标题: WSJ on Chen Guangcheng, May 5, 2012 [打印本页] 作者: choi 时间: 5-5-2012 11:11 标题: WSJ on Chen Guangcheng, May 5, 2012 Today Wall Street Journal devotes two and a half pages to Mr Chen (the half page on the front page). WSJ today has more inside stories and insightful analysis than, say, New York Times.
My comment:
(a)
(i) There are three consecutive paragraphs that stumbled me:
"On Wednesday, Mr Chen[, while in US embassy] asked to speak with Rep Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, and Democratic Rep Nancy Pelosi of California. Mr Smith thought the emerging deal was a terrible idea, and wanted to tell Mr. Chen to instead come to the US.
"He called the State Department operations center but couldn't get through. He stayed up until 4 am waiting for a call. By the time a department official called back, Mr Chen had left the embassy.
"Mr Smith's never-delivered message: "You could do even more outside [the country]." Ms Pelosi's office didn't receive any message, a spokesman said.
(ii) In paragraph 2 above, my best guess is the three he's referred to Rep Smith, not Chen. In paragraph 3--"Ms Pelosi's office didn't receive any message, a spokesman said"--the message might be from US State Department, though from Mr Chen possible.
(b) WSJ makes the report fully available. To the left of the text, WSJ helpfully lists the other pertinent reports/opinion of the day. Their full titles (as they appear in print) are provided below--all of them in today's WSJ (there are more in WSJ list to the left of the text; I am cluesless what they are: for example, WSJ print edition today does not have an editorial about Mr Chen).
(2) Jay Solomon and Jeremy Page, NYU Professor Plays Key Role In Helping Chen
("Mr [Jerome] Cohen, at the request of US government officials, worked as an independent legal advisor to Mr Cohen during his stay at the American embassy in Beijing. * * * Mr Cohen, in an interview, said he was contacted by a State Department official earlier this week to help Mr Chen weigh the 'pro and cons' [sic] of his various options")
My comment:
(a) It is unclear from the context where Professor Cohen was during that time. Common sense dictates that he was in New York city and made phone calls to Mr Chen in the relevant period.
(b) US officials apparently follow ethics guidelines or customs (of the agency). Best interests of American officials and of Mr Chen did not necessarily coincide. So Mr Chen's independent legal advisor was imperative. In federal practice--I am not familiar with state practice of Massachusetts--when US Department of Justice (DOJ) secures an oral promise from a perpetrator to cooperate and help ensnare his confederates in exchange for leniency, DOJ would ask the person to hire an attorney of his choice to represent him (and his interests)--and if he can not afford legal representation, DOJ would go to the court (without leaving a trace in public record) to request a lawyer (could be a public defender or a practising lawyer) to be assigned to that person at the expense of the taxpayers.
(3) Keith Johnson and Carlos Tejada, Turnabout on Activist Offers an Out; Deal lets US skirt diplomatic disaster.
(4) Josh Chin and William Kazer, Chinese Media Open Cannon at US.
My comment:
(a) The last paragraph is intriguing. Unfortunately in weekends (at least for a while), I have no access to a computer that can read Chinese language; so I can not fetch that Sina weibo page to you.
(b) BUT, I do find a link for you, which requires registration with Sina weibo, though. Then again, Mr Bandurski supplied a copy of the weibo at the bottom his blog.
David Bandurski, The Beijing News: a clown with a conscience. China Media Project, May 4, 2012 (blog). http://cmp.hku.hk/2012/05/05/22552/
(c) The above report is shown in the aforementioned list as "Chinese Media Call Chen a 'Tool' of US"
(5) Brian Spegele, Drama Highlights Christian Links
(6) Bob Davis, Amid Furor, Gains on Economy, Trade.
My comment: I doubt WSJ will allow you to read so much for free. There is not much to learn from this report. In any event, you can read the same elsewhere--for example, in New York Times.