百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[BLOODY HARVEST Organ of Falun Gong]
郭国汀律师专栏
·上海普通市民感受的郑恩宠大律师
·关于郑恩宠案我的声明
·我为郑恩宠律师辩护
·一切源于郑恩宠案,可敬的国安兄弟请自重!
·郑恩宠聘请辩护人的真相
·郑恩宠聘请辩护律师真相之二
·真为这位北京律师脸红!
·张思之大律师冒着酷暑赴看守所会见郑恩宠
·上海监狱当局婉拒郑恩宠的辩护律师会见
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·揭开“时代精英“画皮
·答时代精英,
·再答时代精英教导
·向张思之律师,郑恩宠律师学习,致敬!
·南郭:仗义执言的律师还是没良心的律师
·驳“文律”兄郑案高论/南郭
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单
·批驳李洪东之首恶律师说!
·历史岂容任意伪造!
·惊闻郑恩宠律师夫人蒋美丽被拘捕!
·郑恩宠案二审会维持原判,辩护律师难辞其咎。
·求名求利的律师代表
·答L君之三项基本原则
·郑恩宠案网友评论
·网友支持或反对郑恩宠的评论
·支持或反对郑恩宠的网友评论之二
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠
·吴国策律师:“求名求利的律师代表——某律师的心里”系他人盗名发表的声明
·中国律师声援支持郑恩宠律师
·网警\网友\特务与郑恩宠案
·郑恩宠律师的最后一篇代理词
·关于记者杨金志、陈斌严重侵犯郑恩宠律师名誉权的律师函
·郭国汀律师如果你还是个真正的男人的话,请你勇于承担败诉的责任。
·郑恩宠案上海当局特务什么下流无耻的手段皆用
·谋害郑恩宠的凶手是谁?
·郑恩宠案上海高院驳回上诉后网友们的评论
·请记住一位伟大的律师英雄——郑恩宠/郭国汀
***(四)香港联中公司与厦门国际贸易信托投资公司国际贸易争议再审案
·司法腐败的典型案例
·最高法院无理拖宕九年拒不下判再审案代理词
·反了你!竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
·就十五载官司致最高法院法官的公开函
·中国法官如何让吾尊敬/南郭
·最高法院的院长们为何威胁郭国汀律师?
***(五)涉外亿元合同诈骗案
·涉港“亿元”合同诈骗案之辩护词/郭国汀
·惊心动魄的辩护
·涉外亿元诈骗案致有关负责人的公开函
·致福建省委、省政府各位领导及福州市委、市府各位负责人的公开信
·关于本司与福州市粮油公司贸易纠纷案及因此而被无辜拘留、逮捕者至福州市、福建省、中国政府、公安、检察各部门负责人公开函:
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市市长函
·亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记函
·关于亿元合同诈骗案至福州市委书记的函
·亿元合同诈骗案至中央政法委书记紧急呼吁函
·福州市公安局插手涉港经济纠纷造成海内外不良影响事
·亿元合同诈骗案郭国汀律师与龚雄副市长会谈备忘录
***(59)(五)郭国汀律师名案劲辩
***(1)政治良心案
·力虹(张建红)煽动颠覆国家政权案的咄咄怪事
·郭国汀力虹被中共无罪重判的真实原因
·评论严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·简析严正学所谓颠覆国家政权案
·严正学所谓[涉嫌颠覆国家政权案]必须公开审判
·强烈谴责胡锦涛公然践踏法律任意拘禁人律师的恶劣行径
·东洲惨案发生的根源——呼吁由联合国组织调查团进行公正调查/郭国汀
·评吴爱中张惠刘兰(法轮功讲真相)案的两审判决
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”辩护词
·律师关于郑恩宠案的二审辩护词
·郑恩宠非法为境外提供国家秘密罪刑事申诉状
·郭国汀:我为什么为清水君辩护
·作家张林又被刑事拘留!
·声援支持杨天水和张林
·杨天水是令人敬佩的民主战士
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见杨天水
·坚决支持李国涛先生的义举,反对极权专制独裁政治!
·师涛是当代中国英雄——
·六四与师涛
·师涛为中国记者受难为自由民主坐牢
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·辩护律师郭国汀获准会见师涛
·长沙国安局无理拒绝辩护律师会见师涛
·答mironet质疑何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·向刘晓波,余杰先生学习,致敬!
·当一名律师无辜失去自由时——无题
***(2)民告官---行政诉讼案强制拆迁案
·国家赔偿行政诉讼案代理词
·政府欺诈何时休?!评一起政府参与非法强制拆迁案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州“历史文化街区”拆迁案代理词
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案
·关于苏州市丽人服饰有限公司被非法强制拆迁案的法律分析意见
·苏州市衣丽人服饰有限公司诉苏州市相城区建设局非法作出<房屋拆迁许可证>行政诉讼争议案代理词
·烟台「历史文化街区」拆迁案代理词
·社会公共利益与强制拆迁
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告

(BLOODY HARVEST Organ of Falun Gong)接上页博讯www.peacehall.com

   

   

   

   We conclude that the verbal admissions in the transcripts of interviews of investigators can be trusted. There is no doubt in our minds that these interviews did take place with the persons claimed to be interviewed at the time and place indicated and that the transcripts accurately reflect what was said.

   

   

   

   Moreover, the content of what was said can itself be believed. For one, when weighed against the recent international uproar about alleged organ seizures as the 2008 Beijing Olympics approach, the admissions made at the various institutions are contrary to the reputational interests of the government of China in attempting to convince the international community that the widespread killing of Falun Gong prisoners for their vital organs has not occurred.

   31) A confession

   

   

   

   A woman using the pseudonym Annie told us that her surgeon husband told her that he personally removed the corneas from approximately 2,000 anaesthetized Falun Gong prisoners in Sujiatun hospital in Shenyang City in northeast China during the two year period before October, 2003, at which time he refused to continue. The surgeon made it clear to his wife that none of the cornea "donors" survived the experience because other surgeons removed other vital organs and all of their bodies were then burned. Annie is not a Falun Gong practitioner.

   

   

   

   Annie had earlier told the Epoch Times in a story published in its March 17 issue:

   

    "One of my family members was involved in the operation to harvest Falun Gong practitioners' organs. This brought great pain to our family."

   

   

   

   Her interview led to a controversy about whether or not she was telling the truth. For the first version of our report, released on July 7, 2006, we sidestepped the controversy that had arisen about the credibility of her testimony. We interviewed Annie even for our first report. However, the detail she provided posed a problem for us because it provided a good deal of information which it was impossible to corroborate independently. We were reluctant to base our findings on sole source information. So, in the end, we relied on what Annie told us only where it was corroborative and consistent with other evidence, rather than as sole source information.

   

   

   

   For this version of our report, we engage the controversy directly. We accept that what Annie says her husband told her was not only told to her but also is credible. Annie's testimony goes a long way to establish, all on its own, the allegation. In an appendix about Sujiatun, we go in detail through the various points in dispute generated by her March 17 interview with the Epoch Times.

   32) Corroborating studies

   

   

   

   There have been two investigations independent from our own which have addressed the same question we have addressed, whether there is organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Both have come to the same conclusion we did. These independent investigations corroborate our own conclusion.

   

   

   

   A study by Kirk Allison, associate director of the program in human rights and medicine at the University of Minnesota, was undertaken before our report was released. Though his study was released shortly after our own, on July 25, 2006, Dr. Allison had reached his conclusions earlier, before we released our report. He too concluded that organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners was happening.

   

   

   

   The other investigation was undertaken by European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott. Unlike Dr. Allison and ourselves, Mr. McMillan-Scott was actually able to go to China on a fact finding mission on May 19-21, 2006. There he interviewed two witnesses Cao Dong and Niu Jinping. About his meeting with Cao Dong, Mr. McMillan‑Scott reports that he

   

    "enquired whether he was aware of any organ harvesting camps in China. He said he definitely knew of them and knew people who had been sent to them. He had seen the cadaver of one of his friends, a Falun Gong practitioner, with holes in his body where the organs had been removed."

   

   After Cao Dong left his meeting with McMillan Scott, he was arrested. The authorities in September transferred him to Gansu province and issued an arrest warrant. He was prosecuted in December on four charges. The judges ruled that the case could not go to trial because the case fell within the jurisdiction of the 610 Office in Beijing [the office charged with repression of the Falun Gong.

   33) Government of China responses

   

   

   

   The Government of China has responded to the first version of our report in an unpersuasive way. Mostly, the responses have been attacks on the Falun Gong. The fact that the Government of China would make attacks on Falun Gong the focus of their responses to our report reinforces the analysis of the report. It is these sorts of attacks which, in China, make possible the violation of the basic human rights of Falun Gong practitioners.

   

   

   

   The responses have identified only two factual errors in the first version of our report. In an appendix, in a caption heading, we placed two Chinese cities in the wrong provinces. These errors have nothing to do with the analysis or conclusions of our report.

   

   

   

   In an appendix we go into greater detail about the Chinese responses and our reactions to them. Here we note that the fact the Government of China, with all the resources and information at its disposal, resources and information we do not have, was not able to contradict our report in any other way than this suggests that our conclusions are accurate.

   

   G. Further Research

   

   

   

   We do not consider even this second version to be the final word on this subject. There is much that we ourselves, given the opportunity, would rather do before we completed this version of the report. But it would mean pursuing avenues of investigation which are not now open to us. We will welcome any comments on its contents or any additional information individuals or governments might be willing to provide.

   

   

   

   We would like to see Chinese hospital records of transplants. Are there consents on file? Are there records of sources of organs?

   

   

   

   Donors can survive many forms of transplant operations. No one can survive a full liver or heart donation. But kidney donations are normally not fatal. Where are the surviving donors? We would like to do a random sampling of donations to see if we could locate the donors.

   

   

   

   Family members of deceased donors should either know of the consents of the donors, or alternatively, the family members should have given the consents themselves. Here, too, we would like to do a random sampling of immediate family members of deceased donors to see if the families either consented themselves to the donations or were aware of the consent of the donor.

   

   

   

   China has engaged in a major expansion of organ transplant facilities in recent years. This expansion likely would have been accompanied by feasibility studies indicating organ sources. We would like to see these feasibility studies.

   

   H. Conclusions

   

   

   

   Based on our further research, we are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.

   

   

   

   We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including kidneys, livers, corneas and hearts, were seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.

   

   

   

   How many of the victims were first convicted of any offence, serious or otherwise, in legitimate courts, we are unable to estimate because such information appears to be unavailable both to Chinese nationals and foreigners. It appears to us that many human beings belonging to a peaceful voluntary organization made illegal eight years ago by President Jiang because he thought it might threaten the dominance of the Communist Party of China have been in effect executed by medical practitioners for their organs.

[上一页][目前是第12页][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