Shanghaiist: China's human righteous death vans

EL JEFE

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:26:08 +0700

Don't make the mistake of thinking Eastman ever makes sense. To paraphrase his convoluted argument -- the demand is created by foreigners, therefore it is all their fault.

Andy Best

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:05:03 +0700

Agree with Stephan, the thing about this post is the irony of linking a mobile death-bus with some idea of human rights. And the contradiction of ideas like 'humane executions'. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, common sense and , for example, all EU member countries, capital punishment is itself a violation of human rights. Posts like this one about the 'death-bus' should hopefully show up how ridiculous it is to have 'concerned' discussions related to organ trading inside the context of executions IE state sponsored murder.

ccyy

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:40:47 +0700

Eastma-san goes about defending the motherland again. A bit lame, but good try.

Stephan_Larose

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:00:29 +0700

From the AP article Eastman links to: "The underground organ trade in China has been a notorious supplier of organs to foreigners desperately in need of transplants, who make up as much as 40 percent of the market. Brokers regularly arrange transplants in weeks rather than the months or years it generally takes in the West" This Shanghaiist entry is a tongue-in-cheek poke at the "human rights" promoting mobile death unit portrayed above, but I'm not sure that the underground organ trade article Eastman points too stamps the joke out very well, it seems to confirm that there's a huge underground organ market in China, but how does that prove the humanity of the mobile death unit? Anyway kudos on both the sensationalism and the non-news, I get the feeling that was the whole point...

eastman

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:39:18 +0700

if the "usa today" reporter, the ex-husband of ms. zhang lijia, had read following article, he would've certainly postponed the publication of his sensational non-news. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jW1C7fxNd2pCEW2Nucy4vqNPlWoQD96DD6100

yu888

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:59:23 +0700

Considering how effective the "killing fields" type executions used to be in terms of multiple executions at one time and the potential for harvesting so many organs, this type of a more humane execution, combined with the fact that death sentences now need the high court to approve before it is carried out, certainly slows that down a bit. As for actual harvesting of organs, if someone is indeed condemned to death for a capital crime, then so be it, let at least something go back and help someone else. Provided its not motivated by the harvesting, executions here are part of their system, and so why would one let those resources go to waste.

EL JEFE

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:11:30 +0700

It would be awesome if it ran on screams

James Creegan

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:56:40 +0700

Well you can't deny that it's convenient. Need to be careful though: "Hello is this the bus to Carrefour?" "No this is the mobile death bus, you want the one from stop A5"