Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn To Reveal 'Solid Evidence' Of Abhisit's UK Citizenship

[fvw53]

the UK and the USA apply "jus soli" (everbody born on their soil is automatically imposed their nationality....like it or not)

most other countries apply "jus sanguinis" (you get he nationality according to the blood line / parents

During the 1960ies and early 1970ies I have seen real drama of young West European who were born on US soil about 20 years earlier....were arrested upon returning to the USA because at that time this country had compulsary military service...even if those West Europeans had already done military service in their own country they still had to do military service in the USA...and in many case were sent to fight in Vietnam

So if somebody has acquired the UK or USA nationality it makes a big difference it this is imposed by birth on him or her .....or if this a free choice made later (by naturalisation)

[whybother]

Its not for us to decide the legality of the submission, greater honest men than us will do that. I quoted 4 sections, which according to the uncorroborated statements of Amsterdams witnesses, the case may procede. When the submission is made to the ICC the witnesses names will be known and not before, so dont mock the identity of because they are hidden by numbers, there is dark forces operating in Thailand and a few witnesses may take an unscheduled long term holiday in some bridge footings.

Yes there was violence, but we need to know the sequence of events that brought about this violence. If state media is your main source of information you will not get a full picture for obvious reasons. The leaders are in jail awaiting trial.... cant have a trial without being charged first. 9 months in jail and no charges and all legal due to some purposterous Internal security law. Please tell me why The ICC will not look at this case

The sequence of events isn't really relevant when you think about it. The was a video of when the shooting started on the night of April 10, and no one knew where it started. But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades. The ICC will see that, and then look no further.

And it's been pointed out to you before. (Selective memory?) The leaders HAVE been charged. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Remand-hearing-for-11-red-shirt-leaders-charged-fo-30131623.html (plenty of other links out there if you bother to look).

[OZinBKK]

Does that mean he's also 10 points down on the maturity development index?

I transferred from US school system to the British school system when I was mid-teens. Sorry to say, it felt like I was stuck with a group of 10 year olds.

Lol I'm Australian so no offense taken we love teasing the Brits but I'd rather take a coloring book to school than a 'gat'.

Plus your not even on subject? Hmm... Maybe you have a point about the education you received in the UK.

Sorry Brits but his blatant ignorance and stupidity makes a fairly good point.

Stay on point next time ye?

[truethailand]

Its not for us to decide the legality of the submission, greater honest men than us will do that. I quoted 4 sections, which according to the uncorroborated statements of Amsterdams witnesses, the case may procede. When the submission is made to the ICC the witnesses names will be known and not before, so dont mock the identity of because they are hidden by numbers, there is dark forces operating in Thailand and a few witnesses may take an unscheduled long term holiday in some bridge footings.

Yes there was violence, but we need to know the sequence of events that brought about this violence. If state media is your main source of information you will not get a full picture for obvious reasons. The leaders are in jail awaiting trial.... cant have a trial without being charged first. 9 months in jail and no charges and all legal due to some purposterous Internal security law. Please tell me why The ICC will not look at this case

The sequence of events isn't really relevant when you think about it. The was a video of when the shooting started on the night of April 10, and no one knew where it started. But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades. The ICC will see that, and then look no further.

And it's been pointed out to you before. (Selective memory?) The leaders HAVE been charged. http://www.nationmul...o-30131623.html (plenty of other links out there if you bother to look).

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

[Farang0tang]

According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[27]

I therefore nominate natural born Craigt3365 (born in another country other than the US) for US President elect!

Edited February 19, 2011 by Farang0tang

[Soutpeel]

Jatuporn, he will volunteer to be put in jail too

:clap2:

Better informed Thais have told me that Abhisit attained his Thai Citizenship status by living in Thailand...to be naturalised over 10 year residence..to qualify.....Similar system to how foreighners in UK attain British citizenship.

However in many people views...regardless of this...Your nationality always is the country in which you were born...even if both your parents from another country.

Where does it say he has a British passport?

Well the "better infromed Thai's" obviously dont know what they are taking about either.....If Abhisit was born in the UK to two Thai citizens , he would not need need "naturalising" over 10 years of residence in Thailand.....he is Thai by direct decent and fully entitled to citzenship and a passport.

[phiphidon]

re: Red shirts to reveal 'solid evidence' of Abhisit's UK citizenship

LMAO if this was not such a serious issue .... Can the Reds not come up with any of their own ideas? It is not enough they copy tactics of other groups (whose tactics they claim to condemn) but now they want to start a "birther" type movement here in Thailand?? Don't they realize that the birthers in the US are looked at as freaks to both the Right and Left in the US.

If you and a good deal other members read the OP you would know why the issue of whether Abhisit is a UK citizen or not is being pursued. It is not because of some "birther" movement or an attempt to throw him out of office because he isn't Thai; It's like lemmings, someone skims through the OP and makes an asinine comment usually about the Redshirts or Thaksin or Amsterdam and the rest fall over themselves following the theme with variations upon it, even if, as in this case, they have completely missed the point.

Thus Abhisit would be subject to being tried by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity as a result of the deadly red-shirt crackdown in Apriland May last year. Thailand has not ratified membership of the ICC, while the United Kingdom has.

In other words If Abhisit had only Thai citizenship the accusation of crimes against humanity could not and would not be heard by the ICC. However if it is proved that Abhisit is a British Citizen he can be tried by the ICC. Regardless of the chance of this happening, and Robert Amsterdam himself admits that it is a really slim chance, the job has been done. The white paper has been published and has and is being discussed. Again regardless of what you think of its content awareness of it has been raised.

Edited to correct spelling of "birther" not that it has anything to do with the OP as I've stated above

Edited February 19, 2011 by phiphidon

[AleG]

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

The sequence of events is not relevant in a shoot out?

The Red shirts carried heavy weapons for self defence?

You are pulling our legs, aren´t you?

[truethailand]

Its not for us to decide the legality of the submission, greater honest men than us will do that. I quoted 4 sections, which according to the uncorroborated statements of Amsterdams witnesses, the case may procede. When the submission is made to the ICC the witnesses names will be known and not before, so dont mock the identity of because they are hidden by numbers, there is dark forces operating in Thailand and a few witnesses may take an unscheduled long term holiday in some bridge footings.

Yes there was violence, but we need to know the sequence of events that brought about this violence. If state media is your main source of information you will not get a full picture for obvious reasons. The leaders are in jail awaiting trial.... cant have a trial without being charged first. 9 months in jail and no charges and all legal due to some purposterous Internal security law. Please tell me why The ICC will not look at this case

The sequence of events isn't really relevant when you think about it. The was a video of when the shooting started on the night of April 10, and no one knew where it started. But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades. The ICC will see that, and then look no further.

And it's been pointed out to you before. (Selective memory?) The leaders HAVE been charged. http://www.nationmul...o-30131623.html (plenty of other links out there if you bother to look).

But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades... were you on the front line. Prior to the crackdown in April there must have been meetings between senior politicians and Army brass. Its what was discussed and agreed at those meetings that should be brought into an open court. Who gave the orders. In an open international court that may be revealed. Was an amout of dead protestors acceptable. We can argue all day about who fired first, we cant blame protestors and foot soldiers. We need to blame leaders, on both sides, if they have advocated or ordered violence. At the moment only one sides leaders are incarcerated.

[whybother]

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

When you're talking "who fired the first shot" (which no one knows), the exact sequence becomes irrelevant.

Why did the "peaceful protesters" have guns and grenades? They didn't go and get them after the army started firing. They planned to fight the army. When the red shirts started shooting their guns and grenades, the army pulled out. On April 10, 25 people were killed. 8 of them were armed forces. That doesn't look like an army going in and shooting everyone does it?

And certainly not "crimes against humanity" !!!!

You can read Robert Amsterdam's trash all you like. I'm not going to bother. He twists what little facts he uses into such BS, it's just not worth the effort.

[zthyadat]

The British Nationality Act 1981 was an Act of Parliament passed by the British Parliament concerning British nationality. It has been the basis of British nationality law since 1 January 1983.

The Act also modified the application of Jus soli in British nationality. Prior to the Act coming into force, any person born in Britain (with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats and enemy aliens) was entitled to British Citizenship. After the Act came into force, it was necessary for at least one parent of a United Kingdom-born child to be a British citizen or "settled" in the United Kingdom (a permanent resident).

So in simple language, if Abhisit was born before 1981 he is entitled to British citizenship, born after that and he is not.. But note the word "entitled", an entitlement is something one normally requests. I would suggest he did not exercise this right otherwise he would not have paid the International fees at university.

So it depends on whether he is "entitled" to British citizenship, and therefore has to take it up (which I assume he didn't), or he automatically gets British citizenship and therefore needs to renounce it (which is claimed that he did - or at least didn't need to based on the first point).

The problem with renouncing British citizenship is that you can make a declaration if you want, but the British govt doesn't have a formal renouncement process and will always give you a passport, so it is a bit meaningless to renounce it in the first place.

It would seem to me that if he chose to pay the foreign student fees, this would have been a deliberate move, since Thai laws are rather strict on multiple citizenship.

[truethailand]

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

The sequence of events is not relevant in a shoot out?

The Red shirts carried heavy weapons for self defence?

You are pulling our legs, aren´t you?

You can only decide the relevance of something if you have all the facts at hand..and I dont think you have all the facts at hand. Not pulling anyones leg. Who started the shootout. It is obvious that the commission set up to investigate the events of last spring is about usefu;l as an ashtray on a motorbike. Nothing will implicate the guilty from therir findings. Abhisit in an open court, with Generals as character witnesses, shown live on government channels 3 5 7 9 11 would make great entertainment for the masses. Theres no chance they will be able to vet the questions first.

[truethailand]

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

When you're talking "who fired the first shot" (which no one knows), the exact sequence becomes irrelevant.

Why did the "peaceful protesters" have guns and grenades? They didn't go and get them after the army started firing. They planned to fight the army. When the red shirts started shooting their guns and grenades, the army pulled out. On April 10, 25 people were killed. 8 of them were armed forces. That doesn't look like an army going in and shooting everyone does it?

And certainly not "crimes against humanity" !!!!

You can read Robert Amsterdam's trash all you like. I'm not going to bother. He twists what little facts he uses into such BS, it's just not worth the effort.

I read all the trash, on both sides then make my judgement, unlike your goodself. You are starting to sound like one of those insular Thai politicians...."if I say it enough it must be the truth" Can I ask are you Thai

[Buchholz]

You're part of the ICC????

Logical really... but if you think the ICC will procede like the Thai courts do you are going to get a rude awakening. You are not actually objecting to the content of what I wrote just a poor attempt at a put down. Try harder next time

A couple of phone calls from the Hague and the answer about citizenship will be known.

It's logical that you're part of the ICC???

Anyway, the citizenship is irrelevant. The ICC won't look at the case anyway. Which part of the "crimes against humanity" description that you posted earlier has Abhisit committed?

There were violent protests. The leaders of those protests are in jail awaiting trial. Next.

Its not for us to decide the legality of the submission, greater honest men than us will do that. I quoted 4 sections, which according to the uncorroborated statements of Amsterdams witnesses, the case may procede. When the submission is made to the ICC

It's already been submitted. A preliminary submission was made in October 2010 and a final petition was made in January 2011.

(quote)truethailand:

Please tell me why The ICC will not look at this case

(unquote)

ICC Vice-President Hans-Peter Kaul gave several reasons why the ICC will very likely not accept the case during an interview with the Bangkok Post.

[Nisa]

re: Red shirts to reveal 'solid evidence' of Abhisit's UK citizenship

LMAO if this was not such a serious issue .... Can the Reds not come up with any of their own ideas? It is not enough they copy tactics of other groups (whose tactics they claim to condemn) but now they want to start a "birther" type movement here in Thailand?? Don't they realize that the birthers in the US are looked at as freaks to both the Right and Left in the US.

If you and a good deal other members read the OP you would know why the issue of whether Abhisit is a UK citizen or not is being pursued. It is not because of some "birther" movement or an attempt to throw him out of office because he isn't Thai; It's like lemmings, someone skims through the OP and makes an asinine comment usually about the Redshirts or Thaksin or Amsterdam and the rest fall over themselves following the theme with variations upon it, even if, as in this case, they have completely missed the point.

You seem to miss my point in this post. First I said "birther type" as it is the same type of thing. Except for the clinically insane birthers nobody thought it would get him thrown out of office. It was simply a way to spread negativity and distrust as well as patriotism. .Second I strongly implied the end results would be the same in that these reds will only serve to make fools of themselves. Without question this is similar to the whole "birther" thing in the US ie. questing a leaders citizenship (Is he really even an American?)

As for the side steps into the whole being a leader based on citizenship it was a side step since the two are similar but also because of the issue of his being PM and the legalities consider he is now being accused of being a UK Citizen... this of course will also bring up the side issue of dual citizenship in general.

But you are right as we have gotten away from speaking about the "claimed" reason for this accusation that in my opinion is being done for psychological reasons and has nothing to do with laws.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

The sequence of events is not relevant... u talking tosh man... If arms were used in self defence, I mean the reds using arms in self defence.. Read this article

Whos got the track record going back decades

When you're talking "who fired the first shot" (which no one knows), the exact sequence becomes irrelevant.

Why did the "peaceful protesters" have guns and grenades? They didn't go and get them after the army started firing. They planned to fight the army. When the red shirts started shooting their guns and grenades, the army pulled out. On April 10, 25 people were killed. 8 of them were armed forces. That doesn't look like an army going in and shooting everyone does it?

And certainly not "crimes against humanity" !!!!

You can read Robert Amsterdam's trash all you like. I'm not going to bother. He twists what little facts he uses into such BS, it's just not worth the effort.

I read all the trash, on both sides then make my judgement, unlike your goodself. You are starting to sound like one of those insular Thai politicians...."if I say it enough it must be the truth" Can I ask are you Thai

Do I come across as being Thai?

As I said, Amsterdam "twists what little facts he uses into such BS, it's just not worth the effort."

[473geo]

You can only decide the relevance of something if you have all the facts at hand..and I dont think you have all the facts at hand. Not pulling anyones leg. Who started the shootout. It is obvious that the commission set up to investigate the events of last spring is about usefu;l as an ashtray on a motorbike. Nothing will implicate the guilty from therir findings. Abhisit in an open court, with Generals as character witnesses, shown live on government channels 3 5 7 9 11 would make great entertainment for the masses. Theres no chance they will be able to vet the questions first.

At last from truethailand (along with DP25 #100) we finally have the reason for this revelation..........the other debates on nationality are way off the mark

[rixalex]

But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades... were you on the front line.

Were you without a television?

We can argue all day about who fired first, we cant blame protestors and foot soldiers. We need to blame leaders, on both sides, if they have advocated or ordered violence.

What's with this "we" again?

We can't blame protesters?

You might not blame them. Others who believe it a crime to carry arms on the street, to take over parts of a city, to fire missiles, to set things on fire, might disagree that these people were all innocent victims.

We need to blame leaders, on both sides, if they have advocated or ordered violence.

On one side there were leaders advocating / ordering / inciting violence, and on the other they were simply trying to restore order. Doing so by force was the last option that ultimately they had no choice in making. There's only so long you can go on allowing a minority group to run riot in a city, and the protesters were given warning after warning, after more warning, that if they stayed they were likely to get hurt.

If you break the law and flee and a policeman tells you to stop running or he will shoot, you have two choices, and it's up to you what decision you make. No different from the protesters. They were told that they were breaking the law and that they should go home for their safety. Those who didn't go home and who got hurt have themselves to blame.

[MaiChai]

Can I say this is Khun Jattuporn the Facist is trying to stir up racial hatred in Thailand? We live in a modern world with peoples from many countries travelling and living in other countries.

While the moderates try and modernise Thai politics, the likes of Juttuporn are only interested in turning back the clock and putting Thailand back in the dark ages.

If they want to really get in power, why don't they do it democratically and within the law, by winning a general election? To do this you need to win the hearts and minds of the voters and have real policies. This is how a true democracy works.

[stepenwolf1958]

[/quote

Nothing really new, he is not Thai anyway but Chinese and just of the few elite Chinese that been running Thailand and hold most of the wealth and have a trickle down effect to the native Thais.

So if you want to use race and ethnic origin as a prejudicial argument against Abhisit, do you also recognise Thaksin's Chinese ethnicity and wealthy, elite family upbringing?

I thought he was a mix of Central American

and Eastern European

If you are talking about Taksin's Monetenegrian passport, don't say it is Eastern European. Montenegro is NOT in Eastern Europe and i am surprised you said this. Or, passport is from some other country?

[truethailand]

You can only decide the relevance of something if you have all the facts at hand..and I dont think you have all the facts at hand. Not pulling anyones leg. Who started the shootout. It is obvious that the commission set up to investigate the events of last spring is about usefu;l as an ashtray on a motorbike. Nothing will implicate the guilty from therir findings. Abhisit in an open court, with Generals as character witnesses, shown live on government channels 3 5 7 9 11 would make great entertainment for the masses. Theres no chance they will be able to vet the questions first.

At last from truethailand (along with DP25 #100) we finally have the reason for this revelation..........the other debates on nationality are way off the mark

Sorry it took me so long to get my point across, was making a poor attempt to swat some Abhisit apologists on the way.

[pisico]

Bangkok Pundit did a piece on this a week ago. As Abhisit was born in the UK and his parents werent diplomats then he is a British citizen, whether he likes it or not. No proof anywhere that he has ever revoked his citizenship. He has never denied it, except to say he paid overseas student fees when he studied at Oxford Uni. ( But this doesnt mean he isnt UK citizen, just that he didnt live permanently in the UK.)

No Thai journalists are going to start bringing up the subject of where their leaders were born and whether they are still citizens of the UK or USA.

You are right on both instances.

If he cannot provide hard evidence that he renounced his British citizenship, he is a UK national. Unless his parents being both Thai registered him at birth with the Thai embassy in the UK.

Then again, how difficult would it be for him to pull some strings and have a "miraculous official document" surface showing that he renounced UK citizenship or that he was registered at the Thai embassy at birth?

As far as the members of the press; their inaction on the subject shows the limitations imposed by the powers that be.

I would not enjoy to practice journalism in such environment.

My two Bahts in for now.

[kissrev1]

Yes, In am jaded! Yes I have been in Thailand for years.... Who gives a .... A big non-issue, like all other non-issues in Thailand. Let's wag the Soi Dog and see who salutes... Pahetic!

[truethailand]

Bangkok Pundit did a piece on this a week ago. As Abhisit was born in the UK and his parents werent diplomats then he is a British citizen, whether he likes it or not. No proof anywhere that he has ever revoked his citizenship. He has never denied it, except to say he paid overseas student fees when he studied at Oxford Uni. ( But this doesnt mean he isnt UK citizen, just that he didnt live permanently in the UK.)

No Thai journalists are going to start bringing up the subject of where their leaders were born and whether they are still citizens of the UK or USA.

You are right on both instances.

If he cannot provide hard evidence that he renounced his British citizenship, he is a UK national. Unless his parents being both Thai registered him at birth with the Thai embassy in the UK.

Then again, how difficult would it be for him to pull some strings and have a "miraculous official document" surface showing that he renounced UK citizenship or that he was registered at the Thai embassy at birth?

As far as the members of the press; their inaction on the subject shows the limitations imposed by the powers that be.

I would not enjoy to practice journalism in such environment.

My two Bahts in for now.

Amsterdam said on his website (no link) if Mr Abhisit has proof, that he should show us now and stop me in my tracks. Why has he not done it if he has proof. Head in sand aka Ostrich wait till this goes away. Its not going away quickly.

[chainarong]

Dear Mr Jatuporn, in relation to your solid evidence of the Premiers U.K. citizenship, please go to the nearest births registry office where the accused is supposed to have been born and look in the register, as this would date back possibly at least 200 years he is shore to be in there somewhere, if he can't be found, then please shut your big trap.

The Windsors of London.

[chainarong]

Bangkok Pundit did a piece on this a week ago. As Abhisit was born in the UK and his parents weren't diplomats then he is a British citizen, whether he likes it or not. No proof anywhere that he has ever revoked his citizenship. He has never denied it, except to say he paid overseas student fees when he studied at Oxford Uni. ( But this doesn't mean he isnt UK citizen, just that he didn't live permanently in the UK.)

No Thai journalists are going to start bringing up the subject of where their leaders were born and whether they are still citizens of the UK or USA.

You are right on both instances.

If he cannot provide hard evidence that he renounced his British citizenship, he is a UK national. Unless his parents being both Thai registered him at birth with the Thai embassy in the UK.

Then again, how difficult would it be for him to pull some strings and have a "miraculous official document" surface showing that he renounced UK citizenship or that he was registered at the Thai embassy at birth?

As far as the members of the press; their inaction on the subject shows the limitations imposed by the powers that be.

I would not enjoy to practice journalism in such environment.

My two Bahts in for now.

If the parents where Thai diplomats at the uk embassy, then he's status is Thai.

Edited February 19, 2011 by chainarong

[Buchholz]

Look for the crap that happened last spring to be repeated this spring...

and the spring before last...

Child throwing a Molotov cocktail during the Red Shirt's Black Songkran 2009

[Markaew]

Dear Mr Jatuporn, in relation to your solid evidence of the Premiers U.K. citizenship, please go to the nearest births registry office where the accused is supposed to have been born and look in the register, as this would date back possibly at least 200 years he is shore to be in there somewhere, if he can't be found, then please shut your big trap.

The Windsors of London.

I personally like to hear about all views. Even Mr Jatuporn. I read all the views displayed here. I don't with them all but I believe all should be heard.

[Buchholz]

[/quote

Nothing really new, he is not Thai anyway but Chinese and just of the few elite Chinese that been running Thailand and hold most of the wealth and have a trickle down effect to the native Thais.

So if you want to use race and ethnic origin as a prejudicial argument against Abhisit, do you also recognise Thaksin's Chinese ethnicity and wealthy, elite family upbringing?

I thought he was a mix of Central American

and Eastern European Southeastern European

If you are talking about Taksin's Monetenegrian passport, don't say it is Eastern European. Montenegro is NOT in Eastern Europe and i am surprised you said this. Or, passport is from some other country?

Pedantic change made of self-quoted reply above.

Happy now?

btw, it's Thaksin, not Taksin

btw part II, it's his Montenegrin passport, not Monetenegrian passport

[stepenwolf1958]

Its not for us to decide the legality of the submission, greater honest men than us will do that. I quoted 4 sections, which according to the uncorroborated statements of Amsterdams witnesses, the case may procede. When the submission is made to the ICC the witnesses names will be known and not before, so dont mock the identity of because they are hidden by numbers, there is dark forces operating in Thailand and a few witnesses may take an unscheduled long term holiday in some bridge footings.

Yes there was violence, but we need to know the sequence of events that brought about this violence. If state media is your main source of information you will not get a full picture for obvious reasons. The leaders are in jail awaiting trial.... cant have a trial without being charged first. 9 months in jail and no charges and all legal due to some purposterous Internal security law. Please tell me why The ICC will not look at this case

The sequence of events isn't really relevant when you think about it. The was a video of when the shooting started on the night of April 10, and no one knew where it started. But the fact is, on that night, the red shirts had guns and grenades. The ICC will see that, and then look no further.

And it's been pointed out to you before. (Selective memory?) The leaders HAVE been charged. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Remand-hearing-for-11-red-shirt-leaders-charged-fo-30131623.html (plenty of other links out there if you bother to look).

You said: "...ICC will not look further." Where did you get that? And how come you know what they will do and how they will react? Are you such an expert or you just guess?

Or that is just your wish?

Let me tell you how does it works.

Do you really think they are in ICC shallow minded so that what they will see("...red shirt had guns and grenades") will impress them so to stop them in their investigation?

How naive!

ICC is a group of experts and they do NOT care Abhisit or any other in this mess! Notorious fact!

They will go in details, for sure and if they accept that case to investigate-i would not be in Abhisit's shoes!

Just if they accept the case.(I would like they accept.)

Next, about your"explanation" to truethailand member, about charged or not. Yes they are charged but his point was that they could not(should not) be endlessly just charged and thanks to that fact, to be endlessly out of trial. That is the point!

But i am afraid it is possible in Thailand, if Thailand don't have habeas corpus laws. As it was explained to me-

"The detainment of the people suspected of terrorism is periodically reviewed by the courts where they decide to continue the detainment of the suspects or to grant bail or release them."

IF, i said IF, you have judges under control of Government, if your country doesn't have habeas corpus law and if suspect is politic rival to you-you can hold them in jail forever.