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

[Vixen]

No because he was jailed. He didn't disappear.

The fact Sirhan Sirhan is now walking around the neighbourhood doesn't cancel out that he was jailed for life.

 

[Vixen]

It details all the helicopters involved and their actions
What do you think 'team lists' show?

Where do either of those documents show your secret flight by Y 64?

How do they contradict the JAIC report that they are supplements to?

Notice they are TEAMS of five, six, seven or more...?


So why give a medal to ONE person out of a whole team? Y64 Svensson could not have saved anyone without the team work of the pilots, winchers and communications guys.

 

[Vixen]

No, it isn't. People who are disappeared are never heard from again. That's why it's called being disappeared. Because you disappear.

Rubbish. The Egyptian guys were disappeared and the fact they reappeared later does not cancel it out.

 

[Vixen]

Reversing the burden of proof is not how this works. You made the positive claim that nobody who published a list of survivors ever issued a correction or retraction. You have no basis for making that claim.

You have never explained how someone could be officially listed as a survivor if they were not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The fact Sirhan Sirhan is now walking around the neighbourhood doesn't cancel out that he was jailed for life.

You note the paradox that "life" does not seem here to have meant life. In the same way that you paradoxically insist that men who did not disappear were "disappeared".

Why do you find one puzzling but not the other?

 

[Vixen]

Where is the correction, you ask.

For example, here https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003371032.html

"Estonia-turman tutkimuskomissio on kuulustellut kapteeni Pihtia, kertoi Ruotsin merenkulkuhallituksen turvallisuuspäällikkö Bengt Erik Stenmark perjantaina. Tutkijalautakunta kuitenkin kiisti perjantaina Stenmarkin tiedot."

"The safety official of Swedish maritime office [*] Bengt Erik Stenmark told on Friday that the investigation committee for Estonia disaster had interrogated captain Piht. However, on Friday the committee said that Stenmark's information was wrong."


[*] I have the foggiest clue of what the official translation to the title is and I can't be bothered to find out.

That translates as 'However, a panel of investigators disputed Stenmark's data on Friday,' Not committee.

It continues:

The Helsinki Criminal Police Violence Office has heard of the rescued people brought to Helsinki by ship. "I don't remember anyone in the crowd," says Pauli Kokko, the crime commissioner at the violence office. There were forty survivors by size, but only half had time to be heard, as they had been provided with quick connections home.

HS ibid

The headline is: "There are many versions of the fate of Captain Piht".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You have never explained how someone could be officially listed as a survivor if they were not.

Do you need me to explain the general concept of errors caused by hearsay, rumour or assumption being passed on as facts, or are you demanding that I determine how that happened in each individual case for each person misreported on each list?

I note your use of the word "officially" as if that implied each list had been checked and certified in some manner before receiving it's stamp of approval. I imagine you're not going to back that up and the word was mere decoration.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. That is actually explicitly said in the same article:

"Ns. EPIRB-hätäpoijut oli huollettu äskettäin, ja ne oli sijoitettu sääntöjen mukaisesti paikoilleen. Asetusvaiheessa unohtui kuitenkin poijujen aktivointi: suojakansi pitää avata ja kääntää kytkin päälle."

"So called EPIRB emergency buyous had been serviced short time ago and they had been replaced according to the regulations. However, when they were installed the activation of the buyous was forgotten: a protective cover needs to be opened and a switch turned on".

(Note that Finnish uses passive tense in cases like this even though it's not recommended in English)

This was my exact google translation from before so you have not corrected anything.

The committee closed its two-day meeting in Helsinki on Friday. The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been deployed in accordance with the rules. However, during the setup phase, the activation of the buoys was forgotten: the protective cover must be opened and the switch turned on.

ibid

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Notice they are TEAMS of five, six, seven or more...?


So why give a medal to ONE person out of a whole team? Y64 Svensson could not have saved anyone without the team work of the pilots, winchers and communications guys.

Which he did...on both Y 64 and Y 74. If you paid more attention to the actions described in the Y 74 paragraph of 7.5.5., you'd have an easier time understanding the nature of Svensson's above-and-beyond heroism.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. You named the court and the statute allegedly broken, and claimed the ECHR had made a certain finding against Sweden for violating the 1998 Rome Statute in the part forbidding enforced disappearance. The facts you cited to when asked to substantiate that claim do not tell that story. You've spent considerable time trying to vilify Sweden in this particular way, but the facts are simply against you.



Yes, a cause of action must name the relevant statute. The statute that Sweden was found to have broken has nothing to do with enforced disappearance. Therefore your claim that a court found Sweden had made someone disappear in violation of the 1998 Rome Statute is not factually supported.



He was not made to disappear. He was sent back to Egypt and people were informed that this is what had happened. Egypt had given assurances that the deportees would not be tortured, but renegged on them. Sweden was justly sanctioned for its role in subjecting people to torture when it had a duty and and opportunity to avoid such a thing.

The "closest thing" theory you've concocted is your problem. Nowhere has it been argued at law or found that Sweden violated the 1998 Rome Statute against enforced disappearance. You lied when you said it had. It's as simple as that.



Oh, for Pete's sake. Of course I recognize the right not to be "disappeared." Disagreeing with you when you say it was done in a particular case and that a court issued a finding to that effect, is not the same thing as denying the right. One wonders when -- if ever -- you'll run out of straw.

Fair enough. You make a good point. However, although the case of the two Egyptians differ - which is why there is no need to go into the minutiae of the two Egyptians' cases - the salient point is that they were disappeared. Whether that was for 48-hours as you claim, whilst a frantic lawyer tried to find out his client's whereabouts, or 48 years, they were disappeared during the time frame nobody at all knew where they were, except their removers.

 

[Vixen]

How on Earth is it a "callous disregard" to note that the deportees were regularly visited after their return to Egypt, something that does not happen to people subjected to enforced disappearance as defined in the Rome Statute?

You made a big emotional appeal, asking how I would feel if I were detained and deprived of all outside contact -- effectively "disappeared." There is evidence that did not happen in the instant case. The crimes committed by Egypt, and abetted by Sweden, certainly do violate human rights. But they do not fit the definition of enforced disappearance in the Rome Statute.

As usual, when the facts don't go your way, you resort to emotional ploys and ham-fisted attempts to shame your critics away from challenging your beliefs. Do better.

So a relative eventually finding out the location of a loved one and going to visit them in a jail that they had sought grounds for seeking asylum against in the first place, somehow cancels out the period during which they were disappeared by the state?

 

[Vixen]

And appropriately so. As with any forensic engineering investigation, it has no mandate or authority to investigate and prosecute criminal allegations.

Nobody said it had powers of prosecution. That does not abnegate its responsibility to properly investigate the cause of the accident.

 

[Matthew Best]

"[E]nforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CED/Pages/ConventionCED.aspx

 

[Vixen]

Which means they were manual activation.

Wrong. In continuation of the same article as presented by Marras and with the same translation in effect as my mine:

The activation of the emergency buoy was one of the tasks of the radio electricians in Estonia, of which there were two on board. The investigation is still ongoing, but the Commission has consulted the radio operator, said Asser Koivisto, a member of the Commission's expert. The purpose of the distress buoy is to send the location of the sunken ship and tell the searchers the name of the ship. According to Koivisto's assessment, the silence of the buoys did not have a major effect on the rescue operations themselves, as the buoys do not float to the surface until the ship has sunk.

ibid

It is very clear the ships electricians were tasked with the installation and tuning/activation of the EPIRB's after having come back from their regular inspection, so that when triggered by the hydrostatic release unit (HRU) they would float-free from their casings because they were float-free automatically activated EPIRB's.

 

[Vixen]

The natural way to read the sentence is that they should have done the action at the time when they put the buoys back after servicing them.

Thank you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That translates as 'However, a panel of investigators disputed Stenmark's data on Friday,' Not committee.



It continues:



HS ibid



The headline is: "There are many versions of the fate of Captain Piht".

Are you hoping to present yourself as our reliable translator of Finnish to English, after you flatly denied that "viritys" could have been used to describe any kind of activation and must instead have meant tuning a transmitter in the same way as its English meaning?

 

[Vixen]

<snip> they were mounted on hydrostatic-release cradles (meaning they'd separate from the ship and float free once they were submerged in water) but they required manual activation of the internal electronic circuitry and radio equipment.

<snipped ignorant nonsense>

Really? So London John is asserting confidently that the ship's crew needed to dive two fathoms below a raging sea to manually active the EPIRB's. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Vixen]

That's what I gathered from your translation. Someone who didn't know how the buoys work might wrongly conclude that the activation switch -- the only switch on the buoy -- was meant to be flipped at installation time, not in the event of an emergency. Reading things into secondary sources is not as accurate as knowledge of how the buoys work.

That doesn't work because once activated, a signal is sent to COSPAS-SARSAT.

 

[Vixen]

then they would have activated.

So you do understand...?

 

[Vixen]

Yes it does.


If the two Egyptians you are talking about were disappeared then their family couldn't have visited them and they couldn't have appealed to any international law for justice, because their family wouldn't know where they are, the state responsible for disappearing them would refuse to acknowledge where they were or what had happened to them and they couldn't appeal their deportation because disappeared aren't protected by the law.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Go on, accuse me of being in favour of disappearing people or acquiescing to CIA requests or whatever emotional nonsense you wish to dredge up because your ignorance has been exposed.

They knew where they were later.