如果到現在還說「美國『期望』台灣公正、公平、公開的處理扁案」云云，恐怕若不是硬拗，就是對英文一知半解。因為美國政府的立場已是斬釘截鐵的「相信台灣的司法體系」。
(Source: 中時駐美華府特派記者/ 劉屏 2008, 11/24)
我並不樂見馬英九先生被美國政要如此公然「糾正」他對美國務院發言的英文解讀有誤。
但或許馬英九先生不是不知道，只是他故意要誤導國內不知情的民眾，讓大家以為這次羈押陳水扁一事是有司法正當性的？？
我從
雲程的雙魚鏡看到Taipei Times有刊出前AIT高官白樂崎（Nat Bellocchi）等美國政治學者/官員
再次投書，指出台灣司法已經政治化的傾向。
原文裡面其實有一段十分有趣，特別提出來一談。
記得前陣子國內媒體不是在吵究竟美國政府是否支持台灣司法把陳水扁羈押起來？你還記得中時駐美特派記者劉屏在美國發出的稿子怎麼寫的嗎？
陳水扁涉入貪瀆等疑案被收押後，美國在台協會台北辦事處長楊甦棣說，美國認為這件案子「需要」透明、公平、公正。可是幾天之後，美國國務院發言人麥考馬克的態度完全不同，他說，美國「相信」台灣的司法體系透明、公平、公正。
原文：美國到底怎麼看扁案？/ by 劉屏（全文）
當初，國內許多媒體不是都寫說美國國務院發言人麥考馬克打了楊甦棣一巴掌？馬英九政府也認為這是美國對台灣司法有信心的「一大背書」？
上述提到的中時駐美記者劉屏還特地撰寫文章，教導國內民眾好好認識英文「we have every expectation」這句的用法。
啊，駐美特派記者，那對英文的掌握與理解應該是十分強的勒？
結果呢？當初這些為馬英九「漂白」的媒體，還有馬英九本人，都被白樂崎打了一巴掌。他在這篇公開的投書中還特別把此事拿來說明一番：
Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted that in international diplomatic language, the term “we have every expectation” means “we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.”
在國際外交辭令中，「we have every expectation」這句話的用法意思是：「我們很關心/憂慮這件事，未來我們會持續密切注意後續發展」
顯然美國國務院發言人麥考馬克非但沒有打了楊甦棣一巴掌，相反地，他只不過再次向馬英九政府暗示：陳水扁羈押一事已經十分政治化，我們正等著看你們的司法如何公平地審理？
老美沒想到的是，馬英九跟一票國內愛拍馬屁的媒體竟然可以把黑的說成白的，胡亂把英語解釋一通來「呼弄」國內民眾，實在有夠厲害啊。
白樂崎這篇投書十分有意思、超級精彩、有許多暗示在裡面，有興趣的可仔細看一下全文；若我看的沒錯的話，我們可正式認定，陳水扁羈押一案，在國內被視為是司法打擊權貴犯罪的經典，但在國際，已經被看成是透過司法搞政治鬥爭的開始。
靜待後續發展吧！
還有，從此我必須對中時駐美華府特派記者劉屏打上一個大問號，你的專業已經不被信任了。
---------------
(由於是公開信，我全文引用如下，做為未來對照案情發展)
Dear Minister Wang [王清峰],
In an open letter to the Taipei Times published on Nov. 25, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgement of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply.
Based on the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:
1. The procedure of “preventive detention”: This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his Nov. 13 article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that “it ought to be invoked rarely.”
Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] governments. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.
2. Your open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials “were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them.” This is simply not correct. When they were detained, they were subjected to lengthy interrogations — in some cases for up to 20 hours — which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and do not represent a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months to collect information; if they did have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, they should have formally charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.
3. Your open letter also states that the persons involved had “the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance.” It neglects to mention, however, that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don’t need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding lawyer-client privilege and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.
4. On the issue of leaks to the press, your letter states that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, information from ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor’s offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media have been filled with information on the ongoing investigations that could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are numerous others:
Only a few hours after former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen [陳唐山] was questioned on Nov. 3, Taiwan’s Apple Daily newspaper ran an article saying that “the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr Chen in relation to the case.”
The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shilin District Court Judge Hung Ying-hua [洪英花], who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your ministry in a Liberty Times article on Nov. 17.
We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps against Mr Cheng Wen-long [鄭文龍], the lawyer for former president Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁], who supposedly “leaked” information to the press. The ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and sent a formal request to the Taiwan Lawyers Association that asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.
It is our understanding that the statements Mr Cheng made were in relation to former president Chen’s views on Taiwan’s situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope you realize that if the ministry proceeds along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.
5. Your letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan’s judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT — including in the Legislative Yuan — are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best are stalled in the judicial process?
We may also refer to expressions of concern by Professor Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li [李念祖], who expressed his deep concerns about preventive detentions in the China Times’ editorial for Nov. 9. In the editorial, Mr Li praised remarks made by prosecutor Eric Chen [陳瑞仁], who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors’ offices should “avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group.”
The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by former president Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.
We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved — including former president Chen — can have a fair trial in Taiwan.
6. Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted that in international diplomatic language, the term “we have every expectation” means “we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.”
For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.
In conclusion, we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the Nov. 20 issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is “hungry for justice,” and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform that would move Taiwan toward a fully fair and impartial judicial system that earns the respect and admiration of democratic countries around the world.
Respectfully yours,
(in alphabetical order)
Nat Bellocchi
Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman
Coen Blaauw
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
Gordon G. Chang
Author, “The Coming
Collapse of China”
Assoc. Prof. Stéphane Corcuff
University of Lyon
Prof. June Teufel Dreyer
University of Miami
Prof. Edward Friedman
University of Wisconsin
Dr. Mark Harrison
University of Tasmania
Prof. Bruce Jacobs
Monash University
Richard C. Kagan
Professor Emeritus,
Hamline University
Jerome Keating
Author and former
associate professor,
National Taipei University
Assoc. Prof. Daniel Lynch
University of Southern California
Prof. Victor H. Mair
University of Pennsylvania
Assoc. Prof. Donald Rodgers
Austin College, Texas
Prof. Terence Russell
University of Manitoba
Prof. Scott Simon
University of Ottawa
Michael Stainton
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto
Prof. Peter Tague
Georgetown University
John J. Tkacik Jr
Senior Research Fellow,
The Heritage Foundation
Prof. Arthur Waldron
University of Pennsylvania
Prof. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang
University of Richmond
Gerrit van der Wees
Editor, “Taiwan Communiqué”
Assoc. Prof. David Curtis Wright
University of Calgary
Stephen Yates
President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national security affairs
