天易网

 找回密码
 注册
楼主: 郭国汀

中共政权酷刑研究报告(修正版)

[复制链接]
 楼主| 发表于 1/29/2018 23:58:07 | 显示全部楼层
Throughout the history of medicine the doctor has been guided by one single principle: helping those in his or her care and, as a very minimum standard, not harming. Yet the physician has participated in torture from the Middle Ages till the present day. Particularly after the Second World War, the phenomenon of doctor participation in torture has compelled new medical ethical thinking. Doctor participation in torture is thus unethical and is now being made a criminal act expressed in legally binding international conventions.

 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 00:04:18 | 显示全部楼层
International Declarations on Torture Speaking Directly toPhysicians Hippocratic Oath (5thcentury before Christ).
Nuremberg PrinciplesConcerning Experiments on Humans (1947).
Declaration ofHelsinki (WMA, 1964, 75, 85).
Declaration of Geneva(WMN, 1948, 68, 83).
International Code ofMedical Ethics (WMA, 1948, 68, 83).
Declaration of Tokyo(WMA, 1975).
Islamic Code ofMedical Ethics (from the Declaration of Kuwait, 1981).
Declaration of Hawaii(WPA, 1977, 83).
Principles of MedicalEthics (UN, 1982).
The following threedeclarations and conventions are also of particular interest to doctors:Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and RelatedRecommendations (UN, 1955, 77).
Regulations in Time of Armed Conflict (WMA, 1956, 57, 83).
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment (UN, 1984).
European Convention for the Prevention of Torture andInhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (European Council 1987).

 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 00:08:22 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 1/30/2018 16:14 编辑

     It is one of the proudest boasts of English jurisprudence that torture, in the strictest sense, has never had an official sanction in its courts. Like many other boasts it will not stand close scrutiny, for Peine Dure et Forte which will be spoken of hereafter, was frequently used and torture was often applied by other bodies than the Common Law courts, as in the court of Star Chamber and in the Privy Council.[1]
       Torture has hardly been absent from U.S. history. Both history and common sense indicate the folly of carving out loopholes in the international prohibition against torture and ill treatment. The experience of the last five years, when torture has received a level of concerted official support from the U.S. government not seen since the days of slavery, has made the danger of the RUDs fully manifest.[2]At various times in its history, the United States has allowed, encouraged, and even participated in torture.                 Torture is part of America's domestic past. It was integral to the institution of slavery and continued in the practices surrounding lynching. Local police forces used torture to elicit confessions through the first third of the twentieth century, and forty years ago wardens in southern prisons still tortured inmates.[3] Although there have been significant improvements, police brutality and the mistreatment of prisoners remain grave problems today.[4]
      At various times the United States has used torture as a counter-insurgency tactic abroad. U.S. troops tortured Philippine insurgents during the rebellion of 1899-1902.[5] In Vietnam, South Vietnamese troops tortured many suspected Viet Cong members, sometimes with the assistance and direct participation of U.S. personnel.[6] During the Cold War, the United States adopted a policy of "torture by proxy," supporting military regimes in Asia and Latin America that it knew practiced torture.[7]The CIA kept on its payroll some officials from these regimes who it knew practiced or ordered torture, in effect paying them for information extracted by torture.[8]We now know that the CIA instructed Latin American security officials in the use of certain torture methods, and even sent U.S. employees to supervise torture.[9]

       Today torture by the United States has become centralized, systematized, and rationalized as never before. What distinguishes current policy from the Cold War era is the direct authorization and close monitoring of torture by the highest officials of government; the creation of an international network of U.S. interrogation centers where detainees are brought to be tortured and often are held for long periods of time;

       After September 11, interrogation became a subject of intense discussion at the highest levels of the Administration.[10] The decision to use coercive methods appears to have been taken by early 2002.[11] A March 2002 Presidential finding signed by President Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General John Ashcroft authorized CIA use of waterboarding, forced standing, hypothermia, and other harsh techniques.[12]

"no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hearor consider any other action against the United States or its agents relatingto any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial or conditions ofconfinement of an alien"detained as a possibleenemy combatant. The only exception is thatdetainees may appeal the verdicts of combatant status review tribunals and ofmilitary commissions that impose a sentence ofdeath or a prison term lasting ten or more years.[13]

foreign detainees subjected to torture cannot ask any "court, justice, or judge" to stop their torture.[14]
    The Bush Administration has defended the policy of coercive interrogation with remarkable vigor. To review: It argued that certain categories of detainees are not legally entitled to humane treatment.[15] It redefined "torture" to exclude forms of treatment that most people would consider torture. [16] It asserted that the CIA is not legally barred from inflicting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment on overseas aliens.[17] It tenaciously fought attempts by Congress to prohibit the CIA from such activity,[18] and, when Congress passed such legislation anyway, interpreted the statute to permit the existing coercive interrogation policy.[19] It asserted that no treaty or congressional statute can limit the President's choice of tactics, including torture, deemed necessary for fighting a war.[20] It fought to deny victims of coercive interrogation any access to the courts by arguing that habeas corpus rights did not extend to overseas aliens and that the Geneva Conventions did not confer judicially enforceable rights.[21] When courts rejected these arguments, it convinced Congress to enact them into law.[22] And it persuaded Congress to rewrite the War Crimes Act so that it is no longer clear whether coercive interrogation methods authorized for the CIA are federal war crimes.[23]






[1] Emest L. Black, Torture Under English Law   75 U. Pa. L. Rev. 344 (1926-1927)  p. 344.
[2]  Jamie Mayerfeld ,How US Marginalization of International Human Rights Law Led to Torture: Playing by Our Own Rules,20 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 89 (2007)  pages, 92
[3] See Jerome H. Skolnick, American Interrogation: From Torture to Trickery, in TORTURE: A COLLECTION 105 (Sanford Levinson ed., 2004). As late as the 1960s, Arkansas prison officials whipped inmates, cracked their knuckles with pliers, and electrically shocked their genitals. MALCOLM M.FEELEY & EDWARD L. RUBIN, JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE: HOW THE COURTS REFORMED AMERICA'S PRISONS 79 (1998). Police torture was largely curtailed in response to the 1931 Wickersham Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement. See JEROME H. SKOLNICK & JAMES J. FYFE, ABOVE THE LAW: POLICE AND THE EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE ch. 3 (1993). However, in the 1970s and 80s, dozens of detainees in the Area 2 Police Station in Chicago were subjected to beatings, burnings, electric shocks, suffocation, and mock execution. None of the perpetrators was ever prosecuted. CONROY, supra note 19,chs. 3, 7, 11, 15.
[4] See HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, SHIELDED FROM JUSTICE: POLICE BRUTALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES (1998); JAMIE FELLNER, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, PRISONER ABUSE: HOW DIFFERENT ARE U.S. PRISONS? (2004), available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/14/usdom8583. htm,
[5] See STUART MILLER, "BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION": THE AMERICAN CONQUEST OF THE PHILIP- PINES, 1899-1903 213, 225-26 (1982); Evan Wallach, Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts, 45 COL. J. TRANSNAT'L L. (forthcoming 2007).
[6] CONROY, supra note 19, at 113-20; ALFRED W. MCCOY, A QUESTION OF TORTURE: CIA INTERROGATION FROM THE COLD WAR TO THE WAR ON TERROR 60-71 (2006); Jennifer Van Bergen & Douglas Valentine, The Dangerous World of Indefinite Detentions: Vietnam to Abu Ghraib, 37 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. 449, 460 (2006).   
[7]. McCoY, supra note 32, ch. 2; HARBURY, supra note 10, chs. 2-3.
[8] HARBURY, supra note 10, chs. 2-3.
[9] Id.
[10] See RON SUSKIND, THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE 52-56, 75-76, 85-87 (2006); Priest, supra note 5; Dana Priest, CIA Puts Harsh Tactics On Hold; Memo on Methods of Interrogation Had Wide Review, WASH. POST, June 27, 2004, at Al.
[11 See sources cited supra note 44. The decision may have been taken earlier. A directive from President Bush outlining approved methods of interrogation "is thought to have been issued shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." David Johnston, C.I.A. Tells of Bush's Directive on the Handling of Detainees, N.Y. TiMEs, Nov. 15, 2006, at A14. This memo has not been seen by the public.
[12] Ross & Esposito, supra note 5; see also Brian Ross, History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding, ABC NEWS, Nov. 29, 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id= 1356870.
[13] Military Commissions Act § 7(a). (referencing Detainee Treatment Act § 1005(e)(2)-(3)).
[14] Id. § 7(e)(1).

[15] See supra notes 48-55 and accompanying text.

[16] See supra note 59 and accompanying text.

[17] See supra note 51 and accompanying text.

[18] See supra notes 68-71 and accompanying text.   

[19] See infra notes 207-09 and accompanying text.

[20] See supra note 59, 76, and accompanying text.

[21] See supra notes 82-85 and accompanying text.

[22] See supra notes 96-100 and accompanying text.

[23] See supra note 95 and accompanying text.

 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 00:31:53 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 1/30/2018 00:45 编辑

coercive interrogation techniques were authorized at the highest levels of the Administration, legally certified by attorneys in the White House and Department of Justice, conveyed to the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), and communicated down the ranks to prison guards and interrogators. These methods have been used by the U.S. military, the CIA, private contractors employed by the Pentagon, and foreign security services to which the United States has sent captives under a policy known as "extraordinary rendition."[1]
the torture and techniques used by US military army, CIA including: waterboarding (or near-drowning), sleep deprivation, forced standing, stress positions, hypothermia, slapping, light and noise bombardment, and extreme isolation.[2]the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") reports, "Detainees have been beaten; forced into painful stress positions; threatened with death; sexually humiliated; subjected to racial and religious insults; stripped naked; hooded and blindfolded; exposed to extreme heat and cold; denied food and water; deprived of sleep; isolated for prolonged periods; subjected to mock drownings; and intimidated by dogs."[3]Several of the techniques-including sleep deprivation, forced standing, and waterboarding-are infamously associated with the Gestapo, Stalin's secret police, and the Inquisition.[4] Many detainees in U.S. custody have died as a result of their treatment.[5]







[1] There are many excellent accounts of these developments. Amnesty International ("Al") reports include AMNESTY INT'L, HUMAN DIGNITY DENIED: TORTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE "WAR ON TERROR" (Oct. 27, 2004); AMNESTY INT'L, GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND: THE CONTINUING PURSUIT OF UNCHECKED EXECUTIVE POWER (May 13, 2005); Amnesty International's Supplementary Briefing to the UN Committee Against Torture, May 3, 2006. These and other Al reports on the same issue are collected at Al Documents on Torture in the "War on Terror," http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sto ... nd-alldocuments-eng (last visited Dec. 24, 2006). Equally important reports by Human Rights Watch include HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB (June 2004); HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, GETTING AWAY WITH TORTURE? COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE U.S. ABUSE OF DETAINEES (April 2005); and HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, "No BLOOD, No FOUL": SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS OF DETAINEE ABUSE IN IRAQ (July 2006). These and other reports on the same issue can be found at U.S. Torture and Abuse of Detainees, http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm (last visited Dec. 24, 2006). See also DANNER, supra note 1.

[2] CIA officials, speaking off the record, have identified these as officially authorized methods. See Brian Ross & Richard Esposito, CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC NEWs, Nov. 18, 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id= 1322866; Dana Priest, Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor: Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow, WASH. POST, Dec. 30, 2005, at At; Dana Priest, Officials Relieved Secret Is Shared, WASH. POST, Sept. 7, 2006, at A17.
[3] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ACLU), ENDURING ABUSE: TORTURE AND CRUEL TREATMENT BY THE UNITED STATES AT HOME AND ABROAD 1 (2006), available at http://www.aclu.org/safe free/torture/torture-report.pdf.
[4] See Adam Hochschild, Op-Ed., What's in a Word? Torture, N.Y. TIMES, May 23, 2004, § 4, at 11; Tom Malinowski, Call Cruelty What It Is, WASH. POST, Sept. 18, 2006, at A17; Dan Eggen, Cheney's Remarks Fuel Torture Debate: Critics Say He Backed Waterboarding, WASH. POST, Oct. 27, 2006, at A9.

[5] In a February 2006 report, Human Rights First estimated that nearly one hundred detainees had died in U.S. custody since August 2002, and had identified eight detainees who were tortured to death. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, COMMAND's RESPONSIBILITY: DETAINEE DEATHS IN U.S. CUSTODY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN 1 (Feb. 2006). The U.S. government classifies thirty-four detainee deaths as confirmed or suspected homicides. Id.

 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 16:33:28 | 显示全部楼层
A well-functioning legal regime prevents torture from occurring in the first place. Under such a regime, torture is inconceivable to those holding detainees, because the duty not to torture is internalized through education, training, monitoring, inspections, and publicly known, rigorously enforced penalties for those who inflict torture or fail to prevent it from occurring on their watch. These practices represent what might be called the first level of deterrence. Lying behind them is a second level of deterrence: procedures that allow prisoners to complain of ill treatment and courts to intercede on their behalf. A third level of deterrence resides in the power of the state's chief legislative, executive, and judicial officers, by recourse to clearly binding legal obligations, to take comprehensive corrective measures when the first two levels of deterrence have failed.
 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 16:41:23 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 1/30/2018 17:18 编辑

       The charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, along with the 1949 Geneva Conventions, re-affirmed that torture is an international crime for which individuals can be punished.[1]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 announces simply, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."[2]This language was deliberately crafted to block any resort to a narrow definition of torture as a means of justifying inhumane treatment."[3] It reappears verbatim in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), and forms the complete title of the Torture Convention.[4]
       Torture is prohibited in the European, African, and Inter-American human rights systems.[5] The ICCPR, Torture Convention, American Convention on Human Rights ("American Convention"), and European Convention on Human Rights ("European Convention") declare that the prohibition against torture may not be suspended, even in an emergency that threatens the life of the nation.[6] In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning torture.[7] In the Pinochet decision of 1999, the British House of Lords held torture to be an inherently criminal act incapable of official legitimation.[8]In the same year, the Israeli Supreme Court barred security services from engaging in torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, even for the purpose of combating terrorism.[9]
       Torture continues to be prosecuted as a war crime and crime against humanity in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("ICTR") and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY").[10] Today the prohibition against torture is widely recognized as a jus cogens norm that cannot be overridden by treaty or international custom.[11] The prohibition against torture is one of the clearest and strongest obligations in international law.

       Many traditional due process protections are essential to the prevention of torture. These include the right against compulsory confessions or self- incriminating testimony, the right against arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, and the right to habeas corpus. Other familiar civil and political rights play a crucial role in preventing torture: the prohibition of slavery, the right to equality before the law, the right to a remedy for the violation of one's rights, and various rights designed to protect people from disenfranchisement and systematic disempowerment.
       To prevent torture, however, more is required. Police, military, and other public officials who exercise authority over confined individuals must be made "torture proof." They must be taught that torture and ill treatment are against the law and trained in methods of interrogation and confinement that preclude the use of such treatment. Superiors and independent inspectors must regularly monitor and enforce compliance with required procedures, and any individuals who allege they have been subjected to torture or ill treatment must be granted the right to prompt investigation of their complaints by impartial officials. These obligations are common-sense means of preventing abuse, and are included among the binding clauses of the Torture Convention.[12]Other measures could be added, such as a requirement that all military and criminal interrogations be videotaped.[13]
      Must allow international monitors to visit detention centers and interview detainees.
      States must enact, publicize; and execute criminal penalties for all individuals who inflict, order, aid, abet, or knowingly contribute to torture and ill treatment, and for all officials who allow their subordinates to inflict torture or ill treatment. The obligation to criminalize torture is the centerpiece of the Torture Convention.[14]
       Under principles of individual responsibility made famous at Nuremberg, perpetrators can no longer shift blame to the state, superiors, or unruly subordinates.[15]

       Victims of torture and ill treatment must be able to sue not only perpetrators but also public officials who fail to implement or abide by laws designed to prevent torture.






[1] First Genea Convention, supra note 87, arts. 3, 12, 49-50; Second Geneva Convention, supra note 87, arts. 3, 12, 50-51; Third Geneva Convention, supra note 87, arts. 3, 13, 129-30; Fourth Geneva Convention, supra note 87, arts. 3, 5, 27, 31, 32, 37, 146-47; Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East art. 5(c), Jan. 19, 1946, 4 Bevans 20, TIAS No. 1589 [hereinafter Tokyo Charter); Charter of the International Military Tribunal, arts. 6(b), (c), Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 1547, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 [hereinafter Nuremberg Charter].


[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 5, G.A. Res. 217A, at 71, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948).
[3] JOHANNES MORSINK, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORIGINS, DRAFTING, AND INTENT 42-43 (1999).
[4] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; Torture Convention, supra note 9.
[5] . African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art. 5,June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 58; American Convention on Human Rights art. 5(2), Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 143 [hereinafter American Convention); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 3, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter European Convention).
[6] ICCPR, supra note 119, art. 4; Torture Convention, supra note 9, art. 2; European Convention, supra note 120, art. 15; American Convention, supra note 120, art. 27.
[7] Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 3542 (XXX), Supp. No. 34, at 91, U.N. Doc. A/10034 (Dec. 9, 1976) [hereinafter Torture Declaration].
[8] . R. v. Bow St. Metro. Stipendiary Magistrate, exparte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), [2000] 1 A.C. 147 (H.L. 1999) (appeal taken from Q.B.).
[9] HCJ 5100/94 Pub. Comm. Against Torture v. Israel [19991, 38 I.L.M. 1471, reprinted in TORTURE: A COLLECTION, supra note 29, at 165. Though holding that ill treatment was always contrary to law, the court added that a plea of necessity of the "ticking time bomb" variety could in exceptional and unpredictable cases furnish the possible basis of a criminal defense. See id. 33-38.
[10] Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia arts. 2, 5, May 25, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1192; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda arts. 3, 4, Nov. 8, 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1598.
[11] Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Arg., 965 F.2d 699, 717 (9th Cit. 1992).
[12] Torture Convention, supra note 9, arts. 10-16.

[13] One reason for emphasizing these bureaucratic reforms is that the mere act of ratifying the Torture Convention is not sufficient to stop and prevent torture. All too often, ratification is a cynical act by abusive non-democratic governments seeking a cheap way to burnish their international image. See Oona A. Hathaway, The Promise and Limits of the International Law of Torture, in TORTURE: A COLLECTION, supra note 29, at 199.
[14] Torture Convention, sepra note 9, arts. 4-9.

[15] . Nuremberg Charter, supra note 116, arts. 7-8; see also Rome Statute, supra note 130, arts. 27-28, 33.


 楼主| 发表于 1/30/2018 17:25:07 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 1/30/2018 20:16 编辑

       U.S. reluctance to ratify human rights treaties is well documented. It has not ratified the American Convention;[1] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;[2] the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;[3] or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[4] It has ratified other human rights treaties only after considerable delay: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("Genocide Convention") after forty years,[5] the ICCPR after twenty-six years,[6] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination after twenty-five years.[7] Its ratification of the Torture Convention took a comparatively swift ten years.[8]
       The USA has taken careful and concerted actions to minimize its own obligations under such law.[9]
       The Senate has declared that the ICCPR, the Torture Convention, and CERD are not self-executing.[10]
       Congress has not passed any implementing legislation for the ICCPR or CERD, and it has incorporated the Torture Convention only to a limited extent.[11] The all-important practical consequence of the non-self-executing declarations is to block judges from applying human rights treaties in private causes of action.[12]With rare exceptions, U.S. judges do not refer to the ICCPR, the Torture Convention, or CERD.
it was not until December 2005 that Congress enacted a complete ban on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[13]
until the December 2005 passage of the McCain amendment, the Bush Administration asserted that the CIA had legal permission to inflict cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment on overseas aliens.[14]
One hundred and four countries have made this commitment.[15] By means of treaty ratification, they have given the International Criminal Court ("ICC") complementary jurisdiction over all their citizens, including high-ranking government officials up to the chief of state, who are credibly accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity anywhere in the world.[16]Ratification of the Rome Statute also gives the ICC jurisdiction over any foreigner credibly accused of committing these crimes within the country's national territory.[17] The ICC may not take action if states of primary jurisdiction launch a bona fide criminal investigation into such crimes. But if states prove unwilling or unable to do so, the ICC is authorized to act as a court of last resort.[18]


[1] American Convention, supra note 120.
[2] . International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
[3] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
[4] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 44.
[5] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 278 (ratified by the United States Feb. 23, 1989).
[6] ICCPR, supra note 119 (ratified by the United States Sept. 8, 1992).
[7] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 thereinafter CERD) (ratified by the United States Nov. 20, 1994).
[8] Torture Convention, supra note 9 (ratified by the United States Nov. 20, 1994).
[9] For a recent discussion of the phenomenon, see generally the articles collected in AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Michael Ignarieff ed., 2005). Andrew Moravcsik comments: "The United States stands nearly alone among Western democracies in that it fails to acknowledge and implement domestically the global system of interlocking multilateral human rights enforcement that has emerged and expanded since 1945." Andrew Moravcsik, The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy, id. at 148.
[10] U.S. RUDs to the Torture Convention, supra note 163; U.S. RUDs to the ICCPR, supra note162; 140 CONG. REC. S7634-02 (daily ed., June 24, 1994) (United States Reservations, Declarations, and Understandings, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) [hereinafter U.S. RUDs to CERD].
[11] . Torture Committee Report, supra note 164,  47-48, 59-60.
[12] See Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Role of the United States Senate Concerning "Self-Executing" and "Non-Self-Executing" Treaties, 67 CHI-KENT L. REV. 515 (1991); Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, 89 Am. J. INT'L L. 341 (1995); Frank C. Newman, United Nations Human Rights Covenants and the United States Government: Diluted Promises, Foreseeable Futures, 42 DEPAUL L. REV. 1241 (1993); Jordan J. Paust, Avoiding "Fraudulent" Executive Policy: Analysis of Non-Self-Execution of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 42 DEPAUL L. REV. 1257 (1993). For an argument that judges may sometimes apply human rights treaties, notwithstanding the non-self-executing clauses, see David Sloss, The Domestication of International Human Rights: Non-Self-Executing Declarations and Human Rights Treaties, 24 YALE J. INT'L L. 129 (1999). For the bolder argument that the non-self-executing clauses should not inhibit judges from enforcing human rights treaties, see John Lunstroth, Regulating the Research Enterprise: Use of International Law for U.S. Citizens Injured in Human Subjects Experimentation, 23 ISSUEs IN LAW & MEDICINE (forthcoming 2007).
[13] Detainee Treatment Act § 1003[14] See Eric Lichtblau, Gonzales Says Humane Policy Doesn't Bind CIA, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 19, 2005, at A17.
[15] See International Criminal Court: The States Parties to the Rome Statute, http://www.icc-cpi. int/asp/statesparties.html ( Jan. 20, 2007).
[16] . Rome Statute, supra note 130, art. 5.
[17] For the rules governing the ICC's jurisdiction, see id. arts. 5-8, 11-14.
[18] Id. art. 17.



 楼主| 发表于 1/31/2018 13:03:06 | 显示全部楼层
theUnited Nations Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights article 5:"No one shall be subjected to torture or tocruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
 楼主| 发表于 2/7/2018 02:33:44 | 显示全部楼层
裴毅然:监狱生意及酷虐
                                          
监狱高墻,隔绝神秘,但一直是出新闻的地方。大陆中共监狱更因人文层次低下、环境恶劣,故事更多。稍加采撷,即可端出飨客。
狱中生意
市场经济早已深入大陸高墻,在剥夺你自由的同时人家还惦着你的钱袋。各地监狱均有小卖部,尽享垄断的优越性。
一进看守所就得交钱——50元「号费」,说是买肥皂、洗衣粉等卫生用品。一套很窄的黑心棉被褥,150元。2011年,一位「茉莉花」狱囚问:“没带现金怎么办?”管教回答:
那就别睡!难道想让国家花钱替你买?我们国家也不富裕。
北京一处看守所,一小袋酱油、一小袋食醋,2块;一袋四五公斤的黄瓜30块;20个咸鸭蛋32.5块。
关押四川北川县看守所九个月的鲍乃刚(1966~ ):
花钱可以单独炒菜,但是里面的东西特别贵,食品的价钱是外边的三倍,日用品的价钱是外边的两倍,我在里面每个月要用两千块钱。1
广州一家看守所——
如果要吃炒菜得另外买份饭,一个菜15块钱,你卡里有钱就必须买。我妈妈每个月给我寄200块钱,我用它买日用品;也有朋友来给我送过一两次钱,但是我不想他们给我送钱,因为账上有钱的话,看守所就要强迫你吃份饭,份饭也就是煮菜汤和炒青菜的差别,我觉得太贵了。2
狱中酷虐
中共一直高調标榜「革命人道主义」,监狱却如此虐待囚犯——
所有人(按:「茉莉花运动」囚犯)都经历了日夜审讯……我七天七夜没有休息、浪子五天五夜、袁新亭三天三夜,唐荆陵是十天。
从廿日晚上开始审讯我(按:重庆「茉莉花」囚犯黄成诚),一直到廿二日下午。这期间他们搧我耳光、泼我开水、不给我饭吃、不给我水喝,也不准我上厕所。
还有特制的刑床刑椅(中间一孔以泄大小便),吃喝拉撒都在上面,「最短的七天,最多有一个月的。」3
不是司法系统不想「进步」,而是不让「进步」,因为中共政府希望獄囚经历酷虐「加深印象」,畏惧而退。事实上,至少部分达到愿望,一些反抗者不想「二进宫」——
这样的的方式能够吓唬住一些人,有一些人确实就这样退出了。4
监狱环境
就算不虐待你,监狱环境也会使你闻之寒怖——
一个监室少的时候有十几个人,多的时候有廿几个人,非常拥挤。睡觉的时候一个正着一个反着,就是一个人的头要倒过来对着另一个人的脚,一个挨一个侧着身子睡……早餐是大馇子粥,吃完收拾好以后就一排坐着开始坐板,一直坐到中午十一点多,中间有五分钟可以站起来走几圈……下午一点半钟起来接着坐板,一直坐到下午五点钟左右。晚餐是米饭和菜汤。
看守所供水是有限量的,我不够喝,只好喝自来水。
不仅仅对政治犯,对刑事犯也狠得很——
一个盗窃犯死活不承认他偷了东西,预审就把他铐在外面的垃圾堆旁边,扒光他的衣服让蚊子咬,咬了两天他就受不了了,想让他说什么他就说什么。还有一个年纪大的犯人,罪名是诈骗钱财,他也不承认,预审就连续三班审讯不让他睡觉,他一打盹就拿笔捅他,拿强光照他。光给他喝水不让他上厕所,直到他憋不住尿到裤子上。预审有许多这样的手段来取得想要的口供。5
2005年山东临沂野蛮执行计划生育——
株连亲属、邻居,把上百人关在一个大房间里不准上厕所,让六七十岁的兄妹俩互相打耳光,等等。9月,国家计生委承认临沂野蛮执法的事实。6
最可怕的是将你交给同狱犯人,唆使他们收拾你——
那些劳教人员曾把一个人绑在床上灌屎灌尿,任意凌辱。7
民办监狱
由于需要羁押大量未经任何司法程序且无法判刑的访民、法轮功学员,「黑监狱」应运而生,名曰:「法制教育学校」、「法制培训中心」、「关爱教育中心」、「教育转化学习班」、「训诫所」,甚至没有任何招牌。黑监狱不属于任何政府部门、不属于任何执法机构、也不属于社会团体,未登记注册,里面的看守亦无任何执法身分,但「黑监狱」却在执行中共政府的意志,拥用毋须任何法律手续关押公民的权力。
2009年11月24日新华网引述新华社《瞭望新闻周刊》调查:北京有各省市设立的临时劝返访民场所73处,46处为非经营性场所(如农民出租屋),27处为旅店、招待所。
管理黑监狱很赚钱,经营者可从政府领取人头费,每人100~150元/天。据2011年12月和平与冲突研究所调查报告,黑监狱管理者从地方政府可領人头费180元/天。北京安元鼎保安公司,从一开始的旅馆到仓库再到黑监狱。工商局年检资料显示:2007年該公司营业收入861.93万元,2008年跃升至2100.42万元。因为,全国各地京访人员呼呼都往这儿送。
甚至有一些并非宗教信徒或不是访民的人都会被抓,被抓者只要付了钱就可以离开,变成一种勒索。对雇佣人员及保安公司来说,这明显是商机。而每一级官员都可以向上申请资金,把金额报大一点就可从中牟利,还可控制地方「平稳」。……中央将截访任务交给地方,地方再转给雇佣方。为减少进京上访人数,最终牺牲了访民的基本权利为代价。
对于「黑监狱」,中共政府沿续敢做不敢当的「红色传统」。2009年、2011年、2013年北京外交部发言人多次严正否认「黑监狱」的存在,称一些海外媒体及国际特赦组织等一直「对中国抱有偏见,有许多不负责任的言论。」8
黑监狱的运作经费,当然来自上不封顶的「维稳费」。
结语
一份炒青菜卖到15块、水都限量、特制刑床刑椅……「革命的人道主义」、「党的阳光雨露」……还有光芒么?还闪得出光芒么?
笔者很庆幸离开大陆,总算避免了可怕的「进去」。2009年12月29日,上海「文保」一位副局长当面训诫:
裴教授,别看你现在西装笔挺,高级知识分子,保持什么独立性,一个狱卒就把你给治了!信不信?
本人连连点头:
当然相信,当然相信,看过蹲过监狱的人写的回忆录,大致知道里面的滋味。你们可别……
无论如何,大陆监狱的「现在进行时」,还是超出我的想象。

  • 華澤采編:《茉莉花在中國:鎮壓與迫害實錄》,開學文化公司(臺北)2015年版,下冊,頁173、175、221。
  • 華澤采編:《茉莉花在中國:鎮壓與迫害實錄》,上冊,頁277。
  • 華澤采編:《茉莉花在中國:鎮壓與迫害實錄》,下冊,頁24、65、71。
  • 華澤采編:《茉莉花在中國:鎮壓與迫害實錄》,上冊,頁255。
  • 華澤采編:《茉莉花在中國:鎮壓與迫害實錄》,上冊,頁277~278、255~256。
  • 許志永:《堂堂正正做公民》,新世紀出版公司(香港)2014年版,頁106。
  • 趙明:〈一個清華學子的跌宕人生〉,載趙明等:《紅朝謊言錄》,博大出版社(美國)2004年版,頁177。
  • 《中国黑监狱概况及分析》,中国维权律师关注组(香港)2014年编印,页8、12、15~16。




 楼主| 发表于 2/7/2018 23:37:25 | 显示全部楼层
Amnesty International has concluded that torture has been officially sanctioned in sixty countries in the last decade and that forty states continued to practice it in 1975.[1]

[1] . TIME, Aug. 16, 1976, at 31; Torture as Policy.- The Network of Evil; Torture Continues, 10 REV. INT'L COMM. JURISTS 10 (1973).



您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 2/24/2018 13:11 , Processed in 0.062102 second(s), 9 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表