Extradition Of Thaksin, Red Leaders Sought

[webfact]

FUGITIVE EX-PREMIER

Extradition of Thaksin, red leaders sought

By The Nation

Public prosecutors plan to seek the extradition of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra as well as other red-shirt leaders now on the run overseas to face terrorism charges at home.

Sirisak Tiyaphan, chief public prosecutor for foreign affairs, said yesterday that since 19 red-shirt leaders were indicted earlier this week over acts of terrorism as well as inciting unrest, public prosecutors would file formal requests with the countries that the defendants are believed to be living in. He added that some of these red-shirt leaders were believed to be living in a neighbouring country.

Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdit said yesterday that the agency was working closely with the police to nab red-shirt leaders who are hiding in Thailand.

Those known to be living outside the country include Thaksin, who is living in self-exile in Montenegro; and Arisman Pongruangrong, who was spotted at a hotel in the Cambodian province of Siem Reap. The public prosecutors will urgently seek their extradition, the DSI chief said.

He added that the indicted red-shirt leaders, who are not in remand due to their immunity as parliamentarians, namely Pheu Thai's Jatuporn Promphan and Karun Hosakul, are now defendants, not just the accused. Therefore, they would need to apply for court permission for temporary release.

Sirisak said that according to law, people who are indicted have to be detained and must apply with court for bail.

-- The Nation 2010-08-14

[brahmburgers]

Where's the Thai version of Ken Norton?

Here's an ebook which tells what likely goes on behind closed doors, re: Thaksin and his ilk.

[chantorn]

But Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdi has no credit left. After his wife is caught in an alleged corruption.

[geriatrickid]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. The charges came after Mr. Thaksin was overthrown and are not associated with charges that would trump the legal obstacle of the coup. Had Mr. Thaksin been charged with a serious offense such as murder or war crimes, then there would be greater pressure to cooperate. It will be easy to contest any extradition request merely by citing the coup and the absence of charges before a war crimes tribunal etc. One may dislike the gentleman, but if he ever shows up in the EU or Canada and claims status as a political refugee, it will be a decade or more before Thailand ever gets finished with the extradition process. By that time a couple military coups will have come and gone in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin will be old news, long forgotten.

[animatic]

But Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdi has no credit left. After his wife is caught in an alleged corruption.

Why? Jutuporn says this is so and one business man says it's so,

and suddenly her husband is guilty of the same thing. Not hardly.

Jatuporn's just trying to gain some leverage by public threats

and finding someone with any kind of a connection to her old job that

thinks he didn't get what he wants, or will if he does what's asked.

Point being it's not proved a bit.

And this has sod all to do with extradition or charges aginst red shirts.

[rixalex]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. The charges came after Mr. Thaksin was overthrown and are not associated with charges that would trump the legal obstacle of the coup. Had Mr. Thaksin been charged with a serious offense such as murder or war crimes, then there would be greater pressure to cooperate. It will be easy to contest any extradition request merely by citing the coup and the absence of charges before a war crimes tribunal etc. One may dislike the gentleman, but if he ever shows up in the EU or Canada and claims status as a political refugee, it will be a decade or more before Thailand ever gets finished with the extradition process. By that time a couple military coups will have come and gone in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin will be old news, long forgotten.

Have you considered that successful extradition might not be the sole (or even the main) purpose of the issuing of these extradition requests?

[rixalex]

But Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdi has no credit left. After his wife is caught in an alleged corruption.

Alleged by whom?

[LikeHeat]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. The charges came after Mr. Thaksin was overthrown and are not associated with charges that would trump the legal obstacle of the coup. Had Mr. Thaksin been charged with a serious offense such as murder or war crimes, then there would be greater pressure to cooperate. It will be easy to contest any extradition request merely by citing the coup and the absence of charges before a war crimes tribunal etc. One may dislike the gentleman, but if he ever shows up in the EU or Canada and claims status as a political refugee, it will be a decade or more before Thailand ever gets finished with the extradition process. By that time a couple military coups will have come and gone in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin will be old news, long forgotten.

Your so called illegal coup of a democratically elected Government happened a bit differently. The way I saw it was that parliament had been "closed" by Mr. T so elections could be held, but he missed the point about holding elections. He refused to step down and after a long waiting period (normal in Thailand) somebody had to step up and move things along. The way I see the military was simply helping Mr. T do what he said he was going to do.

You are normally well informed, so what is the point of your mixed up words? Do you not understand the process or are you simply lying to create an issue?

[BSJ]

Saying and doing are two different things!

Edited August 14, 2010 by BSJ

[animatic]

Back on topic.

It is the prosecutors duty to make extradition requests if it is known a suspect is out of the country.

It's not that they want Thaksin himself back in a local jail as a focus for demonstrations, but if they

charge and request the likes of Arisman to be returned, then Thaksin MUST also be requested.

Fair play. In either case, if the fugative harboring country doesn't move on the request by legal means

it reflects squarely on the country more than the prosecutors, regardless of what some will shortly say here,

and also serves to limit all the travel possibilities for any of them, and puts their accusations on the world stage

properly and legally.

Thaksin's world grows another notch smaller, and if the Russian oil guys see him and his fronted money as

a write off of a bad debt, then they may just decide to 'collect on the bill' as a object lesson to others.

To quote Clousseau; "Problem solve-ed."

Edited August 14, 2010 by animatic

[badgerbailey]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. The charges came after Mr. Thaksin was overthrown and are not associated with charges that would trump the legal obstacle of the coup. Had Mr. Thaksin been charged with a serious offense such as murder or war crimes, then there would be greater pressure to cooperate. It will be easy to contest any extradition request merely by citing the coup and the absence of charges before a war crimes tribunal etc. One may dislike the gentleman, but if he ever shows up in the EU or Canada and claims status as a political refugee, it will be a decade or more before Thailand ever gets finished with the extradition process. By that time a couple military coups will have come and gone in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin will be old news, long forgotten.

Your so called illegal coup of a democratically elected Government happened a bit differently. The way I saw it was that parliament had been "closed" by Mr. T so elections could be held, but he missed the point about holding elections. He refused to step down and after a long waiting period (normal in Thailand) somebody had to step up and move things along. The way I see the military was simply helping Mr. T do what he said he was going to do.

You are normally well informed, so what is the point of your mixed up words? Do you not understand the process or are you simply lying to create an issue?

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

[SpoliaOpima]

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

And not one civilised country in the world will allow Col Thaksin to reside there. I think most civilised countries know the difference between a greater evil and a lesser one.

[animatic]

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

And not one civilised country in the world will allow Col Thaksin to reside there. I think most civilised countries know the difference between a greater evil and a lesser one.

More to the point,

Thaksin had resigned, and then unilaterally took the job back a week later.

He had called a snap election, disolved the parliament, and failed to run the follow up election,

and his term as caretaker had expired, he was not reappointed as Interim PM.

He was not an elected PM at the time, but a overstaying, resigned care taker PM

who had NOT been reappointed to the position.

He was not the properly elected PM of Thailand at the time of the coup.

He was attempting to take control of the government alone by fiat.

[rixalex]

not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position.

Civilised countries with functioning democracies have the benefit of procedures set in place that prevent prime ministers from eroding away all the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power and illegal activity. Thaksin was proven guilty of both and had the army not intervened he may well have been still in power to this day. Would that have been preferable to the coup?

[LikeHeat]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. The charges came after Mr. Thaksin was overthrown and are not associated with charges that would trump the legal obstacle of the coup. Had Mr. Thaksin been charged with a serious offense such as murder or war crimes, then there would be greater pressure to cooperate. It will be easy to contest any extradition request merely by citing the coup and the absence of charges before a war crimes tribunal etc. One may dislike the gentleman, but if he ever shows up in the EU or Canada and claims status as a political refugee, it will be a decade or more before Thailand ever gets finished with the extradition process. By that time a couple military coups will have come and gone in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin will be old news, long forgotten.

Your so called illegal coup of a democratically elected Government happened a bit differently. The way I saw it was that parliament had been "closed" by Mr. T so elections could be held, but he missed the point about holding elections. He refused to step down and after a long waiting period (normal in Thailand) somebody had to step up and move things along. The way I see the military was simply helping Mr. T do what he said he was going to do.

You are normally well informed, so what is the point of your mixed up words? Do you not understand the process or are you simply lying to create an issue?

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

You're deliberately ignoring the point. The Government was a caretaker Government that refused to stand down and proceed to elections and thus it was illegal, and the Military was simply following the law to restore order. It has a duty to the Thai people to not let a Government become a dictatorship and hang on to power using any means possible.

[LikeHeat]

not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position.

Civilised countries with functioning democracies have the benefit of procedures set in place that prevent prime ministers from eroding away all the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power and illegal activity. Thaksin was proven guilty of both and had the army not intervened he may well have been still in power to this day. Would that have been preferable to the coup?

It is not really a coup when the acting Government is illegal. It is more of a policing and law enforcement matter.

[yellow1red1]

with so many corrupt and criminals residing in Thailand, why no lids put on them?

easier than trying to haul in the exiles.

Somebody should write a 'wotever happened to?' book about All the Exiles, including the first PM and even before that!

[chainarong]

Just how many extradition orders are out there for Khun Thaksin?? But in search for common sense, I would not let him ever come back , for one reason only, the guy is trouble with a capital T

Edited August 14, 2010 by chainarong

[monkfish]

Seems we have some great legal minds on the forum! Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before?

What was supposed to happen anyway?

Thaksin called a snap election 2 years into his 5 year term which was nullified because the Dems and a few other parties boycotted.

I even believe at the time Abhisits chums PAD were protesting and actually demanded Thaksin call elections?

Who was supposed to be PM in this situation??

Please tell me!

[brahmburgers]

not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position.

Civilised countries with functioning democracies have the benefit of procedures set in place that prevent prime ministers from eroding away all the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power and illegal activity. Thaksin was proven guilty of both and had the army not intervened he may well have been still in power to this day. Would that have been preferable to the coup?

Lots of good insights within this thread. It's a scary, yet completely plausible concept: that T (and family and corrupt-to-the-core buddies) could be in power today. He was setting himself up as a 'dictator for life.' No one could have bumped him from power, if the military hadn't done so. I don't condone the coup, but I see it as a lesser of evils. Another way I see it is; if a patient (Thailand) is seriously sick, there may come a time when drastic procedure (surgery) is needed.

Thaksin could literally have owned nearly everything in Thailand at the rate he was going. You think that's outlandish? Draw a graph of where he was when in his late 30's (never had a successful business), to where he was when he was just before becoming PM (a millionaire) ...to where he was a few years later (a billionaire), after soaking his PM's seat for every money-making advantage he could grab. You think he would have coasted in contentment from there? Heck no! He would have turned his absolute power machine up to full throttle, with control over every facet of gov't, and no opposition (except the Yellows) willing to raise a finger. ...which brings us to the next post......

Seems we have some great legal minds on the forum! Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before? What was supposed to happen anyway? Thaksin called a snap election 2 years into his 5 year term which was nullified because the Dems and a few other parties boycotted. I even believe at the time Abhisits chums PAD were protesting and actually demanded Thaksin call elections? Who was supposed to be PM in this situation?? Please tell me!

Ok, you asked, I'll tell you. The PM was supposed to be decent, fair-minded person. He was the opposite of that, and his karma ran over his dogma.

[rixalex]

Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before?

You are surprised the courts didn't intervene? Perhaps you have forgotten the power that Thaksin enjoyed at that time. Might as well ask why didn't the courts find Thaksin guilty of concealing his assets?

[esbkk]

But Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdi has no credit left. After his wife is caught in an alleged corruption.

...so far only alleged ...

[asiawatcher]

But Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdi has no credit left. After his wife is caught in an alleged corruption.

More like :

"Department of Special Investigation (DSI) director-general Tharit Pengdit said yesterday that the agency was working closely with the police ... "

There goes the case as the Police will stall it and it will get mired in the 'system'. But right now they are all riding up on the PR and hype.

[Foggy Bottom]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. .......

Your so called illegal coup of a democratically elected Government happened a bit differently. The way I saw it was that parliament had been "closed" by Mr. T so elections could be held, but he missed the point about holding elections. He refused to step down and after a long waiting period (normal in Thailand) somebody had to step up and move things along. The way I see the military was simply helping Mr. T do what he said he was going to do.

You are normally well informed, so what is the point of your mixed up words? Do you not understand the process or are you simply lying to create an issue?

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

Geriatric and Badger - which bit of the following do you not understand?

At the date of the "coup", Thaksin was no longer a serving and legally elected Prime Minister.

He had dissolved Parliament (therefore the country was without government) and resigned as the elected Prime Minister (therefore serving in an honorary and volunteer role as the caretaker PM until the upcoming election result was known). His "cabinet / government" consisted of a caretaker committee to ensure documents of national interest could be signed between the date of disbanding government and parliament up to the date of Royal accord for the new government post-election.

There was NO legal elected government ruling the country at the time of the "coup", there was only a joint management committee.

Now which part of that do you guys and the rest of the lobsters not understand?

[animatic]

Thailand can ask for extradition all it wants. Unfortunately, most western governments will not be able to assist since Mr. Thaksin was for all intents and purposes deposed by an illegal military coup that quashed a democratically elected government. .......

Your so called illegal coup of a democratically elected Government happened a bit differently. The way I saw it was that parliament had been "closed" by Mr. T so elections could be held, but he missed the point about holding elections. He refused to step down and after a long waiting period (normal in Thailand) somebody had to step up and move things along. The way I see the military was simply helping Mr. T do what he said he was going to do.

You are normally well informed, so what is the point of your mixed up words? Do you not understand the process or are you simply lying to create an issue?

But, by them stepping up and moving things along they broke the law and not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position. Please explain to me what process you want us to understand? are you suggesting that the process of the army moving things along by staging a coup d'etat is alright and ok by your standards? I'm really having trouble understanding YOUR mixed up words.

Geriatric and Badger - which bit of the following do you not understand?

At the date of the "coup", Thaksin was no longer a serving and legally elected Prime Minister.

He had dissolved Parliament (therefore the country was without government) and resigned as the elected Prime Minister (therefore serving in an honorary and volunteer role as the caretaker PM until the upcoming election result was known). His "cabinet / government" consisted of a caretaker committee to ensure documents of national interest could be signed between the date of disbanding government and parliament up to the date of Royal accord for the new government post-election.

There was NO legal elected government ruling the country at the time of the "coup", there was only a joint management committee.

Now which part of that do you guys and the rest of the lobsters not understand?

Yes, and add to that,

he was going to NYC to address the UN purporting to be the elected PM of Thailand,

which was legally untrue, and this fact was stated several times in the weeks prior to his departure,

as reasons he should NOT go and address the UN in Thailand's name since he was not a proper representative.

If he had rescheduled for after the election no one would have argued the point.

But The resigned and self re-appointed Thaksin's ego would let him NOT be the big wheel on the big world stage.

I don't think the timing is too coincidental, because many Thai's has said they thought his doing it would bring disrepute on Thailand.

[scorecard]

Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before?

You are surprised the courts didn't intervene? Perhaps you have forgotten the power that Thaksin enjoyed at that time. Might as well ask why didn't the courts find Thaksin guilty of concealing his assets?

Well said! And I would strongly emphahsise the: power, control, intimidation, placing of close relatives in poweful positions (nepotism on a very large scale - and shockingly open) that thaksin wielded at the time. If he had not been Thailand would today be well down the road towards being another Burma.

I strongly support the analysis of 'lessor of two evils'.

[whybother]

Seems we have some great legal minds on the forum! Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before?

What was supposed to happen anyway?

Thaksin called a snap election 2 years into his 5 year term which was nullified because the Dems and a few other parties boycotted.

I even believe at the time Abhisits chums PAD were protesting and actually demanded Thaksin call elections?

Who was supposed to be PM in this situation??

Please tell me!

The 2006 election wasn't nullified because the parties boycotted them. It was nullified because the election commission had set up polling booths so that people could see who the voters voted for.

edit: even with no opposition and no voter privacy, the TRT could still only get 53% of the vote.

Edited August 15, 2010 by whybother

[animatic]

Anybody got any links to prove Thaksin was Illegally acting as PM?

And if he was why didn't the courts simply dissolve the government they have done it before?

You are surprised the courts didn't intervene? Perhaps you have forgotten the power that Thaksin enjoyed at that time. Might as well ask why didn't the courts find Thaksin guilty of concealing his assets?

Well said! And I would strongly emphahsise the: power, control, intimidation, placing of close relatives in poweful positions (nepotism on a very large scale - and shockingly open) that thaksin wielded at the time. If he had not been Thailand would today be well down the road towards being another Burma.

I strongly support the analysis of 'lessor of two evils'.

Agreed.

He had the stamp of a pure, amoral dictator in the making.

And this mind set gets more isolated and less rational with time.

Less of two evils indeed.

[Buchholz]

Thaksin called a snap election 2 years into his 5 year term which was nullified because the Dems and a few other parties boycotted.

The 2006 election wasn't nullified because the parties boycotted them. It was nullified because the election commission had set up polling booths so that people could see who the voters voted for.

Thank you for correcting the latest episode of historical disinformation and untruths.

That they couldn't garner even the required 20% of the vote, despite running uncontested in several areas, speaks volumes.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Buchholz

[Mitker]

not one civilised country in the world accepts that is alright for the army to depose an elected prime minister from his position.

Civilised countries with functioning democracies have the benefit of procedures set in place that prevent prime ministers from eroding away all the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power and illegal activity. Thaksin was proven guilty of both and had the army not intervened he may well have been still in power to this day. Would that have been preferable to the coup?

Exactly the point.