US Citizen Visiting Thailand Arrested For Blog Posting

societyofrobots writes "A US citizen, upon visiting Thailand for medical treatment, was arrested for lese majeste (insulting the king) and computer crimes ('entering false information into a computer system'). He is charged for posting a link on his blog to a banned book, The King Never Smiles, and for translating excerpts of it. He made the posting four years ago in 2007, while in the US. Trials for lese majeste are traditionally held in secret, for reasons of 'national security'. AFP has more information."

Comments

"lese majeste"

[koreaman]

Latin for "law that let's us put whoever the fuck we want in jail"

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is french: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the king himself has been censored under these rules. He gave his blessing to a biography that was later banned for insulting the king.

He's also against these rules and has sworn to pardon anyone tried under these rules, so we can at least hope the US guy gets off scot-free.

Re:"lese majeste"

[sortius_nod]

The problem with Thailand is that the king himself has spoken out about the use of les majeste against the population, but the political parties ignore him. The king claimed (before he became as ill as he is now) that anyone can comment on the family, just not be abusive about it.

There's a bigger problem brewing though. When the king dies, which won't be far off judging by his health, the crown prince will take over. This guy is an idiot, thinks he's some sort of playboy. He is the total opposite of what a Thai royal should be, so there will be a lot of anger against the crown. The only thing that keeps Thailand together at this stage is the current king, so it will be interesting where this goes.

As for this American guy, well, he shouldn't have gone to Thailand if he's going to be linking banned books and posting excerpts. There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Re:"lese majeste"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I agree about avoiding travel to shithole jurisdictions whose laws I'm on the wrong side of, I have to wonder whether this guy has some backstory that made him more interesting to the locals.

Unless the Thai authorities are way ahead of the game, they must have about a zillion other cases that they could be taking an interest in(or local troublemakers they feel like beating down, it isn't stability city over there), rather than some random Yank who said something mean four years ago, and (seeing as he went there for treatment) will either be leaving when recovered or going out the back door, depending on what he is being treated for. He seems like a low-priority case.

Is this just a matter of some google-using authoritarian jackoff justifying his job by bring cases, no matter how cold and irrelevant, or is the american in question of interest for some other reason(suspected enthusiasm for underage ladyboys, dubiously ethical business dealings, meddling in local revolutionary politics, or something) and this is just the easiest way to bring him in?

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Thailand is that the king himself has spoken out about the use of les majeste against the population, but the political parties ignore him. The king claimed (before he became as ill as he is now) that anyone can comment on the family, just not be abusive about it.

Don't be so fucking naive.

The political parties doesn't ignore him. He's not the Queen of England and he has a traditional influence in Thai politics and has interfered in public life since he's come to power. The lese majeste laws are useful to him, so he keeps it around. He just pardons expats or minor abuses so he can pose as a nice guy. When it's useful, you're fucking going to be judged in secret and then will be DEAD.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej is an ASSHOLE. Let's put the truth out there!

Bhumibol ascended the throne following the death by gun-shot wound of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, on 9 June 1946 in mysterious circumstances, prompting suggestions that Bhumibol had been involved in or responsible for his death.

That evening, Sarit Dhanarajata seized power, and two hours later Bhumibol imposed martial law throughout the Kingdom.[33] Bhumibol issued a Royal Command appointing Sarit as "Military Defender of the Capital" without anyone countersigning this Royal Command.

Bhumibol retains enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity and partly because his powers - although clearly defined in the Thai constitution - are often subject to conflicting interpretations. This was highlighted by the controversy surrounding the appointment of Jaruvan Maintaka as Auditor-General. Jaruvavn had been appointed by The State Audit Commission. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in July 2004 that her appointment was unconstitutional. Jaruvan refused to vacate her office without an explicit order from Bhumibol, on the grounds that she had previously been royally approved. When the Senate elected a replacement for Jaruvan, Bhumibol refused to approve him.[75] The Senate declined to vote to override Bhumibol's veto.[76] Finally in February 2006 the Audit Commission reinstated Jaruvan when it became clear from a memo from the Office of the King's Principal Private Secretary that King Bhumibol supported her appointment.

He's the effective ruler of Thailand, he plays around with the military coups to keep his power (Thailand has a military coup every other day) and he likes the fucking lese majeste laws.

Stop with this the King is a nice guy propaganda bullshit. The Thai might like to have a dictator in power and that's their problem but he's not a powerless king that loves his people. He's a politician like every other.

Re:"lese majeste"

[MechaStreisand]

As for this American guy, well, he shouldn't have gone to Thailand if he's going to be linking banned books and posting excerpts. There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

No. He did that years ago, in the US, and he's a US citizen. Translating part of a book shouldn't ban you from a country forever. Equating what he did with smuggling drugs is absurd. You should kill yourself to make the world a better place.

Re:"lese majeste"

[sqldr]

Here in England, we can say what we like about the Queen, and the last time an English monarch complained about it, we cut his head off for treason!  Prince charles says that when he becomes king he will use his position for political dissent.  Yeah, try it mate...  actually nobody will listen to the pro-homeopathy nutcase with a business selling overpriced biscuits (cookies)

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

"He did that years ago, in the US, and he's a US citizen. Translating part of a book shouldn't ban you from a country forever."

Yeah, and I'm sure US will be really happy to let you in if they'd known you're been translating and promoting "terrorist" and anti-US books before.

He is lucky it was the authorities who catched him. If he was going around talking bullshit about the king there would had been a really good change the locals would have seriously kicked his ass or even beat him up so much that he dies.

And don't start talking about how speech is free in the US (except when it's not), because different cultures value different things. US has some serious problem with trying to make everyone think and do what they say. Would you just leave rest of the world fucking alone?

And frankly, I love living in Thailand. But I'm not a little kid who has to do something just because he is told he is not allowed to.

Re:"lese majeste"

[aaarrrgggh]

If you want to head to Bumrungrad for medical treatment, then you should not be stupid about the implications of what you say. There should be some level of statute of limitations, but I would vote for a backstory here.

On a side note, RIP Charlie, of Scuba Junction, son of Sang Tip, the king of Koh Tao. 1997ish to today.

Re:"lese majeste"

[uofitorn]

The parent posted something that you disagree with and you advocate for his death? That sounds absurd to me too.

Translating a book shouldn't ban you from a country forever. Posting a comment on slashdot shouldn't sentence you to death.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Kjella]

The current Thai king isn't like say european kings, good or bad kings they come and go with a bit of scandal and that is all. In Thailand it's more like:

Deity
|
King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People

Rest of world:

Deity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
King
|
People

I really hope that country doesn't go to hell because the people there are very nice, very friendly. A lot of people to fool money out of tourists, but very little violence, robberies and other shit you get in many poor countries. And they try to keep foreigners out of their own problems, even when it comes to riots.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

No offense, but if you happen to publish some nice leaks from US that make it look bad, and then are dumb enough to step on US soil, you won't even get a trial.

You'll just vanish, and maybe a few years later you'll be found nicely brainwashed in Egypt, or where ever it is that USA outsources torture nowadays after Mubarak's flashy exit. If you're lucky, you'll just get shot and no one will ever find the body. It's not like we don't have precedent on these things you know.

Different countries have different things they don't want to see published in any way, but ways they deal with publishers are quite similar once you strip all the fluff.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Seumas]

America has one of these. It let's the president claim _anyone_ including a citizen is an enemy combatant and whisk them away to gitmo without representation or a trial or any other rights granted to a citizen.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Seumas]

We'd all be a lot better off if we take an axe to that first layer.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree about avoiding travel to shithole jurisdictions whose laws I'm on the wrong side of

Like the USA?

Re:"lese majeste"

[zill]

I'm in Thailand, you insensitive clod!

Thanks to you I'm going to jail too.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Rhodri Mawr]

If translating part of a book shouldn't ban you from a country 'forever', how long is reasonable for it to ban you from a country?

A day? A week? A month? A year?

Re:"lese majeste"

[Chuck Chunder]

He did that years ago, in the US, and he's a US citizen.

That argument might hold more weight if the US behaved as if it's laws stopped at it's borders.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a born Thai and Thai national who moved to US when he was 35. I'm quite sure he is familiar with Thai laws and practices. But this being slashdot of course this small "insignificant" detail isn't mentioned in the summary. Don't want to ruin some good baseless bashing or anything, after all.

Re:"lese majeste"

[S.O.B.]

The accused was born and grew up in Thailand so yeah, he did know what he was doing. And he didn't just link to a book, he also translated an article that violated the law.

Agree with the law or not but it's their law and once you are in their country they can enforce it any way they want. He should have known better than to go back. Just like Julian Assange knows better than to go to the U.S.

Re:"lese majeste"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Where applicable, yeah. We haven't been doing such a hot job with the "land of the free" or "home of the brave" stuff lately.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Anonymous Coward]

You highlight the not-so-obvious point, that the Thai king does not have explicit political power. Without realizing it most people seem to see these stories and liken the king as some sort of dictator, and Thailand as some kind of backwards idiot country (though it definitely needs improvement in politics), completely ignoring the fact that they've got pretty much the same system in England.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Bing Tsher E]

So by your reckoning, what has happened to this guy is okay?

Re:"lese majeste"

[joocemann]

No.

It means 'quit talking shit, especially if you're dumb enough to talk shit then come here and ask for our services".

Re:"lese majeste"

[mjwx]

The political parties doesn't ignore him. He's not the Queen of England

Actually he is,

Go and look at what happened during the military rule of the early 90's. The King was forced to rubber stamp the dictators edicts.

He's the effective ruler of Thailand, he plays around with the military coups to keep his power

You've unwittingly struck upon the truth here, there is a shadow political force in Thailand, but it's not the King or the Royal family. It's the military.

As for the rest of your post, its something that may or may not have happened in 1946. We have no evidence either way (not that seems to matter to the AC). 65 years later you're claiming a man who is so ill he cant speak for 10 minutes is a political mastermind. Last years Kings Speech (traditionally, the King makes a speech on his birthday, its a feel good exercise not a political one, much like the Queens Christmas message) was cancelled because he was too ill to stand up and speak.

Re:"lese majeste"

[bsharp8256]

My advice for parent poster:

Don't go to Thailand.

Re:"lese majeste"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Many Americans do, indeed, believe that there should be some restraint on flag burning. They are goose-stepping pricks. Luckily, the chaps who wrote the constitution we smarter than they are, and those ugly, atavistic, elements of our culture Just Don't Get What They Want. Same for the "I feel strongly about deity X, so all criticism of deity X must be forbidden" crowd.

To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely no problem applying my standards(some of which are, albeit imperfectly, reasonably close to qualifying as "American") to another culture. If the Thais wish to be self restrained, I wish them all the best. If they wish to restrain the speech of those who they don't think are self restrained enough, fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

The world over, I respect the right of people to respect whatever they fancy(though I agree with some and mock others for doing so, depending on what they chose). However, I nowhere respect the right of anybody to compel others to display 'respect' for their chosen object, whether it be the flag, the nation, the monarch, the god, the literary masterpiece. If this makes me an insensitive, cultural-imperialist prick, so be it. At least I'm an equal-opportunity bigot.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

Well a lot of people the world have their respect towards their governments enforced at the end of the gun.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

Your are a moron. Name one instance where freedom of speech has been suppressed in the US. And personally I wish the US would disengage from the cluster fuck otherwise known as the Global Community for everything excepting trade and just sit back and see what happens. Of course with the US out of the picture there are a lot of countries who will need to find someone else to blame for their problems.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

You are guilty of spreading dis-information and outright falsehoods. You do nothing but perpetuate the animosity aimed at the entire US. This includes both the government and it's citizens in general. You use hearsay,anecdotal evidence, and outright BS to support and advance your world view. There are people being investigated for thier role in leaking classified information but no one has been arrested excepting the person who unlawfully released classified data in the first place and he will get a trial where he can dispute the charges. They didn't disappear him or shoot him.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Chuck Chunder]

So by your reckoning, what has happened to this guy is okay?

No, the relevant law is abhorrent regardless of the nationality or location of the guy.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

The 4th Amendment, for example.

Re:"lese majeste"

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

I support the red shirts for an overthrow. Time for Salvation Army to invade Thailand.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

He is lucky it was the authorities who catched him. If he was going around talking bullshit about the king there would had been a really good change the locals would have seriously kicked his ass or even beat him up so much that he dies.

You're still missing the point. He didn't say or publish anything offensive about Thai king while in Thailand. His "crime" was committed at a different time, long ago, and entirely outside the borders of Thailand, nor did it involve citizens of Thailand. Any claims of jurisdiction in such a case are pure bullshit. For that matter, how was he supposed to know back then that something he did was against the law somewhere else in the world? Are you sure that you've never committed a crime in some country you've never been at in your life?

That's absurd. Respecting the laws of some country when and while you're visiting it is perfectly fine, but that's not what happened here at all, and no bullshit about "different cultures" is going to hide this.

Say what; how about we arrest all married males from Iran travelling through Western countries on suspicion of child molestation (what with age of consent there being 9 years for girls); and if their wives - even if not travelling with them - are younger than whatever is the age of consent in the country of detention, we put them on trial as pedophiles? Because that would be roughly as meaningful.

Re:"lese majeste"

[lorenlal]

I don't know.. The whole warrant-less spying of American citizens?

Re:"lese majeste"

[fredmosby]

There is no question that Americans have less rights today then they did ten years ago. Why does it matter whether or not the constitution allowed them to be taken away?

Re:"lese majeste"

[joocemann]

After that post, I would assume you're an idiot if you went to Thailand.

Re:"lese majeste"

[X.25]

Stop with this the King is a nice guy propaganda bullshit. The Thai might like to have a dictator in power and that's their problem but he's not a powerless king that loves his people. He's a politician like every other.

Haha, another internet wikipedia detective saving the world.

Re:"lese majeste"

[joocemann]

No you can't. The UK has stupid libel laws. We read about them quarterly here on slashdot.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Because if a lack of freedom is constitutionalized, it is much harder to get it implied into the constitution at a later date--but if freedoms are recognized constitutionally, it is much harder for the government to prosecute you after violating them, and much harder to suspend them at whim.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Rakshasa Taisab]

And in this case it looks like they didn't have any laws to stop an American from leeching on their Health Care without paying taxes... Someone thought it was a good idea to exploit his Thai passport.

Re:"lese majeste"

[1u3hr]

some random Yank who said something mean four years ago

He's not simply an American, he was born in Thailand, and may have dual nationality. He wrote a blog that translated parts of a critical biography of the king (that is banned in Thailand). It's pretty open and shut "lese majeste".

He got himself on the shit list by doing that but they didn't try to extradite him, (the US wouldn't comply anyway) but once he returned voluntarily, he was screwed.

It's not the king himself who has a hard line on this, but the right wingers who use "protecting the monarch" as an excuse to crack down on the opposition.

Generally tourists who commit lese majeste do it out of ignorance, and are given a scare, locked up briefly, and then pardoned. This is bit more serious.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Many Americans do, indeed, believe that there should be some restraint on flag burning. They are goose-stepping pricks.

Hi! Goose-stepping prick here. I know it's an unpopular position on slashdot, but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism. It may be ironic to say, then, that it shouldn't be burned--but burning it is a rejection of the nation, not merely of policies. So I think you should be able to work as hard as you wan to effect change, to speak and act and do many things to change the way the nation functions, to transform it completely while acting withing the law, but burning the flag diminishes the sacrifice and service of the millions in government service, and does not say you wish to find a new and better future, but only that you're burning a symbol to get attention, and that there is no reform within the system.

But because of the slippery slope, I would want it to be a per se restriction--something that doesn't apply to the Bible or Koran, for example.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cold fjord]

The 4th Amendment, for example.

The article contradicts you.

DHS spokesman Jason Ciliberti says the ACLU's description of the zone as "Constitution-Free" couldn't be further from the truth and that the check points follow rules set by Supreme Court rulings.

"We don't have the abilitty to just set up checkpoints willy-nilly," Ciliberti said. "The Supreme Court has determined that brief investigative encontuers do not constitute a serach or seizure."

When citizens or visa holders encounter a checkpoint, most are waived on after showing identification, but if an agent suspects the person is not lawfully in the country, the agent can detain the person until the agent's investigation is satisfied.

The government has long had the power to set up such check points, but has recently expanded the number of permanent and 'tactical' check points and deployed them in areas they hadn't before -- such as near the Canadian border.

The courts, however, are not on the ACLU's side -- and have regularly ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protections don't extend to the border area, airport screening or even to laptops at the border.

Free the Nuremberg 24!
A presidential pledge broken, thank goodness

The Fourth Amendment is in fine shape, but many people here have mistaken notions about its application..

Re:"lese majeste"

[circletimessquare]

There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

if i go in a bad neighborhood, and get beat up, yeah, maybe i'm an idiot. but that still doesn't change the fact that a neighborhood where people can go and get beat up for no reason is the primary problem

likewise, yeah, you should know the laws of the country you visit. but if some of those laws are fucking ignorant, such as this thai law, that's the REAL problem

so maybe i would shut up about the king before visiting thailand. but i certainly won't ever respect that law. nor should your thought on the subject end at "their country, their laws." no, fucking bullshit. if a country passes a law which grossly trangresses against basic human freedoms, i will say that law sucks and should be overturned, and until then, that country deserves less respect

Re:"lese majeste"

[ozmanjusri]

Can you backup this statement with any facts showing where US citizens have lost their freedoms

"The United States of America has an incarceration rate of 743 per 100,000 of national population (as of 2009), the highest in the world.[2] In comparison, Russia has the second highest 577 per 100,000"

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

Most of that incarceration rate has resulted from citizens choosing to use a commonly available and relatively harmless herb for their own enjoyment.

Re:"lese majeste"

[1u3hr]

outside the borders of Thailand, nor did it involve citizens of Thailand. Any claims of jurisdiction in such a case are pure bullshit. For that matter, how was he supposed to know back then that something he did was against the law somewhere else in the world?

The guy was born in Thailand. He speaks Thai, he translated excerpts of a book banned in Thailand into Thai and published them in his blog. And the blog was obviously read in Thailand. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.

He'll probably get off after some intervention from the US govt.

Re:"lese majeste"

[arglebargle_xiv]

While I agree about avoiding travel to shithole jurisdictions whose laws I'm on the wrong side of

Like the USA?

So someone from the US goes to another country, gets arrested on nebulous charges, incarcerated, and will be tried in secret, eventually. It's a good thing this would never happen in the U... oh, wait. Damn.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cold fjord]

That argument might hold more weight if the US behaved as if it's laws stopped at it's borders

That really depends on the offense and circumstances, doesn't it?

By the way, are you similarly put off by various European judges (spain, Belgium, UK) weighing charges against Americans for things they did legally in the United States? That sort of thing happens with some regularity you know.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

"The Supreme Court has determined that brief investigative encontuers do not constitute a serach or seizure."

Just because the SCOTUS claims that some law is not unconstitutional does not mean that it actually isn't.

Even historically, SCOTUS overruled its own cases decided in the past (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson) - and a law cannot be constitutional yesterday and then unconstitutional today, it's either that or the other - so when they rule differently from the past, they acknowledge that old understanding was a mistake.

Furthermore, so far as I know, SCOTUS didn't rule on the legality of these particular checkpoints - it's just a DHS goon spinning an unrelated decision to back his case. It is arguable that what they are doing are not "brief investigative encounters" (the moment the word "detain" is used, it ceases to be brief).

The courts, however, are not on the ACLU's side -- and have regularly ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protections don't extend to the border area, airport screening or even to laptops at the border.

Note that this is not about the border itself. The Feds have extended a 100-mile area from the border inland, and now claims that this is the border, and all powers they were previously granted by the courts at the border (using a sane definition of one) still apply!

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, I missed the point that he's still a Thai citizen. Well, such extra-territorial laws are still as idiotic as ever, but in this case he really has no-one but himself to blame.

Re:"lese majeste"

[laughingcoyote]

For a far simpler look at issues with the First and Fourth Amendment, have a look at the PATRIOT Act. You can not only be sent a secret "subpoena" without issuance or proper review by a judge, but in many cases, you can't even tell anyone you were subpoenaed!

If it's not evident how that clearly infringes on the rights to free speech, free press, the right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to assemble like-minded citizens to peaceably protest a decision with which one agrees, and the right to be free from warrantless searches, I really don't know what else to tell you.

Re:"lese majeste"

[superdave80]

I read the article that claimed a "100 mile border zone"... and then they highlighted the case of a man that was stopped somewhere east of San Diego. For those of you not familiar with the geography of the United States, San Diego is a tad bit closer than 100 miles from the border. Add the fact that they say "east of" and "many miles after crossing the border", and it looks like they don't want to actually say where this incident took place, because then they would look really silly for claiming 100 miles.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Hal_Porter]

completely ignoring the fact that they've got pretty much the same system in England.

Well except for the fact that a quick look at a UK tabloid shows you that the UK does not enforce lese majeste laws.

In fact Wikipedia reckons that the remnants of a Lese Majeste was abolished in 2010 but not actually enforced since 1715.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese_majeste#United_Kingdom

In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law criminal offences of sedition and 'leasing-making'. The latter offence, also known as 'lease making' was considered an offence of lese majeste or making remarks critical of the Monarch of the United Kingdom. It had not been prosecuted since 1715

But you're right that the Thai king is not the problem here - strict enforcement of lese majeste laws are being pushed by dodgy politicians for their own purposes.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

It's not the article that claims 100 mile zone, it's the DHS - if you have an issue with the number, take it up with them. One particular case mentioned in the article happened within that zone and closer than 100 miles. Others have happened further away - there is one case specifically documented at 40 miles. JFGI.

In any case, most of San Diego is still not "the border" under any sane definiton. The border is that fenced area which says "border" on it, or checkpoints in said area, or airports and other points of arrival of vessels from other countries. One could claim a reasonable area around so as to pursue violators, but "reasonable" in this case is 1-2 miles at most - not 10, and definitely not 100; and even then, only from the physical border, not places such as airports.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

It was my mistake not realizing that he has dual citizenship. Since he does, they clearly do have jurisdiction over him, regardless of how silly the law might be. My apologies for confusing matters.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

Free Speech? How in the hell is the Patriot Act limiting speech? None of the rights you mentioned have been taken away or suppressed. Warrant less searches come in two categories. A FISA warrant which is reviewed by a panel of judges before it is issued. The other warrants such as tapping phones is for targeting foreign parties or those who present a national security issue. If someone under surveillance changes residences, phones,computers, or cars the law enforcement agencies can request a warrant that allows these agencies to track those being investigated as they move around thus negating the need to get a warrant for every car, phone, or house the person under surveillance moves to. Both of these warrants require at least one of the parties to be foreign based. If you are arrested and tried on evidence collected by these types of warrants you still can challenge their validity in court. This has already happened starting with a small group of people in New Jersey who were plotting to bomb a military base. The government collected wire taps under a FISA warrant but when they went to court the government didn't use any evidence collected by warrant less evidence. The government is reluctant to rely on evidence collected under these warrants because they don't want them challenged in court and potentially lose this investigative tool.

Re:"lese majeste"

[xtracto]

Well... this is not so different to the Sklyarov arrest.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

You are correct. The part where I stated outright falsehood was when I claimed it would require person in question to step on US soil. Dis-information part was about him being guilty of anything in the first place - incorrect assumption of guilt or mistaken identity was not uncommon.

There are several documented cases on each subject.

Re:"lese majeste"

[superdave80]

It's not the article that claims 100 mile zone, it's the DHS

Where did they claim this? I saw no reference to it in the article, and you didn't bother to point out where they claimed it either.

Others have happened further away - there is one case specifically documented at 40 miles.

Then why didn't they highlight that case? And any reason you didn't feel like posting any details about it? Or a link?

JFGI

?????

In any case, most of San Diego is still not "the border" under any sane definiton.

The article never said it was in San Diego. It only gave a vague reference to somewhere around San Diego. They have the same habit as you of being vague and outraged at the same time.

One could claim a reasonable area around so as to pursue violators, but "reasonable" in this case is 1-2 miles at most

So, if I can outrun the border patrol for 2 miles, I'm home free? Sweet. Remind me not to put you in charge of security for anything.

Re:"lese majeste"

[laughingcoyote]

You apparently did not know about National Security Letters? Requires no judicial oversight (it took a tooth and nail fight to even get a grudging admission judges could review them -after- issue, until that was done they also blatantly violated separation of powers and the right to judicial review), and come with a permanent gag order prohibiting the recipient not only from disclosing the details of what was requested, but from even telling anyone they got one. (Again, it took a tooth-and-nail fight to get even a grudging admission that you had to at least be able to discuss it with an attorney. If that hadn't been done, they would also violate the right to counsel, and for a long time they did.)

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

JFGI

It stands for "Just Fucking Google It". I.e. don't ask for questions, sources etc where the answer is readily found within a minute of searching using any of the major search engines.

Then why didn't they highlight that case? And any reason you didn't feel like posting any details about it? Or a link?

You can start with reviewing a list of checkpoints in the south:

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

Here are some documented cases of Border Patrol nosing around quite a bit away from the border in states bordering Canada:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/nyregion/30border.html
http://chronicle.com/article/Far-From-Canada-Aggressive/125880/

(How does "temporary permanent checkpoint" sound to you, by the way?)

Again, plenty more are easily found on Google. If you do not insist on being blind and deaf as a matter of expediency, these are all easily found. Start by googling "border patrol100 miles" and go from there. Searching for "border patrol" on YouTube gives plenty of relevant videos as well, documenting the abuse.

The article never said it was in San Diego. It only gave a vague reference to somewhere around San Diego. They have the same habit as you of being vague and outraged at the same time.

Once again, Google to the rescue (you really need to get a book like "Internet for Dummies" or something!). This says "mile marker 78 of eastbound I-8, 75 miles east of Yuma, AZ (55 miles north of the international border)". That specific enough for you, or you need it down to inches?

So, if I can outrun the border patrol for 2 miles, I'm home free? Sweet.

No, because if they see you running all the way from the border, they have reasonable cause to stop and search you (the 4th only guards against unreasonable search). The problem with fixed DHS checkpoints is that they can detain you even without reasonable cause. And some of those checkpoints are located on roads which do not directly connect to the border.

A further problem in practice is that the roving patrols, while technically bound by reasonable cause, use very flimsy excuses in practice - e.g. refusal to cooperate with them is seen as reasonable cause for a "legal" search (if you refuse to cooperate at that point, you're "resisting") - a creative application of recursion that cops never got away with; but DHS is special.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

he SCOTUS doesn't "claim", it decides. If it says it says something is constitutional, it is. Period.

The SCOTUS can say that black is white and pi is exactly 3, but it doesn't make it so. Constitution is written in English, and most of its provisions are fairly straightforward. An interpretation of them which directly contravenes the semantical meaning and/or the laws of logic is not legitimate regardless of who delivers it. E.g., even if Jesus himself descends from heavens tomorrow, and says that the 1st does not protect your freedom of political speech, that wouldn't make it true.

Any attempts to change that are themselves unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution that says that SCOTUS is the sole interpreter of its meaning - judicial review was self-imposed by the court. If a particular judicial review contravenes the constitution, that particular case of it is itself unconstitutional; there's just no legal enforcement mechanism to strike it down as such.

Well, actually they designate it as a border zone, and it does make sense even if the territory is rather expansive. I've seen quite a few countries that have the concept of a border zone with special enforcement in law. If I recall correctly, I've seen something like 5-50Km. Although 100 miles might seem excessive, it puts most major port cities (where much of the illegal border related activity occurs) in the US within a border zone, which might be reasonable for some purposes.

What's reasonable about defining what is, for all intents and purposes, an internal document check zone, in such a way that it covers the most populated regions of the country?

The reason why legal tradition has long been that certain rights do not apply at the border is because the border, historically, was always a special zone very limited in extent. You could live all your life in US without ever crossing it, and your rights were fully intact. Under the new definition, you can be born and live all your life in what has historically been the heart of US, never setting foot in another country and not even trying to be so - and still bullied by CBP according to "border exception" waiving some of your fundamental citizen rights away.

Re:"lese majeste"

[riverat1]

I respect your viewpoint but I believe burning the flag in protest is a political statement that is protected by the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...). I think it dangerous to make a symbol, even such a powerful symbol as The Flag of the United States of America into something holy that needs to be protected. That smacks of idolatry to me (and I'm not even religious).

Re:"lese majeste"

[cold fjord]

Lets pretend for a moment that you and your neighbor Bob are members of the local Linux / Fireworks / Model Rocketry club, and both share a passion for progressive politics. You are the treasurer of the club, and Bob is the secretary. Both you and Bob are opposed to the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo, all the usual causes. Then one day the FBI comes to you and servers you a subpoena and a gag order. The subpoena is for records of payments from, and supplies issued to, a certain Abu Ameer, a recent addition to the club who has a special interest and talent for certain types of ... fireworks.... exploding shells, and seems to have a number of friends from somewhere... wherever Abu Ameer calls home. You decide that you need to talk to a lawyer before complying, and he tells you to provide the documents. You don't feel comfortable, so you try to fight it in court. The judge rules against you. So, you provide the documents to the FBI. A month later, you read in the papers that Abu Ameer and 3 other men were arrested for attempting to build a truck bomb that they intended to place at the local mall. Bob, your neighbor, was never contacted by the FBI.

Amazingly enough, you and Bob can speak and protest about exactly the same things! The Patriot Act, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, warrantless wiretaps, secret subpoenas, Gitmo, tax policy, even Abu Ameers arrest. You can write letters to the papers, get people together to protest, and even write your congressmen. You can seek redress in the courts or possibly administratively.

The one thing you can't mention, legally, is the secret investigation for which you were subpoenaed for information, but otherwise aren't a party to. You can't reveal the operation protecting national security.

So, how are your interests actually damaged? Are you claiming a right to expose any national security operation that you become aware of, and thus alerting the targets of the investigation? (Which might cause them to accelerate their plan - they wanted 5 tons of explosives, but will now attack with only 2 tons, or perhaps escape, or simply destroy evidence.) That would seem to me to damage the interests of pretty much all Americans.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

He should have taken them to the Inspector General, or Congress.

Sometimes it's not enough, for example, if Congress is partially responsible for the corruption, or if there are a lot of friendship bonds between congressmen and the ones responsible for the corruption. In that case, it may be necessary for a citizen to sacrifice himself and take a prison term for the greater good of the nation.

There is no right to private communications with terrorist groups making war on the United States.

Um... do you believe all of the people eavesdropped upon were guilty?

Mass surveillance is dangerous not because it offends the people being eavesdropped upon, but because it gives the government too much power. For example, if millions of people are eavesdropped upon systematically without much oversight, it becomes easy for a corrupted politician or civil servant to use the system to eavesdrop upon their enemies. Think "Watergate", but without the need to break in and leave physical evidence.

Re:"lese majeste"

[rainmouse]

Latin for "law that let's us put whoever the fuck we want in jail"

The focus in the article is on the implied evil of Thailand's legal system and glosses over the fact that this guy is clearly a victim of the USA's corrupt medical care system forcing him to fly to a second world country he would likely be arrested in purely to afford medical treatment.

Re:"lese majeste"

[AftanGustur]

Here in England, we can say what we like about the Queen,

Try to blog about footballer Ryan Giggs having had an affair with model Imogen Thomas

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

Care to provide some links to support your position?

Re:"lese majeste"

[gknoy]

More importantly, the courts support that position as well. It's not hate speech, but rather protected political speech. I respect that you (Oxford Comma Lover) feel it shouldn't be legal, but I see it as no less a valid political statement than bumper stickers that ridicule the president.

Re:"lese majeste"

[gknoy]

Some of the ways we've (some or all of us, depending on the case) had the exercise of our freedoms curtailed, or creatively interpreted:

- INS can ask for your papers anywhere up to 100 miles from the borders. See Arizona, and the article linked in Shutdown's reply.
- No fly lists.
- Absolute paranoia about air travel. We used to be able to travel with pocket knives, scissors, bottles of water, or even shampoo in our carry-ons, and now have a mandatory checkpoint where we have to be groped or scanned (and which is a juicier target than any airliner).
- The above checkpoints are being expanded to cover rail travel, and I'll bet it will be commonplace within the next decade.
- Roving vans doing similar scans, planned (according to memos) to be used without our knowledge or consent.
- Warrantless wiretapping. More than just specific bad guys, this was a data harvesting on a massive scale where basically everyone was targeted.
- Prisons where you can be disappeared to, on locations which are Not The US and therefore the constitution "doesn't apply".

I've not added links as it's 1am here, but I'm sure that you know (or can find via Google or even Slashdot) about the issues I'm talking about. Individually these don't necessarily take away our rights completely, but they do limit the ways in which we are now allowed to exercise them... and that's something I'd consider us having lost some of our freedoms.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

If you're talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity, they're regulated in International law, so they're illegal regardless of the national laws.

In addition, the US congress has signed the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes "grave breaches" of the Geneva conventions a Federal crime. They subsequently used it to prosecute war crimes perpetrated by Vietnamese against American soldiers on Vietnamese soil, so they can't really complain when the same laws are used against themselves.

People can, however, complain when NATIONAL laws are enforced on foreign soil. For example, there's no international treaty which makes it illegal to disclose military secrets, so trying to prosecute an Australian citizen for disclosing American secrets while outside of the USA rightly outrages people. Similarly, Americans have the right to be outraged if Iran imprisons an American citizen for criticising Islam while in the USA.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

True, but you forget one point: The alleged crime took place four years earlier, while he was in the USA. It's remarkable that the Thai government prosecutes actions committed in another jurisdiction, where they're legal.

Re:"lese majeste"

[gl4ss]

because of secret trials, he can pose in the media as pardoning everyone. but if you can't talk about those who he didn't pardon, what good is it?
the other dude said that it's like england, strangely enough while on paper it is so, in reality it's not so. when were the last big protests in uk that lasted for months on end?

anyhow, this does highlight the need for political asylum and the brittleness of the thai state, if news from past few years didn't already do that enough.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Boronx]

I'll pile on a little more. How about the right not to be tortured? That's in the constitution.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Boronx]

If the kind felt strongly enough about this he'd already be free.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Boronx]

Bullcrap. I'm not going to sit here and say the military has got no power, but that coup couldn't have happened without support from the king.

Re:"lese majeste"

[chrismcb]

> but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism.

I think that burning the flag is a sign of disrespect. You are insulting the nation the flag represents. But the thing that is WORSE than burning the American Flag, is to make it illegal to burn the flag. The disgraces the flag far more than burning it could ever do. The Flag represents freedom, it represents the American Nation. One of the tenants of that nation is the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression. By telling someone "you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't disrespect the flag" the tears down freedom of speech.

Re:"lese majeste"

[laughingcoyote]

On the other hand, let us say that the order is for all records of any items sold to "any person appearing to be of Arabic origin." You believe this request to be overbroad, it will be a tremendous burden on you to fulfill, and it also shows evidence of racially motivated profiling and a fishing expedition. In this case, it is the order itself that is worthy of protest and criticism-but you can't tell anyone. In fact, you can't even tell Bob where all the money is going (that you're spending to fulfill the request), and if he suspects you of embezzling it, neither you nor your lawyer can even bring that up in your own defense. You can't tell the news media that the government is engaging in this sort of behavior.

I have no problem with a subpoena, along with a temporary gag order, issued by a judge who has carefully reviewed the need for doing so. That's what judges are there for. I do have a problem that this power can be initiated solely at the discretion of a law enforcement officer, with no prior judicial review to ensure justifiable cause has been established to take such an extraordinary step. But even in your hypothetical case, the gag order should be lifted as soon as practical. In your hypothetical case, once Abu and his collaborators are arrested and the plot is foiled, the threat has now been neutralized. There is no longer any need for secrecy. But in your case, there also is presumably probable cause both to issue the warrant and to request a gag order while the threat is addressed (or until it is found not to be a threat after all).

I've a higher chance of death by drowning, lightning strike, or car accident in the next year than terrorism. I'm a lot more concerned about having a highly abusable power in the hands of government than I am about them terr'ists. I'm even more concerned that any abuses of that power could be concealed permanently. Government power and the way it uses it should always be subject to public scrutiny. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to temporarily delay such scrutiny. Whether or not that standard has been met should be decided by a judge who will weigh all sides, including constitutional rights. There is no legitimate reason, however, to permanently disallow scrutiny.

Re:"lese majeste"

[sortius_nod]

You'd be deluded if you thought otherwise.

As someone who has quite intimate knowledge of SE Asia (growing up there and my father still lives in Thailand), I can assure you that the king is a very important person. Not for power, but for the rubber stamp. It's how all the coups have happened. The king gives tacit support, the military takes over. Otherwise they are too scared of the people.

The king is an important part of people's lives, he is a symbol of tradition, history, and ancestors. To go against the king is to warrant punishment (death) in some eyes. Others it's more respectful. Unfortunately the ambitious gain control and make it their duty to become protector of the king. It's part of the Thai prestige.

Thailand is a country that constantly sits on the brink of civil war. The three main regions (Muslim south, rural north, and Bangkok) have very different ideas of what it means to be Thai. Then you have people like Thaksin stirring it up with military clamp downs, summary executions, and vote buying in the rural areas, well, the powder keg is alight, it's just a matter of time before it goes off.

Having been trapped in Thailand during the airport closures some time ago, I can assure you, the people will take it further in Thailand than other "democratic" states.

Re:"lese majeste"

[sqldr]

We do have stupid libel laws.  But I can still make fun of the queen.  And prince Charles who thinks homeopathy works.  Cunt.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cheekyjohnson]

but burning it is a rejection of the nation, not merely of policies.

Burning cloth, how horrible! We should just stop them from expressing their opinion through a harmless action. Yeah. That is what a truly free country would do.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cheekyjohnson]

Name one instance where freedom of speech has been suppressed in the US.

Being sued for slander (and having that lawsuit enforced by the government) and free speech zones are a few examples that come to my mind. There's most likely more, and whether those are good or bad is subjective anyway. Certainly, I don't think it's as bad as some other places, though.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Cederic]

That's a case where the right to freedom of expression is weighed against the right to privacy.

Maybe the balance is currently not entirely right, but the discussions are ongoing to try and improve that situation. Meanwhile, people _are_ blogging about Ryan Giggs and his wandering penis and not getting prosecuted about it.

Maybe you should find a better example.

Re:"lese majeste"

[KingBenny]

i can see why you post this as anonymous coward, you probably want to go to Thailand sometime ?

Re:"lese majeste"

[michelcolman]

I hope you're not planning a trip to Thailand any time soon (in the next few decades or so)? Especially when the crown prince takes over, you might just have put your name on the wrong list...

Re:"lese majeste"

[Mikkeles]

Today it's called 'lese judica' ;^) or contempt of court; equally odious.

Re:"lese majeste"

[eennaarbrak]

When the king dies, which won't be far off...

No joke, I travelled through Thailaind with a buddy who asked the tour leader - using these exact words - "Who will be the next king"? The tour leader became visibly upset, explained to us that they believe their king is immortal and will rule forever, and subsequently shut up during the entire rest of the trip. Just suggestion the king might die one day is considered extremely impolite.

Re:"lese majeste"

[TheoMurpse]

"lese majeste" . . . Latin

www.tryagain.com

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

You can start at google with following search terms:

1. Cold war torture
2. extraordinary rendition
3. CIA outsourcing torture and assassinations

Older and far more ghastly examples start coming once you start searching for
4. War on drugs columbia
5. American Latin American policies during cold war
6. US intelligence support for latin american dictatorships

Alternatively you could try reading the following news sources instead of heavily US-leaning english media on the internet such as US sources or BBC if you really seek to educate yourself:

1. France24 in english
2. Der Spiegel in english
3. Al-Jazeera in english
4. Generally russian news sources in russian
5. Generally chinese news sources in chinese
6. Many others who are not as heavily under cold war aged propaganda umbrella on the Western side as much of english-speaking media.

The reason for following as many sides as possible lies in the fact that essentially all of them lie to some extent. Reading the same piece from multiple sources allows you to construct something much closer to the real picture then any single side's view allows you to.

Of course you could claim that since USA has not confirmed, and often actively denied these claims or any other claims presented by alternative media sources and victims/witnesses, they're not true. But then, you can say the same for Chinese, Russian, French, British... any empire throughout the modern ages really.

On the opposite side of the fence, it's worth noting that USA itself, at least as far as intelligence sources go, likes to "pump up the fear" by spreading mis-information on its capabilities just like other empires do (Litvinenko makes a great example of how Russian side managed this, one guy dead in a horrible way, but essentially all dissidents who did real intelligence work for pay rather then just be attention whores in the news dropped whatever they were doing and went into hiding for a long time). Therefore a portion of information you'll find can be likely attributed to this in addition to the misunderstandings in addition to cases of misinformation. There is still quite a bit too much evidence in the major news sources as well as outside of them to ignore however.

Fun part is, you seem to be convinced I'm "bashing USA". I'm not. I'm stating that every major empire in the existence of humanity actively practised these measures to an extent. The only difference between USA and certain portion of its citizenry is that they try to actively deny engaging in these measures while actively blaming others doing them, in spite of getting caught with them everywhere in the world.

Re:"lese majeste"

[nobodie]

No, there are very few people (who anyone bothers to read, I'm excluding the retards and btards that post garbage freely on the tubes) who try to run down the king. While there have been some very unusual things that happened back before world war two and during WWII in regards the Thai monarchy there is no question that the king grew into greatness as the king of thailand.

As for comments about his son, well these too were true 20 or more years ago, but he also has mellowed a great deal and marriage, fatherhood and a recognition that he was a bit over the top have changed him somewhat. Is he perfect, well ne of course not. Growing up as a prince can't be a good way to build good peoplehood in this world. But he ain't the punk he was once portrayed as being. (and may have been)

Yes Thailand has some super serious effed up stuff going on over there. Thai culture is nothing like the face you see as a tourist and anyone stoopid enough to "marry" into it deserves the thrashing they get for it, but the reality of the royal family is that they are about to lose the person who they revere as king, father and husband and they are somewhat paralyzed by the coming transition as well as everyone else. I can only wish them peace and quiet while they go through this with the country.

unfortunately they won't get it

Re:"lese majeste"

[loufoque]

Actually, it's French, not Latin.

Re:"lese majeste"

[gfreeman]

Your are a moron. Name one instance where freedom of speech has been suppressed in the US.

Oh, that's an easy one. Here's one from last week.

Re:"lese majeste"

[PRMan]

Say what; how about we arrest all married males from Iran travelling through Western countries on suspicion of child molestation (what with age of consent there being 9 years for girls); and if their wives - even if not travelling with them - are younger than whatever is the age of consent in the country of detention, we put them on trial as pedophiles? Because that would be roughly as meaningful.

Careful. You just insulted Mohamed, which is illegal in about 23 countries.

Re:"lese majeste"

[hoggoth]

I wouldn't plan on any trips to Thailand if I were you.

Re:"lese majeste"

[ikeman32]

He's also against these rules and has sworn to pardon anyone tried under these rules, so we can at least hope the US guy gets off scot-free.

I hope you are right. This is an absolute fucking sham. But if the King has not been made aware of this incident it would be difficult to pardon the guy. They guy is an American Citizen, on American Soil when this so-called offense occured it is therefore protected speech under the first amendment. Had he done the same thing on Thai Soil at the time then perhaps it would be a different story. The State Department needs to put diplomatic pressure on Thailand and insist on his release.

To all members of the Thai government/royalty if you find any of what I have posted here offensive, too bad. I am an American Citizen, born and raised here in the Great State of Washington (Great, used extremely loosely and almost sarcastically), these comments are my own and I post them here while on American Soil in the afore menstioned State of Washington. And as such are protected under the Constitution of the United States and the afore mentioned State of Washington. I dare you to try and extradite me.

Note, the following is also protected speech. President Barak Hussien Obama, and all of his predecessors that have held the Office of President, despite seemingly being more intelligent that the moron that fucked up the Oath of Office during innaugeration, is a spineless weasle. With the exception of Ronald Reagan who was a mental invalid being controlled by unseen puppet masters. And probaly should have been removed from office for medical reasons. These are my oppinions and they are my own and are protectedc speech.

Re:"lese majeste"

[houstonbofh]

There is precedent the other way. The "Sexual Tourism" laws in the US punish US Citizens for things they do abroad that may be legal there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 And the Internet gambling laws, and so on... Everyone likes to project power when they can. Does not make it right, but don't get too smug. (And before the trolls start, no I do not think child abuse is the same as insulting a king)

Re:"lese majeste"

[superdave80]

...where the answer is readily found within a minute of searching using any of the major search engines.

Well, I Googled "DHS 100 mile zone", and it returned a bunch of results that were just other sites commenting on the original ACLU story that you listed. So, no, your other links are not 'readily found'.

You can start with reviewing a list of checkpoints in the south:

the farthest that I can find on that list is about 30 miles from the border. Still nowhere close to the claimed 100 miles.

you really need to get a book like "Internet for Dummies" or something! This says "mile marker 78 of eastbound I-8, 75 miles east of Yuma, AZ (55 miles north of the international border)".

And what exactly did you type into Google to get that result?

Also, the '55 miles north of the international border' sounds sooooo scary... except that the 55 miles between that highway and the international border is an airforce range and national wildlife refuge. That's about as close as they can get to an actual road. Hey, you could, you know Google that location to see for yourself! http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mohawk,+az&aq=&sll=32.580378,-113.671417&sspn=0.863256,1.234589&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mohawk,+Arizona&ll=32.622027,-113.711243&spn=0.862854,1.234589&z=10

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

The law against Slander is not a recent law and has been judged as a legitimate charge. Freedom of speech has specific limits such as speech creating danger for the people involved. The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" , you can't directly threaten harm to the President, and some NDA's also can limit what someone says but that is not absolute because there have been many cases when the NDA protections have been ruled null or void in criminal prosecutions. By definition the "free speech zones" is a place where you can practice freedom of speech. The designated zones were setup so the protesters would not hinder the flow of traffic or entry of the people attending the event. Security was also a major concern because a large group of people congregating around the President or even someone running for President is hard to secure. These zones also separated those protesting from those holding the counter protests to prevent confrontation that could further muddle the security situation. Nobody was prevented from exercising their freedom of speech.

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

Well, I Googled "DHS 100 mile zone", and it returned a bunch of results that were just other sites commenting on the original ACLU story that you listed. So, no, your other links are not 'readily found'.

You know, I really think Vinge was spot on when he mentioned the need to actually teach people to use search engines in modern school in one of his books.

The reason why you see ACLU story all over the first two result pages is because it was that prominent - naturally, it's got a high ranking in any related searches. It's treated simply by flipping past those pages until you stop seeing "ACLU" in page titles. An even easier way is to add "-aclu" to the query, though that filters out plenty legitimate results (which mention that story in passing in the context of a different one).

For Slashdot audience, this all really should be Google 101.

the farthest that I can find on that list is about 30 miles from the border. Still nowhere close to the claimed 100 miles.

It is a list of fixed checkpoints. There are also roving patrols, which assert authority in the entire 100mi zone. Note that all listed checkpoints are in the south, while some of the stories I've linked to are from northern states.

The list of checkpoints is not to prove that CBP claims such authority - it's not something that is even doubted, as that is openly stated by its representatives. Heck, one of the linked stories had such a quote (I hope you won't claim that New York Times has falsified that?):

The checks are “a vital component to our overall border security efforts” to prevent terrorism and illegal entry, said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for United States Customs and Border Protection. He said that the patrol had jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws within 100 miles of the border, and that one mission was preventing smugglers and human traffickers from exploiting inland transit hubs.

Also, the '55 miles north of the international border' sounds sooooo scary... except that the 55 miles between that highway and the international border is an airforce range and national wildlife refuge. That's about as close as they can get to an actual road.

And why would that matter any? We're talking about whether CBP agents have any business stopping and question people that far inland in the first place; whether they need an "actual road" to perform that or not is irrelevant.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cheekyjohnson]

The law against Slander is not a recent law

You didn't say it had to be, as far as I see.

and has been judged as a legitimate charge.

That doesn't mean that it is.

Freedom of speech has specific limits

Not in the first amendment, though.

speech creating danger for the people involved.

People themselves are the only danger. They're the ones acting upon the words, and if they do it foolishly, that is ultimately their own fault.

By definition the "free speech zones" is a place where you can practice freedom of speech.

It's a designated area where you can practice free speech. As far as I know, the first amendment never allows the government to decide when and where people have free speech.

Security was also a major concern because a large group of people congregating around the President or even someone running for President is hard to secure.

Then they might as well move everyone away from the president, since they're all clearly potential terrorists. Getting around this is easy: pretend to have no criticism of the president. What a pointless loss of free speech. "Security" just sounds like a terrible, convenient excuse.

Nobody was prevented from exercising their freedom of speech.

Would you say that we have free speech if the government got rid of free speech in all places except a single city in a single state, or something such as that? Same situation, only worse.

Re:"lese majeste"

[gmhowell]

(suspected enthusiasm for underage ladyboys, dubiously ethical business dealings, meddling in local revolutionary politics, or something)

About fucking time.

And on topic for a change.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

I don't want general information on everything shady the US government has done. I already know that. I wanted an example of the following specifically:

No offense, but if you happen to publish some nice leaks from US that make it look bad, and then are dumb enough to step on US soil, you won't even get a trial.

Also, please note that I didn't write the gggp.

Re:"lese majeste"

[joocemann]

The truth is, there are many homeopathic solutions that are not only socially supported, but are also scientifically backed. Those that are actually backed by reproducible results are more preferred by homeopaths because the product is likely a natural derivative that they generally feel at ease with.

There are also many pharmaceutical solutions that are not only scientifically proven, but also have scientifically proven side effects and long-term results that are not desirable... effects that are sometimes worse than going without the medication, or that are not seen with the homeopathic 'equivalent' that likely does not give the results to the potency/calibre of the pharmaceutical... so the homeopathic solution is usually weaker, if it actually works, but has less side effects -- and the pharmaceutical solution is often very effective, but may cause more harm than good in the long term.

The balance one should find is not to assume that either solution is the best and to consider each on an individual basis. And while most people using homeopathic solutions have made those considerations, people who are quick to disregard homeopathic solutions usually do not -- assuming immediately that big rich businesses *must* be doing the best possible thing, or that no natural solution could actually exist.
------------
I should also note that many pharmaceuticals are also concentrations of compounds found in nature. And also that any possible thing you find on earth can be toxic, depending on the concentration. You may notice that homeopathic solutions are the natural extract, containing a bunch of things that are not in the pharmaceutical, and the active ingredient being in lower concentration --- while the pharmaceutical solution is a strong concentrated form with no other materials going into the body.

Re:"lese majeste"

[superdave80]

ou know, I really think Vinge was spot on when he mentioned the need to actually teach people to use search engines... [snip]...add "-aclu" to the query, though that filters out plenty legitimate results (which mention that story in passing in the context of a different one).

Or you could, you know, just post a link to the thing that supports or explains your assertion. Why exactly do you think I need to spend all my time trying to look up your supporting links?

Re:"lese majeste"

[shutdown -p now]

Why, exactly, do you think I need to spend any of my time looking up proof links for something that is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the subject at hand? If you are not aware of it, and don't want to spend any time of your own on basic research, then why bother taking up a dispute on that subject at all?

One way or another, you have plenty of material now. Sapienti sat.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Not necessarily--a commitment to pluralism does not mean one respects every point of view. We have laws which express the limits of relativism society is prepared to accept.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

I agree with you an GP on some levels but not others. The courts support that position, which is the current law, yes. (Generally.) I am not advocating making the flag holy, but I could see where someone could see it that way. I think it is a *much* less valid political statement than bumper stickers that ridicule the president--they are ridiculing an individual in a position and are commenting on the job, or the nation. Burning a flag isn't a comment, it's a stunt. I do recognize the danger, which is why I would only associate the most minimal penalties with flag-burning (e.g. civil infraction) and would limit the rule against it to a sui generis rule. (i.e. only applicable to flag burning, not to any other action or item by analogy or otherwise).

I'm generally very liberal about free speech. But there are a very few restraints I'm okay with.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

Start following the recent and very well publisized case of mr. Assange. Including the things that legislators, members of government and judges say what should be done to him and what will be done to him if he is ever "caught".

Re:"lese majeste"

[cavreader]

So you expect the constitution to be applied literally? In that case I should be able to walk down any street in the US carrying a fully automatic M16 with a RPG hanging off my shoulder. After all the second admenment only specifies "arms". And you summarily dismiss and a valid law such as the prohibition of Slander just because you say so? Then you create a ridiculous example of the government eliminating free speech to specific areas in all cases. Do you really think anything like this would be proposed or supported by either the government or the general public? Any politician floating this type of BS would be crucified in matter of minutes. Trying to limit free speech in the US beyond some of the current caveats is ridiculous. In countries that have no freedom of speech the state relies on violence to enforce it. Just look at Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Any attempt to do this in the US would be met with a citizen backlash that would make the conflicts in the middle east look like a pillow fight. And armed to the teeth US citizens are probably the only force on the planet who could defeat the US military. Your whole supposition is ridiculous in the extreme. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right however most people have forgotten that you must also take responsibility for the consequences of your free speech.

Re:"lese majeste"

[sincewhen]

No whisking needed.

LINK

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

Yes, I know some politicians and bureaucrats want him dead with no regard of the law, but do you have any proof there are judges who think so?

If you say "just read about..." or "just google on..." again, I'll start thinking you just throw out random statements.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

Except that there is a law for treason, for which maximum penalty is death. You may want to read up on US laws.

Re:"lese majeste"

[cheekyjohnson]

So you expect the constitution to be applied literally?

How else should I expect it to be applied? On the whim of a potentially corrupt government? No thanks.

In that case I should be able to walk down any street in the US carrying a fully automatic M16 with a RPG hanging off my shoulder. After all the second admenment only specifies "arms".

Yeah, it does. Just don't kill anyone.

And you summarily dismiss and a valid law such as the prohibition of Slander just because you say so?

Not only is it my opinion, but the first amendment lists no exceptions. Also, your post that I replied to merely asked someone to give you examples of free speech being limited in the US. Even if you agree that people should be stopped for slander, that is still a limitation upon free speech.

Do you really think anything like this would be proposed or supported by either the government or the general public?

It's an analogy. What if it was? Why wouldn't you be against it? After all, you'd still, according to what you previously said, have free speech, since you could just go there if you wanted it. Which isn't correct at all, anyway. Since, if you're not in a free speech zone, you currently don't have free speech.

Any politician floating this type of BS would be crucified in matter of minutes.

Not if it only banned speech that the general public didn't care for. I'd like to say the same thing, but then I see things such as the patriot act, TSA (security theater), and DMCA, and I am forced to disagree.

Any attempt to do this in the US would be met with a citizen backlash that would make the conflicts in the middle east look like a pillow fight.

I wish I could say the same thing with as much confidence as you, but most citizens seem to only care about their own personal lives and would rather just avoid doing things that could anger those in positions of authority. I'm sure there's a limit, but that needn't be crossed in order for there to be a highly corrupt government (even though I'd say that our current one is already corrupt in many ways).

Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right however most people have forgotten that you must also take responsibility for the consequences of your free speech.

It can hardly be deemed "free speech" if someone punishes you for your speech. "Almost free" would be a more accurate name.

Re:"lese majeste"

[S.O.B.]

You may be unaware that the website, while hosted in the U.S., was operated by him from an IP address inside Thailand. So, if true, he did violate Thai law on Thai soil.

Even if he wasn't in Thailand at the time, there is still the case of Julian Assange vs The U.S. You can bet if he set foot in the U.S. that he would be locked up for violating a U.S. law while outside the country.

There are also the various cases of sex tourists that can be charged with statutory rape in their own country for sex with minors while travelling abroad.

There are also the Somali pirates that have been charged and sentenced in a number of jurisdictions for crimes committed in international waters.

So there are many precedents for being arrested even though the crime in question was committed while outside the jurisdiction.

And if that's not enough, IT'S THEIR COUNTRY. They can do whatever they want with you inside their borders. Don't like it. Don't go there. But this guy was living in the country, as a Thai/U.S. dual citizen, violating the law and then tried to hide behind the U.S. citizenship because his Thai citizenship was now "inconvenient".

Even though he was a naturalized American he certainly picked up the attitude of that arrogant minority of U.S. citizens that believe that the U.S. constitution is a suit of armour that supersedes the laws of the country they are in.

FYI, I'm not defending this law because more often than not it's used to silence political critics rather than defend the monarchy but this guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

Which contradicts what you said earlier, about disappearing without a trial.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

You don't make famous people disappear - too obvious. Disappearing ones are the guys like that swedish imam that got a taste of extraordinary rendition and lived to tell the tale somehow - ones who are only known to few, but judged important enough to kill off or get information out of by medieval torture methods (see Egypt).

Important and famous ones you arrest, make a showy trial and then deal as you see fit. Or even better, discredit first, then arrest...

Seriously, this is about as basic intelligence stuff as it gets. You have to either truly not want to know, or live under a rock to be wondering about it.

Re:"lese majeste"

[metacell]

I'm not "wondering about it", since I already know about all that. I just asked you to substantiate the claim that you'll vanish without a trial if you leak US secrets. The Swedish imam didn't disappear because he leaked secrets.

As far as I can see, the USA doesn't make people disappear without a trial just because they leak secrets. You need to be non-white and muslim, in addition to having some sort of national security interest, for that.

Re:"lese majeste"

[Luckyo]

So you want "evidence in mainstream media largely controlled by Western propaganda machine of covert action by Western intelligence". ...

Good luck finding any. CIA isn't the best intelligence agency in the world, but it certainly isn't so bad that it allows papers to post news about its covert action in a trustworthy format. Good riddance.

dumb fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

expecting that the world is a free place. Action - consequence.

Re:dumb fuck

[zonky]

Summary is not clear, but he is a Thai Citizen as well as US.

Re:dumb fuck

[OutLawSuit]

Except it looks like he made the post 4 years ago while in the United States. Just making a critical statement about a country then getting arrested for it years down the road while visiting isn't a very good precedent. I'm sure since this guy is a US citizen, the State Department will work something out though.

Re:dumb fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*

Re:dumb fuck

[yuhong]

I think that is what the statute of limitations is for.

Re:dumb fuck

[HungryHobo]

You can be sure if Julian Assange visited the US now he'd be arrested and charged with breaking US laws(or at least pissing off powerful members of the US government which is basically the same thing) despite being in a different country at the time and not being a US citizen.

because ultimately "patriots" tend to believe that since their own country is the best it's laws are the best and since it's laws are the best they should apply to everyone, everywhere, always and it's only a matter of if you can get hold of people to punish them.

If you publish information no matter how legal it is to publish from where you live or where you're posting from- keep the hell away from any fascist governments which you may have offended for the rest of your life.

It may be the the Chinese government, it may be the government of Thailand or it may even be the US government but if you're smart just stay the hell away.

Re:dumb fuck

[Dunbal]

No one has an excuse for not knowing the local laws. Being foreign won't get you off, ever. But consider yourself lucky - in ancient Rome it was actually against the law for the plebs to know the laws, although of course they could be judged and executed by them.

Re:dumb fuck

[QuoteMstr]

Is anyone else absolutely sick of sensationalized headlines?

Re:dumb fuck

[countertrolling]

You do what it takes to get pages hits and increase revenue... the internet is the 'new' mass media.. Yellow journalism is always big business. Just ask that Pulitzer guy and Hearst.. and Murdoch, and on and on.. You may be sick of it, but it will always draw a crowd, just like any other accident scene.

Re:dumb fuck

[julesh]

in ancient Rome it was actually against the law for the plebs to know the laws

[citation needed]

As I understand it, ancient Rome was actually the first civilization to act on the belief that it was important that all citizens should have access to an accurate written description of the laws that applied to them.

Re:dumb fuck

[shermo]

since their own country is the best it's laws are the best and since it's laws are the best they should apply to everyone, everywhere, always and it's only a matter of if you can get hold of people to punish them

However, I find that these sorts of people pick and choose which of their laws actually 'count' when it comes to themselves.

Re:dumb fuck

[qbzzt]

Being a US citizen doesn't help you in a country where you're also a local citizen. If he is also a Thai citizen, he is treated as such in Thailand.

Re:dumb fuck

[kalirion]

No one has an excuse for not knowing the local laws.

What's your excuse for not reading the summary? You know, the one that states that he wrote the blog post when he was in the United States.

This is like getting your hand cut off in Saudi Arabia because you shoplifted in New York.

Re:dumb fuck

[HungryHobo]

Hate?
I bare neither the person in the story nor the author of the book any ill will.

I'm simply saying beware of fascists and "patriots" wherever you go.

Re:dumb fuck

[Dunbal]

citizen =/= pleb

I have this important message

[Anonymous Coward]

The king of Thailand is a dirty bastard who fucked a chicken. On multiple occasions. In the ass.

Re:I have this important message

[Anonymous Coward]

The King of Thailand throws puppies at the elderly. Not intended to be a ...

Re:I have this important message

[Adambomb]

The King of Thailand absolutely loves découpage

Re:I have this important message

[metrix007]

Or, not everybody who posts here bothers to have an account. The hating on AC thing is retarded.

Re:I have this important message

[Briareos]

Oooh, kinky...

Re:I have this important message

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU!!! I would have said it myself, but I was too scared.

Re:I have this important message

[Dunbal]

So?

Re:I have this important message

[c0lo]

Thailand... were the prince throws a birthday party for his poodle and the princess attends the party topless. Truth to be told... the poodle is one of two Thai's Air Chief Marshals.

Re:I have this important message

[isorox]

Or, not everybody who posts here bothers to have an account. The hating on AC thing is retarded.

Easy enough to sign with plain text. I'm off to Thailand in 3 weeks, and like other dodgy countries I've visited this year (Egypt, Pakistan, USA, China, Israel Afghanistan), I'm careful about what I say, even on the internet. Twitter is rolling over to the UK over super injunctions and even just normal defamation. At least with something as comical as mentioning Ryan Giggs you know it would be laughed out of a British court, but it's worrying non-the-less. I'm not going to take that risk with a Thai court, or A Chineese, or a U.S. one.

I can post anonymously, and be fairly confident that Slashdot isn't high enough profile that they'll roll over to foreign courts like Twitter does, but what does that prove? If you want to insult that Thai government, or post about Ryan Giggs, fine, but don't bother anonymously, you are detracting from the real reason that anonymous speech needs to be protected, so people can talk about Liu Xiaobo, or blow the whistle on Tepco.

Re:I have this important message

[bmo]

A few round disks of vinyl, enough quotes for the rest of your life.

Georgie Tirebiter: Not now, Mudhead, I've got to go to the last meeting of the Philatelists' Club.
Mudhead: I didn't know you masturbated!

- Firesign Theatre

--
BMO

"It's just this little chromium switch here (click), ah you people are SO superstitious!"

Re:I have this important message

[metrix007]

Sometimes being anonymous has nothing to do with protected speech, and everything to do with convenience.

Re:I have this important message

[westlake]

The king of Thailand is a dirty bastard who fucked a chicken. On multiple occasions. In the ass.

Post this from your hospital bed in Thailand using your real name and then we will have something worth a mod up to +3.

Re:I have this important message

[shutdown -p now]

The king of Thailand is a dirty bastard who fucked a chicken. On multiple occasions. In the ass.

Oh, that's nothing, nothing at all. I've heard the real shocker recently - psst, come closer - the king of Thailand has feet!

Re:I have this important message

[Zontar The Mindless]

...the princess attends the party topless...

Which was the norm in Thailand until maybe 75 years ago. (Feel free to thank pressure from Westerners for getting the ladies to cover up.)

Re:I have this important message

[c0lo]

...the princess attends the party topless...

Which was the norm in Thailand until maybe 75 years ago. (Feel free to thank pressure from Westerners for getting the ladies to cover up.)

WTF? I'm reading my post and don't see anything that remotely resembles any moral judgement from my side... just a couple of facts posted with links.

Re:I have this important message

[Zontar The Mindless]

Never said you were making any moral judgements, did I? However, the page you linked does say, in part,

This leaked home video, commissioned to document the birthday party of the Crown Prince's dog, shows a decadent feast in celebration of the animal. It is attended by servants and the Crown Princess, who appears naked throughout, and who appears to be expected to act in a sycophantic manner.

which is hardly neutral POV. And being from the US myself and thus knowing full well the typical American OMFGBOOBIES thing, I thought it was not off the mark to point this out about differences in tradition as regards clothing.

Re:I have this important message

[unick]

Biology is not your strongest suit, I see.

Re:I have this important message

[stompertje]

Chickens don't have an ass, but a cloaca

._.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you research the laws of the place you are visiting before you make the actual visit.

Re:._.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. That's why I avoid the U.S.

Re:._.

[flowwolf]

Not insightful at all. People don't even read the summary any more before making silly assumptions. He didn't make the post inside the country. He made it 4 years earlier from America and they arrested him when he came to the country. What ever happened to people understanding context? Why are younger generations throwing this concept out the window? These are rhetorical of course. I feel I have to underline that as context isn't enough to distinguish these things any more.

Re:._.

[1u3hr]

What ever happened to people understanding context?

Yeah, like the most important fact that Slashdot omitted: The "US citizen" has dual Thai and American citizenship He undoubtedly entered Thailand on his Thai passport.

He has no leg to stand on legally.

If the US doesn't exert pressure, this guy is fucked.

Also you ironically miss the context of the post you're criticising. It makes perfect sense.

Re:._.

[gknoy]

For someone interested enough in the country to translate books critical of the king, it's a pretty serious lapse in judgment to then take a trip there before making sure that, you know, the king's cool with all of your past actions.

Re:._.

[flowwolf]

How does it make perfect sense? This guy did know the laws of the place he was visiting and knowingly broke them. Given that he was studying the issues of that country and he translated a political text on those issues years ago, it should be understood that the original post doesn't make any sense at all.

Further, your point supports my position of understanding context even more. I realize that slashdot omitted this fact and he actually does have thai citizenship. This detail, which can be gathered by looking further than the summary, is absolute proof that he understands the laws of the country he is going to. I believe its a requirement of citizenship in most countries .

What ever happened to people understanding context?

Note to self:

[gman003]

Add Thailand to the list of countries that are unsafe to visit until the revolution.

Re:Note to self:

[agge]

The depressing thing is that it is few countries that don't deserve a place on that list.

Re:Note to self:

[terbo]

the revolution where everyone understands that the map is not the territory?

Re:Note to self:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The cool thing about Thailand is that they've been through 17 constitutions(and more governments) since 1932, and basically all of them have afforded at least theoretical deference to the king. Your heuristic might have hit a corner case here.

Re:Note to self:

[gman003]

I wasn't talking about a local revolution...

Re:Note to self:

[gman003]

Sure there are! Like... no.... maybe not them... no...definitely not...well...

Aha! Somalia! Absolutely no censorship, if only because there's no real government to enforce it. And they apparently have pretty good comms, compared to most of that continent. I'll just pack some self-defense gear (is it possible to buy a Mk 19 on the civilian market?), and telecommute to work. Hell, the way outsourcing is going...

Re:Note to self:

[AmberBlackCat]

They're not so bad. All they did was arrest a "lone wolf" terrorist under the authority of Thailand's patriot act. Thailand is safe now.

Re:Note to self:

[ukemike]

The difference between his lese majeste and Computer Crime act violations, and getting swept up in PATRIOT act trouble, is that in Thailand he'll get a trial.

jurisdiction?

[v1]

I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?

Wonder what kind of an argument that would make in a real court there, bringing up a scenario where someone from Thailand had an affair while in Thailand and then flew to somewhere in the middle east where that was a capital offense, and got arrested at risk of execution?

But then it's a "secret trial" which usually translates to a "mock trial". I'd expect those trials have a 99.999% conviction rate. I wonder why they bother with them? it's not like it's helping their image...

The only way they could legitimately say they have any sort of jurisdiction is if he make his posts on a server IN Thailand. But I rather doubt that's what happened.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Splab]

"places like that"?

Like the US? India? UK? All countries currently trying to extract (or recently did) people for committing a crime that didn't break any local laws.

Re:jurisdiction?

[erroneus]

Agreed. This is a good and relevant story that needs more attention. When people in the US are routinely indignant, offended, upset or even outraged by this sort of behavior of other governments, we then need to point to our own US government which has done similar and even worse things quite recently.

There is a lot of "people don't want to believe we are bad" going on here which shows us more of people being blinded to the facts by belief. Hell, I still want to believe that the US is "the good guys."

Re:jurisdiction?

[tftp]

There is a lot of "people don't want to believe we are bad" going on here which shows us more of people being blinded to the facts by belief.

I finished reading this (a text, not the audio book) just yesterday. It's quite on topic.

Spoiler alert or not, the story is pretty sad. A common guy from the modern world magically, against his wish, ends up being a "Dark Lord" in a magical land. However he is a "Dark Lord" in name only - he is not doing anything bad at all, and he is maintaining his kingdom as well as he can. He has a magical artifact that allows him to kill, but he doesn't have to use it.

It then appears that the rest of the world (all kingdoms) decided to wage a PR campaign against him, as they did against his predecessors. They accuse him of unspeakable crimes, dark magic (of which he isn't even capable of, outside of the use of his artifact) etc. etc. This is done because those kingdoms want his death because they need an external, convenient enemy to keep their people in check; they need a version of Emmanuel Goldstein.

The kings gather a 150,000 army and call it "the army of the light." The army marches toward the guy's kingdom and barbarically kills and destroys everything and everyone in their path. When they arrive at the citadel of the guy they send a dragon against civilians who are hiding in underground caves, and the dragon burns them all. The army of the light goes on like that for a while, driven by political ambition and not concerned about morality. At the same time "the Dark Lord", a pacifist, contemplates his willingness to open a certain Pandora's box and release forces that are likely to kill everything and everyone. In the end the citadel falls, everyone around the guy is viciously murdered.

The idea of the story is that it's not enough to declare yourself "a good guy." You also need to be a good guy. But too many people and countries don't bother to do the latter; they only focus on PR, correctly believing that most people are fools. In the end the evil, under the name of "good guys," is victorious.

Re:jurisdiction?

[russotto]

Dmitry Sklyarov was not a U.S. citizen, yet he had the misfortune of travelling to the U.S., where he was immediately arrested, despite not breaking any crimes while in the U.S.

Which was of course an injustice. But give the US some credit; he was released, and the company he worked for was acquitted of any wrongdoing.

Re:jurisdiction?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Interestingly, Bin Laden was also strongly suspected of killing someone's uncle. Among others.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

Out of curiosity, can you cite any examples?

Who is the US trying to extradite for someone committing a crime outside US borders that was legal where the act was performed?

Re:jurisdiction?

[artor3]

Oh please. As much bitter hatred as you may harbor for the US, there's simply no comparison between shit like this, and the charges against Roman Polanski, or whoever you happen to be referring to. There are such things as just and unjust laws. It is when unjust laws are applied that people get upset.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

Has the United States filed a single charge against Assange? Oh wait, they've haven't.

And the difference between these two situations is that one person translated a book. The other encouraged people to steal and leak military secrets.

Re:jurisdiction?

[the linux geek]

From another poster:

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

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

He was on US soil when he distributed the information. And the DCMA does say it is illegal to circumvent copyright protection for any reason. While I disagree with the law, it is a law. So he broke the law of a country while currently in that country.

He was arrested, but released.

That in no way is an example of the United States seeking extradition for someone who never broke a law on US soil.

Re:jurisdiction?

[mobby_6kl]

I can declare war on the United States too, observe:
"I, mobby_6kl, declare war on the United States of America, for seriously pissing me off on several occasions, effective immediately".

I'm also responsible for planning and financing 911, sinking of the Titanic, assassination of JFK, the Lockerbie bombing, WWI, WWII, the Cuban missile crisis, and the black plague. Also the Zodiac murders.

So what now, are you going to send helicopters with a bunch of goons to violate the airspace of the country I live in, and then shoot a bunch of people who live in my house and pose no immediate threat?

You might want to get some updated facts, he wasn't involved in a firefight (unless being shot in the eye counts), and he wasn't using a human shield.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Chuck Chunder]

This is probably a closer approximation to the Thai arrest in the article. Eg someone conducting otherwise lawful activity on the internet who got nabbed when setting foot in an unenlightened country.

Re:jurisdiction?

[mobby_6kl]

By encouraged people to "steal and leak military secrets" you mean "expose murder and corruption", right? The guy who actually did expose murder and corruption got stuck naked in a tiny, empty cell and wasn't allowed to exercise to keep himself healthy or at least busy. Well done.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Pop69]

Not at all like the USA did ten years ago to a Russian ?

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

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

Thanks. That looks like a pretty valid case of the US federal government overstepping their bounds.

We don't know all the details. I don't know if they had any US holdings, or operating in the US in any way. But the US doesn't have global jurisdiction over the internet, despite acting like they do as of late.

Re:jurisdiction?

[mjwx]

I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?

Which is why he was arrested in a foreign country and secreted to an island prison.

No.. wait, he was arrested in Thailand, under Thai law, he's also a Thai citizen. But I guess that makes too much sense. Let the 2 minutes hate continue.

Re:jurisdiction?

[emt377]

I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?

Well, ignoring countries that abduct people from other countries to try them locally (North Korea, Israel, etc), in this case the Thais arrested a Thai citizen.

Dmitry Sklyarov was not a U.S. citizen, yet he had the misfortune of travelling to the U.S., where he was immediately arrested, despite not breaking any crimes while in the U.S.

There are crimes that are covered by treaties - things states extradite individuals for. Then there are political crimes: espionage, political sedition, criticism of leaders, etc. These are explicitly excluded from extradition treaties. This Thai guy is arrested for a political crime. The U.S. doesn't grant visas to politically undesirable individuals - this is the proper way to handle it; don't let them enter to begin with. If you give them a visa, then you have pretty much approved of their person and can't really reasonably turn around and arrest them. For non-political crimes however, if they want to come visit by all means give them a visa, then have police wait to cuff them at the airport. Nothing wrong with that. Dmitry Sklyarov was not arrested for espionage or any other political crime, but as a suspect in a copyright/fraud case. He was given due process and a fair trial, and the court cleared him and he was free to go home or stay in the country as he saw fit (he had a visa after all). This is also the proper way to handle such things.

DS was accused of committing a crime against Adobe, an American company operating in American jurisdiction, hence because the victim is in American jurisdiction it's perfectly reasonable to try him here. But he could have been tried in Russia, too, had he violated a law there in the process.

The Thai king was in Thai jurisdiction when criticized, he is the victim of the crime, and hence it's perfectly reasonable that the accused be tried there. The U.S. would recognize it as a political crime and would never extradite, but the Thai may not view it as a political crime - a lack of distinction normally only found among dictatorships. What if he instead had broken into a Thai bank and looted the Thai king's assets? Would that not have been a crime? You think it's okay to victimize people just because there's a line on a map between you? The problem here isn't arresting people who were abroad when they committed a crime, but the political nature of the crime.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Stormy Dragon]

Sure:

David Caruthers, CEO of BETonSPORTS, who was arrested while flying from the UK to Costa Rica when he switched planes in Dallas. He was charged with violating US laws against online gambling despite the fact his UK based website was perfectly legal under that country's laws.

Peter Dicks, CEO of Sportingbet, arrested in NYC under similar circumstances

Re:jurisdiction?

[cdrguru]

Don't forget that while renting a 12-year-old girl (or boy) (or even younger) in Thailand seems to be perfectly legal, you can be arrested for it when you return to the US under the "sex tourism" laws.

Just because raping 12-year-old girls (or boys) is illegal in the US, the act is committed in Thailand. Thailand seems to not ever arrest people for this sort of crime.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

That is why states have been passing laws that running such sex tourism businesses in the United States is illegal because people were using this as a means to skirt the law.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Narcogen]

I take it places like that assume their laws apply globally?

Not only is the US a "place[s] like that" but it has laws that are specifically directed at the conduct of US citizens when out of the country. It's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). I can't think of any extradition attempts based on it off hand, but certainly there have been US citizens arrested and tried based on breaking this US law while living and working abroad.

The law says (among other things) that you can't bribe foreign officials. Whether such behavior is legal in those countries, or, if illegal, prosecuted, isn't relevant.

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

Thailand and the US also have an extradition treaty. That's how the US got hold of Viktor Bout.

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/tag/thailand

Not exactly lese majeste, I'll admit, but it does point out that it's neither easy, nor necessarily desirable, for a country's laws to stop at a country's borders. To make this more relevant to Thailand, there are also laws against traveling to countries specifically for the purpose of circumventing certain US laws, namely those against sexual exploitation of minors.

Re:jurisdiction?

[mobby_6kl]

> There is a vast difference between your statement, and Bin Laden's. Namely, Bin Laden carried out 4 terrorist attacks against the US and murdered thousands of people. Insisting that your statement is the same as Bin Laden's is patently idiotic.

What, exactly, is the difference? As you can see, I've clearly carried out what could be considered acts of war against the US.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Splab]

Hatred for the US for that comment? Wouw, you need to ease up on your foreign hatred - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they hate you...

The US recently extracted a Danish citizen for prosecution for something that was way out statue of limitations in Denmark - on top of that, she was to be prosecuted for something her boyfriend did while she was with him; this is not something we prosecute people for in Denmark (thus by Danish standards she is innocent). We do not incarcerate people for 10 years because their spouse/bff decided to break the law selling hashish.

India is currently trying (and seemingly succeeding) to extract a guy who was on the wrong side of a local skirmish in the 80's; again he isn't by Danish standards guilty of anything.

These are just two examples - neither containing Polanski, nor rape of 13 year olds. However, if you want a bit of OMG think of the children thrown in, here's a kicker for you - In Denmark it's legal to have sex with "children" aged 15 and up, somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of Danish population is guilty of child molestation per US standards.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Cederic]

Which is utter bullshit.

because the victim is in American jurisdiction it's perfectly reasonable to try him here

Under Russian law, where Sklyarov was when he committed the act, there was no victim. If there's no victim then how can that missing victim be in American jurisdiction?

Re:jurisdiction?

[Splab]

Recently a Dane got extracted for crimes her boyfriend committed when she lived in the US.

In Denmark we do not prosecute people associated with the criminal, only if they actively participated. Also, we have a 5 year statue of limitation on that type of crime, this was way beyond that.

Re:jurisdiction?

[tibit]

It doesn't need to involve extradition. There are plenty of people worldwide (I'd say millions, easy), who break U.S. law and that could be, according to law, subject to prosecution in the U.S. for breaking Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). .

2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned.(see here)

.

Re:jurisdiction?

[tibit]

(sorry, hit submit too fast) Basically, if you're an adult, whether a U.S. citizen or not, who has locally legal intercourse that would be illegal in the U.S., is automatically in violation of U.S. law. At least that the safe interpretation of it. One wouldn't want to be a test case I'm sure.

It gets worse. There are jurisdictions where the age of majority of less than age of consent. In American Samoa, age of majority is 14 and age of consent is 16.

Re:jurisdiction?

[Enderandrew]

Distributing information is usually called "speech". As in "freedom of..."

I agree with you that the DMCA is unconstitutional, but no one has fought it in court yet. Until that day, it does stand as a law.

Claim contradicts previously accepted facts. He broke the DMCA while in Russia. He then gave a speech in the US.

Distributing that information on US soil is a breach of the DMCA.

Thailand is not seeking extradition either. The guy went to Thailand, just as Dmitry Sklyarov went to the US.

I was responding to Splab, who claimed the US tries to extradite people for actions outside the US that are legal there, but illegal in the US. Please read the thread if you're going to comment.

Re:jurisdiction?

[sincewhen]

our own US government which has done similar and even worse things

case in point

Not saying the guy was innocent, just that extradition over non-profit copyright infringement seems ridiculous. Especially when he was doing time in Australia already.
"the Australian courts and executive government have agreed to treat Griffiths' activities as having taken place in US jurisdiction"
And yet I can't buy all sorts of shit direct from the USA (Amazon MP3 - I'm looking at you!).
And "This video not available in your region for copyright reasons".
So apparently when online I'm not be treated as if I am in the USA. But he was.
Can't have it both ways!

Re:jurisdiction?

[v1]

Distributing information is usually called "speech". As in "freedom of..."

There are a few sensible exceptions to this. Inciting riot for example, is an attempt to abuse freedom of speech. Same goes for slander.

"Freedom of speech" does not entitle you to say anything at any time.

As far as "distribution of information" goes specifically, you can't distribute information on production of a silencer for example. Basically what a lot of that boils down to is you should not be distributing instructions on how to do an activity that serves no purpose beyond depriving someone of their rights.

AFP

[amnesia_tc]

Am I the only one who read "AFP" as Amanda Fucking Palmer first?

Re:AFP

[lxs]

Yes. The rest of us know it stands for Agence France Presse.

Re:AFP

[iggymanz]

both of you turn in your geek card immediately for not recognizing the Appletalk Filing Protocol

Re:AFP

[retchdog]

either that, or the Associated Fucking Press.

Re:That's the consequence of using your real name

[yuhong]

Well, it is not really a fad started by someone. Anyway, personally I always try to do so whatever possible, but know in the real world that it is not always possible.

Thai Citizenship

[l0ungeb0y]

It seems this guy was a Thai immigrant who earned US Citizenship.
However, he might still hold Thai Citizenship, and in that event, the guy will have no US Protections

Re:Thai Citizenship

[steelfood]

That depends on whether he entered Thailand with his US or Thai passport. If he goes in with his US passport, he's afford all the protections that any other US citizen can and should expect from Thailand (which could be none at all--it depends on the country's laws and treaties). If he uses his Thai passport (assuming he still has it), he's SOL.

Re:Thai Citizenship

[Riktov]

Not so:

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

Re:Thai Citizenship

[theshowmecanuck]

I heard the king of thailand is a flaming homosexual who like to be fucked in the ass with freshly picked bananas while his attendants piss on him.

Re:That's the consequence of using your real name

[yuhong]

And that there are many reasons why. Some of the problems can be easily fixed of course (for example the move to PR 2.0 fix a lot of the problems relating to companies), some not so easily.

Obey local laws

[david_craig]

When abroad obey local laws. I haven't even been to Thailand and I know not to insult the king there.

He did something that was illegal in the country that he was visiting. He was born there so knew that it was illegal. I don't see where the story is.

Re:Obey local laws

[MysteriousPreacher]

He obeyed local laws. What he failed to do was to obey the local laws of a country he wasn't in at the time.

Re:Obey local laws

[chill]

He wasn't abroad, he was at home. He posted that while in the U.S., the country in which he resides and is a citizen.

Re:Obey local laws

[Kjella]

If as they say he had Thai citizenship it doesn't matter, then Thailand can pass extraterritorial laws over him. That is for example how child sex tourism laws works, you can be tried and convicted in your home country even if you complied with local law of the country you were visiting. Now you may disagree with this particular law, but the principle that countries can pass laws over their own citizens that apply outside their own borders is well established.

Re:Obey local laws

[arth1]

... or like making a PDF decryption system while living outside the US, and then get arrested for it when visiting the US?

Or what would happen to Julian Assange if he ever set foot on US soil? Pretty much the same thing as this guy, I bet -- a quick arrest, and a certainty that any trial would be far from fair. Assange didn't insult Bumbledore, but American generals and politicians, but the indignation about being exposed and resulting power abuse would be the same.

Once we in the US stop applying our laws to the rest of the world, we can expect the rest of the world not to apply their laws to us. Not before. Stop being fucking bigots.

Re:Obey local laws

[Enderandrew]

What is your grounds for your assertion? That if you piss off the US government, you'll disappear and won't get a fair trail?

Ahmadinejad has openly called for the death of all Jews, and has several times over again pissed off the US government. Ships from Iran have also broken international law, and tried provoking the US. And still, Ahmadinejad was free to step foot on US soil, speak at Columbia, and then travel home safely.

Re:Obey local laws

[zill]

Since he chose to remain a citizen of Thailand, all the laws of Thailand still applies to him, regardless of where he resides. That's the burden of dual citizenship. If you chose to swear allegiance to two countries, then you must abide by the laws of both.

Re:Obey local laws

[Enderandrew]

And yet they're letting him pursue nukes.

If the US just went after whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted, Ahmadinejad wouldn't be allowed to pursue nukes in the first place.

Re:Obey local laws

[Eunuchswear]

Ahmadinejad has openly called for the death of all Jews

Ok,. so you don't like the guy.

But why lie about what he said? It makes you look like an idiot.

Re:Obey local laws

[Eunuchswear]

Dmitry Sklyarov was not a US citizen.

His "crime" was commited in Russia.

But he was arrested in the US.

Assange is not a US citizen.

But if he visited the US you think he wouldn't be arrested?

Re:Obey local laws

[Lehk228]

The posts he made were from he US and back in 2007

Re:Obey local laws

[w_dragon]

Which gets kind of fuzzy in the case of countries that won't let you give up citizenship, or of China that considers everyone of Chinese descent (racially Chinese) to be a citizen, regardless of where they were born or if they've ever been to China.

Re:Obey local laws

[Enderandrew]

Ahmadinejad: "The Jews only look human."

"The question is, why don't we allow this subject (the Holocaust) to be examined further... It is incorrect to force only one view on the rest of the world." He said at other times he doesn't believe the Holocaust is real, or that it took place. Again, here is another. "They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews. If as you claim the Holocaust is true, why can a study not be allowed." He later gave a speech entitled "Holocaust, the Holy Lie of the West."

He takes it a step further and claims instead that Jews are the ones practicing genocide. "The Holocaust is a lie and the real Holocaust is happening to the Palestinians."

He also blamed Jews for 9/11. "No 'Zionists' were killed in the World Trade Center, because one day earlier they were told not to go to their workplace."

He routinely calls all Jews Zionists and refers to scenarios where Jews won't exist anymore. "If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilationWith Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."

Even worse, he has been linked to financing terrorists to directly kill Jews. He speaks as if he has knowledge of the matter. "Don't be afraid of those Zionists. They are on the verge of death." And "this terrorist and criminal state (Israel) is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians."

He speaks of the need to go after Jews. "They want the entire world. At their very first step, you must crush their step, crush their leg, so that they do not dare to invade the Islamic lands."

He has said repeatedly that he will not rest until Israel is destroyed. Some say his intent is merely to see Israel dissolve and the land belong solely to Palestinians. But all his other repeated statements over the years suggest more. "Israel must be wiped off the map."

"Resistance is the only way to defeat the Zionists and their masters."

Do I need to provide more quotes? One of us is certainly lying. That much is sure.

This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't live in a Monarchy, for loyalists, insulting the King is equivalent to insulting the country, and can lead to civil war. Not all countries have freedom of speech. Be grateful if you do, and protect it. Hell, even in the US there are people being held without trial, all for associating with someone who's major crime is embarassing the government. Is this news?, yes, but we shouldn't be surprised when less-free countries have LESS FREEDOMS.

Also, something everyone seems to be skipping over is the fact the he left the US for Thailand for medical treatement.

LEFT THE US FOR THAILAND. I think that's a bit more of a news story, that the US health care system is so bad that he has to fly to Thailand to get treated.

Born in Thailand

[ad454]

This man was born in Thailand, and was treated as Thai citizen. Why on Earth would this idiot expect that also having a US passport would automatically exempt him from Thai laws (no matter how stupid and repressive they are) that other Thai citizens are subjected, when we was on Thai soil?

Consider the case of Iranian Canadian Hossein_Derakhshan who was thrown in jail because he visited Israel:

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

At least in both cases, these individuals had at least some minor assistance from their foreign embassies, which locals do not get.

Pressure needs to be applied globally to force *ALL* countries to support human rights, privacy, freedom of speech + movement, etc.!

Re:Born in Thailand

[Alex Belits]

"Human rights" is currently a code word for "puppet government loyal to US". As long as this is the case, I suggest keeping your human rights initiatives WITHIN your own country.

Re:Born in Thailand

[jklovanc]

Pressure needs to be applied globally to force *ALL* countries to support human rights, privacy, freedom of speech + movement, etc.!

Encourage? Yes. Lead by example? Yes. Assist with revolution? Yes. Force to change? No. It is up to the people of a sovereign country to decide what they want their country to be. It is not the place of another country to impose their views and morality on another country. That is merely war by another means.

Re:Born in Thailand

[ogl_codemonkey]

Why would any one not expect the laws of the country they're in to apply to them?

You travel, you look for a summary of the local laws and customs before you go; or you take your chance at either offending people that would otherwise help you, or getting thrown in jail or beheaded.

You get caught smuggling banned substances into Australia? Jail. Most anywhere in South-East Asia? Death. If you're unwilling to Google, call a travel hotline, or ask your government, you deserve everything you get.

Re:Born in Thailand

[Bing Tsher E]

Maybe that's the meaning of the 'code word' within your Trotskyite study group. Out here in the regular world, Human Rights has other meanings.

Re:Born in Thailand

[Alex Belits]

Then why US claims that there are insufficient "human rights" each and every time when it attacks or tries to undermine a foreign government?

Re:Born in Thailand

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

That is the US has a "world police force" that is invisible and have freedom to topple any government in the world. Remember Navy SEALs Team Six. I am sure the King of Thailand will be scared of that thing, even if he proclaims to be the son of God.

Re:Born in Thailand

[ogl_codemonkey]

My point being that as far as I'm aware, Thailand has no such notion.

"I can speak my mind on any topic - for I am Free, and speech is protected under the constitution of my land."

"You are in my land now. Guards, hang him. Any one else care to speak their mind?"

Re:Born in Thailand

[shutdown -p now]

Was Soviet Union a "puppet government loyal to US" when it signed the Helsinki Accords?

Because the definition of human rights has not changed since it was defined in that document. It's the same standard that US is held against, too.

Re:Born in Thailand

[Alex Belits]

In use by American politicians.

Re:Born in Thailand

[Alex Belits]

...anyone cares to guess, which percentage of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", something that is far more widely recognized than ridiculous list attached to your Constitution, does US recognize or ever attempted to implement? Most of it would be considered pure Socialism and affront to "American values" by US standards. And I would agree that it is, but not because I support your side.

Re:Born in Thailand

[shutdown -p now]

Did you see any American politicians in this thread?

Or are you suggesting that we don't use well-defined terms just because Americans (or some other country) had, at some point, misappropriated them? Do you have a knee-jerk reaction to "democracy" also?

Re:Born in Thailand

[Alex Belits]

Or are you suggesting that we don't use well-defined terms just because Americans (or some other country) had, at some point, misappropriated them?

1. Americans usually post opinions they gathered from their politicians.
2. The rest of the world (except US-funded "NGOs") often avoids the term, for this very reason.
3. As a matter of fact, Americans started using the term "human rights" because formerly accepted "civil rights" was too much associated with fight against racial discrimination.

Do you have a knee-jerk reaction to "democracy" also?

As a matter of fact, yes. US made both term and the idea of "democracy" tainted, useless and irrelevant.

Correlation?

[EricX2]

I don't understand what happened here. He was born in Thailand. Lived there for 35 years. Moved to the United States. Lived there for 30 years. During that time he posted a blog that if he was in Thailand when he posted it, he would have gotten in trouble. Later, he traveled to Thailand for a medial procedure (wtf can he get done in Thailand that he can't get done in the US, maybe a brain transplant?).

Is there part of the medical paperwork where it asks for your blog posts in the past 10 years? Was he on a 'blog watch list' and apprehended as he entered the country?

There is part of the story that is being left out, what I think is the most important part.

Re:Correlation?

[arth1]

Later, he traveled to Thailand for a medial procedure (wtf can he get done in Thailand that he can't get done in the US, maybe a brain transplant?).

Medical treatments are quite often more advanced outside the US. The reason is that here in the US, the medical system is driven by insurance companies, who will not allow new methods to be used until they have been proven reliable to a degree that mitigates any monetary risk for malpractice lawsuits. In other words, they wait and see how it goes in the rest of the world.

Take Lasik surgery as an example. The Soviet Union was doing laser vision correction on a regular basis in the 1980s, and most of the western world a few years later. In the US, it came MUCH later.

Or ciclosporin for use in treating autoimmune diseases. It arrived in the US over a decade after the rest of the world.

Or, to be personal, hip implants. I have a type of hip implant that US doctors and insurance companies don't use, because (a) it costs far more, and (b) the requirement for precision is much higher, and thus the risk of having to do corrective surgery is higher too. Never mind that my hips last for 50+ years, and are flexible enough that I can do yoga and run, while US hips last for 10-15 and a person can't even run. That's not a consideration. Doctors and insurance companies avoiding law suits is.

About the only place where the US health care system comes first is costs. No where else do you get so little for so much.

Re:Correlation?

[Rik Rohl]

wtf can he get done in Thailand that he can't get done in the US

Affordable Surgery?

Screw anyone who dismissed privacy.

[WoollyMittens]

This, people, is why privacy IS important after all.

Re:Screw anyone who dismissed privacy.

[TheChromaticOrb]

No, this is why human rights and freedom of speech are important. If you want privacy, don't make public statements (like posting on a blog).

Re:Screw anyone who dismissed privacy.

[petes_PoV]

Absolutely - if the guy had kept his thoughts private, he wouldn't be in this trouble now. That IS what you meant, isn't it?

Enemy Combatant/Lone Wolf

[future assassin]

If the US can do it so can everyone else.

Re:Similar laws in the US

[mangu]

Threatening the president of the United States, such as saying "I'm going to kick your ass, President" counts as a class D felony under US Code.

Considering that 9% of those who reached that office were assassinated while in power, I think this is not a totally injudicious law.

Insulting the POTUS, however, is not a felony, feel free to do so.

You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech?

[accessbob]

You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech? Which planet are you from again?

Oh Yeah, USA, Bastion of freedom of speech

[ross.w]

Julian Assange will be watching this case with interest, and would be amused at all the "how dare they, he's a citizen of a free country" posts.

Re:Oh Yeah, USA, Bastion of freedom of speech

[artor3]

Right, because as we know, Mr. Assange was charged with crimes carrying a life sentence. Oh, wait, he wasn't charged with anything. A bunch of right-wing fascists called for his murder, but they do that to anyone who looks at them wrong.

Re:Oh Yeah, USA, Bastion of freedom of speech

[blue trane]

Biden's a right-wing fascist?

Re:Oh Yeah, USA, Bastion of freedom of speech

[Arrepiadd]

What does the USA have to do with this?
The guy wrote bad stuff about the Thai king and was caught years later while in Thailand... what did you want the US to do before he was caught? Overthrow the Thai king so that this guy could go on and get medical care? Use your brain, at least to make the title...

Plus ça change...

[frisket]

It seems little has changed.

Read Pepys' Diary for the 17th August 1666, where he quotes a friend describing the King of Siam out hunting, and the European visitors not knowing they should fall on their faces as he passed..."Their druggerman did desire them to fall down, for otherwise he should suffer for their contempt of the King." At the end of the hunt, the dragoman told the King's emissary how much the foreigners liked it, which was quite untrue; but no matter, said the dragoman, "for our King do not live by meat, nor drink, but by having great lyes told him.”

Whatever about the personal feelings of the king about lèse-majesté being thwarted by a traditionalist administration, he needs to get his act together.

There now, I've blown any chance of ever going to Thailand.

Monarchy is an abomination.

[steve buttgereit]

"A hereditary monarch, observed Thomas Paine, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary doctor or mathematician."

The most common use of such figureheads is to put the sheen of legitimacy on of those who take power in their names; there are times when this is the figurehead themselves and then there are those times when the figurehead is merely a puppet or even a religious symbol. In all cases that I'm aware of it's merely an excuse for man to dominate his fellow man... when no real reason to do so exists.

Re:Monarchy is an abomination.

[opinionbot]

Whilst I generally agree with this sentiment, there are aspects of constitutional monarchy (e.g. in the UK) which are very useful. The main one is to separate the head of state from the head of government: the king/queen has little to no power in practice (though may do in theory), but is a figurehead. This means people can criticise the head of government (prime minister) without appearing unpatriotic. This in contrast to presidential systems where the head of government is also head of state. Having a monarchy (and institutions like the Lords) is a little odd, and ideologically not very democratic. In practice though it has some good points, and seems to work well enough most of the time.

Re:Monarchy is an abomination.

[steve buttgereit]

I appreciate your thoughtful comment and at one time I believed the same of constitutional monarchies a la the U.K. But I would submit that even in this form monarchy is more vestigial part of governance than a necessary one.

For many years in the United States we were able to criticize the President while maintaining our patriotic fervor by standing true to the enlightenment era ideals that were the justification for our becoming a nation. We could look to our Declaration of Independence, which set out the philosophical argument for a nation without monarchy, as our unifying focus. I do think that we've lost our way in this regard, however. Still, for many decades we were able to keep our allegiance to the founding ideals while still being critical of those temporary custodians of the government. Ironically, many of these ideals embodied in our founding came from UK... thinking of John Locke in particular.

I think the UK would be well served to do similar to us in this regard, perhaps reclaiming some of the ideas which originated with its people. While the sitting Queen may well be a person of whom the British may be proud, it is not inconceivable that you get a right ass on the throne (so to speak).... then you have the difficulty of the Head of State, a person born to the role, diminishing the Nation and the very difficulties that you wish to avoid with a separation of Heads of State and Government.

Re:Monarchy is an abomination.

[steve buttgereit]

I'm not sure that I get your point. My comment was about hereditary monarchs and made no mention of what else may work in monarchy's stead. There are many flavors of parliamentary systems some better than others. I for one believe that our 'easy democracy' policies that continually creep towards a 'majority rule' system are deeply flawed. Democracy should be a check on authority, not the primary system of governance; and it should be reserved for those willing to put out a modest effort to participate. Otherwise you will end up with governments such as the Mexican where you in essence buy your votes with favors of public money or systems where the populous vote in the savior du jour... or their surrogates.

However there are implicit ideas in your comments that I find flawed. Some are related to an efficient king and the other about a necessarily powerful legislative organization.

Ultimately I believe that a government should only exist and have the power to prevent the violation of the innate rights of its citizens. This doesn't mean that government (or its people) can simply recast privileges as rights either as we are wont to do nowadays. The first right being that of self-owership; other rights that derive from that one axiomatic right. And don't forget that for you to have a 'right' there cannot be an obligation on any other person for you to exercise it, other than the obligation to not forcibly interfere with your exercise of your rights. A government limited to that single purpose would be as efficient as it needed to be... and moral to boot.

Second related to an efficient king. I would argue that there can be no such thing and that what you describe in little more than a tyrant. You say that there is, "no bitching". Why? Because there is no freedom to complain under such a system? I have found that in any group of over 100 people there are few that completely agree, so the only way that your point comes to fruition is if the king forcibly intervenes in his citizens' right to speak their minds. And even that can be messy: witness Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. You say a fair policy will be obeyed, but fair to whom? I guess if you're suppressing speech that's much less of a worry, especially if you are suppressing only a minority which is producing the prosperity of which you speak. In truth though the only policy such a good king could maintain while increasing the genuine prosperity of his people is to rule very little: protect their rights and nothing more But then you run into that problem of the hereditary roll of the dice. A bad king may be the good king's son/daughter. Just how efficient are decades of good leadership followed by decades of bad? A limited democratic republic, wherein the politicians had the single job of upholding the enshrined rights of the people, seems to me to be far more efficient and durable. We may have been slowly losing sight of that in the US (for many decades now)... but that basic vision has sustained for over a century and the strength built during those decades has carried us for over a century more.

Re:Monarchy is an abomination.

[Cederic]

Indeed, it'll be interesting to see whether the monarchy can survive the reign of the Prince of Wales.

How is this different?

[ashwinsawant]

Move on ppl.. The US does this to citizens of other countries all the time and then tortures its own citizens who help reveal the abuse. Just because thailand is poor doesn't make it's laws less acceptable than those of the US.

Re:How is this different?

[c6gunner]

Whatever you've been smoking, it's GOT to be illegal ...

Re:Similar laws in the US

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I'm not a huge fan of the fact that threatening the president is more serious than threatening other people, there is kind of a large difference between "threatening" and "insulting".

You can insult the president all you like(in practice, even in situations where private citizens or celebrities might reach for the libel suit, presidents don't seem to bother), you just can't threaten to kill, injure, or kidnap him. Even then, because of the first amendment concerns, the secret service typically ignores many of the less dangerous looking cases.

Re:Charged at eight, pardoned by dawn

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While it is helpful for the specific guy in question, laws that are selectively enforced to the point of meaninglessness are, perhaps, among the most dangerous. Because they have such a ceremonial feel to them, and usually don't come down hard on people who matter, they stick around; but you can blow the dust off them and give somebody a good hard whack any time you like...

Re:This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free

[Alex Belits]

LEFT THE US FOR THAILAND. I think that's a bit more of a news story, that the US health care system is so bad that he has to fly to Thailand to get treated.

That's not unusual at all. Plenty of people who immigrated to US, go to their countries of origin for medical treatment. Unless it's something urgent, or a treatment that is only available in US, it's almost always cheaper with the same level of quality.

hark, what's that i hear?

[cas2000]

cue the sound of a million angry bloggers inventing insults for the king of thailand.

Re:hark, what's that i hear?

[mjwx]

cue the sound of a million angry bloggers inventing insults for the king of thailand.

*crickets*

How about a car analogy?

[Biff Stu]

Is the king allowed to use self-depricating humor? If not, would a show on NPR centered on discussions about cars be illegal in Thailand if hosted by the king?

Re:This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm sure that I'm just tilting at windmills here; but I don't think that the US medical situation is news to anybody: As with schools, if you have deep pockets you can get among the best, hence the steady stream of foreign dignitaries and suits(some amusingly embarrassing in retrospect) showing up for the purpose. If you don't, though, quality can often drop off much faster than cost(with a little bump up down at the very bottom, where the ER people are legally obligated to scrape your ass off the street even if they can't collect). In a number of other countries, the price/quality drop off is far less steep, and thus much more sensible(and, if this guy was thai, he may also have had handy things like helpful family...)

Re:This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free

[Larryish]

He was getting treated for impotence with the customary "dried tiger balls necklace" and ground rhinoceros horn.

Fuck the monarchy

[Stormwatch]

I fart in king Bhumibol's general direction. His mother was a binturong and his father smelt of durians.

Also, DUPE!

Re:This Just In: Not All Countries Have Are Free

[Haeleth]

For those who don't live in a Monarchy, for loyalists, insulting the King is equivalent to insulting the country

In US terms, it is equivalent to insulting the Flag and the Constitution.

Note that while those things are protected today, there are plenty of politicians in office in America today who think it should still be made a crime to burn the US flag. All they really have to do is manage to get it classified as "obscene" and all those First Amendment protections will dissolve right away. Freedom is a rather fragile thing, not to be taken for granted.

Hell, even in the US there are people being held without trial, all for associating with someone who's major crime is embarassing the government

Really? Who? I am really having trouble working out what you are referring to here. (The only people I can think of who are being held without trial are the remaining inmates at Guantanamo Bay, but I would hardly describe the murder of thousands of Americans as merely "embarrasing the government". Were you thinking of Pfc Manning? Because he is being held pending trial, not without it, and the crime he is accused of is certainly not simply associating with Assange.)

A better American analogy would be the people who have been snatched off planes transiting US airports for the "crime" of running internet gambling sites overseas in countries where it is perfectly legal to run internet gambling sites.

Re:Similar laws in the US

[artor3]

You can insult the president all you like(in practice, even in situations where private citizens or celebrities might reach for the libel suit, presidents don't seem to bother)

As a matter of fact, public officials are specifically exempted from protection against libel and slander. If they weren't, the American political scene would look very, very different.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

So what comes out of someone's mouth is a more basic right than what goes in?

That makes sense.

So it's like a steady thing?

[Lead Butthead]

The king of Thailand is a dirty bastard who fucked a chicken. On multiple occasions. In the ass.

So his majesty is like... going steady with this... chicken? I confess I have a hard time believing the old man would do this. Now if we're talking about the crown prince...

Re:That's the consequence of using your real name

[yuhong]

Yea, disclaimers stating this is not the official opinion of the company dates back to the Usenet days.

Where is the ladyboy commenter?

[gmhowell]

How can we have a story on Thailand and the guy who puts the term 'ladyboy' in every comment hasn't posted?

Re:Where is the ladyboy commenter?

[tivoKlr]

Bump for the ladyboy guy?

He must still be asleep this is pure fodder for him!

Re:Where is the ladyboy commenter?

[ajo_arctus]

Maybe he's the guy that got arrested.

Dmitry Sklyarov

[volpe]

Mod parent up.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[MaskedSlacker]

Drug smuggling != Drug consumption.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[WillDraven]

One where people should be as free to put whatever they want into their bodies as they should be free to have whatever words they want come out of it.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[WillDraven]

I realized right after posting it that what I just said doesn't fit so well into the context of this thread. Oh well...

Re:Hey moron.

[ogl_codemonkey]

... and their laws say that breaches committed outside of the country can have you punished when you return.

Re:lets get him out.

[BatGnat]

No, sorry, kidnapping him would be an insult to the king as well, and they will be arrested.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[Nidi62]

Drug smuggling != Drug consumption.

He never said anything about drug consumption. You do realize where a lot of drugs are stored when they are smuggled, right?

Re:That's what I wanted to hear you say.

[ogl_codemonkey]

Which is precisely how the notion of sovereignty has always been upheld.

I don't support many (if any) of the USA's actions or policies where they extend to citizens of other nations (like myself) - I just understand that nobody is likely to stop them. They are empowered by their own citizens, who see them as bringing the Light of Democracy And Capitalism to the terrorists and communists that the USIans must be protected from.

Anyhow, I've exceeded my quota of replying to ACs already. If you want to continue this, put your handle against your words.

Re:You're comparing drug smuggling and free speech

[MaskedSlacker]

I highly doubt that's what he meant. Yes, you have a pedantic point, but that's a bizarre way to refer to smuggling.

Priorities

[matunos]

It's good to know that the Thai authorities have their priorities straight. We wouldn't want them stopping any child prostitution or sex tourism.

Written description of the laws

[qbzzt]

The 12 tablets were written around ~450 BC. This is about two centuries after Draco's written code, the first written code of Athens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver) ). The written legal codes in Exodus and Deuteronomy probably predate that, and the one in Deuteronomy specifically states it should be taught to everybody.

The Hammurabi code is much earlier, but I don't know how common literacy was back then.

Re:Careful now

[jon.siebert1]

apparently for medical treatment...?

Re:Careful now

[Ihmhi]

Well, for one thing, they have medical care that's better than ours in hospitals that are better and more comfortable than ours filled with doctors that benefited from America's excellent medical education system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml

I saw this on the telly 6 years ago. Some important bits: medical care in Thailand costs about 1/8th of what it costs here, and labor and malpractice insurance are cheaper in Thailand, so that keeps costs low.

Or how about India, where a hospital visit is 1/10th the cost?

The article is a very good read. Even if you factor in the cost of a plane ticket you end up saving a lot of money.

Re:I applaud them

[blue trane]

Words are words, actions are actions. Because words can be defined differently for the speaker than for the listener, and because multiple parses exist, and because it could be meant humorously or sarcastically or ironically, etc., you cannot create a direct causal link between an action and words. The words always go into the brain first and that is where the action starts, in the reaction to the words, which is an act of will, and not the words themselves' fault.

If you have a problem with someone's speech, point it out with your own speech. Using force to silence someone is wrong. The founding fathers recognized this (because all the arguments you make were used against THEM).

Re:I applaud them

[holophrastic]

Your founding fathers didn't found other countries. Other countries were founded upon much different principles. In this case, your concept of direct causal links and "point it out with your own speech" doesn't work. Because you would have a large group of listeners speak instead of act, when they want to act instead of speak. These other countries would point out to you that one person spoke, and many listened. Therefore, the speaker must be held responsible, because that's the only point you can control -- purely because it's the smallest point.

You say that forcing someone silent is "wrong". What makes in "wrong"? I doubt that you could defend that position without a bible, political stance, or your contry's constitution. Others don't believe it to be "wrong". Others believe it to be "better".

Stupid US laws also

[Tablizer]

I'm sure there are laws in the US that can surprise a visitor from other nations and cultures, perhaps something to do with media file copying (IP), hanging out with "terrorists", or "child porn".

In UK you can go to Jail for insultn a Footballer

[AftanGustur]

Yes, that is not a joke..

Blog about a certain UK Footballer had an affair with a certain Model and you can go to Jail..

Still Think you live in a "Free Country" ?

Re:In UK you can go to Jail for insultn a Football

[Tukz]

Not even the same thing.
There is a super injunction in the case you're mentioning.

Dmitry Sklyarov

[Eunuchswear]

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

Re:Double Rainbow...TRIPLE RAINBOW!!

[metacell]

The problem is that someone was apparently arrested for actions he commited four years earlier, while in the USA, where they're legal. It's troublesome from a legal perspective if a nation tries to enforce its own laws on foreign territory. If it's going to work, it needs to be regulated in international treties.

It's not latin, it's french

[js_sebastian]

Latin for "law that let's us put whoever the fuck we want in jail"

It's not latin, it's french.

Re:In UK you can go to Jail for insultn a Football

[Peter Harris]

Maybe you have to be careful. Ryan Giggs is an idiot, because he took very bad legal advice and tried to sue twitter over the public release of some information about him. What information? I really couldn't say.

But let's suppose it was something he really didn't want widely known and hypothetically he had paid a lot of money to cover up by some means. How? I really couldn't say. More bad legal advice I suppose.

But for sure, by his own actions he just made himself look a lot worse than if he'd just admitted what he did and shrugged it off with a apology, however insincere.

Just hypothetically, if some footballer fucked a model and got a super-injunction to prevent her telling anyone (and prevent anyone even reporting on the existence of the injunction), and if I were to post it on the internet, I wouldn't be facing a SECRET TRIAL and, what, the death penalty or life imprisonment? It's just not the same thing!

In the UK, we have more *effective* freedom of speech than we are guaranteed by law, due to cultural expectations. In the US maybe the opposite is true. But both countries are objectively better in this respect than Thailand.

sort of like Espionage laws in the us?

[decora]

Go ask Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, and Jeffrey Sterling what happens when you 'insult the government'.

thomas andrews drake

[decora]

look it up.

he spoke with a reporter. he gave her unclassified, non-sensitive information.

he was later sued under the Espionage act and could face 35 years in prison.

the government doesnt even claim he gave her classified information.
they claim he 'lied about giving her classified information'.
i.e. he told them he didnt give her classified information, and then the government decides to 'retroactively classify' a bunch of material, then it claims he was lying.

Re:thomas andrews drake

[cavreader]

I don't know who you are talking about. If it involves Wiki leaks the suspect did violate several military laws such as accessing systems in which he had no authorization, distributing classified and non-classified information. The diplomatic cables violated distributing information classified as Secret which is not the highest classification level but it is still against the law.

i beg to differ.

[decora]

right now there are 5, possibly 6 people prosecuted under the Espionage Act

1. Thomas Andrews Drake

did not give sensitive material nor classified material to anyone, not a reporter.
the government 'retroactively classified' a bunch of stuff in his basement, then charged him with 'retaining' it under the Espionage Act of 1917

2. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim

he had a single phone conversation with a reporter, about whether or not North Korea might test nukes. also under Espionage Act charges

3. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling

he was a source for James Risen's book "state of war", which details CIA screwups in the 1990s regarding Iran's nuclear program. the CIA actually helped give them nuclear information, when trying to give them disinformation. Sterling is facing Espionage Act charges

4. Shamai Leibowitz

nobody even knows what he did; his entire case was secretly settled before trial when he pled guilty. the Espionage Act was used against him.

5. Bradley Manning

whatever you think of the hundreds of thousands of emails, he is also being charged under the Espionage Act for leaking the Collateral Murder video . i.e. gun camera footage, which is all over youtube and the television, is now considered spying.

6. Unknown Cambridge person

There is a grand jury right now in the wikileaks case, one of the charges is 18 USC 793 (g), the almost never used 'conspiracy to commit espionage' law.

What do all these things have in common?

They are Espionage Act cases, not against government employees selling information to foreign governments.

They are people giving information to reporters. Some of them didn't even give classified information to reporters.

This is absolutely unprecedented in modern US history. Obama is turning the clock back to the Sedition Act of 1918

Re:i beg to differ.

[cavreader]

Your examples look like they do qualify for investigation. Going back to 1917 for an example only shows that in that particular time period a large group of citizens supported these laws. Trying to judge their actions in retrospect against today's standards is not a fair process. Also as time progressed these laws were also repealed or modified. Those in the military take an oath to follow the rules when they join. The military is a volunteer only group and those who sign up do give up some of their natural rights while in the service but they have volunteered to join they were not mandated to join. The charges against Manning are totally legitimate if he is proven to have committed those acts. I have not seen where he has been charged with any violations of the Espionage laws that could result in execution. I personally do not believe he should be charged under those laws but the lower level charges seem appropriate.

if lifetime bans are good enough for wikipedia

[decora]

they are good enough for thailand

try calling someone a holocaust denier

[decora]

i humbly suggest you look up the Irving v. Lipstadt trial.

Irving, a holocaust denier, sued Lipstadt, over a book she wrote about holocaust deniers.

he poured out dozens of accusations against her. she and her publisher had to spend untold wads of cash defending themselves in english court.

Re:try calling someone a holocaust denier

[Cederic]

That's a libel case, and we already know English libel law needs reform. The case of Giggs vs Unnamed Famous Premiership Footballer is a privacy/freedom of expression case, with no current libel claims.

McLibel was a far more insidious case if you want to quote libel examples..

it has more than that

[decora]

the Espionage Act is being used against 6 people right now for their interactions with reporters.

i'd hate to hear what you say about rape victims

[decora]

sure. there are people doing dumb things.

but then there are people doing bad things.

why don't we harsh on the people doing bad things, and leave the people doing dumb things alone?

sounds fair

[currently_awake]

If the US gov can arrest foreign visitors for writing software to bypass copyright controls in a foreign country then why can't this country arrest you for writing something that violates their laws? In the new world order "using the internet" means "now subject to our national laws".

unless you are a wall street lover of prostitutes

[decora]

im just saying.

their 'laws' dont always mean what they say they mean.

if you are rich, they will look aside as you do all sorts of illegal things that actually hurt real people

well there was that guy the CIA anally raped

[decora]

A german citizen named Khalid El-Masri was in Macedonia, the CIA kidnapped him, tortured him, anally raped him, and then released him a while later. They got his name mixed up with a terrorist.

he sued. his case was thrown out on 'state secrets privilege' grounds.

as far as i know, "being in Macedonia" is not a crime, in Macedonia, nor in Germany. Nor is 'having the last name of el-Masri'.

he is just one of many, many such cases. there were 5 or 6 here recently thrown out for the same reason, state secrets privilege.

this privilve btw was created in the 1950s so that the air force could cover up an airplane crash and avoid paying the widows of the crew their proper payments.

Re:well there was that guy the CIA anally raped

[harrytuttle777]

Actually having the name of el-Masri is a crime. The authoraties make the laws, they make the crimes. If the man with the gun says you committed a crime, you committed a crime.

extraordinary rendition = extradition

[decora]

and they dont even need to care about the 'law'.

meanwhile, the credit default swap

[decora]

industry continues to churn out product after product, the hedge funds and big banks making billions of dollars.

even as many industry experts say it is exactly the same thing as gambling.

if youre a billionare hedge fund guy though

[decora]

you can get famous lawyers to help you out and basically get very light punishment. see Jeffrey Epstein

Re:In UK you can go to Jail for insultn a Football

[Tim C]

You're right, it's not a joke. Jokes are funny; that's merely factually incorrect.

Anonymity

[Geminii]

This kind of thing is precisely why anonymity is a positive thing.

The King and I

[lexsird]

Yul Brenner movie, I can't help think of this when I read this.

Etc..etc..etc...

Re:Double Rainbow...TRIPLE RAINBOW!!

[metacell]

Yes, that's even worse.