Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[MarkCorrigan]

He was referring to the trivial fact of their not being able to speak to their lawyer not the human rights violation of being renditioned and actually subjected to torture as found by the court and accepted by Sweden.

"They were denied asylum" hahaha, that would be an ordinary deportation.

Nice to see Mark Corrigan hiding behind your apron.

I don't know about you Vixen but I've been at work, which doesn't leave much time to come on to a forum and post.

You're still failing to address what actually happened and straight up lying about it. Yes, it was a deportation. No, it was not an "ordinary" deportation.

Your claim, you support it or retract it. At no point did I claim it was an ordinary deportation. Instead I claimed they were illegally deported rather than disappeared. I also made very clear I was against the deportation and actions Sweden took, but was arguing against your incorrect use of the term "disappeared".

Further, you DID insinuate I was being racist by stating I was "ok" with their removal because they were "those sort of people" which was a clear descriptor of them being Egyptian and non white despite repeatedly stating that I wasn't ok with it irrespective of anything else. Your continued lying is obvious to everyone, you're not going to be able to bluff your way through this.

Did I call the removal of the two Egyptians an "ordinary deportation" yes or no?

If you claim yes, quote me saying it. Quote exactly where I said it was ordinary, and quote exactly where I said I was ok with it.


ETA: (my underlining) No. Just because they were denied asylum does not automatically make it an ordinary deportation. They could have been denied asylum and executed. They could have been denied asylum and shipped off to another country for processing, or as what actually happened, they were denied asylum and illegally deported by Sweden.

 

[JayUtah]

That is the point. Being disappeared has a legal definition.

And it has a bunch of informal definitions too. But when you're accusing others of committing crimes as Vixen is doing, only the legal definition applies.

Perhaps the United States is not a good example of civilized procedure, but most of our state laws allow you to be held in custody for up to 48 hours (72 in some states) without the opportunity to consult an attorney. By U.S. standards, the detainment of the two Egyptians incommunicado for two days was not unlawful. This perspective is important in the face of someone desperately trying to portray an occurrence as something it was not.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

He only modified his claim when confronted with evidence it was no way a 'asylum denied' issue wherein overzealous officials somehow failed in their duties here and there.

Nope. I was fully aware of the incident the entire time. You're simply trying to make me look bad, and it's really transparent. You're just dreadful at this.

Stop trying to be clever. A person can disappear for hours, days, months or even years.

It doesn't change the fact of the matter even if they still retain physical form elsewhere.

Ah but the argument was you claiming they were "disappeared" and even claimed that it met the legal definition of enforced disappearance. You attempting to claim that "disappeared" was just a descriptor for people going mising is intentionally misleading. You were claiming they were "disappeared" as per the legal definition.

 

[Steve]

To be fair, this thread was fallow for most of the past year. But when it restarted, it restarted predictably as if none of the foregoing conversation had occurred.

And so it continues.

 

[Vixen]

I don't know about you Vixen but I've been at work, which doesn't leave much time to come on to a forum and post.

You're still failing to address what actually happened and straight up lying about it. Yes, it was a deportation. No, it was not an "ordinary" deportation.

Your claim, you support it or retract it. At no point did I claim it was an ordinary deportation. Instead I claimed they were illegally deported rather than disappeared. I also made very clear I was against the deportation and actions Sweden took, but was arguing against your incorrect use of the term "disappeared".

Further, you DID insinuate I was being racist by stating I was "ok" with their removal because they were "those sort of people" which was a clear descriptor of them being Egyptian and non white despite repeatedly stating that I wasn't ok with it irrespective of anything else. Your continued lying is obvious to everyone, you're not going to be able to bluff your way through this.

Did I call the removal of the two Egyptians an "ordinary deportation" yes or no?

If you claim yes, quote me saying it. Quote exactly where I said it was ordinary, and quote exactly where I said I was ok with it.

I was at work this morning. Look, you said it was a 'deportation'. An ordinary deportation is defined as follows:

"deportation, expulsion by executive agency of an alien whose presence in a country is deemed unlawful or detrimental." Britannica

It was not a legal deportation as there was no deportation hearing which registered asylum seekers, as they were, are legally entitled to. Nor was it an 'illegal deportation' because it was rubber stamped by an official as an emergency, so in that sense it had the go-ahead of the then Swedish government. So it was neither a legal nor an illegal deportation.

It was a classic CIA rendition (=disappearance exercise) and absolutely nothing at all to do with seeking asylum or deportation.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I was at work this morning. Look, you said it was a 'deportation'. An ordinary deportation is defined as follows:

Do you not understand that those are not the same thing?

You can be deported ordinarily, or you can be deported in a way that is not ordinary. Claiming they were deported is NOT claiming it was run of the mill, nor is it claiming it was legal.

 

[Vixen]

And it has a bunch of informal definitions too. But when you're accusing others of committing crimes as Vixen is doing, only the legal definition applies.

Perhaps the United States is not a good example of civilized procedure, but most of our state laws allow you to be held in custody for up to 48 hours (72 in some states) without the opportunity to consult an attorney. By U.S. standards, the detainment of the two Egyptians incommunicado for two days was not unlawful. This perspective is important in the face of someone desperately trying to portray an occurrence as something it was not.

Really? There doesn't have to be some kind of court hearing or warrant to put a person in the slammer for up to 72 hours? In the UK police have to apply for warrants to prolong statutory custody, for example, in the case of suspected terrorists. But I am pretty sure the remanded person gets the duty solicitor to defend their rights.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

EBWOP:

I was at work this morning.

Yet were able to post on here. A lot. You also insinuated I was "hiding" behind someone else when I was just...not here.

It was not a legal deportation as there was no deportation hearing which registered asylum seekers, as they were, are legally entitled to. Nor was it an 'illegal deportation' because it was rubber stamped by an official as an emergency, so in that sense it had the go-ahead of the then Swedish government. So it was neither a legal nor an illegal deportation.

Absolutely not true. Just because Sweden rubber stamped it does not mean it was legal, nor does it stop it being an illegal deportation.

It was a classic CIA rendition (=disappearance exercise) and absolutely nothing at all to do with seeking asylum or deportation.

No, it wasn't and no it doesn't meet the legal definition of disappearance which was your claim.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Enforced disappearance has a precise definition in international law. You've been told this multiple times, but at this point it's clear you simply don't care. You seem to think you can just will facts by imagining them.

IIRC, Vixen cited the actual statute when she initially brought the topic up (because Bollyn had), and tried to claim that the Egyptian renditions fell under that statute. So she can't hide behind the "slang" argument; she was all about that "precise definition in international law" until she realized she couldn't make the point stick.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

IIRC, Vixen cited the actual statute when she initially brought the topic up (because Bollyn had), and tried to claim that the Egyptian renditions fell under that statute. So she can't hide behind the "slang" argument; she was all about that "precise definition in international law" until she realized she couldn't make the point stick.

You don't quite recall correctly...because Vixen kept getting the name of the statute wrong. Over and over again. Jay kept correcting her but she ignored the correction for some reason...

 

[JayUtah]

Really?

Yes. Despite your attempts to make it seem worse than it is, the detention of the two Egyptians for 48 hours was unremarkable. As I said previously, the international standard for detention amounting to enforced disappearance is 7 days. There is no rearrangement of the facts that amounts to the crime you're accusing Sweden of.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. I was fully aware of the incident the entire time. You're simply trying to make me look bad, and it's really transparent. You're just dreadful at this.



Ah but the argument was you claiming they were "disappeared" and even claimed that it met the legal definition of enforced disappearance. You attempting to claim that "disappeared" was just a descriptor for people going mising is intentionally misleading. You were claiming they were "disappeared" as per the legal definition.

Nope, totally dispassionate. You did try to brush off the fact of Sweden acting to the tune of the CIA as a handwave dismissal, of being an 'asylum denied' deportation, because you were resistant to the fact that it was indeed a CIA-led classic removal by disappearance.

Likewise, you dismissively claimed the missing Estonians simply drowned and there is nothing nefarious about it, without a second thought.

It is all right to be wrong, you know. It is not a matter of life and death.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't constitute enforced disappearance as defined in international law. According to the relevant case law, someone must be held incommunicado for at least 7 days in order to satisfy that element of the statute. The Egyptians were incommunicado for only 2 days.

You don't get to apply your private definitions when accusing others of crimes.

The person or persons have to be effectively removed first. We are talking about intention to enforce disappearance and its activation. The fact the two Egyptian guys were lucky enough to have a perspicacious lawyer who went to enormous lengths to find out where his client had vanished to, literally snatched off the street whilst in a phone call to him, was circumstance. Had that lawyer not sleuthed his client down, it would not have been 'incommunicado for only 2 days'. We are talking about intent here not outcome.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Nope, totally dispassionate.

Ahahahahahahahaha. That's funny, tell us another.

You did try to brush off the fact of Sweden acting to the tune of the CIA as a handwave dismissal, of being an 'asylum denied' deportation, because you were resistant to the fact that it was indeed a CIA-led classic removal by disappearance.

Nope. Quote me doing that.

Likewise, you dismissively claimed the missing Estonians simply drowned and there is nothing nefarious about it, without a second thought.

Nope. I stated that that is absolutely the most likely possibility because we don't live in the terribly written spy novel fantasy land you've been pushing in this thread. People were on a boat that sank. Which is more likely, they drowned and the bodies haven't been recovered, or they were spirited away by the CIA in the middle of a rescue operation without anyone noticing?

It is all right to be wrong, you know. It is not a matter of life and death.

Like you were about the Egyptians being disappeared, combat 18 being formed by MI5, being unable to reach welding temperatures outside a lab, the difference between muzzle velocity and projectile velocity, how boats sink and the myriad other things you've been wrong about in this thread?

 

[Vixen]

I don't know about you Vixen but I've been at work, which doesn't leave much time to come on to a forum and post.

You're still failing to address what actually happened and straight up lying about it. Yes, it was a deportation. No, it was not an "ordinary" deportation.

Your claim, you support it or retract it. At no point did I claim it was an ordinary deportation. Instead I claimed they were illegally deported rather than disappeared. I also made very clear I was against the deportation and actions Sweden took, but was arguing against your incorrect use of the term "disappeared".

Further, you DID insinuate I was being racist by stating I was "ok" with their removal because they were "those sort of people" which was a clear descriptor of them being Egyptian and non white despite repeatedly stating that I wasn't ok with it irrespective of anything else. Your continued lying is obvious to everyone, you're not going to be able to bluff your way through this.

Did I call the removal of the two Egyptians an "ordinary deportation" yes or no?

If you claim yes, quote me saying it. Quote exactly where I said it was ordinary, and quote exactly where I said I was ok with it.


ETA: (my underlining) No. Just because they were denied asylum does not automatically make it an ordinary deportation. They could have been denied asylum and executed. They could have been denied asylum and shipped off to another country for processing, or as what actually happened, they were denied asylum and illegally deported by Sweden.

Citation please. Absolute fiddlesticks.

 

[Mojo]

It is not secret. They had to admit it with these two Egyptian guys because it went to a human rights tribunal.

Why haven't the Estonia crew members taken their case to a human rights tribunal?

 

[Vixen]

Nope. I was fully aware of the incident the entire time. You're simply trying to make me look bad, and it's really transparent. You're just dreadful at this.



Ah but the argument was you claiming they were "disappeared" and even claimed that it met the legal definition of enforced disappearance. You attempting to claim that "disappeared" was just a descriptor for people going mising is intentionally misleading. You were claiming they were "disappeared" as per the legal definition.

No, at no point was I referring to a missing person or persons. I was always specifically referring to Sweden obeying the CIA and delivering persons the CIA wanted. Another example, is the delivery of former Soviet military equipment via the Estonia passenger ferry on the orders of the CIA, and as minuted by the Rikstag (senate). This is all factual.


Nothing to do with being an asylum seeker and deportations.

 

[Mojo]

No, at no point was I referring to a missing person or persons. I was always specifically referring to Sweden obeying the CIA and delivering persons the CIA wanted. Another example, is the delivery of former Soviet military equipment via the Estonia passenger ferry on the orders of the CIA, and as minuted by the Rikstag (senate).

Citation, please.

 

[Vixen]

EBWOP:

Yet were able to post on here. A lot. You also insinuated I was "hiding" behind someone else when I was just...not here.

Absolutely not true. Just because Sweden rubber stamped it does not mean it was legal, nor does it stop it being an illegal deportation.

No, it wasn't and no it doesn't meet the legal definition of disappearance which was your claim.

I am in a different time zone from you, if you are scurrilously implying I was posting on here whilst at work.

No, it was not a deportation it was a CIA-rendition (intent to disappear a person from another jurisdiction).

 

[JayUtah]

I am in a different time zone from you, if you are scurrilously implying I was posting on here whilst at work.

No, it was not a deportation it was a CIA-rendition (intent to disappear a person from another jurisdiction).

No. Enforced disappearance has a precise legal definition that is not satisfied by the events you describe. Your continued misuse of this word seems calculated to mislead, in the apparent hope that it will establish a pattern by which you can say that Sweden also "disappeared" members of the Estonia crew.