Clinton Welcomes North Korean “Trial” of U.S. Journalists
So North Korea is about to subject two American journalists to one of the world’s most opaque, arbitrary, and harsh judicial systems. This would mark the first North Korean trial of an American in recent years, if ever. And although our Secretary of State calls the charges “baseless,” she sounds just thrilled to pieces at the prospect of two of her country’s citizens facing a revolutionary tribunal:
At a press appearance with Malaysia’s foreign minister, Clinton cast the announcement as, potentially, good news. “Actually the trial date being set we view as a welcome time frame,” said Hillary Clinton. “We believe that the charges are baseless and should not have been brought, and that these two young women should be released immediately. But the fact that they are going to have some process we believe is a signal that there can be, and I hope will be, a resolution as soon as possible.” [Chosun Ilbo]
Speaking in Washington, Clinton told reporters she welcomed the quick trial date, saying “the fact that they are now going to have some process we believe is a signal that there can be, and I hope will be, a resolution as soon as possible.” She also repeated her view that the charges against the two are baseless and that they should be released. [Reuters, Jon Herskovitz]
Wow, and to think we’re just days from justice being served! Either that, or the sight of two emaciated and terrified young women reading scripted confessions that the CIA paid them to carry bubonic plague into Sinuiju.
The announcement, coming in the same week as Iran’s release of a U.S. reporter who had been convicted of spying, led to speculation that television reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee might also be set free after trial as part of North Korea’s diplomatic gamesmanship with the United States. [Washington Post, Blaine Harden]
I’m certainly no expert on North Korean criminal procedure, but I’d venture that the North Korean Constitution is universally viewed as a “living, breathing” document. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why a delegation of the holocaust-denying Stalinist tools progressive-minded legal scholars at the National Lawyers’ Guild visited Pyongyang in 2003 and were especially pleased to report (a) “finding” an actual North Korean law book, (b) that North Korea officially has no death penalty, and (c) a notable absence of hungry-looking people anywhere their minders led them.
Not all of those reports completely squared with the subsequent reports of North Korean refugees or the Korean Bar Association, however, and if the National Lawyers Guild ever remarked on this mass summary execution, or these, or the nearly 1,000 public executions said to have taken place in 2007 alone, I’d appreciate someone dropping a link into the comments.
I’d be even more obliged if anyone can explain how shilling for ruthless totalitarianism came to be regarded as “liberal.”
The credible evidence about North Korea’s judicial system suggests that it’s not so much a “system” as a loose hierarchical framework for the arbitrary exercise of life-and-death authority, and where necessary, terror. And if the Supreme Arbitrary Authority wants “to hear the sound of gunfire,” that’s what the “system” will provide.
Which only leaves us to hope that the Supreme Arbitrary Authority wants Laura Ling and Euna Lee to eventually tell us all how well they were treated. That is, aside from the injustice of weeks of terrifying interrogation and incommunicado detention for the “crime” of trying to report the truth.
Un-f-ing believable!! All hyperbole aside — this is just shocking…
She just gave credibility to —– the legal system of North Korea!!!
All hyperbole aside — this is perhaps the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard a person in such a position of importance say.
There are two ways to look at what she said: 1. That she is putting her good faith in the legal system of NK to right a wrong — to come to the correct verdict of innocent.
Such a statement would thus also be a pre-approved validation of a guilty verdict if it is given: Why? Because she would have just said that she trusts the NK system enough to weigh the case.
Or, 2. She is glad any trial is going to happen soon, because it is only after a trial happens that we’ll likely be able to get these women released — perhaps having the Iran trial outcome in mind.
In either case — in any case — what she said is a validation of the North’s legal system. It gives it some significant level of credibility —– far, far, far above what we know to be the reality.
At the very best for her, she just said show trials are good, because they at least mean a decision on whether to keep or release the political prisoners will happen —
— implying that the only way the US can fight for – or stand a chance of getting – a release is after a trial is held and a verdict rendered one way or another.
Jackass…the decision has already been made!!
This makes no sense regarding the reality of NK:
We know the North’s system is despotic. We know Kim Jong Il is calling the shots. We know the only way those two women are going to be released is if Kim says to do it.
The trial is meaningless for the US. We know there are only two ways in which these women will be released — either we pay the North off or we put enough pressure on them. — Neither of those options depends one iota on the Korean courts. — and once the trial is over, we’ll still be faced with this exact same reality!!
So why in heck did she say something so foolish? Why did she just give tacit approval/validity to the North’s legal system?
“But the fact that they are going to have some process….”
Good gravy….The fact there is a process gives you some hope……Pyongyang must be smiling…
Two American reporters are nabbed and held by the most ruthless, despotic state on earth, and our government won’t utter a peep about it. It does all it can to keep it quiet.
For what valid reason I can’t imagine, and I’ve been trying.
And then, just before the show trial starts, rather than lambaste the show trial for what it is, our Sec. of State says something that clearly implies a validation of those trials.
It might not be what she meant – but it is right there for anybody to see —- and it is about as far away as you can possibly get of the opposite of pressuring NK.
What could possibly be going through these people’s heads? Why all this silence so far? And now, why in the world are you saying such things about the coming show trial?
What information are they getting out of North Korea that might make sense of all this??? I really, really hope there is some kind of information we don’t know about that might explain it. It is baffling to me.
The Obama administration is acting as if silence and neutrality will win the day. That that is the smartest way to handle this situation. How on earth could they come to that conclusion?
Do they believe, somehow, that putting pressure on NK will significantly increase the chance it will abuse and hold these women longer???
I am beginning to think I’ve been giving Hillary Clinton way too much credit when it comes to intelligence.
As I was rereading this last comment of mine, the image of her handing Russia the reset button popped into my head, and it occurred to me, what exactly did she think needed to be reset? with Russia? — because I immediately had a flashback to Putin at Bush’s Texas ranch where Bush gushed that he had looked into the man’s eyes and knew he was someone he could trust…
My guess is that what Hillary meant was that the US was reseting our relations with the whole world including Russia. But why give the button to Russia instead of France or Germany or Spain or the like? Why with Russia? What great damage can she picture Bush having done to US-Russia relations? If she did mean the gift especially for Russia, what does she hope to see reversed? Missile defense in Europe? Expanding NATO? Throwing Poland and Georgia under the bus? What?
I doubt much that she had in mind a big reformation of US policies involving Russia. It’s more likely it was just stupidity. It just took this idiotic statement about the show trials to force me to see it clearly….
More than displaying galactic stupidity, this shows the astounding callousness and cynicism of the administration.
The administration is actually forced to deal with NK concentration camps because US citizens are directly affected by them (as evidenced by Victor Cha’s WaPo op-ed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803166.html?sub=AR). Who cares if you’re lending a bit of legitimacy to the North Korean criminal code and judicial process? The sooner the trials are over, the sooner the sentence comes, the sooner the US can pay some sort of ransom, the sooner US diplomats can get rid of this “stupid” affair and not ever deal with concentration camps ever again.
The end.
Does anyone here really expect the North Koreans just to release the journalists? A show trial and resolution is preferable to detention without charges. The North doesn’t actually gain anything financially or politically by continuing to hold the two women. They are only as valuable as their ransom. These two women may, in fact, have crossed the border either knowingly or unknowingly, and if they did, North Korea isn’t going to ferry them to the nearest border bridge and send them on their merry way. As another commenter pointed out, North Koreans caught crossing illegally in the US would likely be detained and questioned. I do not want to see the US cave in to any North Korean demands. Supposedly we don’t pay ransom to terrorists, and this should apply to North Korea.
Sonagi wrote:
That was me, Sonagi:
While I certainly don’t mean to say that I do think that they did in fact illegally enter North Korea, I think it’s entirely possible they did, especially in pursuit of a juicy story about, say, a border that’s more porous than many realize. Anyway, I tend to agree with everything you said here.
I think it’s dangerous to assume that because one party is North Korea then the other party is utterly innocent. Even Roxana Saberi, it turned out, was in fact carrying a classified Iranian government report about the US war effort in Iraq, making her conviction quite different from a manipulated outcome.
While at this point Misses Ling and Lee’s actual innocence or guilt may have little effect on the outcome (since their detention now is primarily political), that may be something to consider with other Americans — especially activists or journalists or activist journalists — who might be tempted to dip their toes in the Amnok or the Tuman.
If, as you concede, the detention of Ling and Lee is now primarily political, then how is it not terrorism?
Joshua wrote:
Joshua, it seems you are putting words in my mouth or ascribing others’ viewpoints to me.
I don’t ever recall saying that if they were indeed kidnapped that it was nevertheless not an act of international terrorism.
You may be convinced that they were kidnapped and brought over into the DPRK, but I still not so certain that I can just throw out the possibility of the other “if.” So, if they did willfully and deliberately cross into North Korea and were subsequently arrested, even if I see their continued detention as primarily political, I’m not yet inclined to use the terrorist label. Moreover, I fail to see what use it is one way or the other in obtaining the freedom of Laura Ling and Euna Lee.
At any rate, don’t make me out to be some apologist for North Korea and their kidnap activities. I most assuredly am not.
I think you’re confusing terrorism with kidnapping. Terrorism, as I understand it, is mass murder and/or large-scale destruction of property for the purpose of scaring a population and their government into meeting political or economic demands. Crashing airplanes into towers and bombing public transport qualifies. Holding two journalists does not. Nobody back in the US is afraid that they might be next. If the women were taken from the Chinese side, they were kidnapped. If they did cross, then they have been detained.
Sonagi wrote:
Had I been a little faster on the draw, I would have printed the same thing he supplied.
If the two women were kidnapped, then I think it could reasonably be called international terrorism, at least according to that definition. Some might argue that the definition is faulty (kidnapping of merely one or two people might seem a low to some to declare “international terrorism”), but for now it is the law.
I think we could say unequivocally that the systematic kidnapping of dozens of Japanese civilians and hundreds of Korean civilians was an act of international terrorism.
But detaining people who have entered the country illegally is not a violation of the laws of the United States. In fact, it is the border crossers themselves who have broken the law. It is true that the US would probably not arrest journalists, but legally the US government could arrest anyone without legal authorization to be in the US.
As for the kidnapping of Japanese civilians, I thought the purpose was to supply North Korea with language and culture models for training spies, not to intimidate or threaten Japan. In fact, North Korea continues to deny having kidnapped foreign nationals.
If Jodi and I are hearing accurate rumors, Ling and Lee were lured into North Korea as part of a deliberate North Korean plan to take them prisoner. That would still be kidnapping, and hence, still terrorism. Most of the published reports suggest that they were on the Chinese side. But obviously, we have no clarity about where they were and why. I certainly don’t see the basis to assume that Ling and Lee crossed the border, much less consciously.
Even if Ling and Lee had crossed the border, a North Korean decision to continue the detention for political/propaganda/diplomatic reasons could transform a “legitimate” detention into terrorism. Section 2331 clearly does not provide an exhaustive list of which “violent” offenses can constitute terrorism if the other elements, including intent, are met. While kidnapping under U.S. law generally has an “asportation” element, the wrongful continuation of detention for an unlawful purpose is generally considered to be false imprisonment under U.S. common law.
What else stinks about how State has handled this: the Ling and Lee families could have sued the North Korean regime for false imprisonment in a U.S. District Court in California, notwithstanding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but for the fact that Chris Hill had North Korea removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which strips states of that protection. That’s why the Pueblo survivors were able to sue and win — and why Kim Dong Shik’s widow still might — while Ling and Lee can’t.
The NK justice system has no creiblity, they are going to be found guilty. Sadly, I am not sure there is anything the U.S. can do to help them without giving into the North Korean government.
Sonagi wrote:
As for the kidnapping of Japanese civilians, I thought the purpose was to supply North Korea with language and culture models for training spies, not to intimidate or threaten Japan. In fact, North Korea continues to deny having kidnapped foreign nationals.
Whether they intended to whip up fear or not, their deliberate, illegal, and frightening acts did whip up fear amongst Japanese civilians.
And whether or not Pyongyang admits it or not (are you sure they didn’t? I thought they had a few years ago) is immaterial. North Korea doesn’t admit to the 1987 downing of a Korean Airlines plane flying in from the Middle East, but (assuming the accusations are true) that was certainly designed to instill fear.
Hillary Clinton said just a few months ago that, when dealing with China, human rights are not important. Global warming is. She and the whole team around that lying and traiterous new president abandoned the freedom loving people of China and Tibet, because the global warming hoax is more important.
What do you expect from such a person?
Hillary and D’oh!bama make me glad not to be American.
The Northies kidnapped teenagers. Megumi was 13 when she was kidnapped, what could a 13 year old possibly teach them about language and culture? 13 year olds in Japan are still learning the language themselves. It was an act of terrorism. Pure and simple. An act of evil. Something only fascists do.
North Korea has linked the release of the Japanese abductees to the payment of “reparations.” You may disagree that kidnapping people from their home countries to train spies is terrorism. Accepting that argument for the moment, this would be another case of an initially non-terrorist act later coming within the legal definition of “international terrorism” as North Korea’s intent shifted.
I continue to suspect that North Korea’s kidnapping of Lisa Ling’s sister was no accident at all.