What kinds of questions can the police ask? They were there without permission and planted the national flag. Whether they did this in violation any laws is the only question the police need to ask. And this question should be asked of legal experts not right-wing loonies.

Well, if the landing was ill-advised, but if it was illegal, and they charge anyone, they'll have to explain why they released the Chinese who committed the same offense. Could be a long explanation, I imagine.

were trying to “get a handle on what happened,”

Not the sharpest detectives there again

Kabukilover/What kinds of questions can the police ask? How was the weather on the island? Did you have fun? Were there any snakes? Would you like to go there again in the near future? and so on and on.... They are just doing this to raise awareness and help against the up-rise in China / Taiwan. On the other hand, if they didn't do this China may grow restless and do something dumb.

Law is the Law, are the police hazy about it? Either it's broken or not? The impression I had was it's illegal to set foot on these Islands without permission. Might be a loophole for nutters's?

there is no Diaoyu islands. Since i was born it was already Senkaku islands...

What kinds of questions can the police ask? 1) You say you were there 5 hours. What did you do during that time? 2) Didn't you need to use the loo? 3) Did you smoke any cigarettes? 4) What did you use for an ashtray? Ah ha! Charged with littering.

(I'd have it that way, if I could. And the right-wingers would likely be happy to be charged, as it would be further display that Japan is in control of the territory.)

What kinds of questions can the police ask?

I suppose the police would have to officially ascertain (for all the paperwork) that those who landed did so with the specific intent to break the law and, if so, for what particular purpose .

Give them medals and arrange parade in Ginza for them. Have them visit Schools to boost patriotism.

Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

In the Potsdam Declaration, it was clearly stated that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan agreed to Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender i.e. the speech delivered by Emperor Hirohito on 15 August 1945, the day of Japan's surrender, Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese people that Japan would accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in order to end WWII.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, it was clearly stated that:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

And in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, it was clearly stated that:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

Isn't it private property? Arrest them for trespassing

The police should have prevented the landing of the Nationalists in the first place if they are serious in reducing tensions with China. Obviously, the Japanese government is not. What hypocrisy now to question these guys and charge them with a minor offence. It would not surprise me if they have actually if their actions have been encouraged deliberately by the Japanese authorities.

Right, Left or Centre. As Japanese, we need to visit the Shinto Shrine and Buddhist Monasteries more often (there are still plenty around) these are living evidence of the vast cultural exchanges between China and Japan during the Nara Period in Japan and Tang Dynasty in China. Our cultures really diverged in that period and had been every since.

They were probably asking them what the membership requirements of Ganbare Nippon were and if they could join them for the next trip on their day off.

Too late.

it should be clear what kind of questions they are asking otherwise it will create doubts

This is very three stooges like................................yuck yuck yuck

So if I swam up and put a Canadian flag on the land, what would they charge me with? Barge these guys the with the same. Just me or will these guys get off with nothing.

I'M CONFUSED

Tokyo deported pro-Beijing protesters who had landed on the island

10 Japanese nationals can't land on the Island Of Senkaku.

The police were examining whether the landing was “appropriate under the law,” he said while declining to give further details.

So who has the right to land on it ?

I would let the U.N. dispute this matter. Hopefully the U.N. will give it to Taiwan and that will be the end of it.

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 04:13PM JST Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, >Russia and Japan. In the Potsdam Declaration, it was clearly stated that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of >Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

It was determined that Japan could keep the Senkakus as they wer incorporated as Terra Nullius and were never taken by greed or force from any country. Nice try though.

tmarieAug. 20, 2012 - 08:44PM JST So if I swam up and put a Canadian flag on the land, what would they charge me with? Barge these guys the with the >same. Just me or will these guys get off with nothing.

You would be charged with the same, landing without prior permission. Unless you're in Japan illegally in which case you might get the same treatment as the Chinese. These Japanese aren't getting charged for putting up the Japanese flag so I doubt putting up a Canadian or any other flag itself would be an issue.

Ossan, I think the flag thing is the issue.

OssanAmerica says: "It was determined that Japan could keep the Senkakus"

Who determined that? According to the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan, the sovereignty of those minor islands must be jointly determined by US, UK, China and Russia.

The Potsdam Agreement states that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan agreed with Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

These islands have always been a part of Okinawa. It is not hard to understand and Okinawa is a prefecture of Japan. The national government thinks it can make peace with a country sworn to kill us all. The assemblymen landed on an island that is part of their city. China is looking at ways to divert attention from their failing economy.

@Yuri

The national government thinks it can make peace with a country sworn to kill us all.

I confess I missed that particular bit of swearing. Care to refresh our memories as to when and where it happened?

YuriOtani says: "These islands have always been a part of Okinawa."

According to the foreign ministry of Japan, Japan only started to colonize the Diaoyu islands and Taiwan in 1895 while the kingdom of Ryukyu was formally annexed by Japan in 1879. Prior to 1872, all major maps of Japan portrayed the kingdom of Ryukyu as an independent country and Taiwan and Diaoyu islands as part of China not part of Ryukyu.

These islands have always been a part of Okinawa.

Why? Because you dreamed it was so?

These days we have the internet, and its really easy to check the facts.

Japan claimed the islands in 1895 during the first Sino-Japanese War. Japan claims they were owned by no one, and they already took over Okinawa.

China was too weak to do anything about it. The First Sino-Japanese war was short, and China lost big time. They could not anything about anything, let alone these small, far away islands.

tmarieAug. 20, 2012 - 10:11PM JST Ossan, I think the flag thing is the issue.

Really? The Chinese activistys were charged with illegal entry - immigration. I read nothing anywhere about them being charged for "planting a Chinese flag" on the island. You can bet your bottom Candian dollar that if you went and planted a flag, the charges against you would be for landing on the island wthout permission, not planting a flag.

'Well done' the competent coast guard & police -- let these right-wingers deliberately land on the isles, now a session of 'questioing' highlighting the message of checking if these guys breach the J law. Quite amusing show ? Before the dust settled, the J business community will definitely have to pay the much higher price ?

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 10:37PM JST "OssanAmerica says: "It was determined that Japan could keep the Senkakus"

Who determined that?

Same powers that deafted the Potsdam Agreement.

The Potsdam Agreement states that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of >Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Islands don't get much more minor than the Senkakus.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Why not sit down at a CARD table and split it 50 - 50.. Not a CARD GAME where winner takes all...

OssanAmerica says: "Same powers that deafted the Potsdam Agreement."

Since when did US, UK, China and Russia determine that Japan could keep those islands in dispute?

Ossan, that's what you like to think. Feel free. The issue is that all countries involved are acting like children. I have zero doubt that Japan would flip out if I planted a Canadian flag and stated the island was Canadian.

OssanAmerica Aug. 20, 2012 - 11:33PM JST The Chinese activistys were charged with illegal entry - immigration. I read nothing anywhere about them being charged for "planting a Chinese flag" on the island.

The 1997 China-Japan Fisheries Agreement does show that the Japanese action made a sudden departure from policies that have been in effect for over three decades. The fisheries agreement allows Japanese and Chinese fishermen to operate free of regulation around the islands. So it's not clear why the Japanese coast guard decided it needs to stop the Chinese boat. The agreement made no decision about regulating operations in the area of the sea around the Senkaku Islands. The fishing boats of either country can operate without permission from the other and either country has regulatory rights only over its own fishing boats. In the past, the Japanese Coast Guard never captured or indicted a Chinese fishing boat, even if they chased them. The important question is why the Japanese government now acts to anger China? This is the first time Japanese government has taken a aggressive attitude toward China. The action appears to be a rollback of dependence on the U.S. within political circles.

The fisheries agreement allows Japanese and Chinese fishermen to operate free of regulation around the islands

Not around the islands. Around the designated Joint management zones which does not include the coastal territory of 12NM which this ship violated. Secondly, they weren't fishing.

This is the first time Japanese government has taken a aggressive attitude toward China.

??? Illegal entry of the coastal area as well as on the island has been going on since the mid 90's. Most are chased away and if they do land, they are deported just like the recent case. Same ol Same ol.

Guru29Aug. 21, 2012 - 02:18AM JST "OssanAmerica says: "Same powers that drafted the Potsdam Agreement." Since when did US, UK, China and Russia determine that Japan could keep those islands in dispute?

The Senkakus were not in dispute at the time. China made a claim much later.

tmarieAug. 21, 2012 - 04:30AM JST Ossan, that's what you like to think. Feel free. The issue is that all countries involved are acting like children.

It's not what I'd "like to think" tmarie, just read all he news articles for yourself. THe cHinese activists were charged with immigration laws- illegal entry. Not for planting any flag there.

I have zero doubt that Japan would flip out if I planted a Canadian flag and stated the island was Canadian.

No more or less than if someone planted a foreign flag on Prince Edward Island and claimed it for their own country.

Ossan, no flip outs. We'd laugh. Much like how those if us are laughing at Japan, china, Korea and Russia for behaving like children over all these islands. Grow up, sit down and figure it out rather than have people found silly swims, putting up flags and crying to other nations to solve their petty little problems.