Chinese Communist Party suffers boomerang effect of violating the law
by Wei Jingsheng
With cases of "residence under surveillance" the regime violates the law in the name of the law. It sounds like a joke but it is not: it is indeed a very dangerous game in which nobody, not even the leaders themselves are safe. Chinese history itself proves this is the case. The analysis of the great dissident.
Washington (AsiaNews) - Recently, we have become more concerned with two major legal cases: one is the disappearance of artist Ai Weiwei, the other is the case of Lawyer Li Zhuang of Chongqing. These two cases appear to have little connection. Yet, in fact, they have very direct internal association. That association is because the policy of the Chinese Communist Party is turning left -- step-by-step, it is returning to the full-scale dictatorship of the Cultural Revolution era. The characteristic of a full-scale dictatorship is the removal of legal protection, replacing it with the capricious will of the Chinese Communist Party. The will of the Communist Party at all levels will decide everything. Using an honest statement by Mao Zedong's wife, Jiang Qing, it is "lawlessness to the degree of ignoring god". Using the standard statement by the Communist Party nowadays, it is "do not try to use the law as a shield".
Let us look at the case of Ai Weiwei first. Even China's own Criminal Procedure Law has clearly stated that in depriving citizens of their liberty one must notify their families first; otherwise, it is illegal detention. According to the United Nations it is "enforced disappearance". After Ai Weiwei disappeared for more than two weeks without knowledge of his whereabouts by his family members, not only did China's State Council issue statements continuously, even the official media of the Communist regime made plausible remarks about him. Therefore, the dictatorial authority that detained him is already guilty of illegal detention. Please notice that they are not only suspected of, but in fact have given evidence of committing the crime of illegal detention.
Even though they may catch up with formalities later on, even backdating the forms will be useless. There are only two essential conditions for this crime: the first is to deprive personal freedom, and the second is not to inform family members. In accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Law, no matter what authority they are, if they meet these two conditions, then it is illegal detention. It seems that the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the official media are framing the Chinese public security department. They announced the news of Ai Weiwei's detention, which served as a proof of the illegal detention by the public security department.
However, the Chinese public security department does not care. More one decade ago, they already used so-called "internal regulations" to make Criminal Procedure Law mean nothing. This approach is called "residence under surveillance". According to Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, "residence under surveillance" is the lightest level of measure restricting personal freedom. That measure means monitoring the person with the premise of not actually depriving their freedom of movement. Therefore, the procedure does not need the approval of a Procuratorate or court. After all, in China, this requirement is equal to nothing. That is because official surveillance does not need notifying any other party anyway.
In 1994, the Chinese Communist regime detained me, but did not get the approval from the Procuratorate. Thus, with the approval of higher authorities, they made up a new interpretation about this "residence under surveillance". According to their explanation, it is: we arrested you and put you "under surveillance"; you are living outside of an official jail, thus it is a "residence". Combining these two actions together, it is called "residence under surveillance". Later on, even the courts did not acknowledge this deprivation of liberty. Thus, the judicial practice "legalized" this illegal detention.
The police who arrest people do not really break the law, it is the Chinese Communist regime that breaks the law; it is the dictatorial authority carrying out the illegal actions breaking the laws themselves. The Chinese Communist Party created a law that enables it to violate the law while carrying out the law. These plays by the Chinese Communist Party sound like tongue twisters. In reality, however, it is not as fun as tongue twisters at all. When this "residence under surveillance" is carried out against "enemies" within the party, it is called "double designations". It suggests that the Communist officials in trouble are to confess within the "designated time" at the "designated place", but it ignores the reality that these officials are illegally detained without personal freedom. Is not that the same as "residence under surveillance" against the average Chinese?
The case of Li Zhuang of Chongqing is even more fancy. Li Zhuang is a lawyer who grabbed the evidence of the Communist Party violating law and created wrongful injustice. Thus, he offended the law of the Communist Party that it would be violating law while carrying out law. Lawyer Li was thrown into jail by the Party Secretary Bo Xilai of Chongqing. How to deal with these lawyers who become an obstacle for the Communist Party's violation of law while carrying out law? Secretary Bo now created a new practice, called "self-incriminating". In accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure law, one cannot be found guilty through only statements without evidence. However, Secretary Bo's power is bigger than the law. When they played the trick to make Li Zhuang plead guilty, of course he is guilty, evidence or no evidence.
As lawyer Li's three-year sentence comes to an end, his release from the jail could spell trouble for Secretary Bo. So what should be done? That is easy. If he could be framed the first time, why not the second? The first time was experimental, not presumptuous, and thus still needed a guilty plea in court as a cover up. But for the second time, even that step could be saved. If he said he was guilty, he must be, even if he really was not. Now this practice completely fits the need for the full-scale dictatorship, and thus the Communist high officials would line up to support Secretary Bo.
It is simply history repeating itself. The full-scale dictatorship of Mao Zedong before the Cultural Revolution also received support up the line from the Communist high officials. However, what followed was that the dictatorship started to eat into this lineup of the officials themselves. The westerners call it "shooting oneself in the foot". The Chinese people call it "one dies as the punishment from the condemnable action of oneself". These people who want to use unreasonable measures against others do not know what to do when the same unreasonable measures are use against themselves.
In Mao's time, the Chinese president Liu Shaoqi thought that if he was in full support of the Communist Party Secretary Mao Zedong, then he would be spared of political elimination. What he did not realize was that his very presence was an obstacle to others and made others' eyes sore enough to compose an offence. For Communist high officials who will have to relinquish their power, how could they know that their own children would not offend the future premier Bo? As long as one creates a judicial custom for illegal detention and judicial decisions that violate law, the sword of Damocles shall hang over everyone's head. When the people in power are happy, or unhappy, they could just as easily kill you as the next Liu Shaoqi, or Peng Dehuai; they could throw your sons into jail as the next Ai Weiwei, or Li Zhuang.
2500 years ago in China, there was the legal pioneer Shang Yang created law himself, yet he was not able to escape the sanction of law himself. Supporting Communist Party Secretary Bo's "Sing Praises for the Red and Hit the Black Society" Movement is not enough to exempt one from punishment in the future. As long as one has participated in manufacturing the law which enables the authority to violate law while carrying out law, one is putting oneself in a position that anyone else could arrest him without reason. Before the Cultural Revolution, people mistakenly thought that unreasonable laws are only applicable to the average people. The actual result was that these laws were used to deal with political enemies first. Chinese President Liu Shaoqi himself was thrown into jail and died miserably there. The conclusion is simple: official rank is never high enough; and any amount of gold could not make one feel wealthy enough.
There was the case of Zhou Bo, who made significant contributions in establishing the Han Dynasty 2300 years ago. Zhou had no desire for power, but simply wished retirement as a wealthy man. Yet, he could not live in peace despite his credit to the country and simple desire to live. Why so? That was because if the practice law could be unreasonable to the others, why should he be spared? Such a simple truth sounds like a tongue twister now. The average person can understand easily, but not these smart officials. They have been blindly duplicating the mistakes that other smart officials made years ago. Indeed, in this world, there are many idiots who think themselves smarter than everyone else.
Let us look at the case of Ai Weiwei first. Even China's own Criminal Procedure Law has clearly stated that in depriving citizens of their liberty one must notify their families first; otherwise, it is illegal detention. According to the United Nations it is "enforced disappearance". After Ai Weiwei disappeared for more than two weeks without knowledge of his whereabouts by his family members, not only did China's State Council issue statements continuously, even the official media of the Communist regime made plausible remarks about him. Therefore, the dictatorial authority that detained him is already guilty of illegal detention. Please notice that they are not only suspected of, but in fact have given evidence of committing the crime of illegal detention.
Even though they may catch up with formalities later on, even backdating the forms will be useless. There are only two essential conditions for this crime: the first is to deprive personal freedom, and the second is not to inform family members. In accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Law, no matter what authority they are, if they meet these two conditions, then it is illegal detention. It seems that the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the official media are framing the Chinese public security department. They announced the news of Ai Weiwei's detention, which served as a proof of the illegal detention by the public security department.
However, the Chinese public security department does not care. More one decade ago, they already used so-called "internal regulations" to make Criminal Procedure Law mean nothing. This approach is called "residence under surveillance". According to Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, "residence under surveillance" is the lightest level of measure restricting personal freedom. That measure means monitoring the person with the premise of not actually depriving their freedom of movement. Therefore, the procedure does not need the approval of a Procuratorate or court. After all, in China, this requirement is equal to nothing. That is because official surveillance does not need notifying any other party anyway.
In 1994, the Chinese Communist regime detained me, but did not get the approval from the Procuratorate. Thus, with the approval of higher authorities, they made up a new interpretation about this "residence under surveillance". According to their explanation, it is: we arrested you and put you "under surveillance"; you are living outside of an official jail, thus it is a "residence". Combining these two actions together, it is called "residence under surveillance". Later on, even the courts did not acknowledge this deprivation of liberty. Thus, the judicial practice "legalized" this illegal detention.
The police who arrest people do not really break the law, it is the Chinese Communist regime that breaks the law; it is the dictatorial authority carrying out the illegal actions breaking the laws themselves. The Chinese Communist Party created a law that enables it to violate the law while carrying out the law. These plays by the Chinese Communist Party sound like tongue twisters. In reality, however, it is not as fun as tongue twisters at all. When this "residence under surveillance" is carried out against "enemies" within the party, it is called "double designations". It suggests that the Communist officials in trouble are to confess within the "designated time" at the "designated place", but it ignores the reality that these officials are illegally detained without personal freedom. Is not that the same as "residence under surveillance" against the average Chinese?
The case of Li Zhuang of Chongqing is even more fancy. Li Zhuang is a lawyer who grabbed the evidence of the Communist Party violating law and created wrongful injustice. Thus, he offended the law of the Communist Party that it would be violating law while carrying out law. Lawyer Li was thrown into jail by the Party Secretary Bo Xilai of Chongqing. How to deal with these lawyers who become an obstacle for the Communist Party's violation of law while carrying out law? Secretary Bo now created a new practice, called "self-incriminating". In accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure law, one cannot be found guilty through only statements without evidence. However, Secretary Bo's power is bigger than the law. When they played the trick to make Li Zhuang plead guilty, of course he is guilty, evidence or no evidence.
As lawyer Li's three-year sentence comes to an end, his release from the jail could spell trouble for Secretary Bo. So what should be done? That is easy. If he could be framed the first time, why not the second? The first time was experimental, not presumptuous, and thus still needed a guilty plea in court as a cover up. But for the second time, even that step could be saved. If he said he was guilty, he must be, even if he really was not. Now this practice completely fits the need for the full-scale dictatorship, and thus the Communist high officials would line up to support Secretary Bo.
It is simply history repeating itself. The full-scale dictatorship of Mao Zedong before the Cultural Revolution also received support up the line from the Communist high officials. However, what followed was that the dictatorship started to eat into this lineup of the officials themselves. The westerners call it "shooting oneself in the foot". The Chinese people call it "one dies as the punishment from the condemnable action of oneself". These people who want to use unreasonable measures against others do not know what to do when the same unreasonable measures are use against themselves.
In Mao's time, the Chinese president Liu Shaoqi thought that if he was in full support of the Communist Party Secretary Mao Zedong, then he would be spared of political elimination. What he did not realize was that his very presence was an obstacle to others and made others' eyes sore enough to compose an offence. For Communist high officials who will have to relinquish their power, how could they know that their own children would not offend the future premier Bo? As long as one creates a judicial custom for illegal detention and judicial decisions that violate law, the sword of Damocles shall hang over everyone's head. When the people in power are happy, or unhappy, they could just as easily kill you as the next Liu Shaoqi, or Peng Dehuai; they could throw your sons into jail as the next Ai Weiwei, or Li Zhuang.
2500 years ago in China, there was the legal pioneer Shang Yang created law himself, yet he was not able to escape the sanction of law himself. Supporting Communist Party Secretary Bo's "Sing Praises for the Red and Hit the Black Society" Movement is not enough to exempt one from punishment in the future. As long as one has participated in manufacturing the law which enables the authority to violate law while carrying out law, one is putting oneself in a position that anyone else could arrest him without reason. Before the Cultural Revolution, people mistakenly thought that unreasonable laws are only applicable to the average people. The actual result was that these laws were used to deal with political enemies first. Chinese President Liu Shaoqi himself was thrown into jail and died miserably there. The conclusion is simple: official rank is never high enough; and any amount of gold could not make one feel wealthy enough.
There was the case of Zhou Bo, who made significant contributions in establishing the Han Dynasty 2300 years ago. Zhou had no desire for power, but simply wished retirement as a wealthy man. Yet, he could not live in peace despite his credit to the country and simple desire to live. Why so? That was because if the practice law could be unreasonable to the others, why should he be spared? Such a simple truth sounds like a tongue twister now. The average person can understand easily, but not these smart officials. They have been blindly duplicating the mistakes that other smart officials made years ago. Indeed, in this world, there are many idiots who think themselves smarter than everyone else.
.png)
See also
Xi Jinping presents his strategy for the next five years
29/07/2022 14:09
29/07/2022 14:09
