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

[Vixen]

Language is so interesting! In that context, the English term would probably be "armed" - set to activate when triggered. The activation itself would be when the trap is sprung by the game.

Here's a quick 5-minute primer on the Finnish language.

Just replace the verbs käyttää (to use) with virittää (to tune).

So now you know what Koivisto meant when he said the EPIRB needed to be 'viritetty'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Is this a Greatest Hits tour now? Hilarious.

No. Once again, although the holders for the EPIRBs were automatic release types, the buoys themselves were not automatic activation types which could take advantage of that facility. They were not required to be, at that time. The holders were effectively just storage for the buoys and they had to be manually switched on before they went into the sea.

The newspaper quote does indeed appear to describe a version of a buoy which can be armed somehow to activate on release, but that is not what was fitted on the Estonia. Either the journalist was confused by the range of possible models described at the conference or the misunderstanding crept in some other way but the fact is that the buoys fitted did not automatically activate and there was nothing wrong with them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They knew where they were later.

If the police arrest you, people may not know where you are but you have not been disappeared. If the authorities then deny having you in detention then you have been disappeared.

 

[Vixen]

It literally does. Here is the relevant statute:



Visitation rights granted to a prisoner being held in state custody -- with or without a valid reason -- explicitly acknowledges a deprivation of freedom. It explicitly gives information on the fate or whereabouts of the prisoner. And the fact that he did go to trial in Egypt and thereafter pursued a complaint in an international court shows he was not removed from the protection of the law.

Neither Sweden or Egypt "disappeared" this deportee. Although a court later found that Sweden deprived him of due process and placed him in danger of torture, none of that meets the language of the statute you accuse Sweden of breaking.

You desperately need to rewrite the Egyptian deportees' experience as enforced disappearance because that's what you're accusing Sweden and the CIA to have done previously in the MS Estonia case. You need to make it look like what was done to the Egyptian deportees was just another example of what your conspiracy theory says must have happened to the Estonia officers, just another example of Sweden's evil intent. But the facts simply don't fit. You can't present a pattern of behavior by which you can purport to bludgeon the Swedish government. All you can show is that Sweden once deported two people without due process, who were later allowed back into the country after Sweden acknowledged its fault.

In essence, removing people from one state to another - especially, as in the case of the Egyptians it is a state from which the person is legally seeking asylum from - without a hearing, without due notice, without letting that person inform interested parties of their whereabout, is to all intents and purposes, 'a disappearance', as covered by the Rome Treaty 1998 (criminal law).

It matters not a jot that that person is eventually located or receives prison visits from their old mum.

This is the issue with the missing Estonians. If they have been listed as survivors then the public and their families are entitled to an explanation of why their names were removed and how they got listed as survivors in the first place.

 

[Vixen]

The Council of Europe convention on human rights has an article forbidding the enforced disappearance of persons, containing substantially the same language as the Rome Statute. The notion that the European Court of Human Rights, operating under the auspices of the Council of Europe, could find no statute under which to bring action against Sweden that dealt specifically with enforced disappearances, and therefore had to bring action under a torture cause, seems to be contradicted by evidence.

ETA: But as you say, that's not really the problem. Vixen names ECHR as the court that allegedly found against Sweden for the disappearance of the two Egyptian deportees. But the Rome Statute she says Sweden was found to have violated is enforceable only in the ICC -- which although not technically part of the United Nations was at least founded under its authority. Not only is Vixen wrong, she cannot be correct. Separately there is the claim that the court which did find against Sweden was forced to do so for an unrelated crime because the relevant human-rights statute, enforceable by that court, had no provision against enforced disappearance. I find that unlikely given the prevalence in various forms of international law of a statute to that effect, similarly worded. It's more parsimonious to suppose that the court considered a properly-brought cause of action that did, in fact, correspond to the actions Sweden and Egypt are documented to have undertaken.

The ECHR does have an Article 6, which covers the right to a fair trial. Problem is, the Egyptians never had a trial (hearing) at all before being carted off the street and onto a plane.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Yes, that doesn't work because switching the buoys on would activate their transmitters. So you don't do that on installation. That is an error in the article.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In essence, removing people from one state to another - especially, as in the case of the Egyptians it is a state from which the person is legally seeking asylum from - without a hearing, without due notice, without letting that person inform interested parties of their whereabout, is to all intents and purposes, 'a disappearance', as covered by the Rome Treaty 1998 (criminal law).



It matters not a jot that that person is eventually located or receives prison visits from their old mum.



This is the issue with the missing Estonians. If they have been listed as survivors then the public and their families are entitled to an explanation of why their names were removed and how they got listed as survivors in the first place.

You're making up your own legal definitions now. That is not how laws work.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

If he's walking around he isn't jailed anymore.

Being jailed for life isn't being disappeared.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The ECHR does have an Article 6, which covers the right to a fair trial. Problem is, the Egyptians never had a trial (hearing) at all before being carted off the street and onto a plane.

Being denied the right to a fair trial is not being disappeared.

Would you like to continue listing potential rights violations which are not being disappeared or can we move on?

Your only interest in the Egyptians is as an example of Sweden's habit of "disappearing" people. But they weren't disappeared. Your claim fails. The end.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You're just lying again Vixen. It's all you've got left.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No.

I'm sure you're familiar with the legal concept of the elements of a crime. Each crime under the law requires the performance of specific acts. The elements of enforced disappearance under both the ECHR and the Rome Statute are:

1. the enforced deprivation of freedom,
2. by a State actor;
3. refusal to acknowledge the deprivation,
4. refusal to disclose whereabouts or fate of the subject,
5. with the intent of depriving the subject of access to the law
6. for a prolonged period of time.

What happens in court when there is ample evidence that four of the six elements were not performed?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

So why give a medal to any serviceman?
They all rely on a team behind them, either a crew of a ship, a regiment, aircrew or whatever.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

By your standard anyone who is ever arrested is 'disappeared' as they are all out of contact for a while.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Who was officially listed as a survivor? The final list is the official list. A report in a newspaper is not an official list.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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


ibid

That is not part of the setup. That is how they are activated when the ship sinks.
They were manual buoys, to make them work the cover had to be opened and the buoys turned on, then they would transmit.

There is no other process or switch to 'set them up' other than putting them in a bracket ort enclosure.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

No, they were arrested and detained until they were deported. They did not disappear.
By your standard anyone that is ever arrested has disappeared.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

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.

No, they were not automatic buoys.

There is no process for tuning and activating when they come back from a service as the only switch on them is the one that starts the distress transmission.

They floated free because the enclosures were float free enclosures.

The correct method for their activation is for a crew member to turn them on and put them in the water.

Because of the failure by the crew to activate the buoys when the Estonia sank the IMO through SOLAS changed the regulations for commercial vessels to make the carrying of automatic buoys mandatory to avoid the same thing happening again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Where does he claim that?

What they should have done is taken them out of the enclosure, turned them on and put them in to the sea before the ship sank.

That is still the way automatic buoys are supposed to be operated, the automatic function is a backup.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Yes that is right. A signal wasn't sent and the buoys were later found turned off and with a full battery charge. Once the switch was turned on they transmitted a signal as they were designed to do.

There is only one switch, it activates them in an emergency, there is no other switch on the buoy apart from some modern units have a separate battery test button.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So you do understand...?

I understand they were manual activation buoys that the crew did not activate when the ship sank.

They have only one switch that activates them, there is no other switch or mechanism that any member of the crew can use for anything.
They do not need setting up or tuning, they are sealed units ready to go out of the box.