As the amendment to the Code of Court Martial Procedure (軍事審判法) is being implemented and the handling of military offenses is being transferred to the civil judicial system, US military courts are trying or have tried two major cases.
The first case was the trial of US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who gave the largest set of documents ever to be released to WikiLeaks.
The second case is the trial of Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, who faces charges that include forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery, which is a crime under US military law.
Neither the private nor the brigadier general has questioned the independence, fairness and transparency of the US military judicial system. They seem to feel that the system does not violate their human rights, and they have not asked to be tried under the civil judicial system.
The US military judicial system is independent, fair and transparent, and it protects every defendant’s rights. This means that both the civil and military judicial systems are respected. Nobody questions the coexistence of the two systems.
As for Taiwan, the transfer of military judicial cases to the civil judicial system is in line with public expectations. Since high-ranking officers can interfere with the military judicial system, there is a risk that they might protect one another. In addition, the quality of military prosecutors is lower than that of civilian prosecutors, and this might also affect the quality of an investigation or a trial. The transfer of the military cases to the civil judicial system in peacetime must therefore be seen as a step forward.
Still, it was a rash decision, a political expedient that failed to address the core of the problem: the independence and fairness of the military and civil judicial systems, as well as of prosecutors and investigators.
Although traditional “rule of man” and the Leninist party-state system tried to emulate advanced countries, these systems were still haunted by political intervention. Back in 1979, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) extreme right and intelligence agencies stirred things up and caused the Kaohsiung Incident, setting up dangwai (黨外) — “outside the party” — democracy activists for treason charges and then trying them in the military judicial system. Cases like the wrongful execution of air force serviceman Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) made the military judicial system notorious.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to have revived the “party-state” system. To eliminate pro-localization political leaders, his government has brought charges against officials in the previous, Democratic Progressive Party administration under the guise of cracking down on corruption. It has also intervened in trials, with complete disregard of due legal process. The civil judicial system lacks independence and fairness in the same way that the military system does.
The death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) further highlighted the abuse of power and the discretionary rule mentality that exists in the military, but similar problems also exist in the civil judicial system. By transferring all the military cases to the civil court system, we are simply transferring all the problems of a “branch store” to the “head office,” while the fundamental problem of a lack of judicial independence, beyond the reach of Ma and the KMT, remains unresolved.
The pursuit of a better legal system requires a lot more hard work by the “white shirt” movement and judicial officers of the same generation.
James Wang is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations