Bolivian Leader's Plane Rerouted on Snowden Fear(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Bolivian Leader's Plane Rerouted on Snowden Fear
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/07/02/world/americas/ap-lt-nsa-surveillance-bolivia.html?hp
10 comments
Portugal is a mess recently with several cabinet members resigning, including a key figure overseeing the implementation of terms agreed to in its bailout by the EU. I can see Portugal being in a particularly compliant mood at the moment in order to build good will with those that may have to help bail it out again.
But France? What could possibly be the motive other than bending to pressure from the US?
But France? What could possibly be the motive other than bending to pressure from the US?
The NSA/US government probably has lots of dirt on politicians in these countries, and are applying it. Democracies are not so much democracies when the NSA can blackmail local politicians. I personally believe that this is the whole point of our large scale sweep of "everyone" surveillance, no matter how innocent they are.
That could be it. Or the United States could be applying the typical measures of pressure in the diplomatic toolbox, consisting largely of economic incentives, concessions that meet other countries' policy goals, and appeals to mutual interest. You know, the standard tools of statecraft that have barely changed since the Congress of Vienna.
You decide which seems more plausible.
You decide which seems more plausible.
Well my friend, I suggest we wait a year or two, and it might be clear which of us is right.
I am old enough to have lived through the Pentagon Papers disclosures, when a lot of people were calling for the execution of Daniel Ellesberg. Now, only right wing whackos don't acknowledge that Ellesberg served interests of US citizens.
EDIT: I am not being critical of you. I appreciate your comment, thanks.
I am old enough to have lived through the Pentagon Papers disclosures, when a lot of people were calling for the execution of Daniel Ellesberg. Now, only right wing whackos don't acknowledge that Ellesberg served interests of US citizens.
EDIT: I am not being critical of you. I appreciate your comment, thanks.
Or, they are all in on it.
No need to jump to conspiracies. Is it really that crazy that France might just want to help an ally track down a desperately wanted fugitive? Surely they'd ask for our help if they thought a rogue intelligence agent was flying across the US.
Except, Snowden obviously didn't do this for personal gain. His life is probably over.
Compare this situation to a British citizen a few years ago who sold sensitive state secrets for money, and got the MAXIMUM PENALTY by UK law: 2 years in prison. Snowden who rightly or wrongly is acting from I believe are his own moral goals, may get the death penalty, tortured like Manning, or life in prison.
"desperately wanted fugitive"? I am curious about you, and why you use a phrase like this. Seriously, please explain your position on this.
Compare this situation to a British citizen a few years ago who sold sensitive state secrets for money, and got the MAXIMUM PENALTY by UK law: 2 years in prison. Snowden who rightly or wrongly is acting from I believe are his own moral goals, may get the death penalty, tortured like Manning, or life in prison.
"desperately wanted fugitive"? I am curious about you, and why you use a phrase like this. Seriously, please explain your position on this.
Maybe the French don't care what his motives were? I think I'd be generally disinclined to support people who publish state secrets if I were running a government.
But I'm not sure why you're confused. You disagree that he is a wanted fugitive? Or with my characterization that he's "desperately" wanted? I think the US would very much like him to return and face charges.
But I'm not sure why you're confused. You disagree that he is a wanted fugitive? Or with my characterization that he's "desperately" wanted? I think the US would very much like him to return and face charges.
Reply to Eli's child post, for some reason there is no reply link under his comment:
I am confused by responses such as yours that only consider Snowden and not the public release of information about the NSA. I don't argue that Snowden should not get a year in jail after a fair trial. I personally think he has done the world a service and should get a walk, but a minimal jail sentence would be fair.
The NSA leaks are a big deal, and I believe an opportunity for our country to get its act together. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
So, I assume that you don't agree that our government would coerce foreign politicians. I wish that I could agree with you, but I can't.
I am confused by responses such as yours that only consider Snowden and not the public release of information about the NSA. I don't argue that Snowden should not get a year in jail after a fair trial. I personally think he has done the world a service and should get a walk, but a minimal jail sentence would be fair.
The NSA leaks are a big deal, and I believe an opportunity for our country to get its act together. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
So, I assume that you don't agree that our government would coerce foreign politicians. I wish that I could agree with you, but I can't.
How does the lack of personal gain justify anything?
To me, that Snowden has basically sacrificed his life to release information that he thought the public should know is key to whether or not he is a whistleblower,and thus deserve some form of protection. If you are agree with the Patriot Act and what the NSA is doing, then I respect your opinion but I don't agree with you.
How does the presence of personal gain impugn anything?
>The NSA/US government probably has lots of dirt on politicians in these countries, and are applying it.
"Those who tell us to trust the US's secret, privatised surveillance schemes should recall the criminality of J Edgar Hoover's FBI."
-Barret Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-in...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/surveill...
"Those who tell us to trust the US's secret, privatised surveillance schemes should recall the criminality of J Edgar Hoover's FBI."
-Barret Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-in...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/surveill...
[deleted]
No, and I can't imagine it will go over particularly well in Latin America. Terrifying for Snowden now though. If there was any doubt as to what lengths the US will go to make an example of him, it's now gone.
The Portuguese authorities allowed ~150 CIA flights carrying "al-quaeda sympathizers" to Guantanamo (and other places) [1].
Now they deny right-of-passage to a flight carrying the president of Bolivia. Because? Well, you know, doing otherwise would upset the American authorities. It's realpolitik.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Portug...
Now they deny right-of-passage to a flight carrying the president of Bolivia. Because? Well, you know, doing otherwise would upset the American authorities. It's realpolitik.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Portug...
I am really surprised at how great the gap has become between the US Government's rhetoric and actual policy on human rights, foreign policy and government transparency.
I just hope that Americans realise this and demand change sooner than later.
I just hope that Americans realise this and demand change sooner than later.
I completely agree, so please take this as an explanation and elucidation rather than a criticism: The concept of merely "demanding change" is unlikely to result in change, unless the term "demanding" includes actions that would result in significant disruption of economics and daily life (in which case that is an entirely different discussion).
The core piece in dampening a desire for change, in my thinking anyway, is the two-party system. Both parties are complicit and supportive of all this nonsense by an overwhelming internal majority. Outliers who join third parties are historically unsuccessful and outliers as candidates within the Democratic and Republican parties are rare. Even if you are lucky enough to have the chance to vote for someone radically pro-transparency or pro-privacy in federal election, the following still apply:
1. They are likely new, and years away from being in a leadership position of an important committee (where real accountability and change might begin).
2. They often fall into line over time. If they buck the party too often, too publicly and on too central of an issue, it is possible that the party will support them less in future national elections.
3. Any legislation they introduce, if acceptable at all, might well be diluted by amendments and through the committee process. Our congress appears slow and deadlocked because, it is in some ways designed to be. That is not me saying I agree with that design decision, but again just shining a light on the point.
The two-party system is a barrier to expressing (electorally) desire for change beyond a certain delta from the status quo. A multi-party system, though it might be fraught with other issues, would go some distance toward representing more varied sets of concerns.
The core piece in dampening a desire for change, in my thinking anyway, is the two-party system. Both parties are complicit and supportive of all this nonsense by an overwhelming internal majority. Outliers who join third parties are historically unsuccessful and outliers as candidates within the Democratic and Republican parties are rare. Even if you are lucky enough to have the chance to vote for someone radically pro-transparency or pro-privacy in federal election, the following still apply:
1. They are likely new, and years away from being in a leadership position of an important committee (where real accountability and change might begin).
2. They often fall into line over time. If they buck the party too often, too publicly and on too central of an issue, it is possible that the party will support them less in future national elections.
3. Any legislation they introduce, if acceptable at all, might well be diluted by amendments and through the committee process. Our congress appears slow and deadlocked because, it is in some ways designed to be. That is not me saying I agree with that design decision, but again just shining a light on the point.
The two-party system is a barrier to expressing (electorally) desire for change beyond a certain delta from the status quo. A multi-party system, though it might be fraught with other issues, would go some distance toward representing more varied sets of concerns.
I completely agree... It has almost become impossible to 'demand change' from within the system, unless off course the change is within the acceptable norms.
Indeed. That's exactly why the system has gotten so far out of kilter. Muting or disabling the normal feedback loops has set the stage for the escalation of abuse that we've been witnessing ever since the banksters that cratered the economy got bonuses in place of prison terms.
The economy and state security are both suffering from a hugely captured Congress. The flip side is that regaining control of our legislators would mean solving myriad problems at once. Or at least, starting to address them in ways that make sense to and for the people.
Breaking this hold isn't a one shot deal. Rather, it requires dismantling four interlocking institutions which have, in combination, the toxic effect we're becoming acutely aware of.
Specifically, we need to open closed primaries, end partisan redistricting, switch from private campaign finance to public, and brick up the revolving door between the public and private sectors by placing a lifetime hellban on future employment of public officials by any private interest they've overseen.
Obviously, these reforms will make a stint in public office far less lucrative than it is right now, so there is a zero percent chance that Congress will initiate them freely. That means support for these reforms must become the primary condition for winning elected office in the first place.
I have no idea how to get a critical mass of Americans to single-mindedly enforce this condition. But I can't think of any other way for them to recover an essential measure of control over Congress. So that's the problem in a nutshell.
The economy and state security are both suffering from a hugely captured Congress. The flip side is that regaining control of our legislators would mean solving myriad problems at once. Or at least, starting to address them in ways that make sense to and for the people.
Breaking this hold isn't a one shot deal. Rather, it requires dismantling four interlocking institutions which have, in combination, the toxic effect we're becoming acutely aware of.
Specifically, we need to open closed primaries, end partisan redistricting, switch from private campaign finance to public, and brick up the revolving door between the public and private sectors by placing a lifetime hellban on future employment of public officials by any private interest they've overseen.
Obviously, these reforms will make a stint in public office far less lucrative than it is right now, so there is a zero percent chance that Congress will initiate them freely. That means support for these reforms must become the primary condition for winning elected office in the first place.
I have no idea how to get a critical mass of Americans to single-mindedly enforce this condition. But I can't think of any other way for them to recover an essential measure of control over Congress. So that's the problem in a nutshell.
Don't count on it. Xyz show or game is on...
The ability of the US government to bend other governments in a certain direction, is like a leak in and of itself, as I surely did not expect so many governments, including mine in germany, to be this intimidated by the US powerhouse.
I read a Crooked Timber thread recently comparing the US's treatment of Latin America to the Soviet Union's treatment of the Warsaw Pact. The world made slightly more sense after that.
The US is intimidating. It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them, it is a quarter of the world economy by itself, its military black budget is almost certainly larger than anyone else's open budget and its open budget is greater than the rest of the world's military budget summed.
The US is the global hegemon. Russia, China and maybe Iran are independent of it. The US does not truly view the rest of the world as sovereigns but as subjects.
The US is intimidating. It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them, it is a quarter of the world economy by itself, its military black budget is almost certainly larger than anyone else's open budget and its open budget is greater than the rest of the world's military budget summed.
The US is the global hegemon. Russia, China and maybe Iran are independent of it. The US does not truly view the rest of the world as sovereigns but as subjects.
"It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them"
Curious, then, how many Chinese and Russians there are yet. Is the US inefficient, or are you reaching a bit? And the US can be disgustingly good buddies with non-democratic governments: the Greek and Argentine juntas, various Middle Eastern states.
Curious, then, how many Chinese and Russians there are yet. Is the US inefficient, or are you reaching a bit? And the US can be disgustingly good buddies with non-democratic governments: the Greek and Argentine juntas, various Middle Eastern states.
I'm not claiming the US wants certain peoples dead. I'm claiming that given any opportunity or excuse it went to war with states whose basal ideology was not of rule by the people unless they were American clients.
It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them
What about all of the dictatorships that the US created or propped up? Saudi Arabia, Iran pre revolution, Panama under Noriega, etc?
What about all of the dictatorships that the US created or propped up? Saudi Arabia, Iran pre revolution, Panama under Noriega, etc?
Clients. None of these are remotely models for other countries to follow, alternative paradigms of government like Imperial Germany or Japan, or the totalitarian regimes that are now dust except for North Korea. The closest thing to an alternate respectable paradigm of government now is managed democracy, like in Singapore or Russia, which appears to be unstable, one more variety of anocracy.
The key is legitimate. Are there any dictatorships that don't even make a nod towards the idea of popular sovereignty? Any states where someone could say "L'etat, cest moi."?
As far as Panama goes, the US's Warsaw Pact.
The key is legitimate. Are there any dictatorships that don't even make a nod towards the idea of popular sovereignty? Any states where someone could say "L'etat, cest moi."?
As far as Panama goes, the US's Warsaw Pact.
It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them
I agree with a lot of your post, but it wasn't anything the US government did that made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate. They have all been illegitimate since the very first time a gang of stronger men beat and killed a weaker one just because they could.
I agree with a lot of your post, but it wasn't anything the US government did that made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate. They have all been illegitimate since the very first time a gang of stronger men beat and killed a weaker one just because they could.
Except that democracy itself consists of a gang of more people beating up gangs of fewer people just because they can. It merely substitutes numbers for strength.
Neither might nor popularity makes right.
Neither might nor popularity makes right.
Illegitimate as in outside the bounds of polite society's discourse, not as in something you abhor.
But when the beating is instead performed by a large gang of weak men, it's legitimate?
Apparently the US government is trying to see just how craven and vindictive it can be.
As Snowden says, they want to intimidate the next leaker.
As Snowden says, they want to intimidate the next leaker.
I love my country (USA) but I feel like like we are on such a stupid path. I get the "make the rich people a lot richer" thing, but we need to get our act together and do it quickly. I think that Snowden is screwed, but he has given us a chance, very small chance, to get our act together and bow out of this Empire thing.
A good idea. It's time for someone else to have a turn. How about Putin? He has 10 years left in his term and knows a thing or two about espionage. Maybe the communist party of China - perhaps they could persuade us to adopt tougher internal policing.
Possibly was an actual plane malfunction according to another comment on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5981267)
Radio exchange at http://audioboo.fm/boos/1482009-bolivia-air-force-fuerza-aer...
Radio exchange at http://audioboo.fm/boos/1482009-bolivia-air-force-fuerza-aer...
According to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-a...):
1.05am BST
Associated Press has published extracts from a statement issued by the Bolivian defence minister, Ruben Saavedra, who was also on the redirected plane.
It says the plane was allowed to land in Spain for refueling before flying on to Austria.
It describes the rerouting as a "hostile act" by the US goverment: This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments"
It says the plane was allowed to land in Spain for refueling before flying on to Austria.
It describes the rerouting as a "hostile act" by the US goverment: This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments"
I get that the defense minister was saying the plane was re-routed because of Snowden... but the pilot seemed to indicate it was a fuel indication issue. Would he be in on the conspiracy? Is this transcript from a different flight perhaps?
I don't know what went on exactly but all that re-routing a plane with Snowden on it does for the U.S. is... nothing, really. It's not like they're going to stop them from going to Bolivia, and some kind of blackbag shenanigans while the plane refuels on the runway would lead to much more international outcry than I think either Obama or Kerry would want to accept.
Even if we assume some kind of Darth Obama type nonsense I just don't see where this would have any upside for the U.S., which makes it seem a little implausible... even Obama has to be smarter than that.
Edit: As far as the transcript the possibility would make sense if it was a charter flight and not a Bolivian aircrew. It would still be quite insane for the U.S. to ask for that or any of the countries to participate though.
I don't know what went on exactly but all that re-routing a plane with Snowden on it does for the U.S. is... nothing, really. It's not like they're going to stop them from going to Bolivia, and some kind of blackbag shenanigans while the plane refuels on the runway would lead to much more international outcry than I think either Obama or Kerry would want to accept.
Even if we assume some kind of Darth Obama type nonsense I just don't see where this would have any upside for the U.S., which makes it seem a little implausible... even Obama has to be smarter than that.
Edit: As far as the transcript the possibility would make sense if it was a charter flight and not a Bolivian aircrew. It would still be quite insane for the U.S. to ask for that or any of the countries to participate though.
1. Austria is not on the way from Spain to Bolivia by any plausible charter routing.
2. Portugal and France don't control airspace needed to fly from Spain to Bolivia. Neither do they control airspace needed or very desirable to fly between Austria and Bolivia.
3. Therefore what we are hearing now is not likely to be the real story.
2. Portugal and France don't control airspace needed to fly from Spain to Bolivia. Neither do they control airspace needed or very desirable to fly between Austria and Bolivia.
3. Therefore what we are hearing now is not likely to be the real story.
For a flight from Moscow to Bolivia with a refueling stop in Lisbon, it appears that the great circle route takes you through Spain and France. From Austria it appears as if traversing France is the best route too.
Are there strong jet streams or something which would cause it to choose a different route?
Are there strong jet streams or something which would cause it to choose a different route?
And my comment on that same thread regarding the one who posted that link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5981395
It's terrifying how far European "leaders" are willing to go to suck up to the US Government.
Oh, our governments here in Portugal never needed much to suck up to everyone else. The US, Britain, Germany, Angola, Gaddafi's Libya, you name it - they say jump, we ask "how high?"
During the Azores summit, while Bush, Blair and Aznar discussed the Iraq invasion, our PM (Barroso - yeah, the guy from the EU) was more than happy to be their busboy and serve drinks while the Great Leaders talked.
During the Azores summit, while Bush, Blair and Aznar discussed the Iraq invasion, our PM (Barroso - yeah, the guy from the EU) was more than happy to be their busboy and serve drinks while the Great Leaders talked.
Remind me of some classic RATM Bullet In The Head lyrics:
Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkIXPSWjmsk
Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkIXPSWjmsk
That's certainly a good way for Snowden to see where his friends and his enemies are, and at the same time expose to the world how much leverage the US has with many countries.
[deleted]
It's absolutely shocking.