The Justice of Nations

A recent comment for The Tiananmen Square Hoax was worth turning into a post. The comment was left by an anonymous person going by the name of Fred.

He or she mentioned the arrest of Shi Tao, a mainland Chinese journalist, and Fred claimed that Tao was tortured by Chinese police before being given a ten-year jail sentence for sending an e-mail.

My response was: “How many witnesses are there to this torture? Any photos? When the US was water boarding prisoners at GITMO (water boarding is considered torture by some but not by others), the G. W. Bush administration (2001 – 2009) did not consider it torture but the Obama administration did (2009 – ).

As for the jail sentence, the laws of each country are different. We cannot judge China using the US legal system or someone’s opinion that it was unjust. For example: Do you approve of a country having a death penalty for a drug related crime?

Some of the countries that allow the death penalty for drug crimes: Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Gaza (occupied Palestinian Territories), India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam and the United States of America.

Article 28 of China’s Constitution says, “The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.”

“When the Chinese government found out (about the leak—Fred calls it sending an e-mail, but what was in that e-mail turns out to be sensitive CCP information.), the CCP demanded the sender’s personal information from Yahoo!’s Hong Kong office. Yahoo! turned the information over without asking what it was for (the United States does the same thing for treason and any suspicion of a potential act of Terrorism).

“Shortly thereafter, Shi Tao was detained on November 24, 2004. The Chinese authorities confiscated his computer and documents without showing any proper permit or document, and warned his family members not to talk about it with others. He was formally arrested on December 14.”

Here’s the law for treason in the United States: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

In addition, in the US, “If the police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime but the prosecutor has not yet brought formal charges, the police may detain the suspect in custody for a short period of time (generally twenty-four to forty-eight hours). Probable cause is defined as facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity is probably taking place or knowledge of circumstances indicating a fair probability that evidence of crime will be found. It requires more than a mere hunch, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After this short period of detention, the police must release the person, or bring formal charges and take the suspect before a judge. If released, the person may be rearrested at a later date if the police obtain sufficient evidence.”

Is there any language in China’s laws that says how long the police in China may hold an alleged criminal without charging them? Does anyone know?

Shi Tao was sentenced to ten years in prison for releasing a document of the CCP to an overseas Chinese democracy site. This was the alleged accusation that led to his conviction and prison sentence.

How is that different from the US wanting to arrest Julian Assange for doing the same thing to America? I’ve read that the US is working to extradite Assange for crimes against America so the US may throw the citizen of another country (Assange is an Australian) in a US prison.

Then there is this about the legal system in China from The “Since 2006, new political campaigns have proliferated in courts and government institutions.  These reemphasize the supremacy of the Communist Party and warn against the infiltration of  ‘Western’ rule-of-law concepts.  Indeed, even the content of the national bar exam has been altered to reflect these changes.

“Personnel changes have also swept through the Chinese judiciary.  In 2008, Party authorities replaced the outgoing head of the Supreme People’s Court (strongly identified with many of the 1990s-era legal reforms) with a Party political-legal cadre whose main prior career experience had been his time serving as a provincial public security chief.

“The work of the courts has changed as well.  Since 2003, Chinese authorities have moved away from court trials according to law, which were heavily emphasized in the 1990’s as the preferred means for resolving disputes.  In their place they have revived Maoist-style mediation practices.  And they have revived and expanded programs that train ex-military officers to serve as judges in rural courts, a practice which had fallen out of favor during the 1990’s.”

I recommend reading the rest of this post at The Diplomat. It’s worth reading to understand how the Chinese legal system is changing and why the CCP is doing things the way it does. We don’t have to like what goes on in China, but there is nothing we can do to change it because China is governed by the CCP as the US is governed by the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Should we swap governments to see what happens to the legal system of each country?

Before you answer that last question, consider that the United States has the largest prison population (2.29 million) on the Earth and China (1.65 million) is in second place but with more than four times the population. In fact, when we factor in the ratio of prison population to total population, the US has 743 people locked up for every 100,000, while China has 122 per 100,000 of the national population. Russia has the second highest ratio at 598 per 100,000.


Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.

Subscribe to “iLook China”!
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page, or click on the “Following” tab in the WordPress toolbar at the top of the screen.

About iLook China

2 Responses to The Justice of Nations

  1. Roundys says:

    I disagree with the word ‘hoax’ in characterizing what had happened during the months leading to June 3rd/4th 1989 because it suggested the whole thing was engineered for the purpose of deception. It was not. It started out as an outpouring of grief of the unexpected death of the beloved party official Hu Yaobang and metamorphosis into something else due to the widespread discontent of the general public in regards to the mismanagement of the Maos years and the corruption of the party members. However the western media is certainly dishonest in reporting the events on the night of June 3rd and the early morning of June 4th. Immediately after the day of June 4th, probably within a day or two, pictures began showing up in Chinese Communist rivals Taiwanese newspapers that is clearing the aftermath of a mob scene, some showing soldiers burnt to a crisp hanging on an overpass, lying on a staircase or being prop up in front of a burnt vehicles. I can only interpreted this as people (not the students in the square but the people in a farther away district of Beijing) throwing Molotov cocktails and panicky soldiers firing back in return. I have yet to seen these kind of pictures shown in any Western newspaper probably because it does not fit into a narrative the Western media want to propagate. This is dishonest journalism.

    • The use of the word “hoax” in the post refers to the claims of a slaughter in Tiananmen Square where the Western media and China’s democracy (at any cost to China) driven enemies claim that the PLA set out to slaughter students. I do not deny what you say in this quote, “It started out as an outpouring of grief of the unexpected death of the beloved party official Hu Yaobang and metamorphosis into something else due to the widespread discontent of the general public in regards to the mismanagement of the Maos years and the corruption of the party members.”

      In fact, there is another post on this site that summarized a BBC documentary of the events that clearly shows that the CCP bent over backwards to avoid violence until the situation started to spin out of control. Here’s the link to the post where I mention the events:

      Unfortunately, whoever posted the entire BBC documentary in nine parts on You Tube pulled six of the segments down but in the text of the post for part eight of that BBC documentary I summarized what was said.

      I see that this You Tube account still has Parts 1, 6, and 7 still available. I wonder what caused him or her to take the other six down. Is someone trying to bury that BBC documentary so it becomes forgotten in time? If I could buy a legal copy of the entire BBC documentary at a reasonable price, I would. It was well done. However, I suspect the CIA would not agree with me.

      In Part one of this nine part series, I wrote, “This BBC series is the story of how Communist China learned to love capitalism. It is also the story of Deng Xiaoping—a survivor often punished by Mao, who refused to quit.”

      That documentary has not vanished yet. Here are links to it on the BBC’s Website:

      And here’s what Chinese Pod. com says about the BBC documentary: “For those of you that missed it in the UK, there was a brilliant documentary on BBC2 earlier tonight on Deng Xiaoping’s reforms during the 80s. It tells the a gripping tale of the path that China took to opening up its economy, with plenty of anecdotes (e.g. the novelty of synthetic t-shirts), how people made a lot of money, but also how the changes created social unrest through corruption, inflation and unemployment. It places 1989 in context (not the simple pro-democracy Western media view), and how Deng Xiaoping struggled to prevent his reforms being undone in the aftermath of the disaster. I found it absolutely fascinating, and has plenty of interviews with people who were around at the time (so lots of advanced Chinese practice!)”


      According to the conversation that followed the Chinese Pod’s post, the BBC has made available a high definition version of the documentary on its site.

      For sure, this BBC documentary does not support the “hoax” of a deliberate slaughter in Tiananmen Square that the Western Media and China’s critics claim took place.


      Since China’s critics constantly harp on wanting democracy in China, it’s good to know what America’s Founding Fathers thought of it. In fact, the United States did not start out as a democracy. It was a republic and stayed a republic until early in the 20th century when the structure of the government was changed dramatically and the US was first referred to as a democracy–a term that has stuck. Before then, America was referred to as “a republic”.

      “The Founding Fathers did not like democracy in the least, they equated it to mob rule. stating that if any majority of the people gathered, that all minorities would instantly loose and be at the mercy of the masses. say the country was 80 percent of the the country was whites, and 20 percent was an ethnic group that clearly is not as large. the founding fathers put into action several checks and balances into government to try and deter and stop the country from changing from a republic to a democracy. it is true however that we hold a representative democracy, but still the people rule over all.”

      “. . . [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

      -The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay ed. by Clinton Rossiter ( New York: New American Library. )

      Source of quotes:

      For example: Members of the Senate were not voted into office but appointed by the governor and legislature of each state. At first, the people that were allowed to vote were limited to only white men (excluding Jews) that owned property so about 10% of the total population had a right to vote. This was to ensure that a large majority of the population could not force its beliefs on minorities.

      When I use the word minority, I don’t mean only racial minorities but minorities of people of all colors that do not practice or believe what the majority does—does not follow political correctness.

      For example, atheists in a country that is more than 80% Christian being persecuted for not believing in God or belonging to a religion, or homosexuals that represent about 4% of the population.

      Or parents that spank children being arrested and sent to prison for twenty years to life because a majority of Americans voted on a law to make spanking a crime punishable by a life sentence in prison.

      Heck, I’m a vegan. Imagine if meat eaters (about 98% of the population in the US) decided to gang up on vegans and pass laws that made it a felony not to eat beef.

      Or what about being fat? Seventy-five percent of Americans are fat and 30% are obese with predictions that soon 50% will be obese. What if that majority voted for laws that made it illegal to be skinny? If you were not fat like everyone else, you would end up in prison being force fed until you were fat and looked like everyone else.

      Another example is the issue of abortion in the United States where a large segment of the population believes it is the same as murder and wants to ban abortion and take away a woman’s right to decide what she wants to do when it comes to her body. Isn’t this a form of slavery forced on others due to the beliefs of a mob?

      However, I do feel it was a good thing that the vote was extended to women and all ethnic minorities but should everyone have the right to vote even uneducated illiterates and people that are functionally illiterate and/or people that do not have a business and do not own property or people that live on Welfare instead of holding a job and working for a living?

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: