Thai Court Approves Arrest Warrant Against Thaksin On Terrorism Charge

[clown]

I can't believe you guys are falling for all this circus

[A_Traveller]

An interesting point here, is that the charges are based, in law, on the amendments to the criminal code made in 2003 to accommodate the UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which, of course occurred during K. Thaksin's time in office. This accounts for Amsterdam's burst of hysteria, since the misdirection of 'all charges being created under legislation generated by the military' fails.

Regards

Edited May 25, 2010 by A_Traveller

[jcbangkok]

Maybe Montenegro can seize the terrorist's in country assets. That might make it worthwhile for them.

Shouldnt there be a trial and conviction before he is hung, drawn and quartered, it is this mentality that will make it difficult for any country with a good rule of law to extradite him, found guilty before he is even tried, clearly politically motivated and I can see the UK now opening their doors for him.

Does the same logic apply to Bin Laden and countries extraditing him in the event he was detained somewhere outside the US?

[pmugghc]

This is a common misconception that extradition for capital offences is not possible from most countries. However, the US has successfully extradited many murderers, particularly from Canada, on the basis that the public prosecutor's office makes an undertaking to the extraditing government that it will not demand the death penalty. Most extradition treaties also require undertakings that the extraditee will not be tried on any further charges other than those specified in the extradition request.

My take on this is:

1) Western countries, such as France, that Thaksin has recently slipped into using his Montenegrin passport may now be too risky for him to visit, as he may be detained under house arrest in prison for a long period while they consider extradition. He may even actually get extradited, if he visits such countries. It may even get harder for Dubai to justify keeping him.

2) What is quite significant in the Thai legal context is that this is a charge that cannot be directly traced back to any the revolutionary decrees after the coup. The charge he was convicted on and nearly all the others pending were investigated by the AEC which was established as a result of a revolutionary decree. Thaksin's strategy all along has been to annul the 2007 constitution and the temporary constitution after the coup which provide legality to the revolutionary decrees and the coup itself. By reverting to the 1997 constitution all charges investigated by the AEC could be declared null and void. There is one other case that was brought by the DSI, rather than the AEC, to do with assets concealment to do with the ownership of SC Assets. This case was squashed by the DSI when PT was in power but the current government is looking into reviving it, following relevant evidence that came out in the Supreme Administrative Court assets confiscation against Thaksin. Since the asset concealment and terrorism cases are both terrorism cases, neither can be tried in absentia without the defendant at least being in court to hear the charges. The asset concealment case looked pretty clear cut to me from what has been made publicly available on it. However, Thaksin has successfully had in quashed once already and it is much less controversial and emotive than the terrorism case. If a Pheua Thai government tries to have the terrorism case quashed in future, it is easy to imagine that this would generate a far more emotional reaction to Bangkokians, who have seen their city held to ransom and then torched by Thaksin's supporters, than the sale of Shin Corp.

3) I don't think the government really wants him back, as he would a rallying point. I think they want to restrict his movements even further, hamper his PR efforts abroad and make it harder for him to get rid of charges against him by reverting to the 1997 constitution.

Aha, this explains why PTP did a 180 turnaround, they had first agreed to amend the current constitution, but then they got orders to go back to the 1997 version. The above explains why! Again, it's all about one man, not what's good for Thailand!

[thailandbluegrass]

Trust me, Thaksin tonight will fly via private jet to Argentina and go to the surgeons there and get a sex change and a complete identity change and will walk through Thai customs in 1 month, smile at the immigration and kiss Thai soil.

I am not being funny here. This could very much actually happen but maybe not a khathoye, just a complete surgical over haul and a new passport.

[jcbangkok]

This is a common misconception that extradition for capital offences is not possible from most countries. However, the US has successfully extradited many murderers, particularly from Canada, on the basis that the public prosecutor's office makes an undertaking to the extraditing government that it will not demand the death penalty. Most extradition treaties also require undertakings that the extraditee will not be tried on any further charges other than those specified in the extradition request.

While you are very correct on this ... I am not sure these same countries will balk at turning over a terrorist facing the death penalty. I could be wrong but terrorism is kind of treated very differently around the world and seems to often fall outside typical criminal charges. Haven't countries in the UK sent terrorists to the US since 9/11? Again, I could be wrong but could swear this has happened a number of times.

[hammered]

anti-terrorisnm conventions work on trying to make sure the poltically motivated notion is not allowed to interfere which is why these charegs are serious and why Amsterdam is going completely overboard. They also place obligations on countries to either extradite or prosecute themselves and at least encourage the arrestign state to look fo revidence for prosecution or extradition. We are talking about the lwaws the world has recently been finetuning to remove any form of obstruction of moving forward. This is not a case of arguing some criminal or corruption case is poltically motivated.

Do your homework then come back and chat, just because you want something to be a fact does not make it a fact. What the Thais consider terrorist will be seen as civil disobedience in many countries, the thais have thrown this word around too much, and while that has brainwashed some here foreign countries will see it for what it is and demand evidence, kasit calling him a terrorist does not make him one, the evidence will have to prove it. Luckily in the civilised world they are not prone to mass hysteria like this forum is, it is simply an allegation that needs to be proven.

Please dont be so insulting because you dont like something. All I did was post information apart form comment on Amsterdams comment which is well out of line with how western governments percieve the Thai government. Anyway...

When a country requests extradition for terrorism it is different from requesting extradition for something else. If you care to read the legal conventions you will find this. I have nowhere said what the outcome of the case would be but in a western country it would go through not only the courrts but also potentially the investigative process depending on certain things and potenatially the trial could even end up being held in a western country. What many of us see as legal protections have been denuded in the interest of forcing issues to extradition or trial in many anti-terrorism conventions. This has'nt been dione to favour the Thai government or to disadvantage Thaksin but because of the war on terror and other events since the 70's

No doubt sopmeone could argue charges were politically motivated but under anti-terrorism conventions that defence is a lot more difficult.

I would guess though that Thaksin would avoid countries where the formal law could tie him up for years or decades and limit all travel and I would also guess that most countries would not want this political hot potato on their soil and so would rather strongly suggets he doesnt enter it whatever visa fre arrangements exist.

For your information formal legal process is required if the Thai government declare him a terrorist and request extradition as are the other things I mentioned earlier. Just because the Thai government say he is aterrorist doesnt mean he is. Equally just because he says he isnt doesnt mean he isnt. In many ways having the case actually happen and happen in a western country as possibole under conventions would be interesting but because of diplomatic and poltical reasons unlikely to happen

Im not sur ehow many people would agree with your defintionm of civil disobedience but that is another matter beyond the point I was making that terrorist charges place things in a different category to other charges

Peace

[jcbangkok]

Trust me, Thaksin tonight will fly via private jet to Argentina and go to the surgeons there and get a sex change and a complete identity change and will walk through Thai customs in 1 month, smile at the immigration and kiss Thai soil.

I am not being funny here. This could very much actually happen but maybe not a khathoye, just a complete surgical over haul and a new passport.

[PETDCAT]

No matter what the eventual outcome is, you can bet He will be very uncomfortable being with His family and going shopping or keeping the hi profile He has been working on. Not knowing 100% which countries are going to give Him a pass and which will grab Him at their leisure.I expect he will be getting a new DVD player and a pile of movies and staying home awhile.

[TheOldWolf]

@Opalhort: The short answer is there is no internationally established definition: however, as an example the FBI summarises this as

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Regards

Thanks. This makes it clear since the rest of the world usually takes the FBI definition as a guideline.

Under this definition the red leaders and Thaksin certainly qualify to face charges as terrorists.

Just let's hope the international community sees it the same way.

opalhort

This is the defination from United Nations: since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." ^[23]

You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[amnat]

He's bound to sneak into the UK, claim political asylum, and be granted it in a flash.

After all we are home to many 'terrorists', the latest being a high profile case last week where some Al Queda operatives were found guilty of a plot to bomb the British public. But they will not be extradited back to Pakistan, just stay in the UK forever.

[saintofsilence]

Breaking news

Warrant issued for former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra

* From correspondents in Bangkok

* From: NewsCore

* May 25, 2010 6:27PM

A THAI court has approved an arrest warrant for fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra on terrorism charges in connection with recent deadly street protests, an official said.

The government has accused Mr Thaksin of inciting unrest and bankrolling the mass protests in Bangkok by the anti-government "Red Shirt" movement.

"A court found there was enough evidence so it issued an arrest warrant," Naras Savestanan, deputy chief of the Department of Special Investigation, told reporters after the closed-door hearing at the Criminal Court.

"Now it's the attorney general's job to enforce the warrant," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/warra...0-1225871251260

[TheOldWolf]

This is a common misconception that extradition for capital offences is not possible from most countries. However, the US has successfully extradited many murderers, particularly from Canada, on the basis that the public prosecutor's office makes an undertaking to the extraditing government that it will not demand the death penalty. Most extradition treaties also require undertakings that the extraditee will not be tried on any further charges other than those specified in the extradition request.

My take on this is:

1) Western countries, such as France, that Thaksin has recently slipped into using his Montenegrin passport may now be too risky for him to visit, as he may be detained under house arrest in prison for a long period while they consider extradition. He may even actually get extradited, if he visits such countries. It may even get harder for Dubai to justify keeping him.

2) What is quite significant in the Thai legal context is that this is a charge that cannot be directly traced back to any the revolutionary decrees after the coup. The charge he was convicted on and nearly all the others pending were investigated by the AEC which was established as a result of a revolutionary decree. Thaksin's strategy all along has been to annul the 2007 constitution and the temporary constitution after the coup which provide legality to the revolutionary decrees and the coup itself. By reverting to the 1997 constitution all charges investigated by the AEC could be declared null and void. There is one other case that was brought by the DSI, rather than the AEC, to do with assets concealment to do with the ownership of SC Assets. This case was squashed by the DSI when PT was in power but the current government is looking into reviving it, following relevant evidence that came out in the Supreme Administrative Court assets confiscation against Thaksin. Since the asset concealment and terrorism cases are both terrorism cases, neither can be tried in absentia without the defendant at least being in court to hear the charges. The asset concealment case looked pretty clear cut to me from what has been made publicly available on it. However, Thaksin has successfully had in quashed once already and it is much less controversial and emotive than the terrorism case. If a Pheua Thai government tries to have the terrorism case quashed in future, it is easy to imagine that this would generate a far more emotional reaction to Bangkokians, who have seen their city held to ransom and then torched by Thaksin's supporters, than the sale of Shin Corp.

3) I don't think the government really wants him back, as he would a rallying point. I think they want to restrict his movements even further, hamper his PR efforts abroad and make it harder for him to get rid of charges against him by reverting to the 1997 constitution.

Aha, this explains why PTP did a 180 turnaround, they had first agreed to amend the current constitution, but then they got orders to go back to the 1997 version. The above explains why! Again, it's all about one man, not what's good for Thailand!

Yes, there was a telephon call from Dear Leader and PTP jumped the ship

[Jingthing]

I thought Thaksin was already permanently barred from the UK. There are many countries he could park in like Nicaragua but this man loves to (needs to) travel and there is also the issue of access to his funds. Without his big money, he really is NOTHING.

[jdinasia]

@Opalhort: The short answer is there is no internationally established definition: however, as an example the FBI summarises this as

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Regards

Thanks. This makes it clear since the rest of the world usually takes the FBI definition as a guideline.

Under this definition the red leaders and Thaksin certainly qualify to face charges as terrorists.

Just let's hope the international community sees it the same way.

opalhort

This is the defination from United Nations: since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." ^[23]

You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Which should pretty well clear up the issue for people thinking that countries won't take this seriously, or will overlook it because some corrupt criminal on the run says it is politically motivated.

[SomTumTiger]

Thaksin certainly knew about the coordinated fire attacks. The terrorist label is warranted. Will probably restrict his movements, but he will not set foot on Thai soil again, during his lifetime, that is a certainty.

[Jingthing]

Yeah the perps ALWAYS say they are innocent. Let him prove it in court. Of course he has already been convicted of another crime he is on the run from. Not looking so good for the "Savior" of Isaan.

[bkkdawg]

wasn't this one was it

hahaha, I've seen this one b4, brilliant!

[OzMick]

There's a number of ways to look at this.

1) While the warrant was issued in Thailand, a lot of countries pretty much consider Thailand as not much better than some Banana Republics, and therefore not pay much attention to this warrant.

2) Even should they recognize it, that does not mean that if he were apprehended that the country which apprehended him, or even if it is Interpol, will be willing to extradite him, as many, if not most civilized countries will not extradite someone who faces a possible death sentence if returned to their country of origin which has issued the warrant.

3) While this undoubtedly place some "pressure" on him, it hardly stops him in his tracks, as there are still a whole list of countries who will still allow him to come and go freely, based on their own corruption, and his financial contributions to it.

In my opinion, bringing Thaksin back to Thailand would be a major mistake by the current government. That would put the hero of the Reds on their soil, and they would probably storm any prison or jail he was being kept in, or at least attempt to. And should he die, whether by true accident or something like a heart attack, while in custody, the entire world would be suspicious, and the Reds would truly rampage then. What we saw in BKK and the provinces with fires and arson would look like a Sunday picnic and this country would go up in flames.

To me, the best thing this government could do is make Thaksin a "non issue", stop putting him on the front page every day, and stop trying to blame everything on him. Make him a non entity that doesn't exist. They have themselves to blame, in some ways, for continuing to make him an issue. My advice to the government: "Forget about him and get on with business".

But, hey, to me that would make sense, and everyone knows that "sense" is something in seriously short supply of here.

Here, of course being Chiang Mai, which seems to be the hub of reds' and thaksin's apologists.

[bendejo]

Personally I’d like to see this loathsome slime given the Mussolini treatment, but he probably doesn’t have enough to tie a rope around.

I’d like to see him get nabbed by Australia. I can just see Rudd on the telly with that ‘just about to spit’ expression of disgust he does so well, explaining that the extradition will take time, meanwhile TS has to sit in a cement cell without connection to the outside. However I think he’s going to play sick so he can get transferred to the hospital ward where conditions will be better, and of course he can pay to get whatever he wants. If he is brought back to Thailand he’ll be in a fairly comfortable situation soon enough – money, as always, is the answer.

I think the only way he’s going to get his true come-uppance is if the case is handled by the International Court in The Hague, where buying his way won’t be as easy. Other than that it’s just a matter of price.

Something he and his lawyer have in common is they’re not very good liars, they’re audacious and arrogant as opposed to clever.

And now something that may be far-fetched, but here goes:

after the 2006 coup, I was expecting violence in the south to taper off, but it picked up big time. Then there was the New Years’ Eve 2008 bomb in good ol’ Ratchaprasang which was rumored to be connected to the southern insurgency (now that we have a northern insurgency it is necessary to state which one). Last year in Malaysia, in the state that borders the part of Thailand where the trouble is down there, they busted a private army of ethnic Malay Muslims: they were well funded and well organized. A few weeks ago I began to wonder if ol’ squareface factors into any of these things. He obviously doesn’t care if he destroys country, I think he’s made that pretty clear in the recent past.

I also suspect he may be on his way out of this incarnation, so he’s splurging his money to live out his Lex Luther fantasies.

[way2muchcoffee]

please list the countries that have Thaksin as a known 'terrorist'. With links and substantiated proof! Not, just the Nation or Bangkok Post

What are you talking about? The arrest warrant is about 3 hours old. The ink hasn't even finished drying and you are talking about other nations recognizing it. Really? Is this the argument you intend you use?

[lungmi]

anti-terrorisnm conventions work on trying to make sure the poltically motivated notion is not allowed to interfere which is why these charegs are serious and why Amsterdam is going completely overboard. They also place obligations on countries to either extradite or prosecute themselves and at least encourage the arrestign state to look fo revidence for prosecution or extradition. We are talking about the lwaws the world has recently been finetuning to remove any form of obstruction of moving forward. This is not a case of arguing some criminal or corruption case is poltically motivated.

Do your homework then come back and chat, just because you want something to be a fact does not make it a fact. What the Thais consider terrorist will be seen as civil disobedience in many countries, the thais have thrown this word around too much, and while that has brainwashed some here foreign countries will see it for what it is and demand evidence, kasit calling him a terrorist does not make him one, the evidence will have to prove it. Luckily in the civilised world they are not prone to mass hysteria like this forum is, it is simply an allegation that needs to be proven.

Please dont be so insulting because you dont like something. All I did was post information apart form comment on Amsterdams comment which is well out of line with how western governments percieve the Thai government. Anyway...

When a country requests extradition for terrorism it is different from requesting extradition for something else. If you care to read the legal conventions you will find this. I have nowhere said what the outcome of the case would be but in a western country it would go through not only the courrts but also potentially the investigative process depending on certain things and potenatially the trial could even end up being held in a western country. What many of us see as legal protections have been denuded in the interest of forcing issues to extradition or trial in many anti-terrorism conventions. This has'nt been dione to favour the Thai government or to disadvantage Thaksin but because of the war on terror and other events since the 70's

No doubt sopmeone could argue charges were politically motivated but under anti-terrorism conventions that defence is a lot more difficult.

I would guess though that Thaksin would avoid countries where the formal law could tie him up for years or decades and limit all travel and I would also guess that most countries would not want this political hot potato on their soil and so would rather strongly suggets he doesnt enter it whatever visa fre arrangements exist.

For your information formal legal process is required if the Thai government declare him a terrorist and request extradition as are the other things I mentioned earlier. Just because the Thai government say he is aterrorist doesnt mean he is. Equally just because he says he isnt doesnt mean he isnt. In many ways having the case actually happen and happen in a western country as possibole under conventions would be interesting but because of diplomatic and poltical reasons unlikely to happen

Im not sur ehow many people would agree with your defintionm of civil disobedience but that is another matter beyond the point I was making that terrorist charges place things in a different category to other charges

Peace

A crime is a crime, terrorism is more than a crime, there is the political dimension. International laws are weak. The International Court in Den Hague can investigate for war crimes - but US citizens are excluded.

[rogerdee123]

If the Thai Government wants to and is indeed competent enough, with this warrant they can get bank records from all of Thaksin's banks ... and then ....... simply follow the money .... possibly making their case against him very easy.

[yoshiwara]

Maybe Montenegro can seize the terrorist's in country assets. That might make it worthwhile for them.

Shouldnt there be a trial and conviction before he is hung, drawn and quartered, it is this mentality that will make it difficult for any country with a good rule of law to extradite him, found guilty before he is even tried, clearly politically motivated and I can see the UK now opening their doors for him.

No need. The (yellow) people have decided. He is 100% guilty.

That must be quite upsetting for someone cheering on the burning of Bangkok.

[Methuselah]

The rumours that Mr.Thaksin is suffering from prostate cancer may be of some relevance in this discussion.For those suggesting that a sex change operation may be a practical move on the part of Mr.Thaksin,he actually could be offered either pharmacological,or surgical,castration as a treatment for his prostate cancer.This would have the effect of creasting breast enlargement,therefore killing two birds with one stone.

Also as a precedent he could quote the Scottish justice system's release of the Lockerbie bomber on medical grounds,and hope,with the aid of Mr.Amsterdam,to receive similar sympathy from the Thai judicial system.

[givenall]

Wonderful, now he will bar from more countries to go to. How about him being a flight risk. And no fly list, even his own private plan, since it has to go to the international Airports

[OzMick]

please list the countries that have Thaksin as a known 'terrorist'. With links and substantiated proof! Not, just the Nation or Bangkok Post

THAILAND! It only takes one.

[misterjag]

It hardly matters whether Thanksin is or isn't extradited. The Red Shirt movement will grow in strength and eventually their demands will need to be accommodated.

Edited May 25, 2010 by misterjag

[OzMick]

I fail to understand that posters here say stay out of Thai politics but seem to take great delight in talking about it in the most extreme ways.

It would seem to me that bringing him back on whatever charges would create far more trouble than solve anything.

One mans terrorist is another mans martyr, there has been more than enough proof that he does have strong support from a large section of the Country. Bring him back and even if the proof is abundant against him he will still be a matyr to many with all the problems that would bring. Unfortunatley proof means nothing when someone believes in an ideology, no matter how ill informed.

Perhaps the gung ho farangs on here should think what is best for the Country they profess to love and not what is best to satisfy their bloodlust.

Martyrs don't sign cheques!

[Gonzo the Face]

I haven't read all 150 + posts so I hope this hasn't been posted before. If you have not read it, I think it is a good read. Seems fair and balanced and points out some of the ins and outs of the current problem.... Read it if you want and let me see some of your opinionsl

g

http://www.somtow.org/2010/05/dont-blame-dan-rivers.html