Thread: International Criminal Court: War on drugs, 2010 crackdown targets of rival lawsuits

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

If there was any wrongdoing, it is not down to the sole responsibility of an individual, but an inclusive responsibility of anyone who knew, and tacitally approved

Exactly. Bloody sue the whole country, and the US as well for the same policy. I am fed up with this. Some drug dealers killed, 100 times more lifes saved and tens of thousands more influenced saved, what is the problem for mr pc. Human rights yeah, what about human rights of the victims, bastards probably ask for human rights for the terrorists 7/11 and 7/7 bombings. Shit

Originally Posted by nostromo

Originally Posted by DrB0b

throwing dissidents out of helicopters, bombing villages, burning people alive, torture, and enforced disappearances then Thailand does have a fairly recent history of those things. All of those things occurred during the 1960s and the 1970s

1960s and the 1970s - Yes that time all kind of shit happened. Remember Viet Nam? Girl in the picture? Cold war? Pol Pot? Killings everywhere. I personally Especially hate killings of activists, teachers in Thailand. You might as well go back to 50's. But I think we are, or were talking of history this century? Are we not?

No, we are not. You may believe that history started in 2000 but that is manifestly incorrect.

Are you in your teens or twenties? that's not an insult by the way, I genuinely don't understand why you would consider the '60s and the '70s ancient history and irrelevant to today.

The people responsible for the atrocities back then are still running the country.

History this century? The century is only 12 years old, why on earth would anybody believe that all the crap this country is going through only started with the 21st century? It's impossible to have any understanding at all of either history or politics if you insist on inserting arbitrary year zeros. We're not talking ancient history here, we're talking about things which happened fairly recently and which are a fundamental part and a prime cause of the problems affecting the country now.

^But he backed up his assertion with a Billy Joel video, Bob. Pretty much irrefutable if you ask me. I mean, it's not like anyone involved in Thai politics was around in 1976 or can even remember back that far.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by nostromo

Originally Posted by DrB0b

throwing dissidents out of helicopters, bombing villages, burning people alive, torture, and enforced disappearances then Thailand does have a fairly recent history of those things. All of those things occurred during the 1960s and the 1970s

1960s and the 1970s - Yes that time all kind of shit happened. Remember Viet Nam? Girl in the picture? Cold war? Pol Pot? Killings everywhere. I personally Especially hate killings of activists, teachers in Thailand. You might as well go back to 50's. But I think we are, or were talking of history this century? Are we not?

No, we are not. You may believe that history started in 2000 but that is manifestly incorrect.

Are you in your teens or twenties? that's not an insult by the way, I genuinely don't understand why you would consider the '60s and the '70s ancient history and irrelevant to today.

The people responsible for the atrocities back then are still running the country.

History this century? The century is only 12 years old, why on earth would anybody believe that all the crap this country is going through only started with the 21st century? It's impossible to have any understanding at all of either history or politics if you insist on inserting arbitrary year zeros. We're not talking ancient history here, we're talking about things which happened fairly recently and which are a fundamental part and a prime cause of the problems affecting the country now.

I think I quite clearly stated history did not begin just now. Hey, I posted "We didn't start the fire". I mentioned some examples. Viet Nam, Girl in the Picture, Pol Pot, Cold war, killings of Thai activists and teachers? You do remember? It was only fokin 15 min from now.

Now. Rephrase you reply according to that, with history in mind, and I am happy to answer.

Originally Posted by nostromo

It was only fokin 15 min from now.

That would put it in the future. Maybe your problem is not with history as such, maybe you're just adrift in the time stream?

Originally Posted by robuzo

^But he backed up his assertion with a Billy Joel video, Bob. Pretty much irrefutable if you ask me. I mean, it's not like anyone involved in Thai politics was around in 1976 or can even remember back that far.

I thought it was sort of illustration - see the gun pointing at the other man's head. Atrocities of war in 60's and 70's. Well, a good vid too

Anyways, you were not asked, you are a bloody loser. Sorry.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

That would put it in the future. Maybe your problem is not with history as such, maybe you're just adrift in the time stream?

Very droll.

You very well know what I meant. Is there, eh, an answer on its way or just...

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by buksida

Were you in living in LOS at the time Bob?

What a bloody stupid question.

No, it's a simple question, not sure why it angers you so.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Do you seriously believe that unless you actually directly witness something then it hasn't happened? WW2? Nah, I wasn't there, didn't happen. Julius Caesar? Never met the guy therefore he's fictional. Cultural revolution never happened because I wasn't in China in the '60s. Stupid is probably the wrong word, psychotic is probably the most accurate word for a person who believes something so criminally brain-damaged.

Quite a rant there Bob, you certainly read a lot into a yes or no question. There's nothing stupid of psychotic about asking if you were in Thailand during the WOD.
How much time, if any, of Thaksin's premiership did you spend in Thailand?

Originally Posted by nostromo

I am happy to answer

Originally Posted by nostromo

Is there, eh, an answer on its way or just...

Eh? Some confusion there? Who's answering whom and why, for what?

All the questions, such as they are, I asked you were rhetorical. Rest assured that it is very unlikely that I will ever ask you any questions about either Thai history or politics. To save time and help preserve what little is left of my sanity I prefer to keep any worthwhile questions I have for people who are likely to be able to provide an answer worth having. That is to say, people who know what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Eh? Some confusion there? Who's answering whom and why, for what?

If you care to read some posts above.... never mind, just take care of your life support systems. Hope you got UPS.

Some postrers seem more horrified by the 2010 crackdown than the WOD. Maybe it's because they weren't here when the 1000's of killings were happening, it's just something they've read about.

Nonetheless, it's good that they're googling to educate themselves and understandable that they want to show off posting web facts, even if they are overcompensating.

If they weren't so keen to portray themselves as experts, then they would admit they weren't here during the Thaksin years.

I was here during the Thaksin years & when the WoD was supposedly at it's zenith, here when the Coup happened, here during the PAD demonstrations, airport shutdown etc, here during the red demonstrations, and here during the 'crackdown'. To be quite honest, my life proceeded as normal during all of them, although I don't know what that is supposed to prove, or what earthly difference it would make if I wasn't here at the time.

I was here during the said events, and life went on as usual. The morning the coup happened I was calling my friends all over the country - are you ok, sitrep - and many did not even know anything had happened. They, as we all, found out later what it meant.

Well, one exception - during the airport takeovers there were days before planes were re-routed when we could not track courier DHL/Fedex shipments and did not know if they were stolen or destroyed by the terrorist crowd - now that was a major problem.

Weng wants ICC to probe 2010 riots | Bangkok Post: breakingnews

Weng wants ICC to probe 2010 riots

• Published: 15/08/2012 at 05:13 PM
• Online news:

Red-shirt co-leader and Pheu Thai Party list MP Weng Tojirakan on Wednesday submitted a petition asking Justice Minister Pracha Promnok to empower the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an enquiry into the government's use of force to suppress red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010.

He said the the government of the time's action resulted in the death and injury of a large number of people.

In the petition, Mr Weng asked Pol Gen Pracha to recognise the ICC's jurisdiction to probe the bloodshed by notifying the court's registrar of the intention.

Mr Weng, a core member of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), said it was a pity that the Democrat Party has a plan to ask the ICC to investigate the deaths of some 2,500 people in the "war on drugs" during the administration of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

He wondered why the Democrat Party had not done so while leading a government for two years and eight months.

Pol Gen Pracha said the Justice Ministry would accept the petition for consideration, which would be based on the law.

The matter would also be reported to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, he said.

Mark ending up Amartyr

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Weng wants ICC to probe 2010 riots | Bangkok Post: breakingnews

Weng wants ICC to probe 2010 riots

• Published: 15/08/2012 at 05:13 PM
• Online news:

Red-shirt co-leader and Pheu Thai Party list MP Weng Tojirakan on Wednesday submitted a petition asking Justice Minister Pracha Promnok to empower the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an enquiry into the government's use of force to suppress red-shirt protesters in April-May 2010.

He said the the government of the time's action resulted in the death and injury of a large number of people.

In the petition, Mr Weng asked Pol Gen Pracha to recognise the ICC's jurisdiction to probe the bloodshed by notifying the court's registrar of the intention.

Mr Weng, a core member of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), said it was a pity that the Democrat Party has a plan to ask the ICC to investigate the deaths of some 2,500 people in the "war on drugs" during the administration of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

He wondered why the Democrat Party had not done so while leading a government for two years and eight months.

Pol Gen Pracha said the Justice Ministry would accept the petition for consideration, which would be based on the law.

The matter would also be reported to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, he said.

Surapong urges govt to accept ICC jurisdiction | Bangkok Post: news

2010 CLASHES

Surapong urges govt to accept ICC jurisdiction

• Published: 3/11/2012 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul yesterday urged the government to accept the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes between security forces and red-shirt protesters.

His comments follow a meeting on Thursday with ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to discuss the steps Thailand would be required to take if it is to accept ICC jurisdiction.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship lawyer Robert Amsterdam petitioned the ICC in January 2011 to launch a preliminary investigation into the alleged killings of civilians by security forces during the 2010 protests under the basis of "crimes against humanity".


Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, chief prosecutor for the genocide and war crimes tribunal of the International Criminal Court. (AFP file photo)

The foreign minister insisted that by extending the jurisdiction to the ICC, the government would not be inviting the international tribunal to interfere in the country's internal affairs.

Thailand has not ratified the treaty that founded the ICC. The court's jurisdiction, however, can be established if the country makes a declaration accepting the court's power on an ad hoc basis.

Mr Surapong shrugged off criticism that such an agreement would become politically explosive and that he was under pressure from the red shirts to proceed with the issue.

"It is to deliver justice to those who died," he said.

"Personally I think the government should accept the ICC's ad hoc jurisdiction on the clashes," he said.

Pheu Thai list-MP Jarupan Kuldilok, a member of the House committee on foreign affairs, supported ICC jurisdiction. Ms Jarupan said Mr Surapong could sign a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction without seeking parliamentary approval necessary for legally binding matters involving national sovereignty. The declaration is not a law, she said.

Deputy Commerce Minister Nattawut Saikuar, also a red-shirt leader, agreed with the move too.

"If the ICC is a channel the government can use to administer justice, the government shouldn't block it," he said.

Spokesman for the opposition Democrat Party Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, however, said he believed the military operation during the 2010 protests did not fall under the ICC's jurisdiction, but the Thaksin Shinawatra administration's war on drugs did.

"The operation is an internal affair and it has been investigated under Thai law. The ICC can't step in," he said.

Still, he urged the government to ratify the ICC treaty and allow it to look into all cases of "crimes against humanity".

"If we ratify the treaty, I think Thaksin will appear before the ICC before former prime minister Abhisit [Vejjajiva] and former deputy prime minister Suthep [Thaugsuban]," he said.

Democrat list-MP Kasit Piromya also filed a petition with the ICC seeking a probe into the deaths of those killed during the Thaksin administration's war on drugs. The former foreign minister in the Abhisit administration said it is ridiculous for the Yingluck government to cherry-pick issues for ICC scrutiny.

^ Ah, the game continues....meanwhile......

UDD calls on government to issue 12(3) declaration

Posted by Ratch / November 03, 2012



At the UDD’s weekly press conference Friday, UDD leaders addressed the pending decision by the Pheu Thai government regarding whether to grant the International Criminal Court (ICC) ad hoc jurisdiction into the events of April-May 2010, as well as concerns raised by last week’s rally organised by the ultra-royalist group Pitak Siam (Protect Siam).

Thursday night, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, met with Thailand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Surapong Tovichakchaikul, to discuss the possibility of opening an investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity committed during the military crackdown of April-May 2010. The Prosecutor affirmed that since Thailand is not Party to the ICC, the Thai government may grant the ICC jurisdiction on the matter by issuing a unilateral ad hoc declaration as outlined in Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. After the meeting, Surapong announced that he would approach the newly formed Cabinet next week to discuss the possibility of issuing such a declaration.

At Friday’s press conference, UDD leader Tida urged the government to issue the declaration:

With the 12(3) declaration, Pheu Thai can bring justice to the victims as well as an end to the cycle of coups d’état in Thailand. If they do not issue this declaration, a coup can happen at any time in the future.

In light of last week’s rally organised by right-wing group Pitak Siam, the threat of a coup continues to rise. The head of Pitak Siam, retired General Boonlert, made headlines by stating that he thinks a coup is necessary, and that he suggests freezing Thai democracy for five years. Such blatantly anti-democratic forces underscore the importance of Red Shirt activism.

Jatuporn said:

Although the rally was relatively small, it included the elites. Pitak Siam, headed by retired General Boonlert, is simply the new face of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) headed by Sondhi.

He argued that the duty of the government, in order to break the cycle of the coups d’état in Thailand, is to issue the 12(3) declaration to grant the ICC jurisdiction, as well as amend the Constitution.

Tida and Dr Weng also took the opportunity to dispel a couple of myths surrounding the possibility of ICC jurisdiction in this case. Firstly, they emphasised that issuing the declaration does not, in any way, hinder domestic investigations into the events. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and the Thai judiciary still carry the primary responsibility for ensuring justice. Secondly, they reaffirmed that by issuing a unilateral declaration, Thailand is not entering into a treaty. Therefore, the declaration need not satisfy the requirements stipulated by Article 190 of the Constitution.

In January 2011, UDD lawyer Robert Amsterdam petitioned the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva since he is a citizen of the United Kingdom, which is a State Party to the Rome Statute. However, now that the Pheu Thai Party is in power, there is a strong possibility that the government will issue an ad hoc declaration and allow the ICC to begin their examination of the evidence pertaining to 2010 a process that is likely to mark the end of decades-long state impunity in Thailand.

'Sovereignty threatened' if ICC involved | Bangkok Post: news

'Sovereignty threatened' if ICC involved

SENATOR SAYS GOVT, OPPOSITION HOLDING COUNTRY HOSTAGE FOR POLITICAL GAIN

• Published: 4/11/2012 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Legal experts have warned of adverse repercussions if Thailand accepts the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes between security forces and red shirt protesters.

Pokpong Srisanit, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, said Thailand should ratify the ICC treaty as part of its efforts to promote and protect human rights rather than accept the court's power on an ad hoc basis.

He argued against accepting the court's jurisdiction in cases which the Thai justice system is able to handle by itself.

Controversy over the possibility of ICC intervention resurfaced after Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul on Friday urged the government to accept ICC's jurisdiction over the 2010 security crackdown on red shirt demonstrators.

Mr Surapong met ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda last week to discuss the steps Thailand would be required to take if it is to accept ICC jurisdiction.

The minister said he would give details about the process at a press conference tomorrow.

Thailand has not ratified the ICC treaty. The court's jurisdiction, however, can be established if the country makes a declaration accepting it.

Mr Pokpong insisted that ratifying the treaty or signing such a declaration would require parliamentary approval necessary for legally binding matters involving national sovereignty under Section 190 of the constitution.

He added that if Thailand invites the ICC to step in, it would reflect negatively on the country's international reputation by making it appear unable to handle its internal affairs.

Deputy Senate Speaker Surachai Liangboonlertchai said the issue is being politicised by the government and the opposition.

Thailand's judicial system could lose sovereignty if international bodies are dragged into the case, he said. Mr Surachai added that it is wrong to take the country's national sovereignty hostage only to pursue political gains.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship legal adviser Robert Amsterdam petitioned the ICC in Jan 2011 to launch a preliminary investigation into the alleged killings of civilians by security forces during the 2010 protests on the basis that they were "crimes against humanity".

More than 90 people were killed in the crackdown.

The foreign minister insisted that by accepting the ICC's jurisdiction in the matter, the government would not be inviting the international tribunal to interfere in the country's internal affairs.

Another legal expert who asked not to be named said the Thai government must be careful in deciding whether to request that the ICC looks into the 2010 clashes.

Although the Rome Statute establishing the ICC allows non-party states to ask the court to investigate criminal cases in the country, the government has to accept the court's power first, he said.

The Thai government should think carefully before declaring its acceptance of the international tribunal's power because this could erode its national sovereignty, said the legal expert.

To prevent the country from being under the ICC's jurisdiction, he said the government might ask the court to investigate the 2010 political violence within a fixed timeframe.

This means the court would be unable to investigate other cases, such as those Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drugs.

Democrat list MP Kasit Piromya had earlier petitioned the ICC to probe the Thaksin administration's alleged extrajudicial killings during efforts to stamp out the illegal narcotics trade.

Regarding the procedure, he said, after the Thai government accepts the court's power, the ICC would conduct a preliminary examination in order to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction.

"If the country's internal legal process is effective, the court will not proceed as requested," said the source

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Mr Pokpong added that if Thailand invites the ICC to step in, it would reflect negatively on the country's international reputation by making it appear unable to handle its internal affairs

^

beat me to it .

Talk of joining ICC 'won't affect 2010 probes' - The Nation

Talk of joining ICC 'won't affect 2010 probes'

The Nation November 6, 2012 1:00 am

Ongoing inquiries into deaths during the 2010 red-shirt protests by the National Anti-Corruption Commission would not be affected if the government decided to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), commissioner Wicha Mahakun said yesterday.

The ICC has authority on crimes against humanity or genocide, but the anti-graft body is examining if there was any official misconduct in the suppression of the red-shirt protests, Wicha said. "These are different issues and we will continue our work over the case," he said.

Asked if it was suitable for Thailand to be a member of the ICC and allow it jurisdiction over such matters, Wicha said opinions should be sought from all parties.

Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul met with ICC officials last Thursday to assess if world court, based in The Hague, may have jurisdiction to look into or rule on deaths during the 2010 protests in Bangkok, as well as the Thaksin Shinawatra government's "War on Drugs" in 2003. Surapong said he would hold a press conference on the matter tomorrow. However, he thought the 2,500 or so deaths during Thaksin's "War on Drugs" would not qualify for ICC jurisdiction.

The foreign minister said the ICC accepts cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. It will also consider crimes of aggression from 2017.

Some 121 states have joined the court, but Thai governments have declined previous approaches to join. The ICC has reviewed seven matters in Africa since it opened in 2002, but never a case in Asia.

In a related move, Pol Major Sa-ngiam Samranrat, a "red" leader in Chumpon, submitted a letter to the Speaker calling for an inquiry into claims by red-shirt chairperson Thida Thavornseth and husband Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn that the ICC would consider 98 deaths in mid-2010. He accused Thida and Weng of giving reds false hope as the case could not be forwarded to the ICC

-----
Senators threaten action against FM | Bangkok Post: news

Senators threaten action against FM

• Published: 5/11/2012 at 01:12 PM
• Online news: Politics

The Constitution Court will be asked to decide whether Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul would be in violation of Section 190 of the constitution if he asks the government to accept the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes between security forces and red-shirt protesters, senators said on Monday.

Surachai Liangboonlertchai, senate deputy speaker, said any such decision should be first endorsed by parliament as required by Section 190 because it is an international agreement affecting the country's interests and security.

Although this matter does not involve Thai territory, it directly concerns judicial power, one of the three sovereign powers of the country.

A cabinet minister cannot decide on a matter like this by himself because in doing so many questions would follow, such as who should be responsible for deciding which cases should go to the ICC and which to the Thai courts, Mr Surachai said.

Senator Paiboon Nitiwan, a member of the Group of 40, said In order for the ICC to accept a case forwarded for consideration the Thai government must first have ratified the treaty that set up the ICC.

if Mr Surapong issues an announcement accepting ICC jurisdiction in cases on an ad hoc basis, even though Thailand has not ratified the treaty on the establishment of the ICC, he would petition the Consitution Court to rule if Mr Surapong had violated Section 190 of the charter.

In this event, if the court ruled that Mr Surapong had violated the constitution, another petition would be filed against him with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Mr Paiboon said.