NYC lawyer: Iranian cameraman seeks US asylum - Houston Chronicle [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Space Policy, Explained (Part 1)A description of the state of play for NASA in late January, 2011
NEW YORK (AP) รข€" A lawyer for a cameraman who was accompanying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) to the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly in New York says his client has defected.
Paul O'Dwyer, a New York City-based lawyer who is representing Hassan Gol Khanban, confirmed Sunday that his client is seeking asylum in the U.S. He provided no other details.
It wasn't immediately clear when the Iranian defected or his current whereabouts.
A message left with Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for the Iranian mission to the U.N., was not immediately returned.
Ahmadinejad addressed the assembly on Wednesday, his last as president of Iran.
Suggest NYC lawyer: Iranian cameraman seeks US asylum - Houston Chronicle Topics Question by Usa U: Why does US support the "One China policy" but sells weapons to Taiwan? Under the "One China Policy", US government reconises People's Republic of China as the legimate government of China and oppose Taiwanese independent movement. However, why on the other hand we selling weapons to Taiwan? Best answer for Why does US support the "One China policy" but sells weapons to Taiwan?:
Answer by Joshua R
We don't have an embassy and don't recognize them with other diplomatic privledges. It's weird but there is only one China.
Answer by Adam B
We all know that the "One China Policy" is nonsense. No one really believes in it or even knows what it means except for the PRC, but every country goes along with it just to maintain friendly relations. In principle, most people in the Western world believe that Taiwan has the right to self-determination, especially since it's the only functional Chinese democracy on the planet. That's why we sell Taiwan weapons - because in our hearts we know they're right.
Answer by DAR
Stupid question. They're an island. They might need them to fight pirates.
Answer by rangerleadstheway
the united states has a law that it will arm and protect taiwan against any type of invasion from the mainland. this is the guarantee the u.s gave to taiwan when it ceded its u.n seat to the commies in the late 50's. while the united states support the one-china policy, china knows that unless it becomes a democracy, the united states will be at its doorstep to protect the people of taiwan.
Answer by Coordinates-TW
Technically speaking, from the standpoint of international law or US constitutional law, sale of weapons to the Taiwan governing authorities is illegal. In order to understand this, it is first necessary to discuss Taiwan's international legal status. The following points are important -- * None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC upon the date of surrender of Japanese troops on Oct. 25, 1945, (or any date thereafter.) In other words, there was no "Taiwan Retrocession Day." * Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until April 28, 1952, the date of the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952. * In the post-war peace treaty (SFPT), Japan renounced all right, claim, and title to Taiwan, but no country was designated as "receiving country." The ROC and PRC, as non-signatories to the SFPT, cannot claim any rights under the treaty. * THEREFORE, the "One China Policy" of the US Executive Branch is 100% correct. The PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. The ROC is neither the legitimate government of China nor the legitimate government of Taiwan. Under international law, Taiwan has no government. Taiwan is not a country and cannot enter the United Nations. See -- http://www.taiwanadvice.com/harintmcexc.htm#part2 * Taiwan is not a part of the ROC. The United States has never recognized the forcible incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory. * IN SUMMARY, the position of the ROC in Taiwan is (a) subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945; and (b) a government in exile, beginning mid-December 1949. The United States of America is the principal occupying power (see SFPT Article 23a) and USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is active (see SFPT Article 4b). Hence, Taiwan is an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of USMG, with administrative authority for the occupation delegated to the Chinese Nationalists. * The Taiwanese people, by virtue of living in a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, (1) have fundamental rights under United States laws, including the United States Constitution. (2) have the Fifth Amendment right and Fourteenth Amendment right against deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. (3) have the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, including deprivation of citizenship and being "stateless." (4) have the Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection of the laws, etc. (5) may not be deprived of the Fifth Amendment right to travel (including the right to apply for a passport) without due process of law, which requires a notice and a hearing. (6) may not be conscripted into a rebel Chinese army in violation of the internationally recognized laws of war. (See -- ADDENDUM ) (7) SINCE under international law Taiwan is not a part of ROC territory, it is illegal for the ROC government in exile in Taiwan to maintain a (a) Ministry of National Defense, or to (b) institute mandatory military conscription policies over the local Taiwanese population. (8) To restate this, the Taiwanese people, by virtue of living in a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, must come under the "common defense" clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Sec. 8). No states or territories under US administrative authority have established their own military branches, departments, or ministries. So, "national defense" matters for Taiwan are 100% the responsibility of the Dept. of Defense in the Pentagon. (Note: the Taiwan Relations Act only states that weapons will be "made available," and does not specifically specify the actions of "selling .... " .) * * * * * Further details regarding Taiwan's legal status are as follows -- * The procedures for incorporation of Taiwan into ROC territory via Article 4 of the ROC Constitution have never been completed. Hence, whether from the view of international law or ROC domestic law, it is totally without legal basis to say that Taiwan is a part of the ROC. ("Prescription" cannot be invoked because "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.") * The ROC Constitution is not the organic law of the Taiwan cession. Taiwan was not a part of the ROC upon its founding in 1912, and has never been incorporated into ROC territory. * It is legally incorrect to say that the native persons of Taiwan are ROC citizens. See -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm * The PRC, as the successor government to the ROC, claims Taiwan as its territory based on the successor government principle. However, that is invalid since Taiwan has never belonged to the ROC anyway. * [[The Kinmen and Mazu island groups remain as sovereign ROC territory. ]] * After war, legal relationships for the territory do not arise from a consideration of what country's troops accepted the surrender, what countries troops declared (or fought) war initially, what country's troops announced the intention to annex what particular territory, etc. etc. Legal relationships for the territory arise from a consideration of "Who is the occupying power?" See Axioms -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/axioms6.htm === ADDENDUM === INTERNATIONAL LAW CONSIDERATIONS: The Hague Conventions and Hague Regulations of 1907 form a part of customary law recognized by all civilized nations. In the Hague Regulations, we can look at SECTION III: MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- This HR 42 is quoted in US Army Field Manual, FM 27-10 THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE, para. 351, as being the definition of "military occupation," as well as being some sort of gauge for marking the point in time when the military occupation begins. Hence we conclude that the completion of the Oct. 25, 1945 Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taiwan marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. There was no transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC on this date. Reference is made to FM 27-10: --- 358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty --- Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress. (See GC, art. 47; para. 365 herein.) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- The Republic of China's exercise of authority over Formosa and the Pescadores has included one or more announcements of the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as "ROC citizens" in the 1945 to 1947. Such announcements, before the terms of a post-war peace treaty have even been decided upon, are violations of international law. --- 359. Oath of Allegiance Forbidden --- It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. (HR, art. 45.) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- When the central government of the ROC moved to occupied Taiwan in December 1949, it became a government in exile.
depeche mode - policy of truth (1990)pop music...respect to mute records You had something to hide Should have hidden it, shouldn't you Now you're not satisfied With what you're being put through It's just time to pay the price For not listening to advice And deciding in your youth On the policy of truth Things could be so different now It used to be so civilized You will always wonder how It could have been if you'd only lied It's too late to change events It's time to face the consequence For delivering the proof In the policy of truth Never again Is what you swore The time before Never again Is what you swore The time before Now you're standing there tongue tied You'd better learn your lesson well Hide what you have to hide And tell what you have to tell You'll see your problems multiplied If you continually decide To faithfully pursue The policy of truth Never again Is what you swore The time before
0 comments:
Post a Comment