主题：公民人权，谁的公民人权更重要？看美国怎么对待两个华裔的“人权” -- 秦砖汉瓦

保障公民人权，该保障谁的公民人权？为了保障一个人的公民人权，宁可损害其他很多人的公民人权？别忘了，国家这个大伞下，庇护的是全体公民。涉及到国家利益，还能以某个人的公民人权为重？

不如看看这个消息

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/08/double.agent.charges/

其中，“has been jailed without bond since her April 9 arrest.”，“Katrina Leung faces up to 50 years in a federal prison if convicted”

还记得当初李文和被羁押的情况么？

“台湾出生的美国华裔科学家李文和长期工作于美国洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室，1999年12月因被指控窃取美国核制造的顶尖技术而被捕。他在狱中被单独关押了278 后，因控方无法找到确凿证据而被释放。

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/06/19/review.lee/index.html

存在为了国家利益必须　ＣＯＭＰＲＯＭＩＳＥ　个别公民的个人权利的时候，

但是，让我们回到一个根本点，国家存在的目的是什么，是维护公民利益，

在非战争状态下，可能对公民造成损害的最大的暴力来源是什么，是国家机器，

所以对国家机器滥用这一点的可能应该非常警惕，

对此应该有非常严格的监督，程序限制，秦兄不反对这一点吧？

秦兄提到的这两位涉嫌什么罪名，似乎都是公开的吧，羁押期限是有法律限制的，只要是按照法律程序办事情，就是正当的。至少我记得李文和在整个过程中都能够和律师交流，而且最后他还是认了一项罪名！

这是法律程序上来说。

其次，从他们所犯的事情上来说，Katrina Leung 本就是ＦＢＩ的ＡＧＥＮＴ，李文和是接触国家机密的科学家，他们被控的犯罪，有可能是司法部门的错误，不过如果指控属实，那确实是涉及国家安全的问题。

而刘迪所犯又涉及什么样的“国家安全”呢？　　

"严格的监督，程序限制"这话本身我同意，但是，谁来执行？由媒体么？我想不是，司法应该是独立的，不应该受媒体的引导。所以，你说的“公开”我绝对不同意，理由可以见下文中粗体红字的内容

李文和的和解据我的印象是双方达成协议，是在不会再被调查的前提下的认某一无关紧要的小指控。否则，李将会继续被调查下去。

至于定罪本身，指控是指控，在没有结论之前，怎么能说有罪无罪呢？双重间谍案最终的结果我还不知道。至于李文和，你可以参考一下下文

Dr. Lee was terminated from his job in March of 1999 as a physicist from Los Alamos National Laboratories just nine months short of his retirement because of allegations that he was a spy. His name was leaked unlawfully to the media, which resulted in incalculable damage to his reputation, career and family. On December 10, 1999, the government brought a fifty-nine-count indictment against Dr. Lee. Thirty-nine counts allege that Dr. Lee violated the Atomic Energy Act because he purportedly mishandled material containing restricted data, with the intent to injure the United States, and with the intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation. Dr. Lee was also charged with ten counts of unlawfully obtaining defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 793(c), and with ten counts of willfully retaining national defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. &793(e).

Throughout this investigation, the behavior of public officials has been inappropriate and illegal. More importantly, the political motivations and ethnic stereotypes under girding their behavior violate fundamental precepts of a just and impartial government.

Evidence of espionage by Dr. Wen Ho Lee has never been the impetus of this investigation. In fact, officials have admitted that since day one, there has never been any kind of evidence of espionage. Rather, it has been much uglier forces-- political scapegoating, blame avoidance, budgetary ambitions and stereotypes about Dr. Lee's loyalties-- that have driven the 3 year investigation of the former Los Alamos scientist. Dr. Lee was terminated from his job on March 8, 1999.

Since his arrest on December 10, 1999, he was put in solitary confinement in a cell in a New Mexico jail 23 hours a day for nine months. He was allowed only one hour of visit a week from his immediate family. He was shackled any time he is out of his cell, at his waist, his ankle and his wrist except when he is meeting with his lawyers (and even then he must wear an ankle chain). A chain around his belly connecting to his handcuff prevented him from raising his hand above his head. We were told that two U.S. Marshall with machine gun accompanied him whenever he goes within the confine of the prison and a "chase car" with armed Marshals follows Dr. Lee when he is moved from Santa Fe to Albuquerque and back. This is highly unusual and we questioned that other prisoners received the same treatment. The lawyer said Lee was kept separate from other prisoners during his hour-long exercise period. He was finally allowed to speak Mandarin with his family but with two FBI agents listening in. We were told by his families that Dr. Lee was always in shackles and chain even during their one hour weekly meeting. We were also told that the food provided by the prison system was inappropriate to Dr. Lee because he has long adopted to live on a non red meat diet after his colon cancer surgery several years ago

羁押的必要呀? 我是说应该按照法律程序办事.

我上面说公开, 并不是说司法应该受舆论制约, 而是强调他们的被逮捕, 有一定的依据.

而刘迪似乎是连自己也不知道受到什么指控, 这合理麽 ?

司法是独立的,这确实是中美两国的不同, 比如李文和的案子, 政府部门的要求法官可以驳回, 政府为什么要同李达成妥协呢? 因为他受到制约, 监督, 压力, 这包括独立的司法部门的, 也包括舆论的, 但是在中国, 存在这种制约麽?

至少, 上述批评李文和案件文章可以在美国公开发表, 在中国如何呢?

这两种现象, 那一个更进步?

如果后者更合理, 更进步, 那是不是应该是我们努力的方向?

有谁会那么老实的会在别人一指控就认罪？刘迪具体是什么情况，我不清楚，我也不认定就有罪，举上面的例子是想说明这种羁押是程序性的问题，在哪里都有。但是在中国就变成了“政治”问题，而不是法律问题。比如我问你，你在考虑这个问题的时候，是从法律的角度出发的多，还是从政治的角度出发的多？

恐怕是政治的考虑。

很遗憾，这样的出发点，不可能导致司法公正，恰恰相反，是导致司法不独立，不公正，这也是我反对媒体介入是一个道理。

但是，你似乎就已经确定了刘是无罪的，刘的羁押是违反法律程序的。虽然我明白中国的司法制度和操作离完善还遥远的很，但是，明目张胆的违反法律程序，在没有任何可供怀疑的证据下逮人，我不认为那些人会弱智到那个地步。

在没有结论之前，我们还是最好先别自己心目中就下了结论。

是不是依照法律可就难说了，美国人对他们自己在这一点上也没什么信心，看看discovery或者history channel放过的不少东东就明白了...

一个问题是法律程序上的, 那是司法公正的问题, 羁押是程序问题, 这里确实有执法部门是否遵守了程序的问题.

还有, 中国的法律中是否规定了合理的程序，保障被羁押人员的权利，以限制执法部分滥用权力？

我只知道李文和案件, 每次李提出要保释, 政府不同意都必须提出足够的理由给法官, 中国就没有这个程序。

因为要司法公正而反对舆论"介入"，是一个错误的概念。　司法独立、舆论监督、司法过程公开化，任何一个环节的缺失都会对一国的司法体制造成严重的损害。

司法独立不是说舆论不应该报道, 而在于避免法官和陪审员受到舆论的左右。实际上, 重大案件, 公众应该有知情权。

另一个, 刘迪因言获罪, 涉及无端限制言论自由的法律是不是恶法，没有合理程序保障被告合法权益的法律是不是恶法, 这个是政治问题。

我对两个问题同样关注。

我其实并没有认定什么， 只是倾向于认为一个2十几岁的大学生， 顶多是在互联网上说了一些惹人不高兴的话， 或者见过一些敏感人物而已。

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,215035,00.html

再说也没说要对谁感恩戴德, 法官拿纳税人的钱, 秉公办案是他的职责.

知道一个人唱红脸，一个人唱白脸，整你个够还让你感恩戴德，居然还能顺便宣传宣传自己公正的司法系统，佩服阿佩服

很多情况下是对立和互相制约的 这本就是三权分立, 司法独立的意义所在,

所防止的是政府部门, 执法机构滥用权力, 包括以国家利益, 国家安全的名义.

当然, 世界上没有绝对的"公正", 也没有绝对的"合理", 怎样的制度也都有出差错的时候,

但是这个体制相对来说就是要公正一些,合理一些, 出了差错能够纠正的机会也大一些.

纠缠一些错误的细节, 否认他的先进性, 以掩盖自己国家的落后面, 固步自封, 讳疾忌医, 有什么意思?