Worldwide Law Enforcment?

[bassep]

so i read a post that thailand prosocuted and convicted an american citizen for something he did while in america in his home on his own computer. cant give more details as that might be getting a bit to close to free speech.

just wanted to know what others thought.

Does Thailand consider the entire world its jurisdiction now. i mean who do they think they are the USA.

Discuss (but hey be careful)

[zzaa09]

Some might be truly surprised as to the deep and real influence that derives from Sanam Luang...for some decades now.

[Richard4849]

3, 2, 1...

[Boater]

well the foreign press are telling the story differently to local press

[colinscarr]

Given the US government's approach that US law should apply worldwide, there is a certain irony in an American citizen being tried in another country for breaking their laws while in the United States.

[FreedomDude]

Pretty much all political discussions on thaivisa are pointless given the restrictions, which I can understand.

One important side of every big story will NEVER be heard here.

[Swiss1960]

To the topic: Thailand is NOT the only country who does prosecute people for (serious) crimes conducted abroad and I give you few examples from Switzerland:

a ) a Swiss committing child rape in any country in the world will be prosecuted under Swiss law as soon as the Swiss authorities get note about the crime

b ) a Turkish citizen denying the genocide of the Armenians (which Turkey says is no genocide but the Swiss government says it is) will be prosecuted under Swiss law for denying this genocide.

And that is true for most countries worldwide: If the country gets noted about serious crimes conducted abroad and if they can not make sure this crime is prosecuted fairly in the country of origin, then they will prosecute this crime themselves, with no regards to the citizenship of the fellow who allegedly committed the crime.

Of course, the decision about which crime is seen as serious enough to prosecute even if committed abroad, is in the sole juristiction of the single countries...

Edited October 10, 2011 by Swiss1960

[paulian]

The crime on the books here in Thailand was committed in the US, however, it was against the laws of Thailand which the suspect knew. He knew he was breaking the law when he did it and thought perhaps time would make it disappear so he foolishly returned to Thailand thinking they would forget it. Why would they ? It's a law many Thai's feel very strongly about and he knew this. The question is not whether it's a good or bad law, it's a law and he broke it. Would be considered a felony if something like this was on the books in his country and he knew that also. He went outside the box and almost dared Thailand to do something about it and they did ! There's no Bill of Rights here. In my opinion, He deserves whatever he gets. You can't break law just because you think it may be unjust. That's not his decision.

[wintermute]

It's not so much about sovereign boundaries but the ability of the country to enforce their will. Most countries are culturally chauvinistic about legal issues and want their laws to take precedence everywhere. However, even if most countries feel this way it's a matter of having the authority or power to transcend boundaries. Thailand has never been able to force entire governments to follow their legal system. (Thank god) However, they have tried to get various books banned on U.S. soil before but were denied every time because Thailand simply doesn't have the authority to over ride the U.S. constitution which reigns supreme. So, they usually do things like wait until the matter comes into Thai territory to adjudicate the issue according to their legal standards.

This person's biggest mistake was foolishly going back to Thailand.

For some countries like the U.S. the economic, military, and political strength is so dominant that the political and legal action can nearly be enforced or changed everywhere else. This is why people gripe about American exceptionalism and hegemony all the time. But that's just the way it is.

Edited October 10, 2011 by wintermute

[Richard4849]

When you're talking about something posted on the internet, where you happened to have been sitting when you typed isn't that important.

The guy should have known better than to step foot in Thailand. Salman Rushdie is probably smart enough not to step foot in Saudi Arabia, even though his books were not published there.

[wintermute]

When you're talking about something posted on the internet, where you happened to have been sitting when you typed isn't that important.

The guy should have known better than to step foot in Thailand. Salman Rushdie is probably smart enough not to step foot in Saudi Arabia, even though his books were not published there.

Exactly. Israelis have even sent people into foreign territory to assassinate them at their government's behest. Although the perpetrators were probably doing things much more serious than violating speech laws it's similar in principle.

At least Thailand didn't try that. Although, I believe that if Thailand had the military capability to force its will on other countries it might consider doing things like that. Which is rather disturbing and why developed nations look down on harsh penalties for speech infractions.

[teflonjon]

The guy you are talking about was born in Thailand, so maybe they feel he is still a Thai national. Or, maybe we're not getting the whole story, and he is in fact a dual national.

[wintermute]

The guy you are talking about was born in Thailand, so maybe they feel he is still a Thai national. Or, maybe we're not getting the whole story, and he is in fact a dual national.

It probably didn't help that he was translating "controversial" material into Thai. That's probably what really made this case a priority for them.

[Richard4849]

The guy you are talking about was born in Thailand, so maybe they feel he is still a Thai national. Or, maybe we're not getting the whole story, and he is in fact a dual national.

His nationality is not relevant to the crime.

[teflonjon]

The guy you are talking about was born in Thailand, so maybe they feel he is still a Thai national. Or, maybe we're not getting the whole story, and he is in fact a dual national.

His nationality is not relevant to the crime.

Not to the crime as he re-entered Thailand, but it is to the thread.

[paulian]

The guy you are talking about was born in Thailand, so maybe they feel he is still a Thai national. Or, maybe we're not getting the whole story, and he is in fact a dual national.

His nationality is not relevant to the crime.

Perhaps not in the eyes of the law. However, I wonder if it would have been handled different if others were involved. Perhaps, if it were an American born renowned news analyst or anchor from a major US publication who had it interpreted. Think Thailand would arrest a Peter Jennings or a Brian Williams. I doubt it. As I stated in my first response, wonder what the guy was really thinking when he decided to come back to Thailand ? Doesn't make much sense. Either way, I do not think this guy will get sent to prison or if he does probably only till November 5th. The US has already made their feelings clear when they sent a small delegation to Thailand to monitor this deal.

[IanForbes]

I don't really have a problem with it. There are pretty much a set bunch of crimes that are crimes anywhere. I don't like the idea of criminals being able to slip off to somewhere and carry on where they are not prosecuted... just because they can bribe the local police. I think the crime you are aluding to is paedophilia and common decency should tell us what is right and what is wrong.

[dominique355]

The "Legal Imperialism" is indeed a problem which is growing. More and more governments and parliaments for that matter think they are entitled to impose their legislation on the whole world, where obviously they collide with other legislations.

The most well known collisions are in the taxation, where many governments try to levy taxes on revenue, which has been made and taxed elsewhere already (double taxing). The most extreme here is the USA, which taxes not on where the revenue is generated or where the subjects resides, but purely on nationality. If you are a US citizen, you have to pay taxes to Uncle Sam even if you live and work outside the US and in fact have never been in the US. But at least the US government makes this abundantly clear and rules and regulations as well as court prejudices are available, no secrets there.

The Thai government, however, (and the parliament and the Courts) keep the rules and regulations as well as all prejudices about this law we talk about here, totally secret. Not even in Thailand can we learn the scope of this law, study cases and learn what is permissible and what is not. There are secret lists of publications forbidden in this country, but the list is not published. There are tens of thousands of websites blocked in this country, but which they are and why they are blocked is a matter of National Security and thus not published, in many cases not even examined by a Court or explained to the owner of the website.

So I ask all those here who defend and slavishly follow this law just because it is the law, how on earth can a US citizen, educated and living in the US know about this law in Thailand? He probably saw this ominous book and read it, no problem here, he is in the US and the freedom of speech protects his right to do so. In fact, any third party or government agency trying to prevent him form doing so would commit a crime.

And he wanted to make this publication available to those who do not speak English, again an acted protected by the US Constitution.

And now, he travels to Thailand and all of a sudden is considered having committed one of the worst crimes, punishable with up to 15 years of prison.

His crime is so abominable that the Deputy Prime Minister in this country had to set up a "war room" to fight ... against whom? Thai people, freedom of expression?

No matter how I look at it, Mr. (bottle of Gin) should be set free and all charges must be dropped. Anything else is a crime against humanity.

Unfortunately, whatever is the fate of this poor fellow, we will never know the exact reasons why he was arrested, and convicted or set free.

The way this law is applied here is the real insult.

[dominique355]

I don't really have a problem with it. There are pretty much a set bunch of crimes that are crimes anywhere. I don't like the idea of criminals being able to slip off to somewhere and carry on where they are not prosecuted... just because they can bribe the local police. I think the crime you are aluding to is paedophilia and common decency should tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Now imagine just as an example, you travel to Sweden for a holiday. And there, the Swedish police arrest you, puts you in prison and denies bail. Your crime? When you were in Switzerland, you once took home a bar girl and paid her for sex. Prostitution is a crime in Sweden. You didn't do it in Sweden, but in Switzerland and in Switzerland prostitution is not illegal.

For the Swedish society you are a criminal, although you didn't do anything wrong in Sweden. For the Swiss society you simply exercised your rights and did not commit any crime.

Are you still convinced that Sweden should not let you slip off but put you in prison?

[teflonjon]

So I ask all those here who defend and slavishly follow this law just because it is the law, how on earth can a US citizen, educated and living in the US know about this law in Thailand? He probably saw this ominous book and read it, no problem here, he is in the US and the freedom of speech protects his right to do so. In fact, any third party or government agency trying to prevent him form doing so would commit a crime.

He's Thai, born in Thailand. Can't believe for one second he didn't know there is a Lese Majeste law.

[Richard4849]

The "Legal Imperialism" is indeed a problem which is growing. More and more governments and parliaments for that matter think they are entitled to impose their legislation on the whole world, where obviously they collide with other legislations.

The most well known collisions are in the taxation, where many governments try to levy taxes on revenue, which has been made and taxed elsewhere already (double taxing). The most extreme here is the USA, which taxes not on where the revenue is generated or where the subjects resides, but purely on nationality. If you are a US citizen, you have to pay taxes to Uncle Sam even if you live and work outside the US and in fact have never been in the US. But at least the US government makes this abundantly clear and rules and regulations as well as court prejudices are available, no secrets there.

The Thai government, however, (and the parliament and the Courts) keep the rules and regulations as well as all prejudices about this law we talk about here, totally secret. Not even in Thailand can we learn the scope of this law, study cases and learn what is permissible and what is not. There are secret lists of publications forbidden in this country, but the list is not published. There are tens of thousands of websites blocked in this country, but which they are and why they are blocked is a matter of National Security and thus not published, in many cases not even examined by a Court or explained to the owner of the website.

So I ask all those here who defend and slavishly follow this law just because it is the law, how on earth can a US citizen, educated and living in the US know about this law in Thailand? He probably saw this ominous book and read it, no problem here, he is in the US and the freedom of speech protects his right to do so. In fact, any third party or government agency trying to prevent him form doing so would commit a crime.

And he wanted to make this publication available to those who do not speak English, again an acted protected by the US Constitution.

And now, he travels to Thailand and all of a sudden is considered having committed one of the worst crimes, punishable with up to 15 years of prison.

His crime is so abominable that the Deputy Prime Minister in this country had to set up a "war room" to fight ... against whom? Thai people, freedom of expression?

No matter how I look at it, Mr. (bottle of Gin) should be set free and all charges must be dropped. Anything else is a crime against humanity.

Unfortunately, whatever is the fate of this poor fellow, we will never know the exact reasons why he was arrested, and convicted or set free.

The way this law is applied here is the real insult.

Do we have any choice but to "slavishly follow" this law? What's your alternative?

[dominique355]

So I ask all those here who defend and slavishly follow this law just because it is the law, how on earth can a US citizen, educated and living in the US know about this law in Thailand? He probably saw this ominous book and read it, no problem here, he is in the US and the freedom of speech protects his right to do so. In fact, any third party or government agency trying to prevent him form doing so would commit a crime.

He's Thai, born in Thailand. Can't believe for one second he didn't know there is a Lese Majeste law.

That is only in the case at issue, but Thailand claims to apply the said law to all, irrespective of their nationality, single or double or whatever. Actually, we don't know this, because it is pretty much a secret justice system, so only guessing. But how could the fact that this man was born in Thailand change anything?

The only alternative, which is even worse, would be to apply this law to a selected group of people only, not to all. Is that Justice? I don't think so.

[Mario2008]

Many counties will claim jurisdiction for crimies commited in other countries, however only under cetain circumstances.generally speaking there are 3 catagories of cases in which that can happen:

1. The offence is commited by a citzen of that country. An example is child sex tourism, while the crime is commtited in another country, many countries will prosecute their own nationals in such a case.

2. The offence is commited against (a national of) their country. A clear example is terrorism against nationals of country B in country A.

3. Crimes against humanity, such as war crimes, genocide and torture suspects. many countries have provsions in their law to try these suspects if they are found in their countries.

[hearditallbefore]

Bullshit..

The crime on the books here in Thailand was committed in the US, however, it was against the laws of Thailand which the suspect knew. He knew he was breaking the law when he did it and thought perhaps time would make it disappear so he foolishly returned to Thailand thinking they would forget it. Why would they ? It's a law many Thai's feel very strongly about and he knew this. The question is not whether it's a good or bad law, it's a law and he broke it. Would be considered a felony if something like this was on the books in his country and he knew that also. He went outside the box and almost dared Thailand to do something about it and they did ! There's no Bill of Rights here. In my opinion, He deserves whatever he gets. You can't break law just because you think it may be unjust. That's not his decision.

[manarak]

Many counties will claim jurisdiction for crimies commited in other countries, however only under cetain circumstances.generally speaking there are 3 catagories of cases in which that can happen:

1. The offence is commited by a citzen of that country. An example is child sex tourism, while the crime is commtited in another country, many countries will prosecute their own nationals in such a case.

2. The offence is commited against (a national of) their country. A clear example is terrorism against nationals of country B in country A.

3. Crimes against humanity, such as war crimes, genocide and torture suspects. many countries have provsions in their law to try these suspects if they are found in their countries.

Yes...

I might add that in the case of the internet, the court may very well claim jurisdiction because the content was accessible in Thailand, thus the crime was not only committed abroad, but *also* in Thailand.

And the following is a good example why people should not go overboard with stupid law enforcement:

Now imagine just as an example, you travel to Sweden for a holiday. And there, the Swedish police arrest you, puts you in prison and denies bail. Your crime? When you were in Switzerland, you once took home a bar girl and paid her for sex. Prostitution is a crime in Sweden. You didn't do it in Sweden, but in Switzerland and in Switzerland prostitution is not illegal.

For the Swedish society you are a criminal, although you didn't do anything wrong in Sweden. For the Swiss society you simply exercised your rights and did not commit any crime.

Are you still convinced that Sweden should not let you slip off but put you in prison?

I must also add that in Switzerland, persons can legally work as prostitutes from the age of 16, which makes not only the Swedish laws on prostitution frightening, but also much more serious laws from some other countries.

[dominique355]

Many counties will claim jurisdiction for crimies commited in other countries, however only under cetain circumstances.generally speaking there are 3 catagories of cases in which that can happen:

1. The offence is commited by a citzen of that country. An example is child sex tourism, while the crime is commtited in another country, many countries will prosecute their own nationals in such a case.

2. The offence is commited against (a national of) their country. A clear example is terrorism against nationals of country B in country A.

3. Crimes against humanity, such as war crimes, genocide and torture suspects. many countries have provsions in their law to try these suspects if they are found in their countries.

These are all very serious crimes, and the laws against them have a moral foundation. But translating a book, which is widely and legally available all over the world?

[travelmann]

The crime on the books here in Thailand was committed in the US, however, it was against the laws of Thailand which the suspect knew. He knew he was breaking the law when he did it and thought perhaps time would make it disappear so he foolishly returned to Thailand thinking they would forget it. Why would they ? It's a law many Thai's feel very strongly about and he knew this. The question is not whether it's a good or bad law, it's a law and he broke it. Would be considered a felony if something like this was on the books in his country and he knew that also. He went outside the box and almost dared Thailand to do something about it and they did ! There's no Bill of Rights here. In my opinion, He deserves whatever he gets. You can't break law just because you think it may be unjust. That's not his decision.

Yes but sadly its a law that cant be discussed so we dont really know how people feel about it, they may all want it removed as these days it only seems to be used in stupid political games.

[paulian]

The crime on the books here in Thailand was committed in the US, however, it was against the laws of Thailand which the suspect knew. He knew he was breaking the law when he did it and thought perhaps time would make it disappear so he foolishly returned to Thailand thinking they would forget it. Why would they ? It's a law many Thai's feel very strongly about and he knew this. The question is not whether it's a good or bad law, it's a law and he broke it. Would be considered a felony if something like this was on the books in his country and he knew that also. He went outside the box and almost dared Thailand to do something about it and they did ! There's no Bill of Rights here. In my opinion, He deserves whatever he gets. You can't break law just because you think it may be unjust. That's not his decision.

Yes but sadly its a law that cant be discussed so we dont really know how people feel about it, they may all want it removed as these days it only seems to be used in stupid political games.

People mIs-interpreted my post reply, I was not trying to cause a controversy. I was stating facts and my opinion about breaking laws in general from my past experience as a Law Enforcement officer. If there's a law in a State anywhere in the world and especially if you are living in the State or plan to visit it, why would you be so stupid to break it and then even more idiotic to think nobody will notice. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant to the post and assuming anything in that respect as some have only exhibits their lack of general intelligence in all matters.

This post should be CLOSED due to the number of posters with total brain fade on this subject. Instead the moderators irrationally close others that are insignificant, I find that quite odd !

Edited October 12, 2011 by paulian

[Kwasaki]

The guy should have known better than to step foot in Thailand. Salman Rushdie is probably smart enough not to step foot in Saudi Arabia, even though his books were not published there.

Apsolutly !! best answer to the OP and not brain faded what so ever.

People do get so upset sometimes.

[dominique355]

It seems like most of us agree that if what you do is not punishable in the country where you do it and it's not against some basic human rights (child abuse, terrorism etc) it should not be punishable just because what you do is in the Internet (and thus can be accessed anywhere), or because you are a national of this country.

I really wonder why in this particular case Mr. G. has been arrested and prosecuted.

Because he has Thai nationality? That would be grossly unfair. Nationality should not be an issue. Under the rule of law, a law applies to all subjects, irrespective of nationality, education, sex, etc

Because his text was in Thai language in the Internet and theoretically Thai people in Thailand could access it, although they do block over 100,000 websites? Then why don't they arrest any employee of Amazon, where you can buy the publication (well, at least in the free world) or any other bookshop employee selling this publication?

Deputy PM Chalerm claims to do everything they can in the "war room", fighting a war against free thinking people. But he cannot block a publication like this? And Mr. G. has to pay the price for his incompetence?

You can turn and twist this case anyway you want, but it is wrong, fundamentally wrong and violates all fundamental human rights. As a result, there will not be more love for ... you know who.