| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:58 pm Post subject: US tortures Sk activist! |
 |
|
Well, imagine the uproar from the Left if it was the US that did this.
Instead, it's the 'Liberals' that are being silent on this issue - a South Korean activist tortured in China.
| Quote: |
�It�s most likely that the liberals do not have a friendly attitude toward Kim, whose beliefs were once left-wing but shifted to the right,� said an official from the Foreign Ministry.
Another insider said, �Adopting the resolution would strongly pressure China and doing so would have also pressured the DUP,� as the liberals do not want issues on North Korea and China�s human rights to be politicized. |
So, China tortures a SK citizen, and the Left, a bastion for "democratic and human rights" says...
not a whole heck of a lot.
This is what frustrates me about that side. If they were truly for Democracy and Human Rights consistently, I'd have a lot more love for 'em. But it seems that when it comes to the DPRK or China, they suddenly go blind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lots of quotes from unnamed 'insiders' in that article ... hmmm ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While the Left in the US tend to claim to be about human rights and liberalism, I never got that vibe from the leftists in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Another insider said, �Adopting the resolution would strongly pressure China and doing so would have also pressured the DUP,� as the liberals do not want issues on North Korea and China�s human rights to be politicized.
|
I question the extent to which this resolution would "strongly pressure China". They hold a lot of cards in their hand, and are probably gonna do whatever they wanna do.
And the fact of the matter is, someone going into China to assist NK border-jumpers is pretty clearly breaking Chinese law. So, what exactly did this guy expect was going to happen? Okay, maybe the treatment meted out by the Chinese is a bit rougher than what he'd get from a more liberal-democratic state(or maybe not). But oh well. That's the way they roll up there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But he's still a Sk citizen. If a citizen is tortured abroad, should not the gov/law makers here say something is wrong with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| But he's still a Sk citizen. If a citizen is tortured abroad, should not the gov/law makers here say something is wrong with that? |
Well, there might be an issue of hypocrisy, if the Korean left were to make an issue about a Korean scofflaw in the USA who was tortured, but is remaining silent about the same thing happening in China.
Overall, though, no. I'm not a big believer in the obligation of governments to go to bat for their citizens who get into trouble overseas, so long as its known that they aren't being framed or arbitrarily grabbed from the street and tortured. And that inlcudes people like this guy.
Basically, if you went to the foreign country and commited what you knew to be a crime, you deal with whatever treatment the host nation deems appropriate. I recognize that Mr. Kim thought he was performing a humanitarian action, but that's obviously not the way the Chinese see it, and it's their country. They likely have good reason to want to keep their borders secure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Assuming what you did is a crime in normal western countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Assuming what you did is a crime in normal western countries. |
That doesn't matter. When you go to a country, you answer to their laws, not to the laws of the country you came from. If you only want to be subjected to "normal western" laws, you should stay in "normal western" countries.
And anyway, in practical terms, how would you frame that argument to the Chinese government? "Dear China: Your laws aren't normal and western. Please don't apply them to our citizens. Thanks." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does China's law allow for torture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Does China's law allow for torture? |
Well, apparently it does...
| Quote: |
Torture of criminal suspects in order to obtain a confession remains a common practice in China as the confession is usually the key piece of evidence in criminal trials. But as a signatory to the United Nations� Convention Against Torture, such action is nominally illegal in China. Article 43 of China�s Criminal Procedure Law (�CPL�), forbids the use of torture or coercion in obtaining statements or evidence and in the Supreme People�s Court�s Interpretation of the CPL (�SPC Interpretation�) � a document meant to provide greater detail to the vaguely drafted CPL � Article 61 states that evidence obtained through torture cannot be used as the verdict�s basis.
|
I suppose it could be argued that, since Chinese law forbids torture, he was being subjected to arbitrary and unforeseeable abuse by being tortured, and therefore deserves the support of the Korean government.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| That's the way they roll up there. |
What? Your point about the Chinese having the right to secure their borders through force of law is well founded, but it does not follow from that that any and every possible punishment is also acceptable. A nation is behaving completely reasonable if it accepts another nation's right to secure borders, accepts that nation's right to use law to that end, but condemns the specific punishment and attempt to work out a more humane resolution for the legal violation in question while still acknowledging and reinforcing the Chinese right to secure borders.
I am not pleased with how the U.S. "rolled" when it tortured people, and I want other nations -- especially those whose citizens were victims -- to take issue with it; regarding Chinese inhumanities, likewise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| That's the way they roll up there. |
What? Your point about the Chinese having the right to secure their borders through force of law is well founded, but it does not follow from that that any and every possible punishment is also acceptable. A nation is behaving completely reasonable if it accepts another nation's right to secure borders, accepts that nation's right to use law to that end, but condemns the specific punishment and attempt to work out a more humane resolution for the legal violation in question while still acknowledging and reinforcing the Chinese right to secure borders.
I am not pleased with how the U.S. "rolled" when it tortured people, and I want other nations -- especially those whose citizens were victims -- to take issue with it; regarding Chinese inhumanities, likewise. |
I agree.
Certain human rights are fundamental. They exist prior to and independent of the sovereign state (it may be proper to call them "natural laws"). The sovereign thus restrains itself in the face of fundamental human rights, incorporates those limits explicitly into the laws (or the constitution), or places some other check on itself in recognition of fundamental human rights. We may disagree upon which specific rights are fundamental, but not even Hobbes's sovereign was truly unlimited in rightful power or authority.
That limit aside, there are still a lot of situations in which OTOH's principle yet applies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
having worked in-depth with SK leftists, I can attest that there are, for whatever reasons, deeply disturbing issues when it comes to NK and China's relationship. so much so that I parted ways with them when it became obvious the topic of NK could not even be discussed.
I don't understand this at all and continue to find it confusing. I'd really like to know why the SK alleged "pro-democracy" leftists/anarchists aren't more involved in NK rights issues as well as China's participation in same.
it's even more confusing when one considers there are American agencies working to provide aid to NK in peaceful and diplomatic means; the very same SK activists who are so against everything American - why don't they take over themselves and provide this aid to NK if they don't like America?
SK is brimming with talent and energetic people longing for a better way of life for their country - why this doesn't include NK (to some) is beyond my comprehension. some Korean friends (over 30, married with families) have said it's because the younger generations are more selfish and are concerned their standard of living would decrease if reunification occurred.
that may well be but wtf do they think would occur if there was a freakin' war?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am not pleased with how the U.S. "rolled" when it tortured people, and I want other nations -- especially those whose citizens were victims -- to take issue with it; regarding Chinese inhumanities, likewise. |
But then what do you think about those Canadians who are demanding that their government plead for clemency on behalf of Ronald Smith, the death-row convict I mentioned earlier? Because there are those(albeit not in the current Canadian government) who think that capital punishment is an inhumanity on par with torture.
I suppose my question above can serve as a reply to Kuros as well, since the implied point is that there is no agreed-upon parameter about what constitutes "fundamental human rights existing independent of the sovereign state", even as we all pay lip service to the basic idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I am not pleased with how the U.S. "rolled" when it tortured people, and I want other nations -- especially those whose citizens were victims -- to take issue with it; regarding Chinese inhumanities, likewise. |
But then what do you think about those Canadians who are demanding that their government plead for clemency on behalf of Ronald Smith, the death-row convict I mentioned earlier? |
I approve of them, hope they get their way, and further hope that one day the death penalty will be abolished in every state in the Union. Others might disagree with me on that assessment, but to deny that they even have the legitimate right to petition in this situation seems highly questionable to me.
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Because there are those(albeit not in the current Canadian government) who think that capital punishment is an inhumanity on par with torture. |
I think they have a solid case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
