Thai Constitution Court Asked To Order Thaksin To Stop Skype Conversation

[robblok]

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?

Nope just against a wanted fugitive that should stay out of politics making problems over here.

[muttley]

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.

Has Thaksins citizenship been revoked? I don't recall hearing about this. Please provide more details as I'm fascinated by this revelation.

[robblok]

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.

Has Thaksins citizenship been revoked? I don't recall hearing about this. Please provide more details as I'm fascinated by this revelation.

The value of the conviction.. the guy is guilty and there are so much more cases that he is guilty in waiting to start that he does not even dare to go home.

Are you saying he was not guilty ?

Having a convicted criminal leading the country one that has enriched himself through his position and is desperately trying to get his money back.. he is not acting for the country but for himself.

So yes its a good thing if they try to cut off his influence on the government.

Not that I think for one moment that it would work but it, but if it was done and the government still followed his orders it might be possible to dispose of the government legally.

So yes I think its worth a try even though it probably wont work.

[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.

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.

Sorry, the obvious is whether or not the court has the authority to get involved.

I was unaware that the former PM was using Skype to participate in cabinet meetings where confidential information was exchanged. Can you please provide me some examples as to when this occurred?

[ballpoint]

Not says this is a complete wasted effort, but the Senator may have more success,trying to teach his dog not to lick its balls.

Now the real reason for Muttley's hatred of the senate and courts becomes apparent.

[OzMick]

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

Ok enlighten me, what do you see as the "wood" and what you makes you feel sad that I apparently can't?

The "wood" is that a law was broken, as decided by the court. The trees are the irrelevant issues of whether it was a deliberately illegal act, what damage was done, the position held by the perpetrator, whether such 'important' people have been prosecuted in the past, the uniqueness or otherwise of Thai law, how international observers regard the result, whether Interpol was involved, and (your favourite) the motivation of the prosecution.

Sadness is felt for those unable to grasp the simple "wood" fact - it is caused by empathy for those less fortunate, something sociopaths can't feel.

[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.

Sorry, the obvious is whether or not the court has the authority to get involved.

I was unaware that the former PM was using Skype to participate in cabinet meetings where confidential information was exchanged. Can you please provide me some examples as to when this occurred?

I am

a. not a Cabinet member, and

b. if I were, I still could not pass this confidential information to an outsider like you.

But I suppose you are just joking.

[Pimay1]

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.

Sorry, the obvious is whether or not the court has the authority to get involved.

I was unaware that the former PM was using Skype to participate in cabinet meetings where confidential information was exchanged. Can you please provide me some examples as to when this occurred?

I am

a. not a Cabinet member, and

b. if I were, I still could not pass this confidential information to an outsider like you.

But I suppose you are just joking.

How about the line "there is only one way I can reveal this information to you".

[MikeOboe57]

@Pimay1

"I could tell you but then I will have to kill you!"

[hellodolly]

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?

Well there certainly is that possibility.

Also it might be possible that he wants a better Thailand and is not blinded buy Thaksins money.

[Thait Spot]

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?

I'm sure we all want democracy and having an unelected fugitive commanding the country from afar.

Square face and Lady Baa Baa received not a single vote between them and the nearest thing to an elected leader in this tin pot administration is Chairman Mao and his amazing ear medicine.

Scary

[hellodolly]

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.

Has Thaksins citizenship been revoked? I don't recall hearing about this. Please provide more details as I'm fascinated by this revelation.

His citizenship has not been revoked, I doubt that is possible with out his consent.

I had reason to check on it for the states and even there it requires the consent of the citizen to have it revoked unless it was obtained under illegal means.

Now as for Thaksins citizenship.

Do you not find it sad that a citizen of his wealth and notoriety try's to create internal problems in a country although he is a citizen of chooses not to live in?

Simply amazing the number of people he attracts with his money. That is why he and all the subsequent governments including the present one chose to not give Thais a decent education. The people look at the money rather than the person. It will take a long time to educate Thai's to a decent level of education. Hopefully the next government will start the process,

I will admit that I could be wrong about looking at the person in Yingluck's case. But I don't think it was leadership they were seeing in her. Once again I could be wrong.

[wwest5829]

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'?

Actually all that information is freely available on the Internet. I think the suggestion is that you do not limit the communication but rather the making or use of WMD (in your scenario.

[rubl]

I'm not going to read all 78 replies with a quick glance showing the usual distractions.

The topic is about a senator petitioning the Constitutional Court to order k. Thaksin to stop skyping in into cabinet meetings to order cabinet members around. I disagree with this petition. I think he should instead petition the Ombudsman to order the PM as head of the cabinet to stop severe security breaches with even criminal fugitives skyping in into cabinet meetings.

To petition the Constitutional Court about the criminal behavior of a criminal fugitive shows either lack of knowledge on what the Constitutional Court stands for or a certain level of disrespect. If not the Ombudsman, possibly the Criminal Court, but certainly not the Constitutional Court.