USA Today: Going To Extremes

News Article

By Editorial

Chinese justice.

Given all the heartache caused by poisonous products from China, including pet food that killed dogs and cats in the USA, an announcement from Beijing this week might seem a fitting way to deal with the problem. Authorities said they will execute the former head of China's equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration. The condemned man, Zheng Xiaoyu, headed the agency from 1998 to 2005.

The flip reaction is that the threat of capital punishment might make some public officials in the USA more honest and accountable. In truth, however, the sentence illuminates the Chinese government's unpreparedness to tackle the real problems of food and drug safety — and the primitive nature of the Chinese judicial system.

To be sure, Zheng's purported crimes are inexcusable. He is said to have taken about $850,000 in bribes. While he was in charge, his agency approved several fake drugs. Several babies died from drinking fake infant formula. Chinese medicines contaminated with a toxin have been linked to more than 100 deaths in Panama.

In dealing with the scandal, China appears to be sticking to its old proverb: "Kill the chicken to scare the monkey" (make an example of one person to frighten others). While executing Zheng might send a message, it's not going to end China's endemic corruption or reassure consumers. What's needed is the sort of a transparent and thorough investigation that would be conducted in the USA, followed by reforms and safeguards that could prevent future abuse.

The Chinese government might additionally bring its justice system into the modern era. China leads the world in executions — and not just because it is the most populous nation. Amnesty International counted well over 1,000 executions in China last year. The real number could be as high as 8,000 because most are not publicized. (Iran was in second place with 177; the USA was in sixth with 53.)

The death penalty is applicable to nearly 70 crimes in China, including robbery and rape. The justice system is arbitrary at best. Defendants often get lawyers only after they have been beaten and "confessions" have been extracted. Bribery of judges is widespread. There is no presumption of innocence. The list goes on.

Ahead of next year's Beijing Olympics, China is trying to convince the world that it is a responsible and modern world power. But executing Zheng demonstrates the opposite.

American values.

In last month's televised debate sponsored by Fox News, the Republican presidential aspirants were asked a "ticking bomb" question right out of the popular Fox series 24: Would you torture a suspected terrorist you thought possessed time-sensitive intelligence?

Most of the candidates took the approach of 24 star Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland: Hell, yes. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani talked tough, as did Rep. Duncan Hunter of California. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney went so far as to propose doubling the size of the U.S.-run prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for terror suspects.

Just one of the GOP hopefuls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, demurred. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us," he replied. "It's about what kind of country we are." It's no coincidence that the only candidate to have experienced torture — McCain was held in a Hanoi prison during the Vietnam War — was the only one who seemed to understand that such harsh interrogation techniques are ineffective and inimical to American values.

Now a report from the Intelligence Science Board, a panel of intelligence and interrogation experts picked by the Pentagon, bolsters the correctness of McCain's position. Asked to investigate the value of harsh interrogation techniques, the experts concluded they held little value, The New York Times reported this week The panel concluded that by focusing almost solely on skirting the law to allow rough questioning, the Bush administration had passed up the opportunity to develop more effective interrogation tools.

A steady stream of military leaders has stepped forward to make that same point. Last month, in an open letter to the troops under his command in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus warned them against resorting to torture. In 2005, Colin Powell, the former secretary of State and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sided with more than two dozen generals to support a new congressional ban on torture.

Their words are different, but the message is roughly the same: If the United States condones extreme techniques, it puts captured U.S. troops at greater risk. The price paid for torturing is almost always greater than the intelligence gathered. The French learned that fighting the Algerians, and the Israelis learned that with the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, it appears, most of the Republicans who want to be the next president have yet to absorb that lesson.

Source