webfact Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Thaksin may seek justice from the World Court BANGKOK:-- Ousted former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra on Monday threatened to seek justice from the World Court if the local Supreme Court decides to seize his Bt76 billion frozen assets this Friday. However, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Monday he could not see on what grounds Thakshin could seek justice from the World Court, and that he would not let the Thaksin's assets case turned into an international issue. -- The Nation 2010-02-22 [newsfooter][/newsfooter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonrakers Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Definitely losing the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuket1 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Is that not the man who in the past said "THE UN IS NOT MY FATHER" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiang mai Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Implied intimidation, a part of the media campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 He will never do that. He risks being tried for the extrajudicial murders if he does so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailand Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result? The local media have done an effective smear campaign,as if it was needed. That may lead to accusations of bias in respect of his accusers. Abhisit says he would have no grounds for appeal to the WCoJ, why would that be? I would think a good international lawyer could whip up a fairly reasonable embarrassing case. Grateful if one of the many forum lawyers could answer my queries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 ^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Implied intimidation, a part of the media campaign. It's translated on BP as "I will have to go to the world forum." Where else can it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 He kind of reminds of a two year old, doesn't he? Noise and tantrums. Its got to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I hate to see a grown man cry... but sometimes you just gotta smack the naughty kiddie on the legs to make them realize they have done wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givenall Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Is that not the man who in the past said "THE UN IS NOT MY FATHER" Very stupid man he is. He needs to e smart and sit fully compromises now. Although may be too late anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 ^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum. To state that you must have known personally each and every one of the 2,500 odd people killed - how else would you be able to state as fact that they were "drug scum"? Truth is noone knows who these people were, nor their crimes - if they did indeed commit any. We'll never know. That's a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 Former Thai premier threatens to seek justice at world court Posted : Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:54:11 GMT By : dpa Bangkok - Fugitive former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra on Monday threatened to appeal to international courts if a Thai supreme court decides to order the seizure of 2 billion dollars from his family's frozen bank accounts later this week. On Friday, the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders is to rule on whether Thaksin concealed his shareholdings in his business empire while he was prime minister between 2001 and 2006 and abused his power to benefit that empire. If found guilty, the court will confiscate some 2 billion dollars in Thai bank accounts frozen shortly after Thaksin was toppled by a military coup in September 2006. Thaksin, who has lived in self-exile since August 2008, to avoid a two-year jail term on a previous charge of abuse of power, used microblogging site Twitter to warn Thai authorities of his plans to take his case to the international stage. story continues: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/31...orld-court.html -- earthtime.org 2010-02-22 [newsfooter][/newsfooter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Once again, this entire affair has never been about democracy. Such a shame there are those who still continue to believe this is the case. Let's see, he appeals to the World Court and loses. What next, the red shirts declare war against the World Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 ^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum. To state that you must have known personally each and every one of the 2,500 odd people killed - how else would you be able to state as fact that they were "drug scum"? Truth is noone knows who these people were, nor their crimes - if they did indeed commit any. We'll never know. That's a crime. Well don't even try to get 'Britmaveric' to see a logical discussion on this. He's be quite OK if his kids somehow got in the line of fire and got gunned down. His response would be, don't worry, never mind, all for the greater good. Nice values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 one offensive post / one flaming post deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Implied intimidation, a part of the media campaign. In fact there is a body commonly called the world court, it looks at disputes between countries and similar situations. It doesn't look at personal claims of 'honest mistakes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 ^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum. To state that you must have known personally each and every one of the 2,500 odd people killed - how else would you be able to state as fact that they were "drug scum"? Truth is noone knows who these people were, nor their crimes - if they did indeed commit any. We'll never know. That's a crime. Well don't even try to get 'Britmaveric' to see a logical discussion on this. He's be quite OK if his kids somehow got in the line of fire and got gunned down. His response would be, don't worry, never mind, all for the greater good. Nice values. And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnyboy Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 boo hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Course World Court is a joke anyways and can't enforce sh*te. Waste of space really and I wouldnt bother personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpoint Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) Thaksin is removing all doubts as to his mental health. He's definitely a few kopeks short of a rouble. However, he has provided a good way to end the impasse though, bring him back in a strait jacket and bung him up in a rubber room. Let his supporters supply him with crayons and wipe the drool from his chin. What jurisdiction does the International Court of Justice have in this case? From its website: "The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction)". Unless Thaksin has declared himself a State, or one of the UN organs intercedes on his behalf (and they hardly have a father-son relationship), his case won't even make it to the being laughed out of court stage. If the court were to accept a case like this it would be open to submissions from relatives of those killed by him in his war on drugs, those affected by, and having family killed as a direct result of, his bird flu cover up, those affected, and having family killed by his handling of the Southern insurgency, those cheated by him in business dealings, the families of those murdered by his political associates, and any one else with a case against him. He's running scared. He's lost his power, is certain he'll lose most of his money, and is rapidly running out of options. I'm just surprised he didn't threaten to take the case to the Cambodian high court. Edited February 22, 2010 by ballpoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphodbeeblebrox Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result? Yes, it's called lack of jurisdiction. First, Thailand is not a member of the ICJ. Being a party to the UN, only gives the ICJ jurisdiction to adjudicate "contentious cases between states", not states and individuals. Individuals cannot participate in contentious cases. ICJ Jurisdiction - Contetious Cases Second, the ICJ does not adjudicate private disputes. "The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies." ICJ website Seizing Thaksin's assets is not a violation of human rights, therefore ICJ jurisdiction is not invoked. Absent this jurisdiction, the only way the ICJ can consider the case is if Thailand consents to jurisdiction or there is some treaty giving the ICJ jurisdiction. As there is not, Thaksin's case gets thrown out. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was... He doesn't even know what the relationship between The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is. Clueless and grasping at straws.... It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this... CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom, but a government cabinet is another matter entirely. Edited February 22, 2010 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 ^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum. To state that you must have known personally each and every one of the 2,500 odd people killed - how else would you be able to state as fact that they were "drug scum"? Truth is noone knows who these people were, nor their crimes - if they did indeed commit any. We'll never know. That's a crime. Well don't even try to get 'Britmaveric' to see a logical discussion on this. He's be quite OK if his kids somehow got in the line of fire and got gunned down. His response would be, don't worry, never mind, all for the greater good. Nice values. And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it. I'm not saying they did deserve it. I'm not saying the weren't "drug scum". I'm not saying they were "drug scum". I'm saying i DON"T KNOW. There were NO TRIALS. What's your secret? What makes you able to judge innocence / guilt despite knowing nothing whatsoever of each individual case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ovenman Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result? Yes, it's called lack of jurisdiction. Maybe Judge Wapner would be willing to come out of retirement and give him a hearing on The People's Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 What's your secret? What makes you able to judge innocence / guilt despite knowing nothing whatsoever of each individual case? Just am Opinion, no more no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT. Yes I do know that some of the 2600+victims of Thaksin's extra-judicial reign of terror did NOT deserve it. I also know that claiming any democratic legitimacy after executing 2600+ people with no trial is laughable ... and truly dispicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Som Nam Na.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) Som Nam Na.... Hmmm so the 16 month old child killed "deserved it" according to Brit ... classic! A pretty decent run down of some of the events complete with sources..... http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/84/ Edited February 22, 2010 by jdinasia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 What's your secret? What makes you able to judge innocence / guilt despite knowing nothing whatsoever of each individual case? Just am Opinion, no more no less. Happy to kill people based on nothing more than opinion. Says so much about you. Life is not only short, it's extremely cheap for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now