Okay but fact is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself explained publicly that the offence of flagrante delicto (caught in the act) was constituted by the "continued broadcasting of the clip" even though it had been produced and first broadcast years ago.Alexandra wrote:That's not what I meant either. The police has the means to find those things out remotely, for example that's why they are so successful when targeting Chinese VoIP scammers. They specifically monitor VoIP network traffic, among other things.ali baba wrote:That's not what being caught red handed means. The police can't just break in to people's houses on the off chance that they're making an incriminating phone call.
If Kem Sokha was under investigation, placed under surveillance (very likely, remember the 2016 phone call leaks?) and while under surveillance did something that indicated that he was co-operating with Americans, then raiding him while it was on-going would be to catch him red handed.
That's why it's so crucial to see the evidence before knowing if his immunity was illegally breached or not. If there's a phone recording with Kem Sokha talking with some American agent which is interrupted by the police storming in then bingo.
My point is that there's not enough information available to the public to make my mind up like that.
Bless
Fact is they are NOT saying they had any more evidence or information to justify flagrante delicto.
So it's just ludicrous, fanciful and arbitrary stretched interpretation of the law at play. Again.
Source: