiled it would seem. No real martyrs or heroes found yet, apart from young Oaf of course

So, former PM Somchai gets a change to defend and justify himself. Obviously that's not to the liking of some here

Elections would be a step towards democracy, and a huge improvement over the current state of affairs.

Attitude adjustment an annoyance? You regard being held without charge and incommunicado an annoyance? How about:

"Hundreds of people have been summoned and forced to sign documents that allow the junta to seize their assets if they become involved with “any political movement.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=2

Would you dismiss that as a minor annoyance if it happened to you?

Also, what do you mean by "being studiously boycotted"? Didn't you post:

"2014-11-17

"BANGKOK, 17 November 2014 (NNT) - All political parties have accepted the invitation to discuss the drafting of the new charter and its content, says the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC)."" http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/798513-reformers-hail-chance-to-check-charter-draft/?p=9044507

Whether you think it is or isn't being boycotted (or think both, it seems), these "reforms" clearly designed to weaken the power of elected officials, are proceeding. But that isn't part of this topic.

So, once more we are getting further and further away from the topic which seems to be totally uninteresting to some here. Step by step diverting, seemingly interested directional questioning, and voila, almost forgotten that former PM Somchai gets a fair chance to clear his actions and good name. Justice doesn't seem to interest some posters.

BTW a boycott can take many forms, obstruction by seemingly participating is just as effective as having your grenade lobbers active to scare people away. Also publishing name, telephone numbers and addresses is somewhat menacing. Luckily less crazy folks wandering around in the night.

"we"? You're the one who introduced boycotting reform, after posting on another thread that everyone is participating in drafting the new charter. You also suggested that the "attitude adjustments" were no big deal, which was an outrageous statement that had to be addressed even though it was off-topic.

[heybruce]

I'm not surprised at all that there is no such thing as collective prosecution in Thailand, but I'm puzzled why you bring the topic up.

There is such a thing as selective enforcement of the law in Thailand, which is implemented by selective prosecution. It's naive to maintain otherwise.

Your final sentence puzzles me. Is non-involvement in anti-government attacks illegal?

Well the usual round-and-round going I see.

So, the NACC to give the OAG to charge former PM Somchai for "abuse of power". Actually the NACC might already have given the same to get Abhisit/Suthep charged, but they were told to butt out as the DSI wanted the OAG to charge the duo for "premeditated murder" in the Criminal Court. Late last year the court threw it out and suggested to the OAG to follow the correct procedure, do the charging at the Supreme Court first if they thought they'd have a case.

Now you may call that selective and you would be right. Rumour has it the DSI and Tarit were ordered.

As for my 'final' sentence, you probably are not in the mood for some mild sarcasm.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

Actually it was more of a back and forth, until you inserted your strange "might have already" speculation.

Did you miss the part about the person who's judgment on law you are challenging: "Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge..."

So what? Abhisit to be charged as private person for ordering the army to commit premeditated murder for him is OK and a simple impeachment based on facts no one denies for a lady who only talks about political motivation is NOK ?

Now we have former PM Somchai to be charged with "abuse of office", to be charged at the correct court. If the DSI being pressured by 'unknowns (like golf caddies and charter writing Pol. Captains) hadn't pressured the OAG to go for "premeditated murder as private persons" with the Criminal Court, the NACC and OAG together might already have had the charges for "abuse of office" ready for the former PM Abhisit and his Dept.

So, poor former PM Somchai, no one seem to care about him.

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Edited February 10, 2015 by heybruce

[heybruce]

I have read most of the posts in this topic, although some I skimmed over because they were penned by well known red bs artists, and for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone who supports the Shins would complain about the actions of the current government.

Most of the complains are about stupid things that have no affect whatsoever on the majority of the population, both Thai and foreigners, and some of the stunts the current government have pulled are no worse than what the Shins did when in power.

At least the junta has stopped the redshirts killing people at will, and if that is the only good thing they ever do it has to be a good thing for the country.

Comparing the violence carried out by the reds to the anti-Shin people is just plain stupid, there is no comparison.

"why anyone who supports the Shins would complain about the actions of the current government."

I don't support the Shins, but I object to military coups against elected government, military government, martial law, censorship, detention without charge, etc. People who support the Shins can probably expand on the list.

"Most of the complains are about stupid things that have no affect whatsoever on the majority of the population,"

Yeah simple things like democracy, elections, the right of the people to choose who governs them. As I've stated before, some people are uncomfortable with the uncertainty, compromises and general messiness of democracy, they much prefer an autocratic government under a rule-by-decree strongman. I guess people like that will never understand people who prefer democracy.

[whybother]

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

You do realize there is a difference between criminal charges and impeachment, do you?

You do understand there is a difference between giving orders to the army as PM and doing it as a civilian?

[whybother]

I'm not surprised at all that there is no such thing as collective prosecution in Thailand, but I'm puzzled why you bring the topic up.

There is such a thing as selective enforcement of the law in Thailand, which is implemented by selective prosecution. It's naive to maintain otherwise.

Your final sentence puzzles me. Is non-involvement in anti-government attacks illegal?

Well the usual round-and-round going I see.

So, the NACC to give the OAG to charge former PM Somchai for "abuse of power". Actually the NACC might already have given the same to get Abhisit/Suthep charged, but they were told to butt out as the DSI wanted the OAG to charge the duo for "premeditated murder" in the Criminal Court. Late last year the court threw it out and suggested to the OAG to follow the correct procedure, do the charging at the Supreme Court first if they thought they'd have a case.

Now you may call that selective and you would be right. Rumour has it the DSI and Tarit were ordered.

As for my 'final' sentence, you probably are not in the mood for some mild sarcasm.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

Actually it was more of a back and forth, until you inserted your strange "might have already" speculation.

Did you miss the part about the person who's judgment on law you are challenging: "Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge..."

So what? Abhisit to be charged as private person for ordering the army to commit premeditated murder for him is OK and a simple impeachment based on facts no one denies for a lady who only talks about political motivation is NOK ?

Now we have former PM Somchai to be charged with "abuse of office", to be charged at the correct court. If the DSI being pressured by 'unknowns (like golf caddies and charter writing Pol. Captains) hadn't pressured the OAG to go for "premeditated murder as private persons" with the Criminal Court, the NACC and OAG together might already have had the charges for "abuse of office" ready for the former PM Abhisit and his Dept.

So, poor former PM Somchai, no one seem to care about him.

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Abhisit WAS charged with premeditated murder "as a civilian". The charges were dismissed because the court said that any charges should be dealt by the courts for political office holders.

[halloween]

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Bruce, this isn't "most countries", TIT. Many things are unusual, quite a few absurd, compared to our homelands. Most of us don't whine about it.

[heybruce]

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Bruce, this isn't "most countries", TIT. Many things are unusual, quite a few absurd, compared to our homelands. Most of us don't whine about it.

Dodging the issue. Is there any example of a person not in office being impeached before the junta started making up the rules as it went along? People who want better for Thailand object to a vindictive rule-by-decree autocrat (we can't use the D-word).

[heybruce]

I'm not surprised at all that there is no such thing as collective prosecution in Thailand, but I'm puzzled why you bring the topic up.

There is such a thing as selective enforcement of the law in Thailand, which is implemented by selective prosecution. It's naive to maintain otherwise.

Your final sentence puzzles me. Is non-involvement in anti-government attacks illegal?

Well the usual round-and-round going I see.

So, the NACC to give the OAG to charge former PM Somchai for "abuse of power". Actually the NACC might already have given the same to get Abhisit/Suthep charged, but they were told to butt out as the DSI wanted the OAG to charge the duo for "premeditated murder" in the Criminal Court. Late last year the court threw it out and suggested to the OAG to follow the correct procedure, do the charging at the Supreme Court first if they thought they'd have a case.

Now you may call that selective and you would be right. Rumour has it the DSI and Tarit were ordered.

As for my 'final' sentence, you probably are not in the mood for some mild sarcasm.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

Actually it was more of a back and forth, until you inserted your strange "might have already" speculation.

Did you miss the part about the person who's judgment on law you are challenging: "Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge..."

So what? Abhisit to be charged as private person for ordering the army to commit premeditated murder for him is OK and a simple impeachment based on facts no one denies for a lady who only talks about political motivation is NOK ?

Now we have former PM Somchai to be charged with "abuse of office", to be charged at the correct court. If the DSI being pressured by 'unknowns (like golf caddies and charter writing Pol. Captains) hadn't pressured the OAG to go for "premeditated murder as private persons" with the Criminal Court, the NACC and OAG together might already have had the charges for "abuse of office" ready for the former PM Abhisit and his Dept.

So, poor former PM Somchai, no one seem to care about him.

Refresh my memory, where did you get this information that Abhisit is going to be charged with premeditated murder?

Also, can you explain how a person no longer in office can be impeached under a suspended constitution? In most countries it would be considered absurd to impeach an elected official no longer in office. To many people the Yingluck impeachment appears to be the junta making up rules in order to get at people it doesn't like.

Abhisit WAS charged with premeditated murder "as a civilian". The charges were dismissed because the court said that any charges should be dealt by the courts for political office holders.

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

[heybruce]

like the ones who played a hand in the Murder of 90 Demonstrators in 2010 oh no they've been acquitted

Im puzzled at you attitude towards the Junta , do you have Thai kids here? would you like them growing up in a non democratic , Military run country with no freedom of speech and "Attitude adjustment" for those who don't tow the line ?

1) 90 demonstrators weren't killed. 10 or so soldiers and a couple of civilians were killed by protesters.

2) Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted of murder "as civilians". If you can tell me how they could be guilty of murder as civilians, that would be interesting. Of course, given this current decision, that should lead the way to them being charged for "abuse of power" in their official positions, which IIRC is already under way.

I guess if Yingluck can be impeached as PM while a civilian, then Abhisit can be found guilty as a civilian while PM. The illogic should work in both directions, or is there bias going on?

She isn't being charged AS a civilian. She is being charged for something she did AS PM by the courts that deal with cases against holders of political office.

Abhisit was charged with premeditated murder for orders he gave to the army to carry live ammunition AS a civilian IN civilian courts, not AS the PM.

Also, if you're suggesting that Yingluck shouldn't be charged because she is no longer PM, then you would also agree that Abhisit shouldn't be charged because he is no longer PM.

You do realize there is a difference between criminal charges and impeachment, do you?

You do understand there is a difference between giving orders to the army as PM and doing it as a civilian?

That's a confusing response. The PM was a civilian, and it is debatable if the military ever took orders it didn't like from Thailand's civilian leadership.

My point on impeachment is that in the rest of the world people who are no longer in office aren't impeached. That was the case in Thailand until the current junta started making up the rules as it went.

[whybother]

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

The CIVILIAN charges were dropped. The civilian court said that the courts for political office holders should deal with them. Seeing as Abhisit was the PM that seems to be the right place to deal with it, not the civilian courts.

[whybother]

That's a confusing response. The PM was a civilian, and it is debatable if the military ever took orders it didn't like from Thailand's civilian leadership.

My point on impeachment is that in the rest of the world people who are no longer in office aren't impeached. That was the case in Thailand until the current junta started making up the rules as it went.

The PM was a "political office holder" (ie PM). He wasn't an ordinary citizen.

If the army don't take orders from civilians, then how can Abhisit be charged with ordering the army to carry live ammunition?

"

1. Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

"

[heybruce]

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

The CIVILIAN charges were dropped. The civilian court said that the courts for political office holders should deal with them. Seeing as Abhisit was the PM that seems to be the right place to deal with it, not the civilian courts.

The civilian charges were dropped, and replaced with what?

[heybruce]

That's a confusing response. The PM was a civilian, and it is debatable if the military ever took orders it didn't like from Thailand's civilian leadership.

My point on impeachment is that in the rest of the world people who are no longer in office aren't impeached. That was the case in Thailand until the current junta started making up the rules as it went.

The PM was a "political office holder" (ie PM). He wasn't an ordinary citizen.

If the army don't take orders from civilians, then how can Abhisit be charged with ordering the army to carry live ammunition?

"

1. Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

"

Right, whoever is responsible for the army carrying and using live ammunition should be charged, be it Abhisit and/or a military commander. What are the chances of that happening?

Your definition of impeachment supports my other point, it's applied to officials, not former officials. It's a means of firing people, and you don't fire people who have already left the job. It's a bit simplistic, but the Thai legal scholar agrees:

"Ms. Somlak said she also opposed the impeachment of Ms. Yingluck, the former prime minister and sister of Mr. Thaksin. The National Legislative Assembly did not have the authority to impeach her, she said. The junta has also not fully explained how a person who is no longer in power can be impeached.

Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

[jdinasia]

The only reason the yellow shirts are less violent is because the army/courts inevitably give them what they want before it goes that far.

Fallacious argument.

[tbthailand]

OK, well then I misunderstood your intention. My apologies.

That said, I do not find the yellow shirts to be relatively less violent than the red shirts. There are differences however I would argue that the different levels of violence are due to the relative escalation of violence over time, and the political environment (eg: reaction of the sitting government).

I know logic is not your strong suit. If "I (ie you) do not find the yellow shirts to be relatively less violent than the red shirts" and "There are differences" which rules out equality, the only logical conclusion is that you think the yellows are MORE" violent, which flys in the face of all evidence.

However since "the different levels of violence are due to the relative escalation of violence over time," and since 2008 nearly all the violence has been red initiated, you are either very confused or a red apologist trying to baffle us with BS.

Halloween, you really are just clueless and have nooooo idea what you are talking about.

Save your breath...

quack.... quack...

Edited February 10, 2015 by tbthailand

[tbthailand]

The only reason the yellow shirts are less violent is because the army/courts inevitably give them what they want before it goes that far.

Fallacious argument.

The level of overall violence is due to both sides.

his argument has merit. In 2013/14 there were 30 people killed over a period of more than 6 months in 2010 there were over 90 people killed in a period of 2 months. The level of violence in 2010 was not a result of only one side and their actions. It was the mix. The government was much more violent and aggressive in 2010 vs 2013/14. There was a corresponding greater level of violence overall.

[halloween]

The level of overall violence is due to both sides.

his argument has merit. In 2013/14 there were 30 people killed over a period of more than 6 months in 2010 there were over 90 people killed in a period of 2 months. The level of violence in 2010 was not a result of only one side and their actions. It was the mix. The government was much more violent and aggressive in 2010 vs 2013/14. There was a corresponding greater level of violence overall.

Finally an admission that the 2010 events were more violent than those in 2013/14, without ever mentioning red shirts, or black shirts, or RPGs, or M79 grenades, or the many arson attacks.

[whybother]

Right, whoever is responsible for the army carrying and using live ammunition should be charged, be it Abhisit and/or a military commander. What are the chances of that happening?

Your definition of impeachment supports my other point, it's applied to officials, not former officials. It's a means of firing people, and you don't fire people who have already left the job. It's a bit simplistic, but the Thai legal scholar agrees:

"Ms. Somlak said she also opposed the impeachment of Ms. Yingluck, the former prime minister and sister of Mr. Thaksin. The National Legislative Assembly did not have the authority to impeach her, she said. The junta has also not fully explained how a person who is no longer in power can be impeached.

Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Are people that are responsible for police carrying live ammunition charged with anything?

IF Abhisit has done something wrong in authorising the army to carry live ammunition, he should be charged AS Prime Minister, not as an ordinary civilian.

Yingluck is being charged with something WHILE she was Prime Minister. If you've done something wrong, it doesn't just get wiped away because you're no longer in the position.

[whybother]

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

The CIVILIAN charges were dropped. The civilian court said that the courts for political office holders should deal with them. Seeing as Abhisit was the PM that seems to be the right place to deal with it, not the civilian courts.

The civilian charges were dropped, and replaced with what?

Apparently at this stage they haven't been replaced with anything.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/789426-nacc-stalls-over-difficult-prosecution-of-2010-crackdown/

Authorising the military to carry live ammunition to deal with protesters that were also carrying live ammunition is difficult to prosecute. Do you think he should have sent the army out their with riot shields to deal with people shooting at them?

[2fishin2]

Riots and protests arent child's play. Play with fire....gonna get burned.

BREAKING ALERT! Police and military people carry guns, therefore live ammo is used.

PMs arent directly responsible or accountable for the actions of the individual officers/troops on the ground. That is responsibility if front line officers and leaders.

If children are involved in protests or near the activities, they are just as likely to get hurt or killed as adults.

Use of force to control violent protests means people will get hurt. Don't like it, don't protest.

Protests are the ultimate in selfishness.

This is Thailand.........

[lildragon]

So the junta have said due to 'lack of evidence' that Apphisit and Suthep will NOT be charged for anything relating to 2010. Well I for one am VERY surprised by that

That's not me sticking up for actions of the other side, but when one can get away with everything due to bias and the other gets the book thrown at them, you gotta wonder where this 'reconciliation' is gonna come from.

[tbthailand]

The level of overall violence is due to both sides.

his argument has merit. In 2013/14 there were 30 people killed over a period of more than 6 months in 2010 there were over 90 people killed in a period of 2 months. The level of violence in 2010 was not a result of only one side and their actions. It was the mix. The government was much more violent and aggressive in 2010 vs 2013/14. There was a corresponding greater level of violence overall.

Finally an admission that the 2010 events were more violent than those in 2013/14, without ever mentioning red shirts, or black shirts, or RPGs, or M79 grenades, or the many arson attacks.

I also didn't mention live fire zones, army snipers, dead journalists, targeted assassination, or the Wat+BTS...

so what?

[heybruce]

Right, whoever is responsible for the army carrying and using live ammunition should be charged, be it Abhisit and/or a military commander. What are the chances of that happening?

Your definition of impeachment supports my other point, it's applied to officials, not former officials. It's a means of firing people, and you don't fire people who have already left the job. It's a bit simplistic, but the Thai legal scholar agrees:

"Ms. Somlak said she also opposed the impeachment of Ms. Yingluck, the former prime minister and sister of Mr. Thaksin. The National Legislative Assembly did not have the authority to impeach her, she said. The junta has also not fully explained how a person who is no longer in power can be impeached.

Somlak Judkrabuanphol, an adviser at the commission who is also a law professor and a former Supreme Court judge" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Are people that are responsible for police carrying live ammunition charged with anything?

IF Abhisit has done something wrong in authorising the army to carry live ammunition, he should be charged AS Prime Minister, not as an ordinary civilian.

Yingluck is being charged with something WHILE she was Prime Minister. If you've done something wrong, it doesn't just get wiped away because you're no longer in the position.

"Are people that are responsible for police carrying live ammunition charged with anything?"

That is accepted practice in Thailand and other countries.

"Yingluck is being charged with something WHILE she was Prime Minister. If you've done something wrong, it doesn't just get wiped away because you're no longer in the position."

I see, you know Thai law better than a Thai legal scholar and former supreme court justice. If people break laws they can face legal charges until the statute of limitations expire. Office holders can only be impeached while they are in office, or if there is a rule by decree military strongman in charge who ignores past laws and legal precedents.

[heybruce]

Riots and protests arent child's play. Play with fire....gonna get burned.

BREAKING ALERT! Police and military people carry guns, therefore live ammo is used.

PMs arent directly responsible or accountable for the actions of the individual officers/troops on the ground. That is responsibility if front line officers and leaders.

If children are involved in protests or near the activities, they are just as likely to get hurt or killed as adults.

Use of force to control violent protests means people will get hurt. Don't like it, don't protest.

Protests are the ultimate in selfishness.

This is Thailand.........

"PMs arent directly responsible or accountable for the actions of the individual officers/troops on the ground. That is responsibility if front line officers and leaders."

So you think Prayuth should be charged?

[heybruce]

So 90 people die and charges are dropped, in a manner that at least one Thai legal scholar finds inexplicable. 2 people die and a junta with an agenda files charges and the Prayuth fan club celebrate.

The CIVILIAN charges were dropped. The civilian court said that the courts for political office holders should deal with them. Seeing as Abhisit was the PM that seems to be the right place to deal with it, not the civilian courts.

The civilian charges were dropped, and replaced with what?

Apparently at this stage they haven't been replaced with anything.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/789426-nacc-stalls-over-difficult-prosecution-of-2010-crackdown/

Authorising the military to carry live ammunition to deal with protesters that were also carrying live ammunition is difficult to prosecute. Do you think he should have sent the army out their with riot shields to deal with people shooting at them?

That gets back to the selective prosecution of the OP: 90 people were killed in 2010, including an unarmed reporter and a nurse attempting to help injured people in a temple courtyard, both killed by shots fired from military positions, and the PM and military commanders aren't charged. Two people were killed in the 2008, probably by defective tear gas cannisters (there's some debate about that) and the PM is charged. That may seem reasonable to you, but many others disagree.