Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 shot down 295 dead.

[awaremind]

but they can make a case for a warcrime, whatever the facts. It would be pretty straightforward to bring a case before the hague on this matter, cos it is all political.

World war 3 or a revolution will have to occur before Putin or his confidante s are before the Hague. World war 3 would most likely end in thousands of Nuclear missiles being launched, so might as well just focus on that colour revolution.

 

[Zidane98]

Why is it murder? 'Murder' as a legal point of fact means a killing as a premeditated act. While a tragic screwup of command & control (at least according to the available circumstantial facts at hand) I doubt there was intent to deliberately blow a civilian airliner out of the sky.

Should there be an accounting? Yes, no matter who was at fault. Should the incident be used for political point-scoring, thus taking a fresh and steaming s**t on the lives of those lost? No, I don't think so.

The rebels intended to murder a plane full of troops but instead ended up killing 298 civillians. Grey area as to whether that would count as "murder" in a court of law. In this case the rebels have no legal right to shoot Ukranian aircraft out of the sky in any case so it may well end up being tried as a murder case. Especially one that was traveling at 33,000 feet and no immediate threat to them.

It will be up to the war crimes court to decide what the charges will be. Any talk of Putin going before them is ridiculous

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The rebels intended to murder a plane full of troops but instead ended up killing 298 civillians. Grey area as to whether that would count as "murder" in a court of law. In this case the rebels have no legal right to shoot Ukranian aircraft out of the sky in any case so it may well end up being tried as a murder case. Especially one that was traveling at 33,000 feet and no immediate threat to them.

It's a war. Soldiers in a shooting war are never murdered, only killed in action. Do people living under airstrikes not have every right to defend themselves? Did not Kurdish guerrillas not have the right to down attacking Iraqi jets in times past?

The following extract is from a paper discussing the secession of Somaliland from Somalia, but it has very pertinent things to say about the right to secession in International Law.

https://www.american.edu/sis/jis/upload/3RoethkeF11.pdf

International law does not grant sub-state entities a general right to secede from their parent states, nor does it prohibit secession. Exceptions to this supposed neutrality arise from the international legal principles of territorial integrity and self-determination. Defining these exceptions is difficult, however, because territorial integrity and self-determination are legally ambiguous terms. For instance, some scholars argue that territorial integrity merely safeguards the inviolability of international borders but does not regulate an internal affair such as secession. Others claim that territorial integrity prohibits secession because secession dismembers the territory of the state.

The principle of self-determination similarly lends itself to restrictive or expansive interpretations. Some argue that self-determination only allows for the creation of new states in the context of decolonization. Many other scholars assert that the right of self-determination legally entitles peoples subject to extreme persecution to remedy their situation through secession. Most agree that the definition of the “peoples” with collective rights to self-determination is unclear.

Scholars do not contest that the right of self-determination entitles colonized peoples to form states independent of their colonial rulers. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples underpins the theoretical justification for decolonization with the principle of self-determination. In language echoed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Declaration asserts that:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...”

...Many scholars insist that a right to “remedial secession” exists. The notion of remedial secession assumes that international law provides a right to secession for peoples subject to extreme persecution or unable to internally realize their right to self-determination. This theory postulates that if groups fall victim to “serious breaches of fundamental human and civil rights” through the “abuse of sovereign power,” then international law recognizes the right of the afflicted group to secede from the offending state.

The legal sources for this right derive primarily from UN General Assembly (GA) resolutions, although earlier sources from the inter-war period exist also. For instance, the Commission of Rapporteurs in the League of Nations’ Aaland Islands dispute found that “separation of a minority from the state of which it forms part ... may only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the state lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees.”

Despite thoroughly discouraging secession, the Commission nevertheless provided legal space for a group to secede under extraordinary circumstances—where the state lacks the will or the power to protect the group at issue.

It DEFINITELY could be said that, upon overthrowing Viktor Yanukovych, moves by the new regime to alienate Russian influence in the former East Ukraine showed a lack of will by the State of Ukraine to protect those who wished to speak Russian and enjoy contact and trade with Russia. When the men and women of the former Donbass, Luhansk, and Odessa oblasts of Ukraine occupied buildings and manned barricades in counter-protest the reaction from Kiev was savage.

They sent Right Sector thugs, the muscled bedrock of the Maidan movement, to terrorise the people.

Under International Law, the new Kiev regime thus drew a distinction between the West and the East of the nation, and disregarded the will of the East out of hand (that the East originally did this to the West when former President Yanukovych backed away from closer E.U ties and the consequential paramilitary actions on the Maidan were openly embraced in Washington and London as wholly legitimate should not be lost on anyone).

Extraordinary circumstances in Novorossiya demanded the right to 'remedial secession'. All consequential military action and counter-action stem from the injustices brought on by the Maidan protests.

Once the grounds for remedial secession is established, as Kosovo Albanians did when they seceded from Serbia proper, resistance to armed aggression becomes permissible.

HOWEVER - seeing this is the MH-17 thread and not the civil war one I'll admit the big question remains as to whether proper procedure and protocol were followed when downing aircraft in this conflict zone. As Novorossiya sees themselves as legitimate defenders of their own airspace from rump Ukrainian aggressors it should follow that they establish all the safeguards and protocols an established nation follows while defending airspace.

If it was a Novorossiyan Buk M-1 SAM that downed MH-17 this needs to be looked at and accountability established.

 

[blackcat]

World war 3 or a revolution will have to occur before Putin or his confidante s are before the Hague. World war 3 would most likely end in thousands of Nuclear missiles being launched, so might as well just focus on that colour revolution.

i meant the rebels who shot the BUK, or the uniformed Russians manning the launcher

 

[Zidane98]

Doesn't matter what the novoryssian forces believed. The fact is they had no legal right to shoot any aircraft out of the sky.

Also, an AN-26 possesses no ability to launch airstrikes. It is a transport aircraft only.

 

[Long Live HFC]

HOWEVER - seeing this is the MH-17 thread and not the civil war one I'll admit the big question remains as to whether proper procedure and protocol were followed when downing aircraft in this conflict zone. As Novorossiya sees themselves as legitimate defenders of their own airspace from rump Ukrainian aggressors it should follow that they establish all the safeguards and protocols an established nation follows while defending airspace.

If it was a Novorossiyan Buk M-1 SAM that downed MH-17 this needs to be looked at and accountability established.

i'd say posting inflammatory (adolescent) bollocks on social media bragging about downing the aircraft tells us most of what we wish to know about the quality or legitimacy of any "protocols and procedures" in place at that point in time. that's the kind of thing a rebel cowboy would do; it doesn't exude the kind of diplomatic legitimacy you'd expect from an emerging nation state.

 

[blackcat]

it doesn't exude the kind of diplomatic legitimacy you'd expect from an emerging nation state.

but is not this a fallacy?

what would we expect? some enlightenment era philosophy tract? These were frontline "rebels" who had taken up arms. They probably have more in common with the second, third and fourth generation muslim people from western sydney that went to fight in Syria. And Hicks. They went in search of a purpose and meaning, they were not muslims, well, they were and they werent. But this is the age old existentialist dilemma, man's (woman's) search for purpose, attempting to find meaning. Not that they have the self-awareness nor introspection.

Re: Eastern Ukraine. This is a tad different, but similar enough.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Doesn't matter what the novoryssian forces believed. The fact is they had no legal right to shoot any aircraft out of the sky.

Also, an AN-26 possesses no ability to launch airstrikes. It is a transport aircraft only.

If it's a military craft it's potentially dangerous and therefore a legitimate target in a war zone unless displaying the Red Cross/Red Crescent. Troop ships in themselves aren't dangerous... but what they can carry IS.

i'd say posting inflammatory (adolescent) bollocks on social media bragging about downing the aircraft tells us most of what we wish to know about the quality or legitimacy of any "protocols and procedures" in place at that point in time. that's the kind of thing a rebel cowboy would do; it doesn't exude the kind of diplomatic legitimacy you'd expect from an emerging nation state.

Hmmm... First let's see what U.S Secretary of State John Kerry had to say about this 'adolescent rebel cowboy' bragging bollocks;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-ukrainian-separatist-bragged-social-media/

"...We know that the so-called defense minister of the People's Republic of Donetsk, Mr. Igor Strelkov, actually posted a bragging social media posting of having shot down a military transport. And then when it became apparent it was civilian, they pulled it down from social media..."

So initially the Novorossiyans were happy about downing a planeload of either
a) enemy troops, or
b) enemy equipment
thus denying their potential use in future offensive actions. What military or para-military force DOESN'T feel happy about degrading the capabilities of the opposing force?

Of course they took the post down as it became apparent what really went down. Here is Igor Strelkov's original posting of the incident, before it was removed;

According to the politifact website I quoted from before, the translation goes as follows;

"17.07.2014 17:50 (Moscow time)

In the region of Torez AN-26 plane has been shot, it is somewhere near the ‘Progress’ mine.

We have warned them – not to fly ‘in our sky.’

Here is video-proof of yet another ‘bird fall.’

The bird has fallen behind the (waste heap), it missed the residential quarters. Peaceful citizens were not hurt."

As adolescent bragging goes, that's pretty friggen mild. AND it was taken down as soon as facts on the ground made themselves known. Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again - whoever shot the civilian airliner down SHOULD make a full account of themselves, no matter who.

I'm NOT favouring a sweep under the carpet here.

 

[Long Live HFC]

but is not this a fallacy?

what would we expect?

oh, it's exactly what i would expect from an illegitimate bunch of rebels (with more firepower than sense), who were making things up as they went. but nations (or those pretending/trying to be so) have rules and (as above) "protocols and procedures" for doing things like taking responsibility for military actions.

These were frontline "rebels" who had taken up arms. They probably have more in common with the second, third and fourth generation muslim people from western sydney that went to fight in Syria. And Hicks. They went in search of a purpose and meaning, they were not muslims, well, they were and they werent. But this is the age old existentialist dilemma, man's (woman's) search for purpose, attempting to find meaning. Not that they have the self-awareness nor introspection.

Re: Eastern Ukraine. This is a tad different, but similar enough.

i feel like you're agreeing with my point though- in few ways do the rebels appear to represent a legitimate authority/state? for instance they don't possess the monopoly on violence, and their attempts to do so have led to this incompetent act.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Hmmm... First let's see what U.S Secretary of State John Kerry had to say about this 'adolescent rebel cowboy' bragging bollocks;



So initially the Novorossiyans were happy about downing a planeload of either
a) enemy troops, or
b) enemy equipment
thus denying their potential use in future offensive actions. What military or para-military force DOESN'T feel happy about degrading the capabilities of the opposing force?

Of course they took the post down as it became apparent what really went down.

none of this is relevant to my point. i have never doubted the shooting down was a tragic, incompetent accident.

As adolescent bragging goes, that's pretty friggen mild.

well, the part i remembered still reads fairly immaturely me (the not to fly in 'our' sky), but regardless lets not argue over my choice of language. do you feel this is how nations, or legitimate military authorities generally govern themselves? or does it feel more like a small state actor posting propaganda to facebook to get some likes for the cause?

AND it was taken down as soon as facts on the ground made themselves known.

well as above, this isn't relevant to what i was getting at. however since we're here...tying to avoid responsibility/destroy evidence for their actions practically screams teenager to me (or maybe that was just my adolescence ).

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again - whoever shot the civilian airliner down SHOULD make a full account of themselves, no matter who.

I'm NOT favouring a sweep under the carpet here.

for sure, and i don't mean to imply otherwise. i just felt the bit i originally quoted was being extremely generous to the rebels and the associated/inferred legitimacy re formal processes and protocols (which in my opinion were demonstrably absent, due in large part to the illegitimacy of their rebellion).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

oh, it's exactly what i would expect from an illegitimate bunch of rebels (with more firepower than sense), who were making things up as they went. but nations (or those pretending/trying to be so) have rules and (as above) "protocols and procedures" for doing things like taking responsibility for military actions.

Did the U.S take any formal responsibility for the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655? Were they made to accept legal liability? Was this the action of an illegitimate bunch of rebels as well?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Did the U.S take any formal responsibility for the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655?

IIRC yes, they did?

Were they made to accept legal liability?

IIRC no, but they did pay compensation.

Was this the action of an illegitimate bunch of rebels as well?

did the captain of the ship (it was a ship wasn't it?) that shot it down take an ad out in the newspaper celebrating his victory?

 

[blackcat]

oh, it's exactly what i would expect from an illegitimate bunch of rebels (with more firepower than sense), who were making things up as they went. but nations (or those pretending/trying to be so) have rules and (as above) "protocols and procedures" for doing things like taking responsibility for military actions.



i feel like you're agreeing with my point though- in few ways do the rebels appear to represent a legitimate authority/state? for instance they don't possess the monopoly on violence, and their attempts to do so have led to this incompetent act.

but the elected PM was in a putsch

 

[Long Live HFC]

but the elected PM was in a putsch

sorry, you'll need to elaborate what you're getting at here.

 

[awaremind]

i meant the rebels who shot the BUK, or the uniformed Russians manning the launcher

Fair enough, I'm sure they would love to have Putin and Lavrov there though.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

i just felt the bit i originally quoted was being extremely generous to the rebels and the associated/inferred legitimacy re formal processes and protocols (which in my opinion were demonstrably absent, due in large part to the illegitimacy of their rebellion).

Yeah, I can agree that they aren't a well-trained air defence army. Somehow I don't think Washington would like the Russians training the Novorossiyans to BE one though, either!!

Everything I've learned about the BUK system since the MH-17 shootdown has taught me that when the Russians designed it they were thinking of how to counter enemy SEAD attacks against it's air defence radars. Consequently, in addition to a large battery radar each Buk launcher has a smaller, blinder X-band radar so the battery can still engage targets in the local area.

Unfortunately it can't recognise IFF signals, which distinguish friendlies and neutrals from enemy aircraft. I guess the aim was to have a small enough radar signature as to still launch at targets with a lesser likelihood of getting nailed by a SEAD mission.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/buk-missile-system-lethal-undiscriminating

Some Ukrainian air defence stations housing Buk (SA-11) systems WERE overrun by separatist forces - there was one each near Luhansk and Donetsk city according to this March 2014 map by Janes Defence Weekly;

Now, I don't know how easy it is to fire a Buk using just the launch vehicle's radar, but it appears to me that it would unfortunately see all target pings the same way - as threats.

If it was looted equipment not utilised properly - or partially advised by Russian veterans of some description, I can see how it's incompetent.

I can see how there should be a full accounting of the incident.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

IIRC yes, they did?

IIRC no, but they did pay compensation.

They paid compensation, but NEVER admitted legal liability, and they never apologised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

The US government has never admitted responsibility or apologised for the tragedy.

Some believe the Lockerbie bombing, carried out six months later in December 1988, was masterminded by Iranians in revenge for the Airbus tragedy, although a Libyan man was convicted and jailed in 2001.

In February 1996 the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed, plus the cost of the aircraft and legal expenses.

It had already paid a further $40 million to the other countries whose nationals were killed.

Attitudes like this prevail.

 

[Long Live HFC]

they still took responsibility, in the sense that they didn't pretend someone else shot it down. not that i necessarily blame the rebels for russia's doctored satellite imagery lols, but by the same token i don't believe anyone on the side of the rebels has made any statement in the same vein as:

President Reagan said the Vincennes had taken "a proper defensive action" and called the incident an "understandable accident", although he said he regretted the loss of life.

'Deep regret'

Admiral William J Crowe, Jr, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that the US government deeply regretted the incident.

from your link.

and yet im sure they do regret it. but they don't really have any processes/policies or civilian authorities who might make such statements like reagan etc. because they're not a legitimate state with organised state apparatus.

 

[Zidane98]

They paid compensation, but NEVER admitted legal liability, and they never apologised.



Attitudes like this prevail.

Couple of differences:

The US Navy were under attack by Iranian naval forces at the time.

The ship attempted to contact the aircraft via guard international radio no less than 4 times (unfortunately the Iran air pilots believed the radio calls to be for a different aircraft).

The ship operators consulted an airline timetable but were operating in a different time zone to Iran.

Unlike MH17 there was a serious attempt to identify the aircraft by the US Navy which tragically failed.

Also, the US didn't invent cockamine stories about phantom Iranian F-14 fighter jets deliberately shooting down IR 655 to make the Americans look bad. They admitted it from day 1.

Big difference between both accidents.

 

[blackcat]

sorry, you'll need to elaborate what you're getting at here.

its starts with the overthrow of the previously elected gov't, but this is an arbitrary date zero. But that date is a better date than that date zero. deferral to authority fallacy aint that the tenet underlyinghegel's view on history

 

[blackcat]

Couple of differences:

The US Navy were under attack by Iranian naval forces at the time.

The ship attempted to contact the aircraft via guard international radio no less than 4 times (unfortunately the Iran air pilots believed the radio calls to be for a different aircraft).

The ship operators consulted an airline timetable but were operating in a different time zone to Iran.

Unlike MH17 there was a serious attempt to identify the aircraft by the US Navy which tragically failed.

Also, the US didn't invent cockamine stories about phantom Iranian F-14 fighter jets deliberately shooting down IR 655 to make the Americans look bad. They admitted it from day 1.

Big difference between both accidents.

yeah, I believe the US Navy espsecially when they are wargaming up the east coast in the early 1990s

 

[Long Live HFC]

its starts with the overthrow of the previously elected gov't, but this is an arbitrary date zero. But that date is a better date than that date zero. deferral to authority fallacy aint that the tenet underlyinghegel's view on history

i'd suggest there's qualitative differences though between the putsch and the rebellion (while obviously accepting that one led to the other). the putsch succeeded through sheer weight of numbers rather than violence (as i alluded above, when you have the numbers you don't need the guns). subsequent to that there were free elections, which any ukrainian could participate in. IF you're going to overthrow your government then the maidan revolution could be considered a blueprint of how to go about it.

i don't feel that any of the actions of the rebels really displays anything approaching legitimacy. they don't have the numbers, but they have the guns. they shot down a passenger plane. their masters concocted fanciful nonsense in order to avoid accepting responsibility. they do not appear to have any civil organisation whatsosever. etc etc.

i don't feel it's a question of 'deferral to authority' as we're talking about states (or the creation of them) and this is implicitly a concept of authority.

 

[blackcat]

'deferral to authority' as we're talking about states (or the creation of them) and this is implicitly a concept of authority.

nothing to do with states as i was using it, i was recognising the philosophy logical fallacy

 

[Long Live HFC]

isn't that appeal to authority? which doesn't have any relevance here? i could be wrong. it's been a while!

 

[blackcat]

isn't that appeal to authority? which doesn't have any relevance here? i could be wrong. it's been a while!

yeah, i substituted a world! no, a word!