Former Thai leaders may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown

[h90]

It was really handled badly.

He should have let the police do more from the beginning and it would be a great chance for a big purge of the corrupt police leader.....not doing...neglect of duty...next one....

It might still have ended the same but at least there would be more evidence.

[Thaddeus]

Can hear all the gnashing of teeth of the TV red shirts - trying to think of what to say that this turn of events...

Makes you wonder what the comments would have been if the NACC had declared to see no valid reasons to further investigate a possible case of "abuse of power" involving Abhisit/Suthep

PS will former PM Somchai lodge a defamation case against the NACC since they didn't deem him important enough for impeachment, but directly went to the Supreme Court with the "abuse of power' case ?

As you may know my view is that both Abhisit and Suthep have serious questions to answer about this period.Nevertheless it is also my strongly held view that this matter has nothing repeat nothing to do with the NACC.They should mind their own damned business and concentrate on eradicating corruption, their only purpose for existence.

It doesn't take a genius to work out this latest piece of tomfoolery is more evidence of out of control right wing crazies.

It's a moot point but they seem to regard abuse of power as corruption and therefore it falls under the NACC sphere. I guess it's just how they interpret things.

But yes, it's a bit curious to say the least, why after all this time the NACC suddenly decide this.

Maybe Abhisit and Suthep are seen by some to be too "center right" or simply no longer wanted and past their sell by date.

Or it could just be something as simple as wanting to appear to not just be going for one side.

[CaptHaddock]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

There is no genuine democracy in the world where the courts can dissolve political parties or remove the head of government from office. In all genuine democracies the courts owe their allegiance only to the constitution, but not in Thailand. In most democracies it is the executive and/or the elected legislature that selects judges, but not in Thailand under the 2007 soldier's constitution, where the half-appointed Senate chose them. Those undemocratic features, along with the creation of "independent" agencies, like the National Anti-Corruption Council, held vast powers outside of elected officials including the apparent "right" to impeach the President of the Senate.

The next constitution will even more fully ensure that elected officials are under the firm control of the very much un-elected ammart.

[GeckosDiving]

Not only were unarmed protesters wounded and killed but also bystanders, including a boy, were killed.

Yep bystanders and ordinary citizens going about their business like the lady in the skytrain station that was killed by a deliberate grenade attack on that station.

And how many others killed by grenade and rifle fire by the armed element of the "Peaceful protesters" ?

As yet I have seen no logical reason for the riots to have started in the first place, except the greed and hunger for power of Thaksin who funded them then sat in luxury while his paid thugs urged their their followers to overthrow a legal government by any means including arson.

The red shirts in 2010 were calling for elections, the fundamental right of citizens in a democracy not to have a govt imposed on them by a coup! Their actions in 2010 led to the election with a majority of Yingluck in 2011, the clear choice of the Thai electorate. At that point, according to later remarks by Suthep, he and Prayut started planning to remove Yingluck from power illegally.

[Baerboxer]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

There is no genuine democracy in the world where the courts can dissolve political parties or remove the head of government from office. In all genuine democracies the courts owe their allegiance only to the constitution, but not in Thailand. In most democracies it is the executive and/or the elected legislature that selects judges, but not in Thailand under the 2007 soldier's constitution, where the half-appointed Senate chose them. Those undemocratic features, along with the creation of "independent" agencies, like the National Anti-Corruption Council, held vast powers outside of elected officials including the apparent "right" to impeach the President of the Senate.

The next constitution will even more fully ensure that elected officials are under the firm control of the very much un-elected ammart.

Stalin, Mao etc would be proud of you.

Thaksin should be whitewashed, brought back with due pomp and ceremony, allowed to stand for election of if his minority is large enough again be allowed to govern without any rear of removal no matter how many laws he disregards, how many other crimes he might commit or whatever he does. Moreover he should be allowed to control the government (executive), the parliament, the police and the judiciary and justice system.

Yep that will work - total democracy, transparency and accountability. Vote Shin - you know it makes sense.

Why do you think the US, a republic with democratic traditions allows impeachment of it's President whereas the People's Democratic Republics and Soviets don't?

Ah of course, their leaders are "elected" and faithfully serve the people, just like Thaksin would.

[FangFerang]

Abhisit failed to win elections and Suthep swears he will never be in politics again...so from a strategic standpoint, this makes sense. They make it look like all sides are under the gun, but it's a red herring. Neither Abhisit nor Suthep will face dereliction of duty charges, like Yingluck is being prosecuted for, because killing a few hundred protesters is okay -- as evidenced by the student riots and other killing fields in recent Thai history.

Work for the elite and kill people? No problem!

Work for the wrong people and be as corrupt as everyone else? No way!

[NanLaew]

How do you impeach someone that is not in office and hasn't been for years?

It called Thai impeachment. Not same same farang impeachment.

Farang mai loo luang, ching ching.

[bassman]

Yingluck, Suthep or Abhiset, regardless, this whole impeachment business is a colossal waste of time.

Not really. It seems to me to be a means of eliminating any threat regardless of whether it's red, yellow or skybluepink which could threaten the PM either now or at sometime in the future.

Like it or not, this guy is not going to go pack his bags come 2016. The Thai ship is gradually sailing into the muddy waters of authoritarianism with your favorite PM at the helm.

If they're all found guilty and impeached, then they can't contest an election for five years... and the odds of a national election within five years... not looking good at the moment...

but if there is one then watch and see how anyone impeached will find a way to have their impeachment backdated, so Suthep and Abhisit could run again in... hmmm...let me see... 2010 +5 years...2015...

like I said, all a big waste of time, surely there are better things they could be investigating.

Kerry my thoughts exactly, impeached and found guilty in 2010, banned from politics for five years and not eligible to run until...2016.

[Old Man River]

Suthep must be scratching his head,after all he did all the leg work to enable the coup to take place and now this.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Too bad they won't actually follow through with this.

I expect they will follow through with this.

The charge is not criminal malfeasance and the penalty is a 5 year ban from politics. The current government intends on decreasing the power of politicians and this is in that direction.

[candide]

Suthep must be scratching his head,after all he did all the leg work to enable the coup to take place and now this.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Too bad they won't actually follow through with this.

I expect they will follow through with this.

The charge is not criminal malfeasance and the penalty is a 5 year ban from politics. The current government intends on decreasing the power of politicians and this is in that direction.

So you admit that the NACC follows directions set by the current gouvernement!

[Robby nz]

Not only were unarmed protesters wounded and killed but also bystanders, including a boy, were killed.

Yep bystanders and ordinary citizens going about their business like the lady in the skytrain station that was killed by a deliberate grenade attack on that station.

And how many others killed by grenade and rifle fire by the armed element of the "Peaceful protesters" ?

As yet I have seen no logical reason for the riots to have started in the first place, except the greed and hunger for power of Thaksin who funded them then sat in luxury while his paid thugs urged their their followers to overthrow a legal government by any means including arson.

The red shirts in 2010 were calling for elections, the fundamental right of citizens in a democracy not to have a govt imposed on them by a coup! Their actions in 2010 led to the election with a majority of Yingluck in 2011, the clear choice of the Thai electorate. At that point, according to later remarks by Suthep, he and Prayut started planning to remove Yingluck from power illegally.

I think you are going to have to go and read up on some real Thai history instead of red BS.

What Govt imposed on them by a coup ?

There had been 2 Thaksin puppet Govts between the 2006 coup and the Abhisit Govt which was formed by the Democrats in a coalition with the minor parties in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy parties.

They were calling for an election halfway through the term of a legal Government, Why ?

Their actions in 2010 led to the deaths of 91 people and over a thousand injuries at least a third and probably up to half of those caused directly by the guns and grenades of their armed element.

They were offered early elections in exchange for calling off the riots. The leaders accepted this yet next day reneged on the deal and elected to carry on knowing full well that that decision would lead to their rioters having to be removed by force and the consequences of that decision.

The last sentence is pure red lies.

[AleG]

I certainly don't believe the Shin PR machines attempt at re-writing history to be more favorable to their boss, as some do and keep repeating here.

Of course, you are free to believe Suthep's version of events, and the Shin PR distortions of history if you want to.

I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers.

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

[heybruce]

I certainly don't believe the Shin PR machines attempt at re-writing history to be more favorable to their boss, as some do and keep repeating here.

Of course, you are free to believe Suthep's version of events, and the Shin PR distortions of history if you want to.

I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers.

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

Are you upset because I exposed the fallacy in your favorite argument against Yingluck?

She was in charge. Every leader seeks and acts upon advice, but they are responsible for the advice they listen to and the actions they take.

[Robby nz]

I certainly don't believe the Shin PR machines attempt at re-writing history to be more favorable to their boss, as some do and keep repeating here.

Of course, you are free to believe Suthep's version of events, and the Shin PR distortions of history if you want to.

I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers.

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

Are you upset because I exposed the fallacy in your favorite argument against Yingluck?

She was in charge. Every leader seeks and acts upon advice, but they are responsible for the advice they listen to and the actions they take.

The great problem is she didn't act on the advice (and warnings) she was given over the term of the pledging scheme (do I really have to again post all the links to the advice she was given ?).

That of course is the reason for the charges against her and as you say she is responsible.

[Enoon]

CaptHaddock wrote:

"I understand the Thai ammart supporting fascism that is,after all, in their economic interests. I have a hard time understanding Westerners who probably have experience with democracy, however flawed, becoming neo-fascist when they arrive in the Land of Smiles."

They don’t become neo-fascists when they arrive. These are the people that tell you the USA is “Socialist” or, as Fox News lied, that Birmingham (UK) is a “Moslem-Only” city.

They come precisely because they recognise “their beloved Thailand” as a haven for neo-fascists like them.

And they want it to stay that way.

[toybits]

"Just going through the motions - folks. Move along now, nothing here. We all know how this is going to end. Move along now."

[heybruce]

"I guess you don't see anything wrong with a non elected criminal fugitive running the government and personally selecting senior police officers."

Yingluck campaigned on the promise to be "Thaksin's clone" and her party won the election by a wide margin, indicating the voters approved. Once in office she listened to her brother and frequently acted upon his advice, indicating that she kept her campaign promise. No formal charge against this has been filed, indicating that it was legal.

In summary, a campaign promise was made, it was kept, and no one has shown it to be illegal. Clearly you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The voters should have been given the option to show if they liked it during the next election, but that right was taken away.

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

Are you upset because I exposed the fallacy in your favorite argument against Yingluck?

She was in charge. Every leader seeks and acts upon advice, but they are responsible for the advice they listen to and the actions they take.

The great problem is she didn't act on the advice (and warnings) she was given over the term of the pledging scheme (do I really have to again post all the links to the advice she was given ?).

That of course is the reason for the charges against her and as you say she is responsible.

I was explaining to Baerboxer and AlexG why Yingluck was in charge even if she listened to Thaksin's advice, so your reply is going into a new direction, but, yes, she was responsible for the rice pledging scheme. I always thought the rice pledging scheme was stupid and doomed to failure.

I also always thought it was up to the Thai voters to pass judgment on her performance in office by way of an election, unless it could be shown she did something illegal then the courts should get involved. I have never argued that she was a good Prime Minister, my argument has always been against the coup, military rule, and the subversion of democracy.

[yellowboat]

Think this is just theatre and a waste of time. The general and elitists are just making themselves look foolish, while they forge ahead with another constitution. It is all so very broken

[AleG]

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

Are you upset because I exposed the fallacy in your favorite argument against Yingluck?

She was in charge. Every leader seeks and acts upon advice, but they are responsible for the advice they listen to and the actions they take.

The only thing you have exposed is your cognitive dissonance, as in saying you are against subverting democracy and simultaneously carrying water for people that have done nothing but subvert democracy to serve their own purposes.

[kareona]

Next: impeach Prayut Chanocha for an illegal coup which also, together with Suthep's demonstrations, did more damage to the Thai economy than Yingluck's rice scheme.

[heybruce]

Talking about PR spin to rewrite history in favour of Thaksin...

I guess she was lying all those times she insisted she was the one in charge and making decisions.

Are you upset because I exposed the fallacy in your favorite argument against Yingluck?

She was in charge. Every leader seeks and acts upon advice, but they are responsible for the advice they listen to and the actions they take.

The only thing you have exposed is your cognitive dissonance, as in saying you are against subverting democracy and simultaneously carrying water for people that have done nothing but subvert democracy to serve their own purposes.

Care to explain how the Yingluck government subverted democracy? Before you cry "vote buying", remember that the 2011 election results were declared legitimate by both ANFREL: http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html and one of Suthep's advisors:

"But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”." http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/thailand-s-protests

Or perhaps you meant the junta is more democratic than the government it toppled. Is that it?

[casualbiker]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

There is no genuine democracy in the world where the courts can dissolve political parties or remove the head of government from office. In all genuine democracies the courts owe their allegiance only to the constitution, but not in Thailand. In most democracies it is the executive and/or the elected legislature that selects judges, but not in Thailand under the 2007 soldier's constitution, where the half-appointed Senate chose them. Those undemocratic features, along with the creation of "independent" agencies, like the National Anti-Corruption Council, held vast powers outside of elected officials including the apparent "right" to impeach the President of the Senate.

The next constitution will even more fully ensure that elected officials are under the firm control of the very much un-elected ammart.

South Korea just did it : http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/15/korea-left-troubles.html

It's happened in Spain. Egypt and Turkey.

[TheDiva]

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so. It's so much easier to suggest it's obvious and insinuate only morons or right wing fascists wouldn't see that.

It's know as 'judicial coup' by those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms why that would be so.

To be expected from someone who referred to the 2007 constitution as being "mainly the 1997 Constitution with clarifications", completely ignoring the shift of power to the senate and judiciary, both being reliant on, and self perpetuating each other (wrt to the insistence on appointed Senators in the 2007 and the latest power grab versions of the constitution).

Strangely enough it's not just those "those who like labels as they are not up to explaining in legal terms" that use the term "judicial coup". Academics have been known to describe the phenomenon as such.

Try googling "thailand judicial coup" or "thailand juristocracy", you may be enlightened - or you could stick with your assertion that it's just a label for people who don't understand what's going on.

Enjoy your "intervention"..............................

Edited February 25, 2015 by TheDiva

[tbthailand]

Not only were unarmed protesters wounded and killed but also bystanders, including a boy, were killed.

Yep bystanders and ordinary citizens going about their business like the lady in the skytrain station that was killed by a deliberate grenade attack on that station.

And how many others killed by grenade and rifle fire by the armed element of the "Peaceful protesters" ?

As yet I have seen no logical reason for the riots to have started in the first place, except the greed and hunger for power of Thaksin who funded them then sat in luxury while his paid thugs urged their their followers to overthrow a legal government by any means including arson.

The red shirts in 2010 were calling for elections, the fundamental right of citizens in a democracy not to have a govt imposed on them by a coup! Their actions in 2010 led to the election with a majority of Yingluck in 2011, the clear choice of the Thai electorate. At that point, according to later remarks by Suthep, he and Prayut started planning to remove Yingluck from power illegally.

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

" The sieges ended in December due to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, which dissolved the PPP and banned its executive board from political office after finding it

guilty of election fraud. The Constitutional Court dissolved two coalition partners of the PPP on similar charges, which broke the coalition apart. Prime minister Somchai resigned.

It is alleged that the army then urged MPs of a former PPP faction, the Friends of Newin Group, and MPs of the former PPP coalition partners to cross the aisle and form a coalition with the Democrat Party leaderAbhisit Vejjajiva. After days of negotiations, Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party, was voted in eventually by a margin of 235 in favor and 198 against."

It's certainly possible you're correct about the first part. With the exception that they were disqualified for election fraud. If they didn't do it they couldn't have been disqualified. The second part about Abhisit's government. He was elected PM in exactly the same way as every other PM including Somchai who he replaced. It's also a falsehood to say he was unelected he was an MP so he was certainly elected (he got the highest vote count)

If they didn't do it they couldn't have been disqualified.

The 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument doesn't work here. If that had been true then the Democrats would have been dissolved as well.

The second part about Abhisit's government. He was elected PM in exactly the same way as every other PM including Somchai who he replaced.

As you, and every apologist for Khun Abhisit know, that is completely false. It's just wrong and repeating it again and again doesn't change that.

It's also a falsehood to say he was unelected he was an MP so he was certainly elected (he got the highest vote count)

I have never claimed that he was not an elected MP and I have never seen that argument used to claim that his government was unelected. It's just irrelevant to the situation and only people who are trying to justify how he came to power ever pull that argument out of the drawer...

[jdinasia]

CaptHaddock wrote:

"I understand the Thai ammart supporting fascism that is,after all, in their economic interests. I have a hard time understanding Westerners who probably have experience with democracy, however flawed, becoming neo-fascist when they arrive in the Land of Smiles."

They don’t become neo-fascists when they arrive. These are the people that tell you the USA is “Socialist” or, as Fox News lied, that Birmingham (UK) is a “Moslem-Only” city.

They come precisely because they recognise “their beloved Thailand” as a haven for neo-fascists like them.

And they want it to stay that way.

Strangely you toss around words like fascist in the exact same manner that FOX tosses around their appellations.

The TRT approach to democracy wasn't any more democratic than what is in place now. There's hope for Thailand but it has to survive the change that is inevitable.

[casualbiker]

Not only were unarmed protesters wounded and killed but also bystanders, including a boy, were killed.

Yep bystanders and ordinary citizens going about their business like the lady in the skytrain station that was killed by a deliberate grenade attack on that station.

And how many others killed by grenade and rifle fire by the armed element of the "Peaceful protesters" ?

As yet I have seen no logical reason for the riots to have started in the first place, except the greed and hunger for power of Thaksin who funded them then sat in luxury while his paid thugs urged their their followers to overthrow a legal government by any means including arson.

The red shirts in 2010 were calling for elections, the fundamental right of citizens in a democracy not to have a govt imposed on them by a coup! Their actions in 2010 led to the election with a majority of Yingluck in 2011, the clear choice of the Thai electorate. At that point, according to later remarks by Suthep, he and Prayut started planning to remove Yingluck from power illegally.

Explain which government was imposed by a coup ?

In this case, it would have been the one from December 2008. Abhisit's government.

It's known as a judicial coup.

The same tactic may have been "Plan A" in 2014, but in the end, we just got an "intervention".

" The sieges ended in December due to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, which dissolved the PPP and banned its executive board from political office after finding it

guilty of election fraud. The Constitutional Court dissolved two coalition partners of the PPP on similar charges, which broke the coalition apart. Prime minister Somchai resigned.

It is alleged that the army then urged MPs of a former PPP faction, the Friends of Newin Group, and MPs of the former PPP coalition partners to cross the aisle and form a coalition with the Democrat Party leaderAbhisit Vejjajiva. After days of negotiations, Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party, was voted in eventually by a margin of 235 in favor and 198 against."

It's certainly possible you're correct about the first part. With the exception that they were disqualified for election fraud. If they didn't do it they couldn't have been disqualified. The second part about Abhisit's government. He was elected PM in exactly the same way as every other PM including Somchai who he replaced. It's also a falsehood to say he was unelected he was an MP so he was certainly elected (he got the highest vote count)

If they didn't do it they couldn't have been disqualified.

The 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument doesn't work here. If that had been true then the Democrats would have been dissolved as well.

The second part about Abhisit's government. He was elected PM in exactly the same way as every other PM including Somchai who he replaced.

As you, and every apologist for Khun Abhisit know, that is completely false. It's just wrong and repeating it again and again doesn't change that.

It's also a falsehood to say he was unelected he was an MP so he was certainly elected (he got the highest vote count)

I have never claimed that he was not an elected MP and I have never seen that argument used to claim that his government was unelected. It's just irrelevant to the situation and only people who are trying to justify how he came to power ever pull that argument out of the drawer...

You claim Abhisit wasn't elected in the same way as Samak and Somchai.. Expand and say why it's wrong !

You haven't claimed he was unelected but others have !

[CaptHaddock]

CaptHaddock wrote:

"I understand the Thai ammart supporting fascism that is,after all, in their economic interests. I have a hard time understanding Westerners who probably have experience with democracy, however flawed, becoming neo-fascist when they arrive in the Land of Smiles."

They don’t become neo-fascists when they arrive. These are the people that tell you the USA is “Socialist” or, as Fox News lied, that Birmingham (UK) is a “Moslem-Only” city.

They come precisely because they recognise “their beloved Thailand” as a haven for neo-fascists like them.

And they want it to stay that way.

Strangely you toss around words like fascist in the exact same manner that FOX tosses around their appellations.

The TRT approach to democracy wasn't any more democratic than what is in place now. There's hope for Thailand but it has to survive the change that is inevitable.

It's puzzling to me why Westerners like you hate Thaksin to the point of blinding yourself to the scale of the various crimes in Thai political life commit by the other side.

The Thaksin parties won all the elections since 2001 overwhelming all other parties. While Thaksin and his party, like the Democrats, probably did buy some votes, it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election according to independent observers. By contrast the coups in 2006 and 2014 stole the votes of every single Thai citizen by illegally taking power from lawfully elected governments. How can you believe that a democratically elected government is less democratic than a military junta that take absolute power by force puts you out there in cloud cuckoo land, in my opinion.

Did you not like the amnesty bill put forward by the Yingluck government (but then voluntarily withdrawn when faced with public opposition?) Then how is it that you prefer the military dictatorship that gave itself complete amnesty for all illegal acts it has commit and all illegals acts it may commit in the future, basically exempting itself from the rule of law?

Did you agree with the royalist Constitutional Courty when it removed Yingluck from office for transferring (not firing, not imprisoning, much less executing) a civil servant for political disloyalty? Then how did you feel when the junta transferred 200 police officers recently for just the same reason? Or for dismissing members of the boards of directors of the public enterprises and replacing them with military cronies?

Thaksin, for all that he certainly did abuse power in some ways, did not attempt a coup, did not suspend the constitution, did not dismiss the lawfully elected legislature and invent a new one out of thin air filled only with his cronies, did not round up opponents to be kept incommunicado in military camps subject to pressure and torture, did not ban public demonstrations, did not forbid public polls that criticized him or his policies, and so on.

For some reason the Thaksin haters here have no interest at all in weighing the crimes of one side against the other. Any infringement by the Thaksin camp justifies any degree of violence used against him or against the Thai electorate. It's not necessary to regard Thaksin as Nelson Mandela to view him as no where close to demonstrating the contempt for democracy and human rights shown by the coup faction. I understand that the ammart and the Bangkok middle class despise him for having empowered the rural people whom they regard variously as Lao foreigners and/or phrai not deserving of any human or political consideration at all. But it baffles me what Westerners should find attractive in that reactionary viewpoint.

[rametindallas]

Yingluck, Suthep or Abhiset, regardless, this whole impeachment business is a colossal waste of time.

Not really. It seems to me to be a means of eliminating any threat regardless of whether it's red, yellow or skybluepink which could threaten the PM either now or at sometime in the future.

Like it or not, this guy is not going to go pack his bags come 2016. The Thai ship is gradually sailing into the muddy waters of authoritarianism with your favorite PM at the helm.

Wow. You say that like it's a bad thing.

[rametindallas]

Suthep in jail? The man is untouchable. Hasn't he got a few high ranking mates in the military? Dangerous game being played out here (unless it's a smokescreen of course. ''We looked at it but found no wrongdoing etc'')

And Mark? The little Etonian of privilege that went on to Oxford? He's the elite's golden boy. No chance.

Always upsets me. He could've been great for Thailand (Abhisit). Despite the obvious privilege, he's highly intelligent, speaks perfect English and is a brilliant public speaker. Thing is, instead of doing something useful with his massively expensive British education, he wasted it by following the same old elitist mantra and completely alienating the poor, to the point where he is now completely unelectable.

Make no mistake, he is utterly despised by many, many Thais. Such a shame and such a waste for Thailand.

Did you even bother to read the OP? I'll quote the relative passages for you so you can get on track and discuss the topic.

Last August a court dismissed murder charges against the two men over the 2010 crackdown.

The charges are the first step in the impeachment process, and are not criminal accusations.

If found guilty by the country's junta-stacked parliament, they could be banned from politics for five years.

There, now that you know the topic, you have a chance to contribute to the discussion or continue to rant away off topic. Your choice. I just thought I'd try to help.

[rametindallas]

Apparently someone's got 93.6% approval but maybe this is just insurance? take out both sides and WHALLA, Look mum now I'm legit.

but far more likely it's window dressing in a dismal attempt to show the un-bias nature of this lot Look see we are fair, we are good, we are, we are, we are.

If they were indeed serious then this should have happened 4 years ago, What a load.

And some here are buying this snot, Ahhh there's a sucker born every day.

Expression: Voilà

Pronunciation: [ vwa la ]

http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/a/voila.htm

far more likely it's window dressing in a dismal attempt to show the un-bias nature of this lot

When you hold ALL the cards, as the General does, you don't need window dressing. You don't get it. The General is cleaning up Thailand and he's cleaning behind the toilet, under the bed and in the attic and doing a thorough job of it. Don't think the corrupt Democrat party will escape; they're on the list. Remember, "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey". It's going to take five years at least to bring some order to the chaos that is Thailand.