“Arousing Public Mistrust”

Prosecutors May 28 questioned Shin Sang-cheol, who runs Seoprise, a Web-based political magazine, over his assertion that the Cheonan sank in an accident and that the evidence linking the North to the torpedo was tampered with, the JoonAng [Daily] said. Shin served on the panel that probed the sinking.

The magnified photograph of writing on the torpedo showed that the marking was written on top of a rusted surface, the newspaper cited Shin as saying. The Defense Ministry asked the National Assembly to eject Shin from the investigation for “arousing public mistrust,” the report said.

Bloomberg Business Week, May 29, 2010

____________

Related
China urges region to step back, Reuters, May 30, 2010

4 Responses to ““Arousing Public Mistrust””

  1. Was the torpedo hibernating there, or was it actually aimed at the Cheonan?

    What did the Good Lord make corvettes for? The British have experimented with ASDIC since 1916/17 and won the Atlantic battle with ASDIC, and with their corvettes.

    What is a corvette doing in the area in question, when it doesn’t operate against submarines? Were they on their own, or in a formation? What was the Cheonan’s task? If it was about convoying fishing boats, the anger is understandable. If its task was pursuing North Korean submarines, I feel sorry for the victims, but that would be 1 : 0 for North Korea.

    Did the Cheonan or accompanying corvettes – if any – employ certain kinds of torpedo countermeasures? If not, why not? If yes, why didn’t they work as they should?
    It was said that airforce came to the rescue of the Cheonan survivors. Was the airforce there from the beginning, which would suggest that this was an anti-submarine operation? Did they drop depth charges? Could that explain the number of casualties?

    Why wasn’t the submarine located and destroyed?

    The emphasis in the mainstream news is very much on the implications the incident should have – we should get much more information on the course of events instead.

    Like

  2. Thanks for commenting, Tai De. The possibility that it could be a remnant from the Korean war was initially mentioned in the news, but faded out of the discussion some time after the “incident”.

    In my view, it would be too early to believe that Seoul “groomed” the evidence – but also too early to believe that North Korea was the perpetrator. The politically more conservative parties in East Asia seem to have a rather unthoughtful approach to evidence and its conservation – when Taiwanese (i.e. KMT) prosecutors investigate the Chen Shui-bian case, one of the prosecutors ridiculed the former president on a social invent of the department.

    There is this of “good and bad people” kind of attitude which may tend to jump to conclusions. And maybe Seoul decided that this was an opportunity to reverse the “sunshine” policy – started by Kim Dae Jung in 1998 – for good.

    Maybe.

    Btw, I seem to remember that there were Swedish experts (as supposedly rather neutral ones) involved in the investigation. But I haven’t seen their names in the news and besides, the best answer to allegations that the evidence is compromised should be to make more information / footage available to the public. Shouldn’t be so difficult, should it?

    Like

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: