rixalex Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 South Korean bodyguards. So he don´t trust Thais? Why should he. The man has a sense of self preservation. That is why he will not come back to Thailand. Hires Thai's to do his dirty work for him but hires Koreans to protect him from the people he hired Thais do do his dirty work on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. If the foreign minister or the PM of Thailand asks the USA for a Visa for Thaksin, USA can't do much other than give a Visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Hope he chokes on a rack ribs there. Or maybe he is there to personally deliver a donation to Mr Obama's re-election campaign. Now why would he want to support a honest politician. Maybe becaus he knows what it is like t have the stigma of a multi ancestry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. Well international diplomacy is one thing, but for the US to openly flout its own immigration laws is frankly astonishing. People with a conviction are very often refused visas to the US, and it isn't as though they couldn't have failed to notice that Mr. T. Shinawatra has a conviction. We can moan and groan about political friendships and the such, but I await someone from the current US government being asked, "So how did Mr. Shinawatra obtain a visa in direct contradiction to your visa regulations". They definitely aren't going to answer, we did it to make friends, so, for what reason is it? I would doubt they would openly say "It was because the conviction was political in nature", but that is the only conclusion I can come to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. Well international diplomacy is one thing, but for the US to openly flout its own immigration laws is frankly astonishing. People with a conviction are very often refused visas to the US, and it isn't as though they couldn't have failed to notice that Mr. T. Shinawatra has a conviction. We can moan and groan about political friendships and the such, but I await someone from the current US government being asked, "So how did Mr. Shinawatra obtain a visa in direct contradiction to your visa regulations". They definitely aren't going to answer, we did it to make friends, so, for what reason is it? I would doubt they would openly say "It was because the conviction was political in nature", but that is the only conclusion I can come to. Well to repeat, i think you have come to the wrong conclusion. If the US believed that his conviction was political in nature, surely they have believed that from the get-go, they haven't just decided that now, so then why is it only now that Thaksin is visiting, and why has Thaksin spent all the time he has trotting around back-waters? Why didn't he just go to the US years ago? Answer is he couldn't. So what has changed? Not his conviction, that remains the same. What has changed is the powers that be in Thailand. And tomorrow if the powers that be change again, so i suggest may well Thaksin's ability in getting visas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. Well international diplomacy is one thing, but for the US to openly flout its own immigration laws is frankly astonishing. People with a conviction are very often refused visas to the US, and it isn't as though they couldn't have failed to notice that Mr. T. Shinawatra has a conviction. We can moan and groan about political friendships and the such, but I await someone from the current US government being asked, "So how did Mr. Shinawatra obtain a visa in direct contradiction to your visa regulations". They definitely aren't going to answer, we did it to make friends, so, for what reason is it? I would doubt they would openly say "It was because the conviction was political in nature", but that is the only conclusion I can come to. Well to repeat, i think you have come to the wrong conclusion. If the US believed that his conviction was political in nature, surely they have believed that from the get-go, they haven't just decided that now, so then why is it only now that Thaksin is visiting, and why has Thaksin spent all the time he has trotting around back-waters? Why didn't he just go to the US years ago? Answer is he couldn't. So what has changed? Not his conviction, that remains the same. What has changed is the powers that be in Thailand. And tomorrow if the powers that be change again, so i suggest may well Thaksin's ability in getting visas. Well, there always was the possibility that he could have been granted a visa under the previous government, but it would have been pretty risky for him to go, if whilst he was there, if the Thai government had asked him to be arrested and deported back to them. As far as I know, he never tried to get a visa issued from the US whilst the previous government was in, so we will never know if he would have been issued one. But sure as eggs are eggs, Kasit would have been over there in a second, and it would have been extremely difficult for the US to not arrest him because he does have a conviction. Issuing the visa has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he has a conviction and should not have even been able to get one. Why, who, what all of a sudden convinces the US govt to fall over and play puppy? As though they couldn't have refused simply saying, yes he has a conviction, we can't bend the rules? The places he went during the time of the previous government were places where Thailand has virtually no contact, Montenegro etc, but the good old USA probably would have stood behind its principles and either refused the visa point blank, or would have arrested him and deported him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) When is the big man coming to (Thaitown) LA? Maybe it would be fun for some people there to organize some kind of satiric FLASH MOB to perform some kind of silly mass performance near the place he's going to be? Any good ideas for what the theme should be? Not talking a protest per se, more like performance art in the spirit of flash mobs. Sing a song, wear some funny clothes, do some weird thing en masse. It might add something to the circus environment of his visit to America. Make him feel noticed, you know? Edited August 9, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatoichi Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Thats disgusting, and an embarrassment. Lets hope he gets much more than he bargained for there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFishman1 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I guess if you have enough money,anything is possible,even a U.S. Visa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Well, there always was the possibility that he could have been granted a visa under the previous government, but it would have been pretty risky for him to go, if whilst he was there, if the Thai government had asked him to be arrested and deported back to them. I don't think deportation is that simple a process. I think it is quite an involved business, that takes a lot of time and bureaucracy. I also think it was a fairly well known secret that the previous government, including Kasit, were far more interested in discrediting Thaksin, and damaging his public image, as they believed it deserved to be, than they were in actually dragging him back and putting him behind bars, with all that that would have entailed. It was posturing. I believe Thaksin knew this, and therefore would have known that were he to visit the US, he would have been relatively safe on that score, and it would have done great things for his standing. But he didn't. You have to ask yourself why. As far as I know, he never tried to get a visa issued from the US whilst the previous government was in, so we will never know if he would have been issued one. I don't think people like Thaksin require to actually submit all the relevant documents to know whether they are likely to be issued a visa. They have their people make phone calls and delicately ask for feedback and likelihoods of success. If the response is, "now might not be the right time", well then they back off and pretend they always planned to take that trip to Montenegro. Why, who, what all of a sudden convinces the US govt to fall over and play puppy? As though they couldn't have refused simply saying, yes he has a conviction, we can't bend the rules? They could refuse but the way the political wind is swinging, a two week visa for a low key trip, is perhaps what they consider a price worth paying for the sake of Thai relations. It's all about back scratching here, back scratching there. US doesn't care about whether this one man faces the justice he deserves or not. It's a nothing issue for them relatively speaking. They care about the two countries being able to work together. And this little bit of rule bending just might further that greater cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie61 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Rather myopic news article. Indeed sir... The new Chinese regional city of Sansha in the Spratly islands, as well as the process of democratization in Myanmar might open the eyes. Whichever party is in power, the US does have some vital strategic interests in Thailand. It has consistently disregarded the call for democracy and transparency in Thai politics over the last 50 years, in favour of kleptocrats and demagogues. The grant of a visa to Mr T is a hedge. Very wise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdsandBooze Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 In the capitalist world money subordinates everything, and a person`s status is defined by their bank balance, not what beats in their chest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me313 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ah but the problem Khun Suriyasai is that for an arrest and extradition to take place, the country were the criminal is wanted has to requested it, if Thailand doesnt request his arrest the US will do nothing, however has the US acted inappropriately in this case granting a visa to a well know fugitive....most certainly The US grants visas to many corrupt political leaders, only to invade their countries and declare war when it becomes financially and politically expedient to do so. Just politics as usual.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me313 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Rather myopic news article. Indeed sir... The new Chinese regional city of Sansha in the Spratly islands, as well as the process of democratization in Myanmar might open the eyes. Whichever party is in power, the US does have some vital strategic interests in Thailand. It has consistently disregarded the call for democracy and transparency in Thai politics over the last 50 years, in favour of kleptocrats and demagogues. The grant of a visa to Mr T is a hedge. Very wise.... Yes, the US, but not only the US. Europe has great financial interest here, and calling the kettle black in this potboiler is only more hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie61 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Rather myopic news article. Indeed sir... The new Chinese regional city of Sansha in the Spratly islands, as well as the process of democratization in Myanmar might open the eyes. Whichever party is in power, the US does have some vital strategic interests in Thailand. It has consistently disregarded the call for democracy and transparency in Thai politics over the last 50 years, in favour of kleptocrats and demagogues. The grant of a visa to Mr T is a hedge. Very wise.... Yes, the US, but not only the US. Europe has great financial interest here, and calling the kettle black in this potboiler is only more hypocrisy. You misunderstand me: Europe is too f..ed to look for issues beyond its borders. Mr T probably does read the papers, and realises that it is the US that is telling the world about its Pivot. Great opportunity for the great opportunist to make political hay while the sun shines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ah but the problem Khun Suriyasai is that for an arrest and extradition to take place, the country were the criminal is wanted has to requested it, if Thailand doesnt request his arrest the US will do nothing, however has the US acted inappropriately in this case granting a visa to a well know fugitive....most certainly The US grants visas to many corrupt political leaders, only to invade their countries and declare war when it becomes financially and politically expedient to do so. Just politics as usual.... And you may even be treated to a good ol Texa's BBQ as the Taliban leaders were treated to when there was a pipeline across Afghanistan in the offing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
how241 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Maybe the U.S. asked the Thai government before they issued the visa. And maybe they also agreed to no extradition. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we don't know about. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. If the foreign minister or the PM of Thailand asks the USA for a Visa for Thaksin, USA can't do much other than give a Visa. Yes they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipCook Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Flatulencia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie61 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Anyway, one can only conclude, that someone somewhere, has decided that they can explain away that Thaksin's conviction is politically motivated. I don't think so although i appreciate that will be the conclusion of some, eager for some sort of vindication for Thaksin. (not accusing you) When Thaksin was being denied visas, as i think it is safe to assume he was, even if it wasn't always made public, unlike when visas are granted, that was little more reflection on his court case than what we have now. Then it was all about Thaksin's opposition parties being in power and other countries not wanting to upset the apple cart too much and put the big shots' noses in Thailand out of joint, and now what is going on is precisely that same. The US has waived usual visa issuing protocol and standards (as they have been known to do on occasion), in granting what was no doubt requested not only from Thaksin himself, but from high government authorities in Thailand, and given him the shortest visa possible, along perhaps with some informal requests that he keep his trip low profile and not use the US as a political platform (something that ties in with the statement from Amsterdam the other day about not lobbying for him in the US). If we buy into this whole business (i don't) of US authorities having looked into Thaksin's court case and decided that they know better than the Thai justice system and declared him effectively still an innocent man in their eyes, perhaps someone should point them in the direction of his assets concealment case, and see what their verdict is on that one. At the end of the day, all it is is international diplomacy. Yes, if you have been through visa applications yourself, and seen first hand how deeply they can scrutinize and question, you may find it reeks of double standards; of one rule for the elite, another rule for everyone else, but i don't think anyone is naive enough to find any of this a great surprise. If the foreign minister or the PM of Thailand asks the USA for a Visa for Thaksin, USA can't do much other than give a Visa. Yes they can. Its the foreign policy equivalent of a "chinese takeaway" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Well, there always was the possibility that he could have been granted a visa under the previous government, but it would have been pretty risky for him to go, if whilst he was there, if the Thai government had asked him to be arrested and deported back to them. I don't think deportation is that simple a process. I think it is quite an involved business, that takes a lot of time and bureaucracy. I also think it was a fairly well known secret that the previous government, including Kasit, were far more interested in discrediting Thaksin, and damaging his public image, as they believed it deserved to be, than they were in actually dragging him back and putting him behind bars, with all that that would have entailed. It was posturing. I believe Thaksin knew this, and therefore would have known that were he to visit the US, he would have been relatively safe on that score, and it would have done great things for his standing. But he didn't. You have to ask yourself why. As far as I know, he never tried to get a visa issued from the US whilst the previous government was in, so we will never know if he would have been issued one. I don't think people like Thaksin require to actually submit all the relevant documents to know whether they are likely to be issued a visa. They have their people make phone calls and delicately ask for feedback and likelihoods of success. If the response is, "now might not be the right time", well then they back off and pretend they always planned to take that trip to Montenegro. Why, who, what all of a sudden convinces the US govt to fall over and play puppy? As though they couldn't have refused simply saying, yes he has a conviction, we can't bend the rules? They could refuse but the way the political wind is swinging, a two week visa for a low key trip, is perhaps what they consider a price worth paying for the sake of Thai relations. It's all about back scratching here, back scratching there. US doesn't care about whether this one man faces the justice he deserves or not. It's a nothing issue for them relatively speaking. They care about the two countries being able to work together. And this little bit of rule bending just might further that greater cause. I don't disagree, it is all very possible. Just very odd that the rules can be so easily bent for someone, when the question "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?", are not really open to interpretation...... and yet, there he is.........Sets a rather interesting precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclueng Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 For your information, the following questions are a part of the DS-160 Visa Application: Security and Background Information Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other similar action? Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering? Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence? I wonder what answers were given? Any "Yes" answer requires a detailed explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This is why I reckon this visa approval had to be at the Hillary Clinton level and yes it DOES send a message about where the US stands on this internal Thai conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 With the Thai government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I don't disagree, it is all very possible. Just very odd that the rules can be so easily bent for someone, when the question "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?", are not really open to interpretation...... and yet, there he is.........Sets a rather interesting precedent. I'm not sure it is a precedent though. Might have trouble finding examples of an exact equivalent in this precise situation (to be honest, i haven't researched it), but a list as long as your arm of examples where visa rules are applied differently and at the discretion of authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 For your information, the following questions are a part of the DS-160 Visa Application: Security and Background Information Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other similar action? Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering? Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence? I wonder what answers were given? Any "Yes" answer requires a detailed explanation. Perhaps he answered "Yes" but the explanations were obviously perfectly acceptable. The USA now seemingly wants to impose it's laws globally when it suits. So it can ignore other countries laws and judicial systems too when it suits the purpose; and make the rules up as it goes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 With the Thai government? Yes - the US always supports a democratically elected government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Kicks off his New York adventures with Thai food? You know what they say,"You can take the corrupt criminal on the run out of the country but you can never take the country out of the corrupt criminal on the run". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 A high ranking (former) political figure such as Thaksin would generally be granted a visa. He, and his lawyers, may have had to jump through a few hoops, but given the political muddle in Thailand, it would be granted. He no doubt got a waiver for his conviction. Why didn't he go before? My guess is that he would have had interference from the previous government and it would have been advised against by the US Embassy in Bangkok. It would have made the smooth operation between the two countries a little bumpy. Also, if he did get a visa and travel to the US and the Thai gov't did ask for his detention and return, he would have been arrested. The US legal system can be pretty blind at times. He would likely not have gotten bail and would have been held in detention. It would be neigh unto impossible to get the US government to agree not arrest or extradite him. What if the arrest warrant comes from another country? It won't be ignored even if Thailand doesn't want him arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts