Discussion:
PRC Foreign Ministry on U.S. House Comment on Hongkong Article 23 Re: Huge Protest Fills HK Streets
(too old to reply)
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-02 17:43:05 UTC
Permalink
CNN reports that hundreds of thousands of people filled Hongkong
streets to voice their anger regarding a controversial national
security law.
The six-and-a-half-hours demonstration targetted against the
anti-subversion bill and the leadership of Governor Tung Chee-hwa.
The report mentioned that the police estimated 350,000 citizens in the
protest, while the organizers estimated 500,000. They expected a
100,000 turn-up during the oppressing heat.
Read
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/01/hk.protest/index.html
for more details.
Read PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman Kong Quan's response on
the U.S. House comment regarding Hongkong Basic Law Article 23 in

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/51989.html
Goldfinger
2003-07-03 19:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/51989.html
Can anybody traslate or summarize it?
Basically, it's nothing you didn't know before. The commi says that
anti-subversion laws are essential in maintaining sovereignty (read:
persecuting dissidents). And they solemnly object US's objection because US
was meddling with commi's internal affairs.

What's else is new?
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-05 13:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goldfinger
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/51989.html
Can anybody traslate or summarize it?
Basically, it's nothing you didn't know before. The commi says that
persecuting dissidents). And they solemnly object US's objection because US
was meddling with commi's internal affairs.
What's else is new?
On July 3, 2003, Mr. Kong Quan has something new. Read his press
conference in

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/52249.html

The first five questions all concentrated on Article 23 issue of
Hongkong. The fifth question and its answer are interesting:

Question: Two days ago a reporter asked for your comment on Hongkong
residents demonstrating regarding Article 23, and you
replied that it did not happen yet. Now we have seen it
happened, and there were more people participating than
expected. What does Chinese government think regarding
this round of poll expression by Hongkong residents?
Does "one country two systems" suffer negatively?
Answer: The success of 1C2S in Hongkong and Macau is obvious for
everyone. Hongkong SAR implementing Article 23 of the Basic
Law is completely necessary on its own, it is consistent
with Hongkong and the whole nation interests, and it matches
the legislation tradition in the world. It is an issue
completely within Hongkong autonomy. Comments from all
corners in Hongkong have been deeply solicited when Article
23 was in the proposing stage. It will be in vain if some
people attemt to blemish 1C2S.

On July 2, 2003, China Times in Taiwan has an editorial "Who Broke the
1C2S Window", where the original can be read in

http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110514+112003070200195,00.html

The outline of one of the paragraphs in this editorial addresses why
Article 23 attracted such an opposition but similar laws were doing
fine in other countries.
(a) Mainland China has already marched on the highway of
capitalism and free economy, but the partial change did
not initiate a foundamental one. The authoritarian
politics in Beijing cannot convince people to trust any
political promises from Beijing.
(b) Hongkong used to be a colony, but a good legislative
structure was built under London. The freedom and human
right issues implied by this legislative structure are
still tramped often in Mainland China.

It also mentioned that former PRC Deputy Minister Qichen Qian
commented on the people opposing Article 23 "they have ghosts in their
hearts (they hold their conspiracies)", and it will attract a public
blame.
Senbee Norimaki
2003-07-05 13:34:50 UTC
Permalink
G> Basically, it's nothing you didn't know before. The commi says that
G> anti-subversion laws are essential in maintaining sovereignty (read:
G> persecuting dissidents). And they solemnly object US's objection
G> because US was meddling with commi's internal affairs.

Unfortunatly, nothing. :-(
--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-05 22:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senbee Norimaki
G> Basically, it's nothing you didn't know before. The commi says that
G> persecuting dissidents). And they solemnly object US's objection
G> because US was meddling with commi's internal affairs.
Unfortunatly, nothing. :-(
According to

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/04/0704184.htm (English)
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/04/0704187.htm (Chinese)

Tung has already expressed that he would consider carefully whether
any modifications of Article 23 would be made.

On July 5th, 2003, CNN reports that Tung would back down over Article
23 proposal. In

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/05/hk.law/index.html

CNN reported that Tung said, "After repeated and detailed discussions,
we have decided to make amendments to further allay people's fears."
Nevertheless, Tung had no plan to postpone the legislation which was
scheduled next week on the 9th. Organizers for the Tuesday protest is
preparing for another one next Wednesday with protesters in white.

Possible modifications include protections for journalists who publish
classified information if they can show such actions are in the public
interests. The CNN page includes some examples of treason, secession,
subversion and sedition.

Xinhua News Agency reported Tung's comment on July 5th in

http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2003-07/05/content_955803.htm

However, Tung's plan to consider modifying certain parts of Article 23
was not mentioned in Xinhua's report.
Senbee Norimaki
2003-07-07 04:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ribes!
You wrote on 5 Jul 2003 18:33:00 -0400:


Rc> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/05/hk.law/index.html

Rc> CNN reported that Tung said, "After repeated and detailed discussions,
Rc> we have decided to make amendments to further allay people's fears."

I've heard yesterday those news and I'm very very glad about it. Maybe the
big parade was useful?

I hope Tung will really amend the art.23 and make it come similar to other
country's one (so: only against terrorism and violent associations).

A hopeful Stefano
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-07 23:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/05/hk.law/index.html
Rc> CNN reported that Tung said, "After repeated and detailed discussions,
Rc> we have decided to make amendments to further allay people's fears."
I've heard yesterday those news and I'm very very glad about it. Maybe the
big parade was useful?
I hope Tung will really amend the art.23 and make it come similar to other
country's one (so: only against terrorism and violent associations).
Tung has announced postponing the legislation of Article 23 in
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707015.htm (Chinese)
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707019.htm (English)

Tien from Liberty Party switching sides dealt the last straw for Tung,
according to some analyses by Taiwan newspapers. Liberty Party
switching side means Tung would not have received enough support for
the proposed July 9th second reading of Article 23. Tien made the
change after a visit to Beijing.
charles liu
2003-07-09 21:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/05/hk.law/index.html
Rc> CNN reported that Tung said, "After repeated and detailed discussions,
Rc> we have decided to make amendments to further allay people's fears."
I've heard yesterday those news and I'm very very glad about it. Maybe the
big parade was useful?
I hope Tung will really amend the art.23 and make it come similar to other
country's one (so: only against terrorism and violent associations).
Tung has announced postponing the legislation of Article 23 in
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707015.htm (Chinese)
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707019.htm (English)
Tien from Liberty Party switching sides dealt the last straw for Tung,
according to some analyses by Taiwan newspapers. Liberty Party
switching side means Tung would not have received enough support for
the proposed July 9th second reading of Article 23. Tien made the
change after a visit to Beijing.
This doesn't sound like art. 23 is being stalled at Beijin's
direction. It sounds more like HK SAR's separate political system at
work (Is Liverty Party a CCP rubberstamp?)

Wow, 1C2S at work. Wonderful.
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-10 02:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles liu
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Tung has announced postponing the legislation of Article 23 in
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707015.htm (Chinese)
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200307/07/0707019.htm (English)
Tien from Liberty Party switching sides dealt the last straw for Tung,
according to some analyses by Taiwan newspapers. Liberty Party
switching side means Tung would not have received enough support for
the proposed July 9th second reading of Article 23. Tien made the
change after a visit to Beijing.
This doesn't sound like art. 23 is being stalled at Beijin's
direction. It sounds more like HK SAR's separate political system at
work (Is Liverty Party a CCP rubberstamp?)
We need to think what happened between July 4 and July 7 so he would
mention nothing about the deferring on July 4th and suddenly he made
the decision on 7th. He should explain the thinking background to
Hongkong residents.

Too bad. Tung does not need to answer to them.
Post by charles liu
Wow, 1C2S at work. Wonderful.
It is so wonderful for you that you are planning to move to Hongkong
and flee from U.S. Patriot Act next week, I suppose.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-11 14:53:57 UTC
Permalink
smoothgooseb>
3rd, Immigrants whom used to enjoy nearly the same legal rights are
now with little constitutional protection per passing of USA PA.
Honestly, I fear if there's ever a war between China/US, all my posts
will be dug up and I'll be explaining them to a dozen armed FBI
agents, while hanging upside down with a giant light blinding me. And
my family will either be locked up like me, or not knowing what
happened to me - thanks to USA Patriot Act. Doesn't matter I'm from
Taiwan or what, I'll be a terrorist and a fu*king ch*nk to the law.
That is very likely.

Already happened to Wen-Ho Lee, Katrina Leung, who may or may
not have been a spy.
Now we come a full circle, isn't this what HKer fear about Art 23?
Anyone from TW, has business in TW, studied in TW, speaks Taiwanese
dialect, may get same treatment under art. 23, i.e. they become
towelheads.

Maybe this will be put it better in your perspective.

Wing
Wing C Ng
2003-07-12 17:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Honestly, I fear if there's ever a war between China/US, all my posts
will be dug up and I'll be explaining them to a dozen armed FBI
agents, while hanging upside down with a giant light blinding me. And
my family will either be locked up like me, or not knowing what
happened to me - thanks to USA Patriot Act. Doesn't matter I'm from
Taiwan or what, I'll be a terrorist and a fu*king ch*nk to the law.
That is very likely.
That is very unlikely. Think about what happens when two
nuclear-powered countries engage in a war. I would worry more about
the Judgment Day rather than agents chatting with me.
They can certainly get into Cold War II, or get into a limited
conventional war, e.g. over TW.
Post by Wing C Ng
Already happened to Wen-Ho Lee, Katrina Leung, who may or may
not have been a spy.
Nobody knows. However, keep in mind that they were being charged not
because what they said or what they thought, as worried by Hongkong
residents about Article 23. Lee was charged for releasing nuclear
confidential information, and Leung was charged for being a double
agent.
These people are prosecuted as spies, in both cases with very
slim or no evidence. They happen to be ethnic Chinese, and
the country they allegedly spied for is China. I wouldn't
want to live here if there is war, cold or otherwise, with
China.
So, defend for Wen Ho Lee and Katrina Leung if we like, but their
cases are not analogies for U.S. Patriot Act or Hongkong Article 23.
The U.S. PA is a xenophobic overreaction, similar to concentration
camp for ethnic Japanese in WW2, and similar to charging ethnic
Chinese for spying for China on slim or no evidence. This phenomenon
has nothing to do with art. 23.
Post by Wing C Ng
Now we come a full circle, isn't this what HKer fear about Art 23?
Anyone from TW, has business in TW, studied in TW, speaks Taiwanese
dialect, may get same treatment under art. 23, i.e. they become
towelheads.
This means Charles Liu is included. He claimed he came from Taiwan
though he did not spell Kaohsiung correctly, which was taught in
junior high schools in Taiwan during English courses.
Post by Wing C Ng
Maybe this will be put it better in your perspective.
In this case art. 23 legislation creates the legal basis for
doing all these things. Distinct from U.S. PA. In the U.S.
they suspect ethnics for betraying the U.S. There is no analogous
feeling among HK people at all w.r.t. to the TW connection.
It was purely legal, enabled by art. 23 legislation.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-12 23:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
That is very unlikely. Think about what happens when two
nuclear-powered countries engage in a war. I would worry more about
the Judgment Day rather than agents chatting with me.
They can certainly get into Cold War II, or get into a limited
conventional war, e.g. over TW.
If you want to extend the worrying condition to a "Cold War II", the
same thing can be applied to Hongkong Article 23 and U.S. Patriot Act,
that is,
(1) *BEFORE* there is a war across Taiwan Strait, Hongkong
residents can be considered treason or "separating the
motherland" by supporting status quo after Article 23
is done -- right now Beijing and Taipei are exactly in
the "cold war II" state.
(2) Charles Liu should start worrying about the feds
collecting his messages *NOW*, given U.S. Patriot Act
is there, and he had better stop posting. If he keeps
posting and nothing happens to him, then he himself becomes
a witness how U.S. Patriot Act will be enforced.

There cannot be a limited conventional war. Beijing has been play
tough for so long regarding Taiwan, and if there is such a limited war
Beijing will find no easy way to step down the staircase. The U.S.
will also do its share to avoid moving into this position.
Post by Wing C Ng
Nobody knows. However, keep in mind that they were being charged not
because what they said or what they thought, as worried by Hongkong
residents about Article 23. Lee was charged for releasing nuclear
confidential information, and Leung was charged for being a double
agent.
These people are prosecuted as spies, in both cases with very
slim or no evidence. They happen to be ethnic Chinese, and
the country they allegedly spied for is China. I wouldn't
want to live here if there is war, cold or otherwise, with
China.
Whether they were charged with tons of evidences or no evidences is
irrelevant of our discussions here about Hongkong Article 23 and U.S.
Patriot Act, so let me suggest we stop mentioning them in this thread.

Personally I do not sympathize them much. Dr. Lee knows clearly what
sensitive jobs he is working on and he would backup data onto media
and brought them outside his office; Lee's wife is a FBI informant and
she should know clearly what activities will raise suspicion concerns
(who knows -- maybe her job was monitoring other Chinese scientists
and probably even her husband). Ms. Leung was willing to work for FBI
too and again she should know clearly under what conditions FBI will
start suspecting her.

If the evidences are weak or nearly non-existent, they should be
acquitted and set free. But their being caught in such a condition
deserve no sympathy.
Post by Wing C Ng
So, defend for Wen Ho Lee and Katrina Leung if we like, but their
cases are not analogies for U.S. Patriot Act or Hongkong Article 23.
The U.S. PA is a xenophobic overreaction, similar to concentration
camp for ethnic Japanese in WW2, and similar to charging ethnic
Chinese for spying for China on slim or no evidence. This phenomenon
has nothing to do with art. 23.
That is my point -- why should Charles Liu raise it here?

But if what you said above is true, let's dig out what U.S. Senator
Mitch McConnell has voted regarding U.S. Patriot Act -- his wife is an
ethnic Chinese named Elaine Chao, the U.S. Labor Secretary. Please be
specific in which item, which paragraph the act could be used to
charge ethnic Chinese for spying for china on slim or no evidence.
Post by Wing C Ng
In this case art. 23 legislation creates the legal basis for
doing all these things. Distinct from U.S. PA. In the U.S.
they suspect ethnics for betraying the U.S. There is no analogous
feeling among HK people at all w.r.t. to the TW connection.
It was purely legal, enabled by art. 23 legislation.
In PRC the government can do things without any legal basis. A
"national security" hat can be used to cover almost anything. Article
23 simply provides a basis.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-13 15:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
That is very unlikely. Think about what happens when two
nuclear-powered countries engage in a war. I would worry more about
the Judgment Day rather than agents chatting with me.
They can certainly get into Cold War II, or get into a limited
conventional war, e.g. over TW.
If you want to extend the worrying condition to a "Cold War II", the
same thing can be applied to Hongkong Article 23 and U.S. Patriot Act,
that is,
(1) *BEFORE* there is a war across Taiwan Strait, Hongkong
residents can be considered treason or "separating the
motherland" by supporting status quo after Article 23
is done -- right now Beijing and Taipei are exactly in
the "cold war II" state.
I think that is correct.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) Charles Liu should start worrying about the feds
collecting his messages *NOW*, given U.S. Patriot Act
is there, and he had better stop posting. If he keeps
posting and nothing happens to him, then he himself becomes
a witness how U.S. Patriot Act will be enforced.
U.S. PA is mainly directed against Arabs at this moment.
However, if Cold War II starts with China, it will be directed
against ethnic Chinese. Although if they collect his messages
now, they may be used against him later, with Cold War II
against China starts.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
There cannot be a limited conventional war. Beijing has been play
tough for so long regarding Taiwan, and if there is such a limited war
Beijing will find no easy way to step down the staircase. The U.S.
will also do its share to avoid moving into this position.
Post by Wing C Ng
Nobody knows. However, keep in mind that they were being charged not
because what they said or what they thought, as worried by Hongkong
residents about Article 23. Lee was charged for releasing nuclear
confidential information, and Leung was charged for being a double
agent.
These people are prosecuted as spies, in both cases with very
slim or no evidence. They happen to be ethnic Chinese, and
the country they allegedly spied for is China. I wouldn't
want to live here if there is war, cold or otherwise, with
China.
Whether they were charged with tons of evidences or no evidences is
irrelevant of our discussions here about Hongkong Article 23 and U.S.
Patriot Act, so let me suggest we stop mentioning them in this thread.
Prosecution is an executive act. If they prosecute with no
evidence whatsoever, then the defendant goes free, while *no one*
in gov. pays any consequence.

To prosecute, they need some kind of law. Anti-spying law has
been around for ages. Art. 23 and U.S. PA are new. They simply
add new tools to the arsenal of the prosecutor, who are often
unscrupulous and throw the book at you without any evidence.
So I suppose Lee and Leung are only tangentially relevant.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Personally I do not sympathize them much. Dr. Lee knows clearly what
sensitive jobs he is working on and he would backup data onto media
and brought them outside his office; Lee's wife is a FBI informant and
she should know clearly what activities will raise suspicion concerns
(who knows -- maybe her job was monitoring other Chinese scientists
and probably even her husband). Ms. Leung was willing to work for FBI
too and again she should know clearly under what conditions FBI will
start suspecting her.
If the evidences are weak or nearly non-existent, they should be
acquitted and set free. But their being caught in such a condition
deserve no sympathy.
Seems like you don't sympathize because you suspect circumstantially
that they did something wrong or at least stupid. That is not
supposed to be the view of the law. They are guilty if there is
enough admissible evidence, and not guilty otherwise. I also
suspect the same way, but ideally they should not be prosecuted
at all if they have no evidence. Unfortunately there is no mechanism
to prevent that, or even to remedy after their prosecution fails.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
So, defend for Wen Ho Lee and Katrina Leung if we like, but their
cases are not analogies for U.S. Patriot Act or Hongkong Article 23.
The U.S. PA is a xenophobic overreaction, similar to concentration
camp for ethnic Japanese in WW2, and similar to charging ethnic
Chinese for spying for China on slim or no evidence. This phenomenon
has nothing to do with art. 23.
That is my point -- why should Charles Liu raise it here?
But if what you said above is true, let's dig out what U.S. Senator
Mitch McConnell has voted regarding U.S. Patriot Act -- his wife is an
ethnic Chinese named Elaine Chao, the U.S. Labor Secretary. Please be
specific in which item, which paragraph the act could be used to
charge ethnic Chinese for spying for china on slim or no evidence.
Sen. McConnell was probably not thinking that it will be applied
to ethnic Chinese, he assumed it was only directed against Arabs.
Forgetting that, once a bad law is on the books, it can be applied
against anyone.

Regina Yip made "assurances" that even art. 23 legislation is
written in such and such a way, she "assured" the audience that
it will *not* be applied against so-and-so under such-and-such a
situation. Completely worthless. "Assurances" by anyone in
the exec. branch carries no weight. Any future prosecution is
by the letter of the law. That's why bad laws should never be
enacted, notwithstanding the "goodwill" or "assurances".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
In this case art. 23 legislation creates the legal basis for
doing all these things. Distinct from U.S. PA. In the U.S.
they suspect ethnics for betraying the U.S. There is no analogous
feeling among HK people at all w.r.t. to the TW connection.
It was purely legal, enabled by art. 23 legislation.
In PRC the government can do things without any legal basis. A
"national security" hat can be used to cover almost anything. Article
23 simply provides a basis.
Anyone with the slightest trouble with the PRC gov. should never
go to the PRC. HK supposedly (and still does) operate on a different
basis: the rule of the law. Up to now it is safe to go to HK.
After art. 23 legislation, it may no longer be safe, e.g. anyone who
sympathized with Taiwan or Tibet indep. may get into serious legal
trouble in HK, and any Falungong member, just forget about going
to HK.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-14 06:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
If you want to extend the worrying condition to a "Cold War II", the
same thing can be applied to Hongkong Article 23 and U.S. Patriot Act,
that is,
(1) *BEFORE* there is a war across Taiwan Strait, Hongkong
residents can be considered treason or "separating the
motherland" by supporting status quo after Article 23
is done -- right now Beijing and Taipei are exactly in
the "cold war II" state.
I think that is correct.
That gives Hongkong residents more reasons to worry during the course
of Article 23 legislation.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) Charles Liu should start worrying about the feds
collecting his messages *NOW*, given U.S. Patriot Act
is there, and he had better stop posting. If he keeps
posting and nothing happens to him, then he himself becomes
a witness how U.S. Patriot Act will be enforced.
U.S. PA is mainly directed against Arabs at this moment.
However, if Cold War II starts with China, it will be directed
against ethnic Chinese. Although if they collect his messages
now, they may be used against him later, with Cold War II
against China starts.
Do you think this will affect what you wrote here? Do you think LT
Lee and Charles Liu will change what they wrote because of this act?
You have already made it clear you will leave once this phase is
reached.

I am not defending for U.S. Patriot Act, but I do not worry about it
either. My Arab American officemate and also my neighbor shows his
concerns but he is still living and working happily.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Whether they were charged with tons of evidences or no evidences is
irrelevant of our discussions here about Hongkong Article 23 and U.S.
Patriot Act, so let me suggest we stop mentioning them in this thread.
Prosecution is an executive act. If they prosecute with no
evidence whatsoever, then the defendant goes free, while *no one*
in gov. pays any consequence.
Not really. If prosecutors continue producing this kind of
prosecutions, soon congressmen will start asking whether the
prosecutors are doing their jobs (by spending a lot of public funds on
cases they fail).
Post by Wing C Ng
To prosecute, they need some kind of law. Anti-spying law has
been around for ages. Art. 23 and U.S. PA are new. They simply
add new tools to the arsenal of the prosecutor, who are often
unscrupulous and throw the book at you without any evidence.
So I suppose Lee and Leung are only tangentially relevant.
The U.S. can definitely add new tools, but U.S. Supreme Court might
strike it down, like Computer Decency Act. Of course it is also
possible that the U.S. Supreme Court might uphold it. We do not know
until we see a case.

How many times have PRC supreme court struck down some laws of PRC?
How confident do you think Hongkong residents are regarding the court
striking down some part of Article 23?
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Personally I do not sympathize them much. Dr. Lee knows clearly what
sensitive jobs he is working on and he would backup data onto media
and brought them outside his office; Lee's wife is a FBI informant and
she should know clearly what activities will raise suspicion concerns
(who knows -- maybe her job was monitoring other Chinese scientists
and probably even her husband). Ms. Leung was willing to work for FBI
too and again she should know clearly under what conditions FBI will
start suspecting her.
If the evidences are weak or nearly non-existent, they should be
acquitted and set free. But their being caught in such a condition
deserve no sympathy.
Seems like you don't sympathize because you suspect circumstantially
that they did something wrong or at least stupid. That is not
supposed to be the view of the law. They are guilty if there is
enough admissible evidence, and not guilty otherwise. I also
suspect the same way, but ideally they should not be prosecuted
at all if they have no evidence. Unfortunately there is no mechanism
to prevent that, or even to remedy after their prosecution fails.
What I think of them have nothing to do with the laws. The point is,
if they were willing to work for FBI to monitor others and/or collect
information, they should know what to do to protect themselves (from
being suspected), and if they do not, then I pay no sympathy to them.

Change "FBI" above into PRC Ministry of State Security, KGB, or
whatever if you like. But later I would refrain from commenting on
Lee and Leung because that deviates from the subject.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That is my point -- why should Charles Liu raise it here?
But if what you said above is true, let's dig out what U.S. Senator
Mitch McConnell has voted regarding U.S. Patriot Act -- his wife is an
ethnic Chinese named Elaine Chao, the U.S. Labor Secretary. Please be
specific in which item, which paragraph the act could be used to
charge ethnic Chinese for spying for china on slim or no evidence.
Sen. McConnell was probably not thinking that it will be applied
to ethnic Chinese, he assumed it was only directed against Arabs.
Forgetting that, once a bad law is on the books, it can be applied
against anyone.
In case the court upholds the law.
Post by Wing C Ng
Regina Yip made "assurances" that even art. 23 legislation is
written in such and such a way, she "assured" the audience that
it will *not* be applied against so-and-so under such-and-such a
situation. Completely worthless. "Assurances" by anyone in
the exec. branch carries no weight. Any future prosecution is
by the letter of the law. That's why bad laws should never be
enacted, notwithstanding the "goodwill" or "assurances".
Basically nobody can assure anything, even in the judicial branch.
Your promises are effective only when you are in your current position
-- and sometimes even this kind of promises do not work all the time.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
In PRC the government can do things without any legal basis. A
"national security" hat can be used to cover almost anything. Article
23 simply provides a basis.
Anyone with the slightest trouble with the PRC gov. should never
go to the PRC. HK supposedly (and still does) operate on a different
basis: the rule of the law. Up to now it is safe to go to HK.
After art. 23 legislation, it may no longer be safe, e.g. anyone who
sympathized with Taiwan or Tibet indep. may get into serious legal
trouble in HK, and any Falungong member, just forget about going
to HK.
The problem is some Falun Gong members in Hongkong do not need to *GO*
to Hongkong. They are *IN* Hongkong now.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-14 16:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(1) *BEFORE* there is a war across Taiwan Strait, Hongkong
residents can be considered treason or "separating the
motherland" by supporting status quo after Article 23
is done -- right now Beijing and Taipei are exactly in
the "cold war II" state.
I think that is correct.
That gives Hongkong residents more reasons to worry during the course
of Article 23 legislation.
In fact that's why the businessmen are also worried about
their "trading with the enemy (TW)" right now.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) Charles Liu should start worrying about the feds
collecting his messages *NOW*, given U.S. Patriot Act
is there, and he had better stop posting. If he keeps
posting and nothing happens to him, then he himself becomes
a witness how U.S. Patriot Act will be enforced.
U.S. PA is mainly directed against Arabs at this moment.
However, if Cold War II starts with China, it will be directed
against ethnic Chinese. Although if they collect his messages
now, they may be used against him later, with Cold War II
against China starts.
Do you think this will affect what you wrote here? Do you think LT
I didn't say anything pro-"Commie China".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Lee and Charles Liu will change what they wrote because of this act?
You have already made it clear you will leave once this phase is
reached.
That's up to them to decide.

I surely don't want to go to a concentration camp like the
Japanese did in WW2.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not defending for U.S. Patriot Act, but I do not worry about it
either. My Arab American officemate and also my neighbor shows his
concerns but he is still living and working happily.
I am surprised. I think Arab-Americans should be worried.
If they clean shave and change their names, they can pass for
Hispanic. The Chinese don't have such an option, although
I suppose one can change the name to "Suzuki".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Whether they were charged with tons of evidences or no evidences is
irrelevant of our discussions here about Hongkong Article 23 and U.S.
Patriot Act, so let me suggest we stop mentioning them in this thread.
Prosecution is an executive act. If they prosecute with no
evidence whatsoever, then the defendant goes free, while *no one*
in gov. pays any consequence.
Not really. If prosecutors continue producing this kind of
prosecutions, soon congressmen will start asking whether the
prosecutors are doing their jobs (by spending a lot of public funds on
cases they fail).
Well, I don't hear about the prosecutors of the Lee case getting
into any trouble. The fed. judge apologized to him on behalf of
the entire U.S. How much worse can it get?
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
To prosecute, they need some kind of law. Anti-spying law has
been around for ages. Art. 23 and U.S. PA are new. They simply
add new tools to the arsenal of the prosecutor, who are often
unscrupulous and throw the book at you without any evidence.
So I suppose Lee and Leung are only tangentially relevant.
The U.S. can definitely add new tools, but U.S. Supreme Court might
strike it down, like Computer Decency Act. Of course it is also
possible that the U.S. Supreme Court might uphold it. We do not know
until we see a case.
One can make reasonable guesses. Holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely
as "enemy combatant" probably will be struck down.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How many times have PRC supreme court struck down some laws of PRC?
Never.

The judiciary of most "civil law" systems (China is one of them)
often does not have power to strike down a law at all. E.g. France.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How confident do you think Hongkong residents are regarding the court
striking down some part of Article 23?
The Chief Justice was my schoolmate :-), and he is good person.
However, the NPC might claim this is "mainland-HK relations"
and reverse the Court of Final Appeals, like it did on right
of mainlanders to HK residence few years ago.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
What I think of them have nothing to do with the laws. The point is,
if they were willing to work for FBI to monitor others and/or collect
information, they should know what to do to protect themselves (from
being suspected), and if they do not, then I pay no sympathy to them.
Change "FBI" above into PRC Ministry of State Security, KGB, or
whatever if you like. But later I would refrain from commenting on
Lee and Leung because that deviates from the subject.
I agree we shouldn't talk about them any more.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Regina Yip made "assurances" that even art. 23 legislation is
written in such and such a way, she "assured" the audience that
it will *not* be applied against so-and-so under such-and-such a
situation. Completely worthless. "Assurances" by anyone in
the exec. branch carries no weight. Any future prosecution is
by the letter of the law. That's why bad laws should never be
enacted, notwithstanding the "goodwill" or "assurances".
Basically nobody can assure anything, even in the judicial branch.
The judiciary can "assure" by striking it down.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Your promises are effective only when you are in your current position
-- and sometimes even this kind of promises do not work all the time.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
In PRC the government can do things without any legal basis. A
"national security" hat can be used to cover almost anything. Article
23 simply provides a basis.
Anyone with the slightest trouble with the PRC gov. should never
go to the PRC. HK supposedly (and still does) operate on a different
basis: the rule of the law. Up to now it is safe to go to HK.
After art. 23 legislation, it may no longer be safe, e.g. anyone who
sympathized with Taiwan or Tibet indep. may get into serious legal
trouble in HK, and any Falungong member, just forget about going
to HK.
The problem is some Falun Gong members in Hongkong do not need to *GO*
to Hongkong. They are *IN* Hongkong now.
C.H.Tung had to withdraw the anti-Falungong portion.
They have been most active in raising concern about the art. 23
legislation. Looks effective, at least that portion is gone.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-15 06:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That gives Hongkong residents more reasons to worry during the course
of Article 23 legislation.
In fact that's why the businessmen are also worried about
their "trading with the enemy (TW)" right now.
I think the tricky thing here is, if Hongkong SAR and Beijing insist
to push for Article 23 legislation, they will soon hit the issue about
classifying Taiwan into "friend" or "foe"; and neither of them would
be easy. The current scheme works because there is not such a
black-and-white classification.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Do you think this will affect what you wrote here? Do you think LT
I didn't say anything pro-"Commie China".
Should you worry about U.S. Patriot Act, whether you said something or
not is not important -- it is whether the authority thought you said
it or not.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Lee and Charles Liu will change what they wrote because of this act?
You have already made it clear you will leave once this phase is
reached.
That's up to them to decide.
I surely don't want to go to a concentration camp like the
Japanese did in WW2.
Nobody likes it, though personally I doubt it will happen again. In
World War II, I believe it was quite easy to "cut" between Japanese
immigrants/citizens and the rest, with few false alarms, and few false
positive. It is no longer the case today for Chinese given that
Chinese marry other ethnic groups and Chinese professors are scattered
around the universities, for instance.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not defending for U.S. Patriot Act, but I do not worry about it
either. My Arab American officemate and also my neighbor shows his
concerns but he is still living and working happily.
I am surprised. I think Arab-Americans should be worried.
If they clean shave and change their names, they can pass for
Hispanic. The Chinese don't have such an option, although
I suppose one can change the name to "Suzuki".
People can feel differently. My Arabian American friend does not fear
much at all -- his wife is another Arabian American, and they feel
fine to visit Farmer Market at Fairfax and the 3rd in Los Angeles,
walking around Saturday Market in Portland, or Pikes Market drinking
coffee in Pikes Market in Seattle. On the other hand, Charles Liu has
already started worrying about U.S. Patriot Act being applied.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Not really. If prosecutors continue producing this kind of
prosecutions, soon congressmen will start asking whether the
prosecutors are doing their jobs (by spending a lot of public funds on
cases they fail).
Well, I don't hear about the prosecutors of the Lee case getting
into any trouble. The fed. judge apologized to him on behalf of
the entire U.S. How much worse can it get?
I do not know. But I do believe that a prosecutor with a small
success ratio in bringing charges against the accused would not have a
bright career future, no matter if he/she stays in the government
system, or opening his/her own law firm. For a well-known case like
that on Dr. Lee, you receive more points when you succeed but you get
a penalty too when you lose.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The U.S. can definitely add new tools, but U.S. Supreme Court might
strike it down, like Computer Decency Act. Of course it is also
possible that the U.S. Supreme Court might uphold it. We do not know
until we see a case.
One can make reasonable guesses. Holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely
as "enemy combatant" probably will be struck down.
Pay attention to Moussaoui's case. Today the development shows the
U.S. executive branch could apply the laws excessively, but on the
other hand we see that the judicial branch does not necessarily
cooperate with the executive branch, even for a case like Moussaoui's.

This might explain why in general Americans have more confidence in
the judicial branch being another line of defense for U.S. Patriot Act
should it be abused.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How many times have PRC supreme court struck down some laws of PRC?
Never.
The judiciary of most "civil law" systems (China is one of them)
often does not have power to strike down a law at all. E.g. France.
I am not a legal expert. In the U.S. this happens often -- Computer
Decency Act is one, and the Texas sodomy law is another. In ROC it
happens occasionally.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How confident do you think Hongkong residents are regarding the court
striking down some part of Article 23?
The Chief Justice was my schoolmate :-), and he is good person.
However, the NPC might claim this is "mainland-HK relations"
and reverse the Court of Final Appeals, like it did on right
of mainlanders to HK residence few years ago.
If he is a good justice, whether you are his schoolmate or not should
not matter.

That incident regarding Hongkong residence is another example against
1C2S. Of course, some people might assign a low weight to these cases
and believe 1C2S still works up to now, and some others might assign a
large weight to them and conclude "this 1C2S is not what I was
promised."
Post by Wing C Ng
(snip)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Basically nobody can assure anything, even in the judicial branch.
The judiciary can "assure" by striking it down.
Not sure about Hongkong, but in the U.S. the court can resurrect
something by having a new verdict. Therefore as a judge you can
strike down a law today but you cannot ensure what happens 10 years
later.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The problem is some Falun Gong members in Hongkong do not need to *GO*
to Hongkong. They are *IN* Hongkong now.
C.H.Tung had to withdraw the anti-Falungong portion.
They have been most active in raising concern about the art. 23
legislation. Looks effective, at least that portion is gone.
I do not see it included in Tung's three compromises -- the only one
is something like an association being declared illegal in Mainland
China will no longer be automatically illegal in Hongkong -- but
Hongkong SAR can still declare Falun Gong illegal on its own. Of
course with this law it will be easier to do so.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-15 17:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That gives Hongkong residents more reasons to worry during the course
of Article 23 legislation.
In fact that's why the businessmen are also worried about
their "trading with the enemy (TW)" right now.
I think the tricky thing here is, if Hongkong SAR and Beijing insist
to push for Article 23 legislation, they will soon hit the issue about
classifying Taiwan into "friend" or "foe"; and neither of them would
be easy. The current scheme works because there is not such a
black-and-white classification.
The key is "secession" as a crime under art. 23. If TW declares
indep., then it's black & white. With Pres. Bian in power, did
TW already secede? That's gray area.

Wing
Wing C Ng
2003-07-15 17:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That gives Hongkong residents more reasons to worry during the course
of Article 23 legislation.
In fact that's why the businessmen are also worried about
their "trading with the enemy (TW)" right now.
I think the tricky thing here is, if Hongkong SAR and Beijing insist
to push for Article 23 legislation, they will soon hit the issue about
classifying Taiwan into "friend" or "foe"; and neither of them would
be easy. The current scheme works because there is not such a
black-and-white classification.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Do you think this will affect what you wrote here? Do you think LT
I didn't say anything pro-"Commie China".
Should you worry about U.S. Patriot Act, whether you said something or
not is not important -- it is whether the authority thought you said
it or not.
At least it will be a defense when it comes before a court, - if
it comes before a court.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Lee and Charles Liu will change what they wrote because of this act?
You have already made it clear you will leave once this phase is
reached.
That's up to them to decide.
I surely don't want to go to a concentration camp like the
Japanese did in WW2.
Nobody likes it, though personally I doubt it will happen again. In
World War II, I believe it was quite easy to "cut" between Japanese
immigrants/citizens and the rest, with few false alarms, and few false
positive. It is no longer the case today for Chinese given that
Chinese marry other ethnic groups and Chinese professors are scattered
around the universities, for instance.
I think being treated as the Arabs are being treated now is
exceedingly unpleasant. Dr. W.H. Lee is from TW, dunno where
Katrina Leung is from, but even TWers can be easily suspected
of sympathizing with PRC.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not defending for U.S. Patriot Act, but I do not worry about it
either. My Arab American officemate and also my neighbor shows his
concerns but he is still living and working happily.
I am surprised. I think Arab-Americans should be worried.
If they clean shave and change their names, they can pass for
Hispanic. The Chinese don't have such an option, although
I suppose one can change the name to "Suzuki".
People can feel differently. My Arabian American friend does not fear
much at all -- his wife is another Arabian American, and they feel
fine to visit Farmer Market at Fairfax and the 3rd in Los Angeles,
walking around Saturday Market in Portland, or Pikes Market drinking
coffee in Pikes Market in Seattle. On the other hand, Charles Liu has
already started worrying about U.S. Patriot Act being applied.
Several *Indians* were killed/harassed just because they look
like Arabs. I am just very surprised that real Arabs are not
upset.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Not really. If prosecutors continue producing this kind of
prosecutions, soon congressmen will start asking whether the
prosecutors are doing their jobs (by spending a lot of public funds on
cases they fail).
The U.S. can definitely add new tools, but U.S. Supreme Court might
strike it down, like Computer Decency Act. Of course it is also
possible that the U.S. Supreme Court might uphold it. We do not know
until we see a case.
One can make reasonable guesses. Holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely
as "enemy combatant" probably will be struck down.
Pay attention to Moussaoui's case. Today the development shows the
U.S. executive branch could apply the laws excessively, but on the
other hand we see that the judicial branch does not necessarily
cooperate with the executive branch, even for a case like Moussaoui's.
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
This might explain why in general Americans have more confidence in
the judicial branch being another line of defense for U.S. Patriot Act
should it be abused.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How many times have PRC supreme court struck down some laws of PRC?
Never.
The judiciary of most "civil law" systems (China is one of them)
often does not have power to strike down a law at all. E.g. France.
I am not a legal expert. In the U.S. this happens often -- Computer
Decency Act is one, and the Texas sodomy law is another. In ROC it
happens occasionally.
I guess they did say VP cannot be Premier few years ago. But
some civil law systems give very little power to the judiciary,
like France, and of course PRC, where the judiciary is not even
indep., it's "led by the Party".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
How confident do you think Hongkong residents are regarding the court
striking down some part of Article 23?
The Chief Justice was my schoolmate :-), and he is good person.
However, the NPC might claim this is "mainland-HK relations"
and reverse the Court of Final Appeals, like it did on right
of mainlanders to HK residence few years ago.
If he is a good justice, whether you are his schoolmate or not should
not matter.
I know his background when he was a kid, that's all.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That incident regarding Hongkong residence is another example against
1C2S. Of course, some people might assign a low weight to these cases
and believe 1C2S still works up to now, and some others might assign a
large weight to them and conclude "this 1C2S is not what I was
promised."
That's a bad case. The CFA's decision was quite unpopular
(leads to hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from mainland).
If it had been the other way around, CFA said no to mainland
immigrants and then NPC reversed it and said yes, it would lead
to major uproar.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
(snip)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Basically nobody can assure anything, even in the judicial branch.
The judiciary can "assure" by striking it down.
Not sure about Hongkong, but in the U.S. the court can resurrect
something by having a new verdict. Therefore as a judge you can
strike down a law today but you cannot ensure what happens 10 years
later.
A statute struck down is dead. I don't recall the S.Ct. ever
changing its mind on striking down a statute. The S.Ct. *can*
change its mind on ITS OWN constitutional holdings, e.g. Miranda,
Roe v. Wade (abortion). It did reconsider Miranda in '00 but
did not change its mind.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The problem is some Falun Gong members in Hongkong do not need to *GO*
to Hongkong. They are *IN* Hongkong now.
C.H.Tung had to withdraw the anti-Falungong portion.
They have been most active in raising concern about the art. 23
legislation. Looks effective, at least that portion is gone.
I do not see it included in Tung's three compromises -- the only one
is something like an association being declared illegal in Mainland
China will no longer be automatically illegal in Hongkong -- but
Hongkong SAR can still declare Falun Gong illegal on its own. Of
course with this law it will be easier to do so.
That was the only section directly applicable to FLG. There
is no other way to declare an association illegal. They can
say that FLG leaders *incite* sedition against PRC and punish
them individually, but not as an organization. That would be
a major, major stretch of the law, and if that happens, it would
be death of the rule of law, and 1C2S.

Rule of the law is part of the culture of HK people. If you see
HK movies, even the gangsters know that HK is rule of the law.
"Don't touch me (to police), I want my lawyer right away." :-)

Wing
Wing C Ng
2003-07-16 04:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Pay attention to Moussaoui's case. Today the development shows the
U.S. executive branch could apply the laws excessively, but on the
other hand we see that the judicial branch does not necessarily
cooperate with the executive branch, even for a case like Moussaoui's.
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
Today I read news that "U.S. defies court", i.e. it will not
turn over documents with this other "accomplice" Binalshih
that Mousaoui's attorneys requested. Does that mean they are
in contempt of court?? I would say yes, put Ashcroft in jail
until he complies.

Actually nothing of that sort is going to happen: the judge
will simply dismiss the case.

Does M. go free?? Noooo, it was reported that he will be
re-tried before military tribunal (which gives out death
penalty). Isn't that "double jeopardy", law school class??
The class will answer yes.

The real answer is: there is no remedy. Military tribuanl
is claimed to be beyond the jurisdiction of any court.

Sigh. Convergence with the PRC.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-16 17:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Should you worry about U.S. Patriot Act, whether you said something or
not is not important -- it is whether the authority thought you said
it or not.
At least it will be a defense when it comes before a court, - if
it comes before a court.
Unless Senator McCarthy crawls out from his grave, I do not think
speaking in favor of the communists will land you in trouble.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Nobody likes it, though personally I doubt it will happen again. In
World War II, I believe it was quite easy to "cut" between Japanese
immigrants/citizens and the rest, with few false alarms, and few false
positive. It is no longer the case today for Chinese given that
Chinese marry other ethnic groups and Chinese professors are scattered
around the universities, for instance.
I think being treated as the Arabs are being treated now is
exceedingly unpleasant. Dr. W.H. Lee is from TW, dunno where
Katrina Leung is from, but even TWers can be easily suspected
of sympathizing with PRC.
Ms. Leung should be from Hongkong, judging from the spelling of her
last name.

Regarding Arabian Americans, things are different now but probably not
like what you think in Hawaii, especially if you are already a U.S.
citizen with Arabian background.

I do not think Taiwanese will be suspected for sympathizing PRC in
general. You can definitely find a few samples, though.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
People can feel differently. My Arabian American friend does not fear
much at all -- his wife is another Arabian American, and they feel
fine to visit Farmer Market at Fairfax and the 3rd in Los Angeles,
walking around Saturday Market in Portland, or Pikes Market drinking
coffee in Pikes Market in Seattle. On the other hand, Charles Liu has
already started worrying about U.S. Patriot Act being applied.
Several *Indians* were killed/harassed just because they look
like Arabs. I am just very surprised that real Arabs are not
upset.
Several *Asians* were already killed, including Japanese being shot
for knocking doors on Halloween and Chinese being killed with a
baseball bat, in the U.S., because of what they look like. How upset
you are because of these incidents can show you how upset Arabian
Americans might feel.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Pay attention to Moussaoui's case. Today the development shows the
U.S. executive branch could apply the laws excessively, but on the
other hand we see that the judicial branch does not necessarily
cooperate with the executive branch, even for a case like Moussaoui's.
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
If the guy indeed tried to assemble a radioactive bomb and the agents
did find the materials, the blueprint, and the plan, I do not see him
innocent. Please provide more specifics.

As for Moussaoui, you have another post and we will address there.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not a legal expert. In the U.S. this happens often -- Computer
Decency Act is one, and the Texas sodomy law is another. In ROC it
happens occasionally.
I guess they did say VP cannot be Premier few years ago. But
some civil law systems give very little power to the judiciary,
like France, and of course PRC, where the judiciary is not even
indep., it's "led by the Party".
You are wrong. Thanks for the current scheme, ROC Supreme Court only
issued an explanation, something like "it is inappropriate for vice
presidents to take premier seats as well". It did not say such an
arrangement is unconstitutional or not.

The major case with ROC Supreme Court is ruling a law about
classifying gangster members "unconstitutional".
Post by Wing C Ng
(Hongkong chief justice text snipped)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That incident regarding Hongkong residence is another example against
1C2S. Of course, some people might assign a low weight to these cases
and believe 1C2S still works up to now, and some others might assign a
large weight to them and conclude "this 1C2S is not what I was
promised."
That's a bad case. The CFA's decision was quite unpopular
(leads to hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from mainland).
If it had been the other way around, CFA said no to mainland
immigrants and then NPC reversed it and said yes, it would lead
to major uproar.
I did not pay detailed attention to the case -- but if what you wrote
here is true, it means the design of 1C2S is basically flawed, as it
is alleged built on an architecture whose foundation (rules by laws)
cannot self-susptain the structure because of self-contradiction.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Not sure about Hongkong, but in the U.S. the court can resurrect
something by having a new verdict. Therefore as a judge you can
strike down a law today but you cannot ensure what happens 10 years
later.
A statute struck down is dead. I don't recall the S.Ct. ever
changing its mind on striking down a statute. The S.Ct. *can*
change its mind on ITS OWN constitutional holdings, e.g. Miranda,
Roe v. Wade (abortion). It did reconsider Miranda in '00 but
did not change its mind.
I think the recent Texas sodomy case shows that the U.S. Supreme Court
can strike down "now" what it upheld in the past. You know, the
members of the Supreme Court do change over time.

I agree with you that probably we cannot find an example where the
U.S. Supreme Court upholds a law it used to strike down, as the law
was instantly dead when it was struck down the first time. However, a
law being struck down ten years ago could be resurrected ten years
later, in the form of another law, act, or a referendum result, and
now it is upheld.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I do not see it included in Tung's three compromises -- the only one
is something like an association being declared illegal in Mainland
China will no longer be automatically illegal in Hongkong -- but
Hongkong SAR can still declare Falun Gong illegal on its own. Of
course with this law it will be easier to do so.
That was the only section directly applicable to FLG. There
is no other way to declare an association illegal. They can
say that FLG leaders *incite* sedition against PRC and punish
them individually, but not as an organization. That would be
a major, major stretch of the law, and if that happens, it would
be death of the rule of law, and 1C2S.
I am not so sure about this. Suppose today Association A in Hongkong
sets the goal of overthrowing Hongkong SAR government and People's
Republic of China government, and it appeals to violence and
terrorism. The director of Association A made this clear in public
announcements, in speech and in actions (stocking up ammunitions,
say), the goal is in the association charter and every member swears
to carry out the goal. In this case, I believe the existing laws in
Hongkong can declare Association A illegal and it should be disbanded.

But note that an association being illegal/disbanded does not mean all
its members need to go to jail, and Falun Gong is definitely not such
an example.
Post by Wing C Ng
Rule of the law is part of the culture of HK people. If you see
HK movies, even the gangsters know that HK is rule of the law.
"Don't touch me (to police), I want my lawyer right away." :-)
This view is gradually taking roots in PRC, though slowly.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I think the tricky thing here is, if Hongkong SAR and Beijing insist
to push for Article 23 legislation, they will soon hit the issue about
classifying Taiwan into "friend" or "foe"; and neither of them would
be easy. The current scheme works because there is not such a
black-and-white classification.
The key is "secession" as a crime under art. 23. If TW declares
indep., then it's black & white. With Pres. Bian in power, did
TW already secede? That's gray area.
The problem is in case Taiwan insists "Republic of China" (status
quo). You can say it is a secession (for making two Chinas), and you
can say it is not. Right now you can play gray area, but with Article
23 legislation, you can no longer play vague.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
Today I read news that "U.S. defies court", i.e. it will not
turn over documents with this other "accomplice" Binalshih
that Mousaoui's attorneys requested. Does that mean they are
in contempt of court?? I would say yes, put Ashcroft in jail
until he complies.
Read more details in
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/moussaoui.ap/index.html

Again the disclaimer -- I am no legal expert.
Post by Wing C Ng
From what I know, the U.S. Dept. of Justice pressed charges against
Moussaoui. His defense lawyers request to access some
files/information with Binalshibh. Dept. of Justice refused that,
citing national security. The judges sided with Moussaoui's lawyer
and ordered Dept. of Justice to comply, and Dept. of Justice wants to
defy that order.

I do not see a big problem if Dept. of Justice defies the court order
(to allow Moussaoui's lawyer access to Binalshibh's information/file).
Keep in mind that the price to defy the order is the court throwing
out the case, and Moussaoui is ruled innocent because he is not proven
guilty.
Post by Wing C Ng
Actually nothing of that sort is going to happen: the judge
will simply dismiss the case.
Does M. go free?? Noooo, it was reported that he will be
re-tried before military tribunal (which gives out death
penalty). Isn't that "double jeopardy", law school class??
The class will answer yes.
There was a reason why Dept. of Justice planned to put Moussaoui in
civilian court system for trials at first. I am no legal expert and I
do not know.

But I can think of two possibilities:
(1) If U.S. Dept. of Justice put Moussaoui under military tribunal,
it means all future individuals associated with the terror
groups, arrested outside of the U.S., might never be sent to
the U.S. because of their own laws. Pakistan is likely to
do anything the U.S. ask; PRC might comply given a good "price";
for countries like Canada and Germany, forget it.
(2) I would expect Moussaoui's lawyer, or organizations like ACLU,
would file a lawsuit, all the way to U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary, regarding what kind of individuals can be put under
military tribunal courts. You can imagine what happens if the
court explains something against U.S. Dept. of Justice -- the
other "enemy combatants" will see the sun again and that would
be the last thing Dept. of Justice likes to see.
Post by Wing C Ng
The real answer is: there is no remedy. Military tribuanl
is claimed to be beyond the jurisdiction of any court.
That is likely true -- but under what conditions can people be put in
military tribunal is, I believe. If the legislative branch and
judicial branch in the U.S. have no say in this area, then the
executive branch can put anyone in military tribunal, including Dr.
Wen Ho Lee, Al Gore, and so on. I highly doubt this is the case.
Post by Wing C Ng
Sigh. Convergence with the PRC.
Only the executive branch, and there is still a long way to go before
they "converge". In PRC do you think anyone dares to defend for
Moussaoui?

Chief Judge William Wilkins commented on Moussaoui's case:

Siding with the government in all cases where national
security concerns are asserted would entail surrender
of the independence of the judicial branch and abandonment
of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.

When one day a judge in PRC People's Court also says this, that will
be the day deserving a gold month vacation in China.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-17 20:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Should you worry about U.S. Patriot Act, whether you said something or
not is not important -- it is whether the authority thought you said
it or not.
At least it will be a defense when it comes before a court, - if
it comes before a court.
Unless Senator McCarthy crawls out from his grave, I do not think
speaking in favor of the communists will land you in trouble.
I don't think so, I thought we were talking about a possible
future Cold War II with China, and then they might drag out all
those posts people made in 2003.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Nobody likes it, though personally I doubt it will happen again. In
World War II, I believe it was quite easy to "cut" between Japanese
immigrants/citizens and the rest, with few false alarms, and few false
positive. It is no longer the case today for Chinese given that
Chinese marry other ethnic groups and Chinese professors are scattered
around the universities, for instance.
I think being treated as the Arabs are being treated now is
exceedingly unpleasant. Dr. W.H. Lee is from TW, dunno where
Katrina Leung is from, but even TWers can be easily suspected
of sympathizing with PRC.
Ms. Leung should be from Hongkong, judging from the spelling of her
last name.
No, she married a Chinese-American that uses Cantonese spelling.
Strange there is no report where she was from in the Chinese newspapers.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Regarding Arabian Americans, things are different now but probably not
like what you think in Hawaii, especially if you are already a U.S.
citizen with Arabian background.
I do not think Taiwanese will be suspected for sympathizing PRC in
general. You can definitely find a few samples, though.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
People can feel differently. My Arabian American friend does not fear
much at all -- his wife is another Arabian American, and they feel
fine to visit Farmer Market at Fairfax and the 3rd in Los Angeles,
walking around Saturday Market in Portland, or Pikes Market drinking
coffee in Pikes Market in Seattle. On the other hand, Charles Liu has
already started worrying about U.S. Patriot Act being applied.
Several *Indians* were killed/harassed just because they look
like Arabs. I am just very surprised that real Arabs are not
upset.
Several *Asians* were already killed, including Japanese being shot
for knocking doors on Halloween and Chinese being killed with a
baseball bat, in the U.S., because of what they look like. How upset
you are because of these incidents can show you how upset Arabian
Americans might feel.
I am plenty upset. Although the Halloween killing might not be
racist, they might not have seen his face.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Pay attention to Moussaoui's case. Today the development shows the
U.S. executive branch could apply the laws excessively, but on the
other hand we see that the judicial branch does not necessarily
cooperate with the executive branch, even for a case like Moussaoui's.
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
If the guy indeed tried to assemble a radioactive bomb and the agents
did find the materials, the blueprint, and the plan, I do not see him
innocent. Please provide more specifics.
As for Moussaoui, you have another post and we will address there.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not a legal expert. In the U.S. this happens often -- Computer
Decency Act is one, and the Texas sodomy law is another. In ROC it
happens occasionally.
I guess they did say VP cannot be Premier few years ago. But
some civil law systems give very little power to the judiciary,
like France, and of course PRC, where the judiciary is not even
indep., it's "led by the Party".
You are wrong. Thanks for the current scheme, ROC Supreme Court only
issued an explanation, something like "it is inappropriate for vice
presidents to take premier seats as well". It did not say such an
arrangement is unconstitutional or not.
Okay.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The major case with ROC Supreme Court is ruling a law about
classifying gangster members "unconstitutional".
Post by Wing C Ng
(Hongkong chief justice text snipped)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That incident regarding Hongkong residence is another example against
1C2S. Of course, some people might assign a low weight to these cases
and believe 1C2S still works up to now, and some others might assign a
large weight to them and conclude "this 1C2S is not what I was
promised."
That's a bad case. The CFA's decision was quite unpopular
(leads to hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from mainland).
If it had been the other way around, CFA said no to mainland
immigrants and then NPC reversed it and said yes, it would lead
to major uproar.
here is true, it means the design of 1C2S is basically flawed, as it
is alleged built on an architecture whose foundation (rules by laws)
cannot self-susptain the structure because of self-contradiction.
Most HK law practitioners, among other people, fought to have
all final appeals decided by HK courts only, but the effort failed.
The NPC is not a court at all, it's one puppet org under the
"leadership of the Party".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Not sure about Hongkong, but in the U.S. the court can resurrect
something by having a new verdict. Therefore as a judge you can
strike down a law today but you cannot ensure what happens 10 years
later.
A statute struck down is dead. I don't recall the S.Ct. ever
changing its mind on striking down a statute. The S.Ct. *can*
change its mind on ITS OWN constitutional holdings, e.g. Miranda,
Roe v. Wade (abortion). It did reconsider Miranda in '00 but
did not change its mind.
I think the recent Texas sodomy case shows that the U.S. Supreme Court
can strike down "now" what it upheld in the past. You know, the
members of the Supreme Court do change over time.
I agree with you that probably we cannot find an example where the
U.S. Supreme Court upholds a law it used to strike down, as the law
was instantly dead when it was struck down the first time. However, a
law being struck down ten years ago could be resurrected ten years
later, in the form of another law, act, or a referendum result, and
now it is upheld.
I merely meant that a statute struck down is dead and no gov.
can charge anyone under that statute. Of course the scenario
of resurrected dead statute is possible, but I have not thought
of any example of that happening.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I do not see it included in Tung's three compromises -- the only one
is something like an association being declared illegal in Mainland
China will no longer be automatically illegal in Hongkong -- but
Hongkong SAR can still declare Falun Gong illegal on its own. Of
course with this law it will be easier to do so.
That was the only section directly applicable to FLG. There
is no other way to declare an association illegal. They can
say that FLG leaders *incite* sedition against PRC and punish
them individually, but not as an organization. That would be
a major, major stretch of the law, and if that happens, it would
be death of the rule of law, and 1C2S.
I am not so sure about this. Suppose today Association A in Hongkong
sets the goal of overthrowing Hongkong SAR government and People's
Republic of China government, and it appeals to violence and
terrorism. The director of Association A made this clear in public
announcements, in speech and in actions (stocking up ammunitions,
say), the goal is in the association charter and every member swears
There is law against overthrowing the HK gov., just no law
yet against overthrowing the PRC gov. In fact there was no
law against overthrowing British gov. pre-1997 (how can anyone
in HK overthrow Br. gov.?) People did succeed in overthrowing
gov. of China from HK before, a man named Sun, in 1911.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
to carry out the goal. In this case, I believe the existing laws in
Hongkong can declare Association A illegal and it should be disbanded.
That's illegal purpose, at least the part about overthrowing HK
gov., and so it can be disbanded under existing law.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
But note that an association being illegal/disbanded does not mean all
its members need to go to jail, and Falun Gong is definitely not such
an example.
FLG is worried that it will be disbanded under art. 23 legislation.
Of course then it simply becomes an underground church. They can't
jail all its members (at least in HK, they can't).
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Rule of the law is part of the culture of HK people. If you see
HK movies, even the gangsters know that HK is rule of the law.
"Don't touch me (to police), I want my lawyer right away." :-)
This view is gradually taking roots in PRC, though slowly.
There are some slow improvements. People have sued the gov. in
court, and maybe some have succeeded (not sure about the success
part).
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I think the tricky thing here is, if Hongkong SAR and Beijing insist
to push for Article 23 legislation, they will soon hit the issue about
classifying Taiwan into "friend" or "foe"; and neither of them would
be easy. The current scheme works because there is not such a
black-and-white classification.
The key is "secession" as a crime under art. 23. If TW declares
indep., then it's black & white. With Pres. Bian in power, did
TW already secede? That's gray area.
The problem is in case Taiwan insists "Republic of China" (status
quo). You can say it is a secession (for making two Chinas), and you
ROC isnot secession, it's treason (supporting a alternate gov. for
all China), and worse.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
can say it is not. Right now you can play gray area, but with Article
23 legislation, you can no longer play vague.
Supposedly you need acts. But there is also incitement clause.
Is celebrating Oct. 10 "incitement"? Is displaying the ROC
"incitement"?
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That's right, and M. is not even a U.S. citizen. Another
citizen, a black man I believe, however, has been held as
"enemy combatant" for some two years now, for supposedly trying
to make a dirty radioactive bomb. M. is being tried before
fed.ct., he's lucky, rather than rotting in Guantanamo as
"enemy combatant".
Today I read news that "U.S. defies court", i.e. it will not
turn over documents with this other "accomplice" Binalshih
that Mousaoui's attorneys requested. Does that mean they are
in contempt of court?? I would say yes, put Ashcroft in jail
until he complies.
Read more details in
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/moussaoui.ap/index.html
Again the disclaimer -- I am no legal expert.
Post by Wing C Ng
From what I know, the U.S. Dept. of Justice pressed charges against
Moussaoui. His defense lawyers request to access some
files/information with Binalshibh. Dept. of Justice refused that,
citing national security. The judges sided with Moussaoui's lawyer
and ordered Dept. of Justice to comply, and Dept. of Justice wants to
defy that order.
I do not see a big problem if Dept. of Justice defies the court order
(to allow Moussaoui's lawyer access to Binalshibh's information/file).
Keep in mind that the price to defy the order is the court throwing
That's the asymmetry. Any civilian who defies a court is in
contempt, and may go to jail. The gov. is literally above the
law.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
out the case, and Moussaoui is ruled innocent because he is not proven
guilty.
Post by Wing C Ng
Actually nothing of that sort is going to happen: the judge
will simply dismiss the case.
Does M. go free?? Noooo, it was reported that he will be
re-tried before military tribunal (which gives out death
penalty). Isn't that "double jeopardy", law school class??
The class will answer yes.
There was a reason why Dept. of Justice planned to put Moussaoui in
civilian court system for trials at first. I am no legal expert and I
do not know.
Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was the right thing to do :-)
Ashcroft doing the right thing is an oxymoron / contradiction
in terms.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(1) If U.S. Dept. of Justice put Moussaoui under military tribunal,
it means all future individuals associated with the terror
groups, arrested outside of the U.S., might never be sent to
the U.S. because of their own laws. Pakistan is likely to
do anything the U.S. ask; PRC might comply given a good "price";
for countries like Canada and Germany, forget it.
M. was arrested inside the U.S., by law enforcement, not by the
military, outside U.S. in battle.

The full constitution applies to him under these circumstances.

There was previous case of German spies arrested in U.S. during
WW2. They are going cite similarity. I am not convinced there
is similarity. In M's case, his lawyers will certainly file
habeas corpus with fed.ct. if he is held for military tribunal
trial, and the fed.ct. definitely has jurisdiction, and it may
well rule in his favor (i.e. he cannot be tried before military
tribunal, and he truly goes free.)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) I would expect Moussaoui's lawyer, or organizations like ACLU,
would file a lawsuit, all the way to U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary, regarding what kind of individuals can be put under
military tribunal courts. You can imagine what happens if the
court explains something against U.S. Dept. of Justice -- the
other "enemy combatants" will see the sun again and that would
be the last thing Dept. of Justice likes to see.
I think no court has ever ruled one way or another on these military
tribunals. What you described is entirely likely. There is S.Ct.
saying U.S. cannot try a U.S. civilian in military court for crimes
committed on a U.S. base in England. Nothing about the military
trying some foreigner outside the U.S., which is what Bush/Ashcroft
want to do with these Arabs held at Guantanamo. Those might not
be constitutional either, but M's case is probably even more
unconstitutional.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
The real answer is: there is no remedy. Military tribuanl
is claimed to be beyond the jurisdiction of any court.
That is likely true -- but under what conditions can people be put in
military tribunal is, I believe. If the legislative branch and
judicial branch in the U.S. have no say in this area, then the
executive branch can put anyone in military tribunal, including Dr.
Wen Ho Lee, Al Gore, and so on. I highly doubt this is the case.
Post by Wing C Ng
Sigh. Convergence with the PRC.
Only the executive branch, and there is still a long way to go before
they "converge". In PRC do you think anyone dares to defend for
Moussaoui?
Yang Jianli apparently got a lawyer, of course he's not as bad
as M, even on PRC's terms.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Siding with the government in all cases where national
security concerns are asserted would entail surrender
of the independence of the judicial branch and abandonment
of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.
It is obvious to anyone who ever went to law school.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
When one day a judge in PRC People's Court also says this, that will
be the day deserving a gold month vacation in China.
Long time. This Yang Bin guy got 18 years in prison, and I
think he didn't anything every other businessman in China didn't
do.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-18 02:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Unless Senator McCarthy crawls out from his grave, I do not think
speaking in favor of the communists will land you in trouble.
I don't think so, I thought we were talking about a possible
future Cold War II with China, and then they might drag out all
those posts people made in 2003.
Supporting China is not necessarily equal to supporting communism (of
course, the authority might not think so).

If you want to argue, from Google posts people made the day Usenet was
born can be dragged out -- and X-No-Archive: Yes might not necessarily
work for a news server somewhere inside the Hoover building.

Therefore, for anyone who fears U.S. Patriot Act, like Charles Liu,
stop posting is the only solution.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Ms. Leung should be from Hongkong, judging from the spelling of her
last name.
No, she married a Chinese-American that uses Cantonese spelling.
Strange there is no report where she was from in the Chinese newspapers.
I do not expect her background to be so mysterious, unless "some
agencies" helped to erase something.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Several *Asians* were already killed, including Japanese being shot
for knocking doors on Halloween and Chinese being killed with a
baseball bat, in the U.S., because of what they look like. How upset
you are because of these incidents can show you how upset Arabian
Americans might feel.
I am plenty upset. Although the Halloween killing might not be
racist, they might not have seen his face.
The same thing applies to Arabian Americans today.
Post by Wing C Ng
(snip)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
here is true, it means the design of 1C2S is basically flawed, as it
is alleged built on an architecture whose foundation (rules by laws)
cannot self-susptain the structure because of self-contradiction.
Most HK law practitioners, among other people, fought to have
all final appeals decided by HK courts only, but the effort failed.
The NPC is not a court at all, it's one puppet org under the
"leadership of the Party".
Separating the judicial power from the legislative one does not seem
to be an issue for those in Beijing.
Post by Wing C Ng
(Discussions on struck down statue snipped)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not so sure about this. Suppose today Association A in Hongkong
sets the goal of overthrowing Hongkong SAR government and People's
Republic of China government, and it appeals to violence and
terrorism. The director of Association A made this clear in public
announcements, in speech and in actions (stocking up ammunitions,
say), the goal is in the association charter and every member swears
There is law against overthrowing the HK gov., just no law
yet against overthrowing the PRC gov. In fact there was no
law against overthrowing British gov. pre-1997 (how can anyone
in HK overthrow Br. gov.?) People did succeed in overthrowing
gov. of China from HK before, a man named Sun, in 1911.
Sun's "overthrowing" action was not *DONE* in Hongkong.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
to carry out the goal. In this case, I believe the existing laws in
Hongkong can declare Association A illegal and it should be disbanded.
That's illegal purpose, at least the part about overthrowing HK
gov., and so it can be disbanded under existing law.
And this means the proposed Article 23 was indeed aimed to made Falun
Gong illegal in Hongkong by associating the case in Hongkong to that
in Mainland China, because there are other laws in Hongkong already to
deal with illegal associations/organizations threatening national
security.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
But note that an association being illegal/disbanded does not mean all
its members need to go to jail, and Falun Gong is definitely not such
an example.
FLG is worried that it will be disbanded under art. 23 legislation.
Of course then it simply becomes an underground church. They can't
jail all its members (at least in HK, they can't).
I thought the proposed Article 23 was actually tougher than that, in
the sense that Falun Gong members could face troubles?
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
This view is gradually taking roots in PRC, though slowly.
There are some slow improvements. People have sued the gov. in
court, and maybe some have succeeded (not sure about the success
part).
I am not aware of PRC citizens suing the government and succeeding,
though I might not know them. From what I remember, the cases looked
more like the executive branch of PRC "admitted the mistakes on its
own", making apologies and making compensations. I am not aware of
some government agencies being forced by the PRC People's Court to do
something.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The problem is in case Taiwan insists "Republic of China" (status
quo). You can say it is a secession (for making two Chinas), and you
ROC isnot secession, it's treason (supporting a alternate gov. for
all China), and worse.
ROC today no longer claims to represents the whole China.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
can say it is not. Right now you can play gray area, but with Article
23 legislation, you can no longer play vague.
Supposedly you need acts. But there is also incitement clause.
Is celebrating Oct. 10 "incitement"? Is displaying the ROC
"incitement"?
That would be left to Hongkong authority to decide, if Article 23 was
put into effect. People can definitely claim to celebrate the
toppling of Qing Dynasty on October 10th; as for ROC flags, probably
it is more difficult to find an "excuse".
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Read more details in
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/moussaoui.ap/index.html
Again the disclaimer -- I am no legal expert.
From what I know, the U.S. Dept. of Justice pressed charges against
Moussaoui. His defense lawyers request to access some
files/information with Binalshibh. Dept. of Justice refused that,
citing national security. The judges sided with Moussaoui's lawyer
and ordered Dept. of Justice to comply, and Dept. of Justice wants to
defy that order.
I do not see a big problem if Dept. of Justice defies the court order
(to allow Moussaoui's lawyer access to Binalshibh's information/file).
Keep in mind that the price to defy the order is the court throwing
That's the asymmetry. Any civilian who defies a court is in
contempt, and may go to jail. The gov. is literally above the
law.
No. The reason you feel this way is because in most cases and in most
countries, it is the prosecutors pressing charges against the
individuals. Therefore if the accused defy the court orders, he/she
loses the case and go to jail; if the prosecutors (the government)
defies the court orders like this time, the court throws out the case
and the charged is released.

You can also find some examples where some organizations sue the
government. For instance, some environmental associations suing a
U.S. agency for violating a environmental act, an act on endangered
species because the agency proposes to build a dam, and so on. In
this case, if the government defies the court order, then it loses the
case.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
There was a reason why Dept. of Justice planned to put Moussaoui in
civilian court system for trials at first. I am no legal expert and I
do not know.
Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was the right thing to do :-)
Ashcroft doing the right thing is an oxymoron / contradiction
in terms.
I have no comment on that, but I believe there is a hidden price to
appeal to military tribunals. It is not free, and that is the reason
why Moussaoui was not prosecuted that way originally.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(1) If U.S. Dept. of Justice put Moussaoui under military tribunal,
it means all future individuals associated with the terror
groups, arrested outside of the U.S., might never be sent to
the U.S. because of their own laws. Pakistan is likely to
do anything the U.S. ask; PRC might comply given a good "price";
for countries like Canada and Germany, forget it.
M. was arrested inside the U.S., by law enforcement, not by the
military, outside U.S. in battle.
The full constitution applies to him under these circumstances.
I was talking about *FUTURE* cases. For instance, both Canada and
Mexico have laws banning them to send requested fugitives back to
their home countries if they could face death penalties there. I
believe Germany has similar laws. If the U.S. appeals to military
tribunal this time, later these countries might deny requests from
Washington about the suspects they caught.
Post by Wing C Ng
There was previous case of German spies arrested in U.S. during
WW2. They are going cite similarity. I am not convinced there
is similarity. In M's case, his lawyers will certainly file
habeas corpus with fed.ct. if he is held for military tribunal
trial, and the fed.ct. definitely has jurisdiction, and it may
well rule in his favor (i.e. he cannot be tried before military
tribunal, and he truly goes free.)
During World War II -- that could mean a difference and maybe some
civilians could be trialed under military tribunal, because the
country was at war, with the congress declaring war.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) I would expect Moussaoui's lawyer, or organizations like ACLU,
would file a lawsuit, all the way to U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary, regarding what kind of individuals can be put under
military tribunal courts. You can imagine what happens if the
court explains something against U.S. Dept. of Justice -- the
other "enemy combatants" will see the sun again and that would
be the last thing Dept. of Justice likes to see.
I think no court has ever ruled one way or another on these military
tribunals. What you described is entirely likely. There is S.Ct.
saying U.S. cannot try a U.S. civilian in military court for crimes
committed on a U.S. base in England. Nothing about the military
trying some foreigner outside the U.S., which is what Bush/Ashcroft
want to do with these Arabs held at Guantanamo. Those might not
be constitutional either, but M's case is probably even more
unconstitutional.
Guantanamo base is not on the U.S. soil, but it is a U.S. military
base. I am not too sure whether the U.S. courts have power over
there. I tend to believe they should have.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Only the executive branch, and there is still a long way to go before
they "converge". In PRC do you think anyone dares to defend for
Moussaoui?
Yang Jianli apparently got a lawyer, of course he's not as bad
as M, even on PRC's terms.
I am not sure about all the cases, but most legal cases in PRC
involves lawyers recommending their clients to admit mistakes and plea
guilty, to trade for a "lighter" treatment. That sounds somewhat
weird from the U.S. view -- you pay the lawyer and he asks you to
cooperate with the authorities.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Siding with the government in all cases where national
security concerns are asserted would entail surrender
of the independence of the judicial branch and abandonment
of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.
It is obvious to anyone who ever went to law school.
In PRC there is a higher rule from the party.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
When one day a judge in PRC People's Court also says this, that will
be the day deserving a gold month vacation in China.
Long time. This Yang Bin guy got 18 years in prison, and I
think he didn't anything every other businessman in China didn't
do.
That is probably on the "selective enforcement" side (not sure about
the official legal term). Here I was talking about a PRC judge
putting the independence of laws above the national security, if this
happens one day.

If one day a PRC judge says this, that is a breakthrough.

If another day a PRC judge actually does this, it is another
breakthrough.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-18 17:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Ms. Leung should be from Hongkong, judging from the spelling of her
last name.
No, she married a Chinese-American that uses Cantonese spelling.
Strange there is no report where she was from in the Chinese newspapers.
I do not expect her background to be so mysterious, unless "some
agencies" helped to erase something.
Yeah, it's surprising. She is said to be well known in L.A.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not so sure about this. Suppose today Association A in Hongkong
sets the goal of overthrowing Hongkong SAR government and People's
Republic of China government, and it appeals to violence and
terrorism. The director of Association A made this clear in public
announcements, in speech and in actions (stocking up ammunitions,
say), the goal is in the association charter and every member swears
There is law against overthrowing the HK gov., just no law
yet against overthrowing the PRC gov. In fact there was no
law against overthrowing British gov. pre-1997 (how can anyone
in HK overthrow Br. gov.?) People did succeed in overthrowing
gov. of China from HK before, a man named Sun, in 1911.
Sun's "overthrowing" action was not *DONE* in Hongkong.
It was a "base for subversion". Where you think the guys buried
in Huanghuagang got their arms through?
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
to carry out the goal. In this case, I believe the existing laws in
Hongkong can declare Association A illegal and it should be disbanded.
That's illegal purpose, at least the part about overthrowing HK
gov., and so it can be disbanded under existing law.
And this means the proposed Article 23 was indeed aimed to made Falun
Gong illegal in Hongkong by associating the case in Hongkong to that
in Mainland China, because there are other laws in Hongkong already to
deal with illegal associations/organizations threatening national
security.
That's correct. But it was withdrawn. They might dare to put
it in again later.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
But note that an association being illegal/disbanded does not mean all
its members need to go to jail, and Falun Gong is definitely not such
an example.
FLG is worried that it will be disbanded under art. 23 legislation.
Of course then it simply becomes an underground church. They can't
jail all its members (at least in HK, they can't).
I thought the proposed Article 23 was actually tougher than that, in
the sense that Falun Gong members could face troubles?
Are the FLG *members* in HK engaged in treason, sedition, etc.?
I don't think any HK court would think so. However, they might
have divulged "state secrets" (FLG members were killed/tortured
in mainland, that would be a "state secret").
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
This view is gradually taking roots in PRC, though slowly.
There are some slow improvements. People have sued the gov. in
court, and maybe some have succeeded (not sure about the success
part).
I am not aware of PRC citizens suing the government and succeeding,
though I might not know them. From what I remember, the cases looked
more like the executive branch of PRC "admitted the mistakes on its
own", making apologies and making compensations. I am not aware of
some government agencies being forced by the PRC People's Court to do
something.
That's about right.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
The problem is in case Taiwan insists "Republic of China" (status
quo). You can say it is a secession (for making two Chinas), and you
ROC isnot secession, it's treason (supporting a alternate gov. for
all China), and worse.
ROC today no longer claims to represents the whole China.
If it doesn't, then it's secession.

Heads you lose, tails I win. Yu gia zhi zui, he huan wu ci?
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
can say it is not. Right now you can play gray area, but with Article
23 legislation, you can no longer play vague.
Supposedly you need acts. But there is also incitement clause.
Is celebrating Oct. 10 "incitement"? Is displaying the ROC
"incitement"?
That would be left to Hongkong authority to decide, if Article 23 was
put into effect. People can definitely claim to celebrate the
toppling of Qing Dynasty on October 10th; as for ROC flags, probably
it is more difficult to find an "excuse".
Don't think it's a crime to display Qing Yellow Dragon flag
though.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Read more details in
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/moussaoui.ap/index.html
Again the disclaimer -- I am no legal expert.
From what I know, the U.S. Dept. of Justice pressed charges against
Moussaoui. His defense lawyers request to access some
files/information with Binalshibh. Dept. of Justice refused that,
citing national security. The judges sided with Moussaoui's lawyer
and ordered Dept. of Justice to comply, and Dept. of Justice wants to
defy that order.
I do not see a big problem if Dept. of Justice defies the court order
(to allow Moussaoui's lawyer access to Binalshibh's information/file).
Keep in mind that the price to defy the order is the court throwing
That's the asymmetry. Any civilian who defies a court is in
contempt, and may go to jail. The gov. is literally above the
law.
No. The reason you feel this way is because in most cases and in most
countries, it is the prosecutors pressing charges against the
individuals. Therefore if the accused defy the court orders, he/she
loses the case and go to jail; if the prosecutors (the government)
defies the court orders like this time, the court throws out the case
and the charged is released.
I am saying that the gov. should also be obligated to obey a
court order. The only penalty is dismissing gov's criminal case,
and that's not sufficient to deter the gov. from indicting anyone
whom it doesn't like.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
You can also find some examples where some organizations sue the
government. For instance, some environmental associations suing a
U.S. agency for violating a environmental act, an act on endangered
species because the agency proposes to build a dam, and so on. In
this case, if the government defies the court order, then it loses the
case.
In a civil case, yes, the gov. will pay the penalty of losing
the case, maybe even pay big damages.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
There was a reason why Dept. of Justice planned to put Moussaoui in
civilian court system for trials at first. I am no legal expert and I
do not know.
Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was the right thing to do :-)
Ashcroft doing the right thing is an oxymoron / contradiction
in terms.
I have no comment on that, but I believe there is a hidden price to
appeal to military tribunals. It is not free, and that is the reason
why Moussaoui was not prosecuted that way originally.
Even Ashcroft may think it's unconstitutional, or at least
his top deputies who know more law think so.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(1) If U.S. Dept. of Justice put Moussaoui under military tribunal,
it means all future individuals associated with the terror
groups, arrested outside of the U.S., might never be sent to
the U.S. because of their own laws. Pakistan is likely to
do anything the U.S. ask; PRC might comply given a good "price";
for countries like Canada and Germany, forget it.
M. was arrested inside the U.S., by law enforcement, not by the
military, outside U.S. in battle.
The full constitution applies to him under these circumstances.
I was talking about *FUTURE* cases. For instance, both Canada and
Mexico have laws banning them to send requested fugitives back to
their home countries if they could face death penalties there. I
believe Germany has similar laws. If the U.S. appeals to military
tribunal this time, later these countries might deny requests from
Washington about the suspects they caught.
There is no death penalty in the entire E.U., and I believe
there is E.U. law against sending any of its citizens to any
place to face a death penalty.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
There was previous case of German spies arrested in U.S. during
WW2. They are going cite similarity. I am not convinced there
is similarity. In M's case, his lawyers will certainly file
habeas corpus with fed.ct. if he is held for military tribunal
trial, and the fed.ct. definitely has jurisdiction, and it may
well rule in his favor (i.e. he cannot be tried before military
tribunal, and he truly goes free.)
During World War II -- that could mean a difference and maybe some
civilians could be trialed under military tribunal, because the
country was at war, with the congress declaring war.
I believe those were German military men sneaking in thru a
submarine to engage in sabotage.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
(2) I would expect Moussaoui's lawyer, or organizations like ACLU,
would file a lawsuit, all the way to U.S. Supreme Court if
necessary, regarding what kind of individuals can be put under
military tribunal courts. You can imagine what happens if the
court explains something against U.S. Dept. of Justice -- the
other "enemy combatants" will see the sun again and that would
be the last thing Dept. of Justice likes to see.
I think no court has ever ruled one way or another on these military
tribunals. What you described is entirely likely. There is S.Ct.
saying U.S. cannot try a U.S. civilian in military court for crimes
committed on a U.S. base in England. Nothing about the military
trying some foreigner outside the U.S., which is what Bush/Ashcroft
want to do with these Arabs held at Guantanamo. Those might not
be constitutional either, but M's case is probably even more
unconstitutional.
Guantanamo base is not on the U.S. soil, but it is a U.S. military
base. I am not too sure whether the U.S. courts have power over
there. I tend to believe they should have.
I believe whatever the military does is under jurisdiction of
the military court system, rather than the civilian fed.ct.
However, I would think that in matters of the constitution,
the fed.ct. must have power to enforce even in the military.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Only the executive branch, and there is still a long way to go before
they "converge". In PRC do you think anyone dares to defend for
Moussaoui?
Yang Jianli apparently got a lawyer, of course he's not as bad
as M, even on PRC's terms.
I am not sure about all the cases, but most legal cases in PRC
involves lawyers recommending their clients to admit mistakes and plea
guilty, to trade for a "lighter" treatment. That sounds somewhat
weird from the U.S. view -- you pay the lawyer and he asks you to
cooperate with the authorities.
There is no, or very little, rule of law in PRC.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Siding with the government in all cases where national
security concerns are asserted would entail surrender
of the independence of the judicial branch and abandonment
of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.
It is obvious to anyone who ever went to law school.
In PRC there is a higher rule from the party.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by Ribes cynosbati
When one day a judge in PRC People's Court also says this, that will
be the day deserving a gold month vacation in China.
Long time. This Yang Bin guy got 18 years in prison, and I
think he didn't anything every other businessman in China didn't
do.
That is probably on the "selective enforcement" side (not sure about
the official legal term). Here I was talking about a PRC judge
putting the independence of laws above the national security, if this
happens one day.
If one day a PRC judge says this, that is a breakthrough.
If another day a PRC judge actually does this, it is another
breakthrough.
If another day a PRC judge actually does this, he doesn't get
into trouble, and the PRC gov. obeys, then it becomes a civilized
state.

Wing
Wing C Ng
2003-07-20 15:51:13 UTC
Permalink
(Discussions on Katrina Leung snipped)
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Sun's "overthrowing" action was not *DONE* in Hongkong.
It was a "base for subversion". Where you think the guys buried
in Huanghuagang got their arms through?
But I think what is punishable in Qing Dynasty view is the real
actions in Hongkong regarding overthrowing the regime in Beijing. Of
course, this discussion goes no where because (1) technically at that
time, Hongkong was not a Chinese territory and therefore attempts to
overthrow Qing Dynasty there is not a subversion action, and (2) at
That's right, the British couldn't care less what Sun did in
HK. Occasionally Qing would protest, and they would keep Sun
away for 3 months or whatever.
that time the views on laws were not the same as what we have today.
For example, what the emperor said automatically became laws.
I think the original point was that HK *was* historically used
as a base of overthrowing the mainland gov. Forbidding the kind
of activities Sun was engaged in (buying and smuggling in armaments)
is reasonable. No one would think of doing it today anyway.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
And this means the proposed Article 23 was indeed aimed to made Falun
Gong illegal in Hongkong by associating the case in Hongkong to that
in Mainland China, because there are other laws in Hongkong already to
deal with illegal associations/organizations threatening national
security.
That's correct. But it was withdrawn. They might dare to put
it in again later.
It is of course possible and likely. The question is how the new
marketing department in Beijing plans to sell.
Depends on which faction gets the upper hand on this particular
issue.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I thought the proposed Article 23 was actually tougher than that, in
the sense that Falun Gong members could face troubles?
Are the FLG *members* in HK engaged in treason, sedition, etc.?
I don't think any HK court would think so. However, they might
have divulged "state secrets" (FLG members were killed/tortured
in mainland, that would be a "state secret").
In PRC, the number of monks can be a state secret. This is why the
Or the number of SARS cases for a while.
same text in U.S. laws and that in the proposed Article 23 on "state
secret" means differently.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not aware of PRC citizens suing the government and succeeding,
though I might not know them. From what I remember, the cases looked
more like the executive branch of PRC "admitted the mistakes on its
own", making apologies and making compensations. I am not aware of
some government agencies being forced by the PRC People's Court to do
something.
That's about right.
But recently Beiijing has initiated a program for citizens to "rent"
uninhabitated islands, and some people have already registered to rent
lots on Diaoyu. Suppose their rental agreements are processed and
considered legally valid. Next time when there was another dispute on
Diaoyu between Tokyo and Beijing, and Beijing again did not do much.
Will these people *SUE* Beijing for not upholding their rental
agreements?
I don't think Beijing would rent out DY. On the other hand, Japan
rents DY *from* one of its citizens, who is said to *own* the island.
Quite funny.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
ROC today no longer claims to represents the whole China.
If it doesn't, then it's secession.
Heads you lose, tails I win. Yu gia zhi zui, he huan wu ci?
Beijing likes to blame Taipei for playing Taiwan independence. The
funny thing is, it is up to Beijing to define "Taiwan independence".
Beijing just like to blame Taipei, period. Just surrender and
take 1C2S.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That would be left to Hongkong authority to decide, if Article 23 was
put into effect. People can definitely claim to celebrate the
toppling of Qing Dynasty on October 10th; as for ROC flags, probably
it is more difficult to find an "excuse".
Don't think it's a crime to display Qing Yellow Dragon flag
though.
"Enemy's enemy is a friend."
If Beijing's statement is to be believed "ROC ended on 10/1/49",
then the flag is a historical artifact, just like the imperial
seal of Qin Shihuang, say.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
No. The reason you feel this way is because in most cases and in most
countries, it is the prosecutors pressing charges against the
individuals. Therefore if the accused defy the court orders, he/she
loses the case and go to jail; if the prosecutors (the government)
defies the court orders like this time, the court throws out the case
and the charged is released.
I am saying that the gov. should also be obligated to obey a
court order. The only penalty is dismissing gov's criminal case,
and that's not sufficient to deter the gov. from indicting anyone
whom it doesn't like.
I do not think so. In the U.S. the government (agencies) and the
citizens are treated the same in the courts, so the government can
prosecute citizens and the citizens can sue governments. If you want
to have a law forcing the government to obey a court order, the same
thing will apply to civilian organizations suing the government. That
is not necessarily good.
That is already true. We were originally talking about contempt
of court: if A wants evidence from B, court says okay, and B
refuses, then B is in contempt, and B can go to jail. Happens
all the time. In this case B is U.S. gov. I think Ashcroft,
or Bush, if Bush orders Ashcroft, should go to jail and be there
until U.S. gov. turns over evidence. If B were any other entity,
it will rot in jail until it complies with the court order.
This means if Sierra Club sues U.S. EPA on something, or an individual
sues NYPD police for brutality, both of them are also obligated to
obey court orders, and if they fail, not only do they have their cases
dropped but also they face jail time or other punishments.
They do obey court orders. Outrageous orders generally can be
immediately appealed to a higher court.

The U.S. gov. could have appealed in the Mousaoui case if it
thinks the federal judge is wrong. Apparently, it does not even
want to appeal (probably thinks it will lose).
Post by Ribes cynosbati
You can also find some examples where some organizations sue the
government. For instance, some environmental associations suing a
U.S. agency for violating a environmental act, an act on endangered
species because the agency proposes to build a dam, and so on. In
this case, if the government defies the court order, then it loses the
case.
In a civil case, yes, the gov. will pay the penalty of losing
the case, maybe even pay big damages.
I believe sometimes a government agency can be sued for crimical cases
-- or to be more accurate, a higher government agency might send its
prosecutors to charge against the lower (local) government. LAPD's
handling of Rodney King is one such example.
They would only charge individuals in gov. for a crime. I don't
think they can charge a whole gov. agency for a crime.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I have no comment on that, but I believe there is a hidden price to
appeal to military tribunals. It is not free, and that is the reason
why Moussaoui was not prosecuted that way originally.
Even Ashcroft may think it's unconstitutional, or at least
his top deputies who know more law think so.
Whether an official believes something is legal or constitutional is
not important -- whether he/she believes the court will rule it legal
or constitutional is.
Of course. In the U.S. system, the courts have exclusive power
to "say what the law is".
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I was talking about *FUTURE* cases. For instance, both Canada and
Mexico have laws banning them to send requested fugitives back to
their home countries if they could face death penalties there. I
believe Germany has similar laws. If the U.S. appeals to military
tribunal this time, later these countries might deny requests from
Washington about the suspects they caught.
There is no death penalty in the entire E.U., and I believe
there is E.U. law against sending any of its citizens to any
place to face a death penalty.
My intuitive belief is the law covering everyong, including
non-citizens, as long as they were physically in their territories.
I was talking about extradition from E.U. to the U.S. on death
penalty cases. Of course if the U.S. has hands on a E.U. citizen,
it can do whatever it wants with him. The E.U. can protest, but
the U.S. does not have to listen.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
During World War II -- that could mean a difference and maybe some
civilians could be trialed under military tribunal, because the
country was at war, with the congress declaring war.
I believe those were German military men sneaking in thru a
submarine to engage in sabotage.
Then probably they should be treated as POW -- but I believe most
conventions were probably signed after WW II.
I think U.S. said they are "illegal combatants", spies, and I think
some of them were executed. They claim they were not in uniform.

Mousaoui'd better find a uniform fast.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Guantanamo base is not on the U.S. soil, but it is a U.S. military
base. I am not too sure whether the U.S. courts have power over
there. I tend to believe they should have.
I believe whatever the military does is under jurisdiction of
the military court system, rather than the civilian fed.ct.
However, I would think that in matters of the constitution,
the fed.ct. must have power to enforce even in the military.
That should be what happens. For instance, U.S. armed forces were
forbidden by laws to participate in domestic affairs, including
helping fires or disasters. This prohibition must come from a law
Don't think that's true. There is a law forbidding CIA from
operating inside the U.S.
instead of an executive order, because the latter can be voided by the
U.S. president at any time.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I am not sure about all the cases, but most legal cases in PRC
involves lawyers recommending their clients to admit mistakes and plea
guilty, to trade for a "lighter" treatment. That sounds somewhat
weird from the U.S. view -- you pay the lawyer and he asks you to
cooperate with the authorities.
There is no, or very little, rule of law in PRC.
That is one of the reasons why Hongkong residents do not feel
comfortable to authorize Beijing to decide what Hongkong organizations
should be illegal (according to the proposed Article 23).
At least that has been withdrawn.

Which was why 500k HKers were upset. This sort of provisions
were not required by art. 23 itself. It was put in there for
some unknown reason, and the effect is to make most HKers very
angry.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
That is probably on the "selective enforcement" side (not sure about
the official legal term). Here I was talking about a PRC judge
putting the independence of laws above the national security, if this
happens one day.
If one day a PRC judge says this, that is a breakthrough.
If another day a PRC judge actually does this, it is another
breakthrough.
If another day a PRC judge actually does this, he doesn't get
into trouble, and the PRC gov. obeys, then it becomes a civilized
state.
At that time I would be very interested how independent PRC judges
rule about how the government enforces PRC constitutions.
There is one tiny step forward: administrative detention has been
declared unconstitutional (by CCP, not by a court) and will be
abolished. No *court* has still ever declared anything unconstitutional.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-05 13:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/51989.html
Can anybody traslate or summarize it?
The page

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/52122.html

provides the official English page for that comment.
charles liu
2003-07-05 13:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ribes!
Rc> http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/51989.html
Can anybody traslate or summarize it?
Key point: "Legislation outlawing threats against national security
and unity is common in nations' criminal laws, around the world
including USA."

For those unfamiliar with sedition/subversion law passed by US
Congress, please search on google for USA Patriot Act:

http://www.google.com/search?q=USA+Patriot+Act+subversion+sedition
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-05 22:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles liu
Hello, Ribes!
Can anybody traslate or summarize it?
Key point: "Legislation outlawing threats against national security
and unity is common in nations' criminal laws, around the world
including USA."
For those unfamiliar with sedition/subversion law passed by US
http://www.google.com/search?q=USA+Patriot+Act+subversion+sedition
I think we have seen that the U.S. Patriot Act does not stop you from
writing in Usenet for issues against the U.S. or criticizing the U.S.
policy, but Hongkong people fear Article 23 will affect them. That is
the difference.

People in Taiwan also pay attention to how long the show "1C2S" can
continue.
Goldfinger
2003-07-08 18:36:06 UTC
Permalink
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote. If they do, the
bill would have been vetoed and now it's just stalled.
Compare to the post-911 psyche and political reaction that passed USA
Patriot Act within 5 weeks.
The people of US, for one reason or another, didn't care about the Patriot
Act. Who are you to say it is good or bad?
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-09 18:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote. If they do, the
bill would have been vetoed and now it's just stalled.
Correction -- if I am right, Hongkong people do have the right to vote
members of the Legislative Council (Legco). The problem is that
Hongkong residents can only vote for a part of its members. Right now
I am not sure if that is a minority or a majority.
Post by Goldfinger
Compare to the post-911 psyche and political reaction that passed USA
Patriot Act within 5 weeks.
The people of US, for one reason or another, didn't care about the Patriot
Act. Who are you to say it is good or bad?
I am especially interested to know how tough the U.S. Patriot Act
needs to be before Charles Liu thinks of leaving the U.S., and then
compare this with Hongkong residents' reactions on Article 23 when
they find their Canadian passports in the drawers and leave Hongkong
like they did before 1997.

Richmond in Vancounver, British Columbia real estates will go up again
and you will see people filling the malls -- in that scenario.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-10 14:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote. If they do, the
bill would have been vetoed and now it's just stalled.
Correction -- if I am right, Hongkong people do have the right to vote
members of the Legislative Council (Legco). The problem is that
Hongkong residents can only vote for a part of its members. Right now
I am not sure if that is a minority or a majority.
Right now it's about 24 elected seats out of 60. I think all
8 Liberal Party seats are un-elected. Therefore there would be
something like 32 votes to stall the legislation.

Next election, which I believe is next year, there will be 30
elected seats. It becomes much more difficult to push thru
a draconian version of art. 23 in the next Legco. I think that
is one of the reasons they want so much to do it this year.
However, no one knows what it had to be 7/9/03. C.H. Tung
was born 7/7/37 (well known date in Chinese history). Maybe
that's why.

Wing
charles liu
2003-07-09 21:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Post by Goldfinger
If they do, the
bill would have been vetoed and now it's just stalled.
If this is indeed merely exercise if Bejing;s political will, it's
wouldn't be stalled right now. That's one of the ways for a bill to
die in a representative, democratic legislation - such as the SAR,
apart from
Post by Goldfinger
Compare to the post-911 psyche and political reaction that passed USA
Patriot Act within 5 weeks.
The people of US, for one reason or another, didn't care about the Patriot
Act.
Such generalization just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I've posted
opposition views prepared by EFF and ACLU. Do you know why librians in
US are protesting USA Patriot Act? Because the law can force libraries
to install Carnivor (FBI's spy software) on their computer systems.
Post by Goldfinger
Who are you to say it is good or bad?
I don't care about anything you say. Who are you to say anything?
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-10 02:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Are you mixing direct voting with indirect ones? What do the senators
and representatives say? And what did their constituents tell them?
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
If they do, the
bill would have been vetoed and now it's just stalled.
If this is indeed merely exercise if Bejing;s political will, it's
wouldn't be stalled right now. That's one of the ways for a bill to
die in a representative, democratic legislation - such as the SAR,
apart from
Hongkong returned to PRC for nearly 6 years and nothing was done
regarding Article 23. Who sparked the need?
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
The people of US, for one reason or another, didn't care about the Patriot
Act.
Such generalization just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I've posted
opposition views prepared by EFF and ACLU. Do you know why librians in
US are protesting USA Patriot Act? Because the law can force libraries
to install Carnivor (FBI's spy software) on their computer systems.
Did any librarians and/or ACLU plan to file constitutional lawsuits
against this act regarding Carnivore? Can Hongkong residents to the
same thing regarding Article 23?
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
Who are you to say it is good or bad?
I don't care about anything you say. Who are you to say anything?
Hongkong residents and Americans do not care anything you say either.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-10 14:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.

Wing
charles liu
2003-07-11 01:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Exactly my point. It was finger who started this "Hong Kong people
don't have rights to vote." as if unlike Article 23, USA PA is voted
in by the people.

You might be able to educate me on this. I took a look at HK SAR
LegCo's websit:

http://www.legco.gov.hk/english/index.htm

Most if not all the members are local people. Most of them are botrn
in HK. Most of them went to universities in HK, Macau, London, US.
Many are Christians.

And according to the the about>today link, most if not all are elected
(24 thru direct election, rest thru indirect/constitutency election?):

"The Legislative Council of the HKSAR has 60 Members for the second
term, with 24 Members returned by geographical constituencies through
direct elections, 30 Members by functional constituencies, and 6
Members by an Election Committee comprising *800 elected
representatives of the community*."

Even if some are appointed representative, it's not as if other
countries don't do it. USA's Electoral College members are appointed,
for example. In case of death US congress memebers are appointed in
some cases.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-11 14:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles liu
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Exactly my point. It was finger who started this "Hong Kong people
don't have rights to vote." as if unlike Article 23, USA PA is voted
in by the people.
You might be able to educate me on this. I took a look at HK SAR
http://www.legco.gov.hk/english/index.htm
Most if not all the members are local people. Most of them are botrn
in HK. Most of them went to universities in HK, Macau, London, US.
Many are Christians.
All of them are local people, meaning they have permanent HK ID.
The rest of the statements are correct.
Post by charles liu
And according to the the about>today link, most if not all are elected
Only the direct elections are true elections.
Post by charles liu
"The Legislative Council of the HKSAR has 60 Members for the second
term, with 24 Members returned by geographical constituencies through
direct elections, 30 Members by functional constituencies, and 6
These are big businesses, big unions, professionals, etc.
Most of these simply follow Beijing's wishes, although
the lawyers, doctors, and accountants often don't.
Post by charles liu
Members by an Election Committee comprising *800 elected
representatives of the community*."
This is the same committee that "elected" C.H. Tung, picked
by Beijing. As if governor of Calif. is picked by a committee
picked by G.W. Bush.

C.H. Tung expected to get something like 60-24 = 36 votes in
favor of whatever he proposes. (A few unelected ones are
actually pro-people, and a few elected ones are pro-Beijing,
so they even out.) However, the big business representatives,
the Liberal Party, defected Tung, and their 8 votes mean that
Tung can only count on 28 votes and would lose.

If the Liberal Party had not switched, which is entirely
because of the 500,000 people marching, art. 23 legislation
would have become law yesterday the 9th.
Post by charles liu
Even if some are appointed representative, it's not as if other
countries don't do it. USA's Electoral College members are appointed,
for example. In case of death US congress memebers are appointed in
some cases.
House reps are never appointed. Senators can be appointed by
the governor if the predecessor died.

Electoral College members are merely proxies for the presidential
candidates. 99.99% of the time they vote for whoever they pledged
they would vote for. Their names are not even on the ballot, the
pres. candidates' names are.

Wing
charles liu
2003-07-13 17:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Exactly my point. It was finger who started this "Hong Kong people
don't have rights to vote." as if unlike Article 23, USA PA is voted
in by the people.
You might be able to educate me on this. I took a look at HK SAR
http://www.legco.gov.hk/english/index.htm
Most if not all the members are local people. Most of them are botrn
in HK. Most of them went to universities in HK, Macau, London, US.
Many are Christians.
All of them are local people, meaning they have permanent HK ID.
The rest of the statements are correct.
Post by charles liu
And according to the the about>today link, most if not all are elected
Only the direct elections are true elections.
Post by charles liu
"The Legislative Council of the HKSAR has 60 Members for the second
term, with 24 Members returned by geographical constituencies through
direct elections, 30 Members by functional constituencies, and 6
These are big businesses, big unions, professionals, etc.
Most of these simply follow Beijing's wishes, although
the lawyers, doctors, and accountants often don't.
Post by charles liu
Members by an Election Committee comprising *800 elected
representatives of the community*."
This is the same committee that "elected" C.H. Tung, picked
by Beijing. As if governor of Calif. is picked by a committee
picked by G.W. Bush.
"800 elected representatives" is not the same as "800 appointed
representatives" of the community. I want to understand this, have you
seen anything showing this isn't proper "indirect election"?
Post by Wing C Ng
C.H. Tung expected to get something like 60-24 = 36 votes in
favor of whatever he proposes. (A few unelected ones are
actually pro-people, and a few elected ones are pro-Beijing,
so they even out.) However, the big business representatives,
the Liberal Party, defected Tung, and their 8 votes mean that
Tung can only count on 28 votes and would lose.
Okay, so Beijin's agenda and influence are not gauranteed. Doesn't
this mean "1C2S" is in fact buffering the political difference between
Mainland and HK?
Post by Wing C Ng
If the Liberal Party had not switched, which is entirely
because of the 500,000 people marching, art. 23 legislation
would have become law yesterday the 9th.
But it didn't, did it? Nobody said democracy is a cake. Matter of fact
democracy is often a bitch. Just ask thouse thousands of arabs and
muslins jailed for little or no reason in America, supposedly the
greatest democracy.
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Even if some are appointed representative, it's not as if other
countries don't do it. USA's Electoral College members are appointed,
for example. In case of death US congress memebers are appointed in
some cases.
House reps are never appointed. Senators can be appointed by
the governor if the predecessor died.
Electoral College members are merely proxies for the presidential
candidates. 99.99% of the time
Again, not a proper direct election is it? Electoral College members
are appointed by the political parties, not elected, and President of
USA can lose direct election and still win - George W Bush for
example.
Post by Wing C Ng
they vote for whoever they pledged
they would vote for. Their names are not even on the ballot, the
pres. candidates' names are.
This doesn't explain the fact they are appointed not elected.
Post by Wing C Ng
Wing
LT Lee
2003-07-11 05:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Hong Kong city is a special administrative district. Why not compare
with Washington D.C. which does not have a single senator or
representative elected by D.C. residents.
Post by Wing C Ng
Wing
Wing C Ng
2003-07-13 15:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by LT Lee
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Hong Kong city is a special administrative district. Why not compare
with Washington D.C. which does not have a single senator or
representative elected by D.C. residents.
Exactly the opposite: D.C. cannot elect anyone to fed. office.
HK can, it has full representation at the NPC, even though those
are not elected, but then no one at NPC is elected by the people.
D.C. has full electoral rights for its local gov., the mayor, the
city council. HK has little electoral rights for its local gov.,
Tung was not elected, 36 out of 60 of the LegCo are not elected
by the people.
With respect to both the Patriot Act and article 23, U.S. federal laws
supercede local laws if constitutional. Similarly, Article 23 is part
of the deal of 1C2S. It really has nothing to do with the electoral
rights for local government.
You are the one who started this tangent on comparison of HK and
DC. No one mentioned any local law that conflicts with U.S. fed.
law - actually fed. law supersedes if it "pre-empts", which is a
gigantic legal subject. Art. 23 is an art. of the Basic Law.
However, how to enact art. 23 legislation is supposed to be
entirely a matter for HK, within its autonomy. It can enact good
legislation, or it can enact bad ones. The present proposal is
bad legislation, that goes way beyond the requirements of art.
23 to put onerous restrictions on liberty.


Wing
LT Lee
2003-07-14 01:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by LT Lee
Post by Wing C Ng
Post by charles liu
Post by Goldfinger
And as recent news demonstrated, passing of Article 23 is entirely
dependent on SAR's own politics, not Beijin's wish. As soon as enough
votes turned the political tide in HK, the bill is stalled.
You're nuts. Hong Kong people don't have rights to vote.
As if America, the greatest democracy in the world, passed USA Patriot
Act with the American People's vote. Face it, American people don't
have the right to vote on similiar security laws either.
Every single senator and representative is elected in an
election. If these people passed the Patriot Act, the Am.
people only get themselves to blame.
Hong Kong city is a special administrative district. Why not compare
with Washington D.C. which does not have a single senator or
representative elected by D.C. residents.
Exactly the opposite: D.C. cannot elect anyone to fed. office.
HK can, it has full representation at the NPC, even though those
are not elected, but then no one at NPC is elected by the people.
D.C. has full electoral rights for its local gov., the mayor, the
city council. HK has little electoral rights for its local gov.,
Tung was not elected, 36 out of 60 of the LegCo are not elected
by the people.
With respect to both the Patriot Act and article 23, U.S. federal laws
supercede local laws if constitutional. Similarly, Article 23 is part
of the deal of 1C2S. It really has nothing to do with the electoral
rights for local government.
You are the one who started this tangent on comparison of HK and
DC. No one mentioned any local law that conflicts with U.S. fed.
law - actually fed. law supersedes if it "pre-empts", which is a
gigantic legal subject. Art. 23 is an art. of the Basic Law.
However, how to enact art. 23 legislation is supposed to be
entirely a matter for HK, within its autonomy. It can enact good
legislation, or it can enact bad ones. The present proposal is
bad legislation, that goes way beyond the requirements of art.
23 to put onerous restrictions on liberty.
I did not start the compariosn betwen the PA and Art. 23. My previous
post had pointed that fed. laws supersedes unless it is proven to be
unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Don't think you have a case
with Art. 23 in Beijing court.

Well there is another way. Bad local laws can be stopped by lawsuits.
That is how some referenda, the ultimate of direct democracy, were
overturned in the U.S. Again, electoral right is not the issue. Simply
put, the majority is not always right.

Yes, I suggest the comparison between HK and DC. Both are specialized
administrated district. Both lack certain electoral rights.
Post by Wing C Ng
Wing
LT Lee
2003-07-14 17:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by LT Lee
Post by Wing C Ng
You are the one who started this tangent on comparison of HK and
DC. No one mentioned any local law that conflicts with U.S. fed.
law - actually fed. law supersedes if it "pre-empts", which is a
gigantic legal subject. Art. 23 is an art. of the Basic Law.
However, how to enact art. 23 legislation is supposed to be
entirely a matter for HK, within its autonomy. It can enact good
legislation, or it can enact bad ones. The present proposal is
bad legislation, that goes way beyond the requirements of art.
23 to put onerous restrictions on liberty.
I did not start the compariosn betwen the PA and Art. 23. My previous
Neither did I. There is no reason to compare them.
Post by LT Lee
post had pointed that fed. laws supersedes unless it is proven to be
unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Don't think you have a case
with Art. 23 in Beijing court.
Beijing court has nothing to do with art. 23, or in adjudicating
any HK case. The court of final appeal in HK does, unless it has
to do with mainland-HK relations, in which case the NPC takes the
final appeal.
Art. 23 itself is clearly valid, being a properly enacted article
of the Basic Law. It is moderately bad, but that can only be changed
by amending the Basic Law. The latest episode has to do with the
legislation purporting to enable art. 23, supposedly a purely HK
internal affair, and Beijing re-affirmed this view recently, very
properly.
Post by LT Lee
Well there is another way. Bad local laws can be stopped by lawsuits.
That is how some referenda, the ultimate of direct democracy, were
It is possible that some of the art. 23 legislation conflicts
with the International Covenant for Political and Civil Rights,
with was also in the Basic Law as applicable to HK.
Post by LT Lee
overturned in the U.S. Again, electoral right is not the issue. Simply
put, the majority is not always right.
In the case of art. 23, electoral right *is* the issue. Because
majority of LegCo is *not* elected, the majority can pass *any*
law that is opposed by the majority of the people. The majority
suffers no consequence, because their boss is *not* the people.
Whether art. 23 is good law is one thing. Hong Kongers' rights is an
totally independent thing. I don't see the linkage. I had pointed out
in my last post. Electoral right do not guarantee good laws. If Art.
23 is bad, focus on the law, not the electoral right.

And here is where my using DC for comparison is valid. American's
Patritic is good or bad by itself. It does not make sense to argue
that PA is good for New Yorkers because the New Yorkers are
represented in the federal gov while DC residents are not. In terms of
national security, where you live makes no difference. The fed.
government has to defend New Yorkers as well as DC residents. Hence
the same national security law. Similarly, the PRC has to defend Hong
Kongers as well as Beijingers, so Art. 23 has to satisfy the PRC's
need.
Wing
Post by LT Lee
Yes, I suggest the comparison between HK and DC. Both are specialized
administrated district. Both lack certain electoral rights.
Post by Wing C Ng
Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-14 22:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by LT Lee
In the case of art. 23, electoral right *is* the issue. Because
majority of LegCo is *not* elected, the majority can pass *any*
law that is opposed by the majority of the people. The majority
suffers no consequence, because their boss is *not* the people.
Whether art. 23 is good law is one thing. Hong Kongers' rights is an
totally independent thing. I don't see the linkage. I had pointed out
in my last post. Electoral right do not guarantee good laws. If Art.
23 is bad, focus on the law, not the electoral right.
Hongkong SAR web site claimed that it has extensively solicited
opinions and comments from Hongkong residents about Article 23. I am
not sure if this is true -- if it is true, then 500,000 protesters
appeared from nowhere on July 1st.

I do not think Hongkong residents, and actually people anywhere in the
world, might care that much if others are going to impose a law on
them in case they are happy/satisfied with the laws. The problem
appears when the people are forced to accept a law out of their
control and they do not like it.

So back to the issue. I agree with you that whether Article 23 was
good or bad is the key, not the electoral rights. However, if the
drafting of the article was decoupled from the residents' view, then
it is natural for the residents to seek participation (regarding
voting Legislative Council members directly), instead of arguing what
was good and what was bad.
Post by LT Lee
And here is where my using DC for comparison is valid. American's
Patritic is good or bad by itself. It does not make sense to argue
that PA is good for New Yorkers because the New Yorkers are
represented in the federal gov while DC residents are not. In terms of
national security, where you live makes no difference. The fed.
government has to defend New Yorkers as well as DC residents. Hence
the same national security law. Similarly, the PRC has to defend Hong
Kongers as well as Beijingers, so Art. 23 has to satisfy the PRC's
need.
Not exactly. You can expect both New York and District of Columbia to
be the primary targets of the "protections" served by U.S. Patriot
Act, and therefore citizens in these two cities might tend to support
U.S. Patriot Act more, even if that means costing others' freedom.
For D.C. residents, even if they have no say in U.S. Patriot Act, they
do not mind much as long as the law satisfies what they need and gives
them the security.

If Article 23 has to satisfy PRC's needs, then the condition of 1C2S
is partially broken. It is true Beijing has to protect Hongkong and
her residents' safety, but Hongkong residents do not care that much --
it is human nature to focus on his/her own needs.

If today two skyscrapers fall down in Hongkong due to terrorist
attacks, or it happens to Beijing or Shanghai, the controversial
Article 23 would be passed with great ease. Fortunately they did not
happen, and Hongkong residents do not think them likely, so they would
object to the proposed legislation.
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-16 06:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Hongkong SAR web site claimed that it has extensively solicited
opinions and comments from Hongkong residents about Article 23. I am
not sure if this is true -- if it is true, then 500,000 protesters
appeared from nowhere on July 1st.
I don't know what the number means even if it is accurate.
The paragraph above put the emphasis on whether Hongkong SAR has
solicited comments from Hongkong residents.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
I do not think Hongkong residents, and actually people anywhere in the
world, might care that much if others are going to impose a law on
them in case they are happy/satisfied with the laws. The problem
appears when the people are forced to accept a law out of their
control and they do not like it.
Sure. Not many like government taxation in the sense that they are
happy to see his wealth reduced. Will a government without tax revenue
work? Certain law is inevitable whether we like it or not. Tax is one.
Security is another one.
They are different. You can choose to pay low or zero tax if most of
the voters agree with you. The consequence is you enjoy no public
service. When your house is on fire you should save it by yourself.
Security is similar. You pay a price by limiting your own freedom to
trade for your security. Different people draw the line differently.
A concensus is formed in the voting process.

They are different from the case when people have to accept a law they
do not like and they have no choice.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
So back to the issue. I agree with you that whether Article 23 was
good or bad is the key, not the electoral rights. However, if the
drafting of the article was decoupled from the residents' view, then
it is natural for the residents to seek participation (regarding
voting Legislative Council members directly), instead of arguing what
was good and what was bad.
In One country two systems, the country preceed the systems. Don't
understand the decoupling part. Hong Kong is part of the country, not
an independent country.
If you emphasize the country too much, you eliminate the "2S" part.
For issues governing both Hongkong and Mainland China, it is fine for
Beijing to make the call (with appropriate representation from
Hongkong). For issues mainly focusing on Hongkong, one of the "2S",
it is better to leave them for Hongkong residents.

The part Beijing says to Hongkong is already seen in Article 23 of
Basic Law. The details of Article 23 can be left to Hongkong -- this
means members of Legislative Council consisting of people determined
by Hongkong residents.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
Not exactly. You can expect both New York and District of Columbia to
be the primary targets of the "protections" served by U.S. Patriot
Act, and therefore citizens in these two cities might tend to
support
Post by Ribes cynosbati
U.S. Patriot Act more, even if that means costing others' freedom.
For D.C. residents, even if they have no say in U.S. Patriot Act, they
do not mind much as long as the law satisfies what they need and gives
them the security.
Don't agree. The strength of a chain is determined by the weakest
chain. Possible target cities should be protected. Cities should also
be precluded from being used as staging areas.
The problem is the proposed Article 23 legislation does not address
the stocking of dynamites, or biological weapons, in Hongkong, so the
"weakest link" concept does not apply here. The controversial part of
Article 23 addresses the other issues and that is why Hongkong
residents complained.
Post by Ribes cynosbati
If Article 23 has to satisfy PRC's needs, then the condition of 1C2S
is partially broken. It is true Beijing has to protect Hongkong and
her residents' safety, but Hongkong residents do not care that much --
it is human nature to focus on his/her own needs.
Not at all. One country means if any city is attacked, the country,
i.e. all cities are attacked.
Tell this to Hongkong residents. They would think next time a Xian
McDonald restaurant is bombed, the whole PRC is attacked and it is
time for them to withdraw investments.
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-21 07:34:18 UTC
Permalink
It's been reported that the final poll by HK Gov. indicated
25% planned to show up on 7/1/03. So L.T. will no doubt claim
it's 25% --> 10%, a failure by the people.
This can be a pause. The signal is sent. They are waiting to see what
the government will do. Or the anger is dissipated by the protest.
Most of them decided they had more important business to attend to.
I think the point is that Hongkong SAR decided to postpone the
legislation.

And the Hongkong protesters dissipated their anger as Regina Ip
resigned.
Yes. The protest will be more serious if a larger crowd than July 1
had shown up after the government had addressed their concerns.
That is true -- but the opposite is not necessarily true. To put it
plainly,

A larger crowd than the July 1st one --> the protest is more
serious.

This is valid.

A smaller crowd than the July 1st one --> the protest is less
serious.

This is not valid.

Anyway, what the number of protesters means is up to Beijing and Tung
to interpret. They gain if they make correct interpretation, and they
pay the price if they make wrong ones.
Wing C Ng
2003-07-15 05:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by LT Lee
Post by LT Lee
post had pointed that fed. laws supersedes unless it is proven to be
unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Don't think you have a case
with Art. 23 in Beijing court.
Beijing court has nothing to do with art. 23, or in adjudicating
any HK case. The court of final appeal in HK does, unless it has
to do with mainland-HK relations, in which case the NPC takes the
final appeal.
Art. 23 itself is clearly valid, being a properly enacted article
of the Basic Law. It is moderately bad, but that can only be changed
by amending the Basic Law. The latest episode has to do with the
legislation purporting to enable art. 23, supposedly a purely HK
internal affair, and Beijing re-affirmed this view recently, very
properly.
Post by LT Lee
Well there is another way. Bad local laws can be stopped by lawsuits.
That is how some referenda, the ultimate of direct democracy, were
It is possible that some of the art. 23 legislation conflicts
with the International Covenant for Political and Civil Rights,
with was also in the Basic Law as applicable to HK.
Post by LT Lee
overturned in the U.S. Again, electoral right is not the issue. Simply
put, the majority is not always right.
In the case of art. 23, electoral right *is* the issue. Because
majority of LegCo is *not* elected, the majority can pass *any*
law that is opposed by the majority of the people. The majority
suffers no consequence, because their boss is *not* the people.
Whether art. 23 is good law is one thing. Hong Kongers' rights is an
totally independent thing. I don't see the linkage. I had pointed out
You don't, 500,000 did.

While an elected legislature may make bad laws (U.S. PA), an
unelected legislature is guaranteed to make bad laws, or good
laws only for its "boss".
Post by LT Lee
in my last post. Electoral right do not guarantee good laws. If Art.
23 is bad, focus on the law, not the electoral right.
And here is where my using DC for comparison is valid. American's
Patritic is good or bad by itself. It does not make sense to argue
that PA is good for New Yorkers because the New Yorkers are
represented in the federal gov while DC residents are not. In terms of
national security, where you live makes no difference. The fed.
government has to defend New Yorkers as well as DC residents. Hence
the same national security law. Similarly, the PRC has to defend Hong
Kongers as well as Beijingers, so Art. 23 has to satisfy the PRC's
need.
Nonsequitur. Defense is the job of the military. Art. 23 is
purely internal, directed against the people of HK. Only the
PRC can direct how its military should be deployed to defend
itself.

Wing
Ribes cynosbati
2003-07-21 07:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wing C Ng
You don't, 500,000 did.
They protested against Art. 23. This part is factual. The rest is
only your speculation. Of course, you are welcomed to present
evidences to substantiate your claim.
Can you comment on whether the following observation is factual, or it
is only a speculation?

This can be a pause. The signal is sent. They are
waiting to see what the government will do. Or the anger
is dissipated by the protest. Most of them decided they
had more important business to attend to.
Post by Wing C Ng
While an elected legislature may make bad laws (U.S. PA), an
unelected legislature is guaranteed to make bad laws, or good
laws only for its "boss".
What are good laws but laws that are win-win for both the government
and the governed?
If the government is picked by the people?

(You cannot have the other way around, the people is picked by the
government)
Post by Wing C Ng
Nonsequitur. Defense is the job of the military. Art. 23 is
purely internal, directed against the people of HK. Only the
PRC can direct how its military should be deployed to defend
itself.
The best defense is before the military. Prevention is better than
cure.
Urge Beijing to drop the 1C2S claim. That solves all the problem and
suddenly all PRC laws apply to Hongkong and there is no more security
or protection disputes.

Loading...