Dr. Terri Marsh
Dr. Terri Marsh, lead attorney for Falun
Gong practitioners, discusses the lawsuit during a rally and exhibition in downtown
Chicago.
CHICAGO (FDI) – Dr. Terri Marsh, the lead attorney for
Falun Gong practitioners in a class-action lawsuit charging former Chinese leader
Jiang Zemin with torture and genocide, issued the following press statement at
a rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza on Monday.
Oral arguments for the
case will be made this Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
PRESS STATEMENT
On May 27, 2004, the United States Court
of Appeals for the 7th Circuit will decide if former foreign heads of state may
use the “head-of-state” defense, typically limited to sitting heads
of state, to shield themselves from civil responsibility for the alleged crimes
of torture, genocide and crimes against humanity. To do so would in effect dismantle
the framework established by the Nuremberg trials, the international treaties
and instruments established in its wake, and remove whatever deterrents they create.
The two cases brought before U.S. federal courts, La Fontant v Aristide,
844 F. Supp. 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) and Tachonia v Mugabe, 234 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D.N.Y.
2002), the district courts dismissed alleged charges of torture and other human
rights abuses against foreign leaders who were still in office. While the jury
is still out on the status of sitting heads of state, insofar as the issue has
not been addressed by the Supreme Court or even a Court of Appeals, to dismiss
the case filed against the former President of China for alleged acts of genocide
and torture against practitioners of Falun Gong would in effect permit heads of
state to interpret the court’s ruling as a license to commit genocide and
torture with impunity.
If the 7th Circuit holds that former heads of state,
like Defendant Jiang Zemin, are not immune from suit for alleged crimes of torture
and genocide, the Court will still have to decide if the Defendant Jiang Zemin,
who was served with legal papers during his quasi-official visit to the United
States in October of 2002, when he was still officially (an albeit lame duck)
head of state, is immune from service of process. In light of the precedent provided
by numerous U.S. cases, which permit service upon U.S. sitting Presidents, it
is hardly clear why, if the President of the United States is not above the law,
why should the President of China be above the law? If President Clinton can be
served with process, why exempt the President of China?
The argument proffered
indirectly by the defendant, that service of process upon a foreign head of state
renders our leaders vulnerable to retaliatory suits does not withstand careful
scrutiny. Anyone who has committed criminal or civil offenses may be sued in a
U.S. court of law. The dismissal of this case hardly safeguards our high-ranking
officials from retaliatory suits, nor should it. No nation commits genocide or
torture as an official sovereign act. It insults and demeans the dignity of all
nations to permit high-ranking officials of any status or rank to shield themselves
with a permanent impunity even after departure from office.
This is a defining
moment in U.S. history. We have an opportunity to place ourselves on the right
side of history. There is hope that we will rise to the challenge.
Dr.
Marsh can be contacted at 202-369-4977.
Posting date: 26/May/2004
Original article date: 26/May/2004
Category: World News
