滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Atrocity in the Name of the Law]
滕彪文集
·One-man rule? China's Xi Jinping consolidates grip on power
·劉曉波對維權律師的關注
·滕彪:中国自由民权运动与习近平时代
·Kidnap, torture, exile: Dr. Teng Biao shares his story
·維權、佔中與公民抗命
·Arrested, Assaulted and Tortured: Exiled Human Rights Lawyer Details P
·滕彪律师评论郭文贵事件的意义
·Coercive Family Planning in Linyi
·Chinese lawyers hailed as “heroes for justice”
·THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF THE DISAPPEARED
·《失踪人民共和国》
·EXEMPLARY FIGURES REPORTED BY GARIWO
·在劫难逃
·李明哲案 滕彪:陸意圖影響台灣政治籌碼
·人权律师解密北京的"水晶之夜"
·李明哲案:臺灣退無可退
·作为人类精神事件的刘晓波之死
·北京驱逐"低端"人口的制度根源
·Atrocity in the Name of the Law
·学者解析中共执政密码
·暴行,以法律的名义
·人道中国十周年纪录短片
·“中华维权律师协会”评出十佳维权律师
·中国妇权成立十周年纪念
·武统狂言背后的恐懼
·以法律名義被消失,中華失踪人民共和國
·川普公布首批人权恶棍 滕彪:震慑中共
·「蚂蚁金服」在美并购遭拒 中国官媒指不排除反制措施
·CCP is taking China towards more and more Owellian state
·中国公民社会前景:乐观还是堪忧?
·中共渗透遭美欧澳等国谴责 专家析世界格局
·Laogai, le goulag chinois
·不反思計劃生育 中國就沒有未來
·中国:溃败与希望
·Conversation on China’s human right
·Draconic Restrictions on Uyghur Cultural And Religious Freedoms
·寧添十座墳,不添一個人
· the only way seems to become more dictatorial and oppressiv
·不管藍營綠營,面對的都是「集中營
·惠台政策还是经济统战?
·专访:用李明哲案件恐吓整个台湾
·習近平進一步向毛澤
·中共專制政權威脅全世界
·新戊戌变法的变与不变
·【Documentary】China: Spies, Lies and Blackmail
·No escape: The fearful life of China's exiled dissidents
·中国异议人士逃抵西方仍难脱离中共监控威胁
·The State of Human Rights Lawyers in China
·权益组织:电视认罪—一场中国官方导演的大戏
·温良学者 正义卫士(一)
·Has Xi Jinping Changed China? Not Really
·訪滕彪律師談中共政權對於全世界民主自由人權發展的負面影響
·中共绑架中国
·美国务院发布人权报告 点名批评中国等八国
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(二)——发出不同的声音
·鸿茅药酒:中共制度之毒
·on televised confessions
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(三)——挑战恶法 虽败犹荣
·温良学者 正义卫士(四)——铁骨也柔情
·温良学者 正义卫士(五)——黑暗中的闪电
·美两党议员推法案 要求调查中共渗透/NTD
·Video【Teng Biao: From 1989 to 1984】
·第二届藏港台圆桌会 中国律师表态支持自决权
·自由民主與自決權:第二屆藏港台圓桌會議
·Exiled in the U.S., a Lawyer Warns of ‘China’s Long Arm’
·端传媒滕彪专访:一个曾经的依法维权者,怎么看今日中国?
·VOA:川金会上 人权问题真的被忽略了吗?
·“中国的长臂”:滕彪审视西方机构对华自我审查
·中国长臂迫使西方机构公司自我审查/RFA
·美退出人权理事会 滕彪呼吁应将人权与经贸利益挂钩
·“中国政治转变的可能前景”研讨会纪要
·滕彪:川普退出人权理事会是为人权?西藏、新疆民族自决
· The Second China human rights lawyers day
·第二届“中国人权律师节”将于7月8日在纽约举行
·【video】A message from a Chinese human rights lawyer
·【RFA中国热评】美中贸易战、 “七五”、“709案”
·回顾709案:中国迫害律师的第三波高潮
·中国人权律师节力赞人权律师的意义
·高智晟、王全璋获颁首届中国人权律师奖
·Chinese rights lawyers and international support
·高智晟王全璋纽约获人权律师奖 亲友代领
·709大抓捕三周年 境内外纷有声援行动/RFA
·Forced disappearances
·光荣的荆棘路——第二届中国人权律师节开幕短片(Openning film on the Sec
·用法律抗争与对法律宣战
·「709大抓捕」並非偶然…
·An Editor Speaks Out: Teng Biao, Darkness Before Dawn, and ABA
·中國假疫苗事件能夠杜絕?
·当局不解决人们提出的问题,而是〝解决〞提出问题的人们
·疫苗之殇还是贼喊捉贼/RFA
·The legal system is a battleground, and there’s no turning back
·A Call for a UN Investigation, and US Sanctions, on the Human Rights D
·关注新疆维吾尔自治区人权灾难的呼吁书
·警察街头扫描手机内容 新疆式维稳监控扩散
·The banned religious group that has China worried
·人间蒸发 强制失踪受害者日 家属焦急寻人
·中国留学生都是“007”?
·忧末日恐慌蔓延,中国围剿全能神教
·An Open Letter on Ilham Tohti’s Life
·关于伊力哈木生命致多国政府和欧盟理事会的公开信
·918 RESIST Xi Jinping
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Atrocity in the Name of the Law

https://chinachange.org/2017/12/07/atrocity-in-the-name-of-the-law/
   Teng Biao, December 7, 2017
   
   This is the Foreword to The People’s Republic of the Disappeared: Stories From Inside China’s System for Enforced Disappearances, a newly published book about China’s “Residential Surveillance at a designated location.”
   

    Those holding unchecked power often seek to hide their cruelty behind euphemisms. In China, classic examples range from “land reform” to the “Cultural Revolution.” You can’t easily see the cruelty from the surface of such words. Expressions like “the three year natural disaster,” used by the Communist Party to describe the Great Leap Forward of 1958 to 1961 in which tens of millions died, or the “6/4 counterrevolutionary riot,” the description of the Tiananmen Democracy movement, are shameless acts of misrepresenting history and reversing right and wrong. Do “Legal Education Centers” really have anything to do with law or education? No. They are Black Jails for arbitrarily detaining and tormenting politically sensitive groups around the country.
   
   “Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location” (RSDL) is the latest euphemism.
   
   Tyranny is not only reflected in murder, evil laws, and crackdowns; it is reflected even more in the minor details. This book is a collection of details, vividly reflecting China’s cruelty.
   
   Much remains unknown about RSDL, and for that reason this book is an invaluable look into the rarely exposed systematic tyranny behind the euphemism of “Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location.”
   
   —
   
   Looking into its legislative history, RSDL was first envisioned in the 1997 Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), which dictated a special form of Residential Surveillance to be applied to those suspects without a fixed residence. However, with police having near unlimited powers, it is little wonder that the regulation has been used for repression.
   
   The most famous democracy advocate in China, the deceased Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, was placed under Residential Surveillance after he was taken in December 2008. His crime had been signing “Charter 08,” a petition calling for democracy and political liberalization in China. Obviously, Liu Xiaobo did not belong to the category of “suspects without fixed residence” and should have been allowed to serve his Residential Surveillance with his family at his home. His lawyer should have been allowed to visit him anytime. Instead, Liu was effectively disappeared during his seven months of Residential Surveillance, before being sentenced in a mockery of a trial to 11 years in prison for inciting subversion of state power. On 13 July 2017, Liu Xiaobo died of liver cancer, likely treatable had he not been a prisoner of the state. His wife, Liu Xia, has also been disappeared at times, denied contact with the outside world with no legal basis or justification.
   
   During the 2011 “Jasmine Revolution,”[i] the authorities kidnapped and secretly detained human rights defenders on a large scale, in a gangland act of criminality under the banner of “National Security.” Human rights lawyer Liu Shihui (Chapter 2) reflected on his secret detention. “I was beaten so badly that I needed stitches. My ribs were in extreme pain, which continued to interrupt my sleep for days. I wished that I would be transferred to a detention center.”[ii]
   
   Similarly, [activist] Tang Jingling was not allowed to sleep for upwards of ten days. In the end, he felt “trembling, numbness of hands, and a bad feeling in his heart, that his life was in great danger, and only then did the police just allow him to sleep one or two hours a day.”[iii]
   
   Writer Ye Du was held in a Guangzhou Police Training Center for 96 days, like lawyer Sui Muqing (Chapter 10). Ye recalled, “[I] didn’t see sunlight for over a month. I was subjected to 22 hours of interrogation every day. I was given one hour for eating, one hour for sleeping, until the 7th day when my stomach had massive bleeding.”[iv]
   
   Hua Ze’s book, In the Shadow of the Rising Dragon, published in 2013, records the experiences of 47 activists caught up during the Jasmine Revolution. I was one of them.
   
   After I was kidnapped, I was detained in secret for 70 days. I was told that I was being placed under Residential Surveillance. No one ever told me their name, department, or position. Nobody ever showed me a work permit, search warrant, or any legal documents. I suffered. During this time, I was beaten, deprived of sleep, forced to maintain stress positions, forced to wear handcuffs for 24 hours a day for 36 days, threatened, abused, forced to write a confession, and otherwise ill-treated. Even now, years later, it is hard to put it into words.
   
   RSDL is classified as a non-custodial coercive measure, but in reality it has not only became a system for prolonged, pre-trial detention outside a formal, legal location, but has also become a more severe, more terrible, coercive measure than normal criminal detention. RSDL is not limited by detention center regulations, nor any real supervision at all. The chances of torture are greatly increased; in fact, torture has become rampant under RSDL.
   
   The authorities must find RSDL to be a very convenient and effective way for dealing with rights defenders, judging by its indiscriminate use since the CPL was revised in 2012.
   
   Article 73 of the CPL, stipulates that, “Residential Surveillance shall be enforced in the residence of the suspect or defendant. For those without a fixed residence, it may be enforced in a designated location. When… enforcement in the residence might impede the investigation, it may also be enforced in a designated location upon the approval of the People’s Procuratorate or Public Security organ at the level above.”
   
   The police can decide for themselves if someone is to be placed in RSDL, which means the police decide who is to be disappeared.
   
   It is little wonder that this was one of the most controversial articles during legislative reform, leading many commentators, myself included, to call it the “Jasmine Article.” This is because it appeared to legalize enforced disappearances, which had become more common during the Jasmine Revolution crackdown.
   
   The CPL stipulates that RSDL “must not be enforced in a detention center or special case-handling area;” but in reality, all RSDL is enforced at special case-handling areas run by the Public or State Security Bureaus, or it is carried out at euphemistically named “training centers,” “prevention bases,” “anti-corruption education bases,” or sometimes even hotels that have been specially converted into secret detention facilities known as Black Jails.
   
   The law permits for exceptions where family members don’t even need to be informed, and allows the state to deny access to a lawyer. These exceptions, which have now become the norm, have turned RSDL into a de facto enforced disappearance, exactly what the RSDL system seeks to achieve.
   
   
   During suppression of the “Jasmine Revolution” in 2011 and the “709 Crackdown” starting in 2015,[v] terrifying enforced disappearances became common experiences within the human rights community. The most serious example is lawyer Wang Quanzhang. While I am writing this, Wang’s fate and whereabouts have remained uncertain for over two years. The cruelty and brutality of RSDL is clearly visible for the world to see.
   
   In 2010, the Chinese government refused to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This was an irresponsible act but far from surprising. Enforced disappearances are nothing new in China. High-profile examples include the 17 May 1995 disappearance of the then six-year-old Panchen Lama, who had been confirmed by the Dalai Lama, and the widespread disappearance of Uyghurs following the July 2009 Urumqi riots. Still, the legalization of enforced disappearances in the CPL is shameful.
   
   According to the original intention of the law, Residential Surveillance should only be a monitoring location. It is not to be used for interrogation or custodial purposes. However, the facilities used for RSDL have not only become specialized interrogation facilities, they have become even harsher than prisons and detention centers.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场