Thai Constitution Court Asked To Order Thaksin To Stop Skype Conversation

[thaicbr]

OK about disagreeing. I disagree with much of what you say. But please consider the numerous outstanding cases against Thaksin. They are really the reason he hasn't come back from self imposed exile. Just think IF he had just served his two year sentence he and Thailand would have been living happily in freedom for 5 years now

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[lemoncake]

muttley, on 03 May 2013 - 11:36, said:

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

Have a think about that statement.

Well, he is not in THailand, the home country, so that would make him on the run

Of course we can disagree on the conviction. Usually very clean people become filthy rich when in power

[lemonjelly]

I think the whole parliament should be allowed to be wherever they want and do everything by Skype.

[Skywalker69]

Just where does Thai politics find these people are they specially bred somewhere ?

The word "incubator" comes to mind.

[virtualtraveller]

You can't stop anyone speaking to anyone else if both parties do so willingly. Whether he is a fugitive, and they MPs is irrelevant. But you can haul all the cabinet before judges and cross-question them and build a convincing case to show that this govt is being run from someone who is unelected. Nothing new there in Thailand, but it would be reasonable for the CC to rule that it's not in the spirit of the law and to disband the party for being a clear and obvious proxy, specifically to someone who is on the run from justice. Arguing his guilt or not thereof, is a matter for the courts in a retrial, focusing not on whether the judges are legitimate to rule (being appointed by a coup) but on the facts of the case and the evidence. It's not the court's responsibility to order someone to stop skyping.

[Skywalker69]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So your in favour of a convicted criminal running the country then?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

See my post above.

Are you one of Thaksins so called "cyber warriors"?

[muttley]

And what is the relevance of it. A crime was committed and he was found guilty - and the guilt was obvious to all. Your "conviction" is a conviction, and you conveniently forget the other serious charges pending.

Criminals make enemies, and their enemies use the law to defeat them.

BTW just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't somebody out to get you.

I can see you read it thoroughly and understood the various points made - of course you did .

[muttley]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So your in favour of a convicted criminal running the country then?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

See my post above.

Are you one of Thaksins so called "cyber warriors"?

No, what makes you say that?

[OzMick]

And what is the relevance of it. A crime was committed and he was found guilty - and the guilt was obvious to all. Your "conviction" is a conviction, and you conveniently forget the other serious charges pending.

Criminals make enemies, and their enemies use the law to defeat them.

BTW just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't somebody out to get you.

I can see you read it thoroughly and understood the various points made - of course you did .

Why would I bother to read your irrelevant obfuscations? Will they change that the law was in place, and the act committed?

[Locationthailand]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

That would be logical and is very short supply in Thailand at large.

[muttley]

So to sum up recent events;

It started with politically motivated conviction, swiftly followed by politically motivated demonstrations, politically motivated riots, politically motivated elections and politically motivated charter changes, which should culminate in a politically motivated amnesty and possibly if your lucky the politically motivated conviction of Abhisit. All the while liberally and evenly spread with an ample amount of politically motivated corruption.

There appears to be a pattern in Thai politics, wouldn't you agree?

Crying foul of political motives for actions in Thailand's political system is like complaining of getting suntan while sunbathing.

It appears that Whizzbang disagrees with you hence my post in reply to him. Edited May 3, 2013 by muttley

[muttley]

And what is the relevance of it. A crime was committed and he was found guilty - and the guilt was obvious to all. Your "conviction" is a conviction, and you conveniently forget the other serious charges pending.

Criminals make enemies, and their enemies use the law to defeat them.

BTW just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't somebody out to get you.

I can see you read it thoroughly and understood the various points made - of course you did .

Why would I bother to read your irrelevant obfuscations? Will they change that the law was in place, and the act committed?

I was answering a posters query not setting out obfuscations.

[jonclark]

So to sum up recent events;

It started with politically motivated conviction, swiftly followed by politically motivated demonstrations, politically motivated riots, politically motivated elections and politically motivated charter changes, which should culminate in a politically motivated amnesty and possibly if your lucky the politically motivated conviction of Abhisit. All the while liberally and evenly spread with an ample amount of politically motivated corruption.

There appears to be a pattern in Thai politics, wouldn't you agree?

Crying foul of political motives for actions in Thailand's political system is like complaining of getting suntan while sunbathing.

It appears that Whizzbang disagrees with you hence my post in reply to him.

I think we can all agree that political motivation drives the very heart of government and politics, that same motivation which Taksin clearly has in bucket loads can't be used as a shield to hide behind when his opponents out flank him to save him from his fate. To quote Mr. Tom Clancy " Live by the sword, die by the sword:".

[moe666]

This saga would be beyond belief in the real world.

It's not a "banana" republic, it's a "muppet" republic.

No it is a Muttly republica

[OzMick]

And what is the relevance of it. A crime was committed and he was found guilty - and the guilt was obvious to all. Your "conviction" is a conviction, and you conveniently forget the other serious charges pending.

Criminals make enemies, and their enemies use the law to defeat them.

BTW just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't somebody out to get you.

I can see you read it thoroughly and understood the various points made - of course you did .

Why would I bother to read your irrelevant obfuscations? Will they change that the law was in place, and the act committed?

I was answering a posters query not setting out obfuscations.

This chain begins with your post #33 when you replied to Whizzbang. His post does NOT contain a single question. Then you attempted to obfuscate Thaksin's conviction, now you do the same for your own actions.

[WhizBang]

Are you aware of the specifics of the Junta efforts to pin something/anything on Thaksin?

You will find that the Junta's newly named Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) set up a special assets investigation panel to review all projects approved by the Thaksin government - this was on the 24th September 2006. As a result of an internal spat, this panel was dissolved, and on 30th September 2006 the Asset Examination Committee was formed http://www.asianlii.org/th/other/THCDR/2006/30.html

Regardless of the timing of the "conviction" (a favourite argument on this forum) the Junta were involved in its formulation. If you and others would like to know more about the injustices carried out in the name of this conviction read this in its entirety'

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

Do not be swayed by the "blog" tag. It has been very well researched.

You could also investigate the internet to see what the American Ambassador had to say regarding the "charges" at the time.

You will find that the "politically motivated" phrase is a suitable one to describe the "conviction"

Blah, blah, blah.

Jeeze Mutt, take OFF the red sunglasses.

[Vinny1967]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So your in favour of a convicted criminal running the country then?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

I was under the impression that they're all corrupt criminals.Red or yellow

[lungmi]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

censorship of what? convicted fugitive on the run conversations with MP's?

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

Have a think about that statement.

Thaksin is not a Thai citizen. His Thai passport is illegal. His Montenegro, Uganda, Fidji, Takki-Tukaland or Mongolian Passport in his collection are irrelevant.

He only can get his Thai passport back in a Thai jail.

[Tatsujin]

Is the Government still trying to insist that he takes no part and has no influence over anything, or have they quietly given up flogging that dead horse now?

[Tatsujin]

First off he's hardly on the run if everybody knows where he is - it was the same during the democrat year/s. Secondly, lets agree to disagree on the "value" of the conviction. To the meat of your "argument".

You seem to be missing the fact that Thaksin was convicted while HIS PARTY was in power. So hardly a politically motivated conviction.

>>>You think it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Constitution Court to stop the MPs from talking with a Thai Citizen on Skype.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell anyone, but ESPECIALLY government officials, to NOT be dealing, or talking, with a convicted fugitive and terrorist and taking orders from said terrorist.

They can talk with him all they want to arrange for his surrender to Thai authorities, so he can be returned to Thailand to serve out his prison sentence and face the additional charges against him.

Are you aware of the specifics of the Junta efforts to pin something/anything on Thaksin?

You will find that the Junta's newly named Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) set up a special assets investigation panel to review all projects approved by the Thaksin government - this was on the 24th September 2006. As a result of an internal spat, this panel was dissolved, and on 30th September 2006 the Asset Examination Committee was formed

Regardless of the timing of the "conviction" (a favourite argument on this forum) the Junta were involved in its formulation. If you and others would like to know more about the injustices carried out in the name of this conviction read this in its entirety'

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

Do not be swayed by the "blog" tag. It has been very well researched.

You could also investigate the internet to see what the American Ambassador had to say regarding the "charges" at the time.

You will find that the "politically motivated" phrase is a suitable one to describe the "conviction"

Poor muttley, still can't see the wood for the trees. So sad.

[seminomadic]

Petty beyond pathetic

[khunken]

Bit of a waste of time as Thaksin does the ordering & he'll only accept court decisions in his favour.

However it is not a freedom of speech issue as jailed criminals here have their mobile phones removed & can only communicate with visitors (yes, I know, in theory).

They should target Yinkluck & his (sic) cabinet but methinks the CC is not the place to do it. More like a case for the Admin court.

[geriatrickid]

The exchange of opinions in this thread while nice in that it provides an opportunity for some angry people to vent their feelings it is a waste of time until three issues are first addressed;

1. Does the court have jurisdiction?

2. Does the court have the ability to order anyone not to use Skype in the manner it is being used?

3. If the answer to 1 &2 is yes, how then is the court expected to enforce its decision? The inability of a court to enforce a decision undermines the authority of a court.

The reasons some may have to stop the former PM might have merit. However the costs of such an action and the possibility of a curtailment of certain quasi liberties in Thailand may be too much to demand.

[Thai at Heart]

Bit of a waste of time as Thaksin does the ordering & he'll only accept court decisions in his favour.

However it is not a freedom of speech issue as jailed criminals here have their mobile phones removed & can only communicate with visitors (yes, I know, in theory).

They should target Yinkluck & his (sic) cabinet but methinks the CC is not the place to do it. More like a case for the Admin court.

Well, wouldn't conspiring with a criminal be a criminal offence, so pip pip, someone get down the cop shop and make a complaint.

[saakura]

Not sure how Court can give any orders to individual out of its jurisdiction

Perhaps court should issue order for Government MP's to stop talking with wanted fugitive

So you're all in favour of censorship then?

So if someone was Skyping in to a group of Thai teenagers (teenagers anywhere) to teach them how to make chemical weapons of mass destruction then would you say 'you can't stop them amking the Skype calls (or any other form of communication), because it would be censorship'?

Going by your reasoning, internet should have been banned long ago. That is not the right way. There should be rules against posting such stuff on the internet. Similarly there should be rules to stop a nations lawmakers from dealing with convicts (if it is not a politically motivated case). Asking a court to order someone living outside the country to stop skyping is only to gain media attention.

[khunken]

Bit of a waste of time as Thaksin does the ordering & he'll only accept court decisions in his favour.

However it is not a freedom of speech issue as jailed criminals here have their mobile phones removed & can only communicate with visitors (yes, I know, in theory).

They should target Yinkluck & his (sic) cabinet but methinks the CC is not the place to do it. More like a case for the Admin court.

Well, wouldn't conspiring with a criminal be a criminal offence, so pip pip, someone get down the cop shop and make a complaint.

That would read better with a smiley or something about including a brown envelope.

[kimamey]

I don't see any way they can tell Thaksin what to do as he's not here. If they had that influence they could tell him to get on a flight to Bangkok and serve his sentence. Whether they could prevent the government from taking these calls I also doubt but that is at least a little more realistic.

[Joe Mamma]

To be in office by proxy. Gall, and a huge disrespect for the people of Thailand,

[AleG]

As usual Thaksin's fans playing dumb, pretending that the issue is one of freedom of speech and not an unelected criminal dictating policy to the government from afar.

[MikeOboe57]

The exchange of opinions in this thread while nice in that it provides an opportunity for some angry people to vent their feelings it is a waste of time until three issues are first addressed;

1. Does the court have jurisdiction?

2. Does the court have the ability to order anyone not to use Skype in the manner it is being used?

3. If the answer to 1 &2 is yes, how then is the court expected to enforce its decision? The inability of a court to enforce a decision undermines the authority of a court.

The reasons some may have to stop the former PM might have merit. However the costs of such an action and the possibility of a curtailment of certain quasi liberties in Thailand may be too much to demand.

You fail to see the obvious.

Allowing an outsider to participate in cabinet meetings via the unsecure Skype service is a grave security breach. Thaksin is not endorsed to have access to confidential Government matters. There is no control regarding the safekeeping of classified information in his Dubai Villa. And no one can assure that Thaksin isn't using this information for his own ends. So allowing Thaksin to paticipate in Cabinet meetings and handing confidential material over to him for his advice and instructions is a criminal offence.

So it is not a matter of free speech. It is a grave breach of state security by these buffoons.