Pheu Thai and Ms Yingluck demand Wattana's immediate release

[thesetat2013]

PT has not been disbanded or deregulated....and YL has not been convicted of anything...yes..she does have a pending case, but no outcome to date.

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

You are crazy to think it was a sham. She did abuse power by failing to leave as temporary PM after she exceeded the time frame allowed. That is abuse no matter how you look at it

Actually you are the crazy one and just posted a flat out lie! She never exceeded any time limit. The vote was stopped by Suthep's mob blocking the polling locations.

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

[JAG]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

"Who cares what Suthep did."

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

Edited March 3, 2016 by JAG

[thesetat2013]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

What an idiotic thing to suggest! There were contingencies for what to do next without a PM. YOUR love YL just didn't want to drop her post no matter if she was violating the law or not.

[JAG]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

What an idiotic thing to suggest! There were contingencies for what to do next without a PM. YOUR love YL just didn't want to drop her post no matter if she was violating the law or not.

Well if you regard that as idiotic, and Sutheps actions as irrelevant, then there really is no point in arguing with you.

The weakness of your case is rather illustrated by your bizarre assumption that my support for her position is derived from "love". One could point out that your position seems to be driven by irrational hatred for her. It certainly does not appear to take reality into account.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JAG

[khaowong1]

Hmm, someone makes a comment on FB and is taken away for AA.

There's something to think on,

And I'm sure the EU and USA will do so...

Our esteemed Attorney General of the US is now saying, criticism of Muslims will bring about arrest. So, not much different than Thailand and it's attitude adjustments.

[Bluespunk]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

"Who cares what Suthep did."

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

Couldn't stand suthep and hope his time comes to rot in gaol.

However exactly how many polling stations were blocked? What percentage in BKK? How many were blocked outside BKK?

Was it his lunacy that invalidated the election or a general boycott?

[Wilsonandson]

Hmm, someone makes a comment on FB and is taken away for AA.

There's something to think on,

And I'm sure the EU and USA will do so...

Our esteemed Attorney General of the US is now saying, criticism of Muslims will bring about arrest. So, not much different than Thailand and it's attitude adjustments.

Sexism and islamaphobia have nothing to do with Wattana's arrest. It's all about face. "How dare you call me sexist, take him to AA and save my face". Edited March 3, 2016 by Wilsonandson

[rubl]

Nationalism appears as the uncritical, and hence manipulable, identification with power. Its ideal end is national unity or the subordination of contested social differences. Patriotism is commonly thought of as love of one’s country and loyal obedience to its government. Since they know that they are likely to remain in power indefinitely, loyalty presents no problem. Theirs is a patriotism of winners. The left has trouble with patriotism not because it is the party of humanity but because it is, nationally and internationally, the party of losers. I would propose democracy: it is far less exclusionary, in principle and practice, that nationalism, patriotism or the ideology of capitalism. Democracy can be patriotic, but only on condition that the first loyalty is to it.

- Sheldon S. Wolin

So, is this to point out that first loyalty is not to the Shinawatras or doesn't this quote have anything to do with the topic ?

[rubl]

Although I do not agree with the militaries actions in this. I do not believe Pheu Thai or YL have any authority to demand anything. Parties are supposed to have disbanded and YL is facing criminal charges. Her own brother did much worse than the army is doing now when he was the leader. YL and her party need to be put in their place as average citizens and get off their high horse.

PT has not been disbanded or deregulated....and YL has not been convicted of anything...yes..she does have a pending case, but no outcome to date.

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

Are you calling the Thai court a sham and their ruling also a sham? That's close to defaming and insulting a Thai court. You should be more careful, my dear chap.

[Wilsonandson]

Nationalism appears as the uncritical, and hence manipulable, identification with power. Its ideal end is national unity or the subordination of contested social differences. Patriotism is commonly thought of as love of one’s country and loyal obedience to its government. Since they know that they are likely to remain in power indefinitely, loyalty presents no problem. Theirs is a patriotism of winners. The left has trouble with patriotism not because it is the party of humanity but because it is, nationally and internationally, the party of losers. I would propose democracy: it is far less exclusionary, in principle and practice, that nationalism, patriotism or the ideology of capitalism. Democracy can be patriotic, but only on condition that the first loyalty is to it.

- Sheldon S. Wolin

So, is this to point out that first loyalty is not to the Shinawatras or doesn't this quote have anything to do with the topic ?

Hi Ruby!

Loyalty to democracy. If the people vote in a government, that sort of thing. The tanks and AA is sooo boring.

[2fishin2]

Although I do not agree with the militaries actions in this. I do not believe Pheu Thai or YL have any authority to demand anything. Parties are supposed to have disbanded and YL is facing criminal charges. Her own brother did much worse than the army is doing now when he was the leader. YL and her party need to be put in their place as average citizens and get off their high horse.

PT has not been disbanded or deregulated....and YL has not been convicted of anything...yes..she does have a pending case, but no outcome to date.

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

Oh please......

Need to remind you her government was overthrown by the military in a coup.

[rubl]

Is this just another innocent Pheu Thai activity like the calendar earlier? Nothing political, no hidden meaning, just pure innocence?

[2fishin2]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

"Who cares what Suthep did."

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

Couldn't stand suthep and hope his time comes to rot in gaol.

However exactly how many polling stations were blocked? What percentage in BKK? How many were blocked outside BKK?

Was it his lunacy that invalidated the election or a general boycott?

Voting stations all over the country were blocked. The police and military allowed Suthep's mob to take over the country. No one could vote. It was NO boycot, it was blocked by Suthep and his mafia.

[rubl]

Nationalism appears as the uncritical, and hence manipulable, identification with power. Its ideal end is national unity or the subordination of contested social differences. Patriotism is commonly thought of as love of one’s country and loyal obedience to its government. Since they know that they are likely to remain in power indefinitely, loyalty presents no problem. Theirs is a patriotism of winners. The left has trouble with patriotism not because it is the party of humanity but because it is, nationally and internationally, the party of losers. I would propose democracy: it is far less exclusionary, in principle and practice, that nationalism, patriotism or the ideology of capitalism. Democracy can be patriotic, but only on condition that the first loyalty is to it.

- Sheldon S. Wolin

So, is this to point out that first loyalty is not to the Shinawatras or doesn't this quote have anything to do with the topic ?

Hi Ruby!

Loyalty to democracy. If the people vote in a government, that sort of thing. The tanks and AA is sooo boring.

While we're at it could we also have loyalty of the government to the people, responsibility and accountability? Writing a blanket amnesty bill sneakily covering own tracks isn't more acceptable because an 'elected' government does it.

[Wilsonandson]

Nationalism appears as the uncritical, and hence manipulable, identification with power. Its ideal end is national unity or the subordination of contested social differences. Patriotism is commonly thought of as love of one’s country and loyal obedience to its government. Since they know that they are likely to remain in power indefinitely, loyalty presents no problem. Theirs is a patriotism of winners. The left has trouble with patriotism not because it is the party of humanity but because it is, nationally and internationally, the party of losers. I would propose democracy: it is far less exclusionary, in principle and practice, that nationalism, patriotism or the ideology of capitalism. Democracy can be patriotic, but only on condition that the first loyalty is to it.

- Sheldon S. Wolin

So, is this to point out that first loyalty is not to the Shinawatras or doesn't this quote have anything to do with the topic ?

Hi Ruby!

Loyalty to democracy. If the people vote in a government, that sort of thing. The tanks and AA is sooo boring.

While we're at it could we also have loyalty of the government to the people, responsibility and accountability? Writing a blanket amnesty bill sneakily covering own tracks isn't more acceptable because an 'elected' government does it.

You could be right Ruby. It's all a play for the amnesty bill issue to return.

Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, deputy chairman of the ruling military junta, said yesterday morning that the junta would support dissolving legal cases against activists who participated in political protests in recent years, as long as they did not commit "serious crimes."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1426830354&typecate=06&section=

[rubl]

You could be right Ruby. It's all a play for the amnesty bill issue to return.

Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, deputy chairman of the ruling military junta, said yesterday morning that the junta would support dissolving legal cases against activists who participated in political protests in recent years, as long as they did not commit "serious crimes."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1426830354&typecate=06&section=

Interestingly a few governments and politicians have discussed the same. somewhat of an agreement across the different parties even.

And then suddenly the bill was massively extended to be blanket from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Anyway, k. Watana was released within 24 hours it would seem. Let's say the Pheu Thai and Ms. Yingluck protest helped speed up matters

Edited March 3, 2016 by rubl

[Wilsonandson]

You could be right Ruby. It's all a play for the amnesty bill issue to return.

Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, deputy chairman of the ruling military junta, said yesterday morning that the junta would support dissolving legal cases against activists who participated in political protests in recent years, as long as they did not commit "serious crimes."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1426830354&typecate=06&section=

Interestingly a few governments and politicians have discussed the same. somewhat of an agreement across the different parties even.

And then suddenly the bill was massively extended to be blanket from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Anyway, k. Watana was released within 24 hours it would seem. Let's say the Pheu Thai and Ms. Yingluck protest helped speed up matters

One year on, concern is mounting that neither the reform roadmap nor international and domestic calls for a return to electoral democracy will yield an enduring political settlement. From low whispers to rising clamor, discussions turn from the promise of reform and reconciliation to a reckoning of present events as backward steps on an arduous path that will continue through the forthcoming election, successor constitutions, later elections, and a complex of uncertain political events to come, with the specter of metronome shifts between political crisis and stop-gap remedies, and repeated transitions between elected governments and authoritarian regimes that continue to fail the Thai people. For now, Thailand seems caught in a limbo state, recalling the words of English poet Matthew Arnold, whose timeless reflection on the crisis of faith and confidence that confronted the Victorian era might well have anticipated this beleaguered future nation: “wandering between two worlds, one dead; the other powerless to be born.”

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on/

[jayboy]

the detention of the former commerce minister was illegal

Incorrect.

According to the esteemed and independent Constitutional Court, anything the Junta does is legal based on the court's acceptance of the NCPO's Interim Charter as the law of the land in another recent ruling. Article 44 of the interim charter provides for warrantless arrest, secret detention and trial of civilians by a military court with legal representation provided only by the military. Furthermore, all NCPO actions are prescribed by the charter to be constitutional. The NCPO can in fact overrule Constitutional Court rulings.

Herein is the deeper issue.

The Thai people need to carefully consider the behavior of the Constitutional Court that disrespects a constitution approved by a majority of Thai voters in favor of one imposed unilaterally on Thais by a minority that abolished Thai rights and liberties. The Court since its creation by a previous junta has given the impression that it has political favoritism and agenda.

Just because someone believes they have a right to absolute power does not mean everyone must absolutely adhere to it. But resistance comes with responsibility.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Thais have never had anyone or any political party who really represented their interests, democracy, justice, a fair society and who themselves obeyed the law except when it suited. Just various clans, gangs and alliances of the "upper strata privileged few" who run things for their benefit and vie for position and power among themselves.

Or are you still trying to pretend otherwise?

Some of us believe that this is a matter that is for the Thai people to decide.Should we not let the vast majority of Thais speak for themselves?

But that of course is the one thing that you cannot bear to contemplate

[marinediscoking]

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

Are you calling the Thai court a sham and their ruling also a sham? That's close to defaming and insulting a Thai court. You should be more careful, my dear chap.

Most of your posts are so ludicrous I usually skip over reading them because they are so repetitive and lack any critical thinking. They also fit into the approved article 44 narrative of fully supporting the millionaire general as they sound as he might actually be posting them himself under your profile. The above you should be "more careful" makes me think you wish to stifle any argument on TV with the draconian LM and defamation veiled warnings.

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

What is Attitude Adjustment? I have never heard nor read anyone explain what all goes on in AA. Are you threaten with imprisonment if your attitude is not adjusted? I would say being taken against your will and physically detained because you are not One with the PM and the NCPO program would be a human rights violation in itself. Can't think what you want nor have an opposing opinion contrary to this government. That's Communism. So why not just reprogram every Thai citizen and be done with it. No need for a ballot when you hold all the bullets.

[thesetat2013]

Who care about what suthep did. She exceeded her permissable stay as PM quoting her faith to democracy. She was supposed to leave her temporary post as acting PM. SHE REFUSED which is an abuse of power. An ulterior reason for her refusal doesn't justify it.

"Who cares what Suthep did."

What Suthep did is absolutely central to the argument.

Yingluck was the Caretaker Prime Minister. She had called a general election, entirely legally and constitutionally. Suthep and his goons blocked the election, (maybe for entirely altruistic reasons, he is well known for his total lack of interest in his personal advancement or enrichment after all, or maybe, just maybe, because they knew that she would win). Are you suggesting that she should have then resigned, and handed power to the mob?

Couldn't stand suthep and hope his time comes to rot in gaol.

However exactly how many polling stations were blocked? What percentage in BKK? How many were blocked outside BKK?

Was it his lunacy that invalidated the election or a general boycott?

Voting stations all over the country were blocked. The police and military allowed Suthep's mob to take over the country. No one could vote. It was NO boycot, it was blocked by Suthep and his mafia.

So what you guys think is that if I was the CEO of a business with an expired contract, that I could hold onto my position because the entrance to the stockholders meeting ,which may, or may not have granted me another contract, was blocked by people preventing the stockholders to hold that meeting?

The law stipulated she had, I think, 90 days as interim PM. Her time ran out and she refused to leave. Simple as that. That's abuse of power no matter if it is a CEO or the PM.

[phoenixdoglover]

Couldn't stand suthep and hope his time comes to rot in gaol.

However exactly how many polling stations were blocked? What percentage in BKK? How many were blocked outside BKK?

Was it his lunacy that invalidated the election or a general boycott?

Voting stations all over the country were blocked. The police and military allowed Suthep's mob to take over the country. No one could vote. It was NO boycot, it was blocked by Suthep and his mafia.

So what you guys think is that if I was the CEO of a business with an expired contract, that I could hold onto my position because the entrance to the stockholders meeting ,which may, or may not have granted me another contract, was blocked by people preventing the stockholders to hold that meeting?

The law stipulated she had, I think, 90 days as interim PM. Her time ran out and she refused to leave. Simple as that. That's abuse of power no matter if it is a CEO or the PM.

I think your analysis is poor.

When interpreting the law, there is always both the letter of the law, and the intent of the law as it originated. The courts should be considering both aspects (this is a well established and necessary role of high level courts). The intent of establishing a caretaker government is to provide for the minimal government administration necessary to prevent collapse, while an orderly transition is made to a new permanent government. The intent of a time frame for a caretaker government is clearly to allow adequate time for the orderly transition, but without an indefinite resolution. The court would rightly take all of this into consideration along with the specific time limit written in the law.

If there were persons that purposefully disrupted elections, as there were in this case in Thailand, then the court could weigh the intent of the law versus the letter of the law, and could easily side with a reasonable time extension, with sanctions against those who caused the disruption, so as to fulfill the entire purpose of the transition period.

However, let's remember the court case wasn't about the 90 day period and failed elections. It was about the PM's transfer of the secretary-general of the National Security Council in 2011. This side issue to the crisis unfolding in May 2014 makes the court's actions even more bewildering.

The court contributed to the rationale for the coup by gutting the government at a critical moment, based on a case that was not germane to the crisis at hand (the orderly transition to a new permanent government). Perhaps "sham" is the wrong word; outrageous might be better.

Edited March 3, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[halloween]

I think your analysis is poor.

When interpreting the law, there is always both the letter of the law, and the intent of the law as it originated. The courts should be considering both aspects (this is a well established and necessary role of high level courts). The intent of establishing a caretaker government is to provide for the minimal government administration necessary to prevent collapse, while an orderly transition is made to a new permanent government. The intent of a time frame for a caretaker government is clearly to allow adequate time for the orderly transition, but without an indefinite resolution. The court would rightly take all of this into consideration along with the specific time limit written in the law.

If there were persons that purposefully disrupted elections, as there were in this case in Thailand, then the court could weigh the intent of the law versus the letter of the law, and could easily side with a reasonable time extension, with sanctions against those who caused the disruption, so as to fulfill the entire purpose of the transition period.

However, let's remember the court case wasn't about the 90 day period and failed elections. It was about the PM's transfer of the secretary-general of the National Security Council in 2011. This side issue to the crisis unfolding in May 2014 makes the court's actions even more bewildering.

The court contributed to the rationale for the coup by gutting the government at a critical moment, based on a case that was not germane to the crisis at hand (the orderly transition to a new permanent government). Perhaps "sham" is the wrong word; outrageous might be better.

Your argument seems to be based on Yingluk, the Thaksin anointed leader, being irreplaceable. She certainly was in Thaksin's view, but does that count?

Since when does the timing of court decisions become variable to suit the aspirations of a political party, in office or not, or any member of that party? Would you have courts consider the political implications before handing down their decisions? Will you you the same argument if Hilary Clinton is charged?

Why is it that every decision that goes against PTP comes from a "sham"? Has their supporters decided to drop the tired,and simply pathetic, "politically motivated"?

Edited March 3, 2016 by halloween

[phoenixdoglover]

I think your analysis is poor.

When interpreting the law, there is always both the letter of the law, and the intent of the law as it originated. The courts should be considering both aspects (this is a well established and necessary role of high level courts). The intent of establishing a caretaker government is to provide for the minimal government administration necessary to prevent collapse, while an orderly transition is made to a new permanent government. The intent of a time frame for a caretaker government is clearly to allow adequate time for the orderly transition, but without an indefinite resolution. The court would rightly take all of this into consideration along with the specific time limit written in the law.

If there were persons that purposefully disrupted elections, as there were in this case in Thailand, then the court could weigh the intent of the law versus the letter of the law, and could easily side with a reasonable time extension, with sanctions against those who caused the disruption, so as to fulfill the entire purpose of the transition period.

However, let's remember the court case wasn't about the 90 day period and failed elections. It was about the PM's transfer of the secretary-general of the National Security Council in 2011. This side issue to the crisis unfolding in May 2014 makes the court's actions even more bewildering.

The court contributed to the rationale for the coup by gutting the government at a critical moment, based on a case that was not germane to the crisis at hand (the orderly transition to a new permanent government). Perhaps "sham" is the wrong word; outrageous might be better.

Your argument seems to be based on Yingluk, the Thaksin anointed leader, being irreplaceable. She certainly was in Thaksin's view, but does that count?

Since when does the timing of court decisions become variable to suit the aspirations of a political party, in office or not, or any member of that party? Will you you the same argument if Hilary Clinton is charged?

Why is it that every decision that goes against PTP comes from a "sham"? Has their supporters decided to drop the tired,and simply pathetic, "politically motivated"?

"Your argument seems to be based on Yingluk, the Thaksin anointed leader, being irreplaceable."

Utter nonsense. My argument is based on well established norms of jurisprudence.

"Since when does the timing of court decisions become variable to suit the aspirations of a political party..:

More nonsense; the issue was not the aspirations of any political party, but the stability and viability of a system of government.

"Will you you the same argument if Hilary Clinton is charged?"

Irrelevant. However, the US Constitution has a clear process for impeachment., Just ask her husband.

"Why is it that every decision that goes against PTP comes from a "sham"? "

That's your argument, for you to answer. Certainly nothing I subscribe to.

[halloween]

I think your analysis is poor.

When interpreting the law, there is always both the letter of the law, and the intent of the law as it originated. The courts should be considering both aspects (this is a well established and necessary role of high level courts). The intent of establishing a caretaker government is to provide for the minimal government administration necessary to prevent collapse, while an orderly transition is made to a new permanent government. The intent of a time frame for a caretaker government is clearly to allow adequate time for the orderly transition, but without an indefinite resolution. The court would rightly take all of this into consideration along with the specific time limit written in the law.

If there were persons that purposefully disrupted elections, as there were in this case in Thailand, then the court could weigh the intent of the law versus the letter of the law, and could easily side with a reasonable time extension, with sanctions against those who caused the disruption, so as to fulfill the entire purpose of the transition period.

However, let's remember the court case wasn't about the 90 day period and failed elections. It was about the PM's transfer of the secretary-general of the National Security Council in 2011. This side issue to the crisis unfolding in May 2014 makes the court's actions even more bewildering.

The court contributed to the rationale for the coup by gutting the government at a critical moment, based on a case that was not germane to the crisis at hand (the orderly transition to a new permanent government). Perhaps "sham" is the wrong word; outrageous might be better.

Your argument seems to be based on Yingluk, the Thaksin anointed leader, being irreplaceable. She certainly was in Thaksin's view, but does that count?

Since when does the timing of court decisions become variable to suit the aspirations of a political party, in office or not, or any member of that party? Will you you the same argument if Hilary Clinton is charged?

Why is it that every decision that goes against PTP comes from a "sham"? Has their supporters decided to drop the tired,and simply pathetic, "politically motivated"?

"Your argument seems to be based on Yingluk, the Thaksin anointed leader, being irreplaceable."

Utter nonsense. My argument is based on well established norms of jurisprudence.

"Since when does the timing of court decisions become variable to suit the aspirations of a political party..:

More nonsense; the issue was not the aspirations of any political party, but the stability and viability of a system of government.

"Will you you the same argument if Hilary Clinton is charged?"

Irrelevant. However, the US Constitution has a clear process for impeachment., Just ask her husband.

"Why is it that every decision that goes against PTP comes from a "sham"? "

That's your argument, for you to answer. Certainly nothing I subscribe to.

What norms of jurisprudence say that a court should consider the political implications of its decisions or the timing of their delivery?

November is a long time away.. Should a US court consider the effect on her political ambitions?

[RWA]

While we're at it could we also have loyalty of the government to the people, responsibility and accountability? Writing a blanket amnesty bill sneakily covering own tracks isn't more acceptable because an 'elected' government does it.

no

no, we CANNOT have a GOVERNMENT to the PEOPLE, responsibility and accountability!

We are living on Planet Earth and such a thing hasn't been invented yet!

It is an UTOPIA

dream on ....

[JAG]

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

Are you calling the Thai court a sham and their ruling also a sham? That's close to defaming and insulting a Thai court. You should be more careful, my dear chap.

Most of your posts are so ludicrous I usually skip over reading them because they are so repetitive and lack any critical thinking. They also fit into the approved article 44 narrative of fully supporting the millionaire general as they sound as he might actually be posting them himself under your profile. The above you should be "more careful" makes me think you wish to stifle any argument on TV with the draconian LM and defamation veiled warnings.

Oh I'm sure, given our Dutch Uncles' stout defence of democratic freedoms and consistent support for the principle of an elected government that it is merely a friendly warning.

Mind you, one mans friendly warning is another mans veiled threat!

[rubl]

Interestingly a few governments and politicians have discussed the same. somewhat of an agreement across the different parties even.

And then suddenly the bill was massively extended to be blanket from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Anyway, k. Watana was released within 24 hours it would seem. Let's say the Pheu Thai and Ms. Yingluck protest helped speed up matters

One year on, concern is mounting that neither the reform roadmap nor international and domestic calls for a return to electoral democracy will yield an enduring political settlement. From low whispers to rising clamor, discussions turn from the promise of reform and reconciliation to a reckoning of present events as backward steps on an arduous path that will continue through the forthcoming election, successor constitutions, later elections, and a complex of uncertain political events to come, with the specter of metronome shifts between political crisis and stop-gap remedies, and repeated transitions between elected governments and authoritarian regimes that continue to fail the Thai people. For now, Thailand seems caught in a limbo state, recalling the words of English poet Matthew Arnold, whose timeless reflection on the crisis of faith and confidence that confronted the Victorian era might well have anticipated this beleaguered future nation: “wandering between two worlds, one dead; the other powerless to be born.”

http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2015/05/27/between-two-worlds-thailands-coup-one-year-on/

In the mean time k. Watana is free again and probably already plans his next speech or facebook remarks to continue his quest for free adjustment.

[rubl]

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

Are you calling the Thai court a sham and their ruling also a sham? That's close to defaming and insulting a Thai court. You should be more careful, my dear chap.

Most of your posts are so ludicrous I usually skip over reading them because they are so repetitive and lack any critical thinking. They also fit into the approved article 44 narrative of fully supporting the millionaire general as they sound as he might actually be posting them himself under your profile. The above you should be "more careful" makes me think you wish to stifle any argument on TV with the draconian LM and defamation veiled warnings.

Well first of all let me thank you for your fine words and compliments. Real nice.

As for the rest I guess you have an opinion different from mine and feel the need to attack on person to justify your opinion. Let me assure you there is no need to justify an opinion, nether a need to agree.

As for my kind warning, I just wanted to remind you that apart from forum rule #2 (You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.) the 'draconian' defamation laws are laws which have been in place and used by people of all kind with not even politicians seeing a need to amend them.

In the mean time, we wonder if Pheu Thai and Ms. Yingluck demand really helped in the speedy release of k. Watana.

Edited March 5, 2016 by rubl

[jayboy]

Actually YL was found guilty of abusing power and removed from the office of PM by a court.

Did you forget that little fact?

The fact is the court and the ruling was a complete sham! The whole country and world know this fact too. When a PM cannot transfer a police officer she has no confidence in, then what is the point of having an elected government. If some don't like it then put her up for a vote, oh wait she tried to do that too. Silly little facts.

Are you calling the Thai court a sham and their ruling also a sham? That's close to defaming and insulting a Thai court. You should be more careful, my dear chap.

Most of your posts are so ludicrous I usually skip over reading them because they are so repetitive and lack any critical thinking. They also fit into the approved article 44 narrative of fully supporting the millionaire general as they sound as he might actually be posting them himself under your profile. The above you should be "more careful" makes me think you wish to stifle any argument on TV with the draconian LM and defamation veiled warnings.

Well first of all let me thank you for your fine words and compliments. Real nice.

As for the rest I guess you have an opinion different from mine and feel the need to attack on person to justify your opinion. Let me assure you there is no need to justify an opinion, nether a need to agree.

As for my kind warning, I just wanted to remind you that apart from forum rule #2 (You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.) the 'draconian' defamation laws are laws which have been in place and used by people of all kind with not even politicians seeing a need to amend them.

In the mean time, we wonder if Pheu Thai and Ms. Yingluck demand really helped in the speedy release of k. Watana.

I think you can leave the question of advising on forum rules to the moderators who seem to manage perfectly well without your assistance.

More seriously I think you should be careful not to provoke members into positions that might be in conflict with forum rules.There have been members in the past that specialised in this kind of trolling but they were all eventually rooted out and banned.