NLA to convene meeting to deliberate impeachment of a former defence minister

[rooster59]

NLA to convene meeting to deliberate impeachment of a former defence minister

Kitti Cheevasittiyanon

BANGKOK, 3 July 2016 (NNT) – The National Legislative Assembly is scheduled to deliberate the impeachment of a former defence minister next week.

NLA President Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, has issued an order calling on all members of the legislature to meetings on July 7 and 8.

On July 7, the NLA will deliberate the impeachment of former Defence Minister ACM Sukampol Suwannathat under the aegis of the interim charter and the Anti-Corruption Act.

The legislature will also schedule the day for the opening statements by both the National Anti-Corruption Commission and ACM Sukampol as well as to review the request by the accused for additional evidence, and the setting up of a committee to work on the details of the case including all witnesses and evidence.

On July 8, the NLA will also work on other matters, including assistance for the elderly who visit Lumpini Park, and the interest rate and fee policies of commercial banks.

-- NNT 2016-07-02

[phoenixdoglover]

I seriously doubt there is any provision in the Interim Charter that provides for impeachment of an ex-Minister. I know for a fact there is no provision of that sort in the 2007 Charter. Impeachment is for elected officials in office.

[TPI]

Where is the advantage of going through the motions, what does it achieve??

[phoenixdoglover]

Where is the advantage of going through the motions, what does it achieve??

I assume the intent is to go through with the impeachment, because that effectively bans the person from running for elected office.

[WhizBang]

How is it possible to impeach someone who no longer holds office?

What am I missing here? Or is this just another case of Thainess?

[MobileContent]

Impeached for what?

Corruption? Why the news doesn't mentioned what he is accused off.

Once again selective punishment against former government officials of YS.

[jesimps]

Impeached for what?

Corruption? Why the news doesn't mentioned what he is accused off.

Once again selective punishment against former government officials of YS.

And the payback for having the cheek to get elected continues.

[halloween]

Impeached for what?

Corruption? Why the news doesn't mentioned what he is accused off.

Once again selective punishment against former government officials of YS.

And the payback for having the cheek to get elected continues.

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

[aussieinthailand]

Impeached for what?

Corruption? Why the news doesn't mentioned what he is accused off.

Once again selective punishment against former government officials of YS.

And the payback for having the cheek to get elected continues.

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

Impeachment; noun, The impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal.

Is he currently a public official?

Is this an appropriate tribunal?

Some could suggest that these questions need to be answered before any others? I just asking

[bheard]

Where is the advantage of going through the motions, what does it achieve??

Quite simple. They are slowly but surely getting rid of people they don't like. Usually from the other side.

[halloween]

Where is the advantage of going through the motions, what does it achieve??

Quite simple. They are slowly but surely getting rid of people they don't like. Usually from the other side.

There is a reason for the 'usually' - there is a lot of criminals on the other side, who for years have escaped prosecution through connivance, conspiracy and as a last resort, delay. But if the case against them is proven, does it matter which side they are on?

[phoenixdoglover]

Impeached for what?

Corruption? Why the news doesn't mentioned what he is accused off.

Once again selective punishment against former government officials of YS.

And the payback for having the cheek to get elected continues.

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

Well, No.

From a legal (and human rights) standpoint, we should jump to his defense until evidence of wrongdoing is presented.

[dominique355]

Maybe it's just a dress rehearsal for when the present Defense Minister will be held responsible for the submarine debacle.

[JAG]

Maybe it's just a dress rehearsal for when the present Defense Minister will be held responsible for the submarine debacle

I think you will find that although, if I can borrow a phrase " He wasn't elected, nor was the chap who appointed him", the present Defence Minister is covered by an amnesty, no matter what.

Funny that - but then amnesties are funny things...

[halloween]

Maybe it's just a dress rehearsal for when the present Defense Minister will be held responsible for the submarine debacle

I think you will find that although, if I can borrow a phrase " He wasn't elected, nor was the chap who appointed him", the present Defence Minister is covered by an amnesty, no matter what.

Funny that - but then amnesties are funny things...

You misquoted me. The sentence was " He wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him".

Accuracy is important, and criminal is far more accurate.

[halloween]

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

Well, No.

From a legal (and human rights) standpoint, we should jump to his defense until evidence of wrongdoing is presented.

Reminds me of the american concept of "reconnaissance by fire". Start blazing away with no idea what you are shooting at.

How do you defend someone when you have idea of the charges that are to be laid?

[phoenixdoglover]

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

Well, No.

From a legal (and human rights) standpoint, we should jump to his defense until evidence of wrongdoing is presented.

Reminds me of the american concept of "reconnaissance by fire". Start blazing away with no idea what you are shooting at.

How do you defend someone when you have idea of the charges that are to be laid?

But, of course, that isn't the situation is it? Clearly, some charges or accusations have been leveled against the former official, otherwise there would be no reason to have impeachment hearings. It is entirely appropriate to assert his innocence until such time as accusations can be substantiated by compelling evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is really a very simple concept; it's even written into the last Thai Constitution.

[halloween]

Well he wasn't elected, and neither was the criminal who appointed him. Shouldn't we wait to hear what he is accused of before blindly jumping to his defense, or doesn't that matter?

Well, No.

From a legal (and human rights) standpoint, we should jump to his defense until evidence of wrongdoing is presented.

Reminds me of the american concept of "reconnaissance by fire". Start blazing away with no idea what you are shooting at.

How do you defend someone when you have idea of the charges that are to be laid?

But, of course, that isn't the situation is it? Clearly, some charges or accusations have been leveled against the former official, otherwise there would be no reason to have impeachment hearings. It is entirely appropriate to assert his innocence until such time as accusations can be substantiated by compelling evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is really a very simple concept; it's even written into the last Thai Constitution.

OK, I'll bite. What are they?

[phoenixdoglover]

But, of course, that isn't the situation is it? Clearly, some charges or accusations have been leveled against the former official, otherwise there would be no reason to have impeachment hearings. It is entirely appropriate to assert his innocence until such time as accusations can be substantiated by compelling evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is really a very simple concept; it's even written into the last Thai Constitution.

OK, I'll bite. What are they?

This most likely dates back to NACC charges from 2013.

The Nation wrote about it very briefly. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-challenges-to-govt-not-over-30216467.html

"Both Yingluck and Sukampol were accused of interfering with the transfer of permanent secretary for defence General Satien Permthong-in."

Edited July 4, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[halloween]

But, of course, that isn't the situation is it? Clearly, some charges or accusations have been leveled against the former official, otherwise there would be no reason to have impeachment hearings. It is entirely appropriate to assert his innocence until such time as accusations can be substantiated by compelling evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is really a very simple concept; it's even written into the last Thai Constitution.

OK, I'll bite. What are they?

This most likely dates back to NACC charges from 2013.

The Nation wrote about it very briefly. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-challenges-to-govt-not-over-30216467.html

"Both Yingluck and Sukampol were accused of interfering with the transfer of permanent secretary for defence General Satien Permthong-in."

So you don't know what he will be charged with but feel you should defend him anyway. IMHO it is more likely to be this

A Democrat MP yesterday accused Defence Minister ACM Sukampol Suwannathat of allowing politicians to embezzle Bt1 billion of the Bt2.7-billion allocated for the Royal Thai Navy’s combat system upgrade project by allowing a change in the equipment specification.

[phoenixdoglover]

But, of course, that isn't the situation is it? Clearly, some charges or accusations have been leveled against the former official, otherwise there would be no reason to have impeachment hearings. It is entirely appropriate to assert his innocence until such time as accusations can be substantiated by compelling evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is really a very simple concept; it's even written into the last Thai Constitution.

OK, I'll bite. What are they?

This most likely dates back to NACC charges from 2013.

The Nation wrote about it very briefly. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-challenges-to-govt-not-over-30216467.html

"Both Yingluck and Sukampol were accused of interfering with the transfer of permanent secretary for defence General Satien Permthong-in."

So you don't know what he will be charged with but feel you should defend him anyway. IMHO it is more likely to be this A Democrat MP yesterday accused Defence Minister ACM Sukampol Suwannathat of allowing politicians to embezzle Bt1 billion of the Bt2.7-billion allocated for the Royal Thai Navy’s combat system upgrade project by allowing a change in the equipment specification.

You're getting a bit lost in the debate. Go back and look at your original post and my first reply. I was not defending him. I was criticizing your point of view, as it is diametrically opposed to common principles concerning guilt and innocence.

By the way, if the charge of embezzlement was just made, than it is certain this is not the subject of this particular NLA impeachment hearing. The NLA relies on NACC to gather evidence, a process that takes some time.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

[halloween]

So you don't know what he will be charged with but feel you should defend him anyway. IMHO it is more likely to be this A Democrat MP yesterday accused Defence Minister ACM Sukampol Suwannathat of allowing politicians to embezzle Bt1 billion of the Bt2.7-billion allocated for the Royal Thai Navy’s combat system upgrade project by allowing a change in the equipment specification.

You're getting a bit lost in the debate. Go back and look at your original post and my first reply. I was not defending him. I was criticizing your point of view, as it is diametrically opposed to common principles concerning guilt and innocence.

By the way, if the charge of embezzlement was just made, than it is certain this is not the subject of this particular NLA impeachment hearing. The NLA relies on NACC to gather evidence, a process that takes some time.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 Eye using Tapatalk

Go back one more. I was replying to a post claiming (erroneously) it was payback for being elected. There are far too many posters who seem to think that ANY charges laid against the members of the criminal organisation called PTP are false when there were certainly enough crimes committed to keep the courts busy for years. I don't presume guilt, nor do I automatically assume innocence of everything.

BTW the quote was from Nov 2012.