China Releases Cyber Dissident

Ridgelift writes "Reuters UK has the story on the release of three 'cyber dissidents' just one week before a trip by visit by Premier Wen Jiabao to the United States. One of the dissidents, 23-year-old Liu Di, aka the 'Stainless Steel Mouse,' had been detained since November 2002. She wrote political satire about the ruling Communist Party and posted messages in Internet chatrooms calling for the release of online dissidents. She was never formally charged, but kept at Qincheng Prison for over a year."

Comments

Re:Unfair!

[RobotVoodooPower]

"Stainless Steel Mouse" is no doubt a play on the title of Harry Harrison's scifi series based on a character named the "Stainless Steel Rat." I, for one, find the lyrics of Dr. Octagon to be an endless source of screen names...

Notice she was not found "innocent"

[LupusUF]

from the article:
"Liu was bailed out on Friday afternoon, the centre said, saying the move amounted to freeing her because political detainees are rarely, if ever, released on bail."

While China does not typically release political detainees, they are only releasing her on bail. They could still pick her up for the same thing some time later, or decide to officially charge her. It is also important to note that they convicted one of the 4 involved. This situation is far from being over.

Re:Notice she was not found "innocent"

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that she was released as a good-will demonstration for the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder currently visiting China, who has repeatedly and consistently criticized Chinese human rights violations.

On the other hand, George W(armonger) Bush has consistently rewarded China for their atrocities by giving them ever more trade preferences. It is a shame that /. attributes Liu's release to the latter and not the former.

Saddened,
A patriot against the Bush Junta

Re:Outrageous!

[phalse phace]

I know China's human rights policy sucks and all, but wasn't it the "good ol' US of A" that held someone without bail for over two years before sentencing, and worse, was held for over four and a half years without a bail hearing. As a matter of fact, he was even *denied* one!

Re:It's called compare and contrast (ie, not OT)

[jemecki]

The difference is that Kevin Mitnick repeatedly waived his right to a speedy trial which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Chinese dissidents never even had the option.

But they sentenced her supporter to 3 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The Washington Post article is bit more balanced ("China Releases 3 Internet Writers, but Convicts 1 Other"), perhaps because the Washington Post was already blocked by the Chinese firewall last time I was in China, while Reuters may be trying to avoid suffering the same fate.

Even the Reuters article gets around to mentioning that, basically, the Chinese government has chosen to punish some else in place of a sympathetic college girl (Liu Di):

Police also detained at least two people for organising online petitions for Liu's release. Du Daobin, a civil servant, was detained in October, while Luo Changfu, a 39-year-old laid-off worker, was sentenced to three years in prison.

Although the Reuter's article does not explain what Liu Di was being punished for, the Washington Post article mentioned that Liu Di's misdeeds included defending another democratic activist: She also wrote essays pressing for the release of Huang Qi, a businessman who was arrested in 2000 for running an Internet site that carried items about the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and was sentenced to five years in prison for subversion.

Liu Di went to jail, in part, for trying to get Huang Qi freed. Now Luo Changfu has gone to jail to get Liu freed. So, it appears that the Chinese government is insuring that some Chinese partiot will languish in prison over this. They're just willing to be flexible about which one.

Slashdot editors: I'd appreciate it if you'd wipe the records of the IP address from which this post originated, as I travel in China and am pretty nervous about posting this.

Re:Outrageous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never formally charged! That's outrageous! When will those Chicoms desist from such tyrannical and autocratic practices and embrace democracy, a proper Bill of Rights and the rule of law like we have here in the good ol' US of A.

And enjoy the rights offered, like those to the people suspected of terrorism? one example of many!

Re:Translation

[TubeSteak]

This article sums it up nicely

So far, federal judges have ruled that because the base, leased from Cuba, is on foreign territory, aliens held there have no access to U.S. courts to challenge their detentions. The Bush administration maintains that the detainees - most of them captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan - are "unlawful combatants," do not deserve POW status under the Geneva Conventions and can be held indefinitely.

And no, there isn't such a thing as an illegal combatant, at least not according to the Geneva Convention. I'll refer you to the ever omniscient Wikipedia The term unlawful combatant was introduced by the Supreme Court in 1942 and was to apply to spies and saboteurs infiltrating across military lines... not irregulars captured in a foreign country. As for being Swedish, your army doesn't like the idea of unlawful combatants anymore than the citizens of the United States do. If you follow the link to Illegal Combatants, the 3rd paragraph from the bottoms states:

Some governments whose nationals have been detained with this status, notably Canada, Britain, and Sweden, have intervened to limit the degree to which the rights of their nationals have been suspended. In general this has been handled on a case-by-case basis as numbers are few.

So back to legal standings, you're either a regular, and irregular (which covers militas, organized resistance movements, non-soldiers who resist occupation in accordance with the rules of war,...), a civilian, a mercenary or "other." Generally speaking, you either treat someone as a POW or as a civilian. The few exceptions are spies, saboteurs, guerillas and bandits. Like the first two, the latter two are included because they generally don't wear a recognizable mark nor are their actions spontaneous. Other than the fact that we never declared war (authorization to use force & the shaky legal position that we're reactivating the 1991 declaration of war because Iraq breached the terms of the cease fire), the U.N. et al did not support the original 'war' nor do they support the United States position on the combatants being held in Cuba.

Australia recently pulled a stunt like this with a bunch of refugees who landed on an island. The government retroactively excised the island (and about 3000 others) so they could send the refugees on their way to Indonesia where they were detained and arrested. Juggling words does not make it right. I don't disagree that some things (detaining people in Cuba) may have been done out of necessity, but at some point you must correct your wrongs. Not just obstinately declare that there is nothing to be discussed.

Not really...

[danro]

it has been clear in all education on "rules of war" in the Swedish army for the last 20 years at least that there are "combatants" and "illegal combatants" or "bandits". And I have served in the army, so I know.

I, too, served in the Swedish army, and you are both right and wrong...
There exists a distinction between combatants and "bandits". But bandits (or illegal combatants) are criminals, and treated as such.
They are not stuck in a legal limbo, that is what Ashcroft invented.

Simply put, they are either combatants and criminals, there are rules for dealing with both.
Ashcroft just doesn't feel like following the rules, so he makes up an exception...

3 Released, but 1 convicted

[Ridgelift]

Washington post has additional information

"The same day, a court convicted a fourth writer charged in the case, Jiang Lijun, of subversion and sentenced him to four years in prison, his lawyer said."

Re:"Political Satire"

[z01d]

some English media have a little translated excerpts: here and here. and there's a screenshot of one of the Liu Di's original post, in this one, she criticized PRC government for arresting a computer engineer Huang Qi (ye, a geek like you and me), who accidently named his website "64tianwang" (64 Sky Net) on June 4 because "tianwang" is occupied. There are also two pictures of the young girl (one two) on that dedicated site.

Re:Translation

[richie2000]

Actually, the Guantanamo prisoners are held as illegal combatants, and according to the laws of war rules and laws are not applicable on illegal combatants; and besides, the war is not (formally) over in Afganistan yet.

1. There is no such thing as an "illegal combatant", Rumsfeld made that one up as he went along.
2. We don't even know if these detainees were involved in any kind of battle or just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. That a large bunch of them are apparently being readied for release suggests that they were not involved in any actual fighting - ie they were civilians. Do you suggest that all civilians in a combat zone wear a piece of cloth around their arms? If so, would khaki or black be approved colors?
3. Formally, there has not been a war in Afghanistan since the Soviets left. Congress has not declared war on Afghanistan. The US is engaged in a unilateral international police action. Formally, by the standards that Rumsfeld has declared, all the US soldiers in Afghanistan can be considered "illegal combatants".

That said, I agree with most of the motives for going in to Afghanistan, I just have a few problems with the way it's been done. Rumsfeld really needs to either charge the detainees with war crimes or get off the potty - this is no way to run a supposedly democratic republic.

Re:It's called compare and contrast (ie, not OT)

[espo812]

Kevin Mitnick repeatedly waived his right to a speedy trial which is guaranteed by the Constitution

You can't waive a constitutional right. Also, the prosecution repeatedly refused to present evidence for the defense to review - making it difficult for them to make a case, thus they had to delay.

Re:It's called compare and contrast (ie, not OT)

[GMontag]

Thats because under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Its a term invented by the US administration. But if you feel you can point to an actual international treaty that uses the term "illegal combatant" that was signed pre-9/11, feel free to post a link. Good luck, though.

The challenge is for YOU to post a link showing that unlawful combatants have some international protection. They do not.

As I have had to do the homework to expose the Left numerous times already and, it seems, SlashDot is a bastion of saying "proove a negative", here is the refrence to proove AGAIN that the detainees in Guantnamo are not in a protected class:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Ratified by the USA with reservations

They fail test (1), they fail test (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) (usually), (2)(d). They even fail (6)

The term "unlawful combatant" is just a term for people who are not legal combatants. Illegal is a synonym for unlawful. Amazing that this must be pointed out to you, but not that amazing from the rest of the spew on this thread.

Now, if SOMEONE would please point out where these terrorists are protected by anything other than US law (giving them protection from US troops mistreating them), PLEASE POST IT! Otherwise, accept the facts and try a different arguement.