Thaksins Drug War

[jdinasia]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sixth_arrest_warrant_issued_for_Thailand's_former_PM_Thaksin

The article has links to sources that cannot be posted on TVF like the BKK Post.

from before RachadaPisek land case was finalized.

(note the Wiki article lists 6 warrants -- as of Oct 15th 2008 -- I believe charges have been made since in which the date of the offence predates others .. caveat is I believe, because this answers all of chachacha's baiting to this point

[chachachacha]

So that article if believed says that charges are being enforced NOT held back for when he is in custody .You will have to do better than that.

[jdinasia]

So that article if believed says that charges are being enforced NOT held back for when he is in custody .You will have to do better than that.

No .. that article says warrants have been issued.

[jimmybkk]

I'm amazed that lannarebirth is the only one who has grasped (or perhaps is the only one prepared to state) what was really behind Thaksin's war on drugs.

[chachachacha]

So that article if believed says that charges are being enforced NOT held back for when he is in custody .You will have to do better than that.

No .. that article says warrants have been issued.

So you said they where holding back charges , WHAT CHARGES

[sunholidaysun1]

YAWN YAWN YAWN , lets move away from THAT MAN, he is no longer ANYONE .

This is sarcasm right? He is no longer anyone? He is no longer destroying this country at this very moment? He's an active terrorist constantly coming up with new ways to screw with Thailand to get his money and power back. He most definately IS still someone. The ignorance I read here sometimes blows my fuc_king mind.

hahahahahahhahaahaha I knew someone would bite ,

[jdinasia]

So that article if believed says that charges are being enforced NOT held back for when he is in custody .You will have to do better than that.

No .. that article says warrants have been issued.

So you said they where holding back charges , WHAT CHARGES

Go read what I have written again. After a fast review of your posts I am finished with you and your style of posting Buh Bye

[chachachacha]

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-

What you are saying here is that they only charged him with the easiest cases . Implying that the harder cases are there . Prove what you are saying .

All your links are only proving my point that there was no other charges being withheld . I am glad that you have noticed that I will not allow you to just write anything without having to prove it as this is the way that you debate things .

I am only using the same tactics as what you use .

[jimmybkk]

The reports that surfaced regarding some of these killings were simply shocking. For example, I recall a young girl recounting the story of how her unarmed parents were gunned down in front of her by the Police Drug Enforcement Task Force (or whatever they were officially called - in other parts of the world I think Death Squad is the appropriate term) - The reason? Apparently the family had just won some money on the lottery and a jealous neighbour reported to the village headman: "They became rich very quickly, they must be involved in the drugs game". Shortly after that the Death Squad appeared and shot dead these evil drug dealers.

Not long after this I recall seeing a foreign journalist ask him a question about these "war on drugs" killings and asked for his response to the fact that many people questioned their legitimacy and the possibility of human rights violations. His response to the question (which was asked in plain, easy to understand English, was replied with (also in plain, easy to understand English) "I do not understand the question .... Next...?" or words to that effect. He may just as well have replied "I answer to no-one".

Whilst I appreciate that he's undoubtedly a very smart guy and he did a good job of tapping into a previously untapped pool of voters (the poor), his arrogance and affront defies belief. Yes, he has no doubt affected the lives of many people in Thailand in a positive way, but then in Medellin, Pablo Escobar is still considered somewhat of a hero. Perhaps comparisons of the two are not so far removed...

[JurgenG]

^ Great story.

Crying orphan, death squad, evil drug lord, there are all here.

How does it help understanding what's going on in Thailand ?

I have no idea

But it's a great story

[TheLaughingMan]

^ Great story.

Crying orphan, death squad, evil drug lord, there are all here.

How does it help understanding what's going on in Thailand ?

I have no idea

But it's a great story

It's a bloody excellent example of what's going on in Thailand right now and all it's problems. Calling it a story doesn't make it any less true by the way.

[chachachacha]

^ Great story.

Crying orphan, death squad, evil drug lord, there are all here.

How does it help understanding what's going on in Thailand ?

I have no idea

But it's a great story

It's a bloody excellent example of what's going on in Thailand right now and all it's problems. Calling it a story doesn't make it any less true by the way.

There are certain posters on here that seem to think that the man at the top (Thaksin) at the time of the killings is responcable , however do not think that the man at the top should be responcable for the Bangkok masacre 2010 .

[JurgenG]

Bloody for sure.

A good example ? I've more doubt here. What Pablo Escobar has to do with Thailand ? Thaksin was accused of shooting drug dealers, not being one. Your friend got his facts a bit mixed up. Dirty Harry maybe ? Come on, make my day punk !

More seriously, it would be nice if one day we could have a non partisan debate about what was going one. Maybe in 10 years time ....

Edited April 6, 2011 by JurgenG

[jdinasia]

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-

What you are saying here is that they only charged him with the easiest cases . Implying that the harder cases are there . Prove what you are saying .

All your links are only proving my point that there was no other charges being withheld . I am glad that you have noticed that I will not allow you to just write anything without having to prove it as this is the way that you debate things .

I am only using the same tactics as what you use .

Nope -- go back and read again. I will give you a hint I never used the word "only" in the context you are using. I won't be able to see your future posts, so enjoy discussing this by yourself

[siammcfarang]

When you go after drug dealers, you're a criminal.

This is Thailand, don't try to understand...don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy..we may lose and we may win, but we will always come to LOS again..

[siammcfarang]

When you go after drug dealers, you're a criminal.

This is Thailand, don't try to understand...don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy..we may lose and we may win, but we will always come to LOS again..

..so open up i'm comin' in, so take is easy...we ought to take it easy..

[chachachacha]

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-

What you are saying here is that they only charged him with the easiest cases . Implying that the harder cases are there . Prove what you are saying .

All your links are only proving my point that there was no other charges being withheld . I am glad that you have noticed that I will not allow you to just write anything without having to prove it as this is the way that you debate things .

I am only using the same tactics as what you use .

Nope -- go back and read again. I will give you a hint I never used the word "only" in the context you are using. I won't be able to see your future posts, so enjoy discussing this by yourself

So there it is his claims can't stand up to scrutiny he is just trying to duck & dive .How sad that someone can't admit that they got it wrong .

[JurgenG]

When you go after drug dealers, you're a criminal.

This is Thailand, don't try to understand...don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy..we may lose and we may win, but we will always come to LOS again..

..so open up i'm comin' in, so take is easy...we ought to take it easy..

Welcome

But please learn to manage your quote. You make me say something I didn't say. You make me sound smarter than I'm.

[chachachacha]

Now after we have sorted the spin from the fact .

To me he is responsible for the deaths in that he was PM at the time .Do I think he put out a order to kill . I doubt it .Why? well because this is Thailand so he wouldn't have to once he mentions WAR on drugs.

What happened though was a chance for the cartels to sort out turf. Most cartels here are uniformed

So would charges stand up ? I doubt it.

So now to the other PM. Is he responsible for the BKK massacre . Yes . It was he that sent the army in .It was he that gave them the right to use whatever force they wanted to .Would charges stand up against him ? I would say Yes Definitely .I am sure the usual Junta supporters on here will not agree but they only have eyes that can see wrong by 1 side while they are blind to what the other lot do.

Edited April 6, 2011 by chachachacha

[Buchholz]

No we just expect lazy people to do their own research when it is readily and easily available.

I would normally agree with that, but just because chachachacha is making such an issue over it and appears unable to conduct a simple search, here's a reasonably comprehensive summation:

Thaksin Shinawatra and His Crimes (2001-2010)

http://www.livetradingnews.com/thaksin-shinawatra-and-his-crimes-2001-2010-13766.htm

[Kilgore Trout]

Nobody said there wasn't a difference, only that the outcome is the same; no one will be brought to justice whether through lack of evidence, lack of will or lack of wrong doing.

So why spin it by saying that the deaths were reported as legitimate, when they weren't?

No spin, just a false assumption, genius; hence the words "correct me if I am wrong."

[Kilgore Trout]

Nobody said there wasn't a difference, only that the outcome is the same; no one will be brought to justice whether through lack of evidence, lack of will or lack of wrong doing.

Not the same outcome either, had he been "cleared" then nothing ever could have come of it. Currently there is still a possibility of action. The question is will it ever come to trial on the "he ordered it" view alone as opposed to dealing with charging police officers etc?

The books are still open -- totally different than them being closed.

Don't hold your breath

[jayboy]

From beginning to end, the Drug War was Thaksin's "baby"

I agree with you and it was the worst of his crimes.

Care to explain why he was never charged and instead was pursued with relatively trivial offences (in comparison)?

It would be wonderful to receive an honest reply on this.

I'll give it a go.

It would likely implicate members of many of the civil servants at many levels, from the Tambon offices all the way to the top in BKK, so that limits the political will (police, governors appointed from BKK, local administrations etc). That, of course, is supposition. I welcome any reply that has any facts

and 2 (since you are actually asking 2 questions)

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-judicial killings it is), ask yourself why he didn't show up for sentencing and immediately lodge an appeal. (Appeals require new evidence -- and any way you cut it -- legally his signature on the land deal for his wife was an open and shut case.) Once in jail and less able (not unable) to use soem of his own political juice, some of the other cases could have moved forward. He ran. The appeal would have been denied in all likelihood and staying would have made him available to show up in court to answer the other charges.

The prosecution did the right thing in going for the easy win first. Get the criminal in jail and then work to prosecute the harder cases as you go. Had they gone for a more major case first and failed and THEN followed with a minor one cries of "I am being persecuted" and "politically motivated" would have had more weight.

In the history of my own country there have been major criminals that were never brought down for their serious crimes, but that were brought down on more 'technical crimes" such as tax-evasion.

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

[Buchholz]

I'll give it a go.

It would likely implicate members of many of the civil servants at many levels, from the Tambon offices all the way to the top in BKK, so that limits the political will (police, governors appointed from BKK, local administrations etc). That, of course, is supposition. I welcome any reply that has any facts

and 2 (since you are actually asking 2 questions)

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-judicial killings it is), ask yourself why he didn't show up for sentencing and immediately lodge an appeal. (Appeals require new evidence -- and any way you cut it -- legally his signature on the land deal for his wife was an open and shut case.) Once in jail and less able (not unable) to use soem of his own political juice, some of the other cases could have moved forward. He ran. The appeal would have been denied in all likelihood and staying would have made him available to show up in court to answer the other charges.

The prosecution did the right thing in going for the easy win first. Get the criminal in jail and then work to prosecute the harder cases as you go. Had they gone for a more major case first and failed and THEN followed with a minor one cries of "I am being persecuted" and "politically motivated" would have had more weight.

In the history of my own country there have been major criminals that were never brought down for their serious crimes, but that were brought down on more 'technical crimes" such as tax-evasion.

I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges

We should actually aim even more readily for exchanges that don't involve your typically derogatory and inflammatory tone, of which you've been reminded of on countless occasions. When your antagonistic and belittling style of posting is so prevalent, it's no wonder posters are hesitant to respond your posts.

Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.

I, personally, don't view billions and billions in corruption, removing the separation of powers resulting in personally beneficial changing of the laws, the initiation of pie-in-the-sky programs that only benefited himself and his cronies, attempted bribery of courts, or many of the other crimes for which outstanding warrants still exist (as outlined in the link in Post # 80) against him as, "relatively trivial."

.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Buchholz

[TheLaughingMan]

Now after we have sorted the spin from the fact .

To me he is responsible for the deaths in that he was PM at the time .Do I think he put out a order to kill . I doubt it .Why? well because this is Thailand so he wouldn't have to once he mentions WAR on drugs.

What happened though was a chance for the cartels to sort out turf. Most cartels here are uniformed

So would charges stand up ? I doubt it.

So now to the other PM. Is he responsible for the BKK massacre . Yes . It was he that sent the army in .It was he that gave them the right to use whatever force they wanted to .Would charges stand up against him ? I would say Yes Definitely .I am sure the usual Junta supporters on here will not agree but they only have eyes that can see wrong by 1 side while they are blind to what the other lot do.

I must have been watching another moment in Thai history, a moment where the police and military sat on their asses for months trying to be all nice and letting the red shirt terrorists cause ILLEGAL disruption, violence and mayhem across the city. It was obvious to any retarded monkey that the pm was desperately trying NOT to fall into the red shirts trap of being forced into violence. He really tried too hard, in any other country they would have swept away gun and grenade wielding terrorists like it was nothing, but this was the goal of the red shirts from the start and the PM knew it. He was pretty much stuck and finally had to react when Red shirts started killing. What the hell were you watching?

[jayboy]

I, personally, don't view billions and billions in corruption, removing the separation of powers resulting in personally beneficial changing of the laws, the initiation of pie-in-the-sky programs that only benefited himself and his cronies, attempted bribery of courts, or many of the other crimes for which outstanding warrants still exist (as outlined in the link in Post # 80) against him as, "relatively trivial."

I note you avoid addressing the question of why Thaksin was not pursued for the drug wars crimes.Entirely predictable.

Actually Jdinasia gave a very thoughtful reply, and I tried to reply in kind.

In terms of your "warnings" please forgive me if I take them with a pinch of salt given your record.Do I need to elaborate?

If you gave even an inch from time to time, maybe even admit you sometimes get things wrong, you would find people much more interested in a reasonable discussion.

[jdinasia]

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

Why go for the cheap shot on someone in the second sentence of what would otherwise have been a decent post?

I disagree that any weight needs to be given to the idea of eliminating drugs was widely popular. The courts obviously don't have to look at "broadly popular" in forming any sentence, nor to the investigations have to consider that fact (arguable, in that I believe most people would claim they were not aware at the time of the vast numbers of street level executions and that they would certainly argue that they were totally unaware of the number of executions that were in no way connected to the drug trade). I typically find any comparisons to Nazi germany specious, but even though this was on a much smaller scale, I find the "we didn't know" argument from some (not all) of the people as specious as the same argument from people that lived near concentration camps during WW2. (Not meant to be a comparison of scale in numbers or sheer inhumanity! just a similarity in how people can delude themselves)

Your summary of how you think Thaksin is seen in the international view is absolutely subjective. He certainly isn't seen as a war criminal, but many people internationally see him as a petty despot that lined his pockets at the expense of the people he was meant to govern, as so many leaders and former leaders of developing nations are seen. He certainly isn't seen as another Suharto, yet. That could change to some degree depending on how the next trials proceed.

[Buchholz]

I, personally, don't view billions and billions in corruption, removing the separation of powers resulting in personally beneficial changing of the laws, the initiation of pie-in-the-sky programs that only benefited himself and his cronies, attempted bribery of courts, or many of the other crimes for which outstanding warrants still exist (as outlined in the link in Post # 80) against him as, "relatively trivial."

I note you avoid addressing the question of why Thaksin was not pursued for the drug wars crimes.Entirely predictable.

Actually Jdinasia gave a very thoughtful reply, and I tried to reply in kind.

In terms of your "warnings" please forgive me if I take them with a pinch of salt given your record.Do I need to elaborate?

*Sigh*

and coming so soon after your reply in the other thread to avoid personalization...

I thought JD's response was quite suitable enough as any I would give as it covered most of the aspects I would have said. This is because most of it has been said before in any number of other Drug War threads. With the police involved with investigating their comrades, it's very difficult to pursue.

If you are going to use quotation marks to reflect actual words posted, I would point out that I used "reminded" and not your erroneous quote, "warnings", although you've certainly received a number of those, as well, from mods.

As long as we are noting what is avoided being addressed, I note that you don't address your misuse of the phrase "relatively trivial" to describe the litany of serious charges he faces.

[jayboy]

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

Why go for the cheap shot on someone in the second sentence of what would otherwise have been a decent post?

I disagree that any weight needs to be given to the idea of eliminating drugs was widely popular. The courts obviously don't have to look at "broadly popular" in forming any sentence, nor to the investigations have to consider that fact (arguable, in that I believe most people would claim they were not aware at the time of the vast numbers of street level executions and that they would certainly argue that they were totally unaware of the number of executions that were in no way connected to the drug trade). I typically find any comparisons to Nazi germany specious, but even though this was on a much smaller scale, I find the "we didn't know" argument from some (not all) of the people as specious as the same argument from people that lived near concentration camps during WW2. (Not meant to be a comparison of scale in numbers or sheer inhumanity! just a similarity in how people can delude themselves)

Your summary of how you think Thaksin is seen in the international view is absolutely subjective. He certainly isn't seen as a war criminal, but many people internationally see him as a petty despot that lined his pockets at the expense of the people he was meant to govern, as so many leaders and former leaders of developing nations are seen. He certainly isn't seen as another Suharto, yet. That could change to some degree depending on how the next trials proceed.

I agree that no weight (in the context of seeking justice) should be given to the fact the drugs war was broadly popular.In any case that's not what I said.I argued that the drug war's popularity was a factor in not pursuing Thaksin with this major crime.

As to Thaksin's ability to avoid extradition, my view is certainly subjective as are all "views" including yours.I wasn't talking about "many people internationally" but hardened decision makers who have seen many worse political exiles than Thaksin.With all due respect I think my interpretation is anchored in realism and I don't think yours is.Without repeating my earlier comments do remember the main agent in seeking Thaksin's extradition was Kasit who was prima facie involved in terrorism, something Thaksin never was.Nor has Thaksin been responsible for mowing down armed civilians on the streets of Bangkok.

[jdinasia]

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

Why go for the cheap shot on someone in the second sentence of what would otherwise have been a decent post?

I disagree that any weight needs to be given to the idea of eliminating drugs was widely popular. The courts obviously don't have to look at "broadly popular" in forming any sentence, nor to the investigations have to consider that fact (arguable, in that I believe most people would claim they were not aware at the time of the vast numbers of street level executions and that they would certainly argue that they were totally unaware of the number of executions that were in no way connected to the drug trade). I typically find any comparisons to Nazi germany specious, but even though this was on a much smaller scale, I find the "we didn't know" argument from some (not all) of the people as specious as the same argument from people that lived near concentration camps during WW2. (Not meant to be a comparison of scale in numbers or sheer inhumanity! just a similarity in how people can delude themselves)

Your summary of how you think Thaksin is seen in the international view is absolutely subjective. He certainly isn't seen as a war criminal, but many people internationally see him as a petty despot that lined his pockets at the expense of the people he was meant to govern, as so many leaders and former leaders of developing nations are seen. He certainly isn't seen as another Suharto, yet. That could change to some degree depending on how the next trials proceed.

I agree that no weight (in the context of seeking justice) should be given to the fact the drugs war was broadly popular.In any case that's not what I said.I argued that the drug war's popularity was a factor in not pursuing Thaksin with this major crime.

As to Thaksin's ability to avoid extradition, my view is certainly subjective as are all "views" including yours.I wasn't talking about "many people internationally" but hardened decision makers who have seen many worse political exiles than Thaksin.With all due respect I think my interpretation is anchored in realism and I don't think yours is.Without repeating my earlier comments do remember the main agent in seeking Thaksin's extradition was Kasit who was prima facie involved in terrorism, something Thaksin never was.Nor has Thaksin been responsible for mowing down armed civilians on the streets of Bangkok.

Your opinion on Kasit is noted

Your opinion on Thaksin is noted Your assumption that they wanted Thaksin back via extradition is noted but not agreed with. Had they wanted him back I am fairly sure they could have gotten him back. My assumption is that by going for the little case first, they wanted him marginalized outside of Thailand and that they have accomplished that.

I am not sure how you can call armed people involved in an insurrectionist movement "civilians".

Thaksin has been responsible for mowing down unarmed civilians all over the country as you seem to admit, in his "war on drugs."