Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Jack by the hedge]

So how come the courts found against Sweden. In addition, Sweden also eventually granted residence and nationality to one of them.



<fx Gets into listening pose>

The funniest part of this is not Vixen pretending not to understand that she keeps getting the charge wrong and it's not Vixen using made up script directions, it's the absurd suggestion that she might be listening.

 

[Mojo]

It is just pure gaslighting to pretend not to understand what disappearing means.

Vixen, one of the sources that you have yourself cited as evidence that someone was disappeared says that after the alleged disappearance “the complainant's parents visited him once a month until July 2002 and then every fortnight.”

Would you like to have a think about who is pretending not to understand what disappearing means?

 

[abaddon]

9/11 might have been the first time the USA experienced terrorism. In London we had the IRA bombing campaigns since the 70's. And they were fond of semtex, something that may well have been used on the Estonia, according to the report by Brian Braidwood, who says he found evidence of explosives residues and a particular petalling deformation nearby the forward bulkhead. Likewise, more recently, Ida Westermann, who took samples from the bow visor itself and found deformations that could be compatible with extreme conditions.

As a 50+ Irish man, I know you are talking utter bollocks. I have family that were directly involved in that kettle of crazy. Do not presume to lecture me on such matters. Indeed I have direct experience of how it really is in modern times. Do not even attempt to lecture me about how it works,

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for breach of rule 0

When you stand over a grave of a father in Belfast with his kids clinging to you, you might get a right to an opinion, or perhaps not even then. I cannot drop, in all conscience, the name of the child that was bricked by Ulster loyalists, but it was on TV. One of those victims was my friends daughter.

But that is what Vixen is doing

 

[Vixen]

They found against Sweden on an entirely different charge. No one is claiming Sweden acted properly in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. It is clear that they deported the two men without due process.

That is not the same as enforced disappearance. You claimed the European court found against Sweden for violating the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances. That is factually incorrect. They found against Sweden for violating a convention on torture. Even though it was Egypt who tortured the two men, Sweden contributed to that by deporting the men to a country they had reason to believe would torture them, without due process that would have explored the possibility of torture.

Does it cross your mind that these details matter?

I said it contravened the Rome 1998 criminal law treaty. In which way does it not?

 

[Vixen]

Why are you stuck on this notion of venue?

You claimed the ECHR found that Sweden had violated the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances. When asked to substantiate that, you provided a citation to an entirely different finding on an entirely different point of law.

You lied.

This is because disappearing a suspect comes under a different convention.

The ECHR only has a limited number of statutes to do with Human Rights in European States who have signed up to that particular agreement.

You can only bring a law suit by citing exactly under which paragraph of the law you are claiming under.

So the Egyptian guy claimed under Article 3, torture and inhumane treatment as that was the closest that described his enforced disappearance after having legally registered as an asylum seeker.

Why do you refuse to recognise the right not to be 'disappeared'.

 

[Vixen]

What was ‘found against Sweden’?
How could they grant residency to someone that had disappeared?

Because it accepted it had erred.

 

[Marras]

Why do you refuse to recognise the right not to be 'disappeared'.

Why do you refuse to recognize that words mean things?

 

[LondonJohn]

I said it contravened the Rome 1998 criminal law treaty. In which way does it not?

Why do you keep making bogus references to "the Rome 1998 criminal law treaty", Vixen?

Because there's no such thing (as you've been told numerous times).

The 1998 Rome Statute is a subsection of a wider treaty, and the Rome Statute is what enshrined into international law a) the International Criminal Court (ICC) and b) the four defined international crimes (one of which is applicable to the matter in hand here).

To repeat, the construction "the Rome 1998 criminal law treaty" does not exist. Is this a collection of words you've lifted from the Bjorkman playbook, by any chance....?

 

[Vixen]

Because, having been immersed in Baltic Sea water for some time before being winched back up to another helicopter, he opted to keep operating as a rescue man rather than returning to shore.

I assume you've never been dumped into the Baltic Sea in a storm at night. Because if you had been, you'd know that it's extremely cold water and extremely unpleasant to be in. Even in a survival suit (and I'm far from certain that Svensson was even wearing a survival suit or immersion suit), one's body temperature drops fast when immersed in very cold water.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

These are guys with the Search and Rescue teams who have been trained in sea rescue as part of their jobs. It is in their job description for which they are remunerated.

So, just doing your job surely is not 'outstanding gallantry beyond expectations' if your winch fails, you fall in the water and your colleague rescues you. As for taking over from Moberg or Olsson in Y74, he was perfectly safe! Winched the whole time.

The Finnish rescue teams had no problem diving into the water because that is how they trained and they were ready for bad weather, which often correlates with the need for rescue.

Getting a medal for gallantry for ISTM no fault of his own regarding the winch, hardly explains why he alone received it, plus between 1995 - 2005, the only others were pilots shot down in 1952, awarded posthumously.

A faulty winch dropping you into the sea is not equivalent to being shot down whilst in action.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because it accepted it had erred.

But how could they give him residency if he had disappeared?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is because disappearing a suspect comes under a different convention.

The ECHR only has a limited number of statutes to do with Human Rights in European States who have signed up to that particular agreement.

You can only bring a law suit by citing exactly under which paragraph of the law you are claiming under.

So the Egyptian guy claimed under Article 3, torture and inhumane treatment as that was the closest that described his enforced disappearance after having legally registered as an asylum seeker.

Why do you refuse to recognise the right not to be 'disappeared'.

Oh man.

Everyone recognises "the right not to be disappeared". As, incidentally, does the ICC and the ECHR.

You're just making things up - AKA flat-out lying - in your pathetic attempts (above) to rationalise the situation.

Had the ECHR believed there was evidence that Sweden "disappeared" these two men, it would have ruled accordingly. Your ridiculous attempt to claim that the ECHR had to adjudicate on different grounds because they had no mechanism for assessing/adjudicating "disappearances" is entirely incorrect, and is something you've pulled out of thin air in a vain attempt to shore up your crumbling edifice.

Disgraceful.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because it accepted it had erred.

You don't know what you're talking about. As per usual.

You have no idea what the ECHR adjudication actually meant, and what it did not mean. Are you parroting Bjorkman's take on all this, by any chance Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

In other words, you don't know anything about assassination as an instrument of statecraft on any real-world level, only the CT versions.

You're the one spinning tall tales about Estonia crew being kidnapped and executed by the Swedish government without offering proof that Sweden has ever assassinated anybody since the end of WWII, nor have you explained why these surviving crew members required that kind of treatment in the first place.

All you've done is paint yourself into a series of corners to the point where you can't keep your stories straight. You are really bad at this.

I have at no time said they were 'kidnapped and executed'. I want to understand how some of the senior members of the crew were listed as survivors and Reuters and Helsingin Sanomat reported Piht as alive, ready to be interviewed and was interviewed, together with an Interpol Arrest Warrant issued, and then completely removed from the survivors list.

Nobody at any time has offered a retraction or explanation to the press. JAIC predictably is completely silent, as it always is on any issue that detracts from its osbsession with 'design fault' in the screws, nuts and bolts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

These are guys with the Search and Rescue teams who have been trained in sea rescue as part of their jobs. It is in their job description for which they are remunerated.

So, just doing your job surely is not 'outstanding gallantry beyond expectations' if your winch fails, you fall in the water and your colleague rescues you. As for taking over from Moberg or Olsson in Y74, he was perfectly safe! Winched the whole time.

The Finnish rescue teams had no problem diving into the water because that is how they trained and they were ready for bad weather, which often correlates with the need for rescue.

Getting a medal for gallantry for ISTM no fault of his own regarding the winch, hardly explains why he alone received it, plus between 1995 - 2005, the only others were pilots shot down in 1952, awarded posthumously.

A faulty winch dropping you into the sea is not equivalent to being shot down whilst in action.

Svensson was trained in air-sea rescue, was he?

Perhaps you might want to take a moment to figure out the normal operational duties of the Svensson's helicopter and its crew. I suggest you do that first.

And then come back to me with an update.

As you say: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


(The rest of your post, minimising Svensson's actions that night, is both incorrect and disgusting. Shame on you.)

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, one of the sources that you have yourself cited as evidence that someone was disappeared says that after the alleged disappearance “the complainant's parents visited him once a month until July 2002 and then every fortnight.”

Would you like to have a think about who is pretending not to understand what disappearing means?

Your callous disregard and joking about human rights issues is noted.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because it accepted it had erred.

Imagine that, if you can.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

These are guys with the Search and Rescue teams who have been trained in sea rescue as part of their jobs. It is in their job description for which they are remunerated.

So, just doing your job surely is not 'outstanding gallantry beyond expectations' if your winch fails, you fall in the water and your colleague rescues you. As for taking over from Moberg or Olsson in Y74, he was perfectly safe! Winched the whole time.

The Finnish rescue teams had no problem diving into the water because that is how they trained and they were ready for bad weather, which often correlates with the need for rescue.

Getting a medal for gallantry for ISTM no fault of his own regarding the winch, hardly explains why he alone received it, plus between 1995 - 2005, the only others were pilots shot down in 1952, awarded posthumously.

A faulty winch dropping you into the sea is not equivalent to being shot down whilst in action.

Yes it is the same if it leaves you stranded in the water.
How was there any guarantee he would survive until rescue arrived?
Why was there any obligation on him to take over duties when he had been immersed in freezing water in a storm for so long?

His medal was the pre 2007 medal, awarded "FÖR BERÖMLIGA INSATSER"
("FOR COMMENDABLE SERVICES")

Awarded to personnel who performed extraordinary effort that benefited the Swedish Armed Forces, for example, with resourcefulness and energetically action and with an example of excellent leadership and personal commitment.

 

[Vixen]

But how could they give him residency if he had disappeared?

Have a look at the chronology and the confusion will clear.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have at no time said they were 'kidnapped and executed'. I want to understand how some of the senior members of the crew were listed as survivors and Reuters and Helsingin Sanomat reported Piht as alive, ready to be interviewed and was interviewed, together with an Interpol Arrest Warrant issued, and then completely removed from the survivors list.

Nobody at any time has offered a retraction or explanation to the press. JAIC predictably is completely silent, as it always is on any issue that detracts from its osbsession with 'design fault' in the screws, nuts and bolts.

Because, Vixen, there was a lot of confusion and mistake-making in the first day or two. As there is in any massive disaster of this type. Exactly the same thing happened wrt the Twin Towers on 9/11: people were initially listed as being safe, when it later turned out that they'd died, and vice versa. It's a variant of the "fog of war" phenomenon. And it's clearly something you know nothing about, since you appear to believe that scrupulously accurate & reliable data/records necessarily exist from Minute 0 of any such disaster.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

These are guys with the Search and Rescue teams who have been trained in sea rescue as part of their jobs. It is in their job description for which they are remunerated.

Confusing. Are you still talking about Y64 and Y74, the antisubmarine warfare helicopters, or are you now talking about search and rescue helicopters instead?