Sass Sasot Burns Interaksyon Reporter Who Published an Article Out of Her Own Ignorance

International political analyst and veteran social media blogger Sass Rogando Sasot lectured and burned down Interaksyon Reporter Catalina Ricci Madarang who posted an article about international law based on her own understanding which caught the attention of the DDS Blogger Sass Sasot.


Blogger Sass Sasot called the attentions of Interaksyon particularly their reporter identified as Catalina Ricci Madarang for maligning the popular blogger on Interaksyon's latest report saying that Sasot was "defending Chinese actions on Scarborough" and finds Sassot defense "confusing."

According to Sass Sasot if only the Interaksyon journalist actually asked the person she's writinga bout and do an actual research, she would have not published an ignorant article questioning Sasot's stance on the controversial issue about the West Philippine Sea.

The veteran DDS Blogger, Sasot also explained that she wasn't defending the actions of the Chinese, in fact if only, Madarang just really did her research on For the Motherland-Sass Rogando Sasot Page, the Interaksyon reporter would have learned her mistake and not published an article without clear proof.



Here's the Complete Statement of Sass Rogando Sasot:

Interaksyon YOUR REPORTER PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE OUT OF HER OWN IGNORANCE...THIS IS MY REPLY

If your "journalist" only did what every journalists really do, ACTUALLY ASK THE PERSON SHE'S WRITING ABOUT AND DO AN ACTUAL RESEARCH, she would have not published this ignorant article. Ms Madarang lifted a photo from my Instagram but didn't spend any time to clarify what she finds confusing in what I wrote? What kind of journalism is that? What Ms Madarang wrote is nothing but a product of what I owuld like to call "miron journalism."

In an article she wrote yesterday (https://tinyurl.com/y9ajxsd4), Catalina Ricci Madarang of Interaksyon said that I was "defending Chinese actions on Scarborough. And she found the defense "confusing."

Her article was based on an exchange I had with a commenter who was asking me about what crime was committed by the Chinese coast guards.

I wasn't defending their actions, Ms Madarang. In fact, if you just really did your research in this Page, in my first video about the incident I clearly said that there was something wrong that was committed and that the Philippine government should complain to China. The bilateral consultation mechanism between our countries should be activated.

Second, what's exactly was confusing in what I said?

It seems that Ms Madarang is the one who was confused!
She didn't really follow our conversation.



The commenter asked me in a series of comments in a post what crime UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW was committed by the Chinese coast guards.

I gave an answer based my knowledge of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW. And yes, as I told him, under INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW the crimes are punishable are defined the Rome Statute.

Now, the commenter told me that PIRACY was committed by the Chinese Coast Guards. And to support his claim that this is punishable UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, the commenter gave me the definition of piracy by UNCLOS.

I then told the commenter that the definition of piracy under Unclos is NOT applicable because piracy there is defined of "any of the following acts: any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft…”

So yes, I asked, since when Chinese coast guards "crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft"?

So how exactly is that "defending Chinese actions" as Ms Madarang interpreted it? Clearly, she doesn't know the difference between a point of clarification vs an actual defense.



Third, to rebut me, Ms Madarang quoted someone, not privy to my exchange, who said that the definition of piracy only applies to the high seas and not to the EEZ.

But what exactly is its relevance in my conversation with the original commenter?

In order to make it relevant, Ms Madarang quoted another person who said that: "Being that the event happened within the Philippine territory, this would fall under Presidential Decree 532 or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974."

But since when the Scarborough Shoal PART OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY so that we could exercise FULL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION over it? Where's our sovereign title to it? The arbitration decision clearly didn't resolve the issue of who has sovereignty over that shoal, as issues of territorial sovereignty is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal and Unclos. So where exactly Ms Madarang and the commenter got their confidence that we can enforce our DOMESTIC criminal law in the Scarborough Shoal, given that such enforcement would assume that we have territorial sovereignty in that area?

And since when is the EEZ part of a country's territory? Since territory is an internationally regulated concept, please cite any source of international law supporting that claim.

And more importantly, since when can a country enforce its criminal law in its EEZ? Does Ms Madarang actually know that countries have only limited jurisdiction in their EEZs, and that this is ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS in nature and that countries cannot apply their domestic criminal laws in their EEZs?

If Ms Madarang researched on these questions before writing her article, she wouldn't be confused.

Source: Sass Rogando Sasot FB Page

Sass Sasot Burns Interaksyon Reporter Who Published an Article Out of Her Own Ignorance Sass Sasot Burns Interaksyon Reporter Who Published an Article Out of Her Own Ignorance Reviewed by Phil Newsome on June 20, 2018 Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.