VZCZCXRO5232
OO RUEHCHI RUEHCN RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHBK #5647/01 3051044
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011044Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0466
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 9975
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 1933
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 5086
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 3832
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 7878
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BANGKOK 005647 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EAP/MLS AND DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/01/2017 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PINR PREL PTER ASEC TH
SUBJECT: COURTS FREE SOUTHERN THAILAND DETAINEES, BUT HUMAN 
RIGHTS CONCERNS PERSIST 
 
REF: A. BANGKOK 5593 (ARMY BANS DETAINEE TRAVEL) 
 
     ¶B. BANGKOK 5570 (CLIMATE OF FEAR) 
     ¶C. BANGKOK 5435 (SOUTHERN RAID OPERATIONS) 
     ¶D. BANGKOK 4653 (UNDERSTANDING THE INSURGENCY) 
     ¶E. BANGKOK 4201 (SOUTHERN HUMAN RIGHTS IMPROVEMENTS) 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission James F. Entwistle, reason 1.4 ( 
b) and (d). 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) Summary:  A mixed October 30 ruling by Thai provincial 
courts, observed by Embassy political officers, compels the 
military to release 97 detainees from southern Thailand 
participating in an army-run "reeducation" training program. 
The ruling appears to allow the program to continue, although 
lawyers are split as to whether the ruling compels the 
military to release all detainees in the program.  An army 
order prohibiting many detainees from returning to their 
homes in four southern provinces remains in effect despite 
the verdict, prompting welfare concerns for those freed. 
Contradicting the claims of military officials, the detainees 
and human rights activists openly questioned the program's 
legality and effectiveness but seemed moderately pleased that 
the verdict did permit the detainees to leave the camps.  The 
fate of the detainees and the military program remain 
unclear.  Representatives of Thai civil society have 
expressed gratitude for the Embassy's observation of recent 
events.  End summary. 
 
COURTS ISSUE MIXED RULING 
------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Since July, the Army has operated "reeducation" 
vocational training camps in Surat Thani, Chumporn and Ranong 
provinces to detain 300 individuals from southern Thailand 
who were arrested in June in widespread "sweep" operations 
designed to combat the southern insurgency.  None of these 
individuals was charged with criminal offenses and some 
detainees claimed the Army had forced them to participate in 
the training programs conducted in these camps.  On October 
30, local courts in Chumporn, Surat Thani, and Ranong 
provinces ordered the Army to release 97 of these detainees 
who on October 5 had filed a habeas corpus petition 
challenging their detentions and forced participation in the 
Army program (reftel A).  Embassy poloffs observed the 
reading of the verdicts in the Surat Thani and Chumporn 
courts.  On October 31, Thai and English-language print media 
reported the presence of Embassy observers in the court 
rooms.  NGOs have expressed gratitude for the USG attention 
to this issue. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In a partial victory for the army, the courts opined 
that the army training program does not constitute a form of 
detention as defined in the Thai criminal code, but rather is 
a credible and voluntary training program.  The courts also 
ruled, however, citing article 32 of the Thai constitution, 
that forcing the petitioners to attend the training program 
against their will is contrary to the constitution and that 
the Army must permit the petitioners (51, 28 and 18 in 
Chumporn, Surat Thani, and Ranong provinces respectively) to 
leave the camps if they so choose.  The court noted the army 
failed to demonstrate a legal basis for forcing the 
petitioners to participate in the training program. 
 
¶4. (C) It remains unclear whether the court decision applies 
to the remaining army program participants, reportedly 206 
people, who did not file court petitions.  Lawyers in 
Chumporn and Surat Thani expressed differing opinions to 
poloffs as to whether the ruling forced the Army to allow all 
the detainees to leave, or whether those not named on the 
original petitions would need to file their own petitions. 
Lawyers for the detainees and representatives of NGOs who 
also monitored the legal proceedings expressed disappointment 
that the courts ruled the training program was "good," 
thereby allowing it to continue.  Preeda Tongchumnum, a Law 
Society of Thailand attorney who was working with the 
petitioners in Surat Thani through an NGO, criticized the 
 
BANGKOK 00005647  002 OF 004 
 
 
courts for "ignoring" evidence that program participants were 
coerced to attend the army program.  The lawyers were 
pleased, however, that the court decision was "in line with 
the law" in that it sustained the petitioners' constitutional 
rights to liberty by permitting them to leave the camps. 
 
ARMY TRAVEL BAN REMAINS IN PLACE 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The court rulings did not address a July 22 Thai 
Army order, based on martial law, that prohibits some 387 
people -- the vast majority participants in the army training 
program -- from returning to their homes in Thailand's 
insurgency-plagued southern provinces of Yala, Pattani, 
Narathiwat, and Songkla.  While reading the verdict, the 
Chumporn court judge noted that even though detainees may now 
opt to leave the army training program, the army travel 
restriction would still prevent them from returning to their 
homes.  Following the ruling, the Surat Thani and Ranong 
petitioners, all of whom were reportedly listed in the army 
travel ban order, chose to depart the camps immediately and 
were transported to the Surat Thani central mosque which has 
offered them temporary shelter.  (Note: The Army's travel ban 
extends for six months from the day the order was put into 
effect, July 22.  At the end of the six month period, the 
Army can extend the travel ban at its discretion.  End note.) 
 
 
¶6. (C) Following the ruling, army representatives at the 
court proceedings in Chumporn offered to lift the travel ban 
for the Chumporn petitioners and allow them to return home 
two months early if the petitioners agreed to complete the 
vocational training program.  (Note: 50 of the 51 Chumporn 
petitioners were scheduled to complete their training by 
November 24, while the 51st will complete the training in 
December.  End note.)  Such an offer does not appear to have 
been extended to detainees in other provinces.  Wanit Lamlua, 
the Chumporn petitioners' attorney, did not trust the 
sincerity of the army offer and advised his clients to return 
to the camp for three additional days "as free men" to give 
Wanit time to exact the army's pledge in writing.  According 
to Wanit, if the Army's offer is legitimate, the petitioners 
will have the option of either returning home early should 
they complete the program, or leaving the camp immediately 
yet having to wait an additional three months to return to 
the South, when the travel ban expires.  Wanit told us that 
he would advise his clients to immediately leave the camp if 
the army failed to provide a written guarantee to support its 
offer. 
 
DETAINEES EAGER TO LEAVE THE CAMPS 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Prior to the court rulings, poloffs conversed with 
detainee petitioners who attended the verdict readings.  In 
Chumporn, the detainees appeared hesitant to comment on 
conditions at the camp, but some confirmed earlier reports 
they had not been permitted to meet with attorneys.  The 
Surat Thani detainees said that conditions in their camp were 
difficult but livable.  Diana Sarosi, a representative of the 
NGO Nonviolence International who observed the Chumporn 
ruling, told poloff that she believed conditions in the camp 
were "nice" based on photographs she had seen.  Several 
detainees expressed eagerness to return to their families, 
although many seemed unaware of the military order that 
prohibited their return to their southern villages. 
Detainees in Surat Thani appeared to be well briefed by their 
attorney, but unclear about specifics of the court 
proceedings.  Prior to the verdict reading, the Surat Thani 
attorney told his clients that they must peacefully accept 
the verdict, regardless of its content.  If the judges ruled 
against them, he said they would find a legal way to 
challenge the ruling.  He joked with them that they all 
appeared to be dressed as if they were going home.  The Surat 
Thani detainees we spoke with were aware of the 4th Army's 
order barring them from returning to their homes, but where 
uncertain what they could do if the judge ruled in their 
favor. 
 
 
BANGKOK 00005647  003 OF 004 
 
 
¶8. (C) Both the Surat Thani and Chumporn detainees said two 
to three hours per day in the camps were spent doing 
vocational training activities, and the rest of the time was 
spent listening to radios, watching television or playing 
sports.  Detainees in Surat Thani were allowed one visit per 
month from their families, but due to the expense of 
traveling to the training camps, they did not receive many 
visits.  The Chumporn detainees said that the Army had 
permitted some family members to live at the training site. 
The detainees also said they were paid a minimal stipend for 
attending the training camps.  Army officials claimed that 
the Chumporn detainees received approximately $3.60 per day 
after expenses for food and shelter were deducted.  (Note: 
The minimum wage is approximately $5.80 per day.  End note.) 
 
ARMY OFFICIALS DENY COERCION 
---------------------------- 
 
¶9. (C) Prior to the verdict reading in Chumporn province, 
poloff spoke with Thai military legal officers defending the 
army training program.  Royal Thai Navy Captain Thanyaphat 
Sisuanphan, a legal officer at the Internal Security 
Operations Command Region 4 in Pattani province, praised the 
army program for providing direction to the lives of the 
detainees and teaching them useful life skills.  He insisted 
that detainees had been free to leave at any time since they 
arrived at the camp, and added that the fact that nobody had 
left thus far testified to the benefits of the program. 
(Note: Prominent human rights advocate Angkanna Neelaphaijit, 
the wife of missing and presumed dead human rights lawyer 
Somchai Neelaphaijit who sat next to poloff in the courtroom, 
strongly disagreed with Thanyaphat's assessment.  End note.) 
Another army lawyer seemed disappointed that the detainees 
wanted to depart the camps, saying "we have taken good care 
of them, we know each other well, we have even played sports 
together." 
 
¶10. (C) Commenting on the army order prohibiting individuals 
from returning to their homes in the South, the military 
representatives claimed that the order was necessary to 
prevent "militant supporters" from aiding the insurgency. 
Thanyaphat said the army would respect a court order to 
release participants in the army program, but said that those 
who chose to leave could be subject to prosecution for 
terrorism-related offenses since they would have shown they 
"lack sincerity by not completing the training" for which 
they had "volunteered".  When asked if detainees would be 
permitted to meet with their attorneys, Thanyaphat said that 
detainees "do not have to meet with lawyers since they are 
not in a detention facility." 
 
IMPACT OF RULING STILL UNCLEAR 
------------------------------ 
 
¶11. (C) It remains unclear what effect the court ruling will 
have in the longer term.  Lawyers and human rights defenders 
told us they fear for the safety of the detainees who will 
opt to leave the camps, and also worry that the government 
will blame acts of violence committed in the near term on 
released detainees.  Questions remain as to where many of 
these individuals will stay until the army's travel ban 
expires.  Angkanna told us she fears there is no way to 
prevent the army from arbitrarily extending its travel 
restriction for released detainees at the conclusion of the 
order's current six-month time frame. 
 
¶12. (C) Angkanna, whose organization promotes the use of the 
Thai judicial system to peacefully resolve disputes, 
expressed optimism that the court rulings would encourage 
other aggrieved southerners to turn to the judicial system to 
resolve conflicts with the state.  Further court cases appear 
likely, as Wanit said he intends to petition the courts to 
release all army detainees held beyond the 37 day limit 
permitted by martial law and the emergency decree.  The 
lawyer for the Surat Thani petitioners said he plans to file 
habeas corpus petitions for the individuals remaining in the 
Surat Thani army camp. 
 
COMMENT 
 
BANGKOK 00005647  004 OF 004 
 
 
------- 
 
¶13. (C) The provincial courts' rulings strike a compromise 
between detainees and the army.  The ruling is likely to 
leave the army training program in place for the next group 
of army detainees, whom army officials expect to arrive in 
the training camps after the first batch has departed in late 
November.  The fate of the petitioners who have been released 
but cannot yet go home, as well as the prospects for the 
detainees who still remain in the army camps, remains 
unclear.  Concerns remain about the long term toll these 
legal maneuvers may have on people caught up in the security 
sweeps in the South.  The Army, through its "strategy" of 
keeping potential militants away from their homes in the 
South, has displaced individuals far from their families, 
jobs, and homes.  Although it is not clear if any of these 
individuals are involved with the insurgency, the Army's 
actions at a minimum make this group of people prime targets 
for possible recruitment by insurgents.  We will continue to 
work closely with human rights organizations to monitor the 
situation as it develops. 
 
BOYCE