It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm no, the quote os there in black and white, with a link even .....
It says more than 200 spy flights conducted off the Chinese coast a year.


While the article said aimed at china you said at chinas coast. get it?....slowly rogue1 you can get it



I was just showing you the quote and link pertaining to your question. As I have shown I was correct. Who is the one who doesn't seem to remember what they're saying


I said that in regard to your comment
"The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast"

Slowly rogue1 just one more to read


Probably looking for where Chinese radar and air defence sites are.


Showed me.... Targeting china and not the chinese coast nor near hainan. Tell me a chinese radar site or air defence site on the chinese coast near hainan in 2001.
. I have a list of them and none of them would warrent a patrol. neither of them are even 200miles from where the aircraft was.

BTW: they are HQ-2s the same ones the vietnamese were using in vietnam



My proof is the the link I provided to the procedures they'd use if they landed in a hostile country. It was there in black and white, you choose to ignore it


All you could come up with was procedures.....


REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about what the crew was able to destroy in terms of intelligence data and equipment on board that plane before the Chinese boarded? And could you also provide us a little more detail? You talked about they were greeted by armed guards. Can you fill in the blanks there, tell us how the Chinese treated the American crew, and were they forced off the plane at gunpoint?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The crew has a checklist; they went through that checklist and did an excellent job of doing everything that was, I believe, possible in the period of time they had. With respect to the guards coming aboard the aircraft, they boarded the aircraft. They were armed and they invited the crew off the aircraft.

REPORTER: That sounds like a diplomatic answer, Mr. Secretary. Were they, in fact, forced off the aircraft at gunpoint?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I do not know if the guns were even taken out of the holsters.

REPORTER: If I could follow up here, when you say "excellent job," are you satisfied that the crew was able to destroy enough of that data and equipment that it could not be of any intelligence help to the Chinese?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The crew is being debriefed. And what we know at this present time is that they succeeded in doing a major portion of their checklist.


While its up to your interuptation of what major means



I stand by what I said, the idiot pilot was flyin only several meters above the EP-3 wing, now if that isn't extremely dangerous flying I don't know what is.


Above the wing?.

We have a video and the american accusation that it flew under the EP-3 and hit the engine which is under the wing. You got your story straight?.


The EP-3 was on autopilot as well.


"The 10-minute conversation between Rumsfeld and Osborn occurred shortly after 11 a.m. Eastern Time"

The autopilot was rarely mentioned in any of the EP-3 articles. I have a collection of 30 which includes your one which is only claimed by Rumsfeld. Statments only mean little considering you'll refer to the american side of the story while you wouldn't believe the chinese side.

If this is the case then why would i believe rumsfeld. should i also believe that iraq posed a threat to america or had WMDs?


I would rether believe the 2nd pilot which confirmed the hit on the Wang Wei on which bit of his fighter before the day ended. Which confirms that the J-8 did not hit the EP-3 but was hit


LOL, the fact that he was flying that close could be considered suicidal. Once again I said that his flying that close was beyound his skill and he crashed into the EP-3


Two stories/versions.

One the chinese second pilots story where the american pilot rammed into the chinese fighter which was 1-3meters away. Yet before he already buzzed the american fighter as close as 3-5meters and nothing happened.

Two. the americans labelled it a accident. The chinese plane hit their plane...



[edit on 28-3-2006 by chinawhite]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I some how missed the most important part of my post.

Americas territorial limits extend beyond 12nm. Under he own laws (she created) any aircraft which enters the limit. I think it was 200km of the american coast is escorted by american jets and without permission told to go away. China also has those laws.

Double standards?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
They aren't told to "go away". They're intercepted and identified. If they are an aircraft, such as a Russian bomber, they are escorted until they leave the ADIZ zone. They aren't forced out, locked up with weapons, or have planes fly within feet of their engines creating navigation hazards. Escorting is one thing, what the Chinese did was impede the operation of an aircraft in international airspace, which is against international law. There are many incidents of the Soviets entering the ADIZ zone of the US, and not one of them being rammed, or forced to land, or impeded in their flight. Escorted yes, impeded no.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Zaphod58,

End result? ...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm no, the quote os there in black and white, with a link even .....
It says more than 200 spy flights conducted off the Chinese coast ayear.


While the article said aimed at china you said at China's coast. get it?....slowly rogue1 you can get it


Erm, are you dull ? Where do you think the planes are flying when they are targeting China
South America, DUH. It's obvious to anyone who uses their brain.




I was just showing you the quote and link pertaining to your question. As I have shown I was correct. Who is the one who doesn't seem to remember what they're saying


I said that in regard to your comment
"The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast"

Slowly rogue1 just one more to read


Urgh, whats the matter - You in a bad mood because I've proven everyting you've said to be wrong. Well it's obvious from the posts whose right and wrong as other members have pointed out. But hey keep talking in circles if you think it gives you some minor victory.



Probably looking for where Chinese radar and air defence sites are.


Showed me.... Targeting china and not the Chinese coast nor near Hainan. Tell me a Chinese radar site or air defence site on the Chinese coast near hainan in 2001.
. I have a list of them and none of them would warrant a patrol. neither of them are even 200miles from where the aircraft was.


As I said ' probably ', as it was speculation. As for Chinese air defences they are constantly changing especially with the introduction on S-300 and S-400 systems. These planes can also spy on all electronic emissions including cell phones.
The plain flew all the way from Japan, it wasn't just targeting Hainan, but the Chinese coast in between.
It must be frustrating to have an extremely narrow view such as yours, especially when you're much wrong of the time.






My proof is the the link I provided to the procedures they'd use if they landed in a hostile country. It was there in black and white, you choose to ignore it


All you could come up with was procedures.....


REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about what the crew was able to destroy in terms of intelligence data and equipment on board that plane before the Chinese boarded? And could you also provide us a little more detail? You talked about they were greeted by armed guards. Can you fill in the blanks there, tell us how the Chinese treated the American crew, and were they forced off the plane at gunpoint?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The crew has a checklist; they went through that checklist and did an excellent job of doing everything that was, I believe, possible in the period of time they had. With respect to the guards coming aboard the aircraft, they boarded the aircraft. They were armed and they invited the crew off the aircraft.

REPORTER: That sounds like a diplomatic answer, Mr. Secretary. Were they, in fact, forced off the aircraft at gunpoint?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I do not know if the guns were even taken out of the holsters.

REPORTER: If I could follow up here, when you say "excellent job," are you satisfied that the crew was able to destroy enough of that data and equipment that it could not be of any intelligence help to the Chinese?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The crew is being debriefed. And what we know at this present time is that they succeeded in doing a major portion of their checklist.


Thanks for proving me right yet again. As you can see even Rumsfeld acknowledged the checklist and that the crew would have used it







I stand by what I said, the idiot pilot was flyin only several meters above the EP-3 wing, now if that isn't extremely dangerous flying I don't know what is.


Above the wing?.

We have a video and the american accusation that it flew under the EP-3 and hit the engine which is under the wing. You got your story straight?.


Ok then under, so what, it doesn't change my argument in the slightest. Obviously you know my arguments are right as you are nitpicking very very minor points. You are wrong about almost all of them anyway. This is the first mistake I've made, LMAO.



The EP-3 was on autopilot as well.


"The 10-minute conversation between Rumsfeld and Osborn occurred shortly after 11 a.m. Eastern Time"

The autopilot was rarely mentioned in any of the EP-3 articles. I have a collection of 30 which includes your one which is only claimed by Rumsfeld. Statements only mean little considering you'll refer to the American side of the story while you wouldn't believe the Chinese side.

If this is the case then why would i believe rumsfeld. should i also believe that iraq posed a threat to america or had WMDs?


I would rether believe the 2nd pilot which confirmed the hit on the Wang Wei on which bit of his fighter before the day ended. Which confirms that the J-8 did not hit the EP-3 but was hit


You use dubious sources and now you're saying you'd take the 2nd Chinese pilots word. Come on, I would hardly call that unbiased - idiotic.



One the chinese second pilots story where the american pilot rammed into the chinese fighter which was 1-3meters away. Yet before he already buzzed the american fighter as close as 3-5meters and nothing happened.

Two. the americans labelled it a accident. The chinese plane hit their plane...


The fact remains the Chinese pilot should never have been that close to the EP-3 in the first place a FACT you seem to constantly ignore. You know it's the truth, yet you refuse to admit it.

Well I've proven all you arguments wrong, as far as I'm concerned this post for me is closed. No point talking in circles.




[edit on 28-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Zaphod58,

End result? ...


End result is that the planes flying off the US completed their missions safely. The planes flying off China and North Korea have reported several near misses and very close calls.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
No military aircraft from another country is allowed access in the ADIZ zone. When they enter the ADIZ zone they are escorted out. After 3 buzzs at the EP-3 on chinas border and other incidents like this involing the same pilot only managed then to make them move from chinas coast which under chinese law as well as with american law forbids forign military craft from entering their airspace. You enter and when you get to a certain point they threaten to shoot you down.


Hypocritically, the US, which opposed extension of coastal states' rights and jurisdictions in EEZ, by establishing Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) under its domestic law (US code 14 title 99), extended its jurisdiction on the air space beyond its territorial water. Chinese ambassadors, in an April 4 interview on CNN, argued that if a Chinese military aircraft did the same reconnaissance flight over US offshore, that the US would be opposed to such actions. So far, no one has refuted this argument. It is clear that coastal states can take self-defense countermeasures under national security considerations not withstanding UNCLOS provisions. The US should respect Chinese security considerations, as well as Chinese should respect American's near the US seashore.


Source


And if you cant see the double standards and think there is a difference between america and china then you sir shouldn't be arguing the point if you cant even acknowledged the fact that america has it rules that it enforces while china also has rules it enforces. Even though america did not ratify the UN Convention on Law of Sea its still the innocent country

Also in north korea you actually entered their terriotial airspace. 12nm around their base. they ahve every right to shoot you down.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
rogue1,

your post are getting more amusing. but im wondering why you haven't responded to my post about the EEZ
.

Personal life....... even though you came on at 6-7am to reply to my post



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Puhlease, outside of the axis of evil in the world, who trusts China?



China more popular than U.S. overseas

WASHINGTON - The United States’ image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many countries, an international poll found.

The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating Dec. 26 tsunami.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

and this
www.cfr.org...


BTW, why is your name ChinaWhite? don't you know what that means in slang?


here is the story. I was stuck on a name and after failing to qualify for ATS twice (i didn't know you couldn't use hotmail address). i didn't want to use the same name twice so i was watching the movie chinawhite about the golden triangle and chinese triads so i choose it


You guys got lucky, so now you can make copies of new plane and sell it cheap because you don't know how to design one yourselves. You had a good day but don't expect many more of them.


by all means respond to this here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or the russians to?
Myth dispelled: Tu-160 Blackjack = copy of B1 Lancer?

By all means....


"Deny The Status Quo" -- ......Stick to your name



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
rogue1,

your post are getting more amusing. but im wondering why you haven't responded to my post about the EEZ


Hmm already hvae several times, if you don't like the truth I can't help that. Not to mention other members have pointed out how completely wrong you are
Why are you making yourself look stupid, are you a massochist ?

Once again the EEZ has nothing to do with the control of the airspcae above it. China's airspcae extends 12 NM from their land border no more - it's all there in black and white - can you read ?



Personal life....... even though you came on at 6-7am to reply to my post


? You mean getting up for work means I have no personal life LOL. When you finish school you'll find out all about work if you can get a job that is

BTW, don't flatter yourself I would hardly make the effort to answer your post if I already wasn't looking at something on ATS. As it is you're easily dealt with, so why not put in a quick post.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
You know what, it does make sense if the crash happened because the EP-3 veered to the left, although of course they wouldn't do it intentionally. Their spy mission is from Kadena Airbase on Okinawa, flying west, and when they're done they turn around and head back east. Of course they have to turn left because if they turn right they'd be heading towards Chinese airspace and that would make the intercept pilots suspicious.

By the time the incident happened, the EP-3 was pretty much at the western limit of the South China Sea, so they have to return to base. My guess is that a combination of the J-8II pilot flying too close and the EP-3 pilot not looking while turning around caused the crash. Also, the J-8II's wings have a low aspec ratio so its manoeuvrability is really bad when flying at such slow speeds to keep up with a prop plane. The pilot probably didn't react fast enough too.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm already hvae several times, if you don't like the truth I can't help that. Not to mention other members have pointed out how completely wrong you are
Why are you making yourself look stupid, are you a massochist ?

Once again the EEZ has nothing to do with the control of the airspcae above it. China's airspcae extends 12 NM from their land border no more - it's all there in black and white - can you read ?


Yeah........

I have a article saying exactly what i am saying........While you are now even denying the connection the article refers to freedom of flight even though its under its banner
. my my my




Did you know the americans didn't even ratify the UN Convention on Law of Sea ?


Now the high seas does not include airspace as well...brother. but i would expect something like this from rogue1. Nows its not the freedom of overflight but now its what it refers to. i suggest you look up international meanings


and if it wasn't refering to airspace as the high seas why would overflights be under the high seas section......


" 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: "

..........


You might want to check out my sources as well.
Source




(1) interfere with or endanger the sovereign rights of the coastal State for the conservation and management of the natural resources, as well as its jurisdiction with regard to the protection and preservation of the marine environment (see Articles 56(1)(a)), 62 and 77, and Part XII);

(2) involve MSR without the consent of the coastal State, or in violation of the other provisions of the Convention (see Articles 56(1)(b) and 246(2), and Part XIII);

(3) interfere with the rights of the coastal States with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures (see Articles 56(1)(b), 60 and 80); or

(4) involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).


You can go check up article 301

-----------------------------------

Article to sum it up better if its not coming from me since rogue1 has a hard time believing chinese people


The EEZ regime, acknowledged by the international community in 1982 by UNCLOS, in many respects, was a product of a compromise between developing countries and industrialized countries. The EEZ regime itself has established some rights for coastal states protecting its off-shore natural resources. It reserves for the coastal nation jurisdiction over economic and environmental activities taking place up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The US, which has the strongest sea power in the world, agreed to some preferential status for coastal states in natural resources (the US set up its own EEZ in 1983) but strongly opposed any restrictions on traditional "freedom of navigation" or "freedom of overflight" in EEZ. (The US signed the UNCLOS but did not ratify it because of other reasons). The US regarded these freedoms as "high sea freedoms" (1983 Reagan Proclaim). Developing countries, on the other hand, tried to extend their jurisdiction in EEZ and to restrict these "freedoms." Brazil and some of the other 77-group states (a group composed primarily of economically-developing nations) claimed that any military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ should be subject to prior consent of the coastal states.

These controversies did not even end after the conclusion of UNCLOS. Article 58, paragraph 1 explicitly stipulates that all states can enjoy freedoms as referred to in Article 87 (High sea freedoms, including freedom of overflight). But developing states also got their points in paragraph three of the same article, which says that when exercising these freedoms, states have "due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states." However, it is not very clear in UNCLOS that "security interests" (which are irrelevant to natural resources and environment protection) should be included in the rights of coastal states in their EEZ.

Hypocritically, the US, which opposed extension of coastal states' rights and jurisdictions in EEZ, by establishing Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) under its domestic law (US code 14 title 99), extended its jurisdiction on the air space beyond its territorial water. Chinese ambassadors, in an April 4 interview on CNN, argued that if a Chinese military aircraft did the same reconnaissance flight over US offshore, that the US would be opposed to such actions. So far, no one has refuted this argument. It is clear that coastal states can take self-defense countermeasures under national security considerations not withstanding UNCLOS provisions. The US should respect Chinese security considerations, as well as Chinese should respect American's near the US seashore.

Source 3

Source 2

One nation exercising her rights to protect her EEZ

Japan sinks 'North Korea spying ship'

Refers to the location

A american ally none the less



You mean getting up for work means I have no personal life LOL. When you finish school you'll find out all about work if you can get a job that is


Yeah i work to?. Your hard done by the world?



BTW, don't flatter yourself I would hardly make the effort to answer your post if I already wasn't looking at something on ATS. As it is you're easily dealt with, so why not put in a quick post.


Did you lose sleep...

is the US navy unbeatable??? 28-3-2006 at 02:07 PM
is the US navy unbeatable??? 28-3-2006 at 01:01 PM
S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?! 28-3-2006 at 12:42 PM
Chinas plans to wipe out the USA. Very Scary. 28-3-2006 at 05:39 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event 28-3-2006 at 05:29 AM
What Are The Worst Movies That You've Seen? 28-3-2006 at 02:37 AM
Lockheed/Martin's APKWS II or Mini Hellfire 28-3-2006 at 02:13 AM
Chinas plans to wipe out the USA. Very Scary. 28-3-2006 at 02:05 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event 28-3-2006 at 01:55 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event

First thing you replied to
. You sure have a personal life there



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm already hvae several times, if you don't like the truth I can't help that. Not to mention other members have pointed out how completely wrong you are
Why are you making yourself look stupid, are you a massochist ?

Once again the EEZ has nothing to do with the control of the airspcae above it. China's airspcae extends 12 NM from their land border no more - it's all there in black and white - can you read ?


Yeah........

I have a article saying exactly what i am saying........While you are now even denying the connection the article refers to freedom of flight even though its under its banner
. my my my


ONce again you ignore the conventiaons or just plain don't understand them. Come on are you deliberately trolling or just stupid.






Now the high seas does not include airspace as well...brother. but i would expect something like this from rogue1. Nows its not the freedom of overflight but now its what it refers to. i suggest you look up international meanings


DUH, you don't seem to know what you are talking about as per usual my ignorant friend.



and if it wasn't refering to airspace as the high seas why would overflights be under the high seas section......


Erm because the EEZ refers to the high seas, all it is saying is that the EEZ cannot interfere with overflights. It's very simple,maybe not enough for you though.





(1) interfere with or endanger the sovereign rights of the coastal State for the conservation and management of the natural resources, as well as its jurisdiction with regard to the protection and preservation of the marine environment (see Articles 56(1)(a)), 62 and 77, and Part XII);


This is really funny, you've posted the evidence yourself that I'm right. What did yuo think the EP-3 was doing stealing fish ?


(4) involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).

You can go check up article 301



LMAO, yeah an unarmed reconnaissance plane really constituttes a therat of force. Come on waht a lmae argument you put forward.




One nation exercising her rights to protect her EEZ


As I've said before, the P-3 wasn't strealing fish. You still don't understand what an EEZ is - unitl you work that out, there really isn't much point to you posting.




You mean getting up for work means I have no personal life LOL. When you finish school you'll find out all about work if you can get a job that is


Yeah i work to?. Your hard done by the world?


Erm, your the one who wanted to know why I posted early in teh morning and I explained it to you. Rather a purile response from you, not unexpected though.
BTW. Going to school isn't work





BTW, don't flatter yourself I would hardly make the effort to answer your post if I already wasn't looking at something on ATS. As it is you're easily dealt with, so why not put in a quick post.


Did you lose sleep...

is the US navy unbeatable??? 28-3-2006 at 02:07 PM
is the US navy unbeatable??? 28-3-2006 at 01:01 PM
S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?! 28-3-2006 at 12:42 PM
Chinas plans to wipe out the USA. Very Scary. 28-3-2006 at 05:39 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event 28-3-2006 at 05:29 AM
What Are The Worst Movies That You've Seen? 28-3-2006 at 02:37 AM
Lockheed/Martin's APKWS II or Mini Hellfire 28-3-2006 at 02:13 AM
Chinas plans to wipe out the USA. Very Scary. 28-3-2006 at 02:05 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event 28-3-2006 at 01:55 AM
China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event

First thing you replied to
. You sure have a personal life there


EEE Gads, you must be really hard up for attention. If the above isn't the response of a kid I don't know what is.

There doesn't seem to be much point conversing with you, maybe when you've left kindergarten



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Technically china white the US was no threat and was within its right:



2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State

Technically leaving from one airport in the EEZ and landing in another is allowed under the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA.


And since the US flys over 200 flights a year near the chinese coast , as you yourself posted a link saying so, that brings this into play:



(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress



And since the US proceeded without delay on thier flight plan they should NOT have had a chinese plane anywhere near it for that in effect is a hostile move.



1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;


No where did the US aircraft "Delay" its journey.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp


2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State

Technically leaving from one airport in the EEZ and landing in another is allowed under the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA.

Was the EP-3 leaving from one airport and landing in another? Or does it make a round trip from Kadena?

The way I see it, overflight simply means transitting, where your mission is solely to go from point A to point B. So if the EP-3 was just going on a trip to Vietnam and passing over China's EEZ along the way, with its spying equipment turned off, that's legal.

However it was doing more than transit, its primary mission was to spy. Spying in another nation's EEZ is neither legal nor illegal, it's simply an issue that the UN has not addressed yet, and will address in the future. Most likely it will be made illegal for the sake of preserving peace.

See section 6.3

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Taishyou]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
The way I see it, overflight simply means transitting, where your mission is solely to go from point A to point B while passing over somebody's EEZ, with all your spy equipment turned off. That's legal.

However it was doing more than transit, its primary mission was to spy. (Or was it going on vacation in Vietnam?
) Spying in another nation's EEZ is neither legal nor illegal, it's simply an issue that the UN has not addressed yet, and will address in the future. Most likely it will be made illegal for the sake of preserving peace.

See section 6.3


The thing is an EEZ protects the economic rights of that countries resources in that area. It is still international airspace and international waters. As long as you aren't exploiting the resources in the area, you have right of passage, no matter where you're going, by international law.
It wasn't CHinese airspace as it was well outside the 12 mile CHinese territorial boundaries. Simple as that.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Was the EP-3 leaving from one airport and landing in another? Or does it make a round trip from Kadena?

The way I see it, overflight simply means transitting, where your mission is solely to go from point A to point B. So if the EP-3 was just going on a trip to Vietnam and passing over China's EEZ along the way, with its spying equipment turned off, that's legal.

Why should it be turned off? Its as you said nethier legal nor illegal.
They where not breaking any regulations nor endangering anyone nor threatening anyone.
Walking down the street to keep an eye on a guy you dont trust isnt illegal, the scenario is exsactly the same.


Most likely it will be made illegal for the sake of preserving peace.

What is "most" likely to happen I'm sorry to say isnt on the agenda for the UN right now, I believe they have a slight issue of nuclear weapons on thier hands instead of one downed american plane.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
ONce again you ignore the conventiaons or just plain don't understand them. Come on are you deliberately trolling or just stupid.


.....READ.....READ....READ


The EEZ regime, acknowledged by the international community in 1982 by UNCLOS, in many respects, was a product of a compromise between developing countries and industrialized countries. The EEZ regime itself has established some rights for coastal states protecting its off-shore natural resources. It reserves for the coastal nation jurisdiction over economic and environmental activities taking place up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The US, which has the strongest sea power in the world, agreed to some preferential status for coastal states in natural resources (the US set up its own EEZ in 1983) but strongly opposed any restrictions on traditional "freedom of navigation" or "freedom of overflight" in EEZ. (The US signed the UNCLOS but did not ratify it because of other reasons). The US regarded these freedoms as "high sea freedoms" (1983 Reagan Proclaim). Developing countries, on the other hand, tried to extend their jurisdiction in EEZ and to restrict these "freedoms." Brazil and some of the other 77-group states (a group composed primarily of economically-developing nations) claimed that any military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ should be subject to prior consent of the coastal states.

These controversies did not even end after the conclusion of UNCLOS. Article 58, paragraph 1 explicitly stipulates that all states can enjoy freedoms as referred to in Article 87 (High sea freedoms, including freedom of overflight). But developing states also got their points in paragraph three of the same article, which says that when exercising these freedoms, states have "due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states." However, it is not very clear in UNCLOS that "security interests" (which are irrelevant to natural resources and environment protection) should be included in the rights of coastal states in their EEZ.

Hypocritically, the US, which opposed extension of coastal states' rights and jurisdictions in EEZ, by establishing Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) under its domestic law (US code 14 title 99), extended its jurisdiction on the air space beyond its territorial water. Chinese ambassadors, in an April 4 interview on CNN, argued that if a Chinese military aircraft did the same reconnaissance flight over US offshore, that the US would be opposed to such actions. So far, no one has refuted this argument. It is clear that coastal states can take self-defense countermeasures under national security considerations not withstanding UNCLOS provisions. The US should respect Chinese security considerations, as well as Chinese should respect American's near the US seashore.


Source







DUH, you don't seem to know what you are talking about as per usual my ignorant friend.


Name calling is the only way you know how..




Erm because the EEZ refers to the high seas, all it is saying is that the EEZ cannot interfere with overflights. It's very simple,maybe not enough for you though.


Well since you can only insult yet in a very childish manner is proof you dont even understnad international conventions. I have learnt what a convention declaration, treaty all mean and consitute. You dont have the basic understanding of international law yet and wish to argue in a childish manner


Part 1 is part of the the whole bit. You need to agree to ALL of them. Its like a contract and if you just highlight a bit and say you done it you are ignorant or are missing your information


This is really funny, you've posted the evidence yourself that I'm right. What did yuo think the EP-3 was doing stealing fish ?


........



LMAO, yeah an unarmed reconnaissance plane really constituttes a therat of force. Come on waht a lmae argument you put forward.


You didn't even read it did you. You glance over the information and cut and paste words in your head to suite your argument. Its in actual black and white for you rogue1. You wont miss it this time.


(4) involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).


Did you even look where article 301 is located or have you even read it?




As I've said before, the P-3 wasn't strealing fish. You still don't understand what an EEZ is - unitl you work that out, there really isn't much point to you posting.


Clearly you dont understnad how international law works. READ the WHOLE of the UN Convention on Law of Sea. I have actually read the whole thing quite a few times and have a good understanding of what a convention and international law requires. This is from the most part to do with the taiwan straight crisis where me and another member of this board which has a PhD were discussing this information about internaional laws which i got interested in and started studying on it.



BTW. Going to school isn't work


Isn't it.........
.

Wow thank you i didn't know this



EEE Gads, you must be really hard up for attention. If the above isn't the response of a kid I don't know what is.


What about this
"Going to school isn't work"

To continue personal insults is one thing. to make them sub-standard is anotehr



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Technically china white the US was no threat and was within its right:


......Did you just read rogue1s post and come up with the argument?. Since rogue1 left half the information out you should revise your argument


And since the US flys over 200 flights a year near the chinese coast , as you yourself posted a link saying so, that brings this into play:


I didn't post a article about that. rogue1 did



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
......Did you just read rogue1s post and come up with the argument?. Since rogue1 left half the information out you should revise your argument

No I didnt I have been in the nautical feild of affairs for most of my life , and I wont revise my arguement I stand by it. Prove me wrong if you wish I will learn and come back.



I didn't post a article about that. rogue1 did

No you didnt, you qouted. My mistake I apologise.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join