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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

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?

All I'm saying is, passing over the EEZ solely for the purpose of transit is perfectly legal. Spying in the EEZ is just not-illegal, which is slightly different from legal in that it's an issue the UN has not explicitly addressed. In this case the nation being spied can decide for itself what to do with the spy plane, and interception is normal since the spy plane does pose a threat to national security in that data gathered by it can be used to the spying nation's advantage in any future conflict.




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Im tried writing in point form and having insults thrown my way so ill start this off as a debate You open your argument and i will open mine

The incident involving the EP-3 and J-8 happened in chinas airspace from her EEZ. The EEZ is a economic zone which is mainly used to confrigure the economic zones and economic development. The rules of this law were written in 1982 at the UN Convention on Law of Sea which i will refer to as UNCOLS. This in effect was a agreement for the development of eocnomic resources adjacet to the respective countries borders which also includes inland water laws and is primary developed based on shafts on the sea bed.

The EEZ states that you have these


(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.


Only if you abide by
"Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law."

Other rules of the sea and internatinal law. The international law states that counties using this lane or airspace shall not "involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301)."

Article 19, paragraph 2 contains a list pf non-innocent passage

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;



The UN charter article 301 refers to the sovernity of the nation and which the US admits to be conducting spy missions on chinas coast, while when chinese ambassorors question if the american governmet would let chinese spy planes spy on the american coast there was no rebutale which means that america would not allow the chinese to conduct flights 70miles from americas coast. While america expects that they could come and do the same to china even though they did not ratify the UNCLOS

The wording of international conventions are like those of a contract which have conditions to follow and you dont abide by one rule or law which is passed but by all of the laws and meanings which have been passed. A convention does have legal meaning and is legally biding as long as your a signitory and have the approprite steps and measures to stop people from breaking these laws. sanctions etc. The US is such the pwoerful country and has such a connection that the whole word at the moment would collapse without the american economy. That is why no one done anything about iraq when the US invaded even without a UN mandate


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.



As been told, If the US admitted responibility for conducting spy flights on china it would have to have gave them up which they did not want to do such deny it was their fault and yet put responsibility on the chinese. Like the FBI says, nor confirm nor deny. This responses lets you stop having responsibilty for the act and in practice cant do anything since he does not deny it or does not confirm it.

-----------

You might be wondering does america abide by these rules and let other nations fly in their airspace?. Well the answer is no. The amercians being a signitory to the UNCLOS did not rafity the argreement because they didn't want other countries to stop american planes flying spy missions.they enforce a no-fly zone around the country which is not international rule but a domestic law which is a loop hole(not a loop hole but definace) so they can stop aircraft around 200km of their borders instead of the 12nm which they want every other country to abide to.

China also has her own domestic laws which has a no fly zone around the country while the americans dont abide by her laws yet forcce other nations to abide by hers.

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

Conclusion

Small simple one... America does not allow forigen nations to spy on her yet she spies and accuses other nations of doing the same thing and self protection.

As the chinese ambassadors questioned the US on their law and had no rebutale for it. its just one example of double standards of the amercian government


Links
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
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.


You got it wrong because you said i was refering to a threat while it was rogue1 which was refering to a threat.

I was refering to the second line of the passage
involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).

Thats why im asking you to revise your argument since you were arguing rogues point not mine



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
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?


So what ' use of force ' was the P-3 displaying ? The plane was unarmed






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.


I have and it still doesn't support your argument. kinda interesting that the Chinese have said the P-3 only violted Chinese airspace ater it was hit by the J-8 not before. Even the Chinese governemnt realises that the EP-3 was in interantional airspace.
China can't even claim EEZ rights over that territory anyway, it clashes with Vietnams EEZ which I've posted on your other thread, yet which you seem to hvae ignored







BTW. Going to school isn't work


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

Wow thank you i didn't know this

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

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


Since when is telling the truth a personal insult
You have already admitted you'tre a school kid previously, 16 years old isn't it. I am just pointing out that going to school hardly constitutes work and that you were misleading people saying you were.

LOL, personal insults blah - maybe you shouldn't have started them



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Write your opening argument since we are know going to have a debate on this instead of short quotes since then you are more likey not to use insults as a argument


Originally posted by rogue1
So what ' use of force ' was the P-3 displaying ? The plane was unarmed


Why are you thinking in literal meaning....... I already told you to go and read article 310 of the UN charter. It even says refer to it.

Why do you incentily want to look stupid?. so you can reply to everything and make your post longer?.



kinda interesting that the Chinese have said the P-3 only violted Chinese airspace ater it was hit by the J-8 not before. Even the Chinese governemnt realises that the EP-3 was in interantional airspace.


............ Another error you get while you read western media which does not cover the whole story. The offical line of chinas government has been aired on CCTV 4,5 and english channel 9. I have watched about 5-6 2 hour news broadcast where they present their case with video edvidence crash edvidence and graphical reconstructions.Both then acting chinese prime minister was live on TV as well as the second pilot

The other un-offical news i watched were on Phoneix TV which is from taiwan. and Xing Kong in hong kong.

After all that i think i would know the chinese side of the story instead of some old internet googled/yahoo searched articles you have been reading recently

What you are refering to is the two apologies the americans gave where they apologized for entering chinese airspace. that has nothing to do with the EEZ or where the crash happened since it coverd the illegal landing of american planes on hainan and not the intercept which the americans never apologized for


China can't even claim EEZ rights over that territory anyway, it clashes with Vietnams EEZ which I've posted on your other thread, yet which you seem to hvae ignored


Even though western media refers to the crash site as chinas EEZ zone while vietnam did not lodge a complaint againest this, it also highlights your lack of knowledge in international laws. 200nm is the MAXIMUM possible distance of vietnams EEZ they could get yet they do claim some but its based more on the continential shelf which they do not own. China being in closer proximity of the area while even having it near its contintal shelf has the bigger right to claim hence no disagreement from vietnam.

Yet you did not check this out before coming to absurd conclusions. Vietnam and china under UNCLOS guidence has set up resource managment teams to come up with a agreement

The red dot is the appriomate place where the crash happened while the yellow circle is the parcel island which china owns


PS: I did not ignore that thread since the things you posted there were the same information and i did not want to have the same disscussion in two threads.


I am just pointing out that going to school hardly constitutes work and that you were misleading people saying you were.


Dont you hate it when slow people dont get sarcasm


Why in the hell would i say my job is school?. i am refering to a actual $10 a hour job. I have been working since i was 14. Yet i have a personal life

again....dont you hate it when slow people dont get sarcasm



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
The answer here is obvious,
1.Turn China into one giant self lighting parking lot.
2._______________________________________
3. Profit.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
You got it wrong because you said i was refering to a threat while it was rogue1 which was refering to a threat.

No I was saying that the chinese government seen it as a threat otherwise they would not have sent out a fighter now would they?


I was refering to the second line of the passage
involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).

Thats why im asking you to revise your argument since you were arguing rogues point not mine

Then why are you complaining about US aircraft over intenational waters?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The Chinese did what every nation would've done if the caught a plane of such sorts on radar. Irrespective of the fact that it was in international waters.

What happened afterwards was only in the control of those involved at that very moment.
The pilot must have obviously been given orders to buzz the P-3. Obviuosly he didn't do a very good job of it.


EEZs are irrelevant over here.
We aren't at a diplomatic convention here to argue about irrelevant things such as rights of passage, EEZs, nautical boundaries.
That can be done on PTS

Everyone knows what the P-3 was doing there and everyone knows what happened and why it happened.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then why are you complaining about US aircraft over intenational waters?


Because of this.

Article 19, paragraph 2 contains a list pf non-innocent passage

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Ahem:


2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

Now....tell me where she went within 12 miles of chinese territory. Oh and if you are obsessed with the US doing one way spying what about the chinese spys stealing information from america caught by the FBI?
Or the chinese hackers?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
..........................



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Heres somemore you can re-answer since you drift away from everything



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I need to post something about this spying buisness which it appears most of you are not wont to know or are hiding your knowlege of these affairs.

THe United States of America is in the buisness of spying...spying on everyone ...and I mean everyone...our friends as well as whatever enemies we have this year verses next year. In short we have no friends. out there ..including Americans. We spy on our own people too.

I cannot imagine what world some of you are living in.

We have been spying on China and Korea for over 40 years that I know of. In the olde days before satellite coverage the SR 71s often flew across China without difficulty when warrented. The Chinese could do nothing about it. THey dared not complain and show weakness here and we knew it. It would have been a tremendous loss of face for them. Dont get all puffed up over this information. The SR 71 aircraft have been replaced with new technologies.
I know that we have flown over both Koreas and spied on both for our purposes. I also know of one intelligence gathering aircraft which had its tail shot out of it by a Mig on one of these missions over Korea. It was replaced with a much higher altitude airplane and the missions continued without a word in the newspapers.

We spy on our own people and have been doing so for over 40 years that I myself know about. This stuff about wiretaps is rubbish. Most Americans are asleep at the wheel here in this arena. Americans would be shocked to know the precise relationship the Government information/intellgence agencys have with the telephone companys. If they have this relationship with the telephone companys ..they naturally have this relationship with the computer industry...think this through carefully.

This buisness of spying and intelligence gathering is not quite what you people think..including those of you in China on this thread. Wave your flags all you want people..including Americans. You are way off the mark....the system is designed to keep you off the mark..on placebos..sugar pills..never in the bulls eye. Think this through carefully.

I am not tooting my horn in this. It is to serious a subject for horn tooting or self promoting. I merely offer this viewpoint in lieu of all the flag waving that is going on here. It is not what most of you think. Even those of you in China...and especially among my fellow Americans.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

You have voted orangetom1999 for the Way Above Top Secret award


The things you say have very deep meaning. If you dont mind saying, what books do you read?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Excellent question to be asked..and I dont believe I have ever been asked such a question on this board...Chinawhite.

As to what books I read..I am open to many types of books..

I mostly read non fiction.....history especially.

some fiction...not much science fiction though I am aware that much of science fiction is really disguised religion mixed up with science to sell a product. Some science fiction can be quite telling.

Biographys are good too..if it is people in which I have an intrest.

I am not much into sports.....though I do enjoy fishing...if you want to call that a sport. I am not into what here in America we call trophy fishing. I much rather fish for dinner ....though I do just enjoy the day or sometimes night when fishing.
You will never find me watching much sports on television..unless it is a fishing program.

I enjoy certain kinds of technical books which teach me how to do a thing or accomplish a task.
It is from books that I learned how to do morse code...how to remove the engine from my cars and trucks and rebuild them to like new condition. And of course I am learning a bit about these computers from books.
From books I have taught myself to reload ammunition..how to make my ammunition perform to the tasks which I require from it. Same with the engines in my cars and trucks.
Books have taught me how to modify my mopeds and scooters to better perform in the manner I require of them.
I have also been blessed to learn some things from olde men...teachers ...how to do things which are not always to be found in books. I think the term sometimes is to learn from ones Elders. The olde ones.
Sometimes they will teach you things which they dont want you to learn in schools especially about how to think for yourself.

The knowlege of which I spoke in my previous posting here on ATS is from things I have read. Sometimes when you read a thing you must look beyond the pages and the writing on the pages ..into the soul and spirit of the thing written...to sometimes see what is not on the pages...what is left out. This can be difficult to do if you are not able to think and reason outside of what someone else wants you to think..or has programmed you to think without you even being aware of it.

Some of what I know I can contrast with what I learned when I served in the military...in the olde days...and havent forgotten. Others from what I have learned on my particular job. THe rest is just common sense...by what is not told to us.....as much as what we are allowed to know.

I have traveled this world even before my time in the Military of this nation..as my father too was in uniform in those days. I have seen how other peoples live.
Most of us here in America have no idea how others live outside the United States and think what we have here is normal for most nations...it is not so. Nor is the thinking of other peoples the same as us.

Do not misunderstand me...Chinawhite...I am as patriotic as any other
American. I just know a bit more about things which the Average American does not. Many of us only know what garbage they feed us on radio and television. It is a shame ..this is not good. YOu see Chinawhite..we too have our political masters here in the United States. It is just that many of us have no idea of this type of thinking. So many of us are ignorant enough to feel safe behind our television sets and the steering wheels of our cars.

I think that you are somewhat young Chinawhite. If this is so there is nothing wrong with being young. Enjoy it while you can but do not be ignorant of true conditions. Time stands still for no one. Just do not allow yourself to be deceived by conditions as are so many of us here in the USA. Your political masters will do this to you as they do here. Many here are asleep behind the steering wheels of thier cars. They will be fine till the time comes to wake up.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
In the olde days before satellite coverage the SR 71s often flew across China without difficulty when warrented. The Chinese could do nothing about it. THey dared not complain and show weakness here and we knew it. It would have been a tremendous loss of face for them. Dont get all puffed up over this information. The SR 71 aircraft have been replaced with new technologies.


The SR-71 did not overfly China, for teh same reason tehy didn't overfly the USSR - the old SA-2 and subsequent missiles could shoot it down. The only overflights of CHina were conducted by Taiwanese U-2's and teh US D-21 ramjet drone.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
orangetom1999,

Good stuff
. Same type of books i read except for sports because im very into AFL and tennis. For technical books i normally read the "Books for Dummies" range which describes technical matters in laymans terms.

I suggest you apply for a senior role in this forum because you have a lot of wisdom to share



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
At the bottom of your page you have the term...

"Maslow's heirarchy"


Does the refer to the famous Abraham Maslow or is it another personage refered to here? Curious about this as I have been thinking for the last few of your posts about this label.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The SR 71 did not fly over Russia or China ..either by drone or any other configuration of which we have been publically told about..or allowed to know.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
"Maslow's heirarchy"


Maslow's heirarchy of human needs




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join