From: tstil@Auspex.COM (Tim Stilwell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: Re: Pardon decree: US and Thai cases...
Keywords: Thai-US
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:14:18 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

In article <1992Dec30.120117.20612@netcom.com> jkatz@netcom.com (Joseph Katz) writes:
>
>In article <C02HDG.1ME@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong) writes:
>>In the last days of his office, George Bush had announced his pardon for
>>a number of high rank US officers, including Weiburger, (and himself?). 
>>The pardon can give amnesty to those who were accused of wrong doing
>>in Iran-Contra affair.
>>
>>In the last days of his office, Suchinda had announced his pardon (in form
>>of "royal decree") to give amnesty of some of the military general and 
>>himself who were accused of wrong doing in the May Event. 
>>
>>How could such highly sophisticated political system like that of the 
>>US allow such action which is also found practiced in a less politically
>>developed society like Thailand? Anyone has any explanation?
>

Was Gen. Suchinda the first Thai leader to use the pardon?  I wonder if he
was copying American President Nixon?

You know those Americans...
Always creating something new.  Even new ways to cheat!  :-)

>Well so goes the theory anyway.  The reality is somewhat more disturbing.
>While the President may not pardon him/her self, by issuing pardons to
>all those involved in questionable activities (especially before any
>trial has been held) the President effectively insulates him/her self 
>by providing a shield for the other players to hide behind.  With no
>threat of prosecution, why would anyone provide information that might
>incriminate the President?  It all boils down to the integrity of the
>people we elect to serve us.  No political system can insure that.
>
>--Joe Katz
>

Always remember that in America, if anyone accuses you of a crime, 
he/she must prove that the crime occurred.  You do not have to do
anything to prove your innocence.  Our famous advice columnist Ann
Landers said it best, "Every American child should be taught to say
"the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and to know
the difference between these 3 things."  If you are forced to admit 
that you did commit the crime, you always have 3 choices for dodging
responsibility and punishment.

	1. You can request protection from the 5th Amendment to
           the U.S. Constitution (you do not have to testify 
           against yourself). 

	2. You can have a sudden case of insanity (worked for the
           idiot who shot President Reagan). 

	3. You can have a sudden case of amnesia (worked for
	   President Reagan).

Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush all made the mistake of allowing data
collection (notes) whenever they committed crimes.  (Republicans are
kind of stupid that way!  Democrats memorize everything :-)  Only Nixon
was punished (severe embarassment forcing resignation).  Interestingly
enough, there was a documentary on President Nixon's political career
on PBS two weeks ago.  They highlighted all of his achievements and
practically ignored any of the illegal activities.

I read the history of events that occurred for each of these Presidents.  
I purchased and read the U.S. Congressional Committee reports.  I also
read the memoirs of Mr. Tip O'Neil (Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives) and Mr. Alexander Haig (Secretary of State).  I did NOT
vote for Mr. Bush in 1988 because I knew he was guilty.  He practically
admitted it during the 2nd debate with Mr. Dukakis.  Naturally, I did
NOT vote for Mr. Bush in 1992 either!

IMO neither Reagan or Bush will be punished because unlike Nixon, they
have the support of the American news media.  This is very important!
Free Press is a two-edged sword!  It can protect the people from abusive 
dictatorial government by informing them of corruption and failing
government policies, and it can support the people by expressing their
response to government decisions and by reporting events as they
occur so that everyone can view them together.  BUT it can also hurt the 
people by blindly supporting government policies or refusing to report
public dissatisfaction with government decisions.

Nixon did NOT have the support of the American news media.  Instead, the
news media tried very hard to discover if he was actually guilty.  Reagan
and Bush however DO have the support of the American news media.  Remember
the Iran-Contra scandal?  Reagan proclaimed that SOB Oliver North to be
a hero and the news media agreed!  Remember the U.S. war against Iraq?
Bush bought U.N. votes by cancelling foreign debts and the news media
agreed!  Bush severely restricted news coverage of the war and the news
media did NOT challenge it at all!  Thousands of Americans protested
the war initially and the news media ignored them!

tim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai