#351=US#497=06.12.17=7; 10.27 #17 of 6th's
Rally#100 Crisis#45:-----
ChiangKMT Ma Crisis #30: http://tinyurl.com/sbsmf
FIC#23 http://fic.ic.org/
The Nonviolent Eucharist: http://tinyurl.com/y2kg9k
Anti-Imperialist League: http://tinyurl.com/uh8mn
Post-Modernism: destroys W Culture: http://tinyurl.com/ylytrl
Hittite 3,246-year-old dam revived: http://tinyurl.com/y9bh6o
下一個十億商機 超低價電腦 打造新台灣奇蹟
中時電子報╱彭漣漪/專題報導 2006-12-17 02:10
----------------------------------------------------
Hatta Yoichi: http://tinyurl.com/y2ogst :-----
[ Also: http://www.a-eda.net/asia/hatta.pdf ]
"" 八田與一は1886年、金沢市に生まれ、東大・土木工学を卒業後、24歳の時(1910年)に台湾総督府内務局土木課の技手としてつとめた。
当初は衛生工事を担当していたが、28歳からは水利事業を担当、設計工事の責任者として桃園の水利事業以降は第一人者として技師として認められることになった。
56歳で亡くなるまでほぼ全生涯を台湾に住み、台湾のために尽くした。
彼は、当時アジア一といわれた烏山頭ダムと1万6000キロにおよぶ灌漑用水路の建設(1920年着工10年を要した大規模土木事業)にあたり、人情味のある現場責任者として農民に慕われた。 ''
'' 台湾でTVドラマ化
八田與一氏がテレビドラマに/台湾意識の高揚めざし
八田與一、外代樹夫妻を主人公にしたテレビドラマが台湾のテレビ局「中華電視公司」でつくられることになった。ドラマのタイトルは「水色嘉南」、八田氏の命日5月8日に八田夫妻の墓石の立つ烏山頭水庫で撮影が開始され、来年5月8日に放送が始まる。なんと二十時間のドラマになる予定。配役の詳細は未定だが八田外代樹夫人には松田聖子が内定のようだ。日本での放映も検討されているとのこと大いに期待したい。 ''
'' 2004年5月29日台湾の実業家である許文龍氏から金沢市に寄贈された
八田與一技師の胸像・除幕式がありました (新聞記事)
63回目の命日にあたる2005年5月8日、八田與一技師墓前祭に参加しました。
ブログ:何でも書き書きエッセイ ブログ:ILoveASIA BLOG版
生誕120年墓前祭(2006年5月8日)
ブログ:ILoveASIA BLOG版 ''
'' (C)Copyright 2002-2006 Atsushi EDA All rights reserved ""
====================================================
Off "ROC": "" 台灣公論報: [[ 台灣人民供養連戰一家子人幾十年 ]]
如果不要亡國,台灣只剩一條路可走了:革命!
執政的民進黨 必須稟著 破釜沈舟的膽識,馬上與「中國流亡政府」切割關係,
把整個「中華民國體制」丟進垃圾桶,向國際宣示:
台灣主權屬於二千三百萬台灣人民,將在 聯合國憲章 的保障下
依照 台灣關係法 實踐主權在民,舉辦全民公投,國家定位,並決定新國名、制訂新憲法。 ''
'' 〔記者蘇永耀/綜合報導〕針對國民黨榮譽主席連戰之子連勝文調侃總統夫人吳淑珍應訊時會昏倒,「但逛街累卻不會昏倒」等語。民進黨文宣部主任孟義超昨日痛批連勝文這種狂傲態度,已是「禽獸不如」。國民黨中常委連勝文正在中國參加「兩岸青年論壇」。據當地傳媒報導,他前天在北京聽到扁嫂昏倒消息後向記者說:「我想逛街應該滿累的,逛街不會暈倒,出庭會暈倒,可能壓力比較大吧」。
北京的當地記者再提到吳淑珍入院時血壓很低,連勝文說,「我最近血壓也有點低,因為輔選很累,所以辛苦,不過我還是硬撐著,還沒有昏倒!」他還意有所指說:「即使當小偷被提告,也是有出庭的義務」。
民進黨痛批:狂傲、沒血沒淚. 對連勝文在中國北京的談話,民進黨原打算召開記者會重砲回應,後來認為沒有必要與這種「心不在台灣」的人一般見識。不過,孟義超難掩怒氣說,難道台灣人民供養連戰一家子人幾十年,只能換得這種「沒血沒淚」回報。
孟義超說,連勝文與其父親連戰一樣,不願也不屑與台灣人為伍,更鄙視與台灣的執政黨合作,卻寧降服中國人,極盡諂媚去巴結北京政府;連勝文這番話,就是最好的見證。 ""
====================================================
#0. Taiwan Legal Status:---------
'Relationship between Taiwan, ROC, and the USA'
RWH (Taipei)
Sunday, December 17, 2006 7:13:09 AM
To: bbcwebb@yahoo.com; t.c.@charter.net
"" RE: Relationship between Taiwan, ROC, and the USA
For a correct statement of the relationship, please see the summary of our "Complaint for Declaratory Relief," which was filed Oct. 24, 2006 in Washington D.C. federal court --
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/taiwan/suitsumm.htm [ >#0-2 ]
English language information --
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tpolstat.htm [ >#0-1 ]
Sincerely,
r.m.@gmail.com
Dec. 17, 2006 ""
#0-1. 'Resolving the Political Status of Taiwan, through the US Court system': http://tinyurl.com/ye5rvm
"" Technically speaking, it is not possible to deal with "political issues" through the judiciary. However, the courts can look at civil rights issues, and once these are carefully delineated, it may be much easier to understand the parameters of all related political questions.
In order to obtain better civil rights protections for the Taiwanese people, we need to determine the true status of Taiwan under international law. The United States, and indeed many world nations, have traditionally maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity on this issue, however we can discover the true facts of the matter by looking at the historical and legal record.
Taiwan, including the Pescadores, was ceded by China (then under the Qing Dynasty) to Japan in 1895. With regard to the beginning of the Pacific war in December 1941, the following facts are important:
Contrary to the claims of some historians, Taiwan was not part of the China Theatre during the war.
All military attacks against Taiwan during the war were conducted by United States military forces.
Taiwan was de jure part of Japanese territory up until late April 1952.
After the events of August 1945, the Japanese Emperor announced his acceptance of the terms of an unconditional surrender. Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered on Oct. 25, 1945, thus marking the beginning of the belligerent occupation of "Formosa and the Pescadores." Although the surrender ceremonies in Taiwan were held on behalf of the Allies, the ensuing military occupation on Taiwan was conducted on behalf of the "conqueror" and "principal occupying power" -- the United States of America.
After losing the Chinese civil war in 1949, the ROC government fled in exile to Taiwan, an area it was holding under military occupation on behalf of the principal occupying power. The People's Republic of China (PRC) was established on the mainland on October 1, 1949, and hence became the legal successor government to the ROC in the mainland areas.
In the April 28, 1952, San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. However, no receiving country was named for this territorial cession. Hence, Taiwan has remained under the jurisdiction of the principal occupying power as an interim status condition.
Based on this simple legal and historical analysis, and with reference to the decisions in the Insular Cases of the US Supreme Court, the Taiwanese people, by virtue of living in a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, should be entitled to enjoy fundamental rights under US laws, including the US Constitution. It should therefore be possible to file a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the appropriate US Court to obtain these rights.
In this way, the controversy regarding the political status of Taiwan can be resolved as well.
A Complaint was filed in late October 2006. The United States government has until late December 2006 to reply. Full details on the content of this Complaint, along with relevant historical and legal background information, are given below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
filed Oct. 24, 2006, in Washington, D.C.
Summary: Complaint for Declaratory Relief (.htm)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. The One China Policy and Taiwan's Identity Crisis
2. ABCD Chart of territorial cession
3. The Territorial Cessions of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, & Taiwan
4. Are Taiwanese Persons ROC Citizens? -- In Search of a Legal Basis for ROC Citizenship
5. Background Information and Statement of Purpose
6. Letters and Commentary
7. Taiwanese should seek US Constitutional rights
Statement of Historical and Legal Evidence for US Nationality Status provided in accompaniment with Application for US nationality non-citizen PASSPORT by native Taiwanese person born in Taiwan
9. US Insular Law Considerations on the Origin and Classification of "Aliens"
10. Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty's Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores (pdf) Harvard Asia Quarterly, Fall 2004
11. Three Insular Cases and the Taiwan status
12. Important Quotations from Downes v. Bidwell
13. On the Subjects of "Conquest" and "Dominion"
14. Unincorporated Territory under the United States Military Government
15. The Law of Occupation Background Information
16. FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare Chapter 6: OCCUPATION para. 366
17. Territorial Cession after War and the End of Military Government
18. Our inquiry to the US government -- What are you doing?
19. Does Taiwan Meet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"?
20. Why Isn't the US Flag Flying Over Taiwan?
21. A new recognition of the United States of America
Taiwan Nation Party
Taipei, Taiwan
and
Taiwan Defense Alliance
Taichung, Taiwan
For more information, contact:
Chinese & Japanese language spokesperson:
Dr. Roger C. S. Lin
Gaoxiong, Taiwan
Roger C. S. Lin's Chinese website
English language spokesperson:
Richard W. Hartzell
Taipei, Taiwan
tda.taiwan@gmail.com ""
#0-2. 'Complaint for Declaratory Relief: 告美國政府之訴訟案': http://tinyurl.com/ybbrpp
"" Taiwan Nation Party v. United States of America: 建國黨告美國政府
United States District Court, Washington D.C.
美國首都華府,聯邦法院
filed: Oct. 24, 2006: 2006年10月24日遞狀
Summary of the Complaint for Declaratory Relief
本訴訟案之摘要如下:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Republic of China was entrusted with authority over Formosa and the Pescadores as agent for the Allied Powers. This arrangement was specified in General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945. Such trust on behalf of the Allied Powers remains in effect today. Nothing in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nor in any other treaty ever executed by or between the Republic of China (ROC) and the other Allied Powers has altered this trusteeship arrangement. (See pages 2 to 3)
中華民國對管理台灣之身分僅係代表同盟國。這樣的安排記錄在 1945年9月2日 的一般命令第一號。這個代表同盟國來管理台灣的關係到今天仍然存在。無論是戰後的舊金山和平條約或其餘中華民國與其他同盟國任何條約,對於這樣的關係絲毫沒有改變。
(2) Defendant United States of America is and remains the "principal occupying Power" of Taiwan under SFPT Article 23(a). (See page 4)
依據舊金山和平條約第 23 條 a 項,被告美國政府一直是台灣的「主要佔領權國」。
(3) By way of historical background, following the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan exercised sovereignty over Taiwan and held title to its territory. (See page 6)
台灣之相關歷史背景是:依據馬關條約,日本自 1895 年起,對台灣行使主權並擁有台灣的領土所有權。
(4) The United States entered the Pacific War against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. The Allied Powers defeated Japan, and it surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945. (See page 6)
美國於 1941年12月8日 向日本帝國宣戰。日本被同盟國打敗,並於 1945年9月2日 正式投降。
(5) Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of the ROC's Chiang Kai-shek (CKS), Taiwan (Formosa) remained de jure Japanese territory. The ROC government occupied Taiwan (Formosa) on behalf of the Allied Powers (led by the United States) pending a peace treaty with Japan, which would change the legal status of Taiwan (Formosa). (See page 7)
蔣介石的中華民國集團在台灣接受日本軍隊之投降以後,台灣在法律上仍屬於日本領土。中華民國政府佔領台灣是受美國領導之同盟國之委託。台灣的法律地位必須待戰後與日本的和平條約簽訂生效後才能作進一步的規範。
(6) Pursuant to the SFPT, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) and title to its territory. Article 2(b) of the SFPT provided, "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." (See page 8)
依據舊金山和平條約,日本放棄對台灣的主權與台灣的所有權。舊金山和平條約第 2 條 b 項規定:「日本放棄對台灣、澎湖之一切權利、所有權與請求權。」
(7) China never became a party to the SFPT. Neither the ROC government, which occupied the island of Taiwan (Formosa) as agent for the "principal occupying Power," nor the government of the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), which controlled mainland China, signed, ratified, or adhered to the SFPT. (See page 9)
中國並沒有簽署或參與舊金山和平條約。無論是代表「主要佔領權國」佔領台灣的中華民國政府,或控制中國大陸的中華人民共和國,均沒有簽署、批准或正式聲明遵守舊金山和平條約。
(8) Article 25 of the SFPT specifically provided that the Treaty did "not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which [was] not an Allied Power [as defined in Article 23(a),]" subject to certain narrow exceptions set forth in Article 21. Accordingly, China, a non-party, did not receive "any right, titles or benefits" under the SFPT except as specifically provided in Article 21. (See page 9)
舊金山和平條約第 25 條特別規定:「本條約所謂之同盟國,謂與日本進行戰爭之國家,或依據第 23 條所列舉先前為該國一部分領土的國家,而此國家已經簽署並批准本條約者。除了第 21 條的相關規範以外,本條約不授與任何權利、所有權或利益予非前述聯盟國之任何國家。」 是故,中國非作為舊金山和平條約所指之同盟國,除了第 21 條的相關規範以外,並不受該條約的任何權利、所有權或利益。
(9) Specifically, China, a non-party, was not entitled to any benefits under Article 2(b) dealing with the territory of Taiwan (Formosa). The parties to the SFPT chose not to give any "right, title [or] claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" to China. (See page 10)
特別重要的是,中國以非該條約所指之同盟國,無法獲得有關舊金山和平條約第 2 條 b 項對台灣和澎湖之任何權利、所有權或請求權。依據舊金山和平條約的同盟國所寫之條款內容,中國並未獲得台灣和澎湖之任何權利、所有權或請求權。
(10) While Article 2(b) of the SFPT did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23 of the SFPT designated the United States as "the principal occupying Power" with respect to the territories covered by the SFPT, including "Formosa and the Pescadores." (See page 11)
舊金山和平條約第 2 條 b 項雖然未指定「台灣與澎湖之權利、所有權和請求權」之收受國,但該條約第 23 條為其所規範的地理範圍指定美國為「主要佔領權國」,此地理範圍也包括台灣與澎湖。
(11) Following the entry into force of the SFPT, the government of the ROC continued to occupy Taiwan (Formosa) as agent for the United States, "the principal occupying Power." (See page 11)
舊金山和平條約生效以後,中華民國政府繼續代表「主要佔領權國」的美國佔領台灣。
(12) The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, which was signed on April 28, 1952, and entered into force on August 5, 1952 (the "Treaty of Taipei"), did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) from Japan to China either. (See page 11)
1952年4月28日 簽署並於 同年8月5日 生效之中日和平條約,其內容亦沒有把台灣的所有權過戶給中國。
(13) The SFPT did not terminate the agency relationship between the United States, the principal, and the ROC, the agent, with regard to the occupation and administration of Taiwan (Formosa). (See page 12)
對於美國與中華民國之間有關佔領與管理台灣之主從關係,並不是因為舊金山和平條約生效而結束。
(14) Following the entry into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, the ROC did not exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and did not have title to its territory. (See page 13)
自 1952年4月28日 舊金山和平條約生效以來,中華民國對台灣沒有行使主權也不擁有台灣的領土所有權。
(15) From 1945 to the present, Taiwan has been an occupied territory of the United States, "the principal occupying Power." Currently, Taiwan is an occupied territory of the United States, and Taiwan's statehood status is disputed and uncertain. Neither the SFPT nor the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments after 1952 changed the status of Taiwan. (See page 13)
1945年 至今,台灣一直是美國的佔領地,美國是「主要佔領權國」。目前,台灣是美國的佔領地,而台灣是否符合主權國家之認定標準是相當有爭議的,並未確定。無論是舊金山和平條約或中日和平條約,或其他 1952年 以後的法律文件,對台灣之法律地位並未有所改變。
(16) The United States as the principal occupying Power is still holding the sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory in trust for the benefit of the Taiwanese people. The occupying Power never transferred the sovereignty over Taiwan or title to its territory to any other government. (See page 14)
在目前,作為主要佔領權國的美國仍握有台灣的主權以及台灣領土的所有權。這是一個信託關係,而受益者則是台灣人民。佔領權國(美國)尚未把台灣的主權或台灣領土的所有權過戶給其他國家政府。
(17) The international community does not recognize Taiwan as a state. (See page 14)
國際社會並不認為台灣是一個主權獨立的國家。
(18) On October 25, 2004, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed the United States' continuing policy towards Taiwan. He stated, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." (See page 15)
2004年10月25日 ﹝前﹞國務卿鮑爾重申美國對台灣一貫的立場。他說:「台灣不是獨立的,也不享有一個國家的主權」。
(19) RELIEF REQUESTED: Considering that the judicial branch has the authority and obligation to preserve the Constitutional rights of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such persons are United States citizens, non-citizen nationals, or aliens, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter an Order declaring that:
請求法院判決之項目: 由於司法部門有權利與責任維護在美國管轄內下人民在憲法下之權利,無論這些人民是美國公民、美國國民(非公民)或外國人,原告祈求 貴院判決如下:
Plaintiffs, by virtue of living in a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
原告基於居住在美國管轄下之領土,
* have fundamental rights under United States laws, including the United States Constitution. (See page 15)
應享受美國憲法與美國法律體系之下的基本權利保障。
* have the Fifth Amendment right and Fourteenth Amendment right against deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. (See page 16)
應享受美國憲法第五修正案與第十四修正案之生命、自由、財產與正當法律程序之保障。
* have the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, including deprivation of citizenship and being "stateless." (See page 16)
應享受美國憲法第八修正案之保障,不得處於殘酷或奇特之懲罰,包含剝奪國籍權和淪落為「無國籍者」。
* have the Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection of the laws. (See page 16) etc.
應享受美國憲法第十四修正案有關法律之平等保護的權利,等等。
* 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. (See page 16)
應享受美國憲法第五修正案之保障,不得剝奪其旅行權(包含申請護照之權)的權利,除非經正當法律程序,包含相關單位之通知以及給予申訴之機會。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete English language version of this Complaint, along with much additional background information, is available at the following internet address:
訴訟狀的英文原文以及其他相關之英文背景資料,請參考以下網址:
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/ ""
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home