Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden(thenational.scot)
thenational.scot
Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
http://www.thenational.scot/news/secret-us-flight-flew-over-scottish-airspace-to-capture-snowden.13226
242 comments
> rightfully deserve to be killed
You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"I know -- let's kill all the perpetrators and evil-doers in the old regime. That'll teach 'em!"
You see where this leads to, right?
You see where this leads to, right?
Smircio(1)
Not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker. -- Obama 6/27/13
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama...
He's true though, it wasn't jets.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama...
He's true though, it wasn't jets.
I also enjoyed this tidbit in the article, which I had not known before:
"The presidential plane of Bolivian leader Evo Morales was forced to ground in Vienna, after four EU nations refused airspace access on the mistaken belief that Snowden was hidden on board."
Can you imagine the feeling of impotence, as a national president, when your plane is forced to land because of such suspicions?
"The presidential plane of Bolivian leader Evo Morales was forced to ground in Vienna, after four EU nations refused airspace access on the mistaken belief that Snowden was hidden on board."
Can you imagine the feeling of impotence, as a national president, when your plane is forced to land because of such suspicions?
And imagine the shitstorm that would follow the grounding of Air Force One under the exact same circumstances but by any country other than the US
OK, I bit. Turns out this was a major brouhaha. France participated, but later apologized, and Assange was involved as well. Quite fascinating in its own right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
and picture from Reuters story:
http://www.webcitation.org/6O7egNjku
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
and picture from Reuters story:
http://www.webcitation.org/6O7egNjku
Can you imagine the feeling of impotence, as NSA/CIA/$100b+ industrial extralegal agency, of telling people to stop that plane without having any remote certainty on the information?
It's this somewhat unnoticed fact of the saga: these agencies are really, really terrible at whatever they imagine their job to be. I wonder if there is still some intern at NSA combing manually through log files to figure out what Snowden possibly took.
It's this somewhat unnoticed fact of the saga: these agencies are really, really terrible at whatever they imagine their job to be. I wonder if there is still some intern at NSA combing manually through log files to figure out what Snowden possibly took.
That feeling is warranted. Relative to the US, Bolivia is impotent.
Indeed. Having it demonstrated so viscerally would make an impact. Apparently the Austrian police briefly boarded his plane, although a spokesman in his government denied it.
It also speaks to the panic of the American government in those days about Snowden.
It also speaks to the panic of the American government in those days about Snowden.
I think possibly you are misinformed on what "scrambling" means[1], with regard to "jets".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
I'm not sure why someone down voted you for this. When the Commander in Chief uses a military term, I think it's a safe bet he knows what the definition is and actually meant it in that way.
He literally meant "we're not going to send fighter jets to kill him." Taking that to mean "we're not going to try to get him should the opportunity present itself" is just not a realistic interpretation.
He literally meant "we're not going to send fighter jets to kill him." Taking that to mean "we're not going to try to get him should the opportunity present itself" is just not a realistic interpretation.
Well, it's likely it was a jet airplane as the altitude of the flight was 45,000. I suppose in this usage it was implied to be fighter-jets.
It's amazing to witness the gift of gap that high level politicians possess. Obama says "not going to scramble jets."
What the public assumes he means:
- "Three letter agencies and the military won't be conducting clandestine operations to proactively seek out and remove Snowden from a foreign country."
What he actually means:
- Quite literally, he's saying that they won't be sending fighter jets to go blow up Snowden. Of course that would be silly and not make any sense whatsoever, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what he was referring to.
What the public assumes he means:
- "Three letter agencies and the military won't be conducting clandestine operations to proactively seek out and remove Snowden from a foreign country."
What he actually means:
- Quite literally, he's saying that they won't be sending fighter jets to go blow up Snowden. Of course that would be silly and not make any sense whatsoever, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what he was referring to.
As an aside a good example of this politically evasive precision in speaking was Clinton's famous "I did not inhale" line when confronted if he had ever used marijuana. His answer was true, he's allergic to smoke and was well known around campus for baking/eating marijuana not inhaling it.
Speaking of Clinton and document leaks, next time Hillary Clinton is asked about the classified email server scandal take note of her precise replies, it is impressive how politicians can fire out precise answers when pressured to both deflect and deny accusations and protect themselves at the same time by later claiming precision.
Speaking of Clinton and document leaks, next time Hillary Clinton is asked about the classified email server scandal take note of her precise replies, it is impressive how politicians can fire out precise answers when pressured to both deflect and deny accusations and protect themselves at the same time by later claiming precision.
Well, yeah. Because "scrambling jets" actually means something specific[1]. I actually don't think it was his intention to imply "we won't send any planes to where he's at" because that's stupid. Of course there's the possibility of a diplomatic mission, or DOJ officials visiting the country in question to discuss matters with the officials there. To assume his words meant we had no intention of even visiting a location he was at requires either assumptions about words people don't know the meaning to, or a very naive interpretation of how things get physically get done.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
Also his use of "boots on the ground"
Ah, yes, but 'jet' in the singular - Obama had said 'jets' in the plural!
Everything I said was true, from a certain point of view.
the jet in question is a Gulfstream G-V. Its a very fancy passenger, long-range passenger jet
I have no problem with the US filing a criminal complain against Snowden and dispatching a plane to pick him up. I have an entirely big problem with the US government using shadow planes or whatever they want to call them to act on it.
If there is a public filing of a criminal charge all following actions need to be out in the open and "above the board". This cloak and dagger shit screams "you don't have rights if you piss us off" is something the Administration should have changed from day one but instead they just doubled down on it.
If there is a public filing of a criminal charge all following actions need to be out in the open and "above the board". This cloak and dagger shit screams "you don't have rights if you piss us off" is something the Administration should have changed from day one but instead they just doubled down on it.
One thing I don't understand - why would the US care? Why expend resources on trying to capture Snowden? He's basically harmless at this point - he's passed all the information he had to few journalists (which would be a better target now) and there's no way anyone will ever let him near anything more secret than grandma's cookies recipe. Besides petty vengeance, what's the point?
Four reasons off the top of my head:
1. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside sponsorship.
2. There's no guarantee that all the information that he took was released publicly. It would be helpful to know the extent of what was taken, and who else knows it.
3. It would be helpful to know what other intelligence services have asked him/taken from him.
4 "To encourage the others"
1. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside sponsorship.
2. There's no guarantee that all the information that he took was released publicly. It would be helpful to know the extent of what was taken, and who else knows it.
3. It would be helpful to know what other intelligence services have asked him/taken from him.
4 "To encourage the others"
> 1. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside sponsorship.
That has been debated and put to rest.
Our elected officials initially tried to say he was a Russian spy, but could not provide any evidence to support the claim.
If he were a foreign asset, like for the Russians, for example, he would not have acted the way he did. In fact, his handlers would have preferred that he continued to operate in secret and continue to feed them as much info as he can.
That has been debated and put to rest.
Our elected officials initially tried to say he was a Russian spy, but could not provide any evidence to support the claim.
If he were a foreign asset, like for the Russians, for example, he would not have acted the way he did. In fact, his handlers would have preferred that he continued to operate in secret and continue to feed them as much info as he can.
I recall he took pretty much everything there was to take, including the active operations db, and only released a small fraction of documents to Poitras/Greenwald. Those 2 drives full of docs were hastily dumped inside the HK airport on his way to Moscow and are no doubt in the hands of Chinese spy agencies (who also were likely set up beside his hotel room in HK trying to get his passwords).
We don't know what he knows. It is entirely likely that he has information - or had access to information - that could have serious national security ramifications, perhaps as a bargaining chip.
The NSA could guess what he had access to, but it's harder to know what he still has. That's a very scary known unknown.
The NSA could guess what he had access to, but it's harder to know what he still has. That's a very scary known unknown.
First, we don't know that Snowden is harmless, even now. Most of what we know about Snowden comes from media stories, all of which are operating on incomplete information.
More importantly, back in 2013, we --- including the USG --- knew far less than we know now.
(The question of whether Snowden is "harmless" is separable from the question of whether his actions are defensible or justified.)
More importantly, back in 2013, we --- including the USG --- knew far less than we know now.
(The question of whether Snowden is "harmless" is separable from the question of whether his actions are defensible or justified.)
Snowden has been far more independently active since his asylum. He even maintains a twitter account. It's not like his entire life is filtered through the media.
I understand that (believe me; get RT'd by him sometime and see what happens to your mentions). But add up everything he's said publicly and you still don't have a complete picture of what he had, who he gave it to, and who got what.
I'm not suggesting that anything nefarious happened. I do not think Snowden is an FSB operative. I think he grabbed a giant tranche of documents, few of which he actually read, and handed them off to a small set of reporters he believed to be trustworthy.
But the USG has an interest (a) in confirming that and (b) containing the damage.
By the estimation of literally everyone involved, Snowden took documents whose publication isn't in the public interest. Snowden and his informal team of assistants have charged themselves with protecting intelligence secrets. It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.
I'm not suggesting that anything nefarious happened. I do not think Snowden is an FSB operative. I think he grabbed a giant tranche of documents, few of which he actually read, and handed them off to a small set of reporters he believed to be trustworthy.
But the USG has an interest (a) in confirming that and (b) containing the damage.
By the estimation of literally everyone involved, Snowden took documents whose publication isn't in the public interest. Snowden and his informal team of assistants have charged themselves with protecting intelligence secrets. It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.
It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.
The argument has been made that a crucial difference between Snowden and other recent whistleblowers is his relative freedom to participate in ongoing conversations and inspire potential future whistleblowers.
Is it crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role?
The argument has been made that a crucial difference between Snowden and other recent whistleblowers is his relative freedom to participate in ongoing conversations and inspire potential future whistleblowers.
Is it crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role?
No, it isn't, but that's not the question this part of the thread is asking. Rather, it's asking "isn't Snowden harmless to the USG?"
In a discussion about the legitimacy of the government's pursuit of Snowden you point out that it has a very reasonable interest in parts (a) and (b).
But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing.
You would agree that Snowden's ability to inspire future whistleblowers is a powerful way in which he isn't harmless to the USG? You might sincerely disagree with those who believe that this motive for getting him is at least as strong as the others. But this motive cuts into the legitimacy of the pursuit, and it should be part of your survey of the government's interests.
But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing.
You would agree that Snowden's ability to inspire future whistleblowers is a powerful way in which he isn't harmless to the USG? You might sincerely disagree with those who believe that this motive for getting him is at least as strong as the others. But this motive cuts into the legitimacy of the pursuit, and it should be part of your survey of the government's interests.
I know we're getting a bit off topic, but can you share what happens to your mentions when you get RTd by Snowden?
Does the USG also have an interest in (c) the ability to prosecute and punish Snowden in such a conspicuous and forceful way that anyone else in a position similar to his would be frightened enough not to take any action similar to his?
Snowden and his informal team of assistants
Do you believe Greenwald, et al. are collaborators and therefore should be prosecuted?
Snowden and his informal team of assistants
Do you believe Greenwald, et al. are collaborators and therefore should be prosecuted?
No. I really dislike Greenwald and, to a lesser extent, The Intercept as a publication, and think they spread more disinformation than journalism, but it's hard for me to see what crime any of them could possibly have committed.
(I answered your first question upthread).
(I answered your first question upthread).
You must be aware that people actually have called the Snowden journalists collaborators who should be prosecuted, that this was in fact a major issue in how the story has been received.
Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"
Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"
I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're thinking of someone in particular who has suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted, you should put your weird questions to that person, not me.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/...
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_...
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-...
Taken literally from the entire first page on Google:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree...
At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General.
Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/...
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_...
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-...
Taken literally from the entire first page on Google:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree...
At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General.
Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.
You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.
With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.
There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.
Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged?
(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)
(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)
they spread more disinformation than journalism,
Specifics?
Specifics?
Not to be paranoid and cynical, but we don't actually know that Edward Snowden, personally, is still maintaining that account, even though the account was verified.
He's spoken publicly through video feeds at conferences etc. If he was being impersonated I'm fairly certain we would have heard about it by now.
Of course you could be cynical enough to say his video/voice etc is being faked as well, but you have to ground your beliefs somewhere and know there is a spoon when there is one...
Of course you could be cynical enough to say his video/voice etc is being faked as well, but you have to ground your beliefs somewhere and know there is a spoon when there is one...
No, i'm pretty much limiting my cynicism to Twitter and quotes in print. I'm not willing to jump that far down the rabbithole.
To send a message to others contemplating doing something similar: "If you do this we'll get you".
As someone else noted, "the plane, which passed above the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, was dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow."
To discourage anyone who might try something similar.
> One thing I don't understand - why would the US care? Why expend resources on trying to capture Snowden?
To dishearten any future whistleblower, it's a matter of pride. He must pay and he must pay big like Manning.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6qN167wKo
To dishearten any future whistleblower, it's a matter of pride. He must pay and he must pay big like Manning.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6qN167wKo
To prevent copycats.
trying to dissuade future whistleblowers
Because he can still talk and express himself about surveillance issues, and they know he has a following (now even on Twitter).
[deleted]
> Besides petty vengeance, what's the point?
Ignoring Snowden would imply that espionage isn't a crime, or that in effect it only has a statute of limitations amounting to a misdemeanor offense, which isn't really a precedent any state wants to set.
Ignoring Snowden would imply that espionage isn't a crime, or that in effect it only has a statute of limitations amounting to a misdemeanor offense, which isn't really a precedent any state wants to set.
I really hope they pardon him eventually. I could be wrong, but don't most americans support what he did?
EDIT: you are probably all correct, plenty of people don't understand/care who he is or what he stands for. I still wish the government would recognize that the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and he called them out on it.
EDIT: you are probably all correct, plenty of people don't understand/care who he is or what he stands for. I still wish the government would recognize that the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and he called them out on it.
Most "tech savvy" people support him and how he made us aware of the NSA bs, but a lot of normal people who just watch the news view him as a "traitor" to 'Murica (America).
Sadly, people think "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the government/NSA monitors my internet usage/history/etc".
Personally, I think the terrorists have won in a small sense. TSA is a joke (American airport security), NSA monitors everything so nothing is really secure, backdoors are built into all devices, encryption across several companies is being questioned because "terrorists" use it (even though the Paris attacks communication were over SMS).
Edit: typos
Sadly, people think "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the government/NSA monitors my internet usage/history/etc".
Personally, I think the terrorists have won in a small sense. TSA is a joke (American airport security), NSA monitors everything so nothing is really secure, backdoors are built into all devices, encryption across several companies is being questioned because "terrorists" use it (even though the Paris attacks communication were over SMS).
Edit: typos
I don't think it's particularly charitable to caricature people who don't support Snowden as being jingoist "'muricans". In fact, the term "'murica" is pretty classist; even the word itself mocks the accents of flyover country.
There is a serious, defensible, coherent argument against what Snowden did. You don't have to be a low-information cable news consumer to agree with it, nor do you have to believe that "if you have nothing to hide surveillance is no problem".
(To put my biases on the table: I understand what he did better, I think, than most HN people, and think the ideal outcome would be a felony conviction and an immediately commuted sentence; thus far, I think he's done more good than harm, but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)
There is a serious, defensible, coherent argument against what Snowden did. You don't have to be a low-information cable news consumer to agree with it, nor do you have to believe that "if you have nothing to hide surveillance is no problem".
(To put my biases on the table: I understand what he did better, I think, than most HN people, and think the ideal outcome would be a felony conviction and an immediately commuted sentence; thus far, I think he's done more good than harm, but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)
"but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)"
I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 had never -had- to happen in any way.
I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 had never -had- to happen in any way.
That's also true, but orthogonal to what I'm saying.
The point is that you've put the criticism on the person in the situation (Snowden) instead of the people/system that created the situation.
There isn't any perfect way, in the eyes of the state, to deal with a police state because it's a police state.
There isn't any perfect way, in the eyes of the state, to deal with a police state because it's a police state.
I wouldn't conflate tech-savviness with being a Snowden-supporter.
And I wouldn't suggest people suddenly align themselves one way or the other based on the premise of tech-savviness, education-level, political-savviness, etc.
And I wouldn't suggest people suddenly align themselves one way or the other based on the premise of tech-savviness, education-level, political-savviness, etc.
> I wouldn't conflate tech-savviness with being a Snowden-supporter.
I would. You will find the correlation to be extremely high.
I would. You will find the correlation to be extremely high.
> he made us aware of the NSA bs
I'm not sure I agree with that. The use of mass electronic surveillance by alphabet soup agencies was common knowledge before Snowden. Right now I'm looking at source code from 1987 that was used create false positives against NSA keyword scanners. All Snowden did was release "secret" official documents detailing these programs.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The use of mass electronic surveillance by alphabet soup agencies was common knowledge before Snowden. Right now I'm looking at source code from 1987 that was used create false positives against NSA keyword scanners. All Snowden did was release "secret" official documents detailing these programs.
Mass surveillance was common knowledge? I'd encourage you to read about James R Clapper. To cite the wikipedia page:
[During a senate hearing] Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir."
So here we have a representative of the executive branch lying to the legislative about mass surveillance 3 years ago (checks and balances please?). So no, it was not common knowledge.
edit: spelling
[During a senate hearing] Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir."
So here we have a representative of the executive branch lying to the legislative about mass surveillance 3 years ago (checks and balances please?). So no, it was not common knowledge.
edit: spelling
Anecdotal, but I have some friends in government jobs, and they definitely have a less favorable view of him. They view him as failing to respect the proper procedures in place to surface that kind of information, and throw the traitor word around liberally.
That's not surprising, if you consider that it became very unsafe for the guy that exposed the Abu Ghraib tortures and prisoner abuse to move around freely in his village, which was a military town.
He was considered a traitor.
He was considered a traitor.
Most Americans don't understand what he did, in my experience.
That is, I'm an American and I work with technology and from conversations with fellow Americans who don't work with technology, they have formed an impression based on media sound bites.
That is, I'm an American and I work with technology and from conversations with fellow Americans who don't work with technology, they have formed an impression based on media sound bites.
Isn't that how those who get their news from MSM get mislead, disinformed and brainwashed?
The MSM just trot out "experts" who have been instructed to repeat key phrases designed to obscure the truth. Gullible viewers and listeners just soak it all in.
That's how, even today, a significant percentage of Americans still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
The MSM just trot out "experts" who have been instructed to repeat key phrases designed to obscure the truth. Gullible viewers and listeners just soak it all in.
That's how, even today, a significant percentage of Americans still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Its rather unfair to call them gullible. I'd say most people are "brainwashed" when it comes to things outside their immediate area of work/knowledge/expertise. Certainly geopolitical issues evoke a strong emotional response because of their direct link to human suffering, but even looking at nutrition or fitness or accounting or car maintenance or what have you, its all a mess ! Yes, even tech people aren't as objective as we like to think we are. Some topics bring out the similar religious fervor - UNIX vs Windows, iOS vs Android, Open Source vs Proprietary, etc. We have our own conspiracy nuts too - Blaming MS for everything, reading evil intentions into normal business decisions, etc.
In my experience, the people who work with technology do the same, just with different sound bites.
>but don't most americans support what he did?"
Right or wrong, most young people do, most old people don't.
It's just another in a long list of generational schisms that will be adjusted in the future.
Right or wrong, most young people do, most old people don't.
It's just another in a long list of generational schisms that will be adjusted in the future.
I don't think most American's support what he did, because he's been painted a traitor by the government and media. It's a matter of perception and a lack of understanding.
Or people don't see the issue as black and white, where he either did nothing wrong or everything he did was wrong.
Are we sure that he didn't leak anything else to the Russians?
Are we sue that there's anything left to leak to the Russians that matters?
1. I worked in the aerospace industry in the 80s. Every once in a while, whatever I was working on would show up in "Aviation News". All the details were there, everything.
2. The DoD gives more information about satellite launches to Russian than they do to their own citizens. Yes, this is to prevent Russia from mistaking an Atlas launch for a Minuteman launch, but still...
3. Does it matter? There's very few real national secrets, which are certainly overwhelmed by career-ending blunders, favoritism towards certain contractors, massive budget overruns, and incompetent designs. The amazing majority of "classified" material is absolute tripe, and whoever reads it actually becomes stupider.
1. I worked in the aerospace industry in the 80s. Every once in a while, whatever I was working on would show up in "Aviation News". All the details were there, everything.
2. The DoD gives more information about satellite launches to Russian than they do to their own citizens. Yes, this is to prevent Russia from mistaking an Atlas launch for a Minuteman launch, but still...
3. Does it matter? There's very few real national secrets, which are certainly overwhelmed by career-ending blunders, favoritism towards certain contractors, massive budget overruns, and incompetent designs. The amazing majority of "classified" material is absolute tripe, and whoever reads it actually becomes stupider.
No, no one is sure about that. It's very unlikely that the Russians don't have copies of everything he took, unless you think he and Greenwald, et al are somehow masters of infosec that could withstand the actions of the FSB, SVR, etc.
You don't have to be an infosec master.
According to Snowden, he didn't take the files with him to Russia in the first place. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took...
According to Snowden, he didn't take the files with him to Russia in the first place. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took...
Because Russia wouldn't dare go after the materials if they weren't physically in Russia, right?
The SVR operates outside of Russia, which is why I mentioned them. You really believe they weren't on him right away in Hong Kong, and they haven't gone after whatever materials he passed on to journalists? Come on.
The SVR operates outside of Russia, which is why I mentioned them. You really believe they weren't on him right away in Hong Kong, and they haven't gone after whatever materials he passed on to journalists? Come on.
Let's take that a step further, though.
The scaremongering over Snowden somehow giving Russia/China these documents is absurd for precisely the reason you cite - their intelligence agencies operate all over the world.
Does anyone genuinely believe that with security so lax at NSA etc. to allow a Snowden-style leak that Russia/China haven't had spies with similar access levels in place for years now?
The scaremongering over Snowden somehow giving Russia/China these documents is absurd for precisely the reason you cite - their intelligence agencies operate all over the world.
Does anyone genuinely believe that with security so lax at NSA etc. to allow a Snowden-style leak that Russia/China haven't had spies with similar access levels in place for years now?
Even if they had similar access, a leak is still dangerous because it allows them to behave as if they have the information without divulging as much about their own capabilities.
Definitely not. He's very popular abroad, but most Americans don't like what he did.
Most Americans probably do not even know who he is.
Of those who do, I'd say roughly half support him and half think he should go to jail.
Of those who do, I'd say roughly half support him and half think he should go to jail.
If you ask most Americans who Edward Snowden is they won't know.
Those that do know seem to largely support what he did even if the way he went about it wasn't the best.
Those that do know seem to largely support what he did even if the way he went about it wasn't the best.
No. Mostly. Some support him, but most polls show that Americans don't like him.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=snowden%20polls
Foreigners seem to support Snowden; however.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=snowden%20polls
Foreigners seem to support Snowden; however.
Unfortunately the got lumped in with PVT Manning.
YES!
[deleted]
FYI, the plane was "Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream V" flying above 45000ft. Impressive plane.
[deleted]
The craft was used in controversial US ‘rendition’ missions
This is apparently true, but misleading. The specific plane we're discussing was used by the CIA, but by this point had been transferred to DOJ for some time.
It's also misleading to use the word "rendition" as a shorthand for "extraordinary rendition" (which is itself newspeak for "kidnapping"). "Rendition" itself is simply the process of effectuating extradition. The term "extraordinary rendition" is doubly Orwellian, because "rendition" is the word for what a host jurisdiction does. A government cooperating in extradition renders subjects. The CIA kidnapped people, apparently without engaging any process of the host government.
To make matters worse, the CIA's kidnapping program sent terrorism subjects to foreign jurisdictions, allegedly (and almost certainly) to enable them to be interrogated by the norms of countries that weren't squeamish about coercive, torturous interrogations. The USG wanted Snowden back on US soil.
I suppose there's a coherent argument to be made that the US should have destroyed the CIA's torture charter jet, and that any further use of that particular piece of equipment is tainted by its history. To me, it's just a plane, and if we're going to do something drastic in response to the CIA's complicity (and participation) in torture, that thing should probably be a series of criminal prosecutions.
Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far. So far, the facts we know about support a pretty boring narrative: the USG knew it was going to charge Snowden with crimes for which most of Europe would comply with extradition, and sent a DOJ plane to streamline that process.
It's hard to blame media outlets for reporting like this, because the story of how we came to know that this particular plane had participated in the CIA's kidnapping scheme makes for really good reading. But it's still important to know the whole story.
And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, proprietors of GCHQ, the west's most unhinged signals intelligence agency. A DOJ plane flying over Scotland to fetch a SIGINT leaker isn't particularly newsworthy.
This is apparently true, but misleading. The specific plane we're discussing was used by the CIA, but by this point had been transferred to DOJ for some time.
It's also misleading to use the word "rendition" as a shorthand for "extraordinary rendition" (which is itself newspeak for "kidnapping"). "Rendition" itself is simply the process of effectuating extradition. The term "extraordinary rendition" is doubly Orwellian, because "rendition" is the word for what a host jurisdiction does. A government cooperating in extradition renders subjects. The CIA kidnapped people, apparently without engaging any process of the host government.
To make matters worse, the CIA's kidnapping program sent terrorism subjects to foreign jurisdictions, allegedly (and almost certainly) to enable them to be interrogated by the norms of countries that weren't squeamish about coercive, torturous interrogations. The USG wanted Snowden back on US soil.
I suppose there's a coherent argument to be made that the US should have destroyed the CIA's torture charter jet, and that any further use of that particular piece of equipment is tainted by its history. To me, it's just a plane, and if we're going to do something drastic in response to the CIA's complicity (and participation) in torture, that thing should probably be a series of criminal prosecutions.
Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far. So far, the facts we know about support a pretty boring narrative: the USG knew it was going to charge Snowden with crimes for which most of Europe would comply with extradition, and sent a DOJ plane to streamline that process.
It's hard to blame media outlets for reporting like this, because the story of how we came to know that this particular plane had participated in the CIA's kidnapping scheme makes for really good reading. But it's still important to know the whole story.
And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, proprietors of GCHQ, the west's most unhinged signals intelligence agency. A DOJ plane flying over Scotland to fetch a SIGINT leaker isn't particularly newsworthy.
> And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom
I guess this headline is because The National (Scotland) is a Scottish national newspaper that might ride any horse if they see it as helping Scottish independence from the UK.
I guess this headline is because The National (Scotland) is a Scottish national newspaper that might ride any horse if they see it as helping Scottish independence from the UK.
Yeah - that angle bleeds through pretty heavily in the quotes. "This is what an independent Scotland should insist on"
Well, now I like the article more. :)
to provide some context on the newspaper that this article is on. The national is a newspaper specifically set up at the time of the Scottish Referendum to provide a more nationalist viewpoint to counter the perception that the mainstream UK media had a Unionist slant.
A minor quibble in that is was setup after the referendum to try to cater for the 45% of people who voted for Independence given that no daily paper in Scotland backed Independence.
I don't see why you quibble over the use of 'rendition,' then turn around and minimize the generally understood. If he was just being extradited via official and lawful process, shouldn't that be the term, rather than apparently grabbed via secret flights and skullduggery?
You also can't say what the intentions of the US government were regarding bringing Snowden back to US soil, and even if that were the case it doesn't seem to mean much especially as it seems the Chicago Police are operating a "black-site" on US soil in contravention of the Constitution.
In fact, I would say the evidence is far stronger for the supposition that Snowden was intended to be "extraordinarily" renditioned than simply and lawfully extradited and your post subjects are ill-argued.
You also can't say what the intentions of the US government were regarding bringing Snowden back to US soil, and even if that were the case it doesn't seem to mean much especially as it seems the Chicago Police are operating a "black-site" on US soil in contravention of the Constitution.
In fact, I would say the evidence is far stronger for the supposition that Snowden was intended to be "extraordinarily" renditioned than simply and lawfully extradited and your post subjects are ill-argued.
So if I understand this comment correctly, you're suggesting that the DOJ was going to fly Snowden to CPD Homan Square?
You talk elsewhere in this thread about being charitable in your arguments. You are either being deliberately obtuse or distinctly uncharitable in this comment.
The GP (I believe) is making the point that the CIA doesn't hold a monopoly on abduction under color of law. Furthermore I think GP is questioning the assertion that this was not an extraordinary rendition mission, being that this seems not to fit the pattern of a simple extradition.
The GP (I believe) is making the point that the CIA doesn't hold a monopoly on abduction under color of law. Furthermore I think GP is questioning the assertion that this was not an extraordinary rendition mission, being that this seems not to fit the pattern of a simple extradition.
> Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far.
We have the downing of President Evo Morales' plane as evidence in support of that. You can read a more full explanation of that here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/15/julian_assange_us_spyi...
We have the downing of President Evo Morales' plane as evidence in support of that. You can read a more full explanation of that here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/15/julian_assange_us_spyi...
I see that some people disagree with that claim. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why they do not believe this is evidence.
Note in particular that I'm not claiming this as absolute proof, just that it's evidence. While one might argue over the weight that should be assigned to it, it seems sufficiently irregular that it should be hard to claim that it's not even evidence.
Note in particular that I'm not claiming this as absolute proof, just that it's evidence. While one might argue over the weight that should be assigned to it, it seems sufficiently irregular that it should be hard to claim that it's not even evidence.
There's a [dead] comment below this complaining about the term 'extrajudicial'. The thing is that 'extrajudicial' means 'without benefit of legal process'. We don't really know what process might or might not have been followed had Snowden been captured. Given that forcing the plane down was both highly irregular and against treaties, however, it's hard to make a case that compliance with such things was seen as mandatory. But yes, to be fair, we don't actually know, we simply have evidence that points a certain direction.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it extrajudicial, and maybe you should take it up with the governments of Europe.
To me I could really care less what the plane was used for in the past.
A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.
A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.
Why do you assume that the UK (and all the other European countries this plane flew over) weren't involved in coordinating this flight?
There was some talk about a similar plane (the same one?) having received a landing permit in Copenhagen. Much of the content of the emails that would confirm this were redacted, but the parties involved (ie metadata, ironically enough) weren't and they were several rungs above the ladder over those who would normally have to approve landing permits.
That may very well be true. But in the absence of a publicly known flight plan, involving a plane that in the past has been used in a program that involved all kinds of human rights abuses, it seems worth assuming it is worth asking questions about.
Can you help me understand what it is about a specific piece of equipment having in the past been used for human rights abuse that makes it unsuitable for any future use? It would be one thing if the CIA had operated the flight, but this plane is known to have been transferred to the DOJ long before the flight to extradite Snowden.
Human psychology, the secrecy, the person targeted and the history of lies surrounding the rendition program.
There's nothing inherent about the plane that makes it unsuitable, but people should also be totally unsurprised that it contributes to making people ask extra questions about the flight.
There's nothing inherent about the plane that makes it unsuitable, but people should also be totally unsurprised that it contributes to making people ask extra questions about the flight.
I'm pretty sure that last sentence is also the gist of the last part of my comment upthread.
They may have officially transferred the plane, but do you really think that means the CIA would have to stop operating it? I mean it is totally possible that they did, but I could see an equally possible scenario where they just "transfered" it for political cover.
Since the DOJ has been using it for all sorts of non-Snowden business (Google will show you this quickly), I'm not sure where this logic gets you; the same logic suggests any US plane could be a secret CIA plane. That's true, they all could. And?
"Hey, remember that plane we gave you a while back? Can we borrow it for a few days?"
It sounds like the CIA (and the Obama administration), drawing on past experience, got wise and figured the mission would look less "dirty" if it wasn't a spook plane, but a regular government-registered plane that actually came to pick Snowden up.
But the main point is that adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that some kind of a rendition operation was being planned.
But the main point is that adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that some kind of a rendition operation was being planned.
Again: nobody doubts there was a "rendition" planned. Snowden had been indicted for multiple felonies. "Rendition" is what happens when someone is extradited.
OK, some sort of extra- or pseudojudicial rendition, then.
Based on what evidence? Most of the EU will respond to extradition requests and render subjects in response to the crimes Snowden was indicted for.
It's the preponderance of the multiple factors (as cited in the article), along with the immediacy of the flight and the USG's well-documented predilection for pulling similar shenanigans for the sake of far lesser targets, that are sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion.
And it's the immediate dispatch of the plane which strongly suggests that the U.S. wasn't going to wait to go through normal judicial channels to pick up their target.
And it's the immediate dispatch of the plane which strongly suggests that the U.S. wasn't going to wait to go through normal judicial channels to pick up their target.
I would expect the US to have planned for how to perform such a kidnapping, because dealing with rogue agents in one way or another is very definitely someone's job. I would be amazed if there wasn't a report giving a number of options and pros and cons for each compiled—of course, how it was acted on is anyone's guess.
The quote is "claim the flight, travelling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan"
If it flew below FL660 it should be inside controlled airspace, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class#United_Kingdom
However the flight plan might have been filled through defense channels rather than civilian ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
If it flew below FL660 it should be inside controlled airspace, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class#United_Kingdom
However the flight plan might have been filled through defense channels rather than civilian ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
That would be having it both ways: Tptacek claims this isn't kidnapping because the plane is a DoJ asset, at least nominally. So it would not need DoD secrecy.
I think I'm saying it isn't kidnapping because there is no evidence at all of an attempt to kidnap Snowden.
At least not a succesful one.
> * I could really care less*
do you mean "couldn't care less"?
do you mean "couldn't care less"?
Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight. It's an extremely common occurrence.
(Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)
(Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)
You are right
However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.
However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.
I wouldn't be so sure. Not a lot of weather at FL450, and in the UK that's Class C airspace, not Class A like it is in the States.
Even in Class C in UK airspace, you need a clearance.
[deleted]
Who are these boarders and how are they relevant?
What's the chances of anyone ever being brought to justice for the CIA kidnapping and torture programme, anyway?
Zero. Something like half the country still supports it; it's an ideological football.
I wonder if there might be prosecutions in 30 years. That's long enough for people to come around and for the perpetrators to still be alive. If evaluated as a strictly criminal matter, these are the sorts of crimes that do not have a statute of limitations, though the fact they were official duties might activate one.
There's no precedent for that in American history, though, and while the CIA torture program was unmistakably evil, it's far from the worst thing that has happened in the US over the last 100 years.
What would you rank higher?
They have a pretty nasty history in central and south America.
The CIA have been plugging away for decades, supporting right wing paramilitaries and anyone that could help them dissuade any kind of social of left leaning politics from their 'backyard', and they didn't care who died in the process.
The CIA have been plugging away for decades, supporting right wing paramilitaries and anyone that could help them dissuade any kind of social of left leaning politics from their 'backyard', and they didn't care who died in the process.
I like the School of Americas better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
Choosing Scotland over the more usual U.K. or British, is peculiar. It's like saying a Russian aircraft violated Alaskan airspace rather than US airspace. This choice is possibly indicative of other subsurface politics.
Eh. It's a Scottish newspaper, and the countries in the UK are quite different from the US states. Doubly more so for Scotland whose independence ambitions are well known. That said, the newspaper in question is pro-independence, but just choosing Scotland over UK is scarcely a sign of political bias.
Scotland is the UK. Scotland's airspace is managed by the UK central government. This is like saying "flying over Maine, rather than over the more typical USA, is suggestive of subsurface politics".
It's still a country, albeit one in increasingly reluctant political union with England. It would be rare for a Scot to refer to something as happening in the UK rather than specifically Scotland.
The legal system is independent and different to England and Wales for instance.
The nearest US equivalent would I guess be Puerto Rico rather than Maine.
The legal system is independent and different to England and Wales for instance.
The nearest US equivalent would I guess be Puerto Rico rather than Maine.
I don't want to go far into the rabbit hole here but are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
I understand how they feel about themselves, or more specifically how roughly half of them feel, however, it's not how the world sees them, generally speaking. Chinese understand "the UK" Scotland, as an international political entity will get you sideways looks.
I understand how they feel about themselves, or more specifically how roughly half of them feel, however, it's not how the world sees them, generally speaking. Chinese understand "the UK" Scotland, as an international political entity will get you sideways looks.
it's complicated (and getting more so)
Foreign affairs and defence are UK wide so UN, NATO, EU etc are all UK representations. The UK is the international entity.
Scottish education, healthcare, and the legislature are independent, sometimes markedly so. Since the referendum they've gained somewhat limited control over taxation.
Even Scots who support the Union tend to see themselves as Scots rather than Brits. Meanwhile most English would rarely call themselves English, preferring British. :)
I think that's far enough into the rabbit hole!
Foreign affairs and defence are UK wide so UN, NATO, EU etc are all UK representations. The UK is the international entity.
Scottish education, healthcare, and the legislature are independent, sometimes markedly so. Since the referendum they've gained somewhat limited control over taxation.
Even Scots who support the Union tend to see themselves as Scots rather than Brits. Meanwhile most English would rarely call themselves English, preferring British. :)
I think that's far enough into the rabbit hole!
You're not going to find one magic rule that defines "a country". And I would particularly caution you against using "Does China think you are a country in your own right?" as the measuring stick - they have quite notable differences in this area when compared to others.
With a couple of exceptions, it's fairly straightforward. Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, does it issue passports, does it control import and export of goods, does it enter into international treaties?
Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes that.
Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes that.
You are assuming "country" and "sovereign state" are synonyms, but that isn't true in general. The word "country" is used to refer to the four first-level subdivisions of the UK - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - this is standard and well-established English usage (well, certainly standard British English). The concept of a sovereign state having subdivisions known as "countries" is not unique to the UK, as the following article attests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country
"With a couple of exceptions"...
Scotland in particular is one of those exceptions.
There really is no one magic rule that says 'country vs no country' - even what you offered up is a collection of rules, where some rules catch edge cases that other rules don't.
Scotland in particular is one of those exceptions.
There really is no one magic rule that says 'country vs no country' - even what you offered up is a collection of rules, where some rules catch edge cases that other rules don't.
I'm thinking more exceptions where military might and economic might are immediate threats whereas that's not the case most people would concede about Scotland.
> are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
FIFA, UEFA, World Rugby.
Regardless of the comparison with Alaska being flawed, I wouldn't see anything peculiar in an Alaskan newspaper referring to a Russian plane over Alaskan airspace, so I don't see an issue with Scottish people or entities referring to their country as Scotland.
FIFA, UEFA, World Rugby.
Regardless of the comparison with Alaska being flawed, I wouldn't see anything peculiar in an Alaskan newspaper referring to a Russian plane over Alaskan airspace, so I don't see an issue with Scottish people or entities referring to their country as Scotland.
Alaska and Maine have different legal systems too. Scotland is culturally considered a country, sure, but I'm curious whether that has any concrete meaning.
"country" in the UK has a meaning not entirely dissimilar to "state" in the US (in both cases, this is somewhat distinct from the usual use of the term internationally.)
The term does, in fact, have concrete meaning.
The term does, in fact, have concrete meaning.
Sure, what I meant to say was really "there is no concrete meaning to them being 'countries' as opposed to 'states' or 'autonomous/semi-sovereign provinces'".
> Scotland is the UK.
Scotland is a country in the UK (as are England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.)
Its also a country with a fairly strong independence movement and which is frequently at odds with the central government on important policy issues.
Scotland is a country in the UK (as are England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.)
Its also a country with a fairly strong independence movement and which is frequently at odds with the central government on important policy issues.
Yeah, if you look downthread, like I said, I misread this comment.
The newspaper is implicitly arguing that if Scotland becomes independent enough to have their own air authority, they would be able to prevent those. “Look what is happening in your name that you disagree with.”
Yes but it's a political subdivision of the U.K. if the plane flew over one of the Swiss cantons, we don't mention the canton, we mention the main superdivisional entity, typically. It sounds peculiar. It's not wrong, but it's non standard.
Airspace is the dominion of the central government, not the political subdivisions, just like territorial waters.
To add: "flying over" is descriptive, "airspace" is a geopolitical term, in this context. Hence the question. But now I understand it's a pro indep publication.
Airspace is the dominion of the central government, not the political subdivisions, just like territorial waters.
To add: "flying over" is descriptive, "airspace" is a geopolitical term, in this context. Hence the question. But now I understand it's a pro indep publication.
Yes, as noted in a sibling comment, The National is a Scottish newspaper that leans towards Scottish devolution/independence. That they would take a chance to jab at "London" is no surprise.
It's a Scottish newspaper.
What should have happen is that the US should be banned in all eternity from any kind of rendition, "extraordinary" or otherwise and the plane put up on the white house lawn as a permanent object of shame.
Why stop there? Why not disband the United States and put them into a receivership managed by Iceland?
[deleted]
Is there anyone naive enough to think that the US government would turn the other cheek after getting egg all over its face? Of course they made extraordinary efforts to capture Snowden before he got away.
The article isn't very clear on an important point: What evidence is there to indicate that the flight was made for the purpose of capturing Snowden?
Shouldn't that be "British" airspace?
If the Scots don't like it, they should declare independence (but that failed) and maybe build an air defense network to shoot down unidentified possible CIA rendition jets (not very feasible).
The term doesn't mean what you think it means. Rather, if so, then you should also complain about all of the following:
"Mexican Helicopter Spotted in Texas Airspace" - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-helicopter-spotted-in-te...
"F-16 escorts Cessna away from Fla. airspace during Obama visit" - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/16/nation/la-na-nn-flor...
"U.S. Jets Intercept Six Russian Planes That Approached The Alaskan Airspace" - http://www.inquisitr.com/1486667/u-s-jets-intercept-six-russ...
"Bill seeks to regulate drones in Maine airspace" - http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/26/politics/bill-seeks-to...
In addition to US states, the construction "---- airspace" is also used in reference to:
lakes - "a good chunk of Lake Michigan airspace is restricted" - http://www.reallyrocketscience.com/node/18
cities - "traffic flow with radar lateral separation between aircraft heading South entering Habana airspace and those flying Northbound to Miami airspace" - http://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2013/ANIWG01/ANI...
Disney theme parks - "Ad Banner Planes Still Kept Out of Disney Airspace" - http://www.newsmax.com/US/Disney-planes-advertising-banners/...
"Mexican Helicopter Spotted in Texas Airspace" - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-helicopter-spotted-in-te...
"F-16 escorts Cessna away from Fla. airspace during Obama visit" - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/16/nation/la-na-nn-flor...
"U.S. Jets Intercept Six Russian Planes That Approached The Alaskan Airspace" - http://www.inquisitr.com/1486667/u-s-jets-intercept-six-russ...
"Bill seeks to regulate drones in Maine airspace" - http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/26/politics/bill-seeks-to...
In addition to US states, the construction "---- airspace" is also used in reference to:
lakes - "a good chunk of Lake Michigan airspace is restricted" - http://www.reallyrocketscience.com/node/18
cities - "traffic flow with radar lateral separation between aircraft heading South entering Habana airspace and those flying Northbound to Miami airspace" - http://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2013/ANIWG01/ANI...
Disney theme parks - "Ad Banner Planes Still Kept Out of Disney Airspace" - http://www.newsmax.com/US/Disney-planes-advertising-banners/...
It is both British airspace and Scottish airspace. Scotland is formally a constituent country of the United Kingdom, with it's own devolved government. And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence (and several other areas), it does have a legitimate interest in asking questions of the UK government if they feel there is a possibility that what the UK government has allowed is not in the interest of Scotland.
There's very little they can do about it, unless there's an indication that a law has been broken. But there's plenty of room for political point scoring.
There's very little they can do about it, unless there's an indication that a law has been broken. But there's plenty of room for political point scoring.
"And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence"
That's pretty much it.
Just wondering if EU going to give Obama another Nobel prize.
I have slightly off-topic question. Did the surveillance program revealed by Snowden violate constitution? if so, has anyone sued the gvt for it?
There was a lawsuit, but it got dismissed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA
If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable.
If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly.
But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are simply out of control.
Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by those wishing to thwart accountability measures.
Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion?
It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US.
A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists.
When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations had.
If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly.
But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are simply out of control.
Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by those wishing to thwart accountability measures.
Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion?
It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US.
A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists.
When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations had.
> A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists.
There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and also supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a presidential candidate.
Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it still needs major reform." [3]
[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...
[2] http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-...
[3] http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and also supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a presidential candidate.
Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it still needs major reform." [3]
[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...
[2] http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-...
[3] http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
link [1] is down, in fact several links at senate.gov are down. I don't want to say your claim is disingenuous because you did throw a caveat in there, however Rand Paul did not support handing the internet off to the FCC to regulate if we want to call that defensible. He did however publicly rail against the freedom act and tried to fillibuster it though ultimately that failed.
My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. You're right though, Rand Paul did a lot to fight the "Freedom" Act.
> My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders.
I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he has been consistently vocal about them.
Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well.
edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him out.
I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he has been consistently vocal about them.
Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well.
edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him out.
[deleted]
Regardless of your feelings on net neutrality, it is a completely different topic and the fact that you bring it up is strange.
Net neutrality is an important issue for many posters on Hacker News.
I assume you mean Rand Paul; he has suspended his campaign for President.
Bernie Sanders actually, check out the links.
Thanks. I followed the links in your first two citations mentioned inline as relevant to figuring it out, and neither one provided the answer, which I found frustrating. I did not click on the third as from the comment itself it sounded unrelated.
Of course, now that I look again, I can see it's basically there in the URL.
Of course, now that I look again, I can see it's basically there in the URL.
Thanks for the heads up on Rand Paul's campaign. I liked hearing his POV in the debates.
> A principled president
This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful orgs?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary...
> They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ”
A principled population, now that would be something :)
This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful orgs?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary...
> They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ”
A principled population, now that would be something :)
This is a valid point.
I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged.
We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepticism, but unfortunately a lot of information slips through the cracks due to our limits on attention and information processing. The net effect is that most Americans accept at face value whatever explanation our leaders offer.
It's just not necessarily going to benefit the average person to dig deeper looking for truth, and it's far more pleasant to just get on board with the powerful interest group and feel the psychological benefits of group cohesion and being on the "winning" side.
I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged.
We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepticism, but unfortunately a lot of information slips through the cracks due to our limits on attention and information processing. The net effect is that most Americans accept at face value whatever explanation our leaders offer.
It's just not necessarily going to benefit the average person to dig deeper looking for truth, and it's far more pleasant to just get on board with the powerful interest group and feel the psychological benefits of group cohesion and being on the "winning" side.
I don't think the average American cares unough to dig deeper for the truth. I politely used the word care; I hope it's not another word?
Maybe it's the way someone who never breathed fresh air doesn't miss fresh air. That is, if we knew what we're missing, even if it's just in relation to "how things could be", we'd care more, I think. And we really are missing out. We have the know-how, technology and morally, for everybody on the world to have a great and dignified life. We just don't have the culture.
I often wish I had been born as some kind of genius film maker or author, because I think creating a realistic "utopian" (read: less dystopian) world which is a direct continuation of a realistic rendition of reality could do a lot to inspire us, and overcome our short attention spans and short-sightedness a bit. Then again, I don't know any examples of art really changing much, so I'm not sure. But I do wish there were more such movies and books.. we know about the problems, we need solutions, or at least constructive steps to take, and bigger perspectives than this year or decade.
"Stuff is much worse than you think, but I don't have any good ideas how to fix it" is simply too hard a sell. We need to extend helping hands and encouragement, and be good examples. That is banal and easy to say I know, in the end organizing is important, too. I don't mean this in an Alex Jones way, but we need to help each other to wake up. Which reminds me of a slashdot comment I kept around because it struck a chord:
> It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander [danger?] level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=4083632...
I often wish I had been born as some kind of genius film maker or author, because I think creating a realistic "utopian" (read: less dystopian) world which is a direct continuation of a realistic rendition of reality could do a lot to inspire us, and overcome our short attention spans and short-sightedness a bit. Then again, I don't know any examples of art really changing much, so I'm not sure. But I do wish there were more such movies and books.. we know about the problems, we need solutions, or at least constructive steps to take, and bigger perspectives than this year or decade.
"Stuff is much worse than you think, but I don't have any good ideas how to fix it" is simply too hard a sell. We need to extend helping hands and encouragement, and be good examples. That is banal and easy to say I know, in the end organizing is important, too. I don't mean this in an Alex Jones way, but we need to help each other to wake up. Which reminds me of a slashdot comment I kept around because it struck a chord:
> It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander [danger?] level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=4083632...
I like your comment about fresh air. I can't prove it or point to any source, but I firmly believe that as a civilization, we are living in poverty compared to what we could be living in if only we had some "fresh air".
The President can get hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and on-line contributions to promote their agenda.
> Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president
Or, as yet (and possibly ever) any president...
Or, as yet (and possibly ever) any president...
Whoops yeah, I worded that badly :)
You should consider that the utter silence to which you refer has an alternative interpretation. Namely that the powerful people have said nothing not because they are afraid, but because they are unconcerned.
This is certainly a logical possibility. We are in the midst of a scary slide toward authoritarianism, and an even more scary slide away from respect for the rule of law.
Our powerful people don't read much history, do they? Perhaps they think that the monster will stay on the leash this time. That's cute.
They don't think it will stay on the leash, they believe it has no interest in devouring them. Why would it turn against a powerful ally?
Powerful allies are tasty.
Chelsea Manning
[deleted](3)
Attention, Americans in this comments section: even though you're complaining now, if you guys obediently line up to re-elect the party doing this come November, you are part of the problem.
Are you implying the next Republican president will put a stop to it? That's what the partisan argument in your comment seems to imply.
Which comes down to probably Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump... I don't see that happening.
Which comes down to probably Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump... I don't see that happening.
I am not implying anything. I am straight up stating that if you don't throw the bastards out, they will never learn.
If you actually care about policy instead of about avoiding the hated outgroup, your relationship with politicians needs to be transactional. If they don't deliver, find another one, even if said politician is (gasp! shock!) not a Democrat. I would recommend the same, by the way, to Republicans who are upset that the Congressional GOP isn't cutting spending. Vote them out of power, it's the only way to get your point through.
If you actually care about policy instead of about avoiding the hated outgroup, your relationship with politicians needs to be transactional. If they don't deliver, find another one, even if said politician is (gasp! shock!) not a Democrat. I would recommend the same, by the way, to Republicans who are upset that the Congressional GOP isn't cutting spending. Vote them out of power, it's the only way to get your point through.
I don't know what they were afraid of. They've been able to get the media to be reserved enough in their judgements and reporting that no elected officials have felt the pressure to do anything, and, therefore, nothing has changed. As I read elsewhere recently: What happens when the government has perfect clarity on everything everyone does, when we're all guilty of "3 felonies a day?"
The range of a Gulfstream V is about 6500 miles. Given that fact the jet could have easily flown without entering UK airspace at all. The Gulfstream V also has an initial cruising altitude of 41,000 feet with a max of 51,000 feet. 45,000 feet may be high for a commercial jet but the G5 cruises comfortably at that altitude. Given these facts I am not sure why the CIA would create the exposure flying over the UK would create. My guess is they have heard of flight aware and know a transponder does.
There's safety restrictions for flight paths - in case of sudden engine failure, you want the plane to be able to glide to an airfield or other inhabited areas that you can get rescued from.
I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.
I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.
> I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.
There's two separate issues there: there's airspace controlled by the Iceland and the UK and there's sovereign airspace. In the case of the UK and Iceland, the airspace they control goes far beyond the sovereign airspace.
There's two separate issues there: there's airspace controlled by the Iceland and the UK and there's sovereign airspace. In the case of the UK and Iceland, the airspace they control goes far beyond the sovereign airspace.
the G-V is certified for ETOPS -- extended twin-engine overwater operations. Second, there's no "gliding" involved. ETOPS flight plans are designed for single engine operation. That floating seat cushion is for when both engines fail.
That makes sense but there are so many transpacific routes that spend huge stretches of time over open water that I am not sure it is even feasible for all commercial flights. CIA SAD/SOG operations likely have a much broader risk envelope.
Further brief research suggests it's "flight time with one failed engine" that's a constraint, somewhere between 60 and 180 minutes, depending on how the plane is certified. The Gulfstream 5 is a twin-engine aircraft, which makes it more awkward for crossing large bodies of water. For long-distance flights, you're more likely to be on a four-engine plane, which has more lenient safety margins in case of engine failure.
That said, the Pacific has a good chunk of diversion airports available as well.
That said, the Pacific has a good chunk of diversion airports available as well.
The UK knew. They just aren't going to answer to Alex Salmond.
Not my government.
I'm nauseated to think that these people are free. Anyone in a position to leak their identities so that they can be dealt with should consider it their moral obligation to do so.