| Inside Scoop | Breaking News | Video | Blog Index | Participate | Humor | |
| Politics | Economics | New Media | Technology | Green Living |
The Bangkok Post:
BP: Interesting they wanted until the last possible day, but what will this mean for the PAD and Kasit, in particular? Piyasvasti was the Democrat's choice to become THAI President so will be interesting to see who the PAD finds is at fault here and how they respond... ASTV Manager, the PAD's unofficial mouthpiece, has more details, in Thai, of the case including the list of all the defendants. In the comments and what the PAD say elsewhere is that hey didn't close the airport, it was the airport authorities that closed the airport. As blogged previously though this argument is unlikely to be accepted:
Related StoriesIdris Jala, a Minister reporting to a Minister (story by Rocky's Bru) Thai Stock at 14 Times this “Crazy” Year Earnings: Cheap or Not? (story by Thai Intelligent News) Thai Governmet Advising Board says New Politics Not Right: Highest Level Disapproval so Far (story by Thai Intelligent News) Foreign Governments on the Rohingya (story by Bangkok Pundit) Thaksin Has Confidence in the Thai Judicial System (story by Bangkok Pundit) Foreign Media on Thaksin (story by Bangkok Pundit) Comments
and where are the criminal charges? including against even the "innocent unarmed" illegally supporting and participating in the occupation.
I remember Chamlong showing the open letter demanding that the Airport stayed open. That's not consistent with closing the airport by PAD. THAI should also sue AOT for undue closing of the airport.
This is like an armed mob breaking into a store and demanding the customers stay and shop and the owner stick around to service everyone. I think most people would find the Chamlong open letter argument ludicruous, but it doesn't really matter since the PAD are right about everything and don't need to follow any laws.
I'm not aware of Chamlong's pleas to keep the airport open, would love to hear more. I don't remember breaking through police lines to reach the terminal either. Prosecution could argue that letter is one thing, a mob of armed thugs roaming about is another. It's going to be an interesting argument - the decision had been made by AOT. They could argue that PAD had caused it and PAD would argue that we tried to stop you from making that decision, you made it yourself and so you should be responsible for consequences, not us. Criminal charges are a different matter, there was a breach of criminal law or there wasn't, you don't have to analyze some third person judgment and pin your whole case on it. |
![]() ![]() 95 snakes found in burst bag at Malaysia airport ![]() Meet Cambodia's anonymous blog author 'Details are Sketchy' ![]() China introduces ID check for mobile phone owners ![]() Japan approves economic sanctions against Iran ![]() Dolphins caught, not killed, in Japan cove ![]() The art of demystifying wine ![]() French 'Spiderman' in Sydney court over climb ![]() Delhi's games preparations still face problems |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||