Thailand grants citizenship to half a million people – but not farangs

[JLCrab]

So maybe as a hack writer you can be called in as an expert witness to explain to the judge or judge panel the moral code which supersedes the law of the land.

[DennisF]

It may well be that the trial, if it goes ahead will produce insufficient evidence and the accused are released.

The RTP can then state they are not seeking anyone else for this crime and case is closed.

Win win for them.. they may think.

Speculation only...

[MJP]

A post using material from the CSI LA Facebook page has been removed.

[thailandchilli]

I know many of the conflicting pieces of evidence, lack of evidence and all the inconsistencies have already been mentioned.

But as the trial looms closer, various pieces come to mind that would in any fair trial be explained adequately.

When found David was minus his shorts. Instead the killer/attacker or accomplice left his. A blue pair of shorts with belt. Who do these belong to? This is a vital piece of evidence that seems to have drifted into nothing.

Perhaps the biggest clue as to who they belong to point again to the running man. He was captured wearing dark shorts and a belt before he then changed into light shorts that the RTP claim to be Davids. More evidence to point to this running man as being heavily involved in the crime.

Do your job RTP identify this killer or accomplice!! The photo of him wearing the dark shorts with belt is freely available online

[boomerangutang]

So maybe as a hack writer you can be called in as an expert witness to explain to the judge or judge panel the moral code which supersedes the law of the land.

It's one thing to have a law, and another to abide by it. Citizens have their responsibilities, and judges are also citizens, but they have the added responsibilities which are part of their job description. Judges are responsible for interpreting and upholding standards of how the law is meted out. Among other things, judges are required to be objective and fair-minded and not swayed by outside influences.

There is a story of a Thai supreme court judge who slipped from that responsibility when he ruled on a case contrary to what he felt was correct, because he felt political pressure. I'm referring to the judge who ruled that Mr. Thaksin did not hide assets with his maid and chauffeur. He admitted his thought process after the vote. It was a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Thaksin (there could have also been a payment involved, as T has been known to bribe judges). If that sort of warped judgement is any precedence for a ruling on the B2's guilt or innocence, I hold little hope for the B2 getting justice.

[JLCrab]

Maybe those brought to trial if brought to trial will get a fair hearing and maybe they won't. I don't see what your personal moral code has to do with it.

[Bleacher Bum East]

So maybe as a hack writer you can be called in as an expert witness to explain to the judge or judge panel the moral code which supersedes the law of the land.

And maybe as a frequent poster of selective portions of the law and government policy you can be called to write an Amicus Brief to explain to the judge or judge panel the international law of the land.

On that note . . . Let's look at your frequent posting of Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, together with the British Embassy Website.

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

You cite Article 55 with no interpretation or analysis as if it were a black and white speed limit law.

But in fact Article 55 is not black and white, it is broadly written and must be interpreted in light of all the other provisions of the Vienna Convention, as well as its purpose and history.

In this case, it is necessary to interpret what would constitute "interference" with the internal affairs of Thailand, as well as what foreign consuls are allowed to do within the realm of what does not constitute interference.

Anybody genuinely trying to analyze how the Vienna Convention applies to Hannah and David's case would do what the British and Myanmar government legal and diplomatic analysts would do.

That is this:

First Make a Legal Analysis

1. Interpret generally the scope of the Vienna Convention as a whole as to what the limits of what a foreign consul can do in the case of an arrest for murder of one of its citizens, or murder of one of its citizens, in a foreign country.

2. Apply that interpretation of the law to the facts of the particular case---meaning determine what contemplated consular actions in the case at hand would fall inside and outside of the Vienna Convention.

Second Make a Diplomatic Analysis

1. Look at what options the legal analysis allows you to pursue, and determine from a diplomatic standpoint what legal options are best to pursue in light of all the circumstances and considerations (which are many).

2. Decide what options to pursue at any given moment.

3. Continuously review those options and decisions as the case progresses

So since you cite the Vienna Convention so often, maybe you could provide your own legal analysis of what it allows the British and Myanmar consulates and government authorities to do in general, and how the Vienna Convention applies to the facts of the investigation of Hannah and David's murder and any following trial.

Specifically, what options do you think these governments can pursue within the Vienna Convention, and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

I would provide you helpful links, but you've said you can find your own.

[boomerangutang]

Maybe those brought to trial if brought to trial will get a fair hearing and maybe they won't. I don't see what your personal moral code has to do with it.

I didn't mention my personal moral code in the post above yours (which I assume you're responding to). But since you mentioned it, my personal moral code is more important to me (and a greater part of my character) than all the rules of all the world's countries combined.

A true little story (pardon me if it sounds like I'm waving my own flag): In California, I gave a ride to a hitchhiker. After a half hour, I let him off in Monterey. I had driven almost to SF, about 80 minutes, when I noticed something on the floor. I stopped and realized it was a very expensive camera in a paper bag. I immediately drove back to Monterrey, spent about a half hour looking for the guy. Found him and returned the camera, no reward (none asked, none offered). That's a modicum of what a personal moral code comprises.

Now try to screw your mind in to as objective a mind-frame as possible, and tell us whether you think the police investigators and/or the headman's people, ....have a better personal moral codes than, let's say, a guy who gets a house-sitting position and trashes the house.

When I was a little kid, I read Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and the message has stayed with me every since.

[JLCrab]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

[JLCrab]

Maybe those brought to trial if brought to trial will get a fair hearing and maybe they won't. I don't see what your personal moral code has to do with it.

I didn't mention my personal moral code in the post above yours (which I assume you're responding to). But since you mentioned it, my personal moral code is more important to me (and a greater part of my character) than all the rules of all the world's countries combined.

A true little story (pardon me if it sounds like I'm waving my own flag): In California, I gave a ride to a hitchhiker. After a half hour, I let him off in Monterey. I had driven almost to SF, about 80 minutes, when I noticed something on the floor. I stopped and realized it was a very expensive camera in a paper bag. I immediately drove back to Monterrey, spent about a half hour looking for the guy. Found him and returned the camera, no reward (none asked, none offered). That's a modicum of what a personal moral code comprises.

Now try to screw your mind in to as objective a mind-frame as possible, and tell us whether you think the police investigators and/or the headman's people, ....have a better personal moral codes than, let's say, a guy who gets a house-sitting position and trashes the house.

When I was a little kid, I read Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and the message has stayed with me every since.

So what does that have to do with affecting judicial procedures in Thailand to meet your high moral standard?

[Bleacher Bum East]

I have hunger for lobster which I had on a recent trip to USA. When you come to a country -- any country -- you abide by its judicial system as is. Human Rights NGO's may work toward changing that system for the better; but that is for down the road.

What do you mean by this?

Do you mean that if the investigation and trial of any person accused of Hannah's murder and rape and David's murder is not considered fair by international standards, then there is nothing the accused or the government of the accused can do about it? That there is nothing the parents of the victims or the home government of the victims can do about it?

That if a trial in foreign country is unfair by international standards, a foreign national and his or her home government must just accept the unfair trial as being part of the "judicial system as it is" and wait for an NGO to try and change things in the future?

[Bleacher Bum East]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

Edited November 30, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[JLCrab]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.

[boomerangutang]

There is international law, and with all laws, sometimes they've got to be broken. There was a law in Thailand where no one outside the royal family could touch a member of the royal family. One of the princesses fell in a river and couldn't swim. The only people on hand were servants, and because they were not allowed to touch her, no one jumped in the river to try. She drowned.

Laws are made by people. People are fallible. Laws change. Even the laws behind the US's War on Drugs are drastically changing toward common sense, and the changes are, ironically, actively supported by those who used to be most adamantly anti-drug. The list is like Arch-Conservatives Inc., including Dick Cheney.

Then there are times when laws are secondary, like when the US Navy Seals went in to get Osama Bin Laden. If the US had followed int'l protocol, they would have asked permission from Pakistani officials or asked the Paki's to do the dirty work. The Pakistani military would have blown (or leaked) the operation, so the US took the initiative and did it on their own, and the heck with international law.

In the KT case, the Brits need to take a swig of whiskey (or whatever screws their courage to the sticking point) and be more assertive. Their laid back and delaying attitude is not getting anyone closer to justice.

[thailandchilli]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

I tend not to got involved in legal points as its not something I have any experience in or carried out much research aside from points that are necessarily relevant.

I do however have an interest in Justice and to see that justice is served.

What part of the Geneva conventions carries the protocol for UK PM meeting the Thai PM in Italy and pressurizing him to allow the UK police to observe and review the police investigation into Hannah and David is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the UK police then to actually step foot on Thai soil and allow them to observe and review the case is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the Burmese delegation to meet with the Thai PM and state that unless justice is seen to be done it will affect relations between the 2 countries is not my concern. It happened.

Affecting change can happen in many way outside of protocols.

Fighting for justice can happen in many ways. Nobody is saying that we can affect the Judicial proceedings in Thailand, what we are saying however is that the world is watching, the world has eyes and is extremely concerned about what is going on in this case.

If you want stick to protocols and stay silent then go ahead, be part of the system that Thailand would prefer you to be in.

[thailandchilli]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.

give my regards to Mark, he's a nice guy but I'm sure he'll refer you to one of the embassy staff rather than give you a personal reply on this one.

[JLCrab]

There is international law, and with all laws, sometimes they've got to be broken. There was a law in Thailand where no one outside the royal family could touch a member of the royal family. One of the princesses fell in a river and couldn't swim. The only people on hand were servants, and because they were not allowed to touch her, no one jumped in the river to try. She drowned.

Laws are made by people. People are fallible. Laws change. Even the laws behind the US's War on Drugs are drastically changing toward common sense, and the changes are, ironically, actively supported by those who used to be most adamantly anti-drug. The list is like Arch-Conservatives Inc., including Dick Cheney.

Then there are times when laws are secondary, like when the US Navy Seals went in to get Osama Bin Laden. If the US had followed int'l protocol, they would have asked permission from Pakistani officials or asked the Paki's to do the dirty work. The Pakistani military would have blown (or leaked) the operation, so the US took the initiative and did it on their own, and the heck with international law.

In the KT case, the Brits need to take a swig of whiskey (or whatever screws their courage to the sticking point) and be more assertive. Their laid back and delaying attitude is not getting anyone closer to justice.

I agree -- the Brits and the Burmese should stage a commando raid on the prison on Koh Samui, free the 2 in custody, and spirit them back to the friendly confines of Rangoon.

Edited November 30, 2014 by JLCrab

[JLCrab]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

I tend not to got involved in legal points as its not something I have any experience in or carried out much research aside from points that are necessarily relevant.

I do however have an interest in Justice and to see that justice is served.

What part of the Geneva conventions carries the protocol for UK PM meeting the Thai PM in Italy and pressurizing him to allow the UK police to observe and review the police investigation into Hannah and David is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the UK police then to actually step foot on Thai soil and allow them to observe and review the case is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the Burmese delegation to meet with the Thai PM and state that unless justice is seen to be done it will affect relations between the 2 countries is not my concern. It happened.

Affecting change can happen in many way outside of protocols.

Fighting for justice can happen in many ways. Nobody is saying that we can affect the Judicial proceedings in Thailand, what we are saying however is that the world is watching, the world has eyes and is extremely concerned about what is going on in this case.

If you want stick to protocols and stay silent then go ahead, be part of the system that Thailand would prefer you to be in.

The 2 PM's met at a pre-scheduled function in Milan.The reason UK police stepped on Thai soil is that they were invited. If you want to discuss things as you think they should happen that is fine.

[thailandchilli]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

I tend not to got involved in legal points as its not something I have any experience in or carried out much research aside from points that are necessarily relevant.

I do however have an interest in Justice and to see that justice is served.

What part of the Geneva conventions carries the protocol for UK PM meeting the Thai PM in Italy and pressurizing him to allow the UK police to observe and review the police investigation into Hannah and David is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the UK police then to actually step foot on Thai soil and allow them to observe and review the case is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the Burmese delegation to meet with the Thai PM and state that unless justice is seen to be done it will affect relations between the 2 countries is not my concern. It happened.

Affecting change can happen in many way outside of protocols.

Fighting for justice can happen in many ways. Nobody is saying that we can affect the Judicial proceedings in Thailand, what we are saying however is that the world is watching, the world has eyes and is extremely concerned about what is going on in this case.

If you want stick to protocols and stay silent then go ahead, be part of the system that Thailand would prefer you to be in.

The 2 PM's met at a pre-scheduled function in Milan.The reason UK police stepped on Thai soil is that they were invited. If you want to discuss things as you think they should happen that is fine.

You are very wrong, and if you care to source the statements from the British government and from the UK PM on this unscheduled meeting then do so, you state you can find your own links so go ahead, or be ignorant to the truth, the choice is yours.

[JLCrab]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

I tend not to got involved in legal points as its not something I have any experience in or carried out much research aside from points that are necessarily relevant.

I do however have an interest in Justice and to see that justice is served.

What part of the Geneva conventions carries the protocol for UK PM meeting the Thai PM in Italy and pressurizing him to allow the UK police to observe and review the police investigation into Hannah and David is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the UK police then to actually step foot on Thai soil and allow them to observe and review the case is not my concern, it happened.

What part of the Geneva convention allows the Burmese delegation to meet with the Thai PM and state that unless justice is seen to be done it will affect relations between the 2 countries is not my concern. It happened.

Affecting change can happen in many way outside of protocols.

Fighting for justice can happen in many ways. Nobody is saying that we can affect the Judicial proceedings in Thailand, what we are saying however is that the world is watching, the world has eyes and is extremely concerned about what is going on in this case.

If you want stick to protocols and stay silent then go ahead, be part of the system that Thailand would prefer you to be in.

The 2 PM's met at a pre-scheduled function in Milan.The reason UK police stepped on Thai soil is that they were invited. If you want to discuss things as you think they should happen that is fine.

You are very wrong, and if you care to source the statements from the British government and from the UK PM on this unscheduled meeting then do so, you state you can find your own links so go ahead, or be ignorant to the truth, the choice is yours.

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/asem-2014

[thailandchilli]

You do find this difficult to grasp.

If you care to source the statements from the British government and from the UK PM on this unscheduled meeting that happened on the sidewalk on the fringes of the Official Summit in Milan. In sourcing your links you will even find the photos of the said meeting on the sidewalk.

EDIT

Added for clarity, just one of many links on this meeting is here http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29668785

"The country's military ruler dropped objections to accepting help in the case after being pressed on the issue by UK Prime Minister David Cameron."

Edited November 30, 2014 by thailandchilli

[JLCrab]

The Thai PM did not travel to London. The UK PM did not travel to Bangkok. They were both in Milan as heads of state at a conference planned at least 3 years ahead and roughly 4 weeks following the Koh Tao murders.

[DennisF]

Im pretty sure that having a dig at each other instead of debating the issues is exactly what the RTP apologists get off on.

JLCrab does quote law to the exclusion of emotion and that is healthy on a forum that is dealing with such an emotive issue,

it gives balance.

Agree with him or not, that really is the way it will go down regardless of our collective morals and standards.

Thailand has been a signatory on may pieces of farang paper, including the Geneva convention but as there is nowhere else except Thailand they can ignore it at will and do their own thing.

The trial, if it does go ahead will not satisfy anyone, regardless of its outcome, if the B2 are released on a not guilty charge, the social

media campaign will gather momentum.

If they are released through insufficient evidence and the RTP declare they are not looking for any other suspects in this case then the

social media campaign will explode and potentially spill over into the streets.

If found guilty there will be international condemnation from many countries, not just Mynamar and the UK and that would damage tourism and trade.

There are suggestions the judge may not be as honest as he should be and that may or may not be the case but, he has a very fine balancing act to do if he ever gets the case and, for sure, whatever the verdict, he will carry the can for any repercussions.

Justice for Hannah and David is paramount for most of us but, in reality, we can do very little except help to keep the topic alive and in public view.

Just my opinion.

[JLCrab]

Thank you to the above. I do not question anyone's motives on here only procedure. However -- using a quote from And Justice For All (1979) with Al Pacino as Arthur Kirkland:

Arthur Kirkland: At this point, I would just like to say that what this committee is doing in theory is highly commendable. However, in practice, it sucks... and I'm not going to answer any more questions.

[Bleacher Bum East]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.

Your absurdly simplistic responses show that you are not serious about having an intelligent discussion about what the British and Myanmar governments can and cannot do in this particular case.

There are in fact limits, as you have suggested, but what those limits are and should be is open to serious debate.

But since you have just demonstrated, and admitted with your last comment, that you have no idea what the law is in this area, I assume you will no longer cite provisions of law that you don't understand in response to people suggesting a particular action should be taken by a foreign consul.

In case you ever want to take the time to educate yourself so you can have an informed opinion on the subject, a good starting point is a guide titled:

A Universal Safeguard:

Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody

An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers

This guide was written by a UK and international law scholar who has dedicated a large amount of her career to exactly the subject we are discussing.

The author's credentials:

https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/anne-james-executive-director-international-justice-project

This is the Introduction to The Guide written by another international legal scholar.

It is an honour to introduce this Guide for consular assistance to nationals in custody, compiled by Anne

James, Executive Director of the International Justice Project, with research prepared by Mark Warren of

Human Rights Research in Ottawa, Canada.

Based on the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, now ratified by over 160 countries, the

Guide aims at strengthening the rule of law and human rights relating to consular protection of all people

in custody outside their own countries. The Guide is a welcome addition to the consular law literature and

fills an urgent need as an indispensable manual for consular officers as well as judicial and law

enforcement personnel of the receiving States.

Luke T. Lee

Luke T. Lee is the author of "Consular Law and Practice", by Luke T. Lee. Oxford University Press, 1991.

This landmark book provides over 700 pages of authoritative information on the history, scope and

development of consular practices world wide. It includes a very detailed section on the development of

the VCCR, as well as many examples of consular assistance in action.

The Guide should be read in its entirety for a full understanding, but Section 6 from The Guide shows some of the actions that these international legal scholars believe would be allowed by the Vienna Convention if a foreign government chose to take them:

6. CONSULAR ASSISTANCE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES

Consular officers may provide any appropriate assistance necessary to ensure that a

national facing severe punishment receives fair, equal, and humane treatment, throughout

the legal proceedings . . . .Joint interventions by several consular officers may be called for in

cases of special concern to the larger international community . . . .Some cases are so serious that the consular officer may be called upon to provide a greater range and scope of assistance than would normally be provided. Typical examples would include the detention or imprisonment of nationals resulting in grave or irreversible harm, such as a death sentence, amputation, torture or rape in custody. Although local laws may condone or even require harsh punishments, consular . . . officers are entirely within their rights to appeal for an attenuation of the sentence on humanitarian grounds, or to provide additional assistance necessary to safeguard the national from unacceptable treatment. Determining when and how to provide special assistance would normally be made on the basis of a pre-existing consular policy, or in consultation with the home government.

In a case of special concern, additional forms of consular assistance may be required:

• Providing emergency funding for bail proceedings;

• Interceding with prosecutors to avoid excessive punishment;

• Funding expert witnesses and investigators, where the courts deny adequate resources to the

defence;

• Funding or assisting mitigation investigations in the home country;

• Bringing mitigation witnesses to testify;

• If necessary, arranging for the hiring of competent counsel for the accused;

• Retaining an attorney to represent the consular interest;

• Submitting briefs or motions based on any violations of international law;

• Participating directly or indirectly in appellate review;

• Bringing claims before international courts and tribunals

• Petitioning for clemency;

• Hosting press conferences or assisting in publicity.

[thailandchilli]

Thailand appears to be slipping into the abyss

BANGKOK, 29 November 2014 (NNT) – Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha asserted on Friday the government is open to input from all groups, and that the shut-down of the Human Rights Watch website was in accordance with the current internal security protocol.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/CenterWeb/NewsEN/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNPOL5711290010001

Edited November 30, 2014 by thailandchilli

[Bleacher Bum East]

Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.

Your absurdly simplistic responses show that you are not serious about having an intelligent discussion about what the British and Myanmar governments can and cannot do in this particular case.

There are in fact limits, as you have suggested, but what those limits are and should be is open to serious debate.

But since you have just demonstrated, and admitted with your last comment, that you have no idea what the law is in this area, I assume you will no longer cite provisions of law that you don't understand in response to people suggesting a particular action should be taken by a foreign consul.

In case you ever want to take the time to educate yourself so you can have an informed opinion on the subject, a good starting point is a guide titled:

A Universal Safeguard:

Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody

An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers

This guide was written by a UK and international law scholar who has dedicated a large amount of her career to exactly the subject we are discussing.

The author's credentials:

https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/anne-james-executive-director-international-justice-project

This is the Introduction to The Guide written by another international legal scholar.

It is an honour to introduce this Guide for consular assistance to nationals in custody, compiled by Anne

James, Executive Director of the International Justice Project, with research prepared by Mark Warren of

Human Rights Research in Ottawa, Canada.

Based on the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, now ratified by over 160 countries, the

Guide aims at strengthening the rule of law and human rights relating to consular protection of all people

in custody outside their own countries. The Guide is a welcome addition to the consular law literature and

fills an urgent need as an indispensable manual for consular officers as well as judicial and law

enforcement personnel of the receiving States.

Luke T. Lee

Luke T. Lee is the author of "Consular Law and Practice", by Luke T. Lee. Oxford University Press, 1991.

This landmark book provides over 700 pages of authoritative information on the history, scope and

development of consular practices world wide. It includes a very detailed section on the development of

the VCCR, as well as many examples of consular assistance in action.

The Guide should be read in its entirety for a full understanding, but Section 6 from The Guide shows some of the actions that these international legal scholars believe would be allowed by the Vienna Convention if a foreign government chose to take them:

6. CONSULAR ASSISTANCE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES

Consular officers may provide any appropriate assistance necessary to ensure that a national facing severe punishment receives fair, equal, and humane treatment, throughout the legal proceedings . . . .Joint interventions by several consular officers may be called for in cases of special concern to the larger international community . . . .Some cases are so serious that the consular officer may be called upon to provide a greater range and scope of assistance than would normally be provided. Typical examples would include the detention or imprisonment of nationals resulting in grave or irreversible harm, such as a death sentence, amputation, torture or rape in custody. Although local laws may condone or even require harsh punishments, consular officers are entirely within their rights to appeal for an attenuation of the sentence on humanitarian grounds, or to provide additional assistance necessary to safeguard the national from unacceptable treatment. Determining when and how to provide special assistance would normally be made on the basis of a pre-existing consular policy, or in consultation with the home government.

In a case of special concern, additional forms of consular assistance may be required:

• Providing emergency funding for bail proceedings;

• Interceding with prosecutors to avoid excessive punishment;

• Funding expert witnesses and investigators, where the courts deny adequate resources to the

defence;

• Funding or assisting mitigation investigations in the home country;

• Bringing mitigation witnesses to testify;

• If necessary, arranging for the hiring of competent counsel for the accused;

• Retaining an attorney to represent the consular interest;

• Submitting briefs or motions based on any violations of international law;

• Participating directly or indirectly in appellate review;

• Bringing claims before international courts and tribunals

• Petitioning for clemency;

• Hosting press conferences or assisting in publicity.

Forgot to provide the link to The Guide . . . here it is:

http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/GenericVCCRprint.pdf

A Universal Safeguard:

Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody

An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers

Edited November 30, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[JLCrab]

Since none of what you have quoted has actually occurred or been invoked by either the UK or Myanmar embassies, I will stick to what I have said and as to whether I understand international law or not i really don;t give a shit or not what is your opinion.

[jdinasia]

Maybe those brought to trial if brought to trial will get a fair hearing and maybe they won't. I don't see what your personal moral code has to do with it.

I didn't mention my personal moral code in the post above yours (which I assume you're responding to). But since you mentioned it, my personal moral code is more important to me (and a greater part of my character) than all the rules of all the world's countries combined.

A true little story (pardon me if it sounds like I'm waving my own flag): In California, I gave a ride to a hitchhiker. After a half hour, I let him off in Monterey. I had driven almost to SF, about 80 minutes, when I noticed something on the floor. I stopped and realized it was a very expensive camera in a paper bag. I immediately drove back to Monterrey, spent about a half hour looking for the guy. Found him and returned the camera, no reward (none asked, none offered). That's a modicum of what a personal moral code comprises.

Now try to screw your mind in to as objective a mind-frame as possible, and tell us whether you think the police investigators and/or the headman's people, ....have a better personal moral codes than, let's say, a guy who gets a house-sitting position and trashes the house.

When I was a little kid, I read Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and the message has stayed with me every since.

So, in light of your personal moral code ; have you personally stepped forward and protested? Or have you relied on the anonymity of the internet to push your agenda?

(note- it was you that brought up this personal moral code. You said you would like to believe that you would personally make a stand.)

[catsanddogs]

Since none of what you have quoted has actually occurred or been invoked by either the UK or Myanmar embassies, I will stick to what I have said and as to whether I understand international law or not i really don;t give a shit or not what is your opinion.

What a disrespectful attitude and response. What's the point in being on a forum when you 'don't give a shit' about someone's opinion?