Handing 2010 Cases Over To International Criminal Court Discussed: Thailand

[webfact]

Handing 2010 cases over to ICC discussed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul will discuss with other agencies on Thursday the draft recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to probe the deaths of 98 people during the crackdown on red-shirt protesters in 2010.

Representatives of the Justice Ministry, Council of State, Attorney-General's Office, National Police and Department of Special Investigation will be invited to the meeting at the Foreign Ministry at 3pm, Surapong said yesterday.

The government is seeking an investigation by the ICC into the Democrat-led administration's involvement in the killings. Since Thailand is not a state party to the ICC, it must agree to accept the court's jurisdiction over the case.

If no agencies are opposed to the draft announcement, it would be sent to the Cabinet for approval, he said.

Attorneys of the international tribunal and officials of the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department of the Foreign Ministry have explained that the recognition would be regarded as a treaty and not subject to approval by Parliament under Article 190 of the Constitution, he said.

The request would be a unilateral move by Thailand and could be rescinded anytime, he said.

If other government agencies have questions about the recognition, the Foreign Ministry would forward them to the ICC.

Depending on the result of the meeting, the recognition might be accomplished this year.

The recognition would not comprise the country's judicial sovereignty because the ICC would not interfere in cases that could be handled by the Thai Criminal Court.

"We want to speed up the issue because we don't want to see more coups and more undemocratic actions or killings of Thais," he said.

The rush had nothing to do with the threat by red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan to push for a change of foreign minister if the matter was further delayed, he added.

-- The Nation 2012-11- 27

[whybother]

The request would be a unilateral move by Thailand and could be rescinded anytime, he said.

Like when the ICC start investigating red leaders / PTP MPs.

[Soutpeel]

The request would be a unilateral move by Thailand and could be rescinded anytime, he said.

Like when the ICC start investigating red leaders / PTP MPs.

Why dont they start with something simple like getting our man in Dubai arrested and extradited back to Thailand...?

[beano2274]

If you are gonna start with 2010, I can see people urging the ICC to look further back into the past, and it will then become a big fight with no-one winning.

[Buchholz]

Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul will discuss with other agencies on Thursday the draft recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to probe the deaths of 98 people during the crackdown on red-shirt protesters in 2010.

Why doesn't the Cousin Foreign Minister just simply advocate blanket ratification of the Rome Statute, instead of this one-off, pick and chose, tactic?

That way the ICC can investigate all potential cases, not just the ones that don't involve the kinfolk of the Cousin Foreign Minister.

.

[otherstuff1957]

So, they're saying that they can choose which cases to refer to the ICC & which cases they can handle internally. If this is so, then the ICC can simply be used as a political tool.

[rubl]

The recognition would not comprise the country's judicial sovereignty because the ICC would not interfere in cases that could be handled by the Thai Criminal Cour

As some cases are already handled by courts although not necessarily the criminal court this would suggest the ICC can only investigate parts of the 2010 peaceful rally. Under such circumstances I personally doubt the ICC can be interested to get involved.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The blindfold may be a recent addition (since late 15th century) but wiki says it stand for

"The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justitia

[Nickymaster]

So, they're saying that they can choose which cases to refer to the ICC & which cases they can handle internally. If this is so, then the ICC can simply be used as a political tool.

Won't happen. The ICC is smarter than Surapong, Thaksin and the Red leaders. The big question is: "Is the average voter smart enough to see trough this game".

[Thai at Heart]

This is as dumb as kasit speaking about getting Interpol to chase thaksin.

The ICC will never get involved in such an obviously political case.

[asiawatcher]

The government is seeking an investigation by the ICC into the Democrat-led administration's involvement in the killings.

Implying the democrats were responsible? What involvement? Reds were armed, firing M79 grenades, burning Bangkok. Do you think that will not be revealed as to the true intention of the red rabble? I would love to see the adjudication on this from the ICC once and for all.

[whybother]

I don't see why the ICC would take this up given that the Thai courts and police are investigating most of the issues.

[smedly]

I'd be very surprised if the ICC accept this very selective proposal, they either sign up to the ICC and regognise it's legal authority or they don't - there is no half measure

Typical Thai attitude wanting total control no matter what eventuality and if it's not going their way they can drop it like a brick - another sham to peg firmly with this government

[Nickymaster]

I'd be very surprised if the ICC accept this very selective proposal, they either sign up to the ICC and regognise it's legal authority or they don't - there is no half measure

Typical Thai attitude wanting total control no matter what eventuality and if it's not going their way they can drop it like a brick - another sham to peg firmly with this government

Correct: You become a signatory or you don't. PT wants a one case membership. Bunch of jokers.

This is a game to show the Reds that PT is doing everything possible to give them justice. Poor guys don't even realize they are part of yet another Thaksin game.

[hellodolly]

Is this another attempt to white wash the red shirt actions.

What was it Yingluck recently called them defenders of freedom.

[ratcatcher]

So, they're saying that they can choose which cases to refer to the ICC & which cases they can handle internally. If this is so, then the ICC can simply be used as a political tool.

Won't happen. The ICC is smarter than Surapong, Thaksin and the Red leaders. The big question is: "Is the average voter smart enough to see trough this game".

(I realize it's a typo Nickymaster-no offence intended)

Yes, the trough. It's full and they are still all lining up for a feed.

All this reminds me of a little known song by John Lennon. Just about sums up the problem, not only in this country BTW.

PIGGIES

Have you seen the little piggies

Crawling in the dirt

And for all the little piggies

Life is getting worse

Always having dirt to play around in.

Have you seen the bigger piggies

In their starched white shirts

You will find the bigger piggies

Stirring up the dirt

Always have clean shirts to play around in.

In their sties with all their backing

They don't care what goes on around

In their eyes there's something lacking

What they need's a dam_n good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies

Living piggy lives

You can see them out for dinner

With their piggy wives

Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

[bigbamboo]

Just as the UN was not Thaksin's father the ICC will not be his fairy godmother.

Edited November 27, 2012 by bigbamboo

[retarius]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent? If the government were to try these cases in Thai courts and the decision reached went against your preconceived notions of what happened, would you support the verdict and say it was a fair...I don't think so...you would argue that the verdict was tainted and fixed by the government.

Well you can't fix the ICC, and any verdict from them would carry much more weight internationally. Surely if you want the truth to come out, you would want the investigators to be unbiased and impartial?

MY money is on the following scenario: the government has investigated thoroughly and knows that the red shirts will be exonerated and that the army and Abhisit (who lied consistently throughout the confrontation) will be found at fault. Therefore the government doesn't want this tainted or buried, but wants it out in the open and untainted...hence they want the ICC to come in and endorse their feelings.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position. The ICCs verdict will not help people with blinkers on...their minds are made up already, but it will sway some of the less partisan, and open minded types, if, indeed there are any left in Thailand.

[rubl]

Checking my source of inspiration Robert A. I found

"Once Thailand makes an Article 12.3 declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction, a similar process will follow. If Thai police and courts genuinely investigate and prosecute those most responsible for past crimes, the ICC’s role in Thailand, as in Colombia, will be to engage in continuing dialogue and monitoring of progress. Only if Thai authorities do not genuinely pursue those most responsible for the crimes, would the ICC step in."

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2012/11/20/letter-to-the-nation-on-benjamin-zawacki-and-the-icc/

The interesting part is in the "those most responsible for past crimes". that's were the discussions start again

[otherstuff1957]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent? If the government were to try these cases in Thai courts and the decision reached went against your preconceived notions of what happened, would you support the verdict and say it was a fair...I don't think so...you would argue that the verdict was tainted and fixed by the government.

Well you can't fix the ICC, and any verdict from them would carry much more weight internationally. Surely if you want the truth to come out, you would want the investigators to be unbiased and impartial?

MY money is on the following scenario: the government has investigated thoroughly and knows that the red shirts will be exonerated and that the army and Abhisit (who lied consistently throughout the confrontation) will be found at fault. Therefore the government doesn't want this tainted or buried, but wants it out in the open and untainted...hence they want the ICC to come in and endorse their feelings.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position. The ICCs verdict will not help people with blinkers on...their minds are made up already, but it will sway some of the less partisan, and open minded types, if, indeed there are any left in Thailand.

Actually, most of the people responding to this thread aren't objecting to the ICC taking an impartial look at this case, they are deriding the PT government's efforts to manipulate the ICC by telling them "Look into this case, but don't look into that case".

[retarius]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent? If the government were to try these cases in Thai courts and the decision reached went against your preconceived notions of what happened, would you support the verdict and say it was a fair...I don't think so...you would argue that the verdict was tainted and fixed by the government.

Well you can't fix the ICC, and any verdict from them would carry much more weight internationally. Surely if you want the truth to come out, you would want the investigators to be unbiased and impartial?

MY money is on the following scenario: the government has investigated thoroughly and knows that the red shirts will be exonerated and that the army and Abhisit (who lied consistently throughout the confrontation) will be found at fault. Therefore the government doesn't want this tainted or buried, but wants it out in the open and untainted...hence they want the ICC to come in and endorse their feelings.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position. The ICCs verdict will not help people with blinkers on...their minds are made up already, but it will sway some of the less partisan, and open minded types, if, indeed there are any left in Thailand.

Actually, most of the people responding to this thread aren't objecting to the ICC taking an impartial look at this case, they are deriding the PT government's efforts to manipulate the ICC by telling them "Look into this case, but don't look into that case".

And why would looking at other cases eg the yellow shirt occupation of the airports or the military coup help to determine where the fault lies in the red shirt massacre? Even joining the ICC would not help since they do not look at any cases prior to joining, so if Thailand joined the ICC they wouldn't be able to investigate any prior cases. Requesting an ad-hoc investigation for a non member is a good way to look at cases in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right and I do think that the shootings of 90 people needs a decent investigation. An investigation into Thaksin's misdeeds doesn't alter the horrible facts of May 2010

Edited November 27, 2012 by retarius

[Thai at Heart]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent? If the government were to try these cases in Thai courts and the decision reached went against your preconceived notions of what happened, would you support the verdict and say it was a fair...I don't think so...you would argue that the verdict was tainted and fixed by the government.

Well you can't fix the ICC, and any verdict from them would carry much more weight internationally. Surely if you want the truth to come out, you would want the investigators to be unbiased and impartial?

MY money is on the following scenario: the government has investigated thoroughly and knows that the red shirts will be exonerated and that the army and Abhisit (who lied consistently throughout the confrontation) will be found at fault. Therefore the government doesn't want this tainted or buried, but wants it out in the open and untainted...hence they want the ICC to come in and endorse their feelings.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position. The ICCs verdict will not help people with blinkers on...their minds are made up already, but it will sway some of the less partisan, and open minded types, if, indeed there are any left in Thailand.

Bring it on if the point is to move forward a reconciliation process, but i doubt this is the motivation at all.

Beyond that, they're are dozens of offences more than just this, but these are apparently not politically interesting. Furthermore, Thailand spends a lot if time telling the big wide world to butt out of is domestic issues normally.

So great hang some people at the icc, whilst you try people domestically for terrorism???? If leaders can be charged with terrorism under their own laws, why isn't it justified to use the armed forces against terrorism?

Can you see the contradiction?

[airconsult]

Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul will discuss with other agencies on Thursday the draft recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to probe the deaths of 98 people during the crackdown on red-shirt protesters in 2010.

Why doesn't the Cousin Foreign Minister just simply advocate blanket ratification of the Rome Statute, instead of this one-off, pick and chose, tactic?

That way the ICC can investigate all potential cases, not just the ones that don't involve the kinfolk of the Cousin Foreign Minister.

.

As I understand it, the US pressured Thailand NOT to ratify the Rome statute - as indeed they did not. This pressure was applied to many US allies.

[Soutpeel]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent?

Cant you see the "investigation" & charges are politically motivated....hold on where have I heard that one before ?....

[chainarong]

The ICC should take the all or nothing attitude , although , I guess something is better than nothing, this will just melt into thin air, like mist over cow dung, what has Thailand got to hide, place your cards on the table gentlemen.

[Arkady]

This is intended purely to create a distraction for simple minded red shirts. The news that the ICC has accepted Thailand's petition to consider the case will be blown up as if it amounts to a decision to prosecute. That will good timing for the government to pursue the amnesty law again which will mean that no one can be prosecuted in Thailand for the crack down on the reds.

After a few years' deliberation the ICC will determine that it has no jurisdiction over the cases because Thailand has something that looks sufficiently like a real justice system from the outside to pursue the cases itself, if it had a mind to. It will not help that the same government that petitioned the court to consider the cases will have already amnestied every one involved in the riots by then and, of course the ICC is going to be extremely reluctant to allow governments the right to cherry pick cases for the ICC, while stubbornly continuing to refuse to ratify the Treaty of Rome. Finally the ICC doesn't have the time and resources to pursue trivial politically motivated cases in Asia. Genocide related cases in countries where the entire fabric of law and order have broken down are going to remain its bread and butter for a long time to come.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Arkady

[whybother]

On one hand, the government are trying to get the ICC involved, and on the other they are looking to give amnesty.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Moruya]

On one hand, the government are trying to get the ICC involved, and on the other they are looking to give amnesty.

Sent from my HTC phone.

That puts the governments morals into very sharp perspective.

[Nickymaster]

Can't any of the posters on here see that there is a possibility that the government simply want the investigation to be seen as impartial and independent? If the government were to try these cases in Thai courts and the decision reached went against your preconceived notions of what happened, would you support the verdict and say it was a fair...I don't think so...you would argue that the verdict was tainted and fixed by the government.

Well you can't fix the ICC, and any verdict from them would carry much more weight internationally. Surely if you want the truth to come out, you would want the investigators to be unbiased and impartial?

MY money is on the following scenario: the government has investigated thoroughly and knows that the red shirts will be exonerated and that the army and Abhisit (who lied consistently throughout the confrontation) will be found at fault. Therefore the government doesn't want this tainted or buried, but wants it out in the open and untainted...hence they want the ICC to come in and endorse their feelings.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position. The ICCs verdict will not help people with blinkers on...their minds are made up already, but it will sway some of the less partisan, and open minded types, if, indeed there are any left in Thailand.

ONe of the more sensible comments I read said that the ICC would not take the case because it is political...that may be right, but maybe they will want to help reconciliation by taking a firm position.

I Surely don't believe that IF the ICC would come in it would promote reconciliation.

Thaksin needs a scapegoat for all the terror he has organized. For him it is either we are all clean, or AV is a killer.

That's why he doesn't want the ICC to come to Thailand. Hence, they want ONE OFF case which is impossible if you know who the ICC operates. It’s another Red show.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Nickymaster

[smedly]

Maybe bring in an respected independant 3rd party from outside Thailand to carry out a structured enquiry could be the answer, the UK have done this on occasion but in reality I don't think the government would be happy with any investigation unless the findings were what they wanted to hear, they would simply dismiss it as they already have done

What happened in Bangkok in very simplistic terms is simple

Demonstration started

Government was light handed

Demanded early elections

The offer of early elections was granted

Offer rejected

Extreme civil disturbances erupted

They were told to disband and go home or force would be used

They refused to go

They were forced to go by the legal authorities

Deaths occured on both sides

Shit happens move on

[asiawatcher]

Maybe bring in an respected independant 3rd party from outside Thailand to carry out a structured enquiry could be the answer, the UK have done this on occasion but in reality I don't think the government would be happy with any investigation unless the findings were what they wanted to hear, they would simply dismiss it as they already have done

What happened in Bangkok in very simplistic terms is simple

Demonstration started

Government was light handed

Demanded early elections

The offer of early elections was granted

Offer rejected

Extreme civil disturbances erupted

They were told to disband and go home or force would be used

They refused to go

They were forced to go by the legal authorities

Deaths occured on both sides

Shit happens move on

.. Absolutely and as for 'retarious' calling it a Red Shirt massacre... what a ridiculous post.