Tsunami Of Wikileaks Has Hit Thailand

[webfact]

US CABLES

Tsunami of leaks

By The Nation

The first wave of the WikiLeaks hurricane has hit Thailand, exposing behind-the-scenes information on the tug-of-war over Viktor Bout's extradition. Here is what outgoing US ambassador, Eric G John, said to his government during the three-way diplomatic tussle between his country, Thailand and Russia, as well as his statement, given exclusively to The Nation yesterday, in response to the whistle-blowing website.

Two classified cables sent by US Ambassador to Thailand Eric G. John to Washington concerning the extradition of alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout have been leaked to the public by Wikileaks.

The first reported on a meeting between John and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on February 12. Abhisit promised the ambassador he would address "irregularities" in the case through "appropriate channels".

In an introductory call with Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan the next day, John raised US concerns over testimony provided by "xxxxxxxxx", a person whose name was removed by WikiLeaks. Prawit committed to looking into the testimony to determine the truth.

The ambassador wrote in the first cable that there were disturbing indications Bout's "xxxxxxxxx" (also removed by WikiLeaks) and Russian supporters were using money and influence to try to block extradition. The most egregious example was the false testimony of xxxxxxxxx claiming Bout was in Thailand as part of a government-to-government submarine deal.

The second leaked cable was sent after the primary court rejected the extradition request. The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points. The ambassador told Kasit the United States needed the Foreign Ministry to forward the necessary documents to the Attorney-General's Office so its intent to appeal could be filed in the requisite 48 hours.

The United States would encourage the Thai government to issue a public statement expressing disappointment in the judges' decision, its intention to win on appeal and a reiteration of Thailand's commitment to both the struggle against international terrorism and its extensive law-enforcement relationship with the US, John wrote.

The ambassador made similar points to newly appointed National Security Council secretary-general Tawin Pleansri and to key figures at the Palace. "Without being counter-productively heavy-handed, we will make clear that we see Thai executive branch reaction to the ruling as a test of the relationship," he wrote.

John said in his cable that the judge's characterisation of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) as a legitimate political actor suggested insurgent groups in Thailand's South were likewise political in nature, perhaps outside the scope of Thailand's new counter-terrorism laws. The ruling also suggested that anyone seeking to send the groups arms from a third country could not be extradited to Thailand on political grounds.

"Moreover, the judges' misguided analysis of the 'dual criminality' standard suggests that fugitives cannot be extradited from Thailand unless a Thai court actually had jurisdiction over the alleged crime, not whether the alleged conduct is viewed as criminal conduct under the laws of both countries," John wrote.

"This decision comes at the same time Thailand is pursuing extradition of fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra for abuse of power/corruption-related charges; the judges' ruling would also seem to undermine the Thai government's positions in their Thaksin extradition effort."

John noted that discussion of a teleconference between the US president and Abhisit had been under way for some time and that the pair had not spoken in the seven months they had both been in office.

"We suggest that the call be accelerated and that it include a serious discussion of our concerns over the implications of the Bout verdict, as outlined above. We believe the president's involvement on Bout would have significant effect here," John wrote in the cable.

Abhisit said yesterday that John had raised the issue of irregularities in Bout's case when they met in February but that he did not talk with US President Barack Obama about the case.

-- The Nation 2010-12-03

[LaoPo]

"The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points."

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

I'm sure the Foreign Minister of the US will listen to the Thai ambassador in the US next time if the latter claims a US Judge was clearly been in error.

LaoPo

[whybother]

Why do "legitimate political actors" need weapons?

[Ulysses G.]

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

It seems that he was correct as Mr. Bout is not about anymore.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[LaoPo]

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

It seems that he was correct as Mr. Bout is not about anymore.

It's good to know we learn about all of this from WikiLeaks, don't we ?

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

It seems that he was correct as Mr. Bout is not about anymore.

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error

You can be sure that she would listen quite politely.

[Thai at Heart]

The most egregious example was the false testimony of xxxxxxxxx claiming Bout was in Thailand as part of a government-to-government submarine deal.

Oooooooh. Juicy. I see that the paper has cleverly forgotton to note which organisation this many worked for which is plainly written in the original document.

[mca]

The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points.

Ah. The benefits of diplomatic immunity. Not just parking wherever you want after all.

[sinom]

Tsunami of leaks .............

and

The first wave of the WikiLeaks hurricane ...............

It's certainly getting very stormy round here !!

[SergeiY]

Why do "legitimate political actors" need weapons?

Yes, in a previous decision they Thai court declared that they don't consider FARC as terrorist group.

Surprised by that?

If you read the cable you will also read that the embassies 'bout team' don't even know if the the FARC is regarded as terrorist organisation in Colombia. And they suggested to make an inquiry about that and also wanted to check if Colombia would be willing to help in the Bout case. - Isn't it strange that they didn't know that before or had contacted Colombia before?

FARC was according to the cable also not listed as terrorist group by the UN.

That looked for me not very professional by the US and also ignorant and arrogant towards other states and nations and what might be the opinion there.

In another topic i asked you a couple of times to define 'terrorist group' but of of course i never got an answer with some substance.

[mark45y]

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

It seems that he was correct as Mr. Bout is not about anymore.

It's good to know we learn about all of this from WikiLeaks, don't we ?

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

China, Japan and the US are Thailand's largest trading partners. Until recently the US was by far the largest.

The US has had a very close relationship to Thailand for the past 60 years. Hundreds of thousand of US troops, 50,000 at a time were stationed in Thailand to prosecute the war in Vietnam and secure Thailand's borders from incursion.

Ford was the first auto manufactured in Thailand. Oil refineries and heavy industry prosper in Thailand with US support and assistance.

Of course the US has a voice in Thai/US affairs.

I feel a little like the Toronto Star when it wrote,

“Forget policy some of this Wikileaks stuff is a great read.”

I realize your anti American posts serve to keep the thread going. It sparks a vitriolic debate and allows you to get your frustrations out of your system for a few minutes. But really you could be a little more subtle.

Of course Thailand will pay attention to it's larger trading partners and of course they will not pay attention to Thailand. Big fish eat little fish.

Thailand is a very small country in population, geographical size, and economic import. Thailand works because of the good will of its larger stronger partners. You know that. Why would you make a comment so silly as to expect a quid pro quo relationship between foreign ministers between Thailand and the US.

[geriatrickid]

"The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points."

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

I'm sure the Foreign Minister of the US will listen to the Thai ambassador in the US next time if the latter claims a US Judge was clearly been in error.

LaoPo

No, it's called doing his job. Why do you only take one aspect of the "leak" to comment on? The call was in large part motivated by the alleged influence peddling that occurred. Was there a submarine deal in progress? I don't think so. Were senior Thai officials implicated in Mr. Bout's attempt to get away? That's what the leaks suggest.

In consideration of the serious allegations, The Ambassador had an obligation to call. He was there to represent U.S. interests, not carry out the dictates of laoPo.

[whybother]

Why do "legitimate political actors" need weapons?

Yes, in a previous decision they Thai court declared that they don't consider FARC as terrorist group.

Surprised by that?

If you read the cable you will also read that the embassies 'bout team' don't even know if the the FARC is regarded as terrorist organisation in Colombia. And they suggested to make an inquiry about that and also wanted to check if Colombia would be willing to help in the Bout case. - Isn't it strange that they didn't know that before or had contacted Colombia before?

FARC was according to the cable also not listed as terrorist group by the UN.

That looked for me not very professional by the US and also ignorant and arrogant towards other states and nations and what might be the opinion there.

In another topic i asked you a couple of times to define 'terrorist group' but of of course i never got an answer with some substance.

Bout obviously thought they were a terrorist group. Otherwise, why would he have conspired to sell them weapons? They obviously aren't the Columbian government.

[geriatrickid]

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

How about you come up with a case of similar nature where a Thai ambassador would be obliged to express his or her sentiments?

You also have a convenient memory. Last May, Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to protest and express the Thai government's disappointment after the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Thai politicians. The Thai FM also expressed his views to Secretary Clinton at the ASEAN meetings last October in Vietnam.

What is your point?

[Thai at Heart]

"The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points."

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

I'm sure the Foreign Minister of the US will listen to the Thai ambassador in the US next time if the latter claims a US Judge was clearly been in error.

LaoPo

I am surprised you think it odd for an Ambassador to express his opinion and bring whatever weight his position has to get the outcome he wants.

It is called the Diplomatic service only to confuse people. It should be called the "Getting what you want, but giving away less" service. Just because the US appears to have the power to get what it wants, I don't think we should be surprised. It isn't an Ambassadors job to consider the needs of the opposition. It his job to get what he wants within the rules of the game.

Would be interesting if Wikileaks could get hold of the private cables from The Russian side. I am pretty sure it would make far more interesting reading, than to read that "the ambassador expressed his deep dismay ......."

Edited December 3, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[SergeiY]

Why do "legitimate political actors" need weapons?

Yes, in a previous decision they Thai court declared that they don't consider FARC as terrorist group.

Surprised by that?

If you read the cable you will also read that the embassies 'bout team' don't even know if the the FARC is regarded as terrorist organisation in Colombia. And they suggested to make an inquiry about that and also wanted to check if Colombia would be willing to help in the Bout case. - Isn't it strange that they didn't know that before or had contacted Colombia before?

FARC was according to the cable also not listed as terrorist group by the UN.

That looked for me not very professional by the US and also ignorant and arrogant towards other states and nations and what might be the opinion there.

In another topic i asked you a couple of times to define 'terrorist group' but of of course i never got an answer with some substance.

Bout obviously thought they were a terrorist group. Otherwise, why would he have conspired to sell them weapons? They obviously aren't the Columbian government.

What? Do you think Bout sold them weapon only because he thought they are terrorists?

I really would like to hear your definition of 'terrorists'.

And why it was a 'conspiracy'?

[jayboy]

"The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points."

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

I'm sure the Foreign Minister of the US will listen to the Thai ambassador in the US next time if the latter claims a US Judge was clearly been in error.

LaoPo

I am surprised you think it odd for an Ambassador to express his opinion and bring whatever weight his position has to get the outcome he wants.

It is called the Diplomatic service only to confuse people. It should be called the "Getting what you want, but giving away less" service. Just because the US appears to have the power to get what it wants, I don't think we should be surprised. It isn't an Ambassadors job to consider the needs of the opposition. It his job to get what he wants within the rules of the game.

Would be interesting if Wikileaks could get hold of the private cables from The Russian side. I am pretty sure it would make far more interesting reading, than to read that "the ambassador expressed his deep dismay ......."

Exactly.And from the details I have seen the Ambassador seems to have made some compelling points about the interpretation of the law.

The Wikileaks on Thailand are and will continue to be fascinating.By historic accident we have access to American views on various issues without any obvious reason for dishonesty or spin.The Thais don't seem to have woken up to the implications of this.From reports in the press today the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry spokesman first reactions' to the Bout case "no pressure levied on us etc" have simply not been telling truth.The appropriate reaction is surely "no comment" or an "aw shucks" sheepish grin.

[rubl]

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

How about you come up with a case of similar nature where a Thai ambassador would be obliged to express his or her sentiments?

You also have a convenient memory. Last May, Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to protest and express the Thai government's disappointment after the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Thai politicians. The Thai FM also expressed his views to Secretary Clinton at the ASEAN meetings last October in Vietnam.

What is your point?

When the MoFA summoned the US Ambassador it was a case of a US official 'meddling' in Thai affairs IN Thailand. Not really the same methinks

[whybother]

What? Do you think Bout sold them weapon only because he thought they are terrorists?

I really would like to hear your definition of 'terrorists'.

And why it was a 'conspiracy'?

terrorist (plural terrorists)

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

to conspire (third-person singular simple present conspires, present participle conspiring, simple past and past participle conspired)

- To secretly plot or make plans together, often used regarding something bad or illegal.

- (intransitive) To agree, to concur to one end.  

- To try to make things go a certain way.

Edited December 3, 2010 by whybother

[geriatrickid]

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

How about you come up with a case of similar nature where a Thai ambassador would be obliged to express his or her sentiments?

You also have a convenient memory. Last May, Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to protest and express the Thai government's disappointment after the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Thai politicians. The Thai FM also expressed his views to Secretary Clinton at the ASEAN meetings last October in Vietnam.

What is your point?

When the MoFA summoned the US Ambassador it was a case of a US official 'meddling' in Thai affairs IN Thailand. Not really the same methinks

Where was the "meddling". A party to an ongoing dispute related to the the overthrow of the previous government asked to meet with some officials and to explain its position. The U.S. government neither endorsed, nor supported the party. In fact, the U.S. government conveyed its view that it did not want violence and had a firm position that it did not support violent uprisings in Thailand. At the time, the U.S. officials had a duty to listen to this view and to gather information which could be forwarded to the U.S. State Department. The USA has a large number of citizens in Thailand. U.S. companies have large investments in Thailand (as do Chinese, Japanese, German and other companies). In order to assess the situation and to determine whether contingency plans needed to be drawn up to evacuate U.S. citizens, it was important to hear what the party had to say. At no time did the U.S. representatives take sides. In fact they, and the other governments that sent teams to survey the situation were acting on behalf of their legitimate interests. As you may recall, foreign governments were caught flatfooted when PAD seized the airports. Those governments were ripped apart for doing "nothing". That poor response came about in large part because they were clueless to the planned airport seizures. had the foreign governments obtained the views of PAD beforehand, they would have been better prepared. The meeting with the party in this case was a legal meeting and was an important part of the U.S. officials duties. In no way does this mean there was any meddling nor support.

Would you care to try again?

[yellow1red1]

Why do "legitimate political actors" need weapons?

Yes, in a previous decision they Thai court declared that they don't consider FARC as terrorist group.

Surprised by that?

If you read the cable you will also read that the embassies 'bout team' don't even know if the the FARC is regarded as terrorist organisation in Colombia. And they suggested to make an inquiry about that and also wanted to check if Colombia would be willing to help in the Bout case. - Isn't it strange that they didn't know that before or had contacted Colombia before?

FARC was according to the cable also not listed as terrorist group by the UN.

That looked for me not very professional by the US and also ignorant and arrogant towards other states and nations and what might be the opinion there.

In another topic i asked you a couple of times to define 'terrorist group' but of of course i never got an answer with some substance.

wiki lea ,, I mean wiki pedia has an excellent run down on the definitions and history of terrorism,, airport takeovers is Internationally classified.

are the reds and yellows ranked as terrorists groups? they should be, I wouldn't want any of them in my country.

it was idiotic of Bush's crew to make 'terrorism' a crime, per se.

With 'hate' crimes, perps get charged with assault, vandalism, wotever, the Hate part comes in the sentencing, if it was ethnic or gender related, they get a tougher sentence, they don't get charged with hate, per se..

terrorism should be same/same,, charge them with shutting down airports, shutting down neighborhoods, blowing up subways, etc,,,, get the conviction, then stick terrorism on for longer sentencing

calling someone a terrorist is like calling someone a hater, its a non sequatir

[george]

UPDATE:

WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

Full story:

[yellow1red1]

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will listen to the Thai ambassador in case a US Judge is in error .....................................would she ?

Would you?

LaoPo

How about you come up with a case of similar nature where a Thai ambassador would be obliged to express his or her sentiments?

You also have a convenient memory. Last May, Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to protest and express the Thai government's disappointment after the meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Thai politicians. The Thai FM also expressed his views to Secretary Clinton at the ASEAN meetings last October in Vietnam.

What is your point?

When the MoFA summoned the US Ambassador it was a case of a US official 'meddling' in Thai affairs IN Thailand. Not really the same methinks

Where was the "meddling". A party to an ongoing dispute related to the the overthrow of the previous government asked to meet with some officials and to explain its position. The U.S. government neither endorsed, nor supported the party. In fact, the U.S. government conveyed its view that it did not want violence and had a firm position that it did not support violent uprisings in Thailand. At the time, the U.S. officials had a duty to listen to this view and to gather information which could be forwarded to the U.S. State Department. The USA has a large number of citizens in Thailand. U.S. companies have large investments in Thailand (as do Chinese, Japanese, German and other companies). In order to assess the situation and to determine whether contingency plans needed to be drawn up to evacuate U.S. citizens, it was important to hear what the party had to say. At no time did the U.S. representatives take sides. In fact they, and the other governments that sent teams to survey the situation were acting on behalf of their legitimate interests. As you may recall, foreign governments were caught flatfooted when PAD seized the airports. Those governments were ripped apart for doing "nothing". That poor response came about in large part because they were clueless to the planned airport seizures. had the foreign governments obtained the views of PAD beforehand, they would have been better prepared. The meeting with the party in this case was a legal meeting and was an important part of the U.S. officials duties. In no way does this mean there was any meddling nor support.

Would you care to try again?

usa doesn't 'meddle' hmmm , bet your bippy on that?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/125179.pdf

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/China_Langley_Hqtrs_DD.html

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-2/

http://newgon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=10653

[housepainter]

Such leaks can only show this reluctant Nation that the truth is out there and available to everyone now that it is being published. It may lead to an improvement upon how business is done.

It may also speed up the removal od despots and the implementation of democracy around the world.

It may also lead to regime change from within the state by civil protest replacing the marching in of American and UK armies later joined by NATO.

There's enough wrong here on the surface. Imagine what lies below?

It would top any petty name calling done by the US.

People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?

I do. Long may they lose face via the internet where the world can read it.

[jayjay0]

Such leaks can only show this reluctant Nation that the truth is out there and available to everyone now that it is being published. It may lead to an improvement upon how business is done.

It may also speed up the removal od despots and the implementation of democracy around the world.

It may also lead to regime change from within the state by civil protest replacing the marching in of American and UK armies later joined by NATO.

There's enough wrong here on the surface. Imagine what lies below?

It would top any petty name calling done by the US.

People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?

I do. Long may they lose face via the internet where the world can read it.

Not sure what you mean by democracy. Can you explain to me?

I know the system Thailand uses is the same as England and Canada and I suspect a lot of others. Are you saying they are not a democracy? I also know that the US does not even claim to be a democracy they claim to be a Republic.

[huma79]

I can't see the stats at the moment, but if I recall a few days ago the wikileaks site listed that it had over 5,000 leaks from the Bangkok embassy.. Only like 3 have been released.. should be interesting to see what comes..

[mark45y]

Such leaks can only show this reluctant Nation that the truth is out there and available to everyone now that it is being published. It may lead to an improvement upon how business is done.

It may also speed up the removal od despots and the implementation of democracy around the world.

It may also lead to regime change from within the state by civil protest replacing the marching in of American and UK armies later joined by NATO.

There's enough wrong here on the surface. Imagine what lies below?

It would top any petty name calling done by the US.

People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?

I do. Long may they lose face via the internet where the world can read it.

Not sure what you mean by democracy. Can you explain to me?

I know the system Thailand uses is the same as England and Canada and I suspect a lot of others. Are you saying they are not a democracy? I also know that the US does not even claim to be a democracy they claim to be a Republic.

Jay have you lost the plot? Thailand uses the same system as England and Canada? Election - coup, Election - coup, re write constitution, Election - coup, military law, election, ban political parties that lose, election - coup. Thai is like England and Canada?

[whybother]

Jay have you lost the plot? Thailand uses the same system as England and Canada? Election - coup, Election - coup, re write constitution, Election - coup, military law, election, ban political parties that lose, election - coup. Thai is like England and Canada?

I think what he meant is that they all use the Westminister (or similar to) system - MPs, Senators, someone at the top to sign it all off (here - the King, UK - the Queen, Aus - Governer General, Canada - probably GG, but not sure).

[nikster]

Honestly, this is pretty much the most harmless WikiLeak I've seen.

Of course the US wanted him extradited, that was never a secret, and of course the Russians were going to exploit the corrupt nature of Thailand's judicial system. The case just got too high profile to do that, with the threat of a scolding delivered by the US prez himself

Looks like the ambassador did nothing wrong, no illegal dealings, no backroom deals, nothing. Just the official line: "Don't piss us off, we want the guy".

Edited December 3, 2010 by nikster

[Crushdepth]

It will be interesting if any cables come to light regarding US views of Mr Thaksin and his shenanigans.

People dissapear here. Human rights lawyers are abducted in public and the police allowed to go scott free. Abductions occur at the airport. Don't you think we need a dollop of truth landing on Thailand?

Where will we get it though? Our moral superiors in all things, the United States, abduct people with no respect for due process or other country's laws. They also drop bombs and hellfire missiles on people they don't like.

You can count the number of sane governments on one hand.