Thai Cabinet Okays Bail Funds For Jailed Red Shirts

[lannarebirth]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

Why would they do a runner? This farce seems to have already been scripted from beginning to end. The end of this particular chapter anyway. What with the expectation of exemption from lawful outcomes one can't help but expect more lawlessness when this "Wild Bunch" rides into town next.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

some states provide a "payment plan". Others allow the plaintiff to pay only 10% of the bail amount. Would that fit your definition of government support of bail so that it could possibly be justified in Thailand.... ??? As for links, I imagine that www.google.com will work fine for the king of search.

It's not my "definition"... what I described is precisely what the government here is doing. The government is providing the bail money to indicted criminals to get out of their confinements that are based upon charges filed against them by the government. In light of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that's still done no where else... despite the feeble obfuscations to muddy up the issue. .

< flame snipped >

It is possible in the USA to get out on bail without physically paying a cent. It is possible because the State allows for a deferred payment via bond company, etc.

In Thailand, there is a government fund. Whether the implementation is done by shifting money from one account to another or shifting the payment date from one date to another is irrelevant to the accused who is released on bail but not able to pay.

The fact that other posters are not combing the bail posting laws of the other 195 countries in the world in order to satisfy your demand for proof that no other country does the same thing as Thailand is a tribute to the intelligence of the other posters.

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand?

As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

I match your and raise you a

[maidu]

This wouldn't have anything to do with a certain notorious billionaire who loves and finances the Reds, and all their law-breaking shenanigans, ...would it?

[maidu]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

no way. The government is essentially the Reds - like one big family. Would a mom sic the cops on a son who didn't mow the lawn? The PT party doesn't consider that any of the Reds broke the law, any more than they consider anything that Thaksin did was illegal. They're all patting each other on the back, and trying to give themselves as many good breaks as possible.

[KKvampire]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

[tlansford]

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

I don't think anyone has a problem with people being given support to provide them legal representation, but support to provide them bail is quite another thing. The whole idea of bail is to allow people freedom but with some sort of assurance of their return to court. I don't see how, if people are given the money, there is any assurance whatsoever.

And where does it all stop? If you are saying that it is unfair for a poor man to be kept in jail because he can't afford 100,000 baht bail, surely it is equally as unfair to keep a well off man, who can't afford 10 million baht bail, behind bars. Basically anyone who can't afford bail should, following your argument, be provided with the money for bail. Forgive me for saying this, but seems a complete nonsense to me.

Deal with the problem of court cases taking so long, sure. Don't start letting people free with no incentive, should they be guilty, for them to return.

I agree about you regarding the risk of returning - although the use of tracking technologies, check-ins, and other measures to increase the probability of return are normal elsewhere. I don't know about Thailand, but it seems reasonable that the Thais would use different measures, too. But hey, TVF Fugitive-in-Chief is sitting in Dubai so even if someone can post their own bail, that is not a guarantee that they stick around ...

From the description of the NPR report I mentioned elsewhere, there are a number of issues around supporting bail costs for accused, one of which is described here :

The series also documented cases where the inability to make bail pressured detainees to plead guilty, and had a negative impact on their economic circumstances, compared with those detainees who could afford bail.[19]

That is a report from the US, but it is not too hard to imagine that the problem is universal.

Which provides a good reason, related to actual justice, to support legal costs, including bail, for the poor.

As for where to draw the line, the information on the Justice Fund shows that there is a process for applying, review, acceptance/denial - I have no idea how well or poorly that functions, but the system is there. The same is true in the US - criteria for financial assistance are defined.

[Crushdepth]

I thought they idea of bail was as an incentive for those charged to turn up at court at the right time.

What incentive do these people have to turn up if other peoples money is being used for bail?

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

Ah &lt;deleted&gt;, just lock 'em up and throw away the key - that's what we farang do in our countries... right?

from discover Thailand article : this fund is for everyone, lest some gov't haters claim it is only for red shirts.

The fund was set up in August 2006 to help people with financial problems fight their cases in court. Aid provided includes payment of court fees, a free lawyer to represent them in their case, a surety for temporary release and expenses for forensic science work that may be needed to help them in their case.

...

''The money is not a grant,'' ... those who won their cases had to be responsible for ensuring whoever they defeated in the court battle reimbursed the fund.

And the article says that the fund is also for foreigners.

http://www.discovert...ad.php?tid=2466

At least in the USA, if not in your countries, people have the right to legal defense as well as a speedy trial.

The USA? A speedy trial? You mean like those that Guantanamo Bay inmates still wait to receive, ten years down the track? And are you not aware that recent legislative changes in the US allow people to be held *indefinitely* without charge or trial, if they are suspected of "terrorism" (hmm...I wonder how that will be interpreted without judicial oversight).

Of course I think this totally sucks, but to answer your question, yes, if you can't post your bail in a farang country, lock them up we do and there they stay until trial. The court only asks for bail if they think the accused is a serious flight risk or threat to the community.

The idea of the court requiring bail and the government paying it is crazy. If it is unjust to impose bail, then why not get rid of it and introduce fines for people that don't show up to court? Of course, such a system would only work if the authorities would actually make some effort to catch fugitives. Mentioning no names...

[Buchholz]

< flame snipped >

more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP.

geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP.

Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted.

That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand?

As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

My question was answered by your sidestepping.

No where else does the government charge and bail.

Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails.

.

[Buchholz]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it.

.

[AleG]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

In that case they better start getting the paperwork for their Cambodian work permits.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

Amazing Thailand :-)

Amazing indeed.

They've been in jail for nearly 2 years without trial and no means to post bail themselves.

Ah &lt;deleted&gt;, just lock 'em up and throw away the key - that's what we farang do in our countries... right?

from discover Thailand article : this fund is for everyone, lest some gov't haters claim it is only for red shirts.

The fund was set up in August 2006 to help people with financial problems fight their cases in court. Aid provided includes payment of court fees, a free lawyer to represent them in their case, a surety for temporary release and expenses for forensic science work that may be needed to help them in their case.

...

''The money is not a grant,'' ... those who won their cases had to be responsible for ensuring whoever they defeated in the court battle reimbursed the fund.

And the article says that the fund is also for foreigners.

http://www.discovert...ad.php?tid=2466

At least in the USA, if not in your countries, people have the right to legal defense as well as a speedy trial.

The USA? A speedy trial? You mean like those that Guantanamo Bay inmates still wait to receive, ten years down the track? And are you not aware that recent legislative changes in the US allow people to be held *indefinitely* without charge or trial, if they are suspected of "terrorism" (hmm...I wonder how that will be interpreted without judicial oversight).

Of course I think this totally sucks, but to answer your question, yes, if you can't post your bail in a farang country, lock them up we do and there they stay until trial. The court only asks for bail if they think the accused is a serious flight risk or threat to the community.

The idea of the court requiring bail and the government paying it is crazy. If it is unjust to impose bail, then why not get rid of it and introduce fines for people that don't show up to court? Of course, such a system would only work if the authorities would actually make some effort to catch fugitives. Mentioning no names...

agree with you about Guantanamo and the recent NDAA. Both are shameful. Last I checked, there was at least one bill in progress to overturn the part of the NDAA allowing indefinite detention.

Many countries provide for a constitutional right to reasonable bail allowing for exceptions to deny bail such as risk of flight and sometimes danger to the community.

The reasons supporting financial assistance for bail to defendants who cannot afford it are mentioned in another post to Rixalex

[tlansford]

< flame snipped > more obfuscation.... the USA government in no uncertain terms does NOT provide bail funds as commented on since the first mention in the OP. geriatrickid can babble about 3rd parties (there aren't any in Thailand's situation) and you can cackle on about deferred payments in the USA and off-topic lawyer fees. None of them are applicable to the system in Thailand, no matter how many personal insults you can hurl in a cloud of muddying diversions to those that simply are staying to the factual conditions outlined in the OP. Still, there hasn't been one documented similarity posted. That's because it doesn't exist... except in your own mind. Failing to back up what you try to lump in with the OP's issue gives way to your personal insults.... which you so often whine about being the recipient of.

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand? As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

My question was answered by your sidestepping. No where else does the government charge and bail. Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails. .

Buchholtz - in no way does my lack of effort to do your research for you make your statement correct, furthermore, attaining the same result through slightly different mechanisms still attains the same result. So you'll excuse me if I don't accept your presumption regarding my "admission". Your argument is complete and total "buchholtz", shall we say...

[tlansford]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it. .

There you go again ...

[MAJIC]

The justice fund, created and paid for by the government. Is for everyone. It is not a grant or a gift. It is a financial support for people who do not have the means to pay their legal expenses. This is recognized as a necessary support in many countries, not only in Thailand.

What is your point again?

I don't think anyone has a problem with people being given support to provide them legal representation, but support to provide them bail is quite another thing. The whole idea of bail is to allow people freedom but with some sort of assurance of their return to court. I don't see how, if people are given the money, there is any assurance whatsoever.

And where does it all stop? If you are saying that it is unfair for a poor man to be kept in jail because he can't afford 100,000 baht bail, surely it is equally as unfair to keep a well off man, who can't afford 10 million baht bail, behind bars. Basically anyone who can't afford bail should, following your argument, be provided with the money for bail. Forgive me for saying this, but seems a complete nonsense to me.

Deal with the problem of court cases taking so long, sure. Don't start letting people free with no incentive, should they be guilty, for them to return.

Agreed!

It is complete nonsense to give people free bail,it makes the whole thing a ridiculous International laughing stock.

The Courts may as well,let them all out with no Bail,which is virtually,what has been done,a kind of Bail on credit,never to be paid.

Any of the accused can jump Bail with no loss to them,and no gain to the Courts,or reason to return,if the case is going against them,just disappear before the Verdict is announced.

Start thinking too much about these crazy ill conceived decisions and it's the quickest route to the local asylum,

I must go and lay down.

Edited January 11, 2012 by MAJIC

[ballpoint]

I wonder if the government will send out the bounty hunters if any red shirts do a runner?

Only if they flee abroad and their passports expire, in which case the Foreign Minister will personally track them down and give them a new one.

[tlansford]

Justice fund link examples :

Used for accused in Thailand's South http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-240788351/thailand-justice-ministry-funds.html

Used for Red Shirts http://www.ethailand.com/news/justice-fund-under-ministry-of-justice-approves-bt1-million-plus-budget-as-bail-bond-for-4-more-red-shirts-27884.html

Both were under the Abhisit government.

[phiphidon]

My question was answered by your sidestepping. No where else does the government charge and bail. Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails. .

Buchholtz - in no way does my lack of effort to do your research for you make your statement correct, furthermore, attaining the same result through slightly different mechanisms still attains the same result. So you'll excuse me if I don't accept your presumption regarding my "admission". Your argument is complete and total "buchholtz", shall we say...

May I suggest that your recent "conversation" has been following to a certain extent a common MO used on these forums i.e

Make statement, or post anything that could be used against the usual targets

If this statement is questioned add further statement (with photo/s and preferably disparaging remarks about photo subject - though this may take the place of the first statement)

Wait for cheerleaders to join in

Post “evidence” dragged up from the depths of time to add “credence” however specious

If original questioner ( OQ ) persists, keep posting until questioner loses interest or has something more meaningul to do. (there will probably be some help here from the cheerleaders)

If OQ still persists or you are in danger of losing the argument, act affronted and take the moral high ground (not always possible but you can pretend)

Turn this “moral stance” back on the OQ

If OQ still persists, further question their “moral stance” or take the OP in a new direction and ask a new question

If OQ still persists (this stage not normally reached as a result of actions above) ignore

(though if this technique is ever used against you keep on demanding an answer until you can finally confidently post ; “So, no answer then (insert: my post/case/stance has been proved correct by your silence/avoidance of answering my question), Thank You”.

[annabel]

Anybody ever seen this happen in any other country ....? I haven't and have lived in Asia for may many years ?? Wow!! totally incredible

!!

This is surely a joke. It has to be.

[David48]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

I responded by providing an illustration of what some consider to be an equally ridiculous practice. There are legitimate reasons for the fund and for bail.The people granted the bail received it in accordance with the fund rules and regulations.

geriatrickid

I would be curious to read your thoughts on my post # 46 because you usually provide a perspective on things that others had not thought of …

...

Edited January 11, 2012 by David48

[Buchholz]

What part of accused people getting out on bail without paying it themselves do you not understand? As to other countries doing it exactly the same thing as Thailand to make that possible, that question is yours, and if it is not answered to your satisfaction on this forum, that is hardly the problem of the other posters.

My question was answered by your sidestepping. No where else does the government charge and bail. Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails. .

Buchholtz - in no way does my lack of effort to do your research for you make your statement correct, furthermore, attaining the same result through slightly different mechanisms still attains the same result. So you'll excuse me if I don't accept your presumption regarding my "admission".

It's not my research to do. You continue to claim the Thailand situation is not different to other countries' system, but have failed to produce evidence to back up your claim.

"Slightly different mechanisms" are actually completely different mechanisms.

No where else does the government provide bail funds for government charged criminal suspects.

.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

This is surely a joke. It has to be.

Anybody ever seen this happen in any other country ....? I haven't and have lived in Asia for may many years ?? Wow!! totally incredible

!!

Despite the government defenders' attempts to cloud the issue, I've never seen this happen in any other country.

.

[geriatrickid]

@Tlansford:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation. Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state. Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas. One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose? A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction? I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different. A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount. Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage. If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%. This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear. If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE. That's how they make a living. If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k. That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

As I previously explained, the scenario you claim is not the case for those that are on payment plans. As well, some states do not require the bonding agent to forfeit funds. The use of a bond service is the the contracting out of the obligation to ensure due process.In the USA, if there were no provisions for bonding, the government would be obliged to release impoverished detainees that were languishing in prison solely because of their financial situation.

[geriatrickid]

Your friend John made the statement, I can think of no other country that replicates this practice.

I responded by providing an illustration of what some consider to be an equally ridiculous practice. There are legitimate reasons for the fund and for bail.The people granted the bail received it in accordance with the fund rules and regulations.

geriatrickid

I would be curious to read your thoughts on my post # 46 because you usually provide a perspective on things that others had not thought of …

...

I believe that you raise a valid concern. However, if the bail was granted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bail fund one doesn't have a legal basis to argue the decision. As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

The reason that you raise a valid concern is that I don't think the authors of the law ever expected a wholesale detention like this. I am not arguing whether or not the alleged crimes warrant the arrest, just that no one forsaw the potential mega loss expenditure that could be incurred. In respect to the fund running out of money, I expect that the government will just print some more and provide some stop gap funding.

In a system where the judicial system was efficient and reliable, there wouldn't be this sort of problem. The accused would have been brought to trial quickly. The accomodating nature of the bail system in Thailand offsets the delays that an accused can face.

[whybother]

I believe that you raise a valid concern. However, if the bail was granted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bail fund one doesn't have a legal basis to argue the decision. As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

The reason that you raise a valid concern is that I don't think the authors of the law ever expected a wholesale detention like this. I am not arguing whether or not the alleged crimes warrant the arrest, just that no one forsaw the potential mega loss expenditure that could be incurred. In respect to the fund running out of money, I expect that the government will just print some more and provide some stop gap funding.

In a system where the judicial system was efficient and reliable, there wouldn't be this sort of problem. The accused would have been brought to trial quickly. The accomodating nature of the bail system in Thailand offsets the delays that an accused can face.

"As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation."

Do you mean that there are no other poor people in jail because they can't afford bail?

[maidu]

All these contortions and gyrations in these posts obfuscate one basic fact guiding this government: Remember their self-administered motto: "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" Thaksin has funded and directed the Reds from their instigation. He doesn't want them behind bars or found guilty of anything. He's rich. He can essentially do what the heck he's willing to pay for in Thailand. No matter that he resides far away, he has proxies in the top gov't positions. If he wants the Reds let off, he gets what he wants. Simple.

[473geo]

While you guys were perpetually looking in the direction of Thaksin, and accusing the Govt of totally concentrating on his return.........looks like they have been working on get out of jail free cards without your knowledge....... .

Edited January 12, 2012 by 473geo

[geriatrickid]

All these contortions and gyrations in these posts obfuscate one basic fact guiding this government: Remember their self-administered motto: "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" Thaksin has funded and directed the Reds from their instigation. He doesn't want them behind bars or found guilty of anything. He's rich. He can essentially do what the heck he's willing to pay for in Thailand. No matter that he resides far away, he has proxies in the top gov't positions. If he wants the Reds let off, he gets what he wants. Simple.

You can't jet go of the Thaksin obsession can you? Get it through your noggin, having the Redshirts on ice keeps them out of the way. it is in the government's best interests and Thaksin's best interests to leave them on remand. The government can't interfere because the bail laws are what they are. Over 1 1/2 years without a trial and one could be shocked if and when the trial does happen. A sympathetic judge might say the poor dears suffered and let them go. Do you honestly think Mr. Thaksin wants any political activists running about? If Thailand is calm, he has a better chance of being allowed back.

[whybother]

You can't jet go of the Thaksin obsession can you? Get it through your noggin, having the Redshirts on ice keeps them out of the way. it is in the government's best interests and Thaksin's best interests to leave them on remand. The government can't interfere because the bail laws are what they are. Over 1 1/2 years without a trial and one could be shocked if and when the trial does happen. A sympathetic judge might say the poor dears suffered and let them go. Do you honestly think Mr. Thaksin wants any political activists running about? If Thailand is calm, he has a better chance of being allowed back.

"The government can't interfere".

Maybe you should read the title of the thread.

[geriatrickid]

"As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation."

Do you mean that there are no other poor people in jail because they can't afford bail?

Perhaps if you didn't take a line out of context to alter the meaning we wouldn't have to play this childish game. I wrote;

As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

If you think that these detainees received favourtism after 1 1/2+ years of captivity without a trial because they were finally allowed access to the fund that they were legally entitled to use, please identify the impoverished inmates held for longer periods that were denied access.

There probabably are people in jail that cannot get bail, Howeeevr, I would be surprised if anyone accused of a non capital crime (e.g. murder) stuck around for more than a year or so as bail amounts for non capital crimes are usually not that onerous in Thailand. So, please go ahead and provide the inmate count. For you to adopt your usual contrarian position, you do have the numbers right? Hopefully, your counting skills are better here than they were in respect to your comments on the Thai tax policy.

Edited January 12, 2012 by geriatrickid

[473geo]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it.

.

On the 23rd of February 2011 you appeared to be rather put out that the Red shirt leaders had bail, while highlighting the fact their supporters did not.........today you appear to be upset that a solution is found..........

Letting suspects go without any incentive for them to return should they be likely to be found guilty, is not a solution at all. All it is doing is creating a new potentially much bigger problem down the road.

An actual and a proper solution would have been to lower the bail sum to something they could afford to pay, but couldn't afford to lose, or, most ideally, to have sped up trials.

When suspects are held without trial for months in a country where bail is often initiated because of the historic court backlog, to find a way of releasing the accused from detention until trial is a good thing, I'm sure the detainees will be found when required.......so what exactly is the issue you have?