The Zhang Hongbao Case
Posted by:
reality
()
Date: May 24, 2003 11:45AM
The penalty phase
The penalty phase arises if and when he is found guilty. The story of last week includes speculating about what would be the case in a guilty condition. I don't like speculation, but we have already gone there, and so it is already in play. Even Robert Shapiro speculated that ZHB would be executed if returned to China.
There seems to be intellectual inconsistency, if not vast hypocrisy, in some opinions expressed, about what should be the penalty for ZHB. How do we call ourselves human rights campaigners on this basis? Can we allow these suggestions--
Laogai camps are bad for China, but they are good for ZHB.
The global human rights movement opposes the death penalty, but it is good for ZHB.
What kind of legal system do you want China to have? What kind of penalties? There is no intellectual consistency in the above. I hope that those are personal positions, and that the movement officially has some principles, which will eventually govern China.
It is amazing that some people tried, convicted, and hung him in the past tense privately, and then that this comes out to be official FCM policy. It reveals how deeply hated he has become in some places, and maybe you feel that he ought to be dead. I think that he is not dead yet, and we can still treat him like he is living -- in fact, as a person who is in the same bucket with all other people -- a bucket for which we advocate human rights, due process, etc.
I am aghast to see the split that has arisen in recent emails. In an FCM board of directors' statement, Paul Risenhoover denounced the fact that China conducts "no trials" with no evidence, no witnesses, no defense, no rights, and no due process. It now appears that the same thing happened "under the hood" at FCM. I am surprised that some would consign his fate to that process. Are those writers really so eager for him to meet with justice, that they don't mind if justice is dispensed by evil people in an evil way?
The writer who said that "two wrongs don't make a right" was the writer who I credit with being the most principled and intellectually consistent in the emails that I have recently seen. In fact, I will borrow from him to sign off from this missive.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
--John Kusumi, 5/11/2003
The penalty phase arises if and when he is found guilty. The story of last week includes speculating about what would be the case in a guilty condition. I don't like speculation, but we have already gone there, and so it is already in play. Even Robert Shapiro speculated that ZHB would be executed if returned to China.
There seems to be intellectual inconsistency, if not vast hypocrisy, in some opinions expressed, about what should be the penalty for ZHB. How do we call ourselves human rights campaigners on this basis? Can we allow these suggestions--
Laogai camps are bad for China, but they are good for ZHB.
The global human rights movement opposes the death penalty, but it is good for ZHB.
What kind of legal system do you want China to have? What kind of penalties? There is no intellectual consistency in the above. I hope that those are personal positions, and that the movement officially has some principles, which will eventually govern China.
It is amazing that some people tried, convicted, and hung him in the past tense privately, and then that this comes out to be official FCM policy. It reveals how deeply hated he has become in some places, and maybe you feel that he ought to be dead. I think that he is not dead yet, and we can still treat him like he is living -- in fact, as a person who is in the same bucket with all other people -- a bucket for which we advocate human rights, due process, etc.
I am aghast to see the split that has arisen in recent emails. In an FCM board of directors' statement, Paul Risenhoover denounced the fact that China conducts "no trials" with no evidence, no witnesses, no defense, no rights, and no due process. It now appears that the same thing happened "under the hood" at FCM. I am surprised that some would consign his fate to that process. Are those writers really so eager for him to meet with justice, that they don't mind if justice is dispensed by evil people in an evil way?
The writer who said that "two wrongs don't make a right" was the writer who I credit with being the most principled and intellectually consistent in the emails that I have recently seen. In fact, I will borrow from him to sign off from this missive.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
--John Kusumi, 5/11/2003
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.