Quo vadis, Iaponia?

[Keel]

Then I am afraid you do not understand the fundamentals of jurisprudence.

I have already stated that there was no doubt on the fact that these atrocities had been committed. The question was about the legality of the Tribunal itself. A Tribunal set up by those who win a war to try those who have lost is unjust, and against the foundations of Natural Justice: one must not be a judge in one's own cause. The War Tribunal should have been under the aegis of an international non-partisan forum, such as the ICJ.

I have not said that the atrocities were not committed, so stop wasting your own effort in pointing out the obvious.



Ergo, China is the belligerent, expansionist power in Asia at present. The Japanese have friendly relations with all other countries apart from China. They are held in high regard for their non-belligerent, non-expansionist diplomacy. Instead of criticizing, the Chinese regime would be well-advised to learn from the Japanese as to how friendly relations ought to be maintained with neighbours.

your persistent and overt protection of the judge and war crimes is again disgusting

If there is insurmountable concensus that the war crimes were established then why you keep harping wasteful and nonsenscal arguments for the judge's stupidity and unprofessional conduct in reaching his legal judgement.

He is a failed person holding the position at the Tribunal and a big disgrace PERIOD


China has not fired a single cracker in Asia in the last 3 decades
What is the belligerence about?

 

[TaiShang]

It discriminates. It treats foreigners like shit. It does not even pretend to be polite, anymore.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in East Asia.

Maybe we in Taiwan have one or two things to learn from Japan.

The dangerous Japan is the one that bows down to the West's demands.

An independent Japan in real sense is a lot more preferable.

 

[Jacob Martin]

your persistent and overt protection of the judge and war crimes is again disgusting

If there is insurmountable concensus that the war crimes were established then why you keep harping wasteful and nonsenscal arguments for the judge's stupidity and unprofessional conduct in reaching his legal judgement.

He is a failed person holding the position at the Tribunal and a big disgrace PERIOD


China has not fired a single cracker in Asia in the last 3 decades
What is the belligerence about?

To understand principles of natural justice, you need exposure to a legal system that does not have kangaroo courts like China does. So you must study other legal systems. You will then realize where you are going wrong.

China has not fired a shot? So I guess all the fuss over Senkaku Islands, Spratleys, South China Seas, Tibet, Ughyurs, incursions into Indian territory, etc. etc. are just nothing?

 

[TaiShang]

@Nihonjin1051 , interesting comment I found under a Global Times article by a reader from Japan:

Hideo Watanabe :

I suspect that the author seems to have some misunderstanding or confusion about Japanese conservatives.

A great number of politicians including Mr. Abe belong to the largest right wing organization called Nippon Kaigi which emphasizes the value of Japanese tradition and culture on paper.

However, what those politicians do is deemed completely opposite to destroy traditionally harmonized way of living and society by their assertive support for neo-liberal economic policy. And what Mr. Abe has done with the controversial security bill is obviously to enhance more unequal US-Japan alliance.

I wonder if this author has no idea about bargaining power, say, between US and Japan.

It is a real mystery for quite a few Japanese including myself why those right wingers under Nippon Kaigi don’t fight against the apparent US influence to insult their core value.

Among right wingers there are some groups called genuine conservatives who want to make Japan truly independent and they actually express their opposition to the security bill because of the same reason I mentioned above..

I simply called those right wingers such as Mr. Abe bogus right wingers or gutless conservatives.

 

[Keel]

To understand principles of natural justice, you need exposure to a legal system that does not have kangaroo courts like China does. So you must study other legal systems. You will then realize where you are going wrong.

You are going into deep disgusting arguments for protection of the most heinous at all costs which is down to sheer nonsense

What is the International Military Tribunal for the Far East having to do with the Courts in China and how was the Trial associated with the jurisdiction of China's legal system and which section of Chinese Laws had been applied throughout the trials?

We have one Chinese judge on the bench of the Tribunal which has done the right thing professionally and in the most honourable fashion

Chinese Judge Mei Ru'ao at the 1946 Tokyo trial (post 155)
Source: Images: the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression | Page 11

The production of one disgraceful indian judge is enough to talk about the quality of legal system in india

The most important thing for any court in the world to determine the outcome of any case is EVIDENCE. There are mountains of evidence against the Jpnese in the trial and still the indian judge demonstrated his incompetence and stupidity in delivering his verdict

Then what is there to further argument about when you have lost the case of argument in your own admission of the war crimes committed by the japanese which has the effect of telling to the world that the indian judge is a failure and a disgrace

China has not fired a shot? So I guess all the fuss over Senkaku Islands, Spratleys, South China Seas, Tibet, Ughyurs, incursions into Indian territory, etc. etc. are just nothing?

We are holding ontl our positions to all our severeignty territories with firm beliefs and proactive measures
Diaoyu Islands and all the other territories you've mentioned belong to China by law and evidenced by history

 

[Jacob Martin]

You are going into deep disgusting arguments for protection of the most heinous at all costs which is down to sheer nonsense

What is the International Military Tribunal for the Far East have to do with the Courts in China and how was the Trial fallen into the jurisdiction of China's legal system and which section of Chinese Laws had been applied throughout the trials?

The most important thing for any court in the world to determine the outcome of any case is EVIDENCE. There are mountains of evidence against the Jpnese in the trial and still the indian judge demonstrated his incompetence and stupidity in delivering his verdict

In trying to withdraw from a losing argument you have admitted the presence of war crimes by the Jpnese.
That is to confirm you have agreed the indian judge is gravely wrong and he's failed in his postion to act professionally in his judicial duty

Then what is there to further argument about when you have lost the case of argument in your own admission of the war crimes committed by the japanese which has the effect of telling to the world that the indian judge is a failure and a disgrace



We are holding on our positions to all our severeignty territories with firm beliefs and proactive measures
Diaoyu Islands and all the other territories you've mentioned belong to China by law and evidenced by history

Before evidence comes Jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction of the tribunal is disputed, all proceedings under it are disputed as well. The question of jurisdiction is separate from that of evidence. Why don't you first read how the legal systems in the civilized world deal with the question of jurisdiction, especially in light of principles of natural justice. I already laid out the argument, whereas you are simply repeating your bland assertion that the forum does not matter. Law is not a handmaiden of disingenuous "gotcha" debates where you simply ignore global position on a subject for the sake of your own narrow, Mainland-specific version.

There is no question of withdrawing from the argument - if I were to argue as disingenuously as you do, I would dispute everything and concede nothing. It is you who is simply ignoring the basic premise of the dissenting judgment. The question of China's legal system is pertinent, as China's kangaroo court system could be the reason as to why you either don't understand the question of jurisdiction, or have no respect for it. Using strong words like "failure" and "disgrace" may have an effect on your own psyche, but they fail to impact this discussion in any meaningful way.

As for your claim over all of South China Sea and all other disputed territories, that is the reason why China has bad relations with all its neighbours, and is deeply distrusted by each and every one of them. Before pointing fingers at the Japanese for events 70 years in the past, you should first assess the reality of China's present-day relations with its neighbours.

 

[Aepsilons]

Before evidence comes Jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction of the tribunal is disputed, all proceedings under it are disputed as well. The question of jurisdiction is separate from that of evidence. Why don't you first read how the legal systems in the civilized world deal with the question of jurisdiction, especially in light of principles of natural justice. I already laid out the argument, whereas you are simply repeating your bland assertion that the forum does not matter. Law is not a handmaiden of disingenuous "gotcha" debates where you simply ignore global position on a subject for the sake of your own narrow, Mainland-specific version.

There is no question of withdrawing from the argument - if I were to argue as disingenuously as you do, I would dispute everything and concede nothing. It is you who is simply ignoring the basic premise of the dissenting judgment. The question of China's legal system is pertinent, as China's kangaroo court system could be the reason as to why you either don't understand the question of jurisdiction, or have no respect for it. Using strong words like "failure" and "disgrace" may have an effect on your own psyche, but they fail to impact this discussion in any meaningful way.

As for your claim over all of South China Sea and all other disputed territories, that is the reason why China has bad relations with all its neighbours, and is deeply distrusted by each and every one of them. Before pointing fingers at the Japanese for events 70 years in the past, you should first assess the reality of China's present-day relations with its neighbours.

Why do i have a feeling that you are an attorney, lol. Or at least a legal specialist at an embassy.

Eloquently and professionally worded, deliberated, by the way. My hats off to you.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Why do i have a feeling that you are an attorney, lol. Or at least a legal specialist at an embassy.

Yes, I am a lawyer. Not only that, I also happen to know Dr. Radhabinod Pal's family personally. His son-in-law and eminent jurist Dr. Debi Pal used to be my neighbour for a long time.

But I thought mentioning either fact was not going to make @Keel any happier!

 

[Aepsilons]

Yes, I am a lawyer. Not only that, I also happen to know Dr. Radhabinod Pal's family personally. His son-in-law and eminent jurist Dr. Debi Pal used to be my neighbour for a long time.

But I thought mentioning either fact was not going to make @Keel any happier!

Well then, it is, indeed, an absolute pleasure to meet your acquaintance here in PDF.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Well then, it is, indeed, an absolute pleasure to meet your acquaintance here in PDF.

The pleasure is mine. You are one of the most patient and polite members of the PDF community. And please do not be deluded by my politeness in this particular discussion. I am usually not so well-disposed!

 

[Keel]

Before evidence comes Jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction of the tribunal is disputed, all proceedings under it are disputed as well. The question of jurisdiction is separate from that of evidence. Why don't you first read how the legal systems in the civilized world deal with the question of jurisdiction, especially in light of principles of natural justice. I already laid out the argument, whereas you are simply repeating your bland assertion that the forum does not matter. Law is not a handmaiden of disingenuous "gotcha" debates where you simply ignore global position on a subject for the sake of your own narrow, Mainland-specific version.

There is no question of withdrawing from the argument - if I were to argue as disingenuously as you do, I would dispute everything and concede nothing. It is you who is simply ignoring the basic premise of the dissenting judgment. The question of China's legal system is pertinent, as China's kangaroo court system could be the reason as to why you either don't understand the question of jurisdiction, or have no respect for it. Using strong words like "failure" and "disgrace" may have an effect on your own psyche, but they fail to impact this discussion in any meaningful way.

Where was the japanese war crimes tried and what juridiction of laws was the trial used?

In case you want to further confuse the readers, this is the location of the court
International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was convened at Ichigaya Court, formerly the Imperial Japanese Army HQ building, in Ichigaya, Tokyo.

and the application of laws in the Trial was modelled after the "Nuremberg Trials"

We would be glad to have the case tried in China and to save the trouble of having the ridiculous indian judge on the bench and that will also have saved the indians from exposing their uncivilised legal system and saved you from a total disgraceful embarrassment in history

As for your claim over all of South China Sea and all other disputed territories, that is the reason why China has bad relations with all its neighbours, and is deeply distrusted by each and every one of them. Before pointing fingers at the Japanese for events 70 years in the past, you should first assess the reality of China's present-day relations with its neighbours.

Of course we are pointing fingers at the japnese perrennial denial and white washing their serious wrong doings

We are not alone:

US historians criticize Tokyo’s efforts to whitewash war crimes - World Socialist Web Site
U.S. academics condemn Japanese efforts to revise history of ‘comfort women’ - The Washington Post
Historians condemn Japan’s whitewashing of war crimes - World Socialist Web Site
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - Japanese Historians Call for End to Whitewash
Western scholars press Japan's Abe on war history

And before you are pointing you indian fingers you have to wake up to face the reality of your own trust and relationships with indians neighbours and the jpanese trust and relationship with her neighbours

 

[Jacob Martin]

Where was the japanese war crimes tried and what juridiction of laws was the trial used?

In case you want to further confuse the readers, this is the location of the court
.......

and the application of laws in the Trial was modelled after the "Nuremberg Trials"

We would be glad to have the case tried in China and to save the trouble of having the ridiculous indian judge on the bench and that will also have saved the indians from exposing their uncivilised legal system and saved you from a total disgraceful embarrassment in history



Of course we are pointing fingers at the japnese perrennial denial and white washing their serious wrong doings

.............

And before you are pointing you indian fingers you have to wake up to face the reality of your own trust and relationships with indians neighbours and the jpanese trust and relationship with her neighbours

By jurisdiction, I don't mean location. I mean the legality of that particular court to try the matter. Location has nothing to do with it. As for the Nuremberg trials, they faced the same set of criticisms. Among others, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials "a fraud". Quincy Wright, in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1946), writes that the practice of making parties bound by rules that were yet to be framed at the time of the act (remember the ICJ/ICC were yet to be born) is questionable, at best. As for the question of "victor's justice", the same has also been challenged by A L Goodhart in The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials (Juridical Review, 1946). The fact that both trials were flawed under international as well as procedural laws is irrefutable. The only defence that has been raised effectively against this infirmity is that since war crimes did occur, so the guilty got what they deserved. I am not saying there is no merit to that argument, but you should also know both sided to the debate before condemning a well-thought out legal position.

There is a certain amount of historical revisionism in all countries. In China, for instance, they are busy trying to gloss over the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Forward. I am sure Japan also has its share of ultra-Nationalists doing the same. That should not be reason to tar all of Japan.

As for India's relationship with its neighbours, it was not me who complained of a conspiracy by all neighbours to contain us, did I?

 

[jhungary]

By jurisdiction, I don't mean location. I mean the legality of that particular court to try the matter. Location has nothing to do with it. As for the Nuremberg trials, they faced the same set of criticisms. Among others, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials "a fraud". Quincy Wright, in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1946), writes that the practice of making parties bound by rules that were yet to be framed at the time of the act (remember the ICJ/ICC were yet to be born) is questionable, at best. As for the question of "victor's justice", the same has also been challenged by A L Goodhart in The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials (Juridical Review, 1946). The fact that both trials were flawed under international as well as procedural laws is irrefutable. The only defence that has been raised effectively against this infirmity is that since war crimes did occur, so the guilty got what they deserved. I am not saying there is no merit to that argument, but you should also know both sided to the debate before condemning a well-thought out legal position.

There is a certain amount of historical revisionism in all countries. In China, for instance, they are busy trying to gloss over the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Forward. I am sure Japan also has its share of ultra-Nationalists doing the same. That should not be reason to tar all of Japan.

As for India's relationship with its neighbours, it was not me who complained of a conspiracy by all neighbours to contain us, did I?

I am afraid you are debating yourselves into a tape recorder. That man do not know what jurisdiction mean, let alone Jurisprudence.........

 

[Keel]

By jurisdiction, I don't mean location. I mean the legality of that particular court to try the matter. Location has nothing to do with it. As for the Nuremberg trials, they faced the same set of criticisms. Among others, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials "a fraud". Quincy Wright, in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1946), writes that the practice of making parties bound by rules that were yet to be framed at the time of the act (remember the ICJ/ICC were yet to be born) is questionable, at best. As for the question of "victor's justice", the same has also been challenged by A L Goodhart in The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials (Juridical Review, 1946). The fact that both trials were flawed under international as well as procedural laws is irrefutable. The only defence that has been raised effectively against this infirmity is that since war crimes did occur, so the guilty got what they deserved. I am not saying there is no merit to that argument, but you should also know both sided to the debate before condemning a well-thought out legal position.

There is a certain amount of historical revisionism in all countries. In China, for instance, they are busy trying to gloss over the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Forward. I am sure Japan also has its share of ultra-Nationalists doing the same. That should not be reason to tar all of Japan.

As for India's relationship with its neighbours, it was not me who complained of a conspiracy by all neighbours to contain us, did I?

Talking with you is like arguing with clueless indians like they have been beaten soundly in a match like this one

2015 FIBA Asia Championship - India v China Boxscore - FIBA.com

104 vs

58

But still clinging onto some nitty gritty non defining rulings in the match even when the game is conclusive and all over for the indians

The final outcome of the Far East Tribunal was

The war criminals were executed - though some of them were at large
The indian judge failed his duty and a disgrace!
Overall Justice was upheld during the judicial process.