Well, Doug answered for the most part but....

>Huh? We haven't gotten any further here. We don't know who is to blame for the accident.

Common sense, Evan. Common sense. You think a big prop plane like that one decides to hot dog into a jet fighter?

>>Oh, several. A 1919 convention about aircraft and sovereignty. Also a 1998 agreement between China and the US. And there is another treaty which I can't recall the year or location that also deals with these matters.
>
>Let's see some links.

Oh, c'mon. Ok, here's a link: http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_leb.pl?icao/en/leb/treaty.htm

However, the treaty details are not there. However, I am pretty sure the 1944 Chicago treaty has a bearing...that's the one where sovereignty of an aircraft was established. I also *think* that the 1929 treaty was what I was thinking of when I said 1919, above.

Sheesh, dude, I'm not your law clerk.

>If the US had something to gain from either situation I am sure they would have done it, as most countries would. The US has little to gain from Russian or China communication equip.

WRONG. The USA is, for the most part, a nation that respects international convention. And respects fair play at a gut level. Taking advantage of anothers distress is dishonorable and not fair play. I don't see this country as doing that unless under extremely extenuated circumstances.