Post by Wing C NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiShould 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiNobody 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiPeople 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiPay 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiI 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 cynosbatiThat 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiNot 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiI 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 NgRule 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiI 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 NgPost by Ribes cynosbatiThat'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 NgFrom 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 NgActually 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 NgThe 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 NgSigh. 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.