Then, contrary to your insinuation, he's not your authority for the claim that the expulsion of the two Egyptians constitutes enforced disappearance. Therefore it remains a defensible conclusion that you got that idea from Bollyn.
The point is that Sweden was not averse to doing it.
To doing what? Under pressure from an angry and embattled United States government, and pursuant to false representations from the Egyptian government, Sweden short-circuits its asylum process and deports two Egyptians, one of whom later wins a judgment against Sweden for -- not enforced disappearance -- but exposing him to torture as the result of failed due process. While unacceptable, that's not as nefarious a tale as you seem to want everyone to believe.
You're still trying to argue from an assumption that one action is equivalent to another more serious action. You're still trying to argue that it's a pattern of behavior that somehow makes your claim more palatable that Sweden "disappeared" the
MS Estonia officers.
It was a note at the back, so intrigued, I looked it up for myself.
I doubt your story. Where
exactly did you "look it up?" We're looking for the source of your legal theory that the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery constituted enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, and that -- according to your claim -- a human-rights court upheld that theory. You've conceded that Drew Wilson is not the source of that theory. So far it's just you and Bollyn, and he was there first. Therefore the most parsimonious conclusion is that you got it from him, and -- as is
your established pattern -- you're trying to deny the identity and reputation of your sources.
