This is an initial post about the court ruling that Bout will not be extradited to the US – there are a number of potential issues about this case, but this post will only deal with a few issues and not the extradition law of Thailand. AP reports:

Chittakorn said the court rejected the extradition request because Bout had not been accused of committing any crimes against Thailand, which has not listed FARC as a terrorist group.

NY Times:

A three-judge panel said that the case did not fall under Thailand’s extradition treaty with the United States for two main reasons. One, the country recognizes the rebels — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC — as a political organization, not a terrorist group.

BBC:

“This is a political case. The Farc is fighting for a political cause and is not a criminal gang. Thailand does not recognise the Farc as a terrorist group,” said the judge delivering the verdict at Bangkok’s Criminal Court.

It is hard find any extra details from the Thai language media about Bout and the court decision, but Matichon had an article summarizing the court decision. Summary is below:

The court decided based on the evidence submitted by both sides. The issue in question in this case, was it a political case in accordance with the Extradition Act 1929 and the Thai-American Extradition Treaty? From testimony of the plaintiff, the defendant sells weapons to FARC, but they fight through political means with the Colombian government to change the administrative system. This is principled (ซึ่งเป็นไปตามอุดมการณ์) and accordance with freedoms (เสรีภาพ). The charges for cooperating with FARC have a political purpose.

BP: One problem is that FARC has not been officially designated as a terrorist organization in accordance with the anti-terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code. Section 135/4 of the Criminal Code states:

Where there is a United Nations Security Council resolution or an announcement prescribing that a group of persons [organisation]* have committed terrorist acts and the Thai government have announced the certification of the resolution or announcement, then a person who is a member of that movement shall be punished with a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years and fine not exceeding 140,000 Baht (emphasis added).

BP: Um, a little unsure whether this requires a UNSC resolution designating an organization as a terrorist organization or whether a mere statement that this organization has committed terrorist acts is sufficient. If the former (which is the most likely), well we have very few groups as the UN itself has stated:

“While the ultimate aim of the Committee is to increase the ability of States to fight terrorism, it is not a sanctions body nor does it maintain a list of terrorist organizations or individuals”

The only list of terrorist organizations would be per Security Council Resolution 1267 and this is limited to “Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities”. Hence, FARC is not in the UNSC Resolution 1267 list and so the Thai government could not have designated it as a terrorist organization (have tried to look for the Thai government list, but have come up with nothing).

The court seems to be stating this and it would be correct to state that FARC has not been designated a terrorist organization by Thailand (if true).. One reason is that Section 135/4 relates to members of terrorist organizations and Bout’s US indictment is not in relation to him being a member of a terrorist organization. Count 4 of the indictment is about providing support for those committing a terrorist act and Sections 135/2 and 3 isn’t limited to providing support to only terrorist organizations, but to those who are committing terrorist acts (a terrorist act is defined in Section 135/1 and in BP’s view Bout’s acts arguably fit within either Section 135/2 or 135/3).

Nevertheless, the court’s statements are bizarre as the court doesn’t just state that FARC is not a designated terrorist organization.It goes further and refers to FARC fighting through political means (the Thai word for fighting doesn’t necessary imply violence). The court almost tries to excuse FARC’s actions and provide justification for its reasoning even though it is designated by the US and EU and other countries as a terrorist organization. It is hardly a organization fighting a principled fight through political means. It fights through violence and has done so for decades. BP agrees with The Nation‘s editorial on this:**

It is unbelievable that the court could see the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) as anything but criminal. The judges must have been naive to think Farc a political organisation, not a criminal group that kidnaps, kills, bombs and terrorises.

BP: Although, Thailand has not designated FARC as a terrorist organization, Thailand’s domestic intelligence agency, NIA refers to FARC as “กลุ่มก่อการร้าย FARC” (terrorist organization FARC).

Perhaps, an amendment to Section 135/4 is in order and change from the United Nations Security Council to EU and the US. It seems sensible to require another body to designate an organization a terrorist organization to prevent governments from listing their domestic opponents as a terrorist organization, but if both the EU and the US designate an organization as a terrorist organization we have a check on the power of the executive.

*Although Count 4 of the indictment is “Conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). This is where there is arguably an issue for interpretation as FARC hasn’t been designated a terrorist organization in Thailand although this depends on double criminality and extradition law.

**Although cannot find any basis to support the statement that FARC has been outlawed by the UN