Jump to content

Bahrain issued Interpol Red Notice for Hakeem Al-Araibi, document reveals


rooster59

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Just Weird said:

It was cancelled 3 days after his arrest and after the court case had started, thus, no basis for him to be released without going through the court process.

 

He IS in the court process, and the judge whom he appeared before the other day certainly could/should have dismissed the case at that point for all the obvious reasons. But instead, AFAIK, the next hearing date was set several months into the future and the guy remains in jail/prison in the meantime being held without bail. That's SIMPLY WRONG, notwithstanding your typical "the Thais never do anything wrong" posturing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The main ones revolve around the principle of non-refoulement. According to the Leiden Journal of International Law:

 

It is also against the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Refugees (which, although Thailand is not a signatory to it, is an international convention nevertheless) and more significantly, the UN Convention on Torture which Thailand is a signatory to, having ratified it in 2007.

 

Article 3 of this latter convention states that, "No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." 

 

Since that was one of the main reasons al-Araibi was granted refugee status in Australia in the first place, that would seem, at least on the face of it, to indicate that processing Bahrain's extradition request would probably mean Thailand is breaking the commitments it signed up to in 2007.

Brilliant post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"that there is another trampled right".

What is the right that you are calling "trampled" in that post above?  What "abuse"?

Dismissed by the prime minister?

 

If Thailand wants to be seen as a country with proper internationally acceptable jurisprudence processes then surely the pm should not be interfering.

 

But surely it is valid that when other information comes to light which makes any previous action illegal / inappropriate then the court has a duty / a responsibility to very quickly dismiss the case, through a proper jurisprudence process. Very quickly an important point because someone is being held inappropriately and they have a right to immediate freedom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

Dismissed by the prime minister?

 

If Thailand wants to be seen as a country with proper internationally acceptable jurisprudence processes then surely the pm should not be interfering.

 

But surely it is valid that when other information comes to light which makes any previous action illegal / inappropriate then the court has a duty / a responsibility to very quickly dismiss the case, through a proper jurisprudence process. Very quickly an important point because someone is being held inappropriately and they have a right to immediate freedom.

 

Seems you have forgotten where you are. The Claytons PM, being the resident expert in all matters - can immediately see if the person is guilty or not, acts accordingly and all butt kissers follow this God-given advice.

Remember the very nasty event on Koh Tao when the pm made it very clear from day 1, "no Thai would do this" and of course the outcome was arranged to suit this edit.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, khunJeroen said:

Thailand never signed the UN refugee treaty so his refugee status everybody is referring to is as such technically irrelevant from a legal pov. 

 

I find it naive he did not consider this when travelling. He should know as Bahraini his country would wait for its chance to arrest him. I don't say I approve, by now I actually don't know what is true or not anymore. That Thailand now follows its law is imo the most sensible thing to do.

  

 

Can you at least please educate yourself before you open your mouth to speak? Don't talk about legal points of view when you clearly have no idea. 

 

Correct, Thailand isn't a signatory to the refugee treaty, but that doesn't mean his refugee status is irrelevant. It means that he would have no grounds under Thai law to claim asylum here, which he is not trying to do. He was simply trying to travel for his honeymoon, having already been granted refugee status in Australia. 

 

He could quite rightly have expected not to be arrested, given it is illegal for interpol notices to be issued to return someone to a country that they have successfully fled and been granted refugee status elsewhere. Interpol have quite publicly admitted that the red notice shouldn't have been issued, so there was no naivety involved at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Russell17au said:

If taken into court in shackles is abusive then Australia, America and most other countries that do the same thing are abusing the prisoners rights.

All prisoners are shackled for transport between the remand centres and the courts, it is then up to the judge at the court on whether the prisoner remains shackled or not. 

Queensland must be very very different to Western Australia, because what you describe is counter to my experience.

 

hi risk transport is different to low and medium risk transport, and handled differently, as is the handling of escapees.

 

al araibi posed no threat of fleeing and no threat of violence... hand cuffs would have sufficed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stud858 said:

Two questions.

Why did Australia take so long for the counter claim?

Where is the document proof on date of offence to coincide with live telecast tv match?

 

I'd be a terrible judge. Always asking for facts and evidence.

How long did Australia take?

Who did thailand notify of the detention?

when was Australia advised of the detention?

who advised the Australian government of the detention?

and.... considering these questions.... what is a reasonable timeframe?

 

bahrain would have that “proof”.... google will outline the basics for you as it’s well documented, should you really care

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_al-Araibi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Just Weird said:

It was cancelled 3 days after his arrest and after the court case had started, thus, no basis for him to be released without going through the court process.

I have looked and looked but can't find anything to show that any court proceedings had started before the red notice was cancelled (though it's always possible that I have missed something). The Bangkok Post reports that Bahrain did not submit the extradition request until 4 days after the red notice was rescinded. Since al-Araibi was not accused of any crime in Thailand, I can't see why he would have been subject to any court proceedings before the start of the extradition process.

 

Can you tell us what court case had started before the red notice was withdrawn?

 

As far as I can tell, Thailand could (and should) have released al-Araibi as soon as the red notice was cancelled, since they had not received an extradition request at that point, at least according to the timeline given by the news reports I can find.

 

If you can establish a different sequence of events, that would of course change things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

fear of being unjustly arrested in Thailand?.... are you seeking examples?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/thailand/report-thailand/

 

Sent back to countries...

https://asylumaccess.org/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-lack-protection-in-thailand/

 

please provide an example where australia sent someone away, knowing torture was highly likely as part of repatriation.... (and I will condemn that action, too)

Those links are irrelevant to your original assertion that "you could be next as an innocent expat" or words to that effect, I can't be arsed going back to your comment and quoting you exactly.   

 

All the people referred to in those links either committed an offence (whether you approve of the laws or not) or were in the country illegally.

 

"please provide an example where australia sent someone away, knowing torture was highly likely as part of repatriation..."

I did not say that Australia had sent anyone, anywhere, in those circumstances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, farcanell said:

Taken into court in leg irons.... that’s abusive.... and Thai media air brush it away, as if it doesn’t happen, and because they know it’s abusive.

You were talking about "trampled human rights", a prisoner's being secured for travel outside the prison, particularly when he is considered a flight risk, is not a violation of anyone's rights, every country does it in some manner!  And it certainly is not "abusive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The main ones revolve around the principle of non-refoulement. According to the Leiden Journal of International Law:

 

It is also against the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Refugees (which, although Thailand is not a signatory to it, is an international convention nevertheless) and more significantly, the UN Convention on Torture which Thailand is a signatory to, having ratified it in 2007.

 

Article 3 of this latter convention states that, "No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." 

 

Since that was one of the main reasons al-Araibi was granted refugee status in Australia in the first place, that would seem, at least on the face of it, to indicate that processing Bahrain's extradition request would probably mean Thailand is breaking the commitments it signed up to in 2007.

1.  Non-refoulement in this case does not apply to Thailand as Thailand did not grant him asylum.

 

2. "Article 3 of this latter convention states that, "No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where..."

He has not been extradited!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

He IS in the court process, and the judge whom he appeared before the other day certainly could/should have dismissed the case at that point for all the obvious reasons. But instead, AFAIK, the next hearing date was set several months into the future and the guy remains in jail/prison in the meantime being held without bail. That's SIMPLY WRONG, notwithstanding your typical "the Thais never do anything wrong" posturing.

 

"He IS in the court process..."

I know, that's exactly what I said!

 

"...and the guy remains in jail/prison in the meantime being held without bail".

I'm pretty sure that's something to with the fact that he's a proven flight risk and bomb carrier and that there has not been any single suspect in any extradition case who has ever been granted bail before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, scorecard said:

Dismissed by the prime minister?

 

If Thailand wants to be seen as a country with proper internationally acceptable jurisprudence processes then surely the pm should not be interfering.

 

But surely it is valid that when other information comes to light which makes any previous action illegal / inappropriate then the court has a duty / a responsibility to very quickly dismiss the case, through a proper jurisprudence process. Very quickly an important point because someone is being held inappropriately and they have a right to immediate freedom.

 

What?  No idea why you made that odd comment to me as I was asking someone to justify their accusation of abuse against this man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I have looked and looked but can't find anything to show that any court proceedings had started before the red notice was cancelled (though it's always possible that I have missed something). The Bangkok Post reports that Bahrain did not submit the extradition request until 4 days after the red notice was rescinded. Since al-Araibi was not accused of any crime in Thailand, I can't see why he would have been subject to any court proceedings before the start of the extradition process.

 

Can you tell us what court case had started before the red notice was withdrawn?

 

As far as I can tell, Thailand could (and should) have released al-Araibi as soon as the red notice was cancelled, since they had not received an extradition request at that point, at least according to the timeline given by the news reports I can find.

 

If you can establish a different sequence of events, that would of course change things.

"I have looked and looked but can't find anything to show that any court proceedings had started before the red notice was cancelled..."

You missed it, it has been widely reported and that is why he was arrested. 

 

"Can you tell us what court case had started before the red notice was withdrawn?"

Yes, I can. The case he is subject to right now.

 

"As far as I can tell, Thailand could (and should) have released al-Araibi as soon as the red notice was cancelled, since they had not received an extradition request at that point..."

As you said, that is just as far as you could tell!  Thailand had received the extradition request before the notice was cancelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

Those links are irrelevant to your original assertion that "you could be next as an innocent expat" or words to that effect, I can't be arsed going back to your comment and quoting you exactly.   

 

All the people referred to in those links either committed an offence (whether you approve of the laws or not) or were in the country illegally.

 

"please provide an example where australia sent someone away, knowing torture was highly likely as part of repatriation..."

I did not say that Australia had sent anyone, anywhere, in those circumstances!

“Local organizations and community members reported that the military arbitrarily arrested, tortured and otherwise ill-treated Muslim men following attacks by militants in southern Thailand. Human rights defenders working with victims of torture were harassed by military authorities and threatened on social media.”

 

from the link supplied.... note the word “arbitrarily”... but ho hum.... you’ve been here long enough to know that little reason can land someone in trouble.... often to extort a little tea money.... beware pattaya bridge club players breaking the law... blah blah

 

18 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Thailand has a history of sending people back to a country that imprisons them..."

And they don't deserve it?  Who exactly? 

Many countries, including you own, do exactly the same, that is not exclusive to Thailand!

So... by “do exactly the same thing” you actually meant what?

 

i fully understand that you like to equivocate, demanding others justify their POV with links, yet fail to do just that, when challenged.... so carry on old chap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I have looked and looked but can't find anything to show that any court proceedings had started before the red notice was cancelled..."

You missed it, it has been widely reported and that is why he was arrested. 

 

"Can you tell us what court case had started before the red notice was withdrawn?"

Yes, I can. The case he is subject to right now.

 

"As far as I can tell, Thailand could (and should) have released al-Araibi as soon as the red notice was cancelled, since they had not received an extradition request at that point..."

As you said, that is just as far as you could tell!  Thailand had received the extradition request before the notice was cancelled.

Lmao.... per my last.... blah blah but no links or attempts to verify your post.... tilt baby tilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

You were talking about "trampled human rights", a prisoner's being secured for travel outside the prison, particularly when he is considered a flight risk, is not a violation of anyone's rights, every country does it in some manner!  And it certainly is not "abusive".

I was... and that’s just one example.... there are others, and to quote you further....

 

48 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You missed it, it has been widely reported 

 

Meanwhile, as to the example given, are you suggesting al ariabi was a flight risk.... the only flight risk there is your flight of fantasy.

 

and... every country does not present prisoners to court in leg irons... you might need to check that against prison legislation in countries deemed to be full democracies, vs partial democracies or dictatorships, whilst bearing in mind that full democracies have a greater respect for human rights

 

obviously there will be exceptions that make the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just Weird said:

1.  Non-refoulement in this case does not apply to Thailand as Thailand did not grant him asylum.

 

2. "Article 3 of this latter convention states that, "No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where..."

He has not been extradited!

Non-refoulement does not only apply to the country granting asylum - it establishes the principle that no country should send a refugee back to the country which is the one in respect of which they have a well-founded fear of persecution.

 

It is accepted as a jus cogens or peremptory norm, which means it is "a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted." It does not only apply to the country that granted him asylum, it applies to all members of the international community.

 

No he has not been extradited but if there is an international norm saying that he should not be (and non-refoulement seems to provide that) and if you accept that it would be a violation of that principle to extradite him then it surely also violates that norm to subject him to extradition procedures in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just Weird said:

 

"You missed it, it has been widely reported and that is why he was arrested." 

No, he was arrested because a red notice had been issued for him. A red notice is not a "court case."

 

"Yes, I can. The case he is subject to right now."

The case he is subject to now is the extradition process. He can't have been in court for an extradition hearing before an extradition request had been issued.

 

"As you said, that is just as far as you could tell!  Thailand had received the extradition request before the notice was cancelled."

No, I said that as far as I could tell, they should have released him and that it was based on reports in the Bangkok Post. They wrote that the extradition request was received by the Office of the Attorney General on December 3 but the red notice had already been rescinded on November 30. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"...and the guy remains in jail/prison in the meantime being held without bail".

I'm pretty sure that's something to with the fact that he's a proven flight risk and bomb carrier and that there has not been any single suspect in any extradition case who has ever been granted bail before.

 

Nothwithstanding your apparent twisted desire that the guy be deported to Bahrain or held indefinitely in Thai prison or whatever, I see the Thai justice system has finally come to its senses and ordered the guy released and the charges against him dropped. 

 

Better late that never, but not nearly soon enough, considering the article says he'd been jailed in Thailand since Nov. 27.

 

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2019/02/11/court-orders-hakeem-to-be-freed-today/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Russell17au said:

The wife has just listened to the Thai news and it has been reported the Thai court has ruled that Hakeem Al-Araibi will not be extradited to Bahrain but instead he will be returned to Australia.

 

Quote

A source familiar with the case said the Thai government had bought AlAraibi a Thai Airways plane ticket for a flight back to Melbourne tonight.

 

Ohhh, the irony....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2019 at 6:27 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

he asked the Australian Immigration authorities several times if it was OK for him to travel abroad, and he was given repeated assurances that it was safe for him to travel anywhere in the world (except Bahrain) on his Australian-issued refugee documents.

And what happened? Might as well have asked a fortune teller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy it all got sorted, but I'd like to know what really happened. You don't get singled out like that for no reason. I feel a movie coming on.

Btw, saw on Thai sophon tv a movie replicating the tsunami that hit Thailand. Ewan McGregor is in it with a Nicole Kidman lookalike. Great effects. Check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2019 at 11:33 AM, Huckenfell said:

Hidden amongst the Hi-So.

So you think elites means 'hidden amongst the hi-so'.

 

So what does that really mean?

 

The discussion seems to centre around the 'elites' trying to stop advancement / stop other folks from having: good education / opportunity / making decent money, big money, etc.

Because allowing any of the above will disturb / reduce their (their meaning elites and as you seem to describe it the hi-sos), opportunities and therefore their wealth and reduce their ability to control things. 

 

But is it just the hi-sos? And is it true that all hi-sos have this attitude?

 

There are plenty of folks (some totally scaly) who don't attract the 'elites' or the 'hi-so' label, who are out to gain wealth in whatever way they can and have no ethics or morals in any way whatever and don't hesitate to try to control things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...