2013年6月23日星期日

斯諾登事件香港站正式落幕

斯諾登今早從香港飛莫斯科,終點站是那裹很快就會揭曉,看來去冰島的機會很大。今早看BBC新聞,美國承認正式向香港提出引渡斯諾登,還催速香港政府盡快行動,我已感到奇怪,因為我自始至終都不覺得真的要引渡斯諾登,兩害取其輕的做法是讓斯諾登離開香港,往冰島尋求庇護。

斯諾登一走,香港政府發的聲明指,斯諾登已自行循合法和正常途徑離開香港,聲明包含了「自行」、「合法」及「正常」途徑三個概念,說明港府沒有逼他走,一切依法律辦。這就叫枱底交易,美國佬催香港政府盡快採取行動,否則會影響雙邊關係,香港徧徧要放走斯諾登,表面上是對着幹,實際上是中美之間談妥了。美國佬在敲鑼打鼓喊捉賊,做一齣大龍鳳,有下台階的大戲。如果真的依據港美之間簽訂的引渡條約來辦,香港又怎能眼睜睜的讓斯諾登走呢?我相信這齣戲還會加映短片,美國佬接着會發表聲明,指責香港政府違反引渡協議,香港又會依法解釋一番,反駁美國的引渡申請控罪有問題,文件不齊全,港府無權阻止斯諾登合法離開。到了那階段,斯諾登事件便正式告別香港,戲也唱完。

在上一篇Star Chamber留言表示失望,但認為大老爺無需頭痛怎樣判。我也很失望這齣戲草草收場,但不同意大老爺會頭痛這一點。頭痛的自始至終是行政當局,法庭依法判決反而不難。唉!明天的報紙又再登葉劉淑儀、涂謹申、法律學者及國際關係教授等的評論,肯定又有幾番偉論。不如去訪問包致金、李柱明、民主黨及公民黨等,看一下他們怎樣自圓其說。民主黨連白鴿黨也不能叫了,應該改名叫鵪鶉黨。日後要去西環舉牌的話,請勿站在前面,他們在民主人權之前抬不起頭來。



16 則留言:

  1. Human rights lawyers in Hong Kong reveal they worked closely with Snowden
    SCMP, 23 June 2013

    Two lawyers specialising in human rights cases - including the secret 2004 rendition of a Libyan man and his family from Hong Kong to Tripoli by US and British spies - have revealed themselves as Edward Snowden’s legal team in Hong Kong.

    Barrister Robert Tibbo and solicitor Jonathan Man confirmed they were brought in to represent Snowden about two weeks ago and were kept in close contact with the whistle-blower during his stay in Hong Kong.

    On Sunday night, as Snowden was due to land in Russia, Tibbo spoke for the first time about the high-profile case.

    “Snowden left Hong Kong today through legal, legitimate means and the proper immigration channels,” he told the South China Morning Post. "We have been acting for Snowden for the past two weeks.”

    Tibbo would not comment further on Snowden’s plans but it is understood the former CIA technician turned whistle-blower will travel onwards to another country.

    Wikileaks has confirmed it helped Snowden find “political asylum in a democratic country”.

    Man, an associate at Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, is part of the legal team planning to sue the Hong Kong government over its role in the rendition of a Libyan dissident and his family to Tripoli.

    Sami al-Saadi claims security officials in Hong Kong conspired with US, British and Libyan spies in 2004 to send him and his family to Tripoli where they were tortured and persecuted by former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

    Tibbo specialises in human rights with a focus on torture and refugee cases as well as constitutional and criminal law.

    He is a non-executive director of Vision First, an NGO which advocates for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Hong Kong and has been based here for the past 23 years.

    回覆刪除
  2. Bill Siu,
    In Secretary for Justice v.Tang Sau Ling (para 3,CACC93/2012),SJ appealed against McWalters J's ruling pursuant to s81E of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance but I do not understand how murder relates to subsection (1) of the provision.Also,is that SJ cannot appeal against an acquittal verdict of a jury?If so,is there any provision or precedent prescribes that?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Hi,

      I don't quite understand your puzzle here. SJ of course cannot appeal a jury acquittal. SJ can only seek the Court of Appeal's view on certain point of law ancillary to the acquittal by jury. It is what we call the AG's reference. Tang Sau Ling is a different thing. The defendant was charged with murder of her husband. A committal proceeding was done in the magistrate's court. The magistrate found sufficient evidence to commit the case for trial in the high court. Before a hearing day in high court for jury trial was fixed, the defendant applied to high court to discharge her on the ground that there was insufficient prima facie evidence to support the murder charge. This application was made under S.16(1)(b) Cap 221. McWalters, J, heard the case and acceded to the request of the defendant and dismissed the charge (S. 16(3) Cap 221).

      S.81E is stipulated specifically for this purpose, to allow SJ to appeal the decision of discharging the indictment before a trial takes place. It does not matter whether it is murder or other indictable offences. The offence is either committed for trial in the high court by the magistrate or transferred for trial from the district court.

      Please read S.16 and S.81E carefully. If you still have question, write again.

      刪除
  3. Gov denied offering assistance to Snowden .how strange . SCMP is actually correct
    rthk.hk/rthk/news/expressnews/20130623/news_20130623_55_930494.htm

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Selina,

      You turn your mind back to the age of 3 now. I said in my other blogs before. There should be denials instead of admissions. The HK govt must have provided some high degree of protection to Snowden. It is more than turning a blind eye to his whereabouts. Doing it is one thing. Admitting is another thing. Both sides have done a lot of bargains and made a lot of denials. The govt cannot openly say it has assisted a fugitive. What if there are some other fugitives of different nature seeking its help in future and citing the Snowden case? What can the govt say then? You are lovely. You still believe everything the govt says.

      刪除
    2. Ha : D

      何俊仁今早出來面對傳媒,再透露多些 (現在剛做緊stand-up),唔,我覺得政府可能有避重就輕,但應該沒說大話。

      刪除
    3. My dear lady, lying is an art. There is nothing wrong for the govt to lie in this case. The govt is using the pretext that there were problems in the charges submitted by the US. Frankly, the theft charge alone is sufficient to execute the arrest warrant and remand Snowden in custody to let the US put things right. It was all a sham. If Snowden is a real criminal, do you think he could fly out of HK? The govt of course has to deny providing protection to him. In what capacity can the govt protect him? He was of course being watched and protected by the HK police. Albert Ho said the govt did not clearly indicate whether Snowden would be allowed to go. The govt of course decided to let him go, otherwise he would be arrested at where he was staying instead of the airport. If the govt gave promise to Albert Ho saying Snowden would be allowed to go, then when Albert divulged the communication, it would be embarrassing to the govt and the US. The HK govt has to safeguard against people like Albert Ho who would tell the press afterwards about the agreement. Everything has to be done in low profile. I did not mean to tease you. Politics is nothing candid.

      刪除
    4. 我明呀,我明白點解政府不給何俊仁一個明確回應(即會否離境時拘捕他),不過我覺得港府/中央的介入/協助比想像中細啫(即你所說的watch from a distance/ low profile ),從策略上來說是正路的。

      我唔太明,如果這是兩國私下bargain的結果,讓斯諾登飛到南美小國躲避,對美國真是(較好)的結局嗎? 是否他料已爆晒,對他動粗/囚禁他,也於事無補,無關痛癢?這讓美國好下台?

      刪除
    5. The best course for the US is of course Snowden surrenders himself without fighting the extradition. I am saying among 2 things, whether to let the extradition drag on in HK for some years or to let Snowden fly out of HK to a third country, which is better of 2 evils to the US?If the case ends up in the HK court, more and more details of the interception of classified information will be officially divulged in the HK court. Even if Snowden fails in the extradition, he can apply for political asylum for torture claim and refugee claim etc, he will be staying here for the whole process. The US has fear that Snowden may compromise himself and cooperate with the Chinese govt. Snowden brings along with him information about hacking HK computers and Chinese computers. That is why he chose HK. If his information only contains hacking of Russian computers, the HK market is not interested. So US wants him to leave HK if they cannot get him back to US to face trial. The US of course has a burning desire to get him. They will not let him go easily. You look at the Bradley Manning trial. Manning has pleaded guilty to most of the charges, but the US does not let him go easily and wants to pin him down for treason. The US has to create a deterrent effect for the traitors. It is what we call kill a chick to intimidate the monkey. The US has no better bargain in Snowden's case because Snowden has come to the right place which is to his advantage.

      刪除
  4. 斯諾登走人,最大得益者應該是那些依然沉默的人。斯諾登是他們的尷尬,事情如果拖至下次選舉,更加是負累,必成對手攻擊的藉口。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 這是傳統民主派最大的敗筆,以後他們被人攻訐,也不能駁嘴。有朋友電郵問我為何對他們批評得這麼猛烈,原因是他們太不成器,太不爭氣。何俊仁出來爆料講自己有份幫斯諾登根本無補於事,遣責美國佬才是維護人權,爭取民心的做法,其他譬如引渡程序等東西,講了也沒有凸顯對事件涉及核心價值的看法,講完也遮不到醜。

      刪除
  5. 在港以代表律師身份為斯諾登與港府周旋的立法會議員何俊仁則批評政府「冇規矩」,竟透過中間人傳話提醒斯諾登可以離開,「咁嘅做法作風真係好離譜」。
    --------------
    生果日報有以上報導,如果何俊仁咁講就冇政治智慧,我覺得佢唔咪真心想幫當事人,而事後仲要抽水,面目可憎。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 政治本身是充滿醜惡的遊戲,玩得不漂亮的人就把醜惡表現在自己臉上。民主黨不駡美國佬,卻懂得駡香港政府,簡直不是抽水,而是吸血。如果屬純情的正義,就應該一早走出來駡美國佬,然後駡香港政府。既然要幫斯諾登,當然要為他利益着想,批評政府「冇規矩」,然則何俊仁是想斯諾登給政府「有規矩」的拘捕嗎?何不直接帶斯諾登到美國領事館獻給美國佬!這些人醜態畢露。

      葉劉淑儀之流,還不懂閉嘴,不斷在跳脫衣舞,把一切都裸露出來,應該沉默的時候就不懂沉默。唉!她大概不知道在為美國佬幫腔助勢,枉作行政會議成員。

      刪除
  6. 民主黨不駡美國佬,卻懂得駡香港政府,簡直不是抽水,而是吸血。
    -------
    你鬧得真係應棍!大佬一走,成班人真係冇個掂,唔出聲就算啦,一出聲就令人覺得眼火爆。

    葉劉淑儀之流我就唔會可惜佢,最好佢出多啲聲,等佢自暴其短,等大家更清楚佢幾有料。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 唉!民主黨、公民黨揾咗Obama做大佬。完全因為他們太不濟我才駡得狠。你做共產黨都無所謂,你做雷鋒囉。你做共產黨就不能做商家佬,你講人權就不能把侵權當睇唔到,做乜都要坦蕩蕩,立場清晰明確,同一標準。

      刪除