Slashdot Mirror


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."

19 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Unfair! by npistentis · · Score: 5, Funny

    How is it that some people get cool nicknames, like "the Stainless Steel Mouse" and "Iceman" and "Dozer." The best I could ever manage was Lunchbox...

    --
    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
  2. "Political Satire" by Raindance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems pretty high-profile and has piqued my interest; anyone have a link (ideally translated) to the "Political Satire" that was good enough to land this young woman in prison for a year?

    RD

  3. Outrageous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    She was never formally charged, but kept at Qincheng Prison for over a year.


    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.

  4. It's called compare and contrast (ie, not OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Mitnick was held without bail for over two years before sentencing: he has said that he set some kind of United States record by being held for four and a half years without a bail hearing, while also held in solitary confinement for eight months 'in order to prevent a possible nuclear strike being initiated by me from a prison payphone'."
    Kevin_Mitnick

    1. Re:It's called compare and contrast (ie, not OT) by jsebrech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it's easy to find specific allegations of torture. It's also quite easy to find that the international and US courts have no control over guantanamo bay prisoners. And it's easy to find this from multiple sources. To me the very fact that the US government doesn't want courts to get involved signifies they're likely doing stuff that can not see the light of day. If there's nothing to hide, why are they hiding it?

      Ofcourse, you could argue that these are all lies and hearsay, and that the US government would never ever use torture. But it is a fact that prisoners on guantanamo bay are held illegally (according to the geneva convention they should be pow's, but the US claims they aren't), and that they do not have due process rights (inalienable human right). If the US is breaking the law anyway in their detainment of these prisoners, would it be such a stretch to imagine them using torture as well?

      There is such a thing as psychological torture by the way. If you're being held without accusation, without promise of release, ever (despite that the war in afghanistan is over, pow's haven't been returned or formally accused of a crime), and without even access to counsel or basically the outside world, would you feel ok? I'd feel downright miserable in such circumstances, even if they did not lay a hand on me. The geneva convention's definition of torture is "cruel and unusual treatment", which does not need to have a physical component involved.

      I see no need for guantanamo bay. If the people there did something wrong, the regular US judicial system should be able to handle it. If they didn't do something wrong (and no, fighting for your country is not a crime), they should be freed. The very existance of guantanamo bay is a slap in the face of justice.

  5. Translation by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "She was never formally charged, but kept at Qincheng Prison for over a year."

    So Qincheng is the Chinese word for Guantanamo, then? Good to know.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  6. This would be good..... by StingRay02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if not for the fact that it's probably just a PR move. It seems like every time the U.S. has something to do with China, human rights becomes the issue of the day. By releasing a couple of dissidents, China can say "Look, we respect human rights." It rings very hollow.

  7. Both sides of the pond? by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before we get all high and mighty, and conclude that we in the United States are so much better, superior, or luckier, remember about the prisoners the US is holding RIGHT NOW in Guantanamo Bay.

    These prisoners of the US Government were held for a year or more.

    Let's clean up our own act before we get all high and mighty about the Chinese, heh?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Both sides of the pond? by release7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And don't forget the fact that China has MFN (most favored nation) trade status despite the blatant disregard for human rights. Then compare this to our embargoes against Cuba, whose only crime is having a lot of anti-Castro supporters in Florida who would vote against Bush for lifting any sanctions on the island nation.

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  8. other points of view by Grond · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the article and summary both mention, the release comes a week before the Premiere's visit to the US. An article in Der Spiegel claims, however, that the release was primarily motivated by the visit of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

    An AP version of the story mentions Schroeders visit (which the Reuters story linked to by the summary does not), but does not go as far as claiming as Der Spiegel does that "[the release] is a gift for Schroeder" (my translation). That particular quote is attributed to Frank Lu of the Information Center for Democracy and Human Rights, a Hong Kong-based watchdog group that is a primary source for both the AP and Spiegel articles.

  9. Simpleton by GCP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't think of a better way to govern that many people than an authoritarian regime with no elections that proclaims itself to be the "People's Government" and has imprisoned and murdered tens of millions of people for disagreeing?

    Not a very deep thinker are you? The US and EU combined are about half the population of China. Do you mean to say that if our populations were simply to double, our best option would be to abandon democracy, rule of law, elections, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., and demonstrate that anyone who disagreed would end up dead? That's really the best you can come up with?

    You sound like a product of Chinese (re)education.

    Of course, you could argue that we can do it because we don't have to have one government controlling all of those people. We have several governments, each covering only a portion of those people, each subject to independent replacement every election day.

    Of course China doesn't have to do it all with one government either. The Tibetans, Uighurs, Taiwanese, Hong Kongese...would love to take some of the "burden" off those poor overworked murderers in Beijing. But Beijing is just like you. They can't think of a better way for them to keep governing than by doing what they're doing, either.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:Simpleton by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sound like a product of Chinese (re)education.

      Which is exactly why those in power in China don't want the Chinese people exposed to free thinking and the outside world.

      Quick story. Six hundred years ago, China kicked ass in pretty much everything. Zheng He's fleet of ships discovered the world in Junks that were probably 500 years ahead of anything anyone else had* - so when they got back, China decided the world had nothing to offer them and prmptly closed up the borders... Anyway, my point is that Chinas leaders have a history of overly controlling it's people and it's a strategy that clearly doesn't work. In those 600 years, the world has caught up and China is renowned for cheap labour. Nice going guys. Imagine where both the world and China would be today if the borders had been open and knowledge flowed freely. Imagine the world a couple of hundred years from now - that's where we might have been if a bunch of old men hadn't got it wrong.

      China has a billion people, many of whom could do amazing things given the opportunity, but some small minded politicians are too scared of losing power money control and face, that they oppress and brainwash the masses into thinking it's for the best. Nice plan, but it won't work for ever - it never works for ever.

      I hope the Chinese people take control back soon, so China can regain some of its former glory.

      * Had floodable compartments for fishing / washing, navigated with a compass, huge hull size, etc, etc.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Simpleton by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nice plan, but it won't work for ever - it never works for ever.
      Right, but that probably includes most of the various forms of "Western demoncracy" that is currently held up by the US and EU as the ultimate ideal. I see ample evidence, for instance, of deterioration in the US system. One man one vote does not guarantee true representative government; when elections are determined by media campaigns costing vast amounts of money; when these campaigns are overwhelmingly funded by a small number of vested interests; when most politicians regard payoffs for campaign contributions as part of the game: government is not of the people by the people. Add to that a willingness by some to subvert the system directly (for example, look at actions taken before and during the last presidential election in Florida -- and I am not referring to chards). Frankly, the US is not well placed to criticize those in other countries for trying to conserve their power by improper means.
      I hope the Chinese people take control back soon, so China can regain some of its former glory.
      This one sentence reveals many (commonly held) misimpressions of the China of today. Firstly, and most important, there is no single Chinese people. China is an empire. Given right of self determination, many Chinese regions would undoubtedly not be part of China today. Democracy in any meaningfull form is incompatible with China in its current form.

      Secondly, China's former glory was based on exactly the kind of repressive system that is in place today: indeed at the height of China's power, the repression was even more extreme. None of China's peoples, apart from a tiny elite, ever had any power. The time in history when power was distributed a little more widely was during the Cultural Revolution: not exactly a ringing endorsement for student power, Chinese style.

      Does this mean that I approve of China's system? Absolutely not. But I do recognise that it is nonsense (except as a propoganda ploy) to demand that China adopt a system that would lead to its self destruction. If China's current economic progress can be leveraged to directly benefit the population at large (and people become overwhelmingly satisified with their lives personally) tolerating most forms of dissent may become practicable. As things stand today, allowing political pluralism would probably result in violent upheaval in the short term interests of nobody.

      China's problems are complex.

  10. China vs,. US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Someone explain to me how
    • the US
    • is never right about anything it does,
    • Europe calls it a "crime against humanity" when the US executes 71 people in 2002
    • groups like our faithful slashdot posters and Amnesty International constantly bitch and whine about how evil the US is, and
    • basically ALL the problems of the world are America's fault
    and,
    • China (in recent times)
    • builds the great firewall of China,
    • suppresses free speech,
    • executes 1,000+ people in 2002 (over 14x the US total)
    • conquers countries and actually FORMALLY integrates them into China,
    • moves people in forced migrations, and
    • commits various other human right abuses,
    and the our "right-thinking left-wing friends" never say shit about it?

    I realize anti-Americanism is popular, but ...

    1. Re:China vs,. US by KjetilK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and the our "right-thinking left-wing friends" never say shit about it?

      Actually, we do. A lot. It just never gets to the news. I'm too young, but my parents have spoken up on every conflict there was.

      In the case of Iraq, Amnesty International had a huge body of knowledge about the atrocities committed by Saddam.

      Unfortunately, when Ronald Reagan decided Saddam was the good guy, and sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with him, it gets really, really hard to say otherwise. Furthermore, when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja, the Reagan administration blamed Iran, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and voted down every condemnation of Iraq, but inside and outside the US.

      OK, but that's history. How about today? Now that Saddam's gone, there are other dictators that should follow. For example Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The democratic opposition had great hopes when America entered Central Asia. Unfortunately, you let them down. Islam Karimov is now one of the cherished allies in the "coalition". With US support, he has semented his power. Perhaps it is not too much to ask that you at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet, and let the people have a chance to get rid of them themselves?

      I realize anti-Americanism is popular, but ...

      Uhm, no, you missed the point. It's not anti-americanism to tell America it's wrong. OK, you can find anti-americanism, and it is a fair amount of around, on the form: "America is headed for the quagmire (hehe)". But it is not anti-americanism to say that "America is headed for the quagmire, and we have to work with america to change its course". The latter is far more common than the former.

      The difference between America and China is that America is a democracy and it has a free press. Those two things should make it possible to get through to America far more easily than to China. So, the reason why America is addressed is that there are certain values it tends to uphold. That's not anti-americanism, to the contrary, it is recognition. But it also demands of you that you realize that your current President is wiping his ass with your constitution, and that you get rid of him. Nobody else can do that but you.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  11. What happened to fighting for freedom in the USA? by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I notice people are willing to fight for freedom for the Iraqis, for the Chinese, for every country imagineable but in the USA we want a police state to protect ourselves from the terrorists? I'm confused, someone please explain this to me. We pass the patriot act, and make it possible to toss anyone in prison who even resembles a terrorist with no trial, nothing. I'd be worried about the USA.

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
  12. Re:hmmm... by Eloquence · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Anyone with half a brain will admit that China is more repressive on most domestic issues than the US. However, the fact that valid comparisons can be made in limited areas should be enough to give Americans the heebie-jeebies. Furthermore, you will hardly convince anyone by listing "factoids" without botherting to cite sources. Case in point: The total prison population in China, according to the World Prison Population List, is about 1.4 million. It is highly doubtful that 1 million of these are "dissidents". So this seems to be a fairly blatant case of numbers being exaggerated for political effect ("1 million" .. "300,000" - when you have nice, round numbers like these, you know you're dealing with public relations data). What's worse, the US is currently leading the international list, both in relative and absolute numbers, with more than 1.9 million people in prison, and that does not include detentions abroad. This in spite of the fact that the US has about 1/4th the population of China. The only country that has a larger percentage of the population in prison is Rwanda, where over 100,000 people are held on suspicion of participating in the 1994 genocide of over 800,000 people.

    Why are so many Americans in prison, under third world medical conditions? The war on drugs, primarily, but also idiotic minimum sentencing laws. Where China executes people as a "deterrence", the US lock them up for decades for the same reason, while still retaining a provably flawed capital punishment system. And, by the way, according to Amnesty International:

    Seven countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The country which carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders was the USA (17 since 1990).

    There are many other very serious social issues in the US (insufficient health care, police brutality, religious fundamentalism, sexual hysteria ..), and just waving the finger at China and shouting "Woo, we're so great" is not going to cut it. The US needs to get serious about cleaning up at home before trying to impose itself as the world police elsewhere. Getting rid of your idiot president would be a good start.

  13. You don't have to look at China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    or even Guantanamo Bay... last week in Miami there were hundreds of people locked up for protesting at the anti-FTAA demonstrations, many still there struggling for bail money.

    When people came to protest at the jail, the police simply proceeded to arrest the protestors again to get them out of the way.

    If you want an example of a "police state" just look at the USA right now, you don't need to look as far as China.

    more arrests and jail info at
    http://www.ftaaimc.org/ and http://www.stopftaa.org

  14. Not really... by danro · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."