No amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers: PM Prayut

[rubl]

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Supposedly those lawbreakers are serving their sentence, or in the case of the coup makers, already received their amnesty. You are trying to side step the issue of the latter and hide the utter hypocrisy of the recipient of that amnesty in the OP.

He cannot and should not talk about the law, as he has quite clearly showed everyone he doesn't follow the law.

Absolutely! The hypocrisy of some here. I was even warned that some mght plan a counter-coup. Surely in your eyes that would be treasonous and to be condemned?

If one thinks a counter-coup is acceptable to restore the previous, criminal fugitive controlled government then surely a coup to get rid of a criminal fugitive controlled government is acceptable.

In the mean time we discuss 'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', but another topic shows some clemency for those who agree to let the courts start on their cases.

[krdowney]

What about if you have a Ferrari and a very rich family......

Apologies if this has been mentioned many times bur it is late and I cant be arsed looking

ps John you seem a bit mad mate, chiiiill!!!

John bleeds yellow.

[sjaak327]

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Supposedly those lawbreakers are serving their sentence, or in the case of the coup makers, already received their amnesty. You are trying to side step the issue of the latter and hide the utter hypocrisy of the recipient of that amnesty in the OP.

He cannot and should not talk about the law, as he has quite clearly showed everyone he doesn't follow the law.

Absolutely! The hypocrisy of some here. I was even warned that some mght plan a counter-coup. Surely in your eyes that would be treasonous and to be condemned?

If one thinks a counter-coup is acceptable to restore the previous, criminal fugitive controlled government then surely a coup to get rid of a criminal fugitive controlled government is acceptable.

In the mean time we discuss 'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', but another topic shows some clemency for those who agree to let the courts start on their cases.

A counter coup? A restoration to democracy and a reinstatement of the 1997 constitution would have my full support. It could be done in a few months and would return the power to the Thai electorate.

I understand you don't particularly like Thaksin and leave no opportunity wasted to point out he was 'criminal' (note the '), yet you do seem to support and justify the criminal act of a coup and subsequent human rights abuses.

And no Rubl, the 2014 coup is not justified, just as the one in 2006 wasn't. Especially in light of the fact that both deposed governments were merely in care taker state, and general elections scheduled, fully in line with the law of the land.

As for the other thread, wouldn't it be fair the courts could start cases against all lawbreakers, including coup mongers, otherwise the law isn't applied equal and any case that does start is met with extreme doubt. Or in other words, the term convicted criminal in Thailand isn't worth the paper the conviction is written on, pure and simple.

Edited October 11, 2015 by sjaak327

[Skywalker69]

heybruce post #

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

This is why PTP Yingluck (and Thaksin) lost the power, trying to grant themselfs a "blanket amnesti" including + 25 000 other criminals, is this news to you? I am sure you can look it up on internet.

[heybruce]

heybruce post #

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

This is why PTP Yingluck (and Thaksin) lost the power, trying to grant themselfs a "blanket amnesti" including + 25 000 other criminals, is this news to you? I am sure you can look it up on internet.

To my knowledge none of those covered by the amnesty bill were charged with treason. Plus there is a substantial difference between attempting to pass a bill granting amnesty in accordance with the constitution (yeah, I know, many say they didn't do things correctly. That should have been a matter for the judicial system to decide) than overthrowing the elected government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all semblance of democracy, then granting oneself amnesty.

I'm tempted to suggest you look this up on the internet, but I suspect someone who would post something so foolish is incapable of comprehending democracy, constitutional government and rule of law. Some people just want a decisive "I am the law!" strongman, backed up by an army, to take charge.

[heybruce]

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

Ah, so 'we' are now 'everyone else'?

'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', not even bailjumping ones.

Anyway, some of the 'everyone else' suggested a counter-coup to restore the previous government. Of course that would be a 'good' lawbreaking as it would be essential to some criminals on the run.

So, "refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy". It seems you start the push to make 'amnesty for long time ago corruption' sound reasonable. What's a few billions ten years ago, heybruce? Anyone who can't forgive some clever criminals to have cheated the taxpayers must be a hypocrite for sure.

No amnesty, not even for Abhisit and Suthep although they never asked for it. No amnesty, not even for Thaksin although he didn't hesitate to mobilise armed and violent non-red-shirt terrorists to get what he wanted. No amnesty.

You are always entertaining rubl. First you try to play topic police, then you go off topic by bringing up a counter-coup. Are you planning something you want to share with us?

Repeating what I posted, keeping it in context, was:

"Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy."

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Clearly you use "twisting and turning" whenever you have been asked a direct and pertinent question which you do not wish to answer. You run from the direct and on-topic question "How do you feel about amnesty for treason?".

After failing in your attempt to take my words wildly out of context, you once again have decided to appoint yourself "Topic Police", and insist that posts that pertain to amnesty for lawbreakers aren't appropriate unless they are about "on the run lawbreakers". Fortunately you aren't the Topic Police, and I'll let the moderators decide which posts are allowed to remain.

[Skywalker69]

heybruce post #

Obviously you think the important words are "on-the-run". Everyone else thinks the important words are "amnesty" and "lawbreakers".

I know it's futile, but I'll try to explain: Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy.

This is why PTP Yingluck (and Thaksin) lost the power, trying to grant themselfs a "blanket amnesti" including + 25 000 other criminals, is this news to you? I am sure you can look it up on internet.

To my knowledge none of those covered by the amnesty bill were charged with treason. Plus there is a substantial difference between attempting to pass a bill granting amnesty in accordance with the constitution (yeah, I know, many say they didn't do things correctly. That should have been a matter for the judicial system to decide) than overthrowing the elected government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all semblance of democracy, then granting oneself amnesty.

I'm tempted to suggest you look this up on the internet, but I suspect someone who would post something so foolish is incapable of comprehending democracy, constitutional government and rule of law. Some people just want a decisive "I am the law!" strongman, backed up by an army, to take charge.

I know, many say they didn't do things correctly.

If they did it correctly why did they do the voting so early in the morning. And why did the Constitution Court oppose?

[heybruce]

This is why PTP Yingluck (and Thaksin) lost the power, trying to grant themselfs a "blanket amnesti" including + 25 000 other criminals, is this news to you? I am sure you can look it up on internet.

To my knowledge none of those covered by the amnesty bill were charged with treason. Plus there is a substantial difference between attempting to pass a bill granting amnesty in accordance with the constitution (yeah, I know, many say they didn't do things correctly. That should have been a matter for the judicial system to decide) than overthrowing the elected government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all semblance of democracy, then granting oneself amnesty.

I'm tempted to suggest you look this up on the internet, but I suspect someone who would post something so foolish is incapable of comprehending democracy, constitutional government and rule of law. Some people just want a decisive "I am the law!" strongman, backed up by an army, to take charge.

I know, many say they didn't do things correctly.

If they did it correctly why did they do the voting so early in the morning. And why did the Constitution Court oppose?

When you take things out of context you show that you have no argument. I posted:

"To my knowledge none of those covered by the amnesty bill were charged with treason. Plus there is a substantial difference between attempting to pass a bill granting amnesty in accordance with the constitution (yeah, I know, many say they didn't do things correctly. That should have been a matter for the judicial system to decide) than overthrowing the elected government, suspending the constitution, dissolving all semblance of democracy, then granting oneself amnesty."

If their actions were improper they should have been dealt with in the courts, not with a military coup.

Edited October 12, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Supposedly those lawbreakers are serving their sentence, or in the case of the coup makers, already received their amnesty. You are trying to side step the issue of the latter and hide the utter hypocrisy of the recipient of that amnesty in the OP.

He cannot and should not talk about the law, as he has quite clearly showed everyone he doesn't follow the law.

Absolutely! The hypocrisy of some here. I was even warned that some mght plan a counter-coup. Surely in your eyes that would be treasonous and to be condemned?

If one thinks a counter-coup is acceptable to restore the previous, criminal fugitive controlled government then surely a coup to get rid of a criminal fugitive controlled government is acceptable.

In the mean time we discuss 'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', but another topic shows some clemency for those who agree to let the courts start on their cases.

A counter coup? A restoration to democracy and a reinstatement of the 1997 constitution would have my full support. It could be done in a few months and would return the power to the Thai electorate.

I understand you don't particularly like Thaksin and leave no opportunity wasted to point out he was 'criminal' (note the '), yet you do seem to support and justify the criminal act of a coup and subsequent human rights abuses.

And no Rubl, the 2014 coup is not justified, just as the one in 2006 wasn't. Especially in light of the fact that both deposed governments were merely in care taker state, and general elections scheduled, fully in line with the law of the land.

As for the other thread, wouldn't it be fair the courts could start cases against all lawbreakers, including coup mongers, otherwise the law isn't applied equal and any case that does start is met with extreme doubt. Or in other words, the term convicted criminal in Thailand isn't worth the paper the conviction is written on, pure and simple.

Ah, so a coup is only a good, legal coup when you like it.

[rubl]

Ah, so 'we' are now 'everyone else'?

'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', not even bailjumping ones.

Anyway, some of the 'everyone else' suggested a counter-coup to restore the previous government. Of course that would be a 'good' lawbreaking as it would be essential to some criminals on the run.

So, "refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy". It seems you start the push to make 'amnesty for long time ago corruption' sound reasonable. What's a few billions ten years ago, heybruce? Anyone who can't forgive some clever criminals to have cheated the taxpayers must be a hypocrite for sure.

No amnesty, not even for Abhisit and Suthep although they never asked for it. No amnesty, not even for Thaksin although he didn't hesitate to mobilise armed and violent non-red-shirt terrorists to get what he wanted. No amnesty.

You are always entertaining rubl. First you try to play topic police, then you go off topic by bringing up a counter-coup. Are you planning something you want to share with us?

Repeating what I posted, keeping it in context, was:

"Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy."

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Clearly you use "twisting and turning" whenever you have been asked a direct and pertinent question which you do not wish to answer. You run from the direct and on-topic question "How do you feel about amnesty for treason?".

After failing in your attempt to take my words wildly out of context, you once again have decided to appoint yourself "Topic Police", and insist that posts that pertain to amnesty for lawbreakers aren't appropriate unless they are about "on the run lawbreakers". Fortunately you aren't the Topic Police, and I'll let the moderators decide which posts are allowed to remain.

That's uncommonly kind of you Heybruce. First you do some character assassination and that you finish with 'it's up to others'.

[heybruce]

You are always entertaining rubl. First you try to play topic police, then you go off topic by bringing up a counter-coup. Are you planning something you want to share with us?

Repeating what I posted, keeping it in context, was:

"Granting oneself amnesty for what most countries consider to be treason, failure to investigate ample evidence of corruption in ones own ranks, but refusing to consider amnesty for corruption committed long ago strikes many as self-serving hypocrisy."

How do you feel about amnesty for treason?

So, not so amusing heybruce, back to your old tricks of accusing others of the twisting and turning you do. Nothing left in real arguments I guess.

Anyway, no amnesty for on-the-run-lawbreakers. As not all here seem to understand let me try to explain. Those who broke the law and are on the run will not get amnesty. This does not say anything about those who are not on-the-run.

Clearly you use "twisting and turning" whenever you have been asked a direct and pertinent question which you do not wish to answer. You run from the direct and on-topic question "How do you feel about amnesty for treason?".

After failing in your attempt to take my words wildly out of context, you once again have decided to appoint yourself "Topic Police", and insist that posts that pertain to amnesty for lawbreakers aren't appropriate unless they are about "on the run lawbreakers". Fortunately you aren't the Topic Police, and I'll let the moderators decide which posts are allowed to remain.

That's uncommonly kind of you Heybruce. First you do some character assassination and that you finish with 'it's up to others'.

I think it's more character definition, but otherwise correct.

[heybruce]

Supposedly those lawbreakers are serving their sentence, or in the case of the coup makers, already received their amnesty. You are trying to side step the issue of the latter and hide the utter hypocrisy of the recipient of that amnesty in the OP.

He cannot and should not talk about the law, as he has quite clearly showed everyone he doesn't follow the law.

Absolutely! The hypocrisy of some here. I was even warned that some mght plan a counter-coup. Surely in your eyes that would be treasonous and to be condemned?

If one thinks a counter-coup is acceptable to restore the previous, criminal fugitive controlled government then surely a coup to get rid of a criminal fugitive controlled government is acceptable.

In the mean time we discuss 'no amnesty for on-the-run lawbreakers', but another topic shows some clemency for those who agree to let the courts start on their cases.

A counter coup? A restoration to democracy and a reinstatement of the 1997 constitution would have my full support. It could be done in a few months and would return the power to the Thai electorate.

I understand you don't particularly like Thaksin and leave no opportunity wasted to point out he was 'criminal' (note the '), yet you do seem to support and justify the criminal act of a coup and subsequent human rights abuses.

And no Rubl, the 2014 coup is not justified, just as the one in 2006 wasn't. Especially in light of the fact that both deposed governments were merely in care taker state, and general elections scheduled, fully in line with the law of the land.

As for the other thread, wouldn't it be fair the courts could start cases against all lawbreakers, including coup mongers, otherwise the law isn't applied equal and any case that does start is met with extreme doubt. Or in other words, the term convicted criminal in Thailand isn't worth the paper the conviction is written on, pure and simple.

Ah, so a coup is only a good, legal coup when you like it.

It's difficult to define what a legal coup is, though it is arguably correct to say a coup to re-install a legal government after an illegal coup would qualify.

An illegal coup is easy, it's a coup to topple a legal government.

You may claim that a government influenced by (not controlled by) Thaksin was illegal, but you are not the Thai judicial system. Has any court in Thailand said that Thaksin's influence on the PTP government was illegal?