2015年3月29日星期日

华盛顿“劳改研究基金会”负责人吴弘达:法轮功确实需要拿出证据来证明“活摘”


吴弘达(Hurry Wu),中国异议人士,华盛顿劳改研究基金会负责人,一直从事证明死刑犯器官用作移植手术的工作,曾在中国劳教所里呆过19年。
吴弘达
2006312日起,吴弘达多次派遣调查人员查访了整个苏家屯地区,317327329分别探访了位于苏家屯的两处军事营、苏家屯血栓病医院和附近的康家山监狱。前述调查均未发现法轮功指称的集中营的痕迹。调查人员就调查经过及结论分别于31531732732933044向吴弘达提供了许多照片及文字报告。2006322,吴弘达致函美国国会部分议员、媒体代表及有关人士20余人,就苏家屯事件表明自己的看法。信的要点有三:一是根据吴方的实地调查,关押6000余人的苏家屯集中营并不存在;二是20多年来,中国政府确实大量摘取死囚器官,但4500人规模的活体器官摘除理论上不成立,技术上不可行;三是中共盗摘法轮功学员的器官出口至泰国及其它国家的报导完全不可信。2006718,吴弘达发表《我对于法轮功媒体报导苏家屯集中营问题的认识及其经历》,公开表明对此事件立场。
此后,吴弘达多次接受境外媒体采访,质疑法轮功对中国政府活摘器官指控。
2006814,澳大利亚《澳人报》发表对吴弘达的采访《中国异议人士质疑器官活摘声明》,吴弘达表示在中国安排了可靠的联系人,走访了苏家屯地区,并在此驻扎三个多星期。他们的调查包括了所有可能进行强制活摘的地方,包括两个军营、一个脑血栓专科医院和孔家山监狱。他收到每一次走访的照片和文字报告,没有任何一个调查能证明集中营存在
20131217,吴弘达接受美国之音采访时表示:如果你(指法轮功)想讨论、想(向中国政府)抗议、想当面羞辱中国政府,我能理解。但是我以前就非常清楚地告诉法轮功,你们确实需要拿出证据来。[1]
My Knowledge and Experience with the Falun Gong media reporting on the Sujiatun Concentration Camp problem.  July 18, 2006.
http://zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm
(in translation)
First of all, my personal beliefs and political viewpoints are different from those of the Falun Gong.
Secondly, I respect everyone's freedom of belief and the right not to be persecuted.  From the moment that the Beijing government announced that Falun Gong is an evil cult and persecuted its members, I have firmly and resolutely stood on the side of Falun Gong.
Thirdly, no matter from personal experience or scholarly knowledge, I should know more about the brutal nature of the Chinese government than the Falun Gong practitioners, especially their senior members.
Fourthly, I do not want my words to be used by the Beijing authorities to conceal or lessen their evil deeds.
Fifthly, I hope that everybody (including myself) respect the facts and put the truth above everything else.
In the following, let me use the narrative technique to describe my experience and knowledge about the Sujiatun affair in chronological order:
(1) At the end of February 2006, after an investigation of six months, our team wrote a report about how the Huaxi Hospital in Chengu, Sichuan, was extracting organs from death-sentence prisoners for transplanting.  I was prepared to publish the report when Hu Jintao arrives in late April so that I can remind the world that the Chinese government has "used" the organs of death-sentence prisoners on a large-scale, long-term basis in violation of the basic principles of human rights.  This is one of the brutal acts of the Communist government.
(2) In February, the China Information Center and one of the Falun Gong media "Secret China" went into a preliminary stage of cooperation.  China Information Center was not only published on the "Secret China" website, but also in the print media.
(3) On March 10, 2006, the front page of Epoch Times carried a headline story titled "Shocking Inside News: Shenyang Concentration Camp Has Body Crematorium."  The article said: "There is a secret concentration came in the manner of the Nazis in Sujiatun, Shenyang.  More than 6,000 Falun Gong members are being held.  The secret prison has a 'body incinerator' as well as many medical doctors.  Nobody who goes in there comes out alive.  Their vital organs are extracted and then their bodies are incinerated."
The following is an extract from the Falun Gong media about the Sujiatun concentration camp:
Of the 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners, three-fourths had their hearts, kidneys, cornea and skin extracted before they died and then their bodies were incinerated ... since 2001, this concentration camp has extracted the kidneys, livers, hearts, brains, cornea and other organs from thousands of kidnapped Falun Gong practitioners.  The extracted organs were sold to many "biological model factories" that sprung up and then the bodies were destroyed ... The investigation verified that the organs were extracted from people who were still alive, and the process was extremely cruel.  Most of the participating medical personnel suffered severe psychological problems, including committing suicide ... the Falun Gong practioners are the principal source of the organ transaction black market in China (March 17, Dajiyuan, "Witness appears to testify about organ extractions on live persons at Sujiatun.").
(4) After reading the Dajiyuan report carefully, I felt that the two "witnesses" were unreliable and this story may be intentionally fabricated.  I attempted to contact Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping on his mobile phone and asked him to talk to me about the Sujiatun affair, but I never got a reply from him.
At the same time, I arranged for people inside China to visit the Sujiatun scene.  From March 12, the investigators canvassed the entire Sujiatun area.  On March 17, the investigators visited two military barracks in Sujiatun.  On March 27, the investigators secretly visited the Chinese Medical Blood Clotting Treatment Center in Sujiatun.  On March 29, the investigators went to the Kongjiashan prison near Sujiatun.  None of the aforementioned investigations revealed any trace of the concentration camp.  The investigators provided me with photographs and written reports on their investigation and results on March 15, 17, 27, 29, 30 and April 4.
(5) At the same time, Dajiyuan and other Falun Gong media (including the English editions) continued to report on the Sujiatun concentration camp on their front pages.  Sound of Hope Radio and New Tang Dynasty TV, which are related to Falun Gong, followed up extensively.  New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed me, and use my related videotapes on organ transplants (with my permission).  Various media and political people asked me about my views on the Sujiatun affair.
(6) On March 19, at the invitation of Falun Gong's representative Professor Nie Sen in Washington DC, I made a speech to support the resignation campaign from the Communist Party to the Falun Gong assembly in front of the Lincoln Memorial after the St. Patrick's Day parade.
At the assembly, I met Ms. Wang Wenyi for the first time.  She claimed to be the person responsible for public relations at Dajiyuan.  According to her self-introduction: (1) she is a graduate of a mainland Chinese medical university and she has received a doctor of medicine in the United States; she recently moved from California to New York to do medical research; (2) she was the Falun Gong person who scolded Jiang Zemin in Malta, Europe; (3) when she doing medical work in China, she had gone to the killing field and extracted organs from executed prisoners.
Based upon the above, since I was writing the report about the Huaxi Hospital extracting the hearts of death-sentence prisoners and I was hoping to get a US Congressional hearing on how the Beijing government is extracting organs from death-sentence prisoners, I invited Ms. Wang Wenyi to go to Congress because she was a Chinese doctor who participated directly in the extraction of organs from death-sentence prisoners.  She gladly agreed and she said that she would email her testimony very soon.
(7) On March 22, I wrote certain US Congress Representatives and other people about the Sujiatun situation and I told them what I thought.  The recipients of this letter were about 20 or so people who were either US Congress Representatives or media people.  There were three main points in the letter: (1) according to my recent investigation, the Sujiatun concentration camp holding 6,000 people does not exist; (2) for over more than 20 years, the Chinese government had extracted large numbers of organs from death-sentence prisoners.  But a scale of 4,500 live organ extractions is impossible in theory and infeasible in practice: (3) the report "The Communists are stealing organs from Falun Gong members to export to Thailand and other countries" is completely not credible.  In the letter, I reiterated clearly that I have always opposed the oppression of Falun Gong by the Chinese government and that I will continue as always to support the Falun Gong group to have the right to observe their own beliefs.  In order to avoid being mistaken as holding the same position as the Chinese Communists, I asked the recipients not to distribute the letter or publicly describe or quote its contents.
This letter has never been translated into Chinese nor has it been published at this time.
(8) After the letter was published, Falun Gong representative Tang Zhong (the president of New Tang Dynasty TV), Guo Jun (chief editor of Dajiyuan), Wang Wenyi (the public relations person for Dajiyuan) and Ms. Judy visited the China Information Center on March 28.  In the presence of China Information Center editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide, I delivered the following viewpoints to the Falun Gong representatives:
(1) I hope and I recommend that Dajiyuan and other Falun Gong media not use the term "concentration camp."  I pointed out that this term contains specific meanings, and can be used for comparative purposes.  But to cite or use it directly may lead to side effects.
(2) I quoted the example of the German Nazis using live persons for medical experiments at the Auschwitz concentration camp to the Falun Gong representatives.  If 4,500 live persons had their organs removed and then their corpses were destroyed, then this is an unthinkably big deal in world history.  There has to be enough solid eyewitnesses, evidence and investigation.  Based only upon the indirect testimony of two witnesses, the outside world will think that this was just "propaganda."  In the western world, "propaganda" has negative meaning.  Only Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Russia and China have a "propaganda department."
(3)  4,500 persons in total would mean 1,500 persons per year, or at least 120 persons per month whose organs were removed and then they were murdered.  This was technically infeasible and impossible to accomplish in an environment such as Sujiatun.
(4) The exporting of organs to Thailand and other countries is even more preposterous.  Even though it is possible for sick people in Thailand and other countries to go to China to get organ transplants, there has to be some data.  To export the organs would be impossible both technically as well as being prohibited by other nation's laws and conditions.  I have been to Thailand many times to investigate the situation of Thai nationals going to China to receive organ transplants, the attitudes of the Thai officials and medical professionals and the relevant regulations.  Thai patients who have received organ transplants and the Thai Royal Medical Society chairman had been invited by me to testify at the US Congress.
(5) The Falun Gong representatives admitted that the evidence about the Sujiatun concentration camp was still inadequate, but they firmly believed that the Sujiatun concentration camp exists and that the report was truthful.  They were in the process of going in to collect the relevant evidence.  Their reasoning was this: the Chinese Communists is a brutal regime and capable of any brutality.  Therefore, one should not doubt the Sujiatun affair.  In order to prevent further massacre (supposedly another 2,000 people were going to have their organs extracted immediately), they publicized this affair and the purpose was to call for the attention of the international community to investigate and hence save lives.
During the discussion, I asked whether I can meet with the two witnesses.  Wang Wenyi replied that the two witnesses have issues with personal safety, and the representatives don't even know the whereabouts of the witnesses.  She said that she will contact them and make the arrangements.  The meeting finished at noon that day.  I learned from the US Congress that the two witnesses had already met with many people at the US Congress through the arrangement of Wang Wenyi and other Falun Gong lobbyists.
(9) On the morning of March 31, Falun Gong representatives in the Washington DC area Professor Nie Sen and Ms. Amy came to the China Information Center without prior notice.  At the time, editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide were present.  Ms. Amy did not say anything.  Nie Sen said that he knew that I had written a letter and he told me three points in a direct manner:
 (1) If you (Wu Hongda) do not have sufficient evidence and you don't know the facts, it would be best for you to maintain neutrality.
(2) This way, you can maintain your reputation and continue your significant work.  We have always respected you, etc.
(3) Your letter was aiding the Communists.  Please don't do that.
At the time, I told Nie Sen: "You are threatening me."
He said, "No.  This is not a threat."
I asked: "This is persuasion or advice, right?  Who are you to talk to me this way?"
He said: "I read your letter."
I said: "According to my understanding, that was a private letter from me to the Congressional representatives.  You have not brought the two witnesses to lobby Congress yet.  How did you see it?"
Nie did not reply.  I asked further: "If you did not see the letter, then someone else told you about it and therefore you must have discussed it among yourselves and they ordered you to come here and give me advice.  Right?"
Nie did not reply.
I said; "You can leave now.  Please."  Nie then left the office of the China Information Center.
(10)  After Nie's visit, I called Zhang Erping again and he finally responded.  He said that he will come to see me next Monday to talk.  On the morning of April 3, Zhang Erping and Wang Wenyi came to the office of China Information Center.  Editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide were present.
Zhang Erping said: "I respect you, and you have the right of freedom of speech.  But what you wrote in the letter was wrong and objectively helped the Communists as well as hurt our feelings.  You know that many Falun Gong members came to Washington DC to demonstrate in front of the White House.  They are extremely mad at you."
I asked, "Please tell me whether you personally read my letter to the Congress?"  Zhang did not respond directly.
I said: "There is no Chinese-language version of the letter.  The English-language was only sent by email to twenty or so people and it clearly said 'Confidential: not to be distributed or cited; for advice only.'  Can you tell me how the Falun Gong members learned about it?  You ought to know Nie Sen was ordered to come here.  It seems that  you have made a systematic communication and plan."  Zhang did not respond.
I was deeply disappointed.  Although Zhang Erping was gentle and proper and we got along well privately, he showed that Falun Gong was "angry at me."  At that point, I realized that Falun Gong would be taking hostile action against me.  Of course, they can claim that I was hostile to them first.
That evening, I wanted to express my thoughts again and so I called Zhang Erping.  It was impossible to communicate even after a one-hour conversation.  In the end, I said, "Erping, please shove me aside and ignore me.  Will you please consider the following two problems?  First, did the Sujiatun affair give credit or discredit to the reputation of Falun Gong?  Second, based upon the current situation, is Falun Gong rising or falling compared to 1999?  You don't have to answer me.  No matter what the answers are, it does not concern me.  You are the responsible person at Falun Gong.  You better think about it."
(11)  On April 6, the Falun Gong groups wrote a letter to the US Congress to urge an investigation of the Sujiatun affair.
(12) On April 8, the Falun Gong medium Renminbao published two articles, "Chaos at the senior level of National Security" and "The butcher Wu Hongda."  The articles named me directly as interfering with the Sujiatun investigations.  Therefore, I am the "butcher" and "National Security senior-level spy."  The articles included my photograph.
On that day, I emailed the two articles without adding or subtracting one word to Zhang Erping.  Upon information, on the next day, the two articles disappeared from the Renminbao website.  There is no proof whether Zhang Erping gave the order.  Individual Falun Gong people explained to me that the two Renminbao articles were written by individual Falun Gong persons and do not represent the opinion of "Falun Gong."
(13) On April 12, Reuters and Agence France Presses reported that China's State council held a press conference on April 11.  At the conference, the Shenyang Sujiatun district officials and the Sujiatun Blood Clot Treatment Center leaders came forward to refute Falun Gong and denied that they had imprisoned large numbers of Falun Gong practioners.
(14) On April 13, Falun Gong declared that "after further investigation, we are more inclined to believe that the Sujiatun affair is true ... faced with these brutal murders, we hope the international community will not hold onto a rigorous or skeptical attitude.  The world cannot wait until all the evidence become available because the crimes will worsen.  Even if there is a 1% probability that this is true, it is worth the whole world to carefully and fully investigate the matter and deal with it."
(15) On April 14, the US Department of State released its report of the investigation about Sujiatun by the Embassy in Beijing and the Consulate in Shenyang.  The report said: "No evidence was discovered that says the place is used for any other purpose other than as a public hospital."
(16) On April 16, the Falun Gong medium Renminbao published the articles "Agence France Presse and Associated Press colluded with Xinhua" and "On Easter, God questions Bush."  In the essays: "More than three weeks after the affair of the Sujiatun concentration camp is exposed, the place has been vacated.  The Chinese Communist Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Kong said that the outside world is welcome to investigate.  More than a month later on April 14, US State Department Sean McCormack claimed that American investigators (under the detailed arrangement and guidance of the Chinese Communists) found no evidence of the Falun Gong charges when they investigated the Sujiatun area in northeastern China.  The Agence France Presse and Associated Press reports about Sujiatun were very similar to the Chinese Communists' Xinhua releases."  "The American government elite ignored the usual fakery of the Chinese Communists and were led on a guide tour of Sujiatun as arranged by the Chinese Communists.  This was how they readily came to the conclusion of that there were no 'abnormal' activities at the hospital."
(17) On April 16, a Congressional aide called me and said that Falun Gong was extremely dissatisfied with me because I opposed the attendance of Falun Gong members at the schedule April 19 congressional hearing.
He said; "A certain Congress person said that if Wu Hongda does not agree, then Falun Gong cannot attend the Congressional hearing."
I replied: "That is not true.  I have never told anyone (including people at Congress) that Falun Gong cannot attend congressional hearings."
The aide said: "Zhang Erping said that he learned about it from someone at Congress."
I told the aide: "I am willing to confront Zhang Erping and that person at Congress."
I also said: "I do not have the power and standing.  I don't know why Zhang Erping or the person from Congress would say that.  You are someone from the Hill.  Please verify with them."
The aide said; "If you are willing, I can arrange for you to meet with the two witnesses.  This may be of assistance to you."
I said: "I will be glad to meet them.  But this is not connected to the congressional hearing.  This is something completely different.  I must find out why Zhang Erping said that I obstructed the Falun Gong from attending the hearing."
The aide asked me to wait because Zhang Erping was right there next to him.  Moments later, the aide said: "Please come to the office tomorrow morning at 11am."
The next day, I went with my aide to the Hill.  At the office of the congressional representative (note: Congress was on vacation and no representative was working), I saw the aide and Zhang Erping, but not the two witnesses.
I said that the purpose of my coming to the office was to meet the two witnesses.  If the two witnesses were not there, then I should leave.  As to why my so-called "unwillingness" to let Falun Gong members attend the congressional hearing, I reiterated once again -- in the presence of Zhang Erping -- I have no right to agree or disagree with the presence of any person or group to attend.  I have no intention of interfering with the affairs of the US Congress.  Please check with all the parties concerned.
The aide said that he wanted me to sponsor and arrange for the Falun Gong people to attend to the hearing.  I emphasized that I did not have the power.  The aide wanted a deeper exchange and I requested Zhang Erping to leave.
After Zhang Erping left, I told the aide about my position (namely, points 1 through 16 above).  I showed the aide certain investigative photos from Sujiatun (he was the first outsider to have seen those photographs).  The aide immediately said that he was unaware of the circumstances and he said, "I had provided a copy of your March 22 letter to Zhang Erping."  He apologized to me formally (this was in violation of personal conduct code for Congressional personnel as well as violating my personal rights).  I have had a friendship and understanding with this aide for more than ten years.  Although I was not happy that he leaked my letter, I knew his character and views.  I thought that he may have over-reacted as he did not understand the situation.  So I spent almost one hour to relate the circumstances to him again and again.  He told me what he went through and how he saw it, and he apologized many times and begged for my forgiveness.
(18) On April 17, Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping made a public statement: "All investigations under the control of the Chinese Communists are meaningless."  He said: "Falun Gong has started a Committee to Investigate the Truth of the Oppression.  We welcome international organizations including the American government to join this independent investigative group."
(19) On May 6, I went to the Human Rights Conference in Frankfurt, Germany.  The previously friendly Falun Gong leader in Germany named Wu ignored me totally, and I was surprised.
Wu spoke about the extraction of organs and incineration of bodies, but four Germans dissented.  In order to avoid a public clash, I left the conference  hall using an excuse.
Two veteran Falun Gong representatives from Sweden and Belgium spoke to me extensively.  They did not say that they were "angry" with me, but they said that it "broke their hearts."  They all knew about the March 22 letter and they said that they "did not understand."  I gave them the detailed explanation (points 1 through 16 above).  They were sorry that Renminbao had called me a spy and a butcher.
(20) Many mainland Chinese friends and relevant persons showed concern about my being labeled "butcher" and "Chinese Communist senior-level spy."
(21) Many overseas websites carried the two Renminbao articles as well as other strange and weird opinions.
(22) According to various channels, Falun Gong accused me of being a senior-level Chinese Communist spy because Gao Zhan once worked at China Information Center.  Furthermore, I had gone through a similar experience like Gao.  I had been arrested, sentenced and exiled by the Chinese Communist government.  That was their inference.
(23)  Two veteran political figures in Canada announced that they will conduct an investigation of the Sujiatun affair.  On May 20-21, they met with me in Washington DC.  They somehow had a copy of my March 22 letter in their hands (where did it come from?).
They knew me from before and they have always respected me.  They said that they did not understand why I was "against" the Sujiatun affair.  I narrated the history (namely, the events from points 1 to 16 above).
They asked me if I had met the two witnesses.  I said that I had not.  They were surprised why I hadn't met them and they immediately said that they would arrange it.  The next day, they told me that it was impossible.  They said that the two witnesses refused to meet with me because I said that they were fabricating stuff.  I told the two Canadians that I had wanted to meet with the witnesses prior to the March 22 letter, but I was refused.
At this point, the conversation with the Canadians reached a dead end.  Suddenly, they wrote on a piece of paper the name "Gao Zhan" and they asked me, "Do you know this person?"  I said, "Yes, Gao Zhan is presently in an American prison awaiting expulsion."  I asked them, "We are talking about the Falun Gong affair at Sujiatun today.  How did Gao Zhao come in?"  The two sides had a laugh.
我对于法轮功媒体报导苏家屯集中营问题的认识及其经历
http://www.observechina.net/info/artshow.asp?ID=39862
吴弘达 
首先,我本人的信仰及政治观点与法轮功相异。
第二,我尊重每个人的信仰自由及不受迫害的权利。从北京政府宣布法轮功为邪教予以迫害之时起,我一直坚决地站在法轮功这一边。
第三,不论从个人的经历或学识的角度,我对共产党政权残暴性的体会及认识应该比法轮功练功者,尤其是其高层人士,更为深刻。
第四,我绝不愿意我的言行被北京当局用来掩盖或减轻它的恶行。
第五,希望所有的人包括我自己在内,尊重事实,把真理放在首位。
下面,我依照日期顺序,以叙事方式陈述自己关于苏家屯集中营一事的经历及认识。
(一)20062月底,在长达六个月的调查工作后,我组织专人撰写了四川成都华西医院摘取死囚心脏并进行器官移植的报告。我预备在四月下旬胡锦涛来美前公布,以期再次提醒世人中国政府大规模、长期地利用死囚器官违背了基本的人权原则。这是共产党政府的暴行之一。
(二)2月,中国信息中心与法轮功媒体之一看中国的合作方案进入初期运行。观察不仅在看中国网路上而且平面媒体开始发行。
(三)2006310的《大纪元时报》在头版头条刊载了《惊天内幕:沈阳集中营设焚尸炉》一文。(参见附件)文章说,沈阳市苏家屯区有一类似法西斯的秘密集中营,关押着6000多名法轮功成员。该秘密监狱里有焚尸炉,还有大量的医生。凡进到这里的人没有活着出来的,焚尸前内脏器官都被掏空出售。
以下是法轮功媒体此后关于苏家屯集中营的部分报道摘录:
六千法轮功学员中的四分之三的人已经被挖空心脏、肾脏、眼角膜、皮肤后死去,并被毁灭尸体。……该集中营从2001年起活体摘取了数以千计被劫持的法轮功学员的肾、肝、心、脑、角膜等器官,并将挖空的遗体出售给众多应运而生的生物塑化工厂做人体模型,然后就地分尸灭迹。……调查证实,摘取器官完全是在活人身上进行。由于过程及其残忍,参与的医务人员大多出现严重的心理问题,并有自杀事件发生。……法轮功学员成为中国器官买卖黑市交易的主要货源。(参见《证人现身指正苏家摘活体器官》,载317《大纪元》)
(四)仔细阅读大纪元的报导后,我认为这两个证人的披露是不可靠的,而且极有可能是刻意编造。我试图联络法轮功发言人张而平,挂他的手机,请他回话以就苏家屯事件交换看法,但一直没有回音。
同时,我立即安排国内人士到苏家屯现场进行调查。从312开始,调查人员查访了整个苏家屯地区。317,调查人员又探访了位于苏家屯的两处军事营。327,调查人员暗访苏家屯的中医血栓病医疗中心。329,又对苏家屯附近的康家山监狱进行调查。前述调查均未发现法轮功指称的集中营的痕迹。调查人员就调查经过及结论分别于31531732732933044向我提供了许多照片及文字报告。(另有专门报告)
(五)与此同时,大纪元等法轮功媒体(包括英文版)连续不断地以头版新闻报导苏家屯集中营。法轮功相关的希望之声电台、新唐人电视台等也长篇累牍地作了跟进。新唐人电视台并采访了我,并用了与我相关的器官移植的录影带(我同意使用)。欧美诸多媒体及政界人士则频频来电催问我个人对苏家屯一事的看法。
(六)319,应法轮功华府地区代表聂森教授邀请,在华府圣派屈克大游行后,法轮功天国乐团集合在林肯纪念堂前,我发表了支持退党运动的讲话。
在此集会上,我第一次见到王文怡女士。她自称是大纪元报公关负责人。她自我介绍说:1)中国大陆医科大学毕业,获美国医学博士,最近从加州迁来纽约从事医学研究工作;2)她是曾在欧洲马耳他面对面斥责江泽民的法轮功人士;3)她在国内从事医学工作时,曾到过刑场参与摘取死囚器官的工作。
按前所述,由于正在撰写华西医院利用死囚心脏的报告以及正在争取国会再次举行关于北京政府摘取死囚器官的听证会,我邀请王文怡女士以直接参与摘取死囚器官的中国医生身份到国会作证。她欣然同意并表示会很快Email给我她的证词。
(七)322,我致函美国国会部份议员及有关人士就苏家屯事件表明自己的看法供他们参考。信函的接收者包括国会议员及部分媒体代表在内约20余人。信的要点有三:1)根据我方近期的实地调查,关押6000余人的苏家屯集中营并不存在。220多年来,中国政府确实大量摘取死囚器官,但4500人规模的活体器官摘除理论上不成立,技术上不可行。3中共盗摘法轮功学员的器官出口至泰国及其它国家的报导完全不可信。我在信中重申了自己长期以来对中共暴政迫害法轮功的鲜明立场,并表示我会一如既往地支持包括法轮功群体在内的所有人追求信仰自由的权利。为避免被误认为与中共持同一立场,我要求收信人不得将该信外传、公开发表或引用信中语句。(参见附件)
此信件至今既没有译成中文也没有公开发表过。
(八)信件发表后,法轮功代表唐中(新唐人电视台总裁)、郭军(大纪元主编)、王文怡(大纪元公关负责人)及Judy女士四人于328到访中国信息中心。在中国信息中心编辑廖天琪、陈奎德在场的情况下,我对法轮功代表们表示了以下几点看法:
1)希望和建议大纪元等法轮功媒体不要随便使用集中营这个名词,指出这个词有其特定含义,可以引证比较,但加以套用或冠用,会引起副作用。
2)以纳粹德国奥斯威辛集中营以活人作医学实验为例向法轮功代表提出,若是4500人被活体摘除器官并焚尸,这是世界历史上不可想像的巨大事件,必须要有充分的、坚实的证人、证据及调查报告。如果仅凭两个非直接证人的说词,将被外界认为是一种宣传宣传在西方是十分负面的。只有希特勒德国、苏维埃斯大林和中国才有宣传部
3)以4500人计,即在三年中平均每年约1500人,每月至少120人,被摘取各种器官而暗杀,这在技术上不可能,在苏家屯这样一个实际环境中也是做不到的。
4)器官出口至泰国及其它国家更是胡说八道。若泰国及其它国籍患者到中国去接受器官移植这完全有可能,也有事实依据。但出口器官在技术上及相关国家的法律及国情上不可能。我曾在泰国调查过多次有关泰国病人赴华接受器官移植、泰国官方和医界对器官移植的态度及相关规定。泰国接受器官移植的病人及泰国皇家医学学会主席曾被我邀请来美国在国会作证。(有国会记录可查)
5)法轮功代表承认苏家屯集中营的证据目前尚不充足,但是他们坚定相信苏家屯集中营是存在的,报导是真实的,他们正在深入收集相关证据。他们的推理是:中共是残暴政权,任何暴行他们都会做,所以不应怀疑苏家屯事件。为阻止屠杀(据说还有2000人马上要被摘取器官),他们才决定公布这一事件,目的是呼吁国际社会关注并进行调查以拯救生命。
商谈中,我提出能否与两位证人见面。王文怡回答说,两位证人有安全问题,他们都不知道两人现在何处。她表示,她会联络进行安排。但会谈结束后的当天中午,我从国会获知,两证人在王文怡等法轮功游说人士陪同下已经与多位国会人士见过面。
(九)331日上午,法轮功华府地区代表聂森教授及Amy女士在没有事先通知的情况下,突然闯来中国信息中心。当时本中心廖天琪及陈奎德二编辑在场。Amy女士没有发言。聂森说他知道我写过一封信,他对我直率地表达了下列三点:
第一)若你(吴弘达)没有充分证据,不了解事实,最好保持中立。
第二)这样你可保持你的名誉并继续你有意义的工作。我们对你一向很尊重,等等。
第三)你的信是给共产党帮忙,请你不要这样做。
我当即对聂森表示,你这是来威胁我
他说,不是,不是威胁
我问,这是劝告、忠告,对吗?你凭什么这样对我说话?
聂答,我看到了你写的信
我说,据我了解,我的信是给国会议员的私人信件。你并没有在国会带了两位证人游说,你怎么看到了?
聂没有回答。我又问,那么你并没有看到信,是别人看到的告诉了你,所以你是经过你们的讨论研究,奉命来对我提出劝告的,是吗?
聂也没有回答。
我说,你可以走了,请。聂随即离开了中国信息中心办公室。
(十)聂来访后,我再次给张尔平挂电话,终于有了回电,他表示下周一将过来面谈。
43上午,张尔平及王文怡两人来到中国信息中心办公室。有廖天琪及陈奎德二编辑在场。
张尔平说,我很尊重你,并且你有言论自由的权利。但你信中的说法是不对的,实际上是给共产党帮忙,并且极大的伤害了我们的感情。你知道许多法轮功学员都赶来华盛顿在白宫前面抗议,他们对你极为愤怒
我问,请问你直接看到了我给国会的信没有?张没有正面回答。
我说,我写的这封信没有中文版,英文版只Email给二十多位人士,并且清楚标明保密,不得外传或引用,仅供参考。请问你们一般法轮功学员怎么知道的?你应该知道聂森是奉命前来的,看来你们已做了系统性的传达和部署。张没有回答。
我深感失望。张尔平虽然温文尔雅,而且我们私人关系不错,但他已经表示了法轮功对我的愤怒。至此我已明白,法轮功将对我采取敌对行动。——当然,他们可以声称是我先敌视他们的。
当天晚上,我想再次表达我的看法,我再给张尔平挂了电话,长达一个小时的交谈几乎无法讲通,最后我说,而平,请把我放在一边,不要把我当回事。请你在下列两个问题上思考一下:第一,苏家屯事件是增加了,还是损害了法轮功的信誉?(我用的是英文:“credit or discredit”。)第二,依目前情况看,法轮功运动自1999年以来是继续在上扬还是在下跌?你不必回答我。因为不论是什么答案都与我无关。你是法轮功负责人,你最好想一想
(十一)46,法轮功团体致函美国国会呼吁调查苏家屯事件。
(十二)48,法轮功媒体人民报连续发表了署名文章《国安高层大乱》、《屠夫吴弘达》两文。文章指名道姓称我阻碍苏家屯调查,所以我是屠夫国安高层间谍。文章并配我的照片。
当天我未加一字一句将两文Email给张而平。据了解,第二天,两文从人民报上消失。是否张而平下了令,没有查证。个别法轮功人士对我解释人民报两文是个别法轮功人士写的报导,不代表法轮功意见。
(十三)412,据路透社、法新社报道,中国国务院11日召开记者发布会,会上沈阳市苏家屯区官员和苏家屯血栓中心医院的负责人出面反驳法轮功,否认当地关押过大量的法轮功学员。
(十四)413,法轮功发表声明,称我们越是进行深入的调查,越是相信这个(苏家屯)事件是真实的。…..面对这么惨烈的杀人,我们希望国际社会不是抱着审视或者挑剔的态度,世界不能在等待证据全面曝光中让罪恶加剧,即使这事有1%的可能性,都值得全球慎重对待和全力以赴调查处理
(十五)414,美国国务院发表了其驻北京大使馆和驻沈阳领事馆就苏家屯两次调查的报告,报告称,没有发现证据可以说明该地方除被用作公共医院外还被用作其它用途
(十六)416,法轮功媒体人民报发表《法新社、美联社等与中共新华社狼狈为奸》、《复活节 神问布什》两文。文中称,在苏家屯集中营事件曝光三个多星期后,那里已是空城,中共外交部发言人秦刚说,邀请外界来调查。一个多月后的414,美国国务院发言人肖恩-麦克康玛克(Sean McCormack)声称,美国的调查人员(在中共的具体安排引导下)在中国东北的苏家屯地区调查期间没有发现法轮功所指控的证据。而法新社和美联社发表的有关苏家屯的调查采访报导,更是与中共新华社的通稿基本类似。”“美国的政府精英们,非但无视中共一贯的造假手法;反而只是到中共准备好了的苏家屯转了一圈,就轻易得出了该医院没有非正常行为的结论
(十七)416,某国会议员助理来电,说法轮功对我极为不满,因为我公开对国会负责人士表示反对法轮功人士出席预定于419的听证会。
他说:某国会人士说若吴弘达不同意,法轮功就不可能出席听证会
我回答:这不是事实。我没有对任何人(包括国会人士)表示法轮功不可以出席听证会
该助理说:,张而平称他由某国会人士处得知的
我对该助理说:我可与张而平及该国会人士对质
我又说:我没有这种权力和地位。我不知道张而平或那位国会人士为什么这样说。你是国会山上的人,请你向他们查证
该助理又说:如果你愿意,我可以安排两位证人同你见面,或许对你有所帮助
我说,我乐意同他们见面,但这与国会听证不扯在一起,那完全是两回事。我要查清楚张而平根据什么说我阻碍法轮功出席听证
该助理告诉我等一下,原来张而平就在他办公室,在他身边。稍后,该助理说,明天上午十一点,请来办公室一趟
第二天,我同我的助手同赴国会山。在议员办公室内(国会休假,无议员办公)见到该助理及张而平两人,却不见两位证人。
我表示,我来办公室的目的是会见两位证人,若两位证人不来,我就请辞。若为了所谓我不同意法轮功人士出席听证会的事,我愿再次申明——张而平在场——我无权同意或不同意任何人、任何团体出席听证。而且,我本人无意涉及美国国会事务。请向有关方面查证。
该助理表示他想要求我赞助安排法轮功人士出席听证会。我再次强调我无这种权力。该助理要和深入交换意见,我要求张而平离开。
张而平离开后,我对该助理陈述了我的立场及观点(即本文(一)至(十六)的相关内容),并向该助理展示了若干苏家屯的调查照片(他是第一个外界人士看到这些照片)。该助理当即表示并不知道上述种种情况并当即向我表示,我的三月二十二日信件是他给了张而平一份Copy。他向我正式道歉(这是违反国会人员操守,也侵犯了我的个人权利的行为)。我与这位助理十多年来互相一向友善及了解。虽然我对他私自泄露我的信件不满,但我知道他的为人及观点。我认为他可能一方面偏激了,另一方面不了解情况。为此,我几乎用了一个小时反覆把情况及观点向他陈述。他也表示了自己的经历及观点,多次表示歉意并希望我谅解。
(十八)法轮功发言人张而平417发表声明说,中共操控下的所谓调查毫无意义。他表示,法轮功已发起调查迫害真相委员会。我们欢迎国际组织包括美国政府加入这个独立调查团
(十九)56我到德国法兰克福开人权会议。过去一向与我友善来往的法轮功德国负责人吴XX见面不理睬我。令我惊异。
XX在会上谈了活体摘除器官并焚尸的事,当场有四个德国人表示异议。我为了避免公开冲突借故离开了会场。
瑞典和比利时的两位资深法轮功人士(女)分别与我长时间交谈,她们倒没有对我表示愤怒,而是痛心。她们都知道了我的三月二十二日的信,她们表示不理解。我向她们细致耐心地陈述了全过程,(即本文(一)至(十六)的相关内容)。她们对我被人民报称作特务及屠夫表示歉意。
(二十)许多中国大陆的朋友及相关人士表示关切我被冠以屠夫中共高级特务
(二十一)海外众多网站转载了人民报两篇文章及发表了不少奇谈怪论。
(二十二)各种渠道传来,法轮功方面指称我是中共高级特务的理由之一是高瞻曾在中国信息中心工作过。并且高与我有一相似情况,即都曾被中共政府逮捕、判刑,但随后驱逐出境。这是他们的推理。
(二十三)加拿大两位宣布组织国际调查苏家屯事件的资深政治人士52021日来华盛顿与我见面。他们手中竟然亦有我322的信件(来自何处?)。
他们认识我并对我一向尊敬,他们表示不理解我为什么反对苏家屯事件。我陈述了前后经过,(即本文(一)至(十六)的相关内容)。
他们问我有没有见过两位证人。我说没有,他们有点吃惊,怎么会不见两位证人,马上表示会去要求安排。次日,他们回答我,办不到。据说两位证人因为我说他们编造而拒绝见面。我对两位加拿大人士指出,我在322的信之前就提出想见面,但被拒绝了。
至此,与加拿大人士的谈话进入死胡同。他们不知所从。突然,很微妙地在纸上写了GAOZhan两字,问我:知道此人吗?我回答,是的,高瞻她现在美国监狱里等待递解出境。我问他们:,今天我们谈法轮功苏家屯的事,怎么出来了高瞻!?双方莞尔一笑。
──《观察》首发    转载请注明出处
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
本站网址:http://www.observechina.net 


[1] 《中国器官摘取做法引国际关注》,美国之音,20131217

没有评论:

发表评论