動物

毀滅證據是犯罪行為; Destroying evidence is a criminal act

廣告

廣告

美國中央情報局被指毀滅調查證據, 民主黨及國會議員深表不滿和奮怒, 事件更令律政署考慮調查. 中央情報局毀滅了調查阿矣蓋答的錄影資料, 他們指毀滅是必要的, 因為要保障密探的私隠. 民主黨及國會議員說他們未見過這種事.並認為此行為是不合法的, 且毀滅證據是犯罪行為.

此事件好比香港城市大學毀滅批改證據一樣可恥. 若沒有嚴重或故意改錯, 還怕得這麼要緊厶 ? 另外, 改課程佔分,拒絕交出分數,和掩蓋PCLL法律學生集體出貓的行為, 都是可恥的學界醜聞.   美國中央情報局要保障密探的私隠, 令人懷疑批改試卷的老師, 是否也是應受保護的密探? 揩去批改痕跡就能掩人耳目嗎,實在引人笑柄. 公道自在人心, 國際學術社會必定鄙視此等陋行.

The article in nytimes.com which captioned "Democrats calls for inquiry in destruction of tapes by CIA" rasied our concern on how far public body can destroy evidence with whatsoever excuses. CIA is alleged to have destroyed evidence regarding interrogation of Qaeda operatives in their custody. Democrats and lawmakers expressed their angry statements on this upheaven of the rule of law. They claimed that they have never seen anything like this.   The CIA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden,said that they decided to destroy the evidence to protect the undercover's identity. However, democrats maintained that the destruction is unlawful and is a criminal act. The case calls for public concern and the Justice Department is considering an investigation.

Such article rasied the questions on how far public body can legally destroy evidence. Analogizing the situation, the decision of the City University of Hong Kong in destroying evidence by deleting marking trace of teachers is unlawful. Does it neccesary to delete it if there is no marking errors? In fact , at the time of decision to destroy evidence,  they changed the course weighing, rejected to disclose the marks, and had the cheating incident of PCLL students cover-up. They further push the whole issues on disclosure to the Privacy Commission of Hong Kong. We could not but agree that it is indeed a malpractice of this University.  Destroying evidence which relates to a criminal act is in itself a criminal act. The  Department of Justice in Hong Kong and the Education Bureau should not stay away from the issue.

While privacy of undercover is in issue in the US, we may begin to think if the City University of Hong Kong has any undercover- teacher to protect as well. Dishonest act is not allowed in the University teaching sphere,let alone the School of Law and the Graduate Studies. Even if the marking trace has claimed to have been deleted, the wrongful act was undeniable.  It is indeed an academic scandal for Hong Kong which the international society would condemn.

    

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07cnd-intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

廣告