Sunday, November 30, 2008

Taiwan's Minister of Justice is a liar
Scholars say nicely

Scholars Find Taiwan's Minster of Justice's Response Inadequate
Saturday November 29, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
...

November 28th 2008

The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang,

In an open letter to the Taipei Times, published on November 25th 2008, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgement of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply. Based on the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

  1. The procedure of "preventive detention." This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his November 13th article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that "it ought to be invoked rarely."

    Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of the DPP government. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.

  2. The open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials "were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them." This is simply not correct: when they were detained, they were subject to lengthy interrogations in some cases for up to 20 hours which bore the character of a "fishing expedition," and is not a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months of time to collect information: if they did have sufficient evidence of wrong-doing, they should formally have charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.
  3. The open letter also states that the persons involved had "the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance." It neglects to mention that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped, while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don't need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding the lawyer-client privilege, and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.
  4. On the issue of leaks to the press, the letter states that under the Code of Criminal Procedure information on ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor's offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media has been filled with information on the ongoing investigations which could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are ample others:
    Only a few hours after former Foreign Minister Mark Chen was questioned on November 3rd, the Apple Daily (a local tabloid) ran an article that "the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr. Chen in relation to the case."

    The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shih Lin District Court Judge Hung Ing-hua, who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your Ministry in an article in the "Liberty Times" on November 17th 2008.

    We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that your ministry is now taking steps against Mr. Cheng Wen-long, the lawyer for former President Chen Shui-bian, who presumably "leaked" information to the press. Your Ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and also sent a formal request to Taiwan Lawyer's Association and asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

    It is our understanding that the statements Mr. Cheng made were in relation to former President Chen's views on Taiwan's situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope your Excellency realizes that if you proceed along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

  5. The letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best stalled in the judicial process?

    We may also refer to expressions of concern by Prof. Jerome Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li, who expressed his deep concerns about the preventive detentions in an editorial in the "China Times" on November 9, 2008. In his editorial, Mr. Li praised the remarks made by prosecutor Chen Rui-ren, who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors' offices should "avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group."

    The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP Administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by President Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

    We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved including former President Chen Shui-bian can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

  6. Lastly, you take the statement by the US State Department as an "endorsement" of Taiwan's legal system and the procedures followed. You might want to note that in international diplomatic language, the term we have every expectation means we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in Western democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion: we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the November 20th issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is hungry for justice, and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform which would move Taiwan towards a fully fair and impartial judicial system which earns the respect and admiration from other democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

Signatories of the November 4th Joint Statement

  1. Nat Bellocchi, former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan
  2. Julian Baum, former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic Review
  3. Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
  4. Stéphane Corcuff, Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France *
  5. Gordon G. Chang, author, "The Coming Collapse of China."
  6. David Curtis Wright, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary
  7. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida
  8. Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  9. Mark Harrison, Senior Lecturer, Head of Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia*
  10. Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
  11. Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St. Paul Minnesota
  12. Jerome F. Keating, Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, "Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan's Complex History" and other works on Taiwan
  13. Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
  14. Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania
  15. Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas
  16. Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
  17. Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa
  18. Peter Tague, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
  19. John J. Tkacik Jr., Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC
  20. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia
  21. Arthur Waldron, Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
  22. Gerrit van der Wees, Editor Taiwan Communiqué, Washington DC
  23. Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs

Thursday, November 27, 2008

JFK: Taiwan's Minister of Justice
lacks a basic grasp of the legal system

In Jerome F Keating's recent posting Taiwan's Minister of Justice Responds to the Scholars' Joint Statement, he wrote: Wang Ching-Feng did not mean what she wrote or lacks a basic grasp of the legal system. In the first case, she openly says: even though you all see this as a deer, it actually is a horse. In the second case, we have someone who does not know physics, but is now teaching quatum physics. Some thoughts:
  • She is actually both inept and always ready to lie and distort facts shamelessly.
  • The irony is that as Minister of Justice, she is responsible to make our society JUST. Here again, we have a hyaena guarding chicken coop.
  • I suggest that 新台灣論壇, 大話新聞 or 頭家來開講 invites Wang Ching-Feng to their programs to answer real questions.
  • I look forward to scholars' response and I hope the whole world will speak up and say: Enough is enough, Taiwanese must not continue to tolerate such flagrance at the highest levels of government.
I attach JFK's article here.

Taiwan's Minister of Justice Responds to the Scholars' Joint Statement
Thursday November 27, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

On November 6th some twenty US, Canadian, European, and Australian scholars wrote a Joint Statement to Taiwan's Ministry of Justice and other government agencies expressing deep concern over the recent series of detentions in Taiwan (that statement can be seen below on November 15). The statement was also published in the "Taipei Times" on November 6. The Honorable Wang Ching-feng, Taiwan's Minister of Justice recently responded to that statement stating that it was inaccurate on several points. Minister Wang's letter was printed in the "Taipei Times" on November 25. On November 26 the Taipei Times editorial addressed the Minister's letter and in particular where it claimed that all Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) figures arrested were charged according to law within 24 hours. The editorial stated "This unfortunately, is also simply untrue raising concerns that Wang did not mean what she wrote or lacks a basic grasp of the legal system." The full editorial can be found in the Taipei Times for November 26.

This writer, as one who signed the original Joint Statement, was quite surprised to see the Minister make the following claim. "This (the accusations) creates the misimpression that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation which quite simply is untrue." This may have been an error in translation, but while one hopes that Taiwan's judiciary is fair and impartial, such a statement suggests that Taiwan is already a perfect world. To judge for themselves, readers can go through the Minister's letter printed below. In the meantime, the original twenty scholars will be providing their joint response in the coming days. Minister Wang's letter is as follows.

Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008, Page 8 --Open letter is inaccurate

The signatories who wrote the open letter that appeared in the Taipei Times leveled several criticisms against Taiwan's prosecutorial and judicial procedures ("Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan," Nov. 6, page 8). Regrettably, various statements in the letter appear to be indicative of a lack of understanding or perhaps a misunderstanding of due process of law in Taiwan. The Ministry of Justice would like to clarify the relevant facts.

The open letter alleges that "the procedures followed by the prosecutors' offices are severely flawed." The majority of the detained present and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials, the letter read, were "being held incommunicado without being charged," which "is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law." We believe the facts clearly show that this allegation is groundless.

As required by law, when the present and former DPP government officials were interrogated by the prosecutors, they were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them. They were also informed of their rights to retain counsel and to remain silent. After they were detained, they had the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance. None of them was held incommunicado without charges.

After they were arrested, they were immediately, within 24 hours at most; brought before judge(s) to determine whether they should be detained before trial for the crimes they were charged with. This is a standard procedure that was strictly followed by all of the prosecutors involved.

Therefore, in the cases in question, the prosecutors did not contravene the writ of habeas corpus or violate due process, justice, or the rule of law. Even the defense attorneys of the DPP officials did not accuse the prosecutors of doing what the open letter claims they did. These facts are indisputable and serve as proof of the prosecutors' compliance with due process and the law as well as respect for the writ of habeas corpus.

The open letter further states that "the prosecutors" offices apparently leak detrimental information to the press with the intention of conducting a "trial by press." The confidentiality of investigations, however, is explicitly required by our Code of Criminal Procedure. Information relating to ongoing investigations can be disclosed only by the spokespersons of prosecutor's offices. Any prosecutor who discloses information without authorization will be internally disciplined as well as be subject to criminal prosecution.

The media may receive information from a number of different sources, such as the defense counsels, defendants and witnesses. With respect to the criticism of the Special Task Force attached to the Supreme Prosecutor Office, we have asked the Supreme Prosecutor Office and the Ethics Office of this Ministry to investigate. So far, however, there is no evidence that any prosecutors or other law enforcement officials leaked information to the media.

The most serious allegation made in the open letter was that alleged leaks to the press give "the distinct impression that the Kuomintang [KMT] authorities are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government. This creates the misimpression that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation, which quite simply is untrue.

The investigations into the cases referred to in the open letter began when the DPP was the ruling party. In addition, the Special Investigation Task Force was created under former president Chen Shui-bian's administration, and the prosecutor-general of the Supreme Prosecutor Office was nominated by Chen himself.

These facts are testament to the impartiality of Taiwan's prosecutorial and judicial system, and should lay to rest any claim of partisanship on the part of the Special Investigation Task Force.

During a press conference last Tuesday, in answer to questions about recent developments in Taiwan, US Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack said: "This is a matter for Taiwan's legal system to resolve. We are confident in Taiwan's democracy and its legal system, and we have every expectation that the process will be "transparent, fair and impartial."

We in the Ministry of Justice surely share this view and want to reassure those who are concerned about Taiwan, including those who wrote and signed the open letter, that there will be absolutely no erosion of justice in Taiwan, no matter who the accused is.

WANG CHING-FENG

Minister of Justice

Republic of China



Monday, November 24, 2008

黃榮堅(德國波昂大學法學博士):
檢察系統 看不到

The following article by 黃榮堅(德國波昂大學法學博士、台大法學院教授)is part of the 檢舉書狀 from 學者教授團體 to 監察院 on 2008-11-24 re 警政及國安單位於陳雲林來台期間之違法濫權行為.

Read the 檢舉書狀 from Bunhu's web site at http://blog.yam.com/bunhu/article/18436216

An excerpt:

我們固然看到政府機關積極對於參與集會遊行者的撻伐與刑事追訴,但是對於最應該負責任,也最可能構成犯罪的各層級執政者,卻沒有任何甚至只是偵查事實的動靜。 當然我們也知道,違法的內政部長,違法的警政署長,違法的國安局長與違法的分局長不可能追究自己的責任,因為這就是人類歷史上國家非法暴力的事實特徵。問 題是,整個國家的檢察系統應該是受過法學教育的一群人所組織起來的,那麼果真他們也看不到這一些事情,聽不到這一些事情,或者所接受過的教育不足以使心中 產生一些疑惑?是自我規訓嗎?或者檢察官們也想引用所學的「欠缺期待可能性」概念來為自己做辯解?就讓我們檢驗一下:我們這一個國家的國家非法暴力可以貫 徹到什麼程度?

Full text follows:

問題不在暴力,問題在正當性

黃榮堅(德國波昂大學法學博士、台大法學院教授)


一、執政者的居心是什麼?

對於圓山事件引起人民的抗議,執政者的回應集中在集會遊行法的修訂,並且一再表明,集會遊行法的修訂本來就是執政黨的政策之一。對於圓山事件,執政者之所以把焦點限縮在集會遊行法的修訂,其用意是表明執政者對於圓山事件的處理並無錯誤,如果有問題,是集會遊行法的問題。而且,既然集會遊行法的修訂本來就是執政黨既有的政見與政策,那麼表示到最後,執政者不管對於圓山事件,或是對於修法問題,並沒有錯誤。

集 會遊行法的修訂是極為困難的事情,原因在於集會遊行的原因、背景以及所涉影響不一而足,因此尺度的拿捏不易一致。如果對於集會遊行法能夠有什麼不變的原 則,可以說只有比例原則。除此而外,任何過於細緻的規範都很難有普遍的有效性。我也支持集會遊行法的討論與可能的修訂,不過除此之外,我的觀念重點在於,民主精神的落實,最後所依賴的並不是法律文字,而是實踐的素養與態度執政者在此次圓山事件明顯暴露出來,所欠缺的就是民主的素養與態度, 而不是其他,因此我們對於執政者要求的是身體實踐民主!雖然法律文字可以有「比例原則」的用語,可以有「言論自由」的用語,甚至也可以有「人權」的用語, 但是現實問題是,我們所理解的比例原則不是執政者心中的比例原則,我們所理解的言論自由不是執政者心中的言論自由,我們所說的人權也不是執政者心中的人 權。否則,為什麼在圓山事件中主其事者可以肆無忌憚的施暴於人民?如果對於此次圓山事件的檢討,問題限縮在集會遊行法的修訂,那麼不管集會遊行法如 何修訂,不管是不是採取報備制或其他什麼制,我們可以預測其後果是,下一次中華人民共和國代表再到台灣時,國安局長或警政署長所指揮的警察照樣對人民施 暴,因為那就是他們心中的比例原則、言論自由與人權標準。我白話的講,執政者不懂比例原則,不懂言論自由,不懂人權,並不是看不懂這一些文字,而是心中沒有這些東西。 我必須明白的說,執政者對於此次圓山事件的回應,把問題限縮在集會遊行法的修訂,而不談主其事者對於圓山事件的責任問題,其用意在準備,當下一次中華人民 共和國代表再到台灣時,他們可以照樣再一次指揮警察對人民施暴。因為,如果圓山事件當中,主其事者是不需要道歉或下台的,表示他們的作法是沒有錯的,那 麼,為什麼不能再來一次呢?甚至如果下次中華人民共和國派到台灣的代表是層級更高的人,那麼何嘗不能光明正大的使用更殘酷的手段來對付人民?

二、問題在哪裡?

執政者與人民對嗆,說問題是出在暴力,但是,問題果真出在暴力上嗎?如果說暴力的定義是對於人或對於物的破壞,那麼就事實層面而言,圓山事件當中使用絕大多數暴力的是警察所代表的國家,而不是到現場抗議的人民。從此可以得到的第一個論點是,暴力本身原本是中性的, 否則一個國家法律體制內怎麼可能容許國家暴力的存在?既然如此,邏輯上也沒有辦法說暴力形式就不能見容於人民身上。甚至法律上也很清楚的,至少正當防衛、 緊急避難或容許風險等等的情況下是可以使用暴力的,甚至可以包括殺人,而且一如我個人在犯罪結構概念上一貫主張二階層理論的核心精神所顯示的,這一些暴力 行為,其正當性並沒有一絲一毫的打折。因此第二個論點是,問題不在暴力,問題在正當性。對於此,既然執政者說是「問題出在暴力」,其所說的暴力不會是說國家的暴力,而是專指人民的暴力。顯然他們急於指責人民的同時,心中忘掉國家本身在使用暴力,更不知道國家暴力也有對錯的問題。

暴力本身是中性的,是沒有對錯的。暴力可不可以被容許,要看背景情況。簡單講,有正當性的暴力是被容許的,沒有正當性的暴力是不被容許的。從基本背景來觀察,對於台灣與中華人民共和國的地位關係,對於青天白日滿地紅旗幟所代表的意義,執政者與反對者有不同的界定,到頭來也代表者不同的情緒立場。反對人士過去反對青天白日滿地紅的旗幟,反對的是其代表國民黨政權對台灣統治權的內向意義,但是卻不在反對此一旗幟現實上代表台灣作為主權獨立國家的外向意義。反之,國民黨對於此一旗幟必然堅持的是其代表對台灣統治權的內向意義,但是不堅持的是(面對中華人民共和國時)代表台灣作為主權獨立國家的外向意義。儘管如此,就一個民主國家而言,不同的立場與言論是可以並存的。因此執政黨儘管有其立場,卻無權在陳雲林來台時禁止人民表達不同言論,更無權處心積慮防止青天白日滿地紅的影子進入陳雲林的眼睛裡,防止人民抗議聲音進入陳雲林的耳朵裡所以,在整個陳雲林來台時,主其事者對於臺灣人民言論自由的嚴厲管制政策,基本上是完全沒有正當性的。如果延長到事後的情勢發展,則特別是在執政者許可反對人士針對馬陳會時間點申請集會遊行後,突襲性的把馬陳會的時間提早到當日上午十一點,透過表面上的技術運作,實質上達到蒸發人民反對聲音的效果,也道道地地的否定人民對於國家基本政策的主權地位。從民主國家的標準來看,這是國家透過對於人民的愚弄來挑釁人民!挑釁人民然後鎮壓人民,無意重複執政者將近三十年前美麗島事件所使用的手法。

面 對國家對言論的不法管制與強制,人民能怎麼辦?人民因此喪失了言論自由的權利了嗎?如果是這樣,言論自由就不叫做言論自由。既然憲法賦予人民言論自由的權 利,人民當然有權繼續為言論的表達。對於事件中所出現個人激烈的攻擊員警的動作,當然也是違法的,因為在這一件事情的意見表達技術上,沒有如此的必要性。 所以,檢警單位必須追究其傷害罪責任,也必須釐清真假暴民的問題。至於主持集會遊行者,有控制基本遊行秩序的作為義務,不過對於個別的失序行為,依然有其 容許的風險,否則無異根本禁止集會遊行。從期待可能性做為保證人地位的上位概念來看也是一樣:對於遊行當中的任何失序,或是宣佈解散後的殘餘遊行與動作, 如果當然歸責於遊行主持人,與無異根本禁止集會遊行。相對的,對於執法的警察,所可能存在的罪名主要有強制罪、傷害罪、毀損罪以及強盜罪等。當然,奉命執 行勤務的警察最可能引用的排除不法事由是依所屬上級公務員命令之行為,然而此一排除不法事由有但書規定,亦即明知命令違法不在此限。因此問題在於,執法警 察是否明知命令違法?以機車插國旗、持國旗傘或戴國旗帽而被強制攔截,甚至被折斷旗桿,或者店家播放台灣歌曲而被強制搜索與關門的情況來看,要說是警察不 知道上級命令違法,只有一種解釋,就是中華民國的警察果真普遍沒有基本人權的概念。其實這種說法也很難說得通,因為我們不知道,三十年來,中華民國的警察 什麼時候是會用大批武裝警力來取締噪音的?更不知道,是什麼時候開始,中華民國的國旗是只被國家允許放在家裡,而不被國家允許在公共場所出現的?如此,要 說是執行勤務的警察欠缺不法意識,可能也要費功夫。剩下來最容易為執行勤務的警察解套的途徑就是責任概念上的期待可能性問題,換句話說,在現實環境下沒有 辦法期待警察可能抗拒上級違法的命令,所以基本上行為不罰。最後真正難以脫罪的應該是國安局長、內政部長或警政署長等指揮勤務者,因為這一些人位居 高階,已經沒有辦法用依上級命令來排除不法,也沒有辦法用欠缺期待可能性做為阻卻罪責事由,應該依個別情形負強制罪、傷害罪、毀損罪以及強盜罪等間接正犯 的責任。特別是,警察單位是動用國家資源特別訓練出來的國家工具,所以對於可預見警察施加於人民的不法暴力,上級者沒有容許風險的空間。

三、國家不敢面對的正義?

國家暴力相對於個人暴力的可怕,一在被害者求救無門,因為典型的國家暴力,高層執政者本身就是加害人,所以事實上不可能追究自己的責任二在扭曲價值論述,斷絕爾後一切轉型正義的契機,因為執政者掌握一切國家資源,足以抹黑異議人士,或者至少麻痺人民的正義概念。我們看到執政者譴責反對人士背棄和平的承諾,問題是,除非執政者心中果真毫無民主概念,否則既然國家本身已經背棄對於人民的民主承諾時,還有什麼資格要求人民必須信守和平的承諾?就事後的責任追究而言,理論上,不管是來自哪一方面的人士,對於事發當天個人直接或間接使用暴力的情形必須逐一清查,必須逐一確定其責任。於此,我們固然看到政府機關積極對於參與集會遊行者的撻伐與刑事追訴,但是對於最應該負責任,也最可能構成犯罪的各層級執政者,卻沒有任何甚至只是偵查事實的動靜。 當然我們也知道,違法的內政部長,違法的警政署長,違法的國安局長與違法的分局長不可能追究自己的責任,因為這就是人類歷史上國家非法暴力的事實特徵。問 題是,整個國家的檢察系統應該是受過法學教育的一群人所組織起來的,那麼果真他們也看不到這一些事情,聽不到這一些事情,或者所接受過的教育不足以使心中 產生一些疑惑?是自我規訓嗎?或者檢察官們也想引用所學的「欠缺期待可能性」概念來為自己做辯解?就讓我們檢驗一下:我們這一個國家的國家非法暴力可以貫 徹到什麼程度?

International Federation for Human Rights:
an open letter to Ma Ying-jeou et al
re grave violations of human rights

This report collects




20/11/2008
Taiwan
Deep concern regarding the detention and attacks against citizens protesting peacefully during the visit of Chinese envoy Mr. CHEN Yunlin

Send this article by mail title= Send


Open letter to

  • President Ma Ying-jeou
  • Premier Liu Chao-hsuan
  • Republic of China – Taiwan

Your Excellencies,

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) is writing to you to express its deep concern regarding the detention and attacks against citizens protesting peacefully during the visit of Chinese envoy Mr. CHEN Yunlin. FIDH believes that such arrests and violence are grave violations of human rights, under the pretext of national security.

According to the information received, since November 3rd, 2008, the city of Taipei has been heavily occupied by more than 7,000 police officers. The authorities have taken many drastic measures, including: confiscating and damaging private property, harassing and assaulting people who came too close to undefined or vaguely defined areas, clearing communal highway lanes with force, conducting random searches and arrests, and restricting the freedom of movement of citizens. These actions have been taken during Mr. CHEN’s visit, in the name of protecting security.

However, we fear these aggressions in fact aim at suppressing the right to freedom of expression of citizens. To supplement this violence, there are also unprecedented restrictions which clearly overpass the limits of ensuring security. For example, citizens have been restricted from displaying or carrying the national flag of Taiwan, forbidden to declare that “Taiwan is not part of China”, forbidden from carrying filming devices, and restricted from playing any music the authorities consider inappropriate.

These measures seem to be aimed at silencing political opinions rather than protecting security, and thus they blatantly violate the Constitution of Taiwan, notably Articles 11 and 14 which protect freedom of expression and international human rights standards. Consequently, FIDH requests that the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, bound by the Constitution and the national legislation, should be held responsible for violating their legal obligations. The Judicial Yuan and Control Yuan should immediately conduct independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of human rights violations and hold all personnel in office accountable for neglecting their civil and legal obligations, in line with the Judicial Yuan’s recent statement that “it is very important to form an objective and solid review standard, and make the constitutional reviews more predictable and trust-worthy to people”. Those who perpetrated these violations, particularly in the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, must be held accountable, in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution of Taiwan, which stipulates that “Any public employee who, in violation of law, infringes upon the freedom or right of any person shall, in addition to being subject to disciplinary punishment in accordance with law, be liable to criminal and civil action. The victim may, in accordance with law, claim damages from the State for any injury sustained therefrom.”

More generally, FIDH calls upon the government to amend the Parade and Assembly Law, in particular : to abolish the requirement for mandatory permits and adopt the system of voluntary basis and the clause on special area of restriction, which gives too much discretion to the authority to restrict people’s freedom of association and freedom of expression. In addition the authorities should abolish the order to dismiss as well as the provisions on special criminal punishment, which is a legacy of the martial law era. Finally, Taiwan should establish the protocol for law enforcement personnel who should have the obligation to clearly announce his or her identity when on duty, to ensure legitimacy and accountability.

Your Excellencies,

Our Organization firmly believes that the fruit of Taiwan’s remarkable democratization has landmark significance to the Asian continent as a whole. We therefore express our serious concern over the alarming human rights degradation in Taiwan, and we do take it as a signal of a negative trend undermining the values of democracy and human rights on which Taiwan should be based. Hoping that you will take into consideration the above mentioned concerns, I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Souhayr Belhassen

  • FIDH President


您最缺的國際觀:人權

◎ 劉順明

總 部在法國巴黎的國際人權聯盟(FIDH,成立於一九二二年,是全球最早的國際非政府人權組織,聯盟成員來自一百多個國家),十一月二十日發表給台灣政府的 一封公開信"Deep concern regarding the detention and attacks against citizens protesting peacefully during the visit of Chinese envoy Mr. CHEN Yunlin"(參見http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article6006), 信中對馬政府假國安之名行侵犯人權之實頗多批評("FIDH believes that such arrests and violence are grave violations of human rights, under the pretext of national security.")。

此外,我也收到朋友從美國轉寄過來的email,是美國「自由之家」剛剛發布的新聞稿,內容是呼籲馬政府成立獨立機構,調查陳雲林來台時,因警民嚴重衝突,所造成的侵害人權事件(參見http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=725)。

更早,新聞週刊(Newsweek)也在十一月中旬,由北京局負責人劉美遠(Melinda Liu)針對馬政府一連串快速逮捕卸任總統、前朝官員所引起台灣社會對司法獨立的質疑,以及陳雲林事件公權力執法過當,作了深入分析(http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/chinacalling/archive/2008/11/12/fallout-from-chen-shui-bian-s-dramatic-arrest.aspx)。

劉美遠文章指出,因為馬政府大量逮捕前朝官員,史無前例地讓二十位(目前已經增加至二十四位)關心台灣司法人權的國外學者聯名發表公開信"Political arrests and detentions in Taiwan"(http://www.taiwandc.org/Statement%20arrests%20Nov%202008.htm),表達嚴重關切,並質疑台灣司法獨立性。而中國特使陳雲林來訪期間,因警察強勢執法,導致大規模流血衝突,也是台灣民主化以來罕見。

從「自由之家」、國際人權聯盟相繼對台灣人權的關心,以及國外學者聯名公開信質疑台灣司法,和劉美遠的文章,不正是在對台灣逐漸流失的民主成果,提出嚴重警訊嗎?

中國惡劣的人權問題是國際版面的常客,曾幾何時,台灣的人權水準似乎也有漸漸跟中國看齊的趨勢,成了知名人權組織關心的對象。孰令致之?完全執政且掌有絕對權力的馬政府難辭其咎。

過去中國國民黨長期執政時,總是灌輸台灣人一個觀念:經濟好最重要。讓台灣人對於自己的基本人權與政治權利一知半解。所幸,在許多勇於衝撞體制的民主前輩的犧牲下,才換來今天的民主成果。然而,似曾相識的威權場景,似乎又悄悄地回來了。

馬總統曾經在媒體公開讚揚並要學習新加坡,馬上令人聯想到新加坡的「開明專制」。以馬政府這半年相關施政作為,包括兩岸簽訂協議規避民意監督、漠視人民大規模遊行以及罔顧人權的跡象顯示,馬先生似乎正朝著「專制」道路邁進。至於「開明」與否,則依其慈悲心自由裁量了!(作者為美國卡內基美隆大學公共政策與管理碩士)


Federation concerned about police response to protests By Rich Chang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 3

The International Federation for Human Rights has become the latest international group to express concern regarding the response of police to protests against Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yun-lin (陳雲林) earlier this month.

The Paris-based group sent letters to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) on Wednesday, expressing concern over what it called “grave violations of human rights” committed by police during the protests.

The police’s actions were aimed at suppressing freedom of speech, the group said.

In the letter, the federation said the authorities “had taken many dramatic measures, including: confiscating and damaging private property, harassing and assaulting people who came too close to undefined or vaguely defined areas, clearing communal highway lanes with force, conducting random searches and arrests, and restricting the freedom of movement of citizens.”

The organization said it feared the “aggressions” were intended to suppress “freedom of expression of citizens.”

“These measures seem to be aimed at silencing political opinions rather than protecting security, and they blatantly violate the Constitution of Taiwan [sic], notably Article[s] 11 and 14 which protect freedom of expression and international human rights standards.”

“The police and national security authority should be held responsible for violating their legal obligations,” the group said.

It called on the Judicial Yuan and Control Yuan to investigate the allegations of human rights violations.

It also called on the government to amend the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) to abolish the requirement that protest organizers apply for permits from the police.
This story has been viewed 445 times.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Melinda Liu of Newsweek: ... "People were very upset"

Fallout from Chen Shui-Bian's Dramatic Arrest

[Please find a Chinese translation at the end.]
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:51 PM
By Melinda Liu

China has denied that it put pressure on Taiwan to arrest former President Chen Shui-bian, who's been arrested, accused of embezzlement, money laundering, taking bribes, and forging documents while in office. Chen, a long time opponent of reunification with Beijing, accused his successor Ma Ying-jeou of ordering his detention to curry favour with mainland China’s leaders. He has yet to be charged, but may be held for up to four months while prosecutors prepare their case against him. As Newsweek’s Duncan Hewitt writes, the case highlights growing political rifts in Taiwan over relations with China:

The detention of Chen Shui-bian on corruption charges, coming so soon after new president Ma Ying-jeou signed accords authorizing historic direct shipping links with mainland China, could be seen as yet another victory for Mr Ma and his Kuomintang party (KMT), as they seek to consolidate power after eight years in opposition. But in practice, Mr Chen’s detention is likely to highlight political tensions which have growing in Taiwan since President Ma’s accession in May this year.

Hopes that Mr Ma, a Harvard-educated lawyer seen as relatively moderate, would bring consensus to a society long fragmented over attitudes towards reunification with the mainland, have been shattered. Polls have shown his popularity plunging from some 60% to around 23% in late October. There is undoubtedly much public anger in Taiwan towards Chen Shui-bian, who has admitted breaking the law by not fully disclosing campaign donations -- but the arrests of seven other figures associated with his Democratic Progressive Party, also in connection with corruption allegations, over the past few months, have led to fears being raised about the independence of Taiwan’s judiciary under the new leadership.

Such warnings have not just come from traditional DPP supporters. Last week, before Mr Chen’s arrest, twenty prominent international Asia specialists, including Professors Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Jacobs of Monash University and June Teufel Dreyer of the University of Miami, along with former Far Eastern Economic Review Taipei correspondent Julian Baum, issued an unprecedented open letter expressing “deep concern” at the behaviour of Taiwanese prosecutors. “It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan,” they wrote, “but these have occurred in both political camps.” The recent detentions, they said, had created an impression that the KMT authorities “are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government.” They accused prosecutors of “a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law,” by holding several detainees incommunicado without being charged, and of “trial by press” by leaking detrimental information to the media. They suggested that such actions were jeopardizing the achievements of Taiwan’s transition from one party rule (by the KMT) to democracy in the late 1980s and early 90s.

Allegations of a regression to past authoritarianism also surfaced last week, when China’s top negotiator, Chen Yunlin, visited Taiwan to sign the historic accords allowing direct air, postal and shipping links between Taiwan and the mainland. There is actually a fairly broad consensus of support in Taiwan for the opening of such links – indeed most of the details of the accords were negotiated when Chen Shui-bian and the DPP were still in power. But final agreement could not be reached back then because Mr Chen would not accept China’s demand that he must first accept Beijing’s “One China” concept (which basically means accepting that Taiwan is part of China and the two sides will one day be reunified, even if they differ on the exact means to achieve this.)

But President Ma’s approach to the visit of Chen Yunlin, the most senior mainland official to visit Taiwan for six decades, seemed calculated to upset his opponents. Critics accused him of bending over backwards to “give face” to the mainland delegation: the official flag of Taiwan, which Beijing does not recognise, was not flown at the presidential palace when Mr Chen visited; the President was addressed by the mainland delegation as plain Mr Ma, since Beijing does not recognise his presidential status. Equally controversially, would-be protesters were refused permission to stage demonstrations against Mr Chen’s visit.

Such refusals are rare in Taiwan’s democratic era – and when protesters did try to demonstrate anyway, they were met with police beatings that left over 100 people injured and shocked many who thought Taiwanese society had turned its back on such brutality. “People were very upset,” says Frank Muyard, Director of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China in Taipei. “For the police to use force against peaceful protesters is something which hasn’t been seen in Taiwan for perhaps 16 years, since before [former President] Lee Teng-hui took full power during the transition to democracy.”

Public anger spilled over, leading to chaotic scenes when Chen Yunlin was prevented from leaving his hotel for hours by furious demonstrators. Students and academics seeking to protest peacefully at the government’s handling of the affair were also dispersed by police, leading to an open letter by 500 academics calling for the right to free speech to be protected, and for a probe into police violence. The English-language Taipei Times newspaper, while criticising leaders of the opposition DPP for not discussing plans for Chen Yunlin’s visit with the government in advance, accused Ma and the KMT of ‘reverting to time-dishonored tactics reminiscent of the Martial Law era.”

“Deploying 7,000 police officers over a four-day period and restricting the public’s freedom of movement were a recipe for disaster,” it said in an editorial, adding that Mr Ma “either misjudged public opinion, showing how ineffective he is as the nation’s top decision-maker, or he didn’t care about the political ramifications of his actions — at least not in Taiwan.”

Critics accused him of grandstanding by turning Chen Yunlin’s visit into such a big event – when the accords could have been signed with much less fanfare and public fallout – and of alienating anyone with doubts about closer ties with the Chinese mainland. This was highlighted on Tuesday when an 80-year \-old man, claiming to be a long-standing KMT member, set himself on fire in central Taipei, in protest at what he said was excessive police brutality against marchers carrying Taiwan’s official flag during Mr Chen’s visit; he was taken to hospital with third degree burns over 80% of his body.

These events have left a society long used to fragmentation - where most academics, analysts and media organisations are on one side or the other of the political divide – still reeling at the increase in political tension under President Ma: “Chen Shui-bian was a very divisive figure,” says Frank Muyard of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China. “People hoped Ma would be more conciliatory – they saw him as a gentle, well-educated, nice person who would help Taiwan come together and do something for reconciliation. But he hasn’t done that. Now many people see him as partisan, too eager to please China – they don’t trust him to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty.”

For the mainland government, which has reported the opening of cross-strait links with great fanfare as a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides, there’s a clear degree of satisfaction in seeing Chen Shui-bian under arrest. Beijing despised him for his background in Taiwan’s pro-independence movement of the 1970s and 80s. “Chen Shui-bian in handcuffs” was the banner headline in the popular nationalist tabloid newspaper the Global Times on Wednesday. And for months China’s state-run media has revelled in reporting every detail of the various allegations of corruption against Mr Chen, his wife and associates (in marked contrast to the minimal amount of detail it gave in the corruption case of another Chen, former Communist Party Secretary of Shanghai Chen Liangyu, who was jailed for eighteen years in April.)

Ma Ying-jeou’s popularity with China’s leaders, on the other hand, is clearly at an all-time high: as well as agreeing to direct links and the One China principle, he has also relaxed restrictions which prevented Taiwanese companies from investing more than 40% of their assets in the mainland, further boosting economic ties. Yet recent events suggest his actions may also risk provoking a deeper anti-mainland backlash, at the very moment when physical links between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have become closer than ever.

--
【外電】陳水扁被戲劇性收押的風暴

Melinda Liu

【譯註】因版權關係,本譯文業經刪節

中國否認對台灣施壓逮捕陳前總統。
他因被控在任期間,盜用公款、洗錢、收賄及偽造文書而遭逮捕。陳水扁長期反對與中國統一,指控其繼任者馬總統下令將他收押,以取悅中國領導階層。他還沒被審判,但可能被羈押最多四個月以便偵查,如新聞週刊Duncan Hewitt報導,此案凸顯台灣政治分歧逐漸加劇。

在馬總統與中國大陸簽署歷史性的直航協議後不久,迅速以貪污罪收押陳前總統,可視為馬總統與其國民黨在野8年後,尋求鞏固政權的另一勝利,但實際上,羈押陳前總統,或將突顯自馬總統於5月上任後台灣內部逐漸升高的政治緊張。

外界已無法期待在哈佛受教育、被視為相對溫和的馬總統,可為對兩岸統一意見分歧的社會帶來共識。10月底的民調顯示,其支持率已自60%下滑至23%。台灣民眾對陳前總統感到憤怒是無庸置疑的,因為他已承認違法未完全申報競選政治獻金,但最近幾個月來,其他7名與民進黨有關人士因貪污指控而遭收押,讓外界憂慮新政府領導下台灣司法的獨立性。

不僅傳統民進黨支持者提出類此警告,在陳水扁被羈押前的上個星期, 20位國際知名亞洲專家,包括賓州大學教授林蔚(Arthur Waldron)、澳洲蒙那許大學教授Bruce Jacobs、邁阿密大學教授金德芳(June Teufel Dreyer),及前遠東經濟評論台北特派員Julian Baum等人共同發表史無前例的公開信【譯注:請參閱doctor61大大所提供的網頁http://blog.yam.com/modernhippie/article/18059774】,表達嚴重關切台灣檢察官的行為。該公開信指出,「台灣一直有貪污事件,且兩個政治陣營皆有。」他們表示,近期收押事件帶來國民黨政府「藉司法制度報復前民進黨政府官員」的印象。指出檢察官在被指控者未被正式起訴情況之下就被收押禁見,「嚴重違反了人身保護令以及正當法律程序、公義與法治。」他們也指責檢察官很明顯地將相關不利消息透露給媒體,是「透過媒體辦案」;在八零年代後期與九零年早期成功轉型為民主的成就,將因這些行動而被破壞。

主張台灣民主倒退回獨裁的論點,已在上週陳雲林訪台簽署歷史性協議時浮現,這些協議得到相當支持,實際上,部分內容早在陳水扁和民進黨執政時就已經談判過,但因陳總統不接受「一個中國」原則而破局。

但馬總統接待陳雲林的作法,似乎是有計畫的擾亂反對者。批評者指控馬總統為了對中國代表團「給面子」而讓步太多,如陳雲林在台期間,總統府未懸掛不為北京承認的官方國旗,由於馬總統的地位也不被北京承認,被陳雲林稱呼為馬先生;同樣引起爭議的是:拒絕批准民眾示威。

在台灣民主時期,類此駁回事件甚為罕見。而當抗議者試圖示威時,他們遭警察毆打,導致逾100人受傷,許多人驚覺台灣社會變得更殘忍。台北的法國當代中國研究中心主任 Frank Muyard指出,「自李前總統在民主轉型期間完全掌權後,16年來台灣未見警察使用武力對付和平抗議者。」

民眾的忿怒爆發,導致示威者將陳雲林圍困在旅館的混亂場面,大學生想以和平方式抗議政府的處置措施,也被警察驅散,促使500名大學生以公開信呼籲保護言論自由並調查警察的暴行。英文報紙台北時報在責備民進黨未事先就陳雲林訪台與政府協商之同時,更指責馬總統與國民黨「恢復使用戒嚴時期的戰術」。

其社論指出「在那四天部署7000名警察限制民眾的行動自由,是災難的起緣」,又稱馬英九「若不是誤判民眾的意見,反映他是毫無效率的國家決策者;就是他一點也不在乎其行動引發的政治分歧。」

批評者指責他把陳雲林訪台變成大事件,激化民眾對兩岸關係的疑慮。一位80歲的老國民黨黨員於週二在台北市中心自焚,突顯了這事件的爭議,他抗議拿國旗的民眾被警察粗暴對待,結果三級燒傷全身超過80%灼傷,被送到醫院治療。

這些事件讓這個長久分歧的社會因為馬英九造成的政治緊張而更動盪。「陳水扁是非常具爭議的人物」法國當代中國研究中心主任 Frank Muyard指出:「民眾希望馬英九會多點善意,認為他是溫和、有教養的好人,有助於凝聚台灣,以及做些促進和好的事,但他並不這麼做,現在許多人認為他與中國是一夥的,過於討好中國,他們不相信他能護衛台灣的主權。」

對誇大報導江陳會談是雙贏的中國政府而言,看到陳水扁被捕在某種程度上是感到滿意的,北京蔑視他在197080年代的台獨背景。流行的民族主義小報環球時報在週三以頭條報導「陳水扁被銬」,國營媒體好幾個月來一直詳細的對陳水扁家族進行各式各樣的指控(用來對照今年四月剛被判刑18年的前上海共黨書記陳良宇)

另一方面,馬英九同意直航、一個中國原則、鬆綁台商不能對大陸投資超過40%的限制,顯然一直高度受到中國領導者歡迎。近期事件顯示,在兩岸實際關係較以往更為緊密之際,馬總統的作法也許會冒著引發更大的反中聲浪的風險。

【譯註】作者在字裡行間顯然認為台灣的民主已經是過去式,這實在是台灣的悲哀,經過昨天震驚世界的報導後,國際媒體逐漸從一連串的事件中嗅出馬英九政府正在製造台灣的動亂

士林地方法院法官洪英花:
誓死捍衛正當法律程序

誓死捍衛正當法律程序

◎ 洪英花

一、 違反正當法律程序原則,即對人民基本權的違憲侵害:我國釋字第四一八號解釋「憲法第十六條保障人民有訴訟之權,旨在確保人民有依法定程序受公平審判之權 利。」釋字第四三六號解釋「國家刑罰權之發動與運作,必須符合正當法律程序之最低要求。」法治國的基本原則,即在維護國家法律秩序,保障基本人權,實現憲 法所保障的正當法律程序。刑事程序之任務不只在發現真實,且必須維護憲法所保障犯罪嫌疑人之人性尊嚴與基本人權,唯有在保障人權的原則下,依據正當法律程 序原則,追求偵查與審判之公平性,社會正義乃得以實現。程序正義乃法治國家刑事程序中不容抹滅的核心價值。

依據無罪推定原則衍生的犯罪偵查 不公開程序,乃為兼顧偵查成效與人權保障原則,我國刑事訴訟法第二四五條明定「偵查,不公開之。檢察官…或其他於偵查程序依法執行職務之人員,不得公開揭 露偵查中因執行職務知悉之事項。」即偵查秘密原則,凡偵查行動及偵查內容均不得對外透露,以免消息走漏,發生湮滅證據、勾串共犯或偽證,尤應防止媒體得 知,造成輿論審判,嫌疑人名譽遭受莫大損失,被調查人若為商業公司,導致財務危機。

二、秘密偵查原則:秘密偵查原則,乃維護人權的普世價 值,部長縱容相關人士在偵辦相關案件期間內放消息給媒體,經外界質疑後,遲至九十七年十月間始發出函件,要求特偵組自己調查內部洩密及查辦媒體供出消息來 源,是否藐視人權及程序正義?並違背法律人自律、反求諸己之道?令人不解。

三、未審先判,踐踏人權:部長縱容洩密者放消息給媒體,恐有誤導 閱聽大眾之虞,造成輿論審判,而「法官是人,不是神」更是閱聽大眾,在被告或犯罪嫌疑人還沒有被起訴前,大量接收閱聽內容後,如何能夠確保未來審判程序之 純潔與公正?在刑事程序中,被告人權應受保障與尊重,乃法治社會顛撲不破之理,如被告在法庭,不得拘束其人身自由,蓋為避免被拘束之形貌,誤導法官或陪審 團先入為主,造成胸有定見之誤判。洩密者是否該受嚴正之制裁?洩密者所導致相關當事人之人權危害,如何回復?

四、行政干預司法,法律不容:部長上節目大談個案,並發新聞稿承認「法務部僅就司法行政有關之司法互助部分向院長提出報告」以上所為,有無涉及偵查應秘密之事項?案件當頭,司法行政有無謹守分際,僭行干預司法?

五、 社會責任—誓死捍衛正當法律程序:一般社會大眾、媒體對法治認識不清,尚可理解,今因為偵查秘密原則未被嚴守,正當法律程序失守,危及台灣法治,整個社會 氛圍陷入人權法治危機之境地,司法行政監督完全停擺,部長上電視大談個案,更是破歷任部長之風骨與堅持,部長是否應拿出過去援助弱勢族群的熱情,擔負起法 治教育領航者的社會責任,引咎下台以挽救台灣人權!

(作者為士林地方法院法官)

Demand immediate release of innocent prisoners III :
Innocent people facing death penalty

腎衰竭危機陳明文送醫
壹蘋果網絡 - 1小時前
【李宗祐、寶智華、林靜盛╱連線報導】絕食進入第七天的嘉義縣長陳明文,昨晚血糖、血壓偏低,看守所醫護人員抽血檢驗時驗出酮體,擔心引發腎衰竭,晚上七時許在警車戒護下送嘉義市榮民醫院治療,醫護人員將陳明文從救護車抬進醫院時一度失手,擔架落地,陳似乎受到驚嚇 ...
陳明文絕食第7天戒護就醫 中時電子報
絕食七天陳明文戒護就醫 自由時報
NOWnews - 自由時報 - 自由時報 - 自由時報
所有 178 則相關新聞 »

鬍渣亂髮顯憔悴扁轉院戒護
壹蘋果網絡 - 1小時前
【綜合報導】前總統陳水扁絕食戒護就醫,昨上午又從亞東醫院轉往台北縣立醫院板橋院區戒護病房,收押後模樣首度曝光,他閉目躺在病床上,一頭亂髮、滿臉鬍渣、臉頰消瘦顯得憔悴,至少瘦了四公斤。即使吳淑珍昨委由律師勸他進食,扁仍不為所動。偵辦人員指出,因扁送醫只好 ...
板醫7樓病房戒護過不少大咖 中時電子報
扁轉送板醫已暴瘦4公斤 自由時報
臺灣新浪網 - 台視新聞 - NOWnews - 聯合新聞網
所有 102 則相關新聞 »

There are no cases against 陳水扁 or 陳 明文. The judicial system has not placed any charges against them; so the law clearly states that they are innocent. Yet, already they have been held prisoners, thoroughly humiliated and tortured and in danger of death.

The judicial system must stop such completely illegal and inhumane persecution and release all innocent prisoners immediately!


Demand immediate release of innocent prisoners II

扁收押/明知扁禁見蔡英文:我明天將赴醫院探視...
NOWnews - 1小時前
因 案被羈押的前總統陳水扁因為禁食被台北看守所強制戒護就醫,儘管民進黨主席蔡英文一向希望民進黨與陳水扁切割,蔡英文17日說,經過黨籍立委向她轉述陳水 扁的健康狀況,「我感到有些不安」,因此將在18日「適當的時候」親自前往醫院探視陳水扁。由於陳水扁目前禁見,因此 ...
蔡英文擬明天赴北縣立醫院關心陳水扁【00:15】 自由時報
扁持續禁食蔡英文11/18探視扁 臺灣新浪網
中國評論 - 中時電子報 - 聯合新聞網 - NOWnews
所有 134 則相關新聞 »

嘉義縣長陳明文戒護就醫晚上留院觀察【00:15】
自由時報 - 2小時前
〔中 央社〕嘉義縣長陳明文因涉貪瀆案遭羈押禁見,今天絕食進入第7天,嘉義看守所今晚主動將他戒護送醫;嘉義榮民醫院表示,陳明文身體狀況不佳,治療並沒有改 善,需留院觀察。 陳明文因涉嫌洩漏民雄污水處理廠工程底標給特定廠商,10月28日晚間遭收押禁見,並自11月11日 ...
絕食7天嘉義縣長陳明文狀況差送榮總觀察 NOWnews
阿文傳遺書:司法包裝政治事件 中時電子報
壹蘋果網絡 - 自由時報 - 自由時報 - 自由時報
所有 172 則相關新聞 »

There are no cases against
陳水扁 or 陳明文. The judicial system has not placed any charges against them; so the law clearly states that they are innocent. Yet, already they have been held prisoners, thoroughly humiliated and tortured and in danger of death.

The judicial system must stop such completely illegal and inhumane persecution and release all innocent prisoners immediately!

Saturday, November 15, 2008

洛杉磯論壇 江建祥律師觀點

video

台灣司法威信的破產

人權是上天根據人的尊嚴,所賦予人的基本權利,除了上天以外,任何人都不可以加以限制甚至剝奪。基本人權包括生命、自由和追求幸福的權利。

專制威權者為了要肆行其高壓統治的目的,無所不用其極地限縮甚至剝奪被統治者的基本人權。一部人類史其實就是一連串為爭取人權而奮鬥的幸酸血淚過程。英國於1215年訂立大憲章(Magna Carta),來限制英國國王的絕對權力,要求王室放棄部分權力,尊重司法程序,接受法律的限制。這是No one is above the law,也就是 法律之下人人平等的開端。

跟隨父母逃難到台灣的馬英九,經過了近甲子的歲月,仍然無法完全地認同收容、生養他的台灣。表面上披著「新台灣人」的移民外衣,隱藏在裏面卻是赤裸裸的「殖民統治者」的傲慢。如此的殖民統治者,明明是公款私存,觸犯法律,卻有軟心的檢察官,起訴避重就輕,更有想像力豐富的法匠從宋律,到慣例,一直到沒有犯意,處心積慮就是要讓這個貴族王公能夠凌駕在法律之上,不受任何律法,甚至道德的拘束。這種 above the law的特權,雖然令人眼紅,但總比不上這個食人族的王孫伸手染指司法,遂行「你會死得很難看」的陽謀,來得更令人不齒。

為了要讓陳水扁死得很難看,馬區長首先透過其掌控的特偵組爪牙,對陳水扁周遭的人,進行拘押禁見,以便逼取對陳水扁不利的供詞。在目的不遂之後,這些預設立場的特偵組組員,為了要滿足藍色群眾嗜血的淫欲,並平息因陳雲林訪台受羞辱而引發的共匪憤怒,在馬區長的認可下,對陳水扁也進行同樣的聲押。這一連串的起訴前拘押,顯示出台灣刑事訴訟法上的重大瑕疵,並且因執行過程的粗暴,已經造成無法彌補的社會分裂。

先進國家的憲法和刑事訴訟法都禁止起訴前的拘押,原因在警察或檢察官都屬行政系統,與刑事被告的利益是對立衝突的,不得片面決定嫌疑犯得拘押。美國聯邦和各州得法律都規定任何人在遭受逮捕之後的特定期間內,一般不得超過48小時,必須提交司法機關預審 arraignment,決定有否繼續拘押的必要,並依法設定保釋金。如果檢察官無法在提審日當庭提出起訴狀,法官必須當場釋放嫌疑犯。

如果被告無法提供保釋金或者因為罪行重大有危害社會之虞,被告得於審判前遭受拘押。 審判前的拘押,除了確保刑事被告如期參與法庭程序之外,另一個目的就是避免社會因侵害性高的被告繼續在外逍遙,所可能遭受的損害。除了這兩個理由以外,任何審判前的拘押都是對人權的違害。

美國法院判刑的時候會將被告審前拘留的時間換算刑期credit,也就是折抵。在加州,審前的拘押時可以折抵實際服刑時間的15倍;換言之,審判前如果被拘押了二十天,到判刑時可折抵三十天,可見審判前的拘押具有處罰的性質。雖然審判前的拘押具有處罰的性質,但是美國法律明文規定不可以將審前的拘押或保釋金的設定視為處罰的手段。

陳水扁和其他遭受非法拘押的綠營人士,已經失去昔日的權勢,根本上不可能對社會造成任何危害,而這些人和台灣這塊土地有非常緊密的連結,更不可能任意拋棄他們在台灣的一切而遠走高飛。至於串供之虞的說辭更是離譜,因為這些藍色的禿鷹配合親共的媒體,從紅衫之亂到目前為止,已經對陳水扁等人所謂的貪污情事,聲討筆伐了數十月,如果陳水扁等人想要串共也不會等到現在,更何況大部分的人都已經身陷囹圄,連見面的機會都沒有。因此,台灣的檢察系統,透過司法機關的配合,最近對民進黨前任官員,未經起訴便逕行拘押禁見處分,其目的除了押人取供之外,就是假借司法之名,行政治整肅之實。

台灣的法學界多年來淪為科舉制度的補習班,除了授業之外,傳道和解惑的工作完全荒廢。西風東漸,負笈留學國外的人很多,可惜的是,其中不少人只學到了歐美學術的皮毛,回到台灣後,國外的學位成了招搖幌騙,謀取權位的工具,對於維新改革,這些人反而常常是負隅頑抗的權貴王孫。馬區長一路走來,反廢除萬年國會,反廢除刑法一百條,反總統直選,反民主的惡行始終如一,應該是這些學渣中最具代表性的人物。

「您」 馬的法學素養遭受挑戰並非頭一回,不過,今天由他昔日的教授Jeremy Cohen親自出馬糾正他侵犯人權的缺失去,倒是空前僅有。中國人的攏是假,從毒牛奶,假木耳,到 馬的假道學,真可謂不勝枚舉! 這種虛假的學術環境下所培養,透過科舉揀選出來的司法人員,會離譜到宣稱「辦不出來」就集體下台,就不至於讓人太驚訝了。原來,台灣的司法人員心中不但缺了一把尺,更是少了一座衡平的秤,辦案子不是要發現事實真相,而是要搞出個讓 他, 馬的龍心大喜,使TVBS、東森和中天的觀眾狂喜的「結果」。

看到台灣目前的司法亂象,感覺這只是末世的開始The beginning of the end。時代的火車隆隆地前進,對著這巨型怪物狂吠的忠狗們,如果還有力挽狂瀾的可能,就是要發起全面杯葛台灣司法制度的運動。先從癱瘓民事庭做起,台灣人自己處理自己的民事糾紛,透過台灣賢達的仲裁調解解決問題,拒絕使用中國黨開的法院,讓中國黨的法院失去財源。再從對刑事程序的全面抗拒,突顯有政黨傾向的中國黨法官的不正當性,造成中國黨開的刑庭完全的失去威信。 當然,最後就要攻倒「巴士底獄」了!

Friday, November 14, 2008

公投法補正、立委選舉制度、與街頭運動

台灣教授協會(台教會)會長蔡丁貴教授於10月25日的「反黑心,謢台灣」遊行抗議之後,便到立法院前絕食靜坐。蔡會長絕食靜坐的訴求有兩項:

一、要立法院修正鳥籠公投法,
二、要立法委員的選舉合理化。

也許有人會質疑:
第一,這二項訴求是否與當下最急迫的主權流失與經濟危機問題不相干?
第二,正當全國各行各業走上街頭,抗議馬政權的無能與出賣台灣主權、抗議中國的黑心食品與對台的黑心計謀,台教會的訴求是否會分散街頭運動的火力?

關於第一個問題:這二項訴求是否與迫切的主權流失與經濟危機的問題不相干?一點也不,反而二者息息相關。當今的台灣社會,行政權、立法權、監察權、司法權、甚至媒体都在國民党的控制之下,人民失去了所有表達意向的管道,唯一剩下來的是最原始的「人民的力量」,於是被迫走上街頭,從事街頭抗爭。假若我們有一個公平的公投法,而不是層層限制人民權利的公投法,任何有關主權或經濟的政策問題,都可經由公投取得社會共識,不須經由街頭抗爭。除了公投法的不合理,現今的立委選舉制度也有重大缺失。它不是票票等值,也不能正確地反應人民的聲音。譬如說,馬祖八千人選一席立委,苗栗五十六萬人也只選一席立委,相差70倍。民進党在上次立委選舉,獲有43%,卻只有27席;而由這种不公平的選舉制度取得絕對多數的國民党立委又與馬政權勾結,而沒有代表人民有效地監督政府。

所以台教會的二項訴求與當今的街頭運動並非不相干,二者追求同一目標:要維護人民的權益。前者治本,後者治標,二者並行不悖。再以今日的政治情勢判斷,台教會的訴求絕非少數人的絕食靜坐可爭取得到,必須依賴大規模的街頭抗爭。這麼說來台教會的訴求與街頭運動不但二者並行不悖,更應相輔而行,前者是目標,後者是手段。

關於第二個問題:台教會的訴求是否會分散街頭運動的火力?就像上面所談,本質上,二者應相輔而行;運作上,二者應相互支援,也就是說,有街頭運動時,可暫停絕食靜坐,以集中火力,街頭運動之後,以絕食靜坐持續抗爭。策略上的合作可避免火力分散。

台教會的這二項訴求是悍衛台灣主權、自由、民主與尊嚴的必要條件。在今日台灣社會恍惚不知所措中,台教會與蔡會長能及時提出「還人民的權利於人民」的運動,清淅地指出問題所在,並以身体與生命來追求理想,可敬可佩。深盼更多的青年學子加入靜坐行列,並與全民的街頭抗爭相扶而行,以發輝火力。

李學圖

謝清志: 立即停止濫權羈押

除了「危害自己或他人安全之虞」外,不得以「串供」或「湮滅證據」等理由,羈押任何人。

文/謝清志

七月卅日,曾因所謂的「南科高鐵減振工程弊案」被起訴的十位「貪官」、「奸商」與「學術蠹蟲」,一審全部被判無罪(廠商另因違反《公司法》被判徒刑得易科罰金),而我就是媒體曾形容的貪官。

近來特偵組及部分地檢署的種種作為,無異押人取供,不禁讓我想起過去兩年多的折磨與煎熬,尤其是五十九天的收押禁見。

究竟誰在串供、湮滅證據?

二○○六年五月廿三日我到南檢應訊,經過幾個小時疲勞問訊後,檢察官說我涉嫌重大,要求當庭收押,我立即被戴上手銬;請注意,此時我還只是一位嫌疑人而已。

幾個小時後才開始的羈押審理庭上,法官質疑檢察官證據不足,檢察官眼看情況「不妙」,竟要求延後審理,我的律師抗議無效;再過幾小時,三位法官(又加入另二位法官)同意了檢察官的主張。

於是,我被收押禁見,隨即送往看守所,開始在「五乘九台尺」的空間內與其他嫌疑人共同生活,每回進出還得檢查私處。請注意,在法院宣判之前,我還是一個無罪之身的人,但已開始接受「犯人」般的對待

五十九天後,也就是二個月羈押期屆滿之際,檢察官還想繼續羈押我,提出的理由竟包括「還有一位證人尚未傳訊到案」。這回,法官不同意檢察官的主張,我因而順利交保。

台灣的檢察官辦案動輒以預防「串供」、「湮滅證據」為由羈押嫌疑人,當時我被收押禁見,檢察官也持同樣的理由。

我被羈押,我當然無法「串供」;結果竟是檢察官在「外頭」,透過傳訊相關人士,開始編撰我們的犯罪故事。

我被羈押,我當然無法「湮滅證據」,因為幾乎所有資料都已被檢察官查扣了;結果竟是檢察官片斷、扭曲地拿出所謂不利於我的「證據」。後來,我在檢方未查扣的資料中找到一些有利於自己的證據,我直呼阿彌陀佛,如果當時這些也被查扣,我的有利證據豈不被湮滅了?

直到今日,我已一審無罪,當初檢察官從我這邊所查扣的資料完全沒有歸還。一審過程,我曾向檢方索討銀行存摺,檢方竟要我直接向銀行宣稱「遺失」,藉以換發新存摺。

換言之,檢察官羈押了我,結果卻是他開始進行他的「串供」與「湮滅證據」。

然而,更嚴重的是,我被收押禁見,不只無法串供、湮滅證據,我還在檢察官不斷偵訊、洗腦下,開始懷疑起自己,以為自己真的就像檢察官所稱做了什麼犯法的事。

二千多年前,《戰國策》上「曾參殺人」的心理學問題在我身上應證了;曾參的母親在外人連說三次「曾參殺人」後,也開始懷疑起自己的兒子真的殺了人。在看守所中,檢察官詢問某項決策是不是我做的決定,某項資料是不是我洩露的,第一次我還自信地否認,第二次我還是否認,但內心竟開始自我懷疑;直到我交保之後找出有利自己的證據之前,有好一段時間,我還不時懷疑自己可能真的做了什麼不法的事。

朱朝亮憑什麼「教訓」人?

目前特偵組檢察官之一的朱朝亮,就是二○○六年台南地檢署起訴我們時的檢察長,他後來在接受《今周刊》(二○○七年七月廿三日)訪問暢談其辦案經驗時竟說到:「檢察官辦案不一定是要當事人被判有罪,但至少要讓他們得到『教訓』。」

檢察官憑什麼權力來決定一個人該不該接受教訓?這不正是白色恐怖時期未經審判即無端遭受「管束」的許多受害者的下場?

一個檢察官,有本事就該拿出證據來起訴嫌疑人,如果明知無法定罪卻還要以起訴來「教訓」嫌疑人,心態可議;檢察官在聲押嫌疑人時,何嘗不是朱朝亮這種「整人」的心態?

我在看守所五十九天期間,曾有三位「牢友」和我關在一起。我有三位律師,時時逼著檢察官儘速查案,好讓我這位當事人早日交保,但我那三位牢友命運全然不同。

第一位牢友被羈押近四個月後交保,第二位牢友被羈押五個星期後交保,第三位牢友在我交保時已被羈押一個半月,他們在這段羈押期間,檢察官從未就案情提訊過他們。檢察官在順利將他們羈押進看守所後,似乎就忘了他們的存在;在法院判決之前,他們還是無罪之身,檢察官能用羈押來「整」他們嗎?這就是朱朝亮所謂的「教訓」嗎?

「無罪推定」與「證據裁判主義」是法學ABC的入門知識。無罪推定,就是在法院判決之前,所有人,即使是嫌疑人,也要被推定是無罪的;證據裁判主義,就是檢察官要指控他人犯罪,法官要判人有罪,都要根據「證據」,而且,這些證據還不能只是一般的合理懷疑而已,也就是要「超越合理懷疑」(beyond reasonable doubt)的程度。

例如,甲匯了一筆錢給乙。一般合理的懷疑,可能包括了:(一)甲「送」乙;(二)甲「還」乙;(三)甲「賄賂」乙;(四)甲受乙脅迫而支付的金錢等等。然而,在法庭上,檢察官有責任提出具體證據,讓人確認就只有上述某一種狀況,而不會有其他可能。

我與其他被告遭起訴,就是檢察官依其「臆測推論」而編撰了一個虛構的犯罪故事;而我們一審得以清白無罪,就是檢察官的這些「臆測推論」或「合理懷疑」完全經不起證據的檢驗。

然而,我們的聲譽受損,如何補償,我們的公道,誰能還?

在法庭上公平競賽

假如,司法偵查與訴訟是一場「競賽」,代表國家的檢察官自始就居於優勢,因為他擁有搜索、調查、調閱(包括政府與民間資料、當事人隱私資料)、監聽、限制出境等手段;相反地,嫌疑人或被告,除了花錢請律師辯護外,幾乎沒有什麼力量與之抗衡。更甚者,檢察官任意指控,完全不負舉證責任,被告還得找證據來證明自己的清白。

這是一個民主國家司法制度應有的「遊戲規則」嗎?我不相信!然而,這確實存在於所謂的民主化台灣社會中!

假如,這場競賽要趨於公平,檢察官的「權力」應受節制,檢察官的辦案「能力」該被提昇,而不是檢察官躲在制度的優勢裡來掩飾其無能與濫權。

現行的羈押制度,只會讓檢察官便宜行事,嫌疑人卻因此喪失自由,被剝奪為自己尋找有利證據的機會,羈押變成對他們的另類刑求與逼供。

在此,我以切身慘痛經驗鄭重要求:「立即停止『濫權』羈押。」今後,除了「危害自己或他人安全之虞」外,不得以「串供」或「湮滅證據」等理由,羈押任何人。

同時,在法院判決之前,所有人都是無罪認定,且應受人權保障與合理對待;檢察官要指控他人犯罪應負舉證責任;法院本於證據裁判主義,唯有在強而有力的證據下才可定人於罪。

(作者為前國科會副主委)

Demand the immediate release of innocent prisoners

I demand the immediate release of innocent prisoners such as
  • former president Chen Shui Bian (陳水扁)
  • Chiayi County Magistrate Chen Ming-wen (陳明文)
  • former Vice Premier Chiou I-Jen (邱義仁)
  • James Lee (李界木)
  • Cheng-Shian Yu (余政憲), and
  • former staff of Chen Shui Bian 林德訓﹑馬永成
None have been charged with any crimes, and according to the law are all innocent. Yet, these innocent people are now in prison held incommunicado and subject to humiliation and torture, such as having their genitals examined when getting out of the jail cell. If Taiwan is to become a civilized society, we cannot tolerate government openly strip off innocent people's freedom, reputation, dignity and subject them to humiliation and torture.

I add the following news report from 自由電子報 as evidence of a Nazi-like unjust judicial system:

藍弊案拖過1000天 檢被批辦綠不辦藍
民進黨立委葉宜津(中)、涂醒哲(右)及前立委魏明谷(左)昨天召開記者會,點名彰化縣長卓伯源、苗栗縣長劉政鴻、台中縣長黃仲生、馬總統、國民黨榮譽主席連戰、副總統蕭萬長、台北市長郝龍斌等人涉弊案,司法卻不偵辦。(記者簡榮豐攝)

〔記者曾韋禎、謝鳳秋、廖淑玲/綜合報導〕民進黨立委昨召開記者會,批特偵組只辦綠不辦藍,民進黨所舉發的藍營弊案一件都沒辦,有的已經拖延超過一千天,卻全力偵辦民進黨的公職人員,究竟何時才要辦藍營的弊案?

國民黨團書記長張碩文回應,目前民進黨人士被羈押的相關案件,都是陳水扁執政時代就已開始偵辦,蒐證需要一定時間,但絕對沒有政治力介入;政黨若因黨籍人士被羈押就質疑司法不公,台灣司法將無獨立審判空間。

馬市長任內四弊案拖近500天

立 委葉宜津表示,台中縣長黃仲生涉大里工業區挪用經費圖利台開案至今超過一千天,連、蕭特別費案至今超過七百天,馬英九同意華興中小學長期無償使用土地、涉 圖利他人至今超過五百天,劉兆玄、吳伯雄等九十七位政務官特別費案至今超過五百天,馬英九在市長任內的貓纜案、富邦魚翅案、三中案、國發院案等弊案至今近 五百天,全都不見進展。

台中縣長黃仲生認為這是舊事重提,要求主管該業務的建設處代理處長賴英錫出面回應。

賴英錫原是台開公 司執行航太工業區開發案經理,黃仲生九十年十二月上任後,延攬他掌理建設處至今。他指出,由於縣府未公告徵收航太工業區土地,導致九十二年與台開違約金訴 訟案一審縣府敗訴,轉採取行政訴訟等方式上訴未果,加上當時中央已核定中科台中基地設在航太原址,政策轉變,才無法索賠。至於九十四年黃仲生競選連任前, 利用大里工業區開發基金拍廣告,賴英錫說,當時工業區還有土地未標售出去,拍攝廣告介紹中縣優良投資環境,有助於招商,沒有挪用問題。

綠批藍案沒在辦 國民黨:無政治力介入

葉宜津及前立委魏明谷還列舉多件藍營官員、縣市長、民代涉及的弊案,質疑藍營諸多弊案,到現在辦了哪一件?

葉宜津並批評,現在民眾都說,不管哪一院都是國民黨開的,檢方收押這些綠營人士根本是為收押而收押。

立委涂醒哲表示,沒有公平就沒有人權,檢調應趕快偵辦這些舊案,不要只會收押陳水扁替馬英九遮羞、向中國交心。

前 副總統呂秀蓮昨天前往雲林探視雲林縣長蘇治芬時,也痛批馬英九主政以來,台灣的民主與人權大走回頭路,大批檢調未審先押,要求以同樣標準偵辦涉弊的藍營縣 市長。她指出,多名國民黨內曾傳出弊案的縣市長都未被羈押,她希望特偵組及司法單位對所有涉弊的國民黨籍首長採取相同標準偵辦。

挨轟選擇性辦案 法務部否認

〔記者項程鎮、林慶川/台北報導〕法務部政務次長黃世銘昨天指出,檢方辦案只憑證據,不會有選擇性,不可能只辦綠不辦藍,至於為何目前綠營政治人物涉案者較多,黃世銘說依他個人意見,這是政黨輪替的結果,輪替後的新政府辦前朝官員是正常的。

黃 世銘解釋說,在朝的政府官員因為有權力、有行政資源,如犯意聯結足夠,檢方才會偵辦貪瀆,在野者因沒有權力、又沒有資源,貪污的可能性和管道相對減少,因 此政黨輪替前的官員才會涉案較多。黃世銘說,兩千年首度政黨輪替時,當時檢方應該也辦了不少國民黨在朝執政官員,他以自身經驗為例,說他當初在台北地檢署 只當了十個月檢察長,就辦了五、六個立法委員,各黨派都有,證明檢方並未偏頗。




Thursday, November 13, 2008

Demand 嘉義縣長陳明文's immediate release!

In Secret Police State: 看守所隱匿陳明文絕食消息, it was reported that
陳明文被羈押十七天,這十七天中沒有任何一次提訊或開庭
Remember that 陳明文 is not charged at all. If he is innocent before he is proved guilty, why has he been jailed for almost 20 days, with no 提訊或開庭? What then is the purpose of putting him in jail and how long does the system try to humiliate and torture him? According to Dr. 謝清志, who also had been jailed 59 days, while proved innocent after years of suffering: every time prisoner gets out the jail cell, the jailer will examine his genital.

I demand 陳明文's immediate release! I further demand investigations into such blatant abuse of judicial power with clear intent to hurt innocent people!

產經新聞: 請給前總統陳水扁相符的紳士對待

產經新聞今天報導
真相應交由司法處理,但對於一位曾任八年總統的政治人物及其家人,有必要給予相符的紳士對待。對於沒有逃亡之虞的陳水扁,竟將他銬上手銬,而且陳水扁還說,有警官趁機對他施暴,這些都會讓人想起這是親中派外省人勢力的一種報復。但這種行為是在藐視台灣的民主政治,很容易增加朝野政黨(國民黨對民進黨)、加深本省人對外省人根深蒂固的對立。
Our judicial system disagrees: civility (紳士對待) is not a consideration because Taiwan does not need it. See the following headlines:

扁收押/遮掩惹爭議陳雲南:提解重刑犯就是得上銬
NOWnews - 2008年11月12日
前總統陳水扁戴上手銬的畫面,讓民進黨極為不滿,特偵組12日晚間出面澄清,根據相關法令提解重刑人犯,的確是要戴上手銬,至於上了手銬的陳水扁要離開特偵組時,車道鐵門為何一度關閉,主任檢察官陳雲南說,應該是為了避免讓記者拍到這個上手銬的畫面。 ...
陳雲南:提解重刑犯戴手銬合乎規定 自由時報
扁上手銬侵人權?特偵組:依法規定、絕無政治迫害 中央廣播電台
銬扁激怒綠7成民眾:該銬 壹蘋果網絡

扁上銬陳雲南:當場逮捕,法警有權
自由時報 - 4小時前
陳雲南今日表示,「依照刑事訴訟法第228條第四項規定,檢察官訊問被告後,認為說他有羈押必要的時候,他可以當場逮捕,檢察官既然諭知當場逮捕,那法警當然有權加上手銬。」 而稍早第四屆監察委員被提名人葉耀鵬表示,羈押不表示有罪,很多人戴手銬,都用西裝或報紙把手銬 ...
特偵組:法警有權銬扁 中時電子報


陳雲南:聲押扁是共識決沒有經過投票【00:15】
自由時報 - 2008年11月12日
部分媒體報導,最高檢察署特別偵查組全體檢察官對聲押陳水扁與否僵持不下,最後由特偵組主任陳雲南裁定。陳雲南對此表示,他沒有被任何人詢問到,況且昨天也有檢察官為處理其他事,沒有參與討論,媒體報導不是事實。 陳雲南說,特偵組決定聲押陳水扁後,才向檢察總長陳 ...
扁收押/12日就訊扁嫂? 陳雲南否認 NOWnews
日300億密帳與預估相差不遠? 陳雲南:尋求司法互助 NOWnews
扁收押/金改弊案、企業賄款點火300億密帳終極攤牌 NOWnews

陳雲南:陳水扁戴手銬合法
中廣新聞網 - 2008年11月12日
陳水扁被收押,民進黨中央、以及民進黨籍立委紛紛聲援,並質疑陳水扁被戴上手銬是使用戒具不當,特偵組發言人陳雲南表示,依刑事訴訟規定,特偵組檢察官當庭諭令逮捕被告,法警當然有權利替被告戴上手銬。(t)

特偵組:聲押陳水扁程序合法
自由時報 - 5小時前
特偵組主任陳雲南下午指出,檢察官在訊問完畢後充分討論,才作成聲押決定,絕無外力干涉,一切程序合法。 鄭文龍上午到台北看守所探望陳水扁,事後對外轉述陳水扁的意見。他說,逮捕通知上的逮捕時間是十一月十一日三時五十一分,但陳水扁是當天上午到特偵組應訊,實際 ...
特偵組強調按程序辦案 香港新浪網




A judicial system that is unfair to the extreme: 辦綠不辦藍

In this report 押人取供?特偵組反駁:

自由時報 - 2008年11月12日
陳前總統曾提到,希望藉由他來換取其他被押人的自由之身,陳雲南表示,必須斟酌案件有無羈押必要來決定;另外綠營人士提到,質疑檢方有辦綠不辦藍的嫌疑,陳雲南解釋,強調所有關係人都與案件有關,無分藍綠
主任檢察官陳雲南 boasted the fairness of the judicial system.

In
地檢署檢察長劉家芳怒發飆:「我不是國民黨養的狗, 地檢署檢察長劉家芳怒發飆,強調:「我不是國民黨養的狗,更非民進黨養的老虎!司法不但沒死,而且不分藍綠、有血有肉!」

地檢署檢察長劉家芳 as a law enforcement officer (with the collaboration of a judge) had just committed a horrible crime of putting someone in jail without any evidence. He too is very proud of the fairness of the judicial system.

What are the facts?


藍縣市長13弊案偵辦無動靜
臺灣新浪網 - 2小時前
司法是不是真的只辦綠不辦藍呢?民進黨立院黨團開記者會,痛批特偵組已經變成專辦扁家弊案的「扁偵組」,還整理出13件國民黨縣市長以上層級所涉及的弊案,像是彰化縣長卓伯源涉及的ETC和台鐵計軸器弊案,已經偵辦1601天了,竟然還沒辦出個結果。民進黨立委葉宜津生氣了,幾 ...
辦案群組化辦綠「羈押」辦藍「積壓」 eTaiwan News
弊案綠要求一併查辦 世界日報

Given such facts, how can any one, especially these officers of the judicial system say 無分藍綠? Answer: people have no power to hold them responsible what what they say or do, just as people are completely powerless when Ma lies day and day out. Even KMT's propaganda machines express dissent:

辦綠不辦藍? 陳瑞仁憂辦案群組化
自由時報 - 2008年11月11日
... 偵辦華揚史威靈案也有數波傳訊動作,偵辦綠營部會首長及副總統等人特別費案已迅速起訴,但偵辦國民黨三中案、藍營首長特別費等案,外界始終看不到明顯偵查動作,檢方是否有外界不知道的苦衷,還是他因,尚待了解,但從進度看,已引起不少民眾「辦綠不辦藍」的質疑。 ...
陳瑞仁:檢辦案政治考量避免政治風暴 聯合新聞網
中國時報社論----審前羈押絕非司法常態 中央日報

The unfairness is beyond any doubt. The question is how to hold those offenders responsible? I include 頭家來開講 of 2008-11-12 as a historical document:
video

Here are some of the headlines exposing this extreme unfairness of Taiwan's judicial system.

綠斥羞辱人藍喊哀矜勿喜
壹蘋果網絡 - 19小時前
但蔡英文則質疑當前司法辦藍不辦綠,尤其特別費案,只起訴民進黨員或民進黨執政時期政務官。蔡並指國民黨縣長也被調查,但從未有人在客觀情事不足羈押情況下被羈押及戴手銬。蔡也批檢方常違反「偵查不公開原則」,馬英九、法務部長王清峰甚至公開預告起訴,「司法不應淪為 ...

民進黨號召群眾聚集看守所外抗議司法不公
自由時報 - 5小時前
〔中央社〕前總統陳水扁涉貪污案遭羈押禁見,民進黨台北縣議會黨團今天下午號召群眾到台北看守所外抗議,高喊「司法不公、辦綠不辦藍」口號,並拉布條表達訴求。 民進黨台北縣議會黨團表示,陳水扁受司法不公對待,連日來多位民進黨黨公職人員在未審先判下,受到司法不 ...

扁收押/批戴手銬意在羞辱? 民進黨同聲抗議司法濫權!
NOWnews - 23小時前
黨內同仇敵愾,連過去一向批扁不遺餘力的中常委段宜康也抨擊說,檢察官羈押陳水扁的理由不充足,以押人取供方式將扁收押,有譁眾取寵之嫌。此外,立院黨團總召柯建銘也表示,司法變成只辦綠不辦藍,政府披著民主、司法的外衣要徹底擊垮本土勢力,這是新版的228事件。 ...
快訊扁遭押綠委嗆馬玩弄司法!政治追殺! 壹蘋果網絡
聲援司法人權羅文嘉:都辦民進黨台灣人不服氣 中時電子報
扁收押民進黨團:抗議司法不顧程序正義自由時報

監委補提名人審查人權成焦點
臺灣新浪網 - 3小時前
13日立法院,進行監委補提名人同意權審查,自詡為人權律師的被提名人葉耀鵬,成為綠營立委質詢焦點,扁係子弟兵邱議瑩、高志鵬就卸任元首該不該上手銬、到檢方押人取供,辦綠不辦藍追問葉耀鵬,葉耀鵬回答羈押制度有檢討空間,沒被定罪前上手銬也確實有傷尊嚴。 ...

扁收押民進黨:羈押理由難說服社會
自由時報 - 2008年11月11日
鄭文燦表示,誠如檢察官陳瑞仁所言,檢察官偵辦重大司法案件,形成只辦綠不辦藍,辦案群組化的現象,這是大家心中的問號,為什麼都只辦綠不辦藍,為什麼一定要採取「押人取供」、未審先判方式,是不是台灣民主倒退、司法倒退,司法單位對這樣的質疑有義務、也有責任對外 ...
民進黨質疑:羈押陳水扁理由不足...中央廣播電台