I think the US only has to say/consider that Thaksin's convictions were politically motivated (Whether they are or not) then as far as they are concerned isuing a visa is not a problem.

Do they give everyone this consideration or only if you have a few billion stashed away somewhere?

One country cannot arbitarily ignore the laws, constitution and judicial systems of another. However, if you're a billionaire and the behind the scenes ruler of another country, well that's different. Obviously, the criminal charges that he was found guily on were politcally motivated, trumped up fabrications .

The US doesn't hold themselves accountable to anybody and couldn't care less. They will do what suits their policy and future plans and that's it.

Remember during last year's floods. Hilary Clinton said on TV than America would support the Yingluck government, especially in re-building poilce stations to maintain law and order - a clear message of where America stands. More to be gained from Thaksin than his political oponents.

Even if Thaksin was innocent of the trumped up charges that saw him kicked out in the coup (not coo as one poster said) I think there's not much doubt who gave the order on the shooting of drug dealers. Many will say good riddance to them but what happened to the fair trial system, many of those may have been innocent.

Real Simple

(..........)

NOBODY OUTSIDE THAILAND CONSIDERS THE CONVICTIONS REAL and Mr T can travel freely wherever he chooses without fear of being picked up by this Government the last Government or the next Government.

That is is the truth like it or not

DK

Think about that.

Did you ever see him the recent years in the Shengen States?

He had got a residence permit in Germany, acquired under dubious circumstances (money; connections; French Shengen Visa, denying his VIP-status ). Once a liar / manipulator, every time a .... . It seems the Shengen States don't like that style.

Since his conviction successive Thai governments have shown no real interest in doing anything other than let Thaksin run around the world with impunity. So why should the Americans be bothered?

The reason , if he came back to ThaiLand there would be anarchy, he is such an destabilizing influence , even he's sister would/ should realize, the place would go up in smoke.

Remember during last year's floods. Hilary Clinton said on TV than America would support the Yingluck government, especially in re-building poilce stations to maintain law and order - a clear message of where America stands

Imagine that. The US coming out in support of a democratically elected government. So if such a government asks to grant Thaksin a visa, with the obvious understanding no extradiction would be asked for, why wouldn't we? The whiff of politics surrounding 'git Thaksin' is obvious. Sure, the charges were legitimate, not politically trumped up, and the conviction was solid. However, all the extra effort to get this indictment --or any indictment -- doesn't quite pass the sniff test. And the aroma of politics allows the granting of visa waivers -- not that we wouldn't have granted the visa otherwise. Did we piss-off the government out of office? You bet. But better than annoying our current best-buddies in office.

But a couple of years back, Thaksin also wanted a US visa. But the government in office, the one with the asterisk on its democratic bonafides, asked that he not be granted one -- and if one were granted, Thailand would ask for his extradiction. Easy decision. No visa. Asterisk or not, our best buddies at the time.

So, Thaksin's 'coming to America' had what "bearing" on Thai politics? As the lady said, "no bearing," as both sides' posturing hasn't seen any change.

However, that he was met with catcalls and rotten tomatoes -- well, I hardly believe the US just accidentally contributed to building up Thaksin's buffoon image.

A political decision by the US? How about a realpolitikal decision.....

Good show, US.

Whats all this crap about convictions not being recognised? So any other country can just decide whatever they want about the legal status of anyone in the world - convicted or not - the obvious reverse of this is that any other country could completely arbitrarily decide that they think a particular person from say Thailand happens to be a criminal and lock them up with no court, no hearing, and no justice! Would the T supporters be as happy about that as they are about the arrogant and ignorant contempt that the US and Uk have shown for our laws - right or wrong in the actual process of the original charge - a convicted person JUMPED BAIL - that is illegal internationally - that in itself is a crime.

Since his conviction successive Thai governments have shown no real interest in doing anything other than let Thaksin run around the world with impunity.

So why should the Americans be bothered?

It is what it is to you.

I am different. I am an American who would love to take his Thai wife back for a visit. To meet my brothers and sisters as well as the two of my boys who have not visited here yet.

But because she hasn't a house (She had two of them and gave them toher childern) or a Job where she is a key player or the owner they will not allow her a visa.

Now they come out in direct violation of their own laws and give a visa to a convicted criminal on the run from the law. Yes it bothers me. The states for the most part has been fairly honest I think they rate about 22 on the least corrupt scale but this is the most blatant piece of corruption yet.

Political BS Ms Kenney. You are an utter disgrace to your office and as a representative of INS for making such bland political misinformative statements. You have appeased no-one and shown what bald faced lies are sprouted by your superiors. This is all about the paranoid necessity of the use of Utapao Airport as a 'weather station' rather than admit your fear of China - who frankly owns and can bankrupt your country. Sooner the better I say. You are aiding and abetting a convicted criminal and you should be brought to justice for having done so.

I thought I'd check on some of the "facts" asserted in some of the previous postings and discovered that the reasons for US visa denial related to crimes involves "crimes involving moral turpitude".

Googling shows many sites which explain this. A site for US visa lawyers in the UK says: "Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. [Citations omitted] Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude." Elsewhere, one learns that the decision in such cases is within the discretion of the officer evaluating the application. There are no clear-cut lines.

But, even in the case that one is so convicted, it is always possible to apply for a waiver of this requirement; see US immigration forms I-601 and I-192.

In short, there are pleny of ways that a visa could have been issued legally, without any special contrivances, plots, or external influences.

Just sayin' . . .

Real Simple

The charges and subsequent convictions have no credibility in the eyes of the western world, there was a coo where he was ousted and then trumped up charges and convictions were processed by an illegal government who too control by force with no legal legitimacy.

So any convictions against T would not hold weight outside the kingdom as proven by the fact that when all you anti T followers were saying oh now Interpol will pick him up I SAID NEVER and I was right and again in all the other countries Mr T has visited again no problem for him and the truth is whether you like it or not is

NOBODY OUTSIDE THAILAND CONSIDERS THE CONVICTIONS REAL and Mr T can travel freely wherever he chooses without fear of being picked up by this Government the last Government or the next Government.

That is is the truth like it or not

DK

Looks exactly like that.

That is the reality.

I thought I'd check on some of the "facts" asserted in some of the previous postings and discovered that the reasons for US visa denial related to crimes involves "crimes involving moral turpitude".

Googling shows many sites which explain this. A site for US visa lawyers in the UK says: "Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. [Citations omitted] Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude." Elsewhere, one learns that the decision in such cases is within the discretion of the officer evaluating the application. There are no clear-cut lines.

But, even in the case that one is so convicted, it is always possible to apply for a waiver of this requirement; see US immigration forms I-601 and I-192.

In short, there are pleny of ways that a visa could have been issued legally, without any special contrivances, plots, or external influences.

Just sayin' . . .

Where does "crimes involving moral turpitude" fit into the case at hand?

I do have a question, Ambassador Kristie Kenney

2,800 human beings are dead because of Thaksin Shinwatra's "War on Drugs" In 2007, an official investigation found that more than half of those killed had no connection whatsoever to drugs.

Why does Thaksin Shinwatra, get to wander around the United States, with a US visa, free of any consequences for the lives of the 2,800 he ended during his regime's time in power?

Dear JCB2001: God has nothing to do with helping anyone's country including the U.S.A. which has a bad habit of point their fingers at everyone else except themselves.

The fact of the matter is that the life any country leads and or its people right down to every man, woman, and child is 100 % dependent of the choices made unequivocally without

exception. Thats the bottom line.

Real Simple

The charges and subsequent convictions have no credibility in the eyes of the western world, there was a coo where he was ousted and then trumped up charges and convictions were processed by an illegal government who too control by force with no legal legitimacy.

So any convictions against T would not hold weight outside the kingdom as proven by the fact that when all you anti T followers were saying oh now Interpol will pick him up I SAID NEVER and I was right and again in all the other countries Mr T has visited again no problem for him and the truth is whether you like it or not is

NOBODY OUTSIDE THAILAND CONSIDERS THE CONVICTIONS REAL and Mr T can travel freely wherever he chooses without fear of being picked up by this Government the last Government or the next Government.

That is is the truth like it or not

DK

Do you recall who was PM in 2008, with a PPP-led coalition-government, when Thaksin was convicted ?

Why do you consider him/them "an illegal government who too control by force with no legal legitimacy" ?

There were elections in December-2007, after which PM-Samak & then later PM-Somchai ran PPP-led coalition-governments, were there not ?

Wow! What an amazing article. First off, the above headline had nothing to do with Thaksin and was zeroed in on the TPP, an extremely complex piece of global mumbo jumbo and well beyond the scope of The Nation to explain in passing. Only the sub-headline of the actual article and the inflammatory headline traditionally used by The Nation made a reference to Thaksin.

Secondly, the use of "envoy" in the case of Ambassador Kenney is incorrect, according to diplomatic protocol as I understand. An "envoy" would be her "second in command" or a designated substitute. Third, the overall grammar of the article is an illustration of lack of editorial proofreading following on extremely poor writing.

On the more complex issue of the TPP. The TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership is an "extension" of the original Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership of which Thailand was not and is not a member to my knowledge. This fact was not clarified in the article, despite the fact that the article would give rise to the notion that Thailand is active in TPSEP and "pondering" the decision to join in on TPP.

It is currently understood that the Obama administration is attempting to draft and table "instant legislation" drafted by the WH that authorizes that the US join the TPP, and presumably backfill into the TPSEP of which it is classed as a "negotiating" member - whatever that means. Probably "negotiating" means lots of cocktail parties and good old boy deal making at US taxpayer expense. Thailand is not understood to be a negotiating member of either organization, and therefore would need to be qualified as a "negotiating participant" prior to addressing the question of "joining" as presented by the article.

The reference in the article to Thaksin's visa raises up the whole issue of whether Thailand's law, or lack of it as the case may be, considers Thaksin to be a fugitive from law and recognizes his court conviction and sentence. The Nation has failed to actually clarify this issue and set the record straight objectively. Is in fact his conviction considered to be the equivalent of a felony, a misdemeanor, some other Thai classification of criminal offense or was it a lesser "civil" offense?

One can only assume that he, Thaksin, needed to fill out a US visa application and Homeland Security bio. It appears from the article implication that the US either waived or ignored the conviction and sentence questions if in fact they are actual criminal classifications or that Thaksin lied on his application.

Lastly, the reference to Thailand's "creative economy" in the same context as other IP is preposterous and renders The Nation incompetent for classifying the two in the same context. I suspect that Ambassador Kenney's quote on this, as transcribed by The Nation's reporter who was not proofread, was taken out of context. It is not understandable nor would the Ambassador, a knowledgeable professional on Thailand, make such a remark.

Does she reveal the true motive for Thaksin's US visa?

Why must there be a "motive"? Thaksin now has a Thai passport, he not a threat for illegal residency in the US, thus he qualifies for a visa. Why do people make it more complicated? What would be the grounds for denying his visa? If you say, "Because he is a criminal," I would comment that most western nations do not recognize "political crimes" as an impediment to granting a visa.

Does she reveal the true motive for Thaksin's US visa?

Why must there be a "motive"? Thaksin now has a Thai passport, he not a threat for illegal residency in the US, thus he qualifies for a visa. Why do people make it more complicated? What would be the grounds for denying his visa? If you say, "Because he is a criminal," I would comment that most western nations do not recognize "political crimes" as an impediment to granting a visa.

'...he not a threat for illegal residency in the US, thus he qualifies for a visa.'

You think that's the only reason why the US rejects visa applications?

Better do some further reading.

Real Simple

The charges and subsequent convictions have no credibility in the eyes of the western world, there was a coo where he was ousted and then trumped up charges and convictions were processed by an illegal government who too control by force with no legal legitimacy.

So any convictions against T would not hold weight outside the kingdom as proven by the fact that when all you anti T followers were saying oh now Interpol will pick him up I SAID NEVER and I was right and again in all the other countries Mr T has visited again no problem for him and the truth is whether you like it or not is

NOBODY OUTSIDE THAILAND CONSIDERS THE CONVICTIONS REAL and Mr T can travel freely wherever he chooses without fear of being picked up by this Government the last Government or the next Government.

That is is the truth like it or not

DK

It most certainly is not!

So diamond king, what your saying is that other countries don't look at what convictions people have outside of the their own country when they considering visa applications.

I certainly hope that my home country doesn't follow that line. In fact I know they don't follow that line, substantive information about past record is very definitely taken into consideration for visas and should be.

The converse (such details not taken into consideration) would mean that convicted people from anywhere could easily enter my home country. No thanks.

Does she reveal the true motive for Thaksin's US visa?

Why must there be a "motive"? Thaksin now has a Thai passport, he not a threat for illegal residency in the US, thus he qualifies for a visa. Why do people make it more complicated? What would be the grounds for denying his visa? If you say, "Because he is a criminal," I would comment that most western nations do not recognize "political crimes" as an impediment to granting a visa.

Has Thaksin been convicted of any "political crimes"? Or has he only been convicted of criminal charges, the same as any other common criminal. Being a politician does not mean crimes that you committ become "political". Ask the UK politicians jailed for fiddling their expenses.

Remember during last year's floods. Hilary Clinton said on TV than America would support the Yingluck government, especially in re-building poilce stations to maintain law and order - a clear message of where America stands

Imagine that. The US coming out in support of a democratically elected government. So if such a government asks to grant Thaksin a visa, with the obvious understanding no extradiction would be asked for, why wouldn't we? The whiff of politics surrounding 'git Thaksin' is obvious. Sure, the charges were legitimate, not politically trumped up, and the conviction was solid. However, all the extra effort to get this indictment --or any indictment -- doesn't quite pass the sniff test. And the aroma of politics allows the granting of visa waivers -- not that we wouldn't have granted the visa otherwise. Did we piss-off the government out of office? You bet. But better than annoying our current best-buddies in office.

But a couple of years back, Thaksin also wanted a US visa. But the government in office, the one with the asterisk on its democratic bonafides, asked that he not be granted one -- and if one were granted, Thailand would ask for his extradiction. Easy decision. No visa. Asterisk or not, our best buddies at the time.

So, Thaksin's 'coming to America' had what "bearing" on Thai politics? As the lady said, "no bearing," as both sides' posturing hasn't seen any change.

However, that he was met with catcalls and rotten tomatoes -- well, I hardly believe the US just accidentally contributed to building up Thaksin's buffoon image.

A political decision by the US? How about a realpolitikal decision.....

Good show, US.

You sum up the scenario quite nicely. Support a democratically (just) elected government, regardless of how corrupt they are, or a non-democratic government when it suits, providing it supports the bigger picture and strategic aims. Yes sir, that's politics for you.

Of course you really need to be carefull not to piss-off the country that you're up to your eyes in debt too. Other than that, who cares.

Good show US indeed - show this administrations true colours. Lie when it suits - don't worry if they're 'white' or not. Of course, most politicians behave like this, but not all continually claim the moral high ground.

all part of a plan to install a very pro u.s. gov't in thailand to try and use as a springboard with cambodia and myanmar next and another goal to change the political system in thailand similar to western govts - weakening of monarchy, trade ties, political correctness, etc. this is the beginning of the end of thailand as we have known and loved it mark my words

Equation= Region (SEA)+>China+positioning=US=backdoor+ honeymoon=Visa/Thaskin ol'Boy=connections>*%None of our business=just move along people nothing to see hear@=as the world turns

I can't see why any country, not just the US, would issue a visa or allow entry to its shores to a known convicted criminal who has not yet served his/her prison sentence because they are a fugitive on the run. This goes especially for Cambodia and Laos, Thailand neighbors; Dubai who allow him to reside; Montenegro who give him nationality. They are all as corrupt as he is.

Real Simple

The charges and subsequent convictions have no credibility in the eyes of the western world, there was a coo where he was ousted and then trumped up charges and convictions were processed by an illegal government who too control by force with no legal legitimacy.

So any convictions against T would not hold weight outside the kingdom as proven by the fact that when all you anti T followers were saying oh now Interpol will pick him up I SAID NEVER and I was right and again in all the other countries Mr T has visited again no problem for him and the truth is whether you like it or not is

NOBODY OUTSIDE THAILAND CONSIDERS THE CONVICTIONS REAL and Mr T can travel freely wherever he chooses without fear of being picked up by this Government the last Government or the next Government.

That is is the truth like it or not

DK

It most certainly is not!

So diamond king, what your saying is that other countries don't look at what convictions people have outside of the their own country when they considering visa applications.

I certainly hope that my home country doesn't follow that line. In fact I know they don't follow that line, substantive information about past record is very definitely taken into consideration for visas and should be.

The converse (such details not taken into consideration) would mean that convicted people from anywhere could easily enter my home country. No thanks.

So diamond king, what your saying is that other countries don't look at what convictions people have outside of the their own country when they considering visa applications.

I certainly hope that my home country doesn't follow that line. In fact I know they don't follow that line, substantive information about past record is very definitely taken into consideration for visas and should be.

The converse (such details not taken into consideration) would mean that convicted people from anywhere could easily enter my home country. No thanks.

More...

There's another point. It has been agreed my many folks that the conviction of the paymaster was not attached to anything political, he committed a crime - abuse of power - he broke an old serious law which had been on the statute books of Thailand (and 99% of countries in the world) for decades. in fact a serious crime for a PM to commit.

His case was heard and he was sentenced to 2 years by a properly convened Thai court, nothing whatever to do with coups / coup makers or anything similar, and the case was heard and he was convicted whilst his party was in power with his brother in law the puppet PM.

All embassies / the FBI / the CIA, in the case of the US, continously gather information about such matters, it's continuously analyzed and summarized by the US State dept., and shared with the president, various high level policy committees, immigration agencies etc etc., and all ambassadors and embassy seniors all over the world.

The US rules (law) about issue of visas clearly prohibits the granting of a visa to a person with the paymaster's history on the conviction at hand.

Does the current US Ambassador think the rest of the world is totally naive and stupid?

It pains me that she was not challenged for her remarks!

I hear you, Scorecard. It's particularly galling to me, because a Thai woman friend just came to visit me. She was sad, because she paid $150 and submitted all her data to try and get a visa to visit the US, and was turned down flat. She asked if she should pay another $150 and try again. I responded with an emphatic NO. She's a single mom, age 40, registered nurse working at a hospital, from a well-to-do family, and the US can't even give her a lousy visa to romp around in the US for two weeks.

I'm an American, and it galls me to no end, particularly as it happened in the same week that the criminal Thaksin was given a visa. The first thing they should do is refund all the money they've stolen from people who have been turned down for visa application. Retroactively.

All US embassy and consulate staff in Thailand should stand outside their places of work, and hang their heads in shame to two hours, with placards around their necks proclaiming: "We made a big mistake, please forgive us.".

Where's Johnny Cochran when you need him? (ok, sorry, I know he passed away). P.S. Cochran was the attorney who got OJ off the hook in the double murder case. He could probably convince a jury that water is no wet, if given half a chance.

I thought I'd check on some of the "facts" asserted in some of the previous postings and discovered that the reasons for US visa denial related to crimes involves "crimes involving moral turpitude".

Googling shows many sites which explain this. A site for US visa lawyers in the UK says: "Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. [Citations omitted] Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude." Elsewhere, one learns that the decision in such cases is within the discretion of the officer evaluating the application. There are no clear-cut lines.

But, even in the case that one is so convicted, it is always possible to apply for a waiver of this requirement; see US immigration forms I-601 and I-192.

In short, there are pleny of ways that a visa could have been issued legally, without any special contrivances, plots, or external influences.

Just sayin' . . .

Crap I made a earlier post with a final line which I decided to erase. I will print it now.

When some one signed Thaksin's Visa some one received a lot of money.

Since his conviction successive Thai governments have shown no real interest in doing anything other than let Thaksin run around the world with impunity.

So why should the Americans be bothered?

The current administration's Foreign Minister says the reason that his government has not requested his extradition from anywhere is because they are unaware of his whereabouts.

.