The Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin Should Not Be Held Immune From Prosecution For His Crimes

There is a saying in ancient China that "a person who steals the country becomes the ruler, whereas a person who steals a fishhook is executed." The expression refers to a person who has come to power via illegal means, and instead of being brought to justice like ordinary criminals, he is held above the law and does things at will.

The Chinese dictator Jiang Zemin came to power via illegal means. He became the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after the June 4th Student Movement (also known as the Tiananmen Square student massacre of 1989). His rise to power did not even follow the procedures established by the Party itself--never mind being elected by the people. After he came to office, he promoted his son to deputy director of the Chinese Academy of Science, and helped his son become a powerful billionaire. All the money his son and his family collected was taken from the people. In the past five years, in order to solidify his power and maintain his personal interests, Jiang has suppressed different opinions from others in the CCP, and abused China's resources to persecute Falun Gong practitioners, kindhearted people who believe in "Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance." Jiang is no longer the General Secretary of CCP however he is still the head of the Chinese Military, and is still a powerful influence in the Chinese government.

On September the 8th, 2004, the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's immunization of the former leader of China, Jiang Zemin, for alleged genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity perpetrated against practitioners of Falun Gong in China. The Circuit Court is well aware of the crimes committed by Jiang Zemin. As a matter of fact, the Circuit Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and reiterated in their opinion the role of Jiang in initiating and implementing what many have described as unspeakable crimes against humanity.

But generally, the Court was silent regarding virtually all immunity-related issues, including, as lead counsel Dr. Terri Marsh noted, the principle articulated in the Plaintiffs' briefs and in oral arguments, that "immunity is not impunity." Even apart from the House of Lord's decision in the Pinochet case, the recent Pinochet decision in Chile, or the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling in Belgium v. Congo -- all supportive of the principle that former heads of state do not enjoy immunity-- the principle of non-immunity applies to defendant Jiang Zemin under U.S. case law, which clearly states that "alleged acts of torture, execution, and disappearances of a dictator are not official acts... because the officer is not doing the business he was empowered to do." (Hilao v Marcos, 25 F. 3d 1477). Thus, the question is not whether Jiang Zemin used his official position to engage in the criminal acts, but whether those acts were taken on behalf of Jiang Zemin, instead of China (U.S. v Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506, 1522).

The Circuit Court did not respond to the points Dr. Marsh listed in the complaint, regarding why Jiang should not be granted immunity, but instead affirmed the District Court's holding him immune from prosecution. In many ways, this affirms the situation of the old Chinese saying that "a person who steals the country becomes the ruler of the country."

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stated it was "not unsympathetic to the appellants' claims," but it affirmed the District Court's deferral to the Executive Branch to resolve immunity-based defenses to these and similarly serious allegations via diplomatic rather than legal channels.

The plaintiffs and their attorney cannot accept such a verdict and have decided to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the courage to tell the world that in this day and age, a person who violates the vital interests of his own country should not be rewarded, but punished for his crimes.