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.

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.