"Stranded" implies he is physically stuck, but the article contradicts itself on several points.
> "I remain in Antarctica awaiting approval for my departure flight"
> He was not forced to stay there, only to remain in Chilean territory
> He must also leave the country as soon as conditions allow
> Guo’s plane “does not have the capabilities to make a flight”
As a reader, it's hard to understand exactly what is happening. This is very poor reporting.
The most interesting detail in buried in the last paragraph:
> The prosecutor’s office said Guo must also pay all costs for his “aircraft security and personal maintenance” during his stay at the military facility. He also needs to cover all expenses for his return.
> Guo’s plane “does not have the capabilities to make a flight”
> The prosecutor’s office said Guo must also pay all costs for his “aircraft security and personal maintenance” during his stay at the military facility. He also needs to cover all expenses for his return.
They may be unwilling or unable to sell him 60 gallons of 100LL avgas. It's not like he's just pulling up to the FBO at a local airstrip. There are thousands of locations across the country and across the world where aviators can just land, taxi to a tiedown and fuel up, and take off...the Chilean military base in Antarctica is not one of those places.
Do you think the base has some outdoor tiedown locations in the Antarctic winter, or keeps hangar space available for recreational pilots? Are they going to requisition fuel from the mainland, or dip into their supplies? They may be looking at the weather and saying that he can't take off without deicing and engine temp control provisions that his Cessna 182 does not have. He needs to fly some 800 miles in an aircraft with about 1000 miles of range into Antarctic winter weather, he only has a few hours of daylight per day which may not be enough to fly VFR from Antarctica to Chile, depending on the winds through the notorious Drake Passage.
From the perspective of the base commander, there's a very young man (almost still a child) who is asking to buy the military's fuel as if it were for sale and asking him to change flight schedules and get permission from the tower to unwisely take off and put himself into a potentially lethal situation. The commander has probably refused the same requests from trainees with inadequate hours or certifications, or whose aircraft were not rated for the weather at the moment, and has managed to keep hundreds of his charges alive in a very hostile environment. "Teenager stranded at base" is not a headline he wants to publish, but "Teenager lost in Drake Passage after receiving fuel and takeoff clearance at base" is far, far worse.
"only difference" and the quotes around "due process" are doing a lot of very heavy lifting there, trying to falsely equate due process and extortion
The entire point of Due Process is that it is NOT extortion. It is entirely designed to gather and weigh the facts, with respect to impartial laws created to maintain society.
While due process may fall short of those goals in some jurisdictions, acting like it is the literal same as extortion works only to further degrade society. You really do NOT want to live in a society with only extortion by local warlords, being themselves extorted by regional warlords, etc...
Plea bargains are legal extortion. Nothing else. Pay us and we won't try to make your life living hell. There's no justice in that and it's a shameful practice of any legal system that allows it.
Call a plea bargain a distortion or corruption of due process, but even with plea bargains, due process is far less bad than extortion.
Plea bargains, within limits and when not abused are also sensible for both sides. An accused who is guilty can benefit from a years-lighter sentence by saving the prosecutor's office thousands of hours of work by taking a bargain. Or, they can always decline the bargain, go to trial, and potentially walk away acquitted, or be subject to the full legal penalty if convicted.
Where plea bargains go horribly wrong is when used against the innocent as a means of coercion to extract a conviction, and yes, that is extortion-like and a corruption of due process.
> Plea bargains, within limits and when not abused are also sensible for both sides.
I disagree completely. The purpose of a just court is to establish what happened and administer appropriate punishment regardless of what either side thinks or what is convenient for them. Without this basic honesty the whole system is a mockery.
one time I was forming a business in a state, in person. The price was $70 now, and I wanted to speed that up, as I was pulling out my kickback funds, they said I could do expedited processing for $200. The state actually codified expedited processing for $200 in a prescribed legislative process.
the only difference between the categorization of this transaction was due process.
Got it. So in your world, everything where you don't get the best service for the cheapest price is extortion because you think you are entitled to that.
Paying extra for expedited service is standard almost everywhere. Next you'll be telling us FedEx is extortionist because they charge 5X to deliver a package before 10AM tomorrow instead of before 8PM three days from now. "They're still just putting the box on a plane and truck and dropping it off...". And because UPS and USPS also charge more for faster service, they are a colluding cartel extorting everyone, along with your states' Business Bureau (or whatever it's called), and the US Passport service which also charges iirc $150 extra for an expedited passport.
Due Process is not extortion because 1) it is a standard process based on fairness to arrive at the cost or penalty, and 2) it is THE SAME for everyone. The legislature decided on a process, presumably with input from their bureaus that it required X extra work to expedite, and came up with $200.
If it was extortion, it would be the worker at the desk saying" I'm the only one on duty today, and you need it today, pay me (sticks finger in wind) $450 for expedited service".
Learn the actual meanings of concepts before you use them
Sheesh
He lied about his flight plan, didn't ask for authorization to land on a remote military base, endangered himself and others, all this for personal aggrandizement (and he is using kids with cancer to cover for his ego trip)
He is very much stranded, as a civilian on a military base, they are just chucking all procedure and rules out, he does not officialy exist, but gets fed and a bed, and razzed and razzed and razzed, sounds like he held up, though it will likely be impossible for him to fly out as it would need special attention to get the plane running if it was left to freeze solid, and departure clearance will have to come from the minister in charge and then he could end up waiting for 6 months for good weather.....
guy did a polar circumnavigation in a RV kitplane,
very serious extended range
I'd have massive schadenfreude if red tape prevents him from leaving on his plane. "You need fuel? Oh we have plenty here, but as military we can't just give you fuel, your government needs to buy it from our government who'll talk down the chain of command to us.".
"You want to fly? Your violation of the airspace laws means you're not allowed to use Chilean airspace anymore... sorry Gringo."
> "I remain in Antarctica awaiting approval for my departure flight"
> He was not forced to stay there, only to remain in Chilean territory
> He must also leave the country as soon as conditions allow
> Guo’s plane “does not have the capabilities to make a flight”
As a reader, it's hard to understand exactly what is happening. This is very poor reporting.
The most interesting detail in buried in the last paragraph:
> The prosecutor’s office said Guo must also pay all costs for his “aircraft security and personal maintenance” during his stay at the military facility. He also needs to cover all expenses for his return.
So the real reason he is "stranded" is extortion.