quote:Holding someone against their will is kidnapping, is it not? If not, what would be the term? I believe that whether you forced them to be where they are, or whether they came of their own free will is irrelevant. They're still being held against their will.
That's not kidnapping.
To take (any one) by force or fear, and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.
The plane's crew weren't forced to land on China's land. They could have opted to crash-land into the ocean. They opted to land on that island of their own free will (or, at least the free will of the plane's CO).
They're not exactly hostages either, so we'll go with "detainees" as the appropriate term to refer to them as (this, coincidently, being what the Bush White House refers to them as).
As for your Russian analogy, we caught 'em spying, we got pissed, we kicked out a bunch of their diplomats. This is hardly the same situation, yet we've responded with a hard-line (the same sort of hard-line that the Chinese are).
quote:So say your limo driver does something stupid and crashes into my car. I've only got some bruises, and you're just fine (but minus one bad limo driver). You then grab my wallet and refuse to give it back until I apologize for the accident.
No, I still don't think that's a good analogy. For one thing, insurance would cover it. For another, we're talking airplanes here. I don't know why you and JeffR keep comparing this to 18-wheelers and Ferraris. And of course, I can't even bring up the Greenville 'cuz "it ain't relevent"
quote:But not allowed to leave. A well-furnished prison is a prison, none the less.
I find it hard to believe the crew of that plane didn't know the possible consequences of landing in Chinese territory. They knew the risks: they took them. They willingly walked into that "prison" by landing on Hainon Island. I think we're all greatful that they're being well-treated, and as soon as Dubya gets off his high-horse, maybe they can come home.
quote:Those things are as darned near failure-proof as any bit of tech that we have. If there was ANY possibility of one failing, then 24 men and women wouldn't have trusted their lives to one, now would they of?
Computer malfunctions never happen? Some technician didn't forget to adjust the whatever to cause it to go hay-wire? Those Marine Ospreys haven't been crashing quite a bit, have they? Yet, the Marines continue to fly 'em (and Marines continue to die). That's machinery that dozens of men and women have trusted their lives too ...
More importantly: with two aggressive Chinese jets buzzing by so close, why leave the flying to the auto-pilot when it can't predict the manuevers of the Chinese jets? That's like setting your car (oh, look, I'm doing it now...) to cruise control and taking a nap as you drive down I-95. Better hope nobody does anything unexpected, or you're in a world of trouble ...
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]
posted
In movies the autopilot usually explodes in a large orgasmic firy ball of pyrotechnics mastery. I believe what I see in the movies, for they are a window into the soul - fears, desires, all - of the audience.
By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
As for your Russian analogy, we caught 'em spying, we got pissed, we kicked out a bunch of their diplomats. This is hardly the same situation, yet we've responded with a hard-line (the same sort of hard-line that the Chinese are).
You didn't even read it, did you?
My point, for those of you who pay attention, was that we were in a similar position with the Russians as the Chinese were with us. The Russians did something we didn't like, but legally, we couldn't detain them. Same deal with the Chinese. What would you think if we HAD, in contravention of all international law, arrested the Russian diplomat spies? Because it's the EXACT SAME SITUATION. It is/would be an action taken in total contravention of treaty for the simple reason that one party did something perfectly legal that the other didn't like. We were legally required to return the Russians to their homeland, as the Chinese are required to return our people here.
For one thing, insurance would cover it.
This is relevant how? WHY you take the analogous actions doesn't matter. The analogous actions HAVE been taken. How do you view them?
For another, we're talking airplanes here.
That's why it's called an analogy. How does the vehicle affect the accuracy of the analogy?
I don't know why you and JeffR keep comparing this to 18-wheelers and Ferraris.
Then you must not be paying attention. Jeff explained this at least once.
So since you have no REAL objections to my analogy, shall we just say I'm right and call it a night, then?
They willingly walked into that "prison" by landing on Hainon Island.
No, they didn't, because as far as they knew, there would BE no prison. There COULDN'T be, under international law. Effectively, the Chinese promised that they would not do exactly what they have done. They broke their word.
Computer malfunctions never happen?
Remember, this is a thirty year old plane. Who says the autopilot is computer controlled? You may just push a button that says, "Fly in a straight line," for all you know. And besides that, we're not talking a Windows operating system, here. These things are designed to be totally failsafe. There is NO WAY that the autopilot could fail and ditch the plane, or they wouldn't be allowed to use them. Yet further, IF the plane swerved while no one was at the controls, how did they avoid dropping into the ocean? Ain't no way they moved around the plane to get to the controls while it was banking like that.
Those Marine Ospreys haven't been crashing quite a bit, have they?
On landings and takeoffs, which are definitely not auto-pilot controlled maneuvers. We're talking about flying in a straight line, here. All you really need is a physical clamp to keep the yoke from moving. Heck, a well-placed rope or two in the cockpit could do it, in a pinch.
There is NO WAY that our plane could have caused the collision. You have no argument here. Give it up.
with two aggressive Chinese jets buzzing by so close, why leave the flying to the auto-pilot when it can't predict the manuevers of the Chinese jets?
Perhaps they assumed that the Chinese pilots had half a brain in their collective head. You are quite correct in that this is now known to be a false assumption, but at the time, it was a good one based on the available information.
It's also worth pointing out yet again that the US plane was under no obligation to try to avoid the Chinese jets. The jets, being more maneuverable, were required to avoid the larger plane, eg. ours.
That's like setting your car (oh, look, I'm doing it now...) to cruise control and taking a nap as you drive down I-95.
Completely unanalogous situation. A plane has three degrees of maneuverability, whereas a car has two. A plane is far, far more maneuverable in those degrees than a car. There are several orders of magnitude fewer planes in the sky than cars on the road per vehicle volume. International rules of aviation require that the faster plane stay out of the way of the slower.
UM:
By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries.
For great justice?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited April 11, 2001).]
posted
I'm gonna say this again, for JeffKarde's benefit:
Under INTERNATIONAL Law, any plane in distress can make an emergency landing at any nation's airport. This does NOT give that nation's military/government the right to hold them there once they land. For ANY reason. It doesn't matter whether the plane is military or civilian or engaged in any operations outside that of open warfare.
In other words, the only way that they can legally hold the crew is to admit that a state of war exists between them and us. ____________________
In any case, I hear we're probably going to issue an 'apology' of some sort, anyway.
This will at least send a clear message.
Unfortunately, that message, which all our other allies and trading partners in the Pacific rim will receive loud and clear, is: "The United States is unwilling to stand up to China in a crisis situation."
On a personal, humanitarian level, I want to get our people home as fast as possible.
On a political level (that which we three-dimensional thinkers refer to as "The Big Picture,") it's a very bad idea to go about it this way.
Unfortunately, the Chinese don't give a damn about the humanitarian angle (ask the students at the Square), but they're willing to use it against us. We've shown them how 'desperate' we are to 'get our boys back' by broadcasting all those yellow ribbons and rot on CNN, and they're milking it for all its worth.
Believe me, if the reverse had happened, and it was their people we were holding, even in a MUCH more clear-cut case of espionage, it'd be a cold day in hell before we got any apologies. Gnashing of teeth, threats to nuke California again, but no apologies. See, in a communist culture, individuals, especially 'snoops,' are expendable.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
posted
UM: "By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries."
Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate."
Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay.
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
posted
BEIJING (April 11) - The United States ended an 11-day crisis with China on Wednesday by saying it was ''very sorry'' a Chinese pilot died in a collision with its spy plane and ''very sorry'' the U.S. plane landed in China without permission.
But despite not accepting responsibility for the incident or apologizing in full as China had insisted, the U.S. ''double sorry'' won a promise that the spy plane's 24 crew detained on China's Hainan Island since the collision would be freed.
A chartered passenger has taken took off from Guam to pick up the crew on China's Hainan island. The current scenario is for the charter flight to take the crew back to Guam, a U.S. island 2,360 miles southeast of Hainan, either for refueling or transfer to a military aircraft. The crew would then fly to Honolulu, where the U.S. Pacific Command is based.
The apparent end to the diplomatic crisis came following a letter by U.S. Ambassador Joseph Prueher to Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan on Wednesday.
Diplomats from both sides had agonized for days over the exact wording of the letter to make it mutually acceptable.
''Both President Bush and Secretary of State (Colin) Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft,'' the letter read.
''Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss. We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance,'' it added.
Prueher said later that Tang had given his assurances the U.S. air crew would be able to leave China promptly.
''As the U.S. government has already said 'very sorry' to the Chinese people, the Chinese government has, out of humanitarian considerations, decided to allow the crew members to leave China after completing the necessary procedures,'' the official Xinhua news agency quoted Tang as telling Prueher.
BUSH EXPRESSES SORROW
President Bush reinforced the letter, expressing sorrow for the death of fighter pilot Wang Wei, who parachuted into the South China Sea and is presumed dead.
''I know the American people join me in expressing sorrow for the loss of the Chinese pilot. Our prayers are with his wife and child,'' he told reporters at the White House.
Prueher declined to say when the U.S. crew could leave, but the 21 men and three women aboard the crippled EP-3 spy plane when it made an emergency landing on Hainan were expected to be flown out on Thursday.
U.S. officials said a chartered passenger plane would fly from Guam to Hainan and take the U.S. crew back to the Pacific island, from where they would head to Hawaii for debriefing.
The U.S. ''very sorries'' fell short of China's insistent demands that Washington apologize for the mid-air collision, which the United States refused to do, saying its plane was not responsible for the accident.
But they will allow the Chinese government to convince an angry public that Washington has indeed done so.
But while the immediate crisis was over between the world's only superpower and its most populous nation -- which harbor deep suspicions of each other -- it appeared Beijing was eager to continue using the issue to its advantage.
Xinhua quoted Tang as telling Prueher ''this is not the conclusion of the case'' and Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi, said the investigation into the incident was still going on.
Asked what would happen to the EP-3, packed with super-secret electronic eavesdropping equipment, Sun replied cryptically: ''The Chinese side reserves the right to make representations to the U.S. government pending the results of the investigation.''
RELATIONSHIP FRAUGHT WITH DISAGREEMENTS
Nor was there any sign that Washington was prepared to soft-pedal a relationship both countries acknowledge is fraught with deep disagreements and needs to be improved with trade between them running at more than $100 billion a year.
No sooner had the spy plane drama taken a decisive step toward the final curtain than the U.S. delegation at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva presented a resolution accusing China of abuses.
Although China is likely to fend off a vote on the resolution -- as it has every year since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy students -- the annual battle in Geneva is likely to further inflame relations.
Throughout the spy plane crisis, China's Communist government worked hard to convince the country's 1.3 billion people that it would not bow to a foreign power as its 19th century predecessors did.
It kept the massive search for pilot Wang and the grief of his wife on the front pages and on television, fueling nationalist emotions.
With a Communist Party leadership reshuffle due next year, no one in power could afford to look weak.
But initial reactions on the streets of Beijing to the resolution of the spy plane crisis were that China had not got enough in return for freeing the U.S. crew.
''Sorry is not enough,'' said Liu Yan, 33, a delivery man working the late shift in the diplomatic quarter. ''Our government has not been hard enough on the United States,'' he said, piling boxes of fruit and vegetables outside a luxury hotel.
''China has lost valuable equipment and an even more valuable life,'' said restaurant owner Yang Pin, 44.
''In the U.S. people get awarded millions for choking on their McDonald's,'' he said. ''The United States should back up its words with concrete actions -- that means money.''
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was swift to express his relief the crisis was over.
''I'm extremely happy that this issue has been resolved because we were all concerned that the longer it got drawn out, the more the possibility that positions would have hardened in both countries and complicated and perhaps that has taken so long to put together,'' he said.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
quote:Then you must not be paying attention. Jeff explained this at least once.
So since you have no REAL objections to my analogy, shall we just say I'm right and call it a night, then?
Sorry, Omega, you're not correct. The anaologies AREN'T correct. And I wonder why you keep objecting to my use of the Greenville as an example ... ?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
<Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate."
Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay. >>
If you believe racial slurs are humourous, that's your choice. I simply said I believe that words such as "nigger", "chinaman", or "cracker" are not appropriate. If that belief is considered by you a sign of obvious homosexuality, you might have a problem you need to think about. I did not insult UM, you, or anyone else for that matter, but I guess it's okay to insult an "obviously gay" guy.
Try not to get too wound up. It's the depricating humor that PsyLiam and UM specialize in. UM was spoofing the "hit 'em hard and hit 'em fast!" mentality that many people have taken in regards to this "crisis."
I also agree with you about "Chinamen", "nigger", et al.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
quote: UM: "By the way, Chinamen are deserved of painful death by Molten Plastic. Ride of the Valkyries." Ace: "I do not believe 'chinamen' is appropriate in a constructive discussion, just as the term 'nigger' or 'cracker' would not be appropriate." Me: I do not believe that 'ace' can detect UM's subtle sense of humour. He is obviously gay.
Okay, this is the first post that pissed me off, so I'm gonna take it out on you Liam. How is it a bad thing to be gay? It is a person's own choice. How can you assume that someone is gay? People that are not tend to find it offensive, so this is why you DON'T call people gay, unless they specify they are gay. How can you approve of racist attitudes? Maybe UM was only kidding, but if I were chinese, I'd be pinging his computer to hell with my T3, I would not care for an explanation or anything like that. I really do not appreciate the attitudes of a lot of people, in particular this has been Omega and UM, who have been against me since my very joining of this board, and now I see Liam has joined them as well, the people who have respect for others like JeffKarde, Nimrod and Ace, are becoming too few and far between, I suggest others make some changes.
------------------ "Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Printer-friendly view of this topic