大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[当代中国的盖世太宝[610办公室]研究(英文)]
郭国汀律师专栏
·从 “中国律师人”说开去
·唯有科班出身者才能当律师?!答王靓华高论/南郭
·律师的责任——再答李洪东/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/南郭
·我为北京16位律师喝彩!郭国汀
·郭国汀律师与网上警官的交锋
·我是中国律师我怕谁?!
·郭国汀 好律师与称职的律师
·温柔抗议对郭律师的ID第二次查封
·第五次强烈抗议中国律师网无理非法封杀郭律师的IP
·中国律师网为何封杀中国律师?
·中律网封杀删除最受网友们欢迎的郭国汀律师
·最受欢迎的写手却被中共彻底封杀
·我为何暂时告别中国律师网?
·南郭:律师的文学功底
·中国最需要什么样的律师?
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·将律师协会办成真正的民间自治组织
·强烈挽留郭国汀律师/小C
·the open letter to Mr.Hu Jintao from Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for Gao Zhisheng
·自宫与被阉割的中国律师网 /南郭
·做律师首先应当做个堂堂正正的人——南郭与王靓华的论战/南郭
·呵!吉大,我心中永远的痛!
·再答小C君/南郭
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单!
·历史不容患改!历史专家不敢当,吾喜读中国历史是实
·思想自由的益处答迷风先生
·答迷风先生
·答经纬仪之民族败类之指责,汝不妨教教吾辈汝之哲学呀?
·南郭曾是"天才"但一夜之间被厄杀成蠢才,如今不过是个笨蛋耳!
·答时代精英,
·长歌独行至郭国汀律师公开函
***(53)大学生\知识分子与爱国愤青研究
·春寒料峭,公民兀立(南郭强烈推荐大中学生及留学生和所有关心中国前途的国人精读)
·大中学生及留学生必读:胡锦涛崇尚的古巴政治是什么玩意?!
·是否应彻底否定中华传统文
·向留学生及大中学生推荐一篇好文
·向留学生大学生强烈推荐杰作驳中共政权威权化的谬论
·强烈谴责中共党控教育祸国殃民的罪孽!--闻贺卫方教授失业有感
·學術腐敗是一個國家腐敗病入膏肓的明證
·中共专制暴政长期推行党化奴化教育罪孽深重
·教育国民化、私有化而非政治化党化是改革教育最佳途径之一
·论当代中国大学生和爱国愤青的未来
·给中国大学生留学生及爱国愤青们开书单
·中国知识分子死了!
·强烈推荐大学生与爱国愤青必读最佳论文
·敬请爱国愤青们关注爱国民族英雄郑贻春教授
·敬请海内外爱国愤青兄弟姐妹们关注爱国留学生英雄清水君
·敬请海内外爱国愤青们关注爱国留学生英雄冯正虎
·爱国愤青主要是因为无知
***(54)《郭国汀妙语妙言》郭国汀著
***随笔\散文
·中华文化精华杂谈
·儒家文明导至中国人残忍?!
·儒家不是中共极权专制暴政的根源
·商业文明决定自由宪政民主体制
·关于儒学与中华传统文化之争
·孔子的哲学识见等于零且其思想落后反动?!
·中华文化精华杂谈
·中国人民代表大会体制纯属欺骗国人的摆设
·诚实是人类最大的美德
·人的本质
·圣诞感言
·宽容
·友情
·批评
·物以类聚,人以群分
·中国人难以团结协作的根源何在?
·
·特务
·民运人士需要静心学习思考充实提高自已的理论休养
·诚实是人类最大的美德
· 真理是客观的永恒的不以任何人的主观意志为转移
·马虎学风要不得
·爱与战争及宗教
·为什么说爱才是宇宙的本质?
·最爱我的人去了--哭母亲/郭国汀
·论爱情/郭国汀
·难忘的真情至爱
·初恋
·忠诚的品格
·论幸福/郭国汀
·生命感悟/南郭
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·学者 神 上帝 /南郭
·论英雄
·思想家是真正的王者
·论诗人/郭国汀
·诗论/郭国汀
·人性兽性的证明 南郭
·论嘲讽/南郭
·讽刺与赞美
·南郭点评芦笛
·竞技的由来与意义
·思想言论自由
·精神与物质同性
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
当代中国的盖世太宝[610办公室]研究(英文)

本文是一位英国法学硕士的研究论文,此文对610的研究相当全面具体,作为一个老外殊属不易。亦足令中国法律人(包括南郭)汉颜,因为迄今中国无人对此现象进行深入系统研究。
   610办公室完全是个法外的非法组织,但中共却可随心所欲烂用民膏民脂,在全国范内上至中央,下至县镇设立旨在逮捕、酷刑折磨、强制转化法轮功学员的特务机构;610办公室是中共践踏法律的最新例证,法轮功实质上完全不受中国法律保护;中共法院实质上业已堕落成中共的帮凶。610办公室的存在,再次印证了在中共主导下,决无任何可能实现法治,更无任何可能有所谓司法公正。
   BY Sarah Cook Law and Governance in the Developing World School of Oriental and African Studies 2 July 2007

   
   Inside a Secret Bureau:
   Institutional Analysis of China's '610-Office'
   
   "The 610 office is just like Hitler's Gestapo. They are powerful and they [have] got enough financial support from the government so …they secretly control all the FG practitioners in their local areas." – Guo Guoting, Chinese human rights lawyer in exile[1]
   
   I. Introduction
   From the Gestapo to the Stasi, special police task forces have become a trademark of authoritarian governance, but little is often known about their specifics. How is such an institution born? How are its powers defined? Where does it get funding and recruits? ? Is it created anew or founded on existing structures? These are of the questions this essay will consider through the contemporary case study of the 610-Office, a little known bureau established by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders to head a persecution campaign against the Falun Gong (FG) spiritual practice.
   Drawing on media reports, internal CCP documents, and testimonies by Chinese lawyers, prisoners of conscience, and a former police officer, this essay seeks to construct an institutional analysis of the 610-Office. Section II will provide a brief overview of FG, the campaign against it and relevant scholarly literature. Section III will analyze the bureau's creation, legal status and mandate. It will argue that the 610-Office is an extra-legal entity, established by decree and awarded wide-ranging powers to eradicate FG. Section IV will examine the functions carried out by the 610-Office, both directly and indirectly. In particular, this section will consider the bureau's relationship to other state institutions, including its ability to instruct courts, prisons, schools, and work units on issues related to FG. Section V will then outline the office's structure and Section VI will address the institution's sources of funding and staff. The final section will summarize the study's findings, examine their implications for legal reform in China, and present topics for future research.
   
   II. Background and Literature Review
   
   Few outside of China had heard of FG before 1999, but in the Mainland, people practiced it in parks across the country throughout the 1990s. The discipline, also known as Falun Dafa, is a form of qigong, a type of traditional Chinese exercise system. The practice consists of four slow-moving exercises and meditation, as well as spiritual teachings. These revolve around the belief that "Truthfulness-Compassion-Tolerance" is the fundamental principle of the universe and that practitioners should strive to align their thoughts, speech and behavior with these values.[2] FG was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi in 1992 and until 1999 became increasingly popular among people of diverse ages and socioeconomic backgrounds, including CCP officials. By 1998, the Chinese government estimated that there were at least 70 million FG adherents in China.
    The fast growing popularity of a group with a moral code independent of the Party aroused the suspicion of then-CCP leader Jiang Zemin, who viewed it was a threat to his power. In July 1999, he banned the practice and gave an order to eradicate FG. Large scale arrests began immediately and coordinators were sentenced to long prison terms.[3] A massive propaganda campaign was launched that vilified and dehumanized FG adherents. Human rights groups have since documented more than 3,000 deaths[4] and over 40,000 cases of torture, though many experts say the numbers are much higher.[5] At the time of writing, hundreds of thousands of FG adherents remain in labor camps and reports of death from torture continue to emerge on a regular basis.[6]
   The vast majority of scholarly literature about FG and the campaign against it has focused on what FG is and why the CCP banned it. Nonetheless, a number of pieces have considered the legal aspects of the persecution and can be divided into two groups. The first addresses the campaign against FG within a broader analysis of Chinese legal reform and the potential of establishing rule of law. These authors cite FG as a shortcoming in the system, but one that does not undermine the generally optimistic view that China is in a transition towards rule of law. For instance, in concluding a case study on FG, Peerenboom writes that "the way in which the crackdown was conducted undoubtedly violates any credible interpretation of rule of law."[7] Nonetheless, fifty pages later, he states that "China is in the process of more fully realizing the ideal of rule of law."[8]
   The other category of literature on FG is more pessimistic, analyzing the persecution's illegality. This group argues that the campaign against FG demonstrates that China remains a state in which "the ruling Communist elite may use law to enforce its policies, but the elite class itself is not easily constrained by law,"[9] a system otherwise known as "rule by law." As such, Edelman and Richardson, argue that the "PRC government acted outside of its constitutional authority, violated citizens' basic rights and overstepped its own boundaries in its war against FG."[10] Similarly, the legal analysis in a Human Rights Watch report (HRW) describes a "rule of law" veneer used by the CCP to give the persecution a semblance of legality, a veneer that included ex post facto legislation.[11] Several Chinese writers have taken their interpretation a step further, maintaining that the campaign "raises doubts about the credibility of the Party's avowed effort at creating a government under the rule of law rather than rule of man,[12]" a term often used to refer to the law's status during Mao Zedong's time when policy was outlined and implemented through top leaders' informal directives.
    This body of literature has therefore focused primarily on the "law" aspects of the campaign, while to a large extent neglecting the "governance" side, of which the 610-Office is a key component. Several authors have briefly mentioned the existence of the 610-Office,[13] while others have omitted it all together.[14] Nonetheless, to date there has been no scholarly analysis of its structure, powers or role as a state institution.[15] Indeed, there has been very little consideration in the academic literature of the mechanisms of persecution at all.[16] This essay is a modest attempt to begin filling this gap and to contribute to the factual foundation on which to base broader discussions of Chinese legal reforms.
   
   III. Creation, Legal Status and Mandate
   
   Though multiple incidents targeting FG occurred between 1996 and 1999, it was on April 25, 1999 - following a large-scale peaceful protest by adherents in Beijing - that Jiang Zemin reportedly decided to ban the practice.[17] In preparation for the ban, Jiang and the CCP Central Committee (CCPCC) decided to create a special task force to coordinate the campaign. In a speech he gave to top CCP leaders on June 7, 1999, Jiang spoke of the agency's creation and responsibilities:
   The central committee has already agreed to let comrade Li Lanqing be responsible for establishing a leadership group that will deal with problems of "FG" specifically. … After the leading group dealing with "FG" problems is established by the Central Committee of the CCP, it should immediately organize forces, find out "FG"'s organization system nationwide ASAP, constitute the battling strategies, [and] get fully prepared for the work of disintegrating [FG].[18]

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场