VZCZCXRO3900
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHNH
DE RUEHHM #0033/01 0211129
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 211129Z JAN 10
FM AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6265
INFO RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI PRIORITY 4151
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY PRIORITY 6508

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 HO CHI MINH CITY 000033 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS AND DRL/AWH 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL:  1/21/2020 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL VM
SUBJECT: SHOW TRIAL OF DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS SHOWCASES CHALLENGES TO 
PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM 
 
REF: A. A) 09 HANOI 820: GVN TELEVISES DISSIDENT "CONFESSIONS" 
     ¶B. B) 09 HANOI 330: PARTY SECRETARY WARNS AGAINST SELF-EVOLUTION 
     ¶C. C) 09 HANOI 526: OCTOBER CONVICTION BLOC 8406 ACTIVISTS 
     ¶D. D) 09 HANOI 1084 AND PREVIOUS: DECEMBER CONVICTION OF TRAN ANH KIM 
     ¶E. E) 09 HCMC 673 AND PREVIOUS: INDICTMENT AND ARRESTS OF DINH, TRUNG, THUC AND LONG 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000033  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Kenneth J. Fairfax, Consul General, U.S. 
Consulate General Ho Chi Minh City, Department of State. 
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The trial of four pro-democracy advocates, 
including prominent lawyer/Fulbright scholar Le Cong Dinh and 
activist and blogger Nguyen Tien Trung, opened and closed in 
HCMC on January 20.  All four were convicted for "attempting to 
overthrow the state" and given sentences ranging from five to 
sixteen years in prison followed by additional years of close 
supervision.  While the verdicts -- reached after fifteen 
minutes deliberation -- were hardly surprising, the one-day 
trial nonetheless provided an instructive example of how the 
GVN/CPV recasts peaceful political speech into criminal acts. 
Dinh confessed to joining a political party other than the CPV 
(and thus committed a "subversive act" under Vietnamese law), 
but he did not admit to doing anything wrong.  With its 
lightning speed and the court's refusal to acknowledge multiple 
charges of prisoner abuse, forced confessions and evidence 
tampering, the trial also highlighted that Vietnam has a long 
way to go before it produces a professional, independent 
judiciary.  CG attended the trial and afterwards gave a 
statement, drawing from cleared guidance, sharply critical of 
the trial, which was widely covered in the international press 
though not locally.  On January 21, the Embassy issued a 
statement expressing concern over the convictions and calling 
for the release of Dinh and the others.  End summary. 
 
 
 
A SHORT ROAD TO "GUILTY" 
 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) On January 20, the trial of four individuals charged 
with the capital offense of attempting to overthrow the state of 
Vietnam took place in HCMC.  The defendants were prominent 
lawyer and Fulbright alumni Le Cong Dinh, blogger and democracy 
advocate Nguyen Tien Trung, Internet entrepreneur Tran Huynh Duy 
Thuc and democracy advocate Le Thang Long.  A significant 
portion of the 10 hour trial was spent reading the very lengthy 
list of charges against the four three times (with only minor 
variations): once near the opening of the trial as the 
"indictment," once again as the "results of the prosecutors' 
investigation," and a third time as the "official verdict of the 
court."  Once the proceedings were finished, judges deliberated 
just 15 minutes before returning their verdict and sentences for 
the four defendants.  Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, who was portrayed as 
the leader of the subversive group, was given 16 years in prison 
followed by five years parole.  Nguyen Tien Trung was given 
seven years plus three years parole.  Le Cong Dinh and Le Thang 
Long were both given five years plus three years parole. 
 
 
 
¶3. (SBU) No reporters or observers were allowed in the 
courtroom, but a limited number of foreign observers received 
permission to watch via closed circuit TV from a separate room 
in the same building.  CG joined the Ambassadors of the EU and 
Denmark plus political officers from the Canadian and Australian 
Missions as the only foreign diplomats allowed to observe the 
trial.  Three foreign reporters, representing AP, Reuters and 
AFP, were also present, as was a Vietnamese reporter working for 
the German news agency DPA.  Approximately 30 local Vietnamese 
reporters were also in attendance.  Foreigners could not bring 
in cell phones, cameras or any other electronic devices, but 
communications by representatives of local, state-owned media 
were relatively unrestricted. As the trial unfolded, it became 
abundantly clear that the reason for the restrictions was so 
that there would be no digital proof of any incidents of 
official misconduct during the trial.  At several points during 
the proceedings, the audio portion of the CCTV feed was either 
turned off or drowned out with loud static just as a defendant 
or defense attorney attempted to counter or contextualize 
information presented by the court.  Family members were also 
banned from the courtroom but allowed to watch from a second 
room equipped with a CCTV feed.  Based on CG's personal 
conversations with family members as well as an interview that 
appeared on BBC's Vietnamese service, the audio portion of their 
CCTV feed was also cut on multiple occasions during the trial, 
as it had been in the room set aside for journalists and 
diplomats. 
 
 
 
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF DEMOCRACY 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000033  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) While Le Cong Dinh pleaded guilty under what was 
obviously a very carefully negotiated -- and ultimately 
successful -- bid for leniency, the nuanced wording of his 
admission of guilt was highly instructive. Dinh stated that he 
had no defense since he had done nothing that needed defending. 
Instead, he simply admitted that under the constitution of 
Vietnam, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is the only party 
and the country's permanent leading authority.  Because the 
Democratic Party of Vietnam (DPV) advocates the adoption of 
multi-party democracy in Vietnam, it is therefore an illegal, 
criminal organization under the law.  Because he joined the DPV, 
Dinh admitted that he was guilty of subversion under Article 79. 
 Apart from joining the DPV, Dinh did not admit to any other 
wrongdoing.  In fact, he stated that neither he nor any of the 
other defendants in the case had any intention to ever attempt 
the overthrow the government of Vietnam.  Instead, they (and 
others) simply discussed multi-party democracy as a development 
alternative for Vietnam.  In contrast to the confession 
televised last summer (ref A), Dinh explicitly denied direct 
foreign links or influences apart from his Western education. 
 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) While the very lengthy official indictment against the 
four defendants was less transparently worded than Dinh's brief 
confession, beneath the rhetoric of plots and subversion it did 
not fundamentally differ.  At the heart of the indictment was 
the charge that the four defendants formed a group known as the 
"Chan (to make prosperous again) Research Group" with the intent 
of overthrowing the GVN.  Despite this headline charge, the 
indictment never alleged that the group undertook or planned any 
violent acts or encouraged others to do so.  Instead, 
prosecutors alleged that Thuc, as the ring-leader, had declared 
that 2010 would mark the beginning of the decline of the 
public's support for communism in Vietnam and that by 2020 the 
CPV would lose control of the country as the people came to 
support and demand expanded human rights and multi-party 
democracy.  Thuc was painted as the "general" in charge of a 
highly disciplined "cell" with roughly a dozen clearly defined 
roles that sounded remarkably like the communist party cells 
used by revolutionary groups since the time of Lenin.  Rather 
than a military wing, however, this cell used the Internet to 
begin the "self evolution" of CPV members and sow dissent within 
the party.  At its core, the charge of subversion was 
essentially a charge that the group advocated the "peaceful 
evolution" of Vietnam from a communist state to a multi-party 
democracy (ref B). 
 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Whether judging from Le Cong Dinh's carefully crafted 
confession or the prosecutors charges, the final conclusion is 
the same: because the CPV is the sole legitimate source of power 
recognized in the Vietnamese constitution, believing in, 
discussing, or advocating peaceful democratic change in Vietnam 
is a crime -- a crime punishable by long prison terms or even 
the death penalty. 
 
 
 
A DEEPLY FLAWED PROCESS 
 
----------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The quick show trial also showcased how far the 
Vietnamese legal system has to go before it even begins to 
resemble a professional, independent judiciary.  Tran Huynh Duy 
Thuc, in particular, kept the focus on the process from the very 
start of opening motions, when he requested that the entire 
tribunal and prosecution be replaced on the grounds that they 
were interested parties involved in an inherent conflict of 
interest.  Because he is being charged with attempting to 
overthrow the GVN and CPV, Thuc argued, he should be prosecuted 
and tried by an independent judiciary not composed of GVN or CPV 
members.  His motion was denied.  Thuc immediately lodged a 
second motion, this time requesting that the charges be laid 
aside on the grounds that he was tortured into giving false 
testimony.  When he made this request, the military guard seated 
behind him immediately stood up to restrain Thuc but was waived 
back down by the judges.  Thuc's remaining comments were drowned 
out by static and he was ordered to take his seat by a judge. 
 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) During the various phases of the trial -- opening 
motions, examination of witnesses by the panel of judges, the 
discussion of the charges and final arguments -- Thuc and Long 
repeatedly lodged allegations of misconduct by investigators. 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000033  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
Charges laid included numerous accounts of torture, "mental 
terrorism," and other acts of coercion as well as extensive 
tampering with physical evidence such as computer files and 
e-mails in order to transform entirely innocent statements into 
what appeared to be plans for subversive activities.  Whenever 
judges read excerpts from Thuc's hand-written "confession," for 
example, Thuc replied that "while my hands wrote those words, 
those are not my words or my thoughts."  On various occasions, 
he used the terms "torture," "corporal punishment," and 
"physical coercion" to describe how investigators had forced him 
to write out a confession that they dictated.  In a particularly 
poignant exchange, one judge read an excerpt from the end of 
Thuc's "confession" in which Thuc had written that he had made 
all of the statements of his own free will without any coercion 
or inducement from investigators.  Thuc replied that while 
writing that falsehood had been very painful for him, he had "no 
choice" but to write what he was told.  Thuc repeatedly 
attempted to describe the exact methods used by investigators to 
compel his compliance, but was always cut off by judges. 
 
 
 
¶9. (SBU) Le Thang Long provided less extensive but corroborating 
testimony.  Like Thuc, Long complained of misconduct and abuse 
by investigators.  The most telling example he provided was that 
after investigators had been unsuccessful in forcing him to 
write out a false confession, they engaged in "mental terrorism" 
by offering to let him visit his terminally ill mother one last 
time only if he wrote and signed the confession they had 
prepared. Long refused and the visit was withheld.  (Note: Of 
the four defendants, Long showed the most obvious signs of 
extreme mental/emotional stress. He was constantly twitching and 
his speech oscillated from lucid to disjointed and rambling. 
While CG is certainly not an expert, it is highly likely that a 
judge in the USA or other democratic country would have sent 
Long for a psychiatric evaluation to determine his fitness to 
stand trial rather than simply continuing with the proceedings. 
End Note.) 
 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) Thuc and Long also attempted to demonstrate that the 
investigators had essentially fabricated much of the "evidence" 
against them by manipulating documents and e-mails. Thuc 
charged, for example, that the dates of e-mails had been altered 
to fit the chronology investigators wanted to establish in the 
indictment.  Similarly, items were edited and taken out of their 
original context so that they appeared to advocate positions or 
actions that bore no relation to the original message.  For 
example, Thuc said that a 4-line poem he had written in 2006 
showed up as the opening of a non-existent 2008 political 
manifesto that investigators claimed to have found.  In another 
example, Thuc noted that while the indictment included e-mails 
from both co-defendant Le Thang Long and Vietnamese-American 
pro-democracy advocate Nguyen Sy Binh inviting him to join the 
Democratic Party of Vietnam (DPV), investigators had not 
included -- and had presumably deleted from his e-mail account 
-- copies of the replies he had sent to both invitations stating 
that he had no intention of joining the DPV. 
 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) While Thuc's defense lawyer, Trieu Quoc Manh, mounted 
what appeared to be a spirited, 30-minute defense of his client, 
the entire presentation was completely inaudible to observers in 
the CCTV room.  Even though Trung pleaded guilty, his lawyer, 
Doan Thai Duyen Hai, also made a presentation in which he asked 
the court for leniency and pointed out that Trung could not 
possibly have taken part in the alleged "conspiracy" since the 
meetings and events described in the indictment took place while 
Trung was serving mandatory military service, where he was 
confined to his base by his commanders, who also controlled and 
censored his access to information, including visitors, personal 
mail, e-mail, and phone calls.  More than half of Trung's 
defense attorney's presentation was also drowned out by static, 
although it was not clear if that was intentional or the result 
of a genuine technical glitch. 
 
 
 
¶12. (SBU) While it is not possible for outside observers to 
definitively conclude whether the charges of prosecutorial 
misconduct leveled by Thuc and Long were accurate, the judges' 
own actions provided ample proof that there need be no relation 
between reality and official reports.  Just fifteen minutes 
after hearing final arguments, the judges read out their 
pre-written 17-page long verdict.  The verdict was virtually 
identical to both the indictment and the results of the 
investigation that had been read out earlier in the proceedings, 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000033  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
but included a few new pieces of information.  Most telling was 
the judges' proclamation that all statements from the defendants 
and their lawyers indicated that they agreed with the indictment 
and results of the investigation.  Given the vigorous attempts 
by Thuc and Long as well as by the defense lawyers to object to 
multiple aspects of the documents, that statement was patently 
false. 
 
 
 
CG, Ambassador's Statements 
 
--------------------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Asked by journalists to comment following the trial, 
the CG (drawing on the Spokesman's July 15 statement) expressed 
the USG's concern over the arrest and conviction of persons for 
peaceful expression of their beliefs, and called for their 
immediate release.  The CG's statement was widely cited in the 
international media, though not locally. On January 21, the 
Embassy issued a statement along similar lines. 
 
 
 
COMMENT 
 
------- 
 
¶14. (C) This highly-anticipated and internationally publicized 
trial was yet another example of the decline in the GVN's 
tolerance for dissent of any type.  The past two years of 
firings, harassment and arrests of reporters, activists and 
bloggers as well as other recent measures to restrict the 
public's access to information, such as the blocking of 
Facebook, represents a backtracking in Vietnam's human rights 
record.  While this trial stands out for various reasons -- 
including the involvement of one of Vietnam's most prominent 
corporate and human rights lawyers who has previously defended 
multiple clients facing charges similar to the ones he was 
convicted of -- in many ways it represents a continuation of 
this downward trend in respect for freedom of speech and the 
ongoing manipulation of Vietnam's judicial system to silence 
voices of reform.  Additionally, a new and particularly 
troubling turn of events is the decision by the GVN to charge 
dissidents with sedition, a capital crime, under Article 79, 
instead of under the more benign Article 88, "propagandizing 
against the State."  Prison sentences for political activists 
have also increased from roughly two-and-a-half years in 2008 to 
the five to sixteen year sentences we have seen in recent trials 
(refs C-D). 
FAIRFAX