[quote=“Chewycorns”]I’ve always admired the Japanese with their “bushido” spirit, ritual suicide (hari-kari) and honour. I don’t think CSB would have the balls to do what former South Korean President Roh did. Not in a bloody second…interesting how the DPP in Taiwan vs the KMT and the Korean opposition vs the GNP came to power as “corruption” busters only to become just as corrupt as the political entities they criticized. Hypocrites. At least Roh ended it honourably instead of continuing the circus day after day.[/quote] Ummmmm, yeah good point. :loco:
Come on Mucha Man 
Surely you know that members of that family have varied political allegiances and have for some time, just like most large families do in most parts of the world (my family dinners too are quite explosive when politics is discussed). Sure they have some ties to the party, but one member spent decades abroad in exile in Japan and has close links with the DPP. Another was imprisoned by the Nationalists for a few months in the 40s before becoming close with CKS and his wife.
They also had ties with the Japanese and were the first Taiwanese family to have representation in the Diet during colonial times. Since their family has been prominent in business for quite a long time, it is only natural that they have links to power players for just as long.
If you look at the original quote, ABC-law said “blatant disregard for legal procedures by the prosecutors and the court”. Subtle difference, but he did NOT say they were breaking the law.[/quote]
Really? Here’s what he said and you concurred to.
Very well said.[/quote]
Clearly, he DID say repeatedly that the court (ie., judge/s) and prosecutors are violating laws in this case (incidentally, “legal procedures” if they are mandatory, ARE laws). He claimed that’s what people are objecting to – the violation of laws by the judge/s and prosecutors.
But apparently you are now backing off your prior stance and no longer contend that the judge or prosecutors have violated any laws in this case.
As I said, I simply haven’t been following the case closely so I wondered if there are any legitimate gripes about the handling of it by the authorities, as Chen claims, or is he only trying to distract from his guilt. I don’t deny that lengthy detention prior to charges being filed should be banned in Taiwan (as in most developed nations). But presently that’s perfectly legal here and, besides, at this point haven’t charges finally been filed against him?
In any event, it appears that apparently, no one (except possibly ABC-Law, but he refuses to back up his allegation) is contending any laws are being violated. Instead, it seems to be merely that some claim incarcerating Chen prior a verdict, while perfectly lawful, is a discretionary decision and purportedly reflects a double standard because if the defendant were KMT they claim he wouldn’t be locked up.
Is that right? Is there anything else, or is that the sole criticism of the proceedings? Has Chen mentioned any specific laws that he alleges are being violated?
I don’t think that is exactly what is going on. As Mucha Man mentions there are Chen supporters and Tsai supporters in the DPP. The Chen supporters are one’s making the argument that CSB trail is a politically motivated witch hunt.
Tsai wanted to depose and distance the DPP from CSB once he left office. However, as current events have shown, Tsai is unable to lead the DPP without the Chen supporters. She went to visit CSB to show her loyalty to CSB and his cause so that Chen supporters would also support the 517 protest.
Given CSB behavior over this entire affair it is hard to convince anyone other than his loyal supporters, that he has not been treated fairly by Taiwan standards.
Come on Muzha Man Surely you know that members of that family have varied political allegiances and have for some time, just like most large families do in most parts of the world (my family dinners too are quite explosive when politics is discussed). Sure they have some ties to the party, but one member spent decades abroad in exile in Japan and has close links with the DPP. Another was imprisoned by the Nationalists for a few months in the 40s before becoming close with CKS and his wife.
They also had ties with the Japanese and were the first Taiwanese family to have representation in the Diet during colonial times. Since their family has been prominent in business for quite a long time, it is only natural that they have links to power players for just as long.[/quote]
Let me repeat: Koo is a self-admitted briber of the president; he also fled the country for two years after a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2006. If prosecutors do not consider him a flight risk (he is allowed to leave the country at will) then really their arguments that Chen is ring just a little hollow.
Anyway, this is old news.
MT, I’ll answer your question briefly. From the start the prosecutors office has shown bias toward Chen. Last May the three main prosecutors in the case announced they would resign if they did not find Chen quilty. I am not sure if this violates any statutes but it certainly is unprofessional, against the spirit of innocent until proven quilty, and deserving of censor. They should have been removed from the case but of course were not thus tainting the investigation from the start.
The Justice Minister headed the investigation of Chen’s shooting (ie, looking for evidence that he shot himself) and in the spring attended a performance by her subordinates that mocked Chen’s trial. She also was not censored for her unprofessional behavior or bias toward the Chen case.
Chen’s detention was legal but days after he was left incommunicado the prosecutors office allowed witnesses to appear on TV and denounce Chen and make accusations againgst him thus violating the right of the accussed to face his accusers. No one was censored yet Chen’s lawyer, who later read a poem Chen had written, was accused of unprofessional behavior and I believe threatened with punishment. The double standard and bias in the justice department is obvious and in itself represents a serious threat to Chen’s ability to get a fair trial.
After 30 days in detention Chen was released. The prosecutors office asked that he be put back. The presiding judge did not agree with the arguments. Twice the prosecutors office appealed and twice they were turned down. Finally, the judge was simply replaced and the new judge ordered Chen back in detention. Since judges are chosen by lottery this violated procedure and quite simply was outrageous.
Leaks from the prosecutors office (leaks that could only have come from the prosecutor’s office) have also been steady again violating Chen’s rights to a fair trial.
So have laws been broken? Not sure, but there has been contempt for fairness and normal procedures and no censoring of public officials who have behaved unprofessionally and jeopardized Chen’s rights to a fair trial.
Finally, if you didn’t know, one of the biggest critics of Chen’s case has been Ma’s own Harvard mentor, Jerome Cohen, the world’s authority on Taiwanese and Chinese law. It was he who first used the word “circus” with regard to the case, who called for censoring of the Justice Minister, and for the prosecutors office to stop the leaks and trial by media. This has not been simply a bunch of green wackoos harping about violation of human rights.
I believe this is a rough summary of some of the points that have people concerned.
MM, thanks for the good explanation.
[quote=“Chewycorns”]I’ve always admired the Japanese with their “bushido” spirit, ritual suicide (hari-kari) and honour. I don’t think CSB would have the balls to do what former South Korean President Roh did. Not in a bloody second…interesting how the DPP in Taiwan vs the KMT and the Korean opposition vs the GNP came to power as “corruption” busters only to become just as corrupt as the political entities they criticized. Hypocrites. At least Roh ended it honourably instead of continuing the circus day after day.
theglobeandmail.com/news/wor … le1150649/[/quote]
“And, in a totally unrelated news story, prosecutors announced today that they were worried about ex-president Chen’s mental health, and were going to take him on a nice outing to the top of Ali Shan.”
Come on Muzha Man Surely you know that members of that family have varied political allegiances and have for some time, just like most large families do in most parts of the world (my family dinners too are quite explosive when politics is discussed). Sure they have some ties to the party, but one member spent decades abroad in exile in Japan and has close links with the DPP. Another was imprisoned by the Nationalists for a few months in the 40s before becoming close with CKS and his wife.
They also had ties with the Japanese and were the first Taiwanese family to have representation in the Diet during colonial times. Since their family has been prominent in business for quite a long time, it is only natural that they have links to power players for just as long.[/quote]
Let me repeat: Koo is a self-admitted briber of the president; he also fled the country for two years after a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2006. If prosecutors do not consider him a flight risk (he is allowed to leave the country at will) then really their arguments that Chen is ring just a little hollow.
Anyway, this is old news.[/quote]
Let me repeat: in your post above, you mention the family has long ties to the KMT. It also has long ties to the independence movement (one family member lived in exile in Japan for over 20 years) and to the Japanese in colonial times. Like any large family, there are differing political sympathies within that family.
Hmm. So, you are saying that it is as likely that the Koo familys’ ties to the Japanese colonial government are as relevant to Jeffrey Koo Jr’s release without charge, as the patriarchs long ties with the KMT over the past decades? Or are you saying that his family’s ties to power have nothing to do with his release? Or are you saying anything at all relevant to the case or just making a random observation about families?
Hey, look a mosquito.
Koo Sr. attended overseas events on behalf of Taiwan during the DPP administration and is the nephew of Koo Kuan Min, who has been an independence activist for a long time. These are the patriarchs of the family these days (not Koo Jr.), so your use of this word puzzles me.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
Hey, look a mosquito.[/quote]
Must get a lot of those on ya down in the bog, eh?
[quote=“Mucha Man”]MT, I’ll answer your question briefly. From the start the prosecutors office has shown bias toward Chen. Last May the three main prosecutors in the case announced they would resign if they did not find Chen quilty. I am not sure if this violates any statutes but it certainly is unprofessional, against the spirit of innocent until proven quilty, and deserving of censor. They should have been removed from the case but of course were not thus tainting the investigation from the start.
The Justice Minister headed the investigation of Chen’s shooting (ie, looking for evidence that he shot himself) and in the spring attended a performance by her subordinates that mocked Chen’s trial. She also was not censored for her unprofessional behavior or bias toward the Chen case.
Chen’s detention was legal but days after he was left incommunicado the prosecutors office allowed witnesses to appear on TV and denounce Chen and make accusations againgst him thus violating the right of the accussed to face his accusers. No one was censored yet Chen’s lawyer, who later read a poem Chen had written, was accused of unprofessional behavior and I believe threatened with punishment. The double standard and bias in the justice department is obvious and in itself represents a serious threat to Chen’s ability to get a fair trial.
After 30 days in detention Chen was released. The prosecutors office asked that he be put back. The presiding judge did not agree with the arguments. Twice the prosecutors office appealed and twice they were turned down. Finally, the judge was simply replaced and the new judge ordered Chen back in detention. Since judges are chosen by lottery this violated procedure and quite simply was outrageous.
Leaks from the prosecutors office (leaks that could only have come from the prosecutor’s office) have also been steady again violating Chen’s rights to a fair trial.
So have laws been broken? Not sure, but there has been contempt for fairness and normal procedures and no censoring of public officials who have behaved unprofessionally and jeopardized Chen’s rights to a fair trial.
Finally, if you didn’t know, one of the biggest critics of Chen’s case has been Ma’s own Harvard mentor, Jerome Cohen, the world’s authority on Taiwanese and Chinese law. It was he who first used the word “circus” with regard to the case, who called for censoring of the Justice Minister, and for the prosecutors office to stop the leaks and trial by media. This has not been simply a bunch of green wackoos harping about violation of human rights.
I believe this is a rough summary of some of the points that have people concerned.[/quote]MM, nice summary but one point you did not mention is that the prosecution insisted on being present for all dialogue between Chen and his legal counsel and that it be recorded. This is not necessarily ‘illegal’ but is a flagrant violation of the fundamental legal concept of attorney-client privilege.
yes, that was considered against the constitution by the supreme court, but can still be used on this case…