为了方便阅读,博讯暂停广告播放,博迅需要您的支持。
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"]
滕彪文集
·希望之声访谈
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·北京维权律师称梅克尔接见达赖喇嘛对中国有益
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·Chinese Lawyer Says German Chancellor Was Right in Meeting the Dalai Lama
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·Olympics "an opportunity to put pressure on the Chinese authorities"
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
·后极权时代的公民美德与公民责任
·狱中致爱人
·奥运和乞丐不能并存?
·滕彪李苏滨关于青岛于建利涉嫌诽谤罪案的辩护意见
·纽约时报社评:中国的爱国小将们
·回网友四书
·我们都来关注滕彪博士/王天成
·暴力带不来和平,恐怖建不成和谐——就滕彪、李和平事件感言/王德邦
·让滕彪回家、追究国保撞车肇事的法律责任、还被监控公民自由/维权网
·刘晓波:黑暗权力的颠狂——有感于滕彪被绑架
·Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers
·Chinese lawyer missing after criticising human rights record
·Chinese Lawyer Says He Was Detained and Warned on Activism
·For Chinese activists, stakes are raised ahead of the Olympics
·To my wife, from jail/Teng Biao
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans in Court
·National Endowment for Democracy 2008 Democracy Awards
·获奖感言
·China Blocks U.S. Legislators’ Meeting/NYT
·律师年检制度无法律授权应立即废除/江天勇
·司法与民意——镜城突围
·Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system
·太离谱的现实感
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·三鹿奶粉受害者法律援助团关于三鹿集团及其责任人员刑事诉讼程序的法律声明
·In China, tainted milk trial kept under wraps
·CCTV Accused of ‘Brainwashing’ People
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·2 get death in China milk scandal; furor continues
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·北京律师再次对司法局局长吴玉华提起刑事控告
·广东佛山高明监狱一男囚猝死/RFA
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·完整、正直而干净的生存
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·邓玉娇案:巴东警察该抓谁?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"


   I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
   
   Teng Biao
   
   http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=160961&item%5fid=160960
   
   
   
   1.
   On March 6, 2008, at 8:25 p.m., after buying books at the All Sages Book Garden, I called my wife and said I’d be home in about 20 minutes.
   
   Around 8:40 p.m., I’d just parked the car and was about to close the door when I was surrounded by three or four middle-aged men. One of them pounded me heavily on the shoulders. “Aren’t you Teng Biao?”Without waiting for an answer, they forced me into a black sedan; only a few seconds later did it dawn on me that this was a kidnapping! I began to struggle and shout and scream, and kept at it for a full three minutes. I figured the noise was loud enough for the residents of the four surrounding apartment blocks and the district security to hear, but no one showed up. I was outnumbered, they had tied my hands behind my back, and I could not move. Once I was shoved into the car, I stopped shouting. No one could have heard me anyway, so I calmed down.
   
   Beating is nothing, as my body can take it. But if these monsters were hired thugs instead of secret police, I’d be in even bigger trouble.They had taken my glasses from me during the scuffle. It was completely dark in the car. There were four of them, one on either side of me, keeping my limbs firmly under control. They put a hood over my head, and the one on my left kept my hands behind me all the way, while the one on the right sat so that my head was forced back against the seat. Whenever I resisted, they would hurl filthy abuse at me—the one to my left was the worst.
   
   I began to wonder who could be behind this. Very likely it was State Security. This was very similar to the kidnapping of lawyer Li Heping in October of [2007], and this time physical pain would be unavoidable. I would be taken to some godforsaken place, stripped naked, punched, prodded with electric batons, and thrown onto the roadside to make my way home in a cab on my own . . . . In less than two years, I had witnessed government acts of kidnapping twice. The first was in Linyi, Shandong Province, the day before Chen Guangcheng’s hearing, when Cheng Guangyu, an important witness, was abducted. The second time was on the floor below my home, when Shandong police kidnapped Chen’s mother and children. There have been many others: Chen Guangcheng was kidnapped on September 6, 2005; Gao Zhisheng on August 17, 2006; Hu Jia on February 16, 2006; Liu Zhengyou on April 16, 2006; Li Heping on September 30, 2007; and Qi Zhiyong on January 14, 2008. [In some of the human rights cases in which I have been involved, the parties, witnesses, and lawyers were kidnapped.]
   
   Beating is nothing, as my body can take it. But if these monsters were hired thugs instead of secret police, I’d be in even bigger trouble. I’ve offended some officials and police during past cases; if they wanted to play dirty, then this would be even worse. I could lose an arm or a leg or end up like Fu Xiancai,1 beaten until I was paralyzed. It is not out of the question. When you get to this point, you just have to accept fate.
   
   The car came to a stop after some 40 minutes. A dog barking nearby gave me the sense that we were in a rural suburb. Several men got out and took me into a room. From beginning to end I never knew any of their names. For now, I’ll just call them A, B, C, and D. Anonymous violence, anonymous crime.
   
   The hood came off and they ordered me to stand in the middle of the room. Several men surrounded me, all with menacing expressions on their faces. One said, “Take the clothes off!” I thought, “Oh, this is bad, here it comes.” I did not move. And then, quite unexpectedly, he added, “Take off your jacket; it’s hot in here.”
   
   One guy began to scold me. Call him E. He might have been A, B, C, or D, but I can’t be sure.
   
   “Know why you’re here?”
   
   “Who are you? What’s going on?” I asked loudly.
   
   “We’re from the municipal bureau, not the mafia. Relax.”
   
   “You have ID?”
   
   “Not now, we’ll show it to you when the time comes.”
   
   My left wrist hurt a lot from being pulled by them earlier; I kept moving it back and forth, like a boxer warming up pre-fight.
   
   “What, you want to fight?” E said. “If you do that again and our guns go off, then what? Our guys have been waiting for you all day. If you provoke us again, can you take the consequences?”
   
   A naked threat of violence. I suddenly recalled the morning, when my mother-in-law came to tell me that there was a suspicious vehicle downstairs with the engine running. I thought it was just the Changping District State Security wanting to get a look at me during the Two Congresses,2 routine business, nothing to worry about. Glancing down, I saw it wasn’t the familiar Santana; probably nothing to do with me. So, it was the tool for this crime!
   
   I just stared at them, saying nothing. I looked up at the ceiling, trying hard not to look downward. There were two tables and several chairs in the room, curtains drawn tight over the windows, two lamps, and a radiator. Nothing else. The lamp directly in front of me was aimed at my eyes, but it wasn’t on. I suddenly thought of what Shanghainese petitioners called the “special interrogation room.” I supposed it would have strong lighting and video equipment. In any case, this was neither a hotel nor a residence. It was certainly an interrogation room. The next day when they opened the door, I was able to see that there was another interrogation room very similar to this one across the corridor. “There are rules here; if you don’t answer truthfully, don’t blame us for what happens!”
   
   [The guard said,] “Don’t pit yourself against the government. We can take away your rice bowl, it’s easy for us, you know?” They meant my work, my livelihood. They can make it so you can’t find a job, can’t rent a house. That’s how they always handle thought criminals before they go to prison and after they get out.I had read all afternoon and I was both tired and hungry, but what worried me most was my family. I made a proposal, “I’ll answer your questions, but on two conditions: first, I make a call to my wife; second, I get something to eat.”
   
   They said a phone call was against the rules, but they would consider it. I got another scolding. These people are brainwashing experts; they have a strong desire to make speeches. But what comes out is all clichés, devoid of thought and confused in logic.
   
   More than an hour later, a guy came back and said, “No phone calls, but you can send a text. What do you want to say?”
   
   “I just want to tell her not to worry.”
   
   “Just write, ‘Talking with friends.’”
   
   He gave me the cell phone and I wrote, “Wife, don’t worry. Take care of our child. Talking with friends. Your loving husband.” They inspected the message for a while, decided it didn’t convey any additional information and let me send it. The time was 10:45 p.m., February 6.
   
   She wouldn’t need to wonder whether the message really came from me to know I was in trouble, because I wouldn’t normally say things like “take good care of our child,” or “your loving husband.” That was exactly my intention.
   
   After another hour, they brought me a take-out meal. The food was cold and stale, and there wasn’t enough. F said, “Eat up. You’ll get worse food inside.” “Inside” meant the detention center. The next step would be the detention center. They repeatedly hinted that inside would be worse.
   
   2.
   E said, “If you get ten years and come out an old man, what’ll you be able to do then?”
   
   “Don’t pit yourself against the government. We can take away your rice bowl, it’s easy for us, you know?”
   
   They meant my work, my livelihood. They can make it so you can’t find a job, can’t rent a house. That’s how they always handle thought criminals before they go to prison and after they get out.
   
   E said, “You’re going to be here a long time. In a moment, I’ll have my colleague read you the rules here.”

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场