Hartzell's COMMENTARIES on The Taiwan Question

[sandman]

The whole point of my original post is that the State Department has now published a document that refutes his claims.

Bollocks. It hasn't. It has avoided answering the question, as usual. You are either just talking shite or you don't know how to read. Either way, you offer nothing, so I'm done with you. Talk the talk or walk the walk. You're failing dismally on both counts right now.

Sandman, you already stated that Hartzell has no chance of success. However, I understand you made that statment with a caveat.

Other then what I have already said, what walk would you like me to walk? What talk would you like me to talk?

If you agree that Hartzell has no chance of success, how am I "failing dismally on both counts right now?"

First off, your "arguments" or rather your total lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with my views on Hartzell's quest. They were formed long before you ever showed up here and they are based on FAR better logic and analysis than what you have so consistently failed to offer here.
Second, what the fuck has that do to with the argument at hand? Can you actually understand English, or are you deliberately making an effort to talk at cross purposes? Whether Hartzell can succeed or not has absolutely fuck-all to do with the validity of his arguments.
The whole point is that the US is not willing to even ADDRESS those arguments. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
Again, you simply offer nothing. You bring nothing to the table whatsoever. Either do so, or get used to having your views discounted.

[Traveller]

Yes. I am saying he is not qualified to state a legal opinion on U.S. law. Hartzell is entitled to have a lay opinion, but he is not presenting a lay opinion, he is presenting himself as a "researcher of laws" based out of the H Research Group who is publishing anywhere he can legal opinions on the "status of Taiwan."

Yet again, present your own legal qualifications, otherwise you - based on your own logic - are not qualified to comment.

If I told you I was a lawyer that practiced Constitutional law, would that change your mind regarding what I have said? If so, tell me why? If your reason makes sense, I will consider your request.

Nope, not in the least, saying you are something does not make it so, now does it, otherwise you would have no argument about Hartzell.

While you are considering that, why doesn't everyone who has posted in this thread against what I have to say state their legal qualifications for arguing that I am wrong. I'll show you mine - if you show me yours!

Because you are th eone who first raised the issue of qualifications, so it is now the time for you to show or shut up. Hartzell does not try to make out he is an attorney, just someone that has done a lot of research and who has a different opinion. If this world did not have people prepared to take a stance against accepted principle etc, then what would have the Wright brothers have done, just gone home and accepted that air flight was not possible, sheesh.

You do come across as someone form the legal profession, and even if you were, unless you could prove that becoming an attorney requires specialist knowledge in the detailed workings leading up to the current status of Taiwan, then you are no more qualified to hold an opinion or make any statement than anyone else.

[sandman]

You do come across as someone form the legal profession,

Huh? I always thought lawyers knew how to argue and debate. I thought they actually received training in it.

[urodacus]

There can be no standard test for scientists, as science is such a diverse area there is no such test possible. No person can know even a fraction of all there is to know even in their own field, and that body of knowledge grows daily (not 'changes' daily, but 'grows' daily, and there is a wealth of difference there). The last scientist who knew all that was known at the time was perhaps Newtown or Hooke.

This is all completely off topic. Put your dukes up where it counts. You are failing dismally all the way through by not arguing the point but instead attacking the messenger. Even though you cannot argue constructively, i still think that you MUST be a lawyer, and an American one at that. Been defending OJ again, have we?

[Jack Burton]

You do come across as someone form the legal profession,

Huh? I always thought lawyers knew how to argue and debate. I thought they actually received training in it.

Haha. that's a good one.

[Poagao]

The whole point of my original post is that the State Department has now published a document that refutes his claims.

Bollocks. It hasn't. It has avoided answering the question, as usual. You are either just talking shite or you don't know how to read. Either way, you offer nothing, so I'm done with you. Talk the talk or walk the walk. You're failing dismally on both counts right now.

I dunno, I'd say the statement has effectively ended the argument, as there's no argument when the person you're counting on to actually do something about it won't even talk to you. The whole claim is dependent on the US government making the (IMHO) suicidal move of claiming Taiwan as its own territory, AKA "Please please please get into a war with me China", which would make the US government stupider than I ever thought possible (and I can conceive of a lot of stupidity when it comes to the US government), but I'm not sure how anyone would ever even want to pursue such an angle unless they personally could get something out of it. Hartzell spent many years trying to obtain ROC citizenship and couldn't without giving up US citizenship; maybe he wants to make us all US citizens or something. Who knows? Everyone needs a hobby.

But people already know who I am so who am I to say?

[sandman]

I'd say the statement has effectively ended the argument, as there's no argument when the person you're counting on to actually do something about it won't even talk to you.

Yeah, but the statement is the exact same one that was the basis before Hartzell ever started his thing. Doesn't alter the fact of Hartzell's arguments, and the fact that despite the pontifications of our *ahem* "learned friend," those arguments have not been addressed.
Is Hartzell a bit of a kook on this issue? Hell yeah! Is he pursuing it to form the basis of some other argument designed for some kind of personal gain on his part? Yeah too, I'd say.
Personally I'd like to see the State Department come out with a statement that really DOES rebut Hartzell's arguments instead of just rehashing the same old tired "we make no claim" shite that doesn't even address the issue.

[Poagao]

The whole thing strikes me kind of like someone making up a nasty rumor about a famous celebrity and trying to milk them for it. "The fact of the argument"? It's an argument, basically saying that, if you hike up some treaties and disregard others, when it comes down to it, nobody Hartzell is interested in listening to specifically said that Taiwan is not a US territory. Therefore, of course, it is.

But I'm not even a pretend lawyer, so I'll just STFU now.

[Jack Burton]

1. Ga-ma's editing skills looks to be one with familiarity in the use of the bluebook or any style manual for that matter. So, inconclusive.

2. While you need a license to practice law in the the states, I don't think it's crazy for a lay person to voice his opinion or argue a legal issue, and still have a valid point. After all, we have pro se applicants. Anyways, if it's a sound legal argument, who cares that he's not qualified. This is not a horse and cart logic. Does a lawyer's argument carry more weight? Maybe, but more so if his argument is good. I've seen pretty bad lawyers that are as dumb as a brick.

3. What's the big fuss all about? The State Dept.'s response sidesteps the question, it could be argued. Maybe the question is not mature as no claim has been made. I don't know international laws of war. Maybe a country needs to declare a claim as a matter of law. Maybe occupation alone is insufficient. Maybe you need intent + occupation. I don't know the answer to that. But perhaps the issue is either immature or moot depending on how you look at it. In other words, it's a carefully worded statement that does not directly answer the question of de jure occupation as the FAC presented as you've conceded. To me that shouldn't bring Hartzell any hope. He can wait until the cows come home or whatever. It means that the US will, in all likelihood barring some strange days, never say it's claiming Taiwan as a result of events that occurred in the aftermath of WWII.

4. What does it matter that you've studied US Const. Law. That has little or no bearing here. This is more a matter of jures cogens, international law, law of war, etc. If you "practice" Const. Law, you're probably more likely a First Am. lawyer, a criminal prosecutor/defender, in which case nobody here is qualified to talk about this thread, and therefore, everyone should STFU. haha.

Bring the Smithee here. I want to see his logic on this.

This whole thread is such a non-issue.

[Hartzell]

I should add my comments at this point.

This "Letter from the State Department" has caused quite a stink in this thread so far, with a lot of people arguing back and forth about the meaning and intent of the State Department's reply.

The earliest copy of this letter which I have seen was emailed to me by a Mr. Sidney Chen, from the San Francisco area, several months ago. In his original inquiry letter to the State Department, which he and I worked on together, we mentioned the following internet page --
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/milgovex.htm

and asked the State Department to provide look at the Chart which compares the post-war situations of California, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Ryukyus, and Taiwan and provide the missing date for the end of USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan.

The State Department ignored this aspect of the inquiry, and simply issued a general type of letter, which is very similar to (or perhaps almost exactly the same as) the one being discussed in this thread.

According to Article 4b of the SFPT, United States Military Government (USMG) jurisdiction was active over the Article 2 and Article 3 cessions when the treaty came into effect on April 28, 1952.

4(b): Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.

In regard to the Article 3 territories, the Ryukyu island group was the last one where USMG jurisdiction was terminated. As we know, the sovereignty of these Article 3 territories was transferred back to Japan.

Taiwan was ceded by Japan in Article 2(b).

2(b): Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

The United States is the "principal occupying power" as per Article 23(a), and USMG jurisdiction over Article 2(b) territories is active as per the provisions of Article 4(b).

The State Department completely avoided the issue of when that USMG jurisdiction over "Formosa and the Pescadores" formally ended.

From our point of view, of course, there has never been any announcement of the end of that jurisdiction, and hence Taiwan remains as an overseas territory of the USA under military government.

For a definition of "military government," see --
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/axoverv6.htm#p362