NACC To Prosecute Former PM For Yellowshirt Crackdown

[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.........

"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?

Like I said, this is Thailand. Actually the military has proven over the course of 83 years, 12 successful and 7 unsuccessful coups that they are in charge and they can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do about what is right or wrong. There is no way in heck that the Pman would ever be charged.

[Langsuan Man]

I love the Thainess of it all

[rubl]

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.

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Anyway, it would seem to discuss the fair chance former PM Somchai will get to explain and clear his name is not appreciated by all democracy lovers here. Amazing really.

[rubl]

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.

Please refresh my memory, the topic is really on former PM Somchai getting charged with "abuse of power"? The opportunity to put behind him all accusations and finally clear his good name?

[rubl]

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.

Don't you think it would be unfair to include the 2010 deaths in the "abuse of power" charges against former PM Somchai?

[heybruce]

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.

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Anyway, it would seem to discuss the fair chance former PM Somchai will get to explain and clear his name is not appreciated by all democracy lovers here. Amazing really.

"Do you ever read posts before you reply?"

Always, which is why I commented on the absurdity of you straying far from topic then running for the cover of "on-topic" when your ridiculous off-topic statements are exposed.

[heybruce]

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.

Please refresh my memory, the topic is really on former PM Somchai getting charged with "abuse of power"? The opportunity to put behind him all accusations and finally clear his good name?

Yes, but it's natural to point out the absurdity of the junta abusing power with selective prosecutions. And just as Yingluck was impeached even though she no longer held an office to be impeached from, I've no doubt Somchai will be convicted of something, regardless of lack of credible evidence or applicable laws.

Are you still avoiding uncensored western press that might expose you to ideas the junta disapproves of? The western press has concluded the obvious; Prayuth has given up any pretense of impartiality and "bridging" the divide, and is now concentrating on keeping the royalists on-side by selective prosecution of those associated with the Shinawatras. So much for peace and reconciliation.

[heybruce]

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.

Don't you think it would be unfair to include the 2010 deaths in the "abuse of power" charges against former PM Somchai?

You've got to post a reply even when you have nothing to say, don't you?

[Jay Sata]

All this keeps the conversation flowing around Thaksin's breakfast table.

All that money in the bank but too many problems in his life to enjoy it.

Not to mention the loss of Shin face.

How do you put a price on that.

[rubl]

"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.

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Anyway, it would seem to discuss the fair chance former PM Somchai will get to explain and clear his name is not appreciated by all democracy lovers here. Amazing really.

"Do you ever read posts before you reply?"

Always, which is why I commented on the absurdity of you straying far from topic then running for the cover of "on-topic" when your ridiculous off-topic statements are exposed.

So, you don't want to discuss the former PM Somchai I guess?

[rubl]

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.

Please refresh my memory, the topic is really on former PM Somchai getting charged with "abuse of power"? The opportunity to put behind him all accusations and finally clear his good name?

Yes, but it's natural to point out the absurdity of the junta abusing power with selective prosecutions. And just as Yingluck was impeached even though she no longer held an office to be impeached from, I've no doubt Somchai will be convicted of something, regardless of lack of credible evidence or applicable laws.

Are you still avoiding uncensored western press that might expose you to ideas the junta disapproves of? The western press has concluded the obvious; Prayuth has given up any pretense of impartiality and "bridging" the divide, and is now concentrating on keeping the royalists on-side by selective prosecution of those associated with the Shinawatras. So much for peace and reconciliation.

So, you dislike former PM Somchai getting a chance to formally defend himself, clear his good name? All that too democratic for you, too selective? Better divert to whatever and so?

Well, sorry, but even without your approval former PM Somchai will get his day in court and be able to defend himself. Thatis assuming the Supreme Court will accept the documentation of the OAG as sufficient to really start the case. The Supreme Court may be the right court for a case of "abuse of power", but the prosecutor has to be able to make it stick. Of course k. somchai and his defence team will get all documentation the OAG presents with lodging the case.

[rubl]

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.

Don't you think it would be unfair to include the 2010 deaths in the "abuse of power" charges against former PM Somchai?

You've got to post a reply even when you have nothing to say, don't you?

My dear chap, I'm just trying to make sure former PM Somchai gets a fair chance. If you think that's unnecessary as you seem to think he may not deserve it, I really start to wonder about you.

[heybruce]

All this keeps the conversation flowing around Thaksin's breakfast table.

All that money in the bank but too many problems in his life to enjoy it.

Not to mention the loss of Shin face.

How do you put a price on that.

Go for it rubl! Tell him he's off-topic!

[rubl]

All this keeps the conversation flowing around Thaksin's breakfast table.

All that money in the bank but too many problems in his life to enjoy it.

Not to mention the loss of Shin face.

How do you put a price on that.

Go for it rubl! Tell him he's off-topic!

Well, with Thaksin telling his MPs to elect his brother-in-law Somchai as new PM rather than tell them to re-elect the now late Samak, It might be that Thaksin still has an interest in this case. After all former PM Somchai seemed only busy with the case of his 'self-exiled' brother-in-law rather than the country and it's economical dangers what with the banker crisis worldwide.

Of course with Somchai not delivering and Thaksin even 'being forced' to jump bail, it could be that Thaksin couldn't care less now.

Pity, k. Somchai is entitled to help from those he tried to help now that he himself is being charged.

[jdinasia]

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.

Legal precedent is not at all binding in Thailand.

The impeachment is odd but certainly valid under Thai law

[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.

Legal precedent is not at all binding in Thailand.

The impeachment is odd but certainly valid under Thai law

Good point. Under a military government with a suspended constitution the law is whatever the junta says it is.

[jdinasia]

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.

Legal precedent is not at all binding in Thailand.

The impeachment is odd but certainly valid under Thai law

Good point. Under a military government with a suspended constitution the law is whatever the junta says it is.

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

[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.

Legal precedent is not at all binding in Thailand.

The impeachment is odd but certainly valid under Thai law

Good point. Under a military government with a suspended constitution the law is whatever the junta says it is.

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

[jdinasia]

She offered an opinion. If you understand that precedent means one set of judges from the Supreme Court can rule one way and another can rule differently.

You may want to look more into Somlak Judkrabuanphol

Edited February 14, 2015 by jdinasia

[rubl]

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

[TheDiva]

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

Try google. It was mentioned in the Bangkok Post only yesterday. The OAG turned down a complaint against Somchai in 2012. The NACC, good lapdogs that they are, revived it and the Supreme Court, likewise, took it on.

[heybruce]

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

I referenced an expert on Thai law, something few other posters have done.

Regarding the referendum, I think Thailand should have a referendum on much more than this matter.

[rubl]

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

Try google. It was mentioned in the Bangkok Post only yesterday. The OAG turned down a complaint against Somchai in 2012. The NACC, good lapdogs that they are, revived it and the Supreme Court, likewise, took it on.

I tried yahoo and the only references are from the last week and only mention 2012-10-09 and that the OAG ordered the dismissal of the case they had started themselves.

Till now no further information. Maybe the OAG was finding itself pressured to concentrate on charging Abhisit/Suthep instead?

[rubl]

I understand that you have less than a happy feeling for the current situation, but these cases are not being tried in a military court. The organic laws remain. One judge can rule one way and another make a totally different decision here and not even previous higher court decisions are binding. This does lead to more reversals in higher courts and is one reason bail is often granted after a conviction while the appeals process continues.

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

I referenced an expert on Thai law, something few other posters have done.

Regarding the referendum, I think Thailand should have a referendum on much more than this matter.

With any topic seen as political one can find experts pro and experts contra. Who one likes to believe depends on ones point of view it would seem.

BTW the dear old lady was even member of the NACC of this topic. At least in 2009, but maybe before already. It would seem that in her days the NACC already worked on the dossier on the 'abuse of power' case.

[heybruce]

Perhaps you can explain that to law professor and former supreme court judge Somlak Judkrabuanphol:

"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.

Ms. Somlak, 74, is no insurgent. But she says the military could interpret her comments as threatening and fears that she, too, could be summoned by soldiers." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/thailand-junta-drowning-the-opposition-in-paperwork.html?_r=3

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

I referenced an expert on Thai law, something few other posters have done.

Regarding the referendum, I think Thailand should have a referendum on much more than this matter.

With any topic seen as political one can find experts pro and experts contra. Who one likes to believe depends on ones point of view it would seem.

BTW the dear old lady was even member of the NACC of this topic. At least in 2009, but maybe before already. It would seem that in her days the NACC already worked on the dossier on the 'abuse of power' case.

So...what Thai legal experts say it is acceptable to impeach someone who is no longer in office?

[rubl]

Other people though differently. Do you think you should hold a referendum on this issue?

In the mean time though the NACC will charge former PM Somchai with "abuse of power" in relation to a situation in November 2008. K. Somchai who made of sterner stuff than his sister-in-law it would seem is ready to defend himself.

BTW still unable to find an article on this

"The NACC had earlier filed a lawsuit against him with the Office of the Attorney General and the OAG on Oct 9, 2012 ordered the dismissal of the case."

I referenced an expert on Thai law, something few other posters have done.

Regarding the referendum, I think Thailand should have a referendum on much more than this matter.

With any topic seen as political one can find experts pro and experts contra. Who one likes to believe depends on ones point of view it would seem.

BTW the dear old lady was even member of the NACC of this topic. At least in 2009, but maybe before already. It would seem that in her days the NACC already worked on the dossier on the 'abuse of power' case.

So...what Thai legal experts say it is acceptable to impeach someone who is no longer in office?

Does it matter for this topic on the former PM Somchai that even Ms. Yingluck and her legal team acknowledged the legal right of the NLA to start and finish the impeachment procedure, already by simply being there? And no need to come with the line "she had to", too many posters here told me she didn't have to.

So shall we stay with the 2008 case for a moment? Do we have more info on why the OAG withdrew their formal charge in September 2012? Something brought up by the former PM Somchai as part of his innocence and defence statement. I wonder what information they presented in the original charge to justify the charging. That info may still be used, by both sides of course.

Edited February 16, 2015 by rubl

[jdinasia]

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

wow another piece of 'non-discrimination'?

No, the time for justice has come for some politicians that avoided the law for years.

And yet the CDC is proposing a law that would regulate people's assembly, specifically preventing them from blocking and occupying government facilities such as the Government House! How one instance is abuse of power and the other isn't is guided only by political COLOR. Your idea of justice is that it is legitimate as a means used to serve a particular ideology.

Again you seem to be missing that you are talking about something different. This case is about a crackdown, not about the CDC. Should the CDC get a law passed that prohibits some locations from public protest, it will still be different.

[heybruce]

I referenced an expert on Thai law, something few other posters have done.

Regarding the referendum, I think Thailand should have a referendum on much more than this matter.

With any topic seen as political one can find experts pro and experts contra. Who one likes to believe depends on ones point of view it would seem.

BTW the dear old lady was even member of the NACC of this topic. At least in 2009, but maybe before already. It would seem that in her days the NACC already worked on the dossier on the 'abuse of power' case.

So...what Thai legal experts say it is acceptable to impeach someone who is no longer in office?

Does it matter for this topic on the former PM Somchai that even Ms. Yingluck and her legal team acknowledged the legal right of the NLA to start and finish the impeachment procedure, already by simply being there? And no need to come with the line "she had to", too many posters here told me she didn't have to.

So shall we stay with the 2008 case for a moment? Do we have more info on why the OAG withdrew their formal charge in September 2012? Something brought up by the former PM Somchai as part of his innocence and defence statement. I wonder what information they presented in the original charge to justify the charging. That info may still be used, by both sides of course.

The junta suspended the constitution and is making the rules up as it goes. YIngluck comes when summoned rather than have men in uniform come and take her. And my impression of you is that you don't accept what "too many posters here told me" unless you want to. I'll stick with the Thai law professor and former Supreme Court judge who questions the legal basis of impeaching someone who is out of office.

[The manic]

The whole point of a coup, in any country, is to suspend the rule of law. It is the ultimate illegal act.