German Families To Sue Ukraine Over MH17 Deaths

[Purveyor]

Source: Deutsche Welle

Over two months since Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine, killing 298 people, three German families are set to file suit against Kyiv for negligence.

German weekly Bild am Sonntag reported that the lawyer representing the families would bring the claims before the European Court of Human Rights, demanding 1 million euros ($1.29 million) compensation for each victim.

Elmar Giemulla, who specializes in aviation law, argues that Ukraine should have closed its airspace if it couldn't guarantee the security of planes above the conflict zone.

"By keeping its airspace open for transit by aircraft from other countries, the state must ensure the safety of the flights. If this is temporarily impossible, it means that it should close its airspace."

Read more: http://www.dw.de/german-families-to-sue-ukraine-over-mh17-deaths/a-17938210

[Demeter]

1. An interesting theory

I don't think it will get very far.

For one thing, it would open up the whole 9/11 can of worms...what did they know, when did they know it, and who fucked up?

[cstanleytech]

2. Agreed. If anyone should be sued its the Russians. nt

[Duckhunter935]

3. agreed

Ukraine took all normal precautions for the rebels having MANPADS. They did not know that the Russians supplied a BUK used to shoot the plane down.

[CJCRANE]

4. I thought it was a Ukrainian owned BUK

that the Ukrainian government knew was unaccounted for?

If so that would be the basis of the lawsuit.

[cstanleytech]

5. From what I have read the blame seem more with Russia than anyone else.

https://bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/09/08/images-show-the-buk-that-downed-flight-mh17-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/


Edit:Not to mention if Russia wasnt trying to take over Ukraine territory as well as supplying the "rebels" the whole incident would never have happened.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Findings from the investigation determined it was a Buk missile.

But definately NOT who fired it.

If you have links to confirm beyond doubt who did so then I suggest you post them

[Duckhunter935]

9. well since it was fired well

within pro-Russian held territory and they took credit until it was found to be a civilian airliner and they figured out the big oops they made.

I am surprised the canon fire from the Ukraine fighter is still not being put forward. I guess some gave up on that now.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Could have been a silimilar issue to this.

Fuck up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

[Duckhunter935]

18. possible but unlikely

Ukraine had no reason to use the BUK as the pro-Russian side had no airplanes. There is also video and photographic evidence of the pro-Russians moving a BUK system right where the shot was fired from well within area controlled by them and not by the Ukrainian military. There is evidence of the BUK moving back into Russia with one missile missing and the pro-Russian rebels took credit for the downing on social media and from telephone intercepts. They then took the social media post down after they found out about the mistake they made.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Most reliable reports have the BUK coming from Russia

and going back with video and photographic proof. There was some reporting of Ukrainian BUK systems being captured and they stated they were not operational. The rebels claimed they captured them and them after the shoot down they retracted that. If true it would take experts to repair and do the required transmitter and receiver adjustments and load and ensure the missile frequencies were properly entered into the system.

[CJCRANE]

8. Fair enough.

However some airlines were avoiding the area, so it seems like they thought it was dangerous for air traffic.

[Duckhunter935]

10. That is up to the airline

Ukraine put out the warnings.

[CJCRANE]

12. It's not clear that they did

otherwise they would sue Malaysia Airlines.

Maybe they will in due course.

[Duckhunter935]

14. My guess is they are suing everyone

[CJCRANE]

16. Do you think the victims families

have a right to know the truth and get some compensation if there was negligence on anyone's part?

[Duckhunter935]

19. if they prove negligence

yes, but, I do not see that now. They will have to find the BUK and I do not think it is in Ukraine anymore.

[CJCRANE]

21. The question is what was the Ukrainian govt

assessment of the risk at the time and what they told the airlines.

The current location of the BUK is irrelevant.

[Duckhunter935]

22. the risk was MANPADS

max of around 15 thousand feet. They were well above that.

[CJCRANE]

24. You're probably right

But let's wait for all of the information.

[Duckhunter935]

25. Agreed

It would help if both sides abide by the agreed to cease fire.

[MattSh]

35. WRONG

It is up to Ukraine to close it's airspace unless they can guarantee it is safe.

They knew it was a war zone and no way no how should they have let a commercial airliner within 100 miles of the place.

[Duckhunter935]

36. Can you give me the source for this?

where did you come up with 100 miles?

Please lets see some actual facts. You just say wrong., how about some proof to that statement. I can say the same thing.

[reorg]

37. Seriously?

If you really didn't read any news on this after July 17, it'll take you two minutes to find the appropriate information.

[Duckhunter935]

39. yes, very

I skip RT so I guess I must have missed the talking points

[reorg]

40. too lazy or what?

[Duckhunter935]

41. Nope I like facts

It is up to Ukraine to close it's airspace unless they can guarantee it is safe.

They knew it was a war zone and no way no how should they have let a commercial airliner within 100 miles of the place.

I just asked for the source for his statement

It normally is the FAA and Euro-control that put out the NOTAM advisories for pilots and they did have one in effect for eastern Ukraine at that time.

[reorg]

44. No, it's not the responsibility of the European Aviation Safety Agency

but you were too lazy to spare two minutes and find it out for yourself.

They don't have the right to close the airspace. Nobody is forcing an airline to fly over certain areas if they don't want to, but nobody other than the state in question has sovereignty over its airspace and can close it.

"ICAO does not declare airspace safe or unsafe or undertake any other direct operational responsibilities with respect to civilian air services," said spokesman Anthony Philbin, according to a Reuters report. "It is always the responsibility of our sovereign member states to advise other states of potential safety hazards," he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

The Chicago Convention expressly affirms that each state retains exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (Art. 1). Thus, member governments reserve the right, for reasons of military necessity or public safety, to “restrict or prohibit uniformly the aircraft of other States from flying over certain areas of its territory” (Art. 9a).

http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx

ICAO Secretary-General Raymond Benjamin issued a letter of clarification to member states emphasizing each state’s responsibility to monitor threats and conflicts within its territory and, if necessary, to take measures to restrict or close airspace.

http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2014/07/31/airline-disasters-bring-obscure-global-organization-to-the-fore/

http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/NewsDoc2014/059e.pdf

[Duckhunter935]

45. Which Ukraine seems to have done with the threat known to be at the time

MANPADS held by the rebels. That is Until Russia started supplying the heavy weapons and BUK systems.

[reorg]

46. Right

They have their own Buks on alert, even present them on tv a few days before in action, claim the Russians are constantly violating their airspace but when a civilian airliner gets shot down they say, oops, now THAT came SO unexpected!

[MattSh]

47. Well hey...

It might not be 100 miles, because they use kilometers over in Europe.

This plane was exactly 0 miles and 0 km from a war zone.

Jesus Christ on a polo stick. The EXACT distance doesn't matter. Does it really matter if it's 100 km, 200 km, 1000 km or 500 miles? Each and every country is responsible for guaranteeing the safety of it's airspace.

[Duckhunter935]

48. so you make the rules

Make sure you let all of the airlines know so they can follow them. They had air bulletins out and they were followed. To bad the rebels used an ADA system designed for up to 75 K feet and did not use the IFF system. Ukraine and the rest of the countries did not think they had them available and only were worried about MANPADS.

I assume you made up this rule, since you will not link to a source for your comment.

[saidsimplesimon]

13. great sig line cstanley,

"Beware of the DU troll. This species if encountered is provoked easily and will lash out and spew forth BS especially at anyone that it believes does not fall within its narrowminded definition of what a perfect democrat should be."

President Putin claims Russia's only interest is humanitarian. While he boohoos about Western aggression in Ukraine, Putin is busy trying to claim all Arctic resources are in Russian territory.

[davidpdx]

31. I agree with the can of worms

For almost any fight that was shot down, hijacked, crashed, or for that matter involved in a mid-air collision a victim's family could claim that the country (state, city, or whatever jurisdiction) in which it took place was responsible above and beyond the actual reasons because it took place there.

What about the Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland? Yes, it was destroyed by a bomb. Why not sue Scotland since it was in their airspace?

Value Jet Flight 592, fire in the cargo compartment. Sue Florida! (hey, we should sue Florida anyway)

Etc, etc.......

It seems like a ridiculous argument.

[cosmicone]

11. Kyiv is guilty as sin ... good for the Germans

Kyiv traffic controllers changed the course of the plane to fly over rebel territory to use it as a human shield for its fighters. Then Kyiv confiscated all the tapes from the ATC. The tapes have gone missing ... but Russia has and will release the conversations.

Normally, the plane would have flown 200 miles south of where it was shot down but Kyiv put the plane there for selfish reasons without regard to human life.

[Duckhunter935]

17. The Russians have the tapes

Why not release them then, they have had ample time.

They flew north due to weather as has been put out many times.

Ukraine did request a slight deviation at 13.19.49 after talking to the Russians at Rostov, MH 17 replied at 13.19.56. Lost contact at 13.20.00. All under a minute.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mh17-transcript-of-flights-last-moments-reveals-frantic-efforts-to-contact-disappeared-plane-9720715.html

[dipsydoodle]

20. I recall confiscation of the recordings

and links are in du which confirmed from the time. I also had noticed further absence of mention having no clue of apparent loss. .

Lost my foot.

[Duckhunter935]

23. The black boxes have in excess of the last two hours of

communications and another poster says Russia has copies but have failed to produce them. I will go with the time hacked recorder data.

[Man from Pickens]

26. Another piece of information

"15:29:

Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency. "

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28360784

Interesting that the ATC tapes got blackholed. I wonder if anyone is telling anything even close to the truth on this incident.

[daleo]

27. The Beatles said it best

Everyone's got something to hide, except me and my monkey.

I think that applies to this case.

[Duckhunter935]

32. the aircraft voice recorder has this info

so it really does not matter about the other tapes. I do think they have been turned over though. The flight data recorders have both side of the conversation between the flight crew and the ground.

[joshcryer]

30. Sowing doubt = conspiracy theories.

If you sow enough doubt people don't know what to believe. This is what creationists do about evolution. This is what alien conspiracy theorists do about UFOs. This is what climate change deniers do about climate change.

This is what laissez-faire capitalists and state authoritarian socialists do about economics.

[joshcryer]

29. I recall the confiscation of the black boxes, too.

It appears both the recordings and the black boxes were turned over to the investigators.

Of course, sowing doubt is the way of the Kremlin...

[joshcryer]

28. This is an absolute fabrication.

The investigators have the tapes.

[dipsydoodle]

42. Yes Josh.

Wasn't the black boxes on the subject to which I referred. It was the recordings themselves of all flight information/chatter/discussion confiscated between all Ukraine aircraft both civilian and military held by Kiev's aviation authorities and their prompt confiscation.

[reorg]

33. These dumb Germans are probably conspiracy nuts

Don't they know that Putin personally ordered the delivery of a Buk missile system to the rebels?

Don't they know that rebels are usually drunk and cannot tell a duck from a flying saucer?

Don't they know that the Ukrainian army had Buk missile launchers in the area but would never shoot, except if they thought they were shooting at Russians?

Don't they know that radar data provided by the Russians showing these Ukrainian Buk missile systems were active are likely faked, since, as everybody knows, that's just what the Russians do?

Don't they know that every other possible scenario has to be categorically ruled out since "a preponderance of evidence" largely drawn from social media points at Putin?


Now, as to the question of negligence, it is true that Ukraine should have closed the airspace if it couldn't guarantee the security of planes above the conflict zone.

But if you read the entire article down to the last sentence, you'll see what this sneaky German lawyer really has on his mind: "he said he would file a lawsuit against Moscow if enough such evidence were gathered. 'For this I'm dependent on the support of Western governments,' he said."

AS IF! That's all we need right now, making the case for this ambulance chaser!

The president already said: "we stand with you, shoulder to shoulder, in our grief and in our absolute determination to get to the bottom of what happened." So leave us the fuck alone with your petty demands for proof and satellite pictures.

[Duckhunter935]

38. I beg to differ. I think the Germans are just looking for deep pockets.

Don't they know that Putin personally ordered the delivery of a Buk missile system to the rebels?

No, but I am sure he told his people to help out the rebels with ADA systems since they were being targeted by fighters and the Ukrainian army was being supplied by air unlike the rebels so there would be little danger of fratricide.

Don't they know that rebels are usually drunk and cannot tell a duck from a flying saucer?

You do not even know what you are talking about. Unless the BUK had the proper IFF codes and it was operational, all the operators would have seen is a blip. Slightly different size due to the return size from a fighter to jetliner. They would not see data like flight numbers or other digital data.

Don't they know that the Ukrainian army had Buk missile launchers in the area but would never shoot, except if they thought they were shooting at Russians?

The Ukrainian government had no systems in the heart of that section of rebel held area where the missile was fired from.

Don't they know that radar data provided by the Russians showing these Ukrainian Buk missile systems were active are likely faked, since, as everybody knows, that's just what the Russians do?

What radar data shows for an operational BUK system? Do they use the acquisition radar data the track radar, missile guidance radar? They would have to have an aircraft in the air intercepting the transmitted signals and know the correct frequencies, PRF, signal levels and type of radar subsystem to ensure the type of missile system.

Don't they know that every other possible scenario has to be categorically ruled out since "a preponderance of evidence" largely drawn from social media points at Putin?

So what other evidence has been provided that has not been discounted for being not possible other than the photographic and video evidence that has been openly vetted and appears to be true.

[reorg]

43. Interesting question

Did the "Ukrainian government had no systems in the heart of that section of rebel held area where the missile was fired from"?

The Russians provided satellite pictures of a Buk missile battery near Zaroshchens'ke:



Here is the exact location on Google maps.

Not very far from where the Americans assume the shot was fired, and the airliner was easily within range from there. Now compare this location to the map of operations from 10-18 August (sorry, didn't find an earlier one with English titles, but the southern line didn't change much in these days).



The Ukrainians just needed to drive 3 or 4 km north into the "rebel held" area, perhaps not that difficult when there is fighting going on a few miles to the left and to the right.