This has now officially..
.. turned into a farce.
Bolivian president Evo Morales was obliged to land in Vienna en route home from attending a gas exporters' conference in Moscow over suspicions that NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden might be aboard the presidential jet. According to the BBC, Austrian officials who searched the jet have given the all-clear, …
Where are my trousers? The ambassador's coming to tea in a minute, and I can't find them anywhere. Oh no, that's him at the door now! I'll hide in this cupboard while he's here.
G'Day ambassador mate! I've got the consul's trousers here, I was just borrowing them for a nice young sheila I got back there on the sofa. D'you know where he is?
in walks a loveable policeman
Oi! You're not allowed in here. Diplomatic immunity!
'Ello ello ello sir, you're right. I'd better hide in the bathroom, before the ambassador spots me, and I cause a diplomatic incident.
[probably best I don't give up my day job]
It's more complicated than that. The studio liked to reuse their popular characters in different settings: Dick and his sidekick appeared in three programs: Wacky Races, Perils of Penelope Pitstop and Stop that Pigeon. Penelope appeared in two of those, as did the Ant Hill Mob - but not appearing as the same named characters or professions.
It could be seen the animated equivalent of the same actor appearing in many different films playing different characters, but always the same archetype. Think someone like Laurel and Hardy: They played different characters every film, but really they were always playing their own act and everyone loved them for it.
I think I can untangle this.
The Lady Penelope being referred to by the honourable JayBizzle is a totally different character to the Penelope Pitstop of Wacky Races fame (and The Perils of Penelope Pitstop)
I'm assuming the association JayBizzle was making to Lady Penelope was as a result of the link to FAB-001, F.A.B. being the radio acknowldgement of the Thunderbirds pilots.
I was making a reference to the OP defining the situation as a farce, Stop the Pigeon was a farce and I was drawing a parallel to the nature of the Pigeon (being a spy messenger) and his pursuer the repeatedly foiled Dick Dastardly. I was not building on the Thunderbirds reference.
Now that that's all sorted out everyone else can all go back to their lives safe in the knowledge that there is someone who is anal enough to read the replies to his own posts, try to understand them, point out continuity errors or misunderstandings and how they were derived.
Unfortunately I have to live with myself.
Ah, okay. I thought you were mistaking Lady Penelope for Penelope Pitstop - you clearly know they are different, though.
However, @Suricou Raven:
"It's more complicated than that. The studio liked to reuse their popular characters in different settings: Dick and his sidekick appeared in three programs: Wacky Races, Perils of Penelope Pitstop and Stop that Pigeon."
My recollection is that Dick Dastardly didn't appear in The Perils of Penelope Pitstop - the only one in which they appeared alongside Penelope Pitstop was the Wacky Races. I'm pretty sure Penelope's nemesis in The Perils was a character called something like The Hooded Claw (who I think was the alter ego of someone she thought was a friend).
You're right about the Hooded Claw trying to get our beloved Penelope. I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall the 'friend' was her lawyer trying to get his hand on her fortune. The Ant Hill Mob was there to protect her.
A quick trip to IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173587/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 has just confirmed the ol' marbles are basically intact for the mo.
What were we talking about?
The U.S.A. needs to get its house in order and Cameron could be seen to be a player on the world stage if he gets some balls (not the Ed kind) and says to Obama, "listen Bara me old chum, hows about not bugging everyone, yeah? Other NATO countries don't like it, especially if you don't tell them"
There is no longer a cold war and you will not reduce the threat of Terrorism from pissing off all of your mates.
Team America World Police.. Fuck NO!
"There is no longer a cold war and you will not reduce the threat of Terrorism from pissing off all of your mates."
You honestly think that no other country in the world spies on its supposed allies when it suits them? Where do you live , Innocent Cottage, 1 Naive Street, Dumbville?
So? Because it's done, it should be accepted? Because it's done, it's automatically effective? You think it's right and you're fully behind the practice? You believe that freedom and democracy are meaningless words? That people who dream of making the world better should just let it go, and we should be happy to be on the path to a perfectly fascist society where your opinion does not matter a bit to your government?
If that's what you want, as you pointed out, there are countries like that already. Why don't you emigrate there and applaud happily at their governments actions?
"You believe that freedom and democracy are meaningless words? "
If it wasn't for the actions of security agencies carrying out covert operations the freedom and democracy you talk about probably wouldn't exists anymore.
"That people who dream of making the world better should just let it go"
Cue angelic choir and some pictures of smiling multi ethnic clip art pictures of women holding babies...
"we should be happy to be on the path to a perfectly fascist society"
You wouldn't know true fascism if it bit you in your deluded liberal backside. For people like you that word is a catch all term for anything you don't happen to agree with because it doesn't fit into the fluffy cuddly hippy world you naively believe we'd all live in if only The Man didn't go around doing nasty things like spying.
Well newsflash my friend - human nature being what it is doesn't allow for that. The Man is actually keeping your backsde safe from the real enemies out there , you know, the sort who fly aircraft into a building with 3000 people in it, the one who blow up trains, bomb buses full of kids, shoot women dead if they dare to try and get an education? But hey , those are minor transgressions compared to storing emails, right?
Grow the fuck up!
With their bald-face mantra of "exceptionalism", they're a 1960s era "white cop in a black ghetto" type of cop.
Do what I say or I'll beat the heck out of you with my club kind of cop.
There a "the law is there for YOU to obey" kind of cop.
Shock and awe ? Shock and awe at their hypocrisy !
Paris, because she's their main ideological guru.
There is normal spying for military security threats.
Then there is industrial espionage.
But then there is capturing all the internet traffic from every single citizen.
What is the purpose? It clearly is NOT to fight terrorism.
Looking at what they capture their motivations include:
1. Turning over the trade secrets of EU companies (like Siemens) to US companies (like Intel and Motorola).
2. Capturing the bargaining positions of the other side.
3. Gathering background information on our political, military and industrial leaders with which to blackmail them.
Yes, other countries do spying too. But the CIA includes reading over foreign newspapers in its definition of spying.
I do not believe for a minute that Belgium is taping all the internet traffic in and out of the UK or USA.
<Sigh> It is really rich of Brussels to be complaining of US evesdropping given their long and secretive history of doing exactly the same if not worse (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/12/16588)! The whole basis of the EPCIP program is that the EU will be able to "identify terror threats to critical infrastructure" (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/l33260_en.htm), and partially entails EU countries sharing data on their citizens and their communications without any form of warrant, nor oversight, and under the control of non-elected EU beureaucrats. Compared to the NSA's activities that's like comparing grand larceny to pickpocketing!
The Fwench are not kicking up too much of a fuss as they have had their own equivalent of ECHELON for years too:
Even the Swiss and the Swedes are at it:
Oh dear, did that info puncture a few reality bubbles?
Unfortunately I am a strict constructionist when it comes to markup languages, and as your <Sigh> tag was not terminated, I was unable to parse your post.
Or in ordinary wetware language, I am programmed to ignore completely any responses from people who think it is clever to put <Sigh> at the start of their posts. It's intended to indicate casual superiority - and all you ever do when posting is try to look superior to others. But I can't find the Matt Bryant who is a specialist in international law, so until you verify your credentials your posts would seem to have no special value.
You haven't got it, have you? Or perhaps you only read the news through the NSA firewall.
This is about the US spying on everybody else, and subcontracting their spying on their own citizens to the UK, so as to maintain a figleaf of legality.
Really it's high time US citizens flooded our Government with FOI requests to find out what information it is storing on them, Yes I know they will be refused...come on guys, you can crapflood the UK Government with FOI requests until they have to agree not to cooperate any more, and the whole stinking rotten system starts to unravel.
".....you can crapflood the UK Government with FOI requests until they have to agree not to cooperate any more....." Please do, it will be an excellent source of income for HMG when they charge you £50 for a photocopy of a sheet saying "No information found" (https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/how-to-make-an-foi-request).
But, before you get your hopes up, you may want to read the FOI Act 2000 first (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/schedule/1) as it specificaly excludes GCHQ and chums: "....except—......any unit or part of a unit which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in the exercise of its functions....."
Which is why I wrote that it would be refused. I know that FOI only applies to stuff the Government doesn't care about. But presumably someone would have to send out all the emails saying why it had been refused. 300 million Americans could certainly overload the UK Government's email system.
the guardian (well, you know) suggested, that it might have been a little different to the popular form of subcontracting, i.e. both parties stored data - but the data captured by the other partner, thus enabling both to claim that it was "all legal".
America pays us for the spy base in North Yorkshire. They drive on the right and use dollars. (And have Disney Land like facilities). They even give you free unlimited beer after playing Rugby with them. (Junk American beer but it is free).
The whole set up is stupid. If you are going to do something just say you are.
"You honestly think that no other country in the world spies on its supposed allies when it suits them?"
Only William Hague is so dumb <b>he does the spying for them</b>. That's the true scandal here, that a man can be so stupid he gives them a network tap and just naively thinks they won't spy on Brits for commercial and political gains.
Wow, when he started spouting how US protects its citizens as if Brits are US citizens (!).
You can see the Prism leak, you can see Brit data from the filter GCHQ put in goes straight into that database, not deleted after 3 days. Did he imagine otherwise?
...followed by the rapid exodus of banks from the City of London, cancellation of numerous contracts and the collapse of the £.
Kipling was right: high levels of trade reduce the prospect of war. But he missed an essential point; that when word trade is predicated on a debt-funded currency retaining its value, the US can do what it likes because nobody dare upset the applecart. It is the old saw about you owe the bank £1000, you have a problem, you owe the bank £1billion, they have a problem.
If the dollar falls, oil and commodity prices go haywire. So, paradoxically, nobody can afford to upset the US.
That would be very nice indeed, but the only problem is Cameron and the British gov/civil service etc are the US's lapdogs. Indeed GCHQ spying is even worse as Snowden has revealed. Why do you think they denied flights to the UK for him the moment this all came out. We need a European and US Spring, and fast before it's too late.
Yeah you don't want America as the world police until you want to intervene in another country and you realise you armed forces can't do it. Ohh we hate America but please come help us in Libya. America, rightly or wrongly, can project force. That is why they were hired by the Saudi's for the first Iraq war (no bad, being able to hire half a million troops for $35 billion)
As for spying, yes what was going on was very wrong and some people need to be sized up for orange jumpsuits, but GCHQ is at it as well and just as much. That doesn't excuse it, but your preaching may need to be dialled down a little. Theres probably much more to come and theres going to be quite a few countries with some explaining to do so don't be so quick to attack others.
The whereabouts of Lord Lucan
The pizza joint where Elvis is currently doing the cooking
The exact location of last year's snow
The datacenter that has all of temps perdu on it, and the admin password
The IP address of the Yeti webcam
The secret hideout in Arizona where Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Quadhafi (the real ones) live in comfortable retirement.
The actual contract between the UK and the US governments that specifies that every UK Prime Minister is the current US President's bitch (which is why there can never be a woman President)
The launch codes for all the Minutemen
The combination of the bathroom immediately off of the Oval Office where US Presidents go for some quality time.
Where to get polonium in Moscow
He does not know:
Who the Hell gives Michael Gove his ideas.
"The launch codes for all the Minutemen"
I thought that was "0000000"?
"The combination of the bathroom immediately off of the Oval Office where US Presidents go for some quality time."
(Wouldn't want it to be the same as the nuclear missile code, would we? That would be stupid!)
@AC 11:07 GMT
Oh, I do know that there are SS agents on board, the very ones responsible for the president's security. My problem is, when I see an secret service agent and a secret agent next to each other I cannot tell who is who. So how could I know whether there are no secret agents on board? Just as well as I couldn't have told with certainty that Mr Snowden is not on the Bolivian plane.
Can't wait for Mr Obama to thank the grounding country for its hospitality.
As well as the Secret Service agents, Airforce One carries anyone the president wants to talk to during the flight.
That can easily include people who work for the CIA.
It can also include people like old Rumsfeld and George W Bush.
He can invite Tony Blair if he wants.
Besides, in any aircraft containing 100 Americans there is bound to be at least one criminal.
refusing to undeny.
you a liar!
no, you a liar!
shutup, or I'll tell my big brother!
big brother, yeah? My father farts in the general direction of your brother!
Shall we call a drone strike, mr president?
Mr president? we can not deny any longer. The nation and the world is awaiting a swift and decisive action! Honor of France is at stake Mister President!
Well... what does Pres. Obama say?
Mr Obama, president, Sir, says they will deny they put any pressure on you, sir, they'll say they ask nicely.
Oh, allright then, bomb those Austro-nazi bastards! And then deny we did it. Or blame Markela, hehehe, I like that!
As a person living in France - my opinion is that Monsieur Hollande doesn't have a sense of humour. Or a personality. Or much in the way of a clue. It must say something that Chirac is being done for corruption and Sarko is likewise not to mention being led by anybody flashing bling at him; yet those two are way more popular than the current incumbent. If he doesn't get his act together, the bloody national front will be more popular...and that's not a good situation for a country like France.
How do you generically describe organisations and people that do things that are bad, even immoral and would be illegal or criminal if they were not being done by official TLAs like NSA, CIA, and so on.
We cannot call them criminal because they have hijacked the word to have entirely different uses. It now includes such things that many would describe as patriotic whistle blowing.
They have control of the lawmakers so they are not treated as illegal either.
Give me a nice descriptive word please!
"How do you generically describe organisations and people that do things that are bad, even immoral and would be illegal or criminal if they were not being done by official TLAs like NSA, CIA, and so on."
The word you are looking for is "state" (plural: "states", aka "the state", Uncle Sam, or Big Brother).
It has been pointed out many times for at least a century that the state aims to set up a monopoly of crime and violence, which it jealously guards. Thus, for example, virtually all the terrorism perpetrated throughout history has been done by states. The reason they get so angry when "non state actors" use violence is that it threatens their monopoly.
I don't know who has pointed it out, because of course it is untrue. The State simply seeks to derive income from licensing crime and violence, such as the Elizabethan privateers. But the concentration of wealth and power in the State causes the criminals to seek to join it directly, thus cutting out the middleman. He who waives the rules, rules the waves.
I find it interesting that one of the most accessible discussions of this is to be found in the works of Sir Terry Pratchett, the politics of whose fantasy books runs much closer to reality than that of some more "serious" writers. One of his best lines is the weary summary of politics by Lord Vetinari, to the effect that "There are only bad men, but they are on different sides".
"Disappointing how European countries are rolling over for the USA...." Yes, I could see why you would be disappointed that they are following international law and not merely following some anarchic, apply-which-laws-you-want-as-you-want view.
".....Grounding a president's plane......" The plane was not grounded at all, it was merely searched in accordance with international law. El Dictator Morales may have diplomatic immunity, as does members of his family travelling with him, but that does not mean everyone travelling with him immediately gets the same immunity. You cannot just load up a plane with criminals and then claim they can not be arrested just because one person on the plane has diplomatic immunity. The aircraft travelling through foreign airspace is subject to the laws of the airspace owner, so if a person is wanted for a crime they cannot just jump on an official aircraft and immediately gain diplomatic immunity, it has to be granted by the hosting nation (in this case the one owning the airspace). Most countries in Europe have some form of extradition agreement with the US so Snowden risks being stopped and extradited to the States if he tries flying through European airspace, whether it is on a commercial, private or official aircraft. People without diplomatic immunity have to be declared on the aircraft manifest when the flightplan is logged (and, strictly speaking, it is considered polite to include even those with diplomatic immunity). There are special cases, such as the NATO rules that allowed blanket exclusions on manifests for "terrorism-related" flights by NATO nations over NATO countries, which basically allowed the CIA to carry out the extraordinary rendition program without having to declare to the victims on their flight manifests. Seeing as Snowden has no diploamtic immunity, and Bolivia has no extraordinary rules in place excusing manifests, then the European countries can demand that Bolivia's jet was searched for a suspected criminal. All legal and above board. If you think it is "unfair", please note the Bolivians can do exactly the same to any aircraft entering their airpsace and KNOW it is legal, they just like ranting about the "decadent imperial lackey running dogs", etc.
"The plane was not grounded at all, it was merely searched in accordance with international law."
No this was a huge violation of international law.
You cannot simply deny Airforce One entry into your airspace after you have previously granted it permission.
And you cannot simply search Airforce One.
It is the same for the aircraft of all nations.
Think diplomatic pouch. They are not actually pouches.
"......You cannot simply deny Airforce One entry into your airspace after you have previously granted it permission....." Any country can revoke permission to overfly their territory as they wish, as long as they are willing to enforce such a refusal.
".....And you cannot simply search Airforce One....." Legally there is nothing to stop a host country searching AF1 if they have reasonable grounds under their own laws, but DIPLOMATICLY there is plenty to stop a country asking to search AF1. There is very little real diplomatic fallout from asking to search aircraft belonging to banana reppublic quasi-dictators.
".....It is the same for the aircraft of all nations....." See above.
"......Think diplomatic pouch. They are not actually pouches." I suggest you go do some reading as it is actually very different to a diplomatic pouch, and unless they completed the documentation declaring whatever container was holding Snowden - such as a locked crate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikko_Affair) - and marked it accordingly then it is not covered by Article 27 of the Vienna Convention. Indeed, seeing as Morales can hardly claim that secretly flying suspected criminals around the World on his jet is part of the official functions, he would stand to have his diplomatic immunity revoked should he be found to be doing so (as outlined in Article 31.1c of the Vienna Convention).
Even if the Austrians and French were suspected of being in breach of the Vienna Convention the matter could only be taken up AFTER the event in the International Court, which would not stop the legal arrest and extradition of Snowden had he been found on the aircraft. In future, please bear in mind that just because you wish it was so does not make it so.
"The plane was not grounded at all, it was merely searched in accordance with international law. "
Technically true, but I doubt that Austria is blanket-stopping every plane from Russia flying over it's airspace. It particularly targeted this plane, and this plane only. Requesting a plane to land to be searched is, I believe, a very rare and serious occurrence, for which there must be some application of 'reasonable suspicion'.
The only 'reasonable suspicion' here seems to be 'Bolivia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US' and 'that Mr Morales doesn't bend over to get shafted by the US, and he looks right dodgy, too'. Also, since Bolivia did not declare that Snowden was on board, when they are required by law to do so if he were, and since Snowden really wasn't on board, Austria is basically accusing Bolivia of lying on the passenger manifest of it's presidential plane. In diplomatic terms, I think that's considered extremely rude.
"El Dictator Morales" - "el dictator" means elected president, right? My Spanish is a bit rusty
"There are special cases, such as the NATO rules that allowed blanket exclusions on manifests for "terrorism-related" flights by NATO nations over NATO countries"
Further proving the point that international law isn't really law, it's just a set of guidelines that the US can rewrite at will whenever it suits.
"Technically true, but......" Aw, poor ickle Jimmy, he so wants to disagree, but when he can't he still whines anyway!
"....It particularly targeted this plane...." Either way, Austria and the French and Portugese were well within their legal rights.
"....The only 'reasonable suspicion' here seems to be...." That's just conjecture, for all you know there could have been a tip-off from the Russians made to stir the pot a bit more. Until the story behind it all comes out you can whine all you like, it doesn't change the legality of it all.
"...."el dictator" means elected president, right?....." No, it is a poke at how you complain about the Austrians et al using the law when popularist Latin presidents like Morales, Correa and Chavez have used their political power to jig their local laws to silence, oppress and criminalise their opponents and prolong their own rule:
"....Further proving the point that international law isn't really law...." A whining little rant that shows you simply don't understand that countries are at liberty to make treaties between themselves. Indeed, Chavez was a great believer in forming cosy agreements to help him and his anti-Yank buddies "resist" the US, will you moan about those treaties too?
Ah, Mr Bryant, the old "I don't like your arguments so I'll make personal accusations" schtick. Grow up!
Yes, Austria, etc were well within their legal rights, that's exactly what I said.
Yes, my 'reasonable suspicion' is just conjecture, that's why I said 'seems' not 'is'.
"you simply don't understand that countries are at liberty to make treaties between themselves". Quite the opposite, I understand exactly that countries are at liberty to make their own cozy little arrangements such as "extraordinary rendition", and that no 'international law' will stop them.
You might at least read and understand what I'm writing before shooting.
«You might at least read and understand what I'm writing before shooting.» Now, now James, please don't make demands of Mr Bryant which he is congenitally incapable of fulfilling. As he so often has demonstrated on this forum, reading and understanding are quite beyond him - as is the correct orthography of the names of those whom he dislikes and with whom he disagrees, despite - or because of - his failure to understand them....
Gee, another Henri post without any actual argument or fact to add to the actual conversation. At least he's consistant. I'm surprised though that he didn't leap to his usual accusation that it was all a Jewish conspiracy and somehow relate it unconvincingly to the Dreyfus affair.
Come on, henri, you're usually so good at parrotting debunked arguments from the leftiesphere, or haven't they got round to feeding the sheeple a point of view on this yet? Maybe you want to discus the Chicago or Vienna Conventions? Go on, please try and show that the French or Portugese or Austrians acted in breach of either, if only to provide the rest of us with a good laugh..
"..... the old "I don't like your arguments so I'll make personal accusations" schtick...." But you didn't make any arguments, you just whined. If you had have presented some actual original thought I would have been forced to spend more than thrity seconds debunking it.
".....You might at least read and understand what I'm writing before shooting." Like I said, you posted no arguments, just a whiney rant about what even you admit are perfectly legal events because your "hero" Snowden has stuffed it all up almost as much as your other "hero" Assange.
And if you are so upset about the legality of it all, or even of the NATO agreement that was used to hide the extraordinary rendition program, then there is one simple answer - go promote all the whacky ideals you hold dear at the next election as a candiate for office. If you really want to pretend you're so convinced of the superiority of your moral convictions, and that the majority (the fabled "99%") will support you, then it should be easy for you to convince enough people to vote you into office. Then you can fix all these pesky problems with the World, right? I suggest you get started now and don't waste any more time with this forum, it's only stopping your rise to World President
"Any country can revoke permission to overfly their territory as they wish, as long as they are willing to enforce such a refusal."
And that is exactly my point. The US used (via proxy; which is worse) the threat of naked force to treat the president of a country in the same way as a cop pulling over a teenager in a traffic stop on the suspicion that a wanted (by the US only) person was aboard. They could either comply or run the serious risk of having to declare war; and that has to be massively embarrassing for Bolivia as they've had their lunch money stolen and there's fuck-all they can do about it.
If that was me; I'd personally arrange for Snowden to reach sanctuary somewhere just on general principles.
Power without responsibility...that's the US today. Being able to turn pretty well any country into a glass sculpture does give people pause for thought before arguing back, you must admit.
Oh yeah: " The plane was not grounded at all, it was merely searched in accordance with international law.". And where was it searched? On the ground; that's right. Where did they want to be? In the air.
".... The US used (via proxy; which is worse) the threat of naked force to treat the president of a country in the same way as a cop pulling over a teenager in a traffic stop on the suspicion that a wanted (by the US only) person was aboard...." Yeah, it's called THE LAW. The Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, states "Article 29: Before an international flight, the pilot in command must ensure that the aircraft is airworthy, duly registered and that the relevant certificates are on board the aircraft. The required documents are......Passenger names, place of boarding and destination.....". If Snowden had been a sanctified priest then Austria would have been just as obligated to stop him passing through their territory if Snowden had been on the plane, travelling without legal documentation as an unlisted passenger, through Austrian airspace, and the Bolivian authorities would have been in breach of the laws regulating international air travel. I suggest you start your research here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation).
"....or run the serious risk of having to declare war....." Ooooh, feel the melodrama! If the Bolivian jet had refused to land then there are a whole raft of diplomatic and legal options available to France, Portugal and Austria, such as banning any Bolivian aircraft from tarversing their airspace or ejecting a Bolivian diplomat in protest. Personally I'd not be too surprised if Morales started the rumour in order to garner some media attention and embarrass the Europeans.
"....If that was me; I'd personally arrange for Snowden to reach sanctuary somewhere just on general principles....." That is your opinion, but you fail to realise there is a whole framework of international law standing between Snowden and the refuge you think he deserves, and simply wishing (or downvoting) will not change that simple fact of reality.
"....Being able to turn pretty well any country into a glass....." So when did the US threaten to turn any country into glass? I think you'd have to go back to the Cold War to find the US threatening anyone with nukes. I suggest you lay off the hyperbole and try and get a grasp on reality.
"....And where was it searched? On the ground; that's right. Where did they want to be? In the air." Which has SFA to do with the legality of the issue. Fail!
Feel free to go through my comments with a fine toothcomb; but I never claimed at any point that the action was illegal. Bullying and righteously taking the piss, yes, but illegal, no. Lawmakers write the laws to suit themselves; not the people they represent. That has always been the case (with a couple of notable exceptions); it's getting worse and the US seem to be the worst of the bunch...if for no other reason that they forcibly export those laws.
I do know that if I were the Bolivian president -having just experienced the country equivalent of having his lunch money taken by the bigger kids- I would be incandescently pissed off right about now.
""....Being able to turn pretty well any country into a glass....." So when did the US threaten to turn any country into glass? I think you'd have to go back to the Cold War to find the US threatening anyone with nukes. I suggest you lay off the hyperbole and try and get a grasp on reality." They don't have to threaten; everybody knows they have the kit and have used it on civilian cities. I probably don't have too much to worry about because I'm not sitting on a deposit of sweet crude; but a nuking is definitely not outside of the US' moral range.
Just to clarify a bit; I don't have a hate-on for Americans...I like the people and the country but guys...your foreign policy sucks raw donkey dick.
""....And where was it searched? On the ground; that's right. Where did they want to be? In the air." Which has SFA to do with the legality of the issue. Fail!"
I noticed that you omitted the relevant part of your quote when you said "The plane was not grounded at all, it was merely searched in accordance with international law.". The story's headline is "Bolivian president's jet grounded so officials can look for Snowden" and the plane was forced to the ground to be searched. I therefore contend that you should keep the fail to yourself or purchase a better dictionary.
By the way; I haven't -contrary to your accusation- downvoted anything. I might if you keep on being a dick though.
".....Lawmakers write the laws to suit themselves; not the people they represent....." Both the Chicago and Vienna Conventions are international agreements formed by large numbers of diplomats and experts from many countries many decades before the current US administration came to power, so to try and claim that the current lawmakers made the laws to suit themselves is patently stupid.
".....everybody knows they have the kit and have used it on civilian cities...." Twice in 1945 to end a major war involving just about every nation on the planet. Like I said, and you failed to do, please do show me an occasion when they have threatened anyone with nukes since the Cold War?
"....I therefore contend that you should keep the fail to yourself or purchase a better dictionary....." I would suggest it is you and El Reg that need to find a dictionary of aviation terms. "Grounded" in aviation terms means forbidden from flying, period, whereas the Bolivian plane was merely REQUESTED to land and then searched. The Bolivians could have refused to land but that would probably have left them running out of fuel shortly after. And even after landing they could have tried refusing to let the plane be searched, but that would have given the Austrians the right to actually ground them until the Bolivians capitulated or the International Courts ordered Austria to release the jet. Obviously, Morales realized the simplest and quickest way to resolve the issue was to co-operate. Just as obviously, you failed to do English Comprehension 101, along with any form of legal research or aviation reading. Ah well, I suppose the nice thing to say would be that your achievements so far have left lots of room for future improvement.
To keep it short; I shall answer your 3 paragraphs by number:
1) I don't give a flying fuck about international law. Given a suitable shedload of money to throw at two teams of lawyers I'm sure I could come up with a convincing case for both the horrifying illegality and the total justification of the actions. My position was that the action was **wrong**.. A *Head of state* had his plane forced to the ground -over ground where the target had committed no crime- to be searched for a person that wasn't there.
2) They don't have to threaten...that was the point.
3) I do know the aviation connotation of grounded, yes. The plane was forced to the ground and forbidden to take off again until it was searched. That's grounded. Might be conditional and temporary; but it's grounded nevertheless.
"....I don't give a flying fuck about international law...." Aw, how naive! Don't tell me, you insist on equality and liberty but want "special treatment" outside the law for those you think are deserving..... Fail!
".....Given a suitable shedload of money to throw at two teams of lawyers...." Diplomatic disputes are settled at the International Court of Law. If Morales had wanted to contest the Austrian insistence on "confirming the passenger manifest" then he could have refused, but THEN the Austrians would have had the legal right to actually ground his jet UNTIL the relevant lawyers, expensive or otherwise, had trotted off to the ICoL, all of which would probably have taken many months. If you don't understand the basics of the game you will always be left shrieking and bleating indignantly.
"....They don't have to threaten...." But you stated that they had, so you're now admitting that actually they haven't. All in all, it would be a pretty stupid diplomatic threat - "Do as we say or we nuke you!" - as what would they do when countries simply called their bluff? I can see that a career in law or diplomacy and yourself are destined to be strangers during your lifetime.
"..... I do know the aviation connotation of grounded, yes....." Oh, so you simply lied then? Or did you forget in your rush to righteously froth? Fail again!
".....The plane was forced to the ground...." Nope, they requested permission to overfly Austrian territory and land to refuel. The Austrians agreed but then exercised their legal right to confirm the passenger manifest. Morales had the option of turning round and returning to his original start point (Moscow) or accepting the Austrian terms. He chose to accept, no "grounding" required. Fail again, again!
I carried a diplomatic passport for a number of years and my wife is currently a consular official. Here are some general rules about diplomatic immunity.
1. The person, residence & vehicle of an accredited diplomat are considered sovereign territory of the diplomats home country. Entering the premises or vehicle is the equivalent of crossing a border. My wife technically commutes to a foreign country every time she goes to work and a different set of laws apply to her when she is at work.
2. It is possible for a diplomat to confer diplomatic immunity to another person even when not in their residence or vehicle. This can be done by holding on to someone. The West Germans famously did this when East Germans were scaling the fence around the West German embassy in Prague, circa 1989.
A couple of things to note:
1. To have full immunity, you must carry a letter of accreditation from the host government. Even without it, you have partial immunity, but it is much, much more tenuous.
2. The rules are just rules, there is no way to actually enforce them. Governments have ultimate and unlimited power (theoretically) over individuals and diplomatic immunity will not protect you if they go all out.
3. Heads of state generally have a different, higher level of immunity in foreign countries than diplomats. I'm not entirely sure what the legalities are, but I do know from personal experience that head of state status allows for things that diplomats could never, ever do.
I find this whole thing rather strange. If I had been in Morales' place, I would have ordered the plan to fly on as there was little that any government could do stop it short of shooting it down. It's a matter of principle as much as anything else, a sovereign head of state is just that, sovereign.
It's a disturbing precedent to say that if you are a relatively weak country your sovereignty counts for nothing. And searching a head of state's plane is pretty much the same as invading a country to look for someone/something. This whole thing reeks - it's a sad day when someone vocally opposed to the US can't find refuge anywhere and even sadder when states resort to violating sovereign immunity as a means to an end.
I find this reasoning about a country being able to do what it wants if it suspects that a diplomatic aircraft contains, e.g., a spy or some other "wanted" person by, for example, the USA (one would have thought that at least that person should be wanted by the stopping state) disturbing and inconsistent, if not mediaeval in concept.
1. So what happened with those thoroughly illegal "rendition" flights? Why did every country permit them to enter their airspace, even after it was public knowledge?
2. Am I the only one, not surprised but certainly disgusted at the confirmation, who is interested that just about every European country obeys American government (not even USA parliament, just government officials, public servants) diktat so readily, despite the "shock" that the USA has been spying on them for commercial and diplomatic advantage? What is more, the governments are sufficiently ashamed, in most cases, that they tried to pretend there were technical problems with their flight control systems on the ground. Under what treaty, formal, reviewed application or whatever was this legal in any of those countries? Why did they feel obliged to obey? Is this legal even in the USA?
3. Is the USA the same country as the one expressing outrage at Chinese spying? Is this the same one that routinely deals with other countries terrorists and criminals as honoured guests, when those people are doing what the USA likes? e.g. inviting IRA terrorists to the White House?
4. Human rights - I gather that certain S. American countries were berated about these, just like the state behind Guantanamo.
No. I accept that the USA pursues its own interests, presumably in the belief that its methods are best for its people; that is the job of the USA government. But the hypocrisy of the USA and the pusillanimous acquiescence of "sovereign" states is terrifying.
"I find this reasoning about a country being able to do what it wants if it suspects that a diplomatic aircraft contains, e.g., a spy or some other "wanted" person by, for example, the USA (one would have thought that at least that person should be wanted by the stopping state) disturbing and inconsistent, if not mediaeval in concept....." We'll then maybe you should try a little READING other than Indymedia - first article of the Chicago Convention states a country has sole and complete sovereignty of the airspace over its country. Nothing medieval there.
".....So what happened with those thoroughly illegal "rendition" flights? Why did every country permit them to enter their airspace, even after it was public knowledge?....." <Sigh> Is it too much to expect just one of you sheeple to do some research before making your bleating posts? The NATO agreement allowed the member countries to make "terrorist related" flights over each other's territory without declaring the passenger manifest, which meant the countries overflown could truthfully deny knowledge of who was actually being moved by the CIA. That agreement made the allowance of the flights by the overflown countries quite legal. Bolivia has no such agreement with France, Portugal or Austria.
".....Am I the only one, not surprised but certainly disgusted at the confirmation, who is interested that just about every European country obeys American government...." Well, all the people without a clue probably agree with you. But the Austrians were just following international law because, if the Bolivians had been carrying a person not declared on the passenger manifest and without the correct documentation, then the Bolivians would have been breaking the laws involved. Whilst it played out quite nicely for the Yanks, the Austrians would have been just as legally obliged to request the Bolivians land for a check as if Snowden hadn't existed. I think you'll find most countries have been taking a dim view of people illegally entering their territory for quite a while before Snowden threw his little tantrum.
"....Is the USA the same country as the one expressing outrage at Chinese spying?...." Seriously? You want to equate what the NSA and GCHQ does with what the Chinese get up to? To be frank, you really do need to do a LOT more reading.
".....Human rights - I gather that certain S. American countries were berated about these, just like the state behind Guantanamo....." Yes, I mean it's so terrible that we lock up terrorists rather than just shooting them out of hand, right? Get a clue.
"......But the hypocrisy of the USA and the pusillanimous acquiescence of "sovereign" states is terrifying." Oh puh-lease, put a sock in your faux outrage before you froth yourself to death. If any of Snowden's revelations were news to you then you really should consider yourself just ill-educated, and if you really think other countries aren't doing the same or worse then you are also incredibly and willfully naive. I suggest you grow up, there World is not the cuddly ickle playpen you think it is.
It was in fact not followed by international law. Can you imagine what would happen if this was done to the airplane of the U.S president.
By international law the travel method of presidents enjoy certain perks, like not being blocked from crossing air space or being searched as did happen here.
International law was broken here under the pressure from the U.S. The sad fact is that based on how U.N is set-up, nothing is going to be done about this violation of international law.
> The Ecuadorian government also suspects its emails have been intercepted.
They suspect that their email has been intercepted? "Suspect"?!?! Surely, if they've read anything that Snowden has leaked, they must already know that it has most definitely been intercepted.
I know I do.
It was Julian Assange. How else do you think he got their consul's password so he could knock up a travel document for Snowden without the government's permission?
Well OK, he'd probably just hack the computers for that. So maybe it is our bug. Or an imaginary one. This story really could run-and-run. The great thing about spying, once it gets onto the news agenda, is that no-one believes denials, which are rarely issued anyway, and so you can pretty much say anything. Happy days for journalists with column inches to fill, at least.
Al-queda can run a DDOS against the airlines just by booking Edward Snowden on to flights all round the world.
There wont be a flight able to move if they've got a suspicion that he's book on board.
I wonder how many other Edward Snowdens there are in the world? Hope they didnt have a summer holiday booked anywhere.
"Sieging/bugging of Ecuador's London embassy and the blockading of Morales jet shows that imperial arrogance is the gift that keeps on giving"
Of course the bug was planted by those imperialist dogs, the US. Never mind providing any evidence.
Personally, I'd suspect the publicity hungry alleged rapist with a persecution complex, who is staying there, of generating a publicity stunt.
As for wikileaks itself, I'll have some respect for them when they start releasing secret documents from military juntas and countries/groups whose usual response is to issue a fatwa.
Snowden is a traitor in the sense that that guy who stood in front of the column of tanks at Tienanmen Square is a traitor.
Snowden is a traitor in the sense that Nelson Mandela is a traitor.
Snowden is a traitor in the sense that Paul Revere was a traitor.
Look at the Hate Preachers we in the UK and they in the USA give political asylum to. Look at the real spies who took money to betray their country, and we shelter them.
Look at the mass-murdering ex-dictators that we arrange to have sheltered in our African and Asian puppet colonies.
Then look at Snowden, a great man who betrayed his bureaucracy to be loyal to his country and its constitution.
Americans call on their generals and congressmen to uphold the Constitution, but then when someone does do that they are content to quietly let them be martyred.
If Snowden cannot get political asylum, we might as well ditch the entire political asylum thing as a farcical sham.
If Snowden cannot get political asylum, we might as well ditch the entire political asylum thing as a farcical sham.
If Snowden can get political asylum, we might as well ditch the entire criminal justice system and install revolving doors in all embassies in the world.
There, fixed that for you. Regardless of it being for the public good, releasing secret information is a crime in practically any country in the world. During a trial a whistle-blowing defence may be used, but it did start with theft of information.
Doesn't the constitution of the US supercede the laws?
I.e. it is possible to perform an illegal act for a higher good.
There ARE higher ideals than those represented by the LAW you know.
If the US made it illegal to disobey orders, and then ordered you to commit an atrocity - surely refusing is the correct thing to do. To do otherwise would be a traitor to your humanity.
Only in the country to which, nominally, that person belongs as a citizen or subject.
So, insulting the king of Thailand is viewed as a serious offence there. I suspect though that the USA would not extradite any of its people to Thailand for insulting the Thai king, nor to Saudi Arabia for drinking alcohol or insulting the prophet, Mohammed.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"....I suspect though that the USA would not extradite any of its people to Thailand for insulting the Thai king, nor to Saudi Arabia for drinking alcohol or insulting the prophet, Mohammed....." I suggest you add extradition treaties to your remedial reading list, you obviously missed a lot of school.
BBC was wrong, other news agencies told the plane was not searched at all, they just "asked" the passengers to clear customs with their passports, the guy could be inside the plane at this moment, we will just be sure when it reaches its destination or somebody still sees him at the russian airport...
And they wonder why people hate the US!!
When will the US realise that all this sort of thing does is create enemies. Almost everything immoral/illegal they've ever accused anyone else of doing, they've been found to be doing themselves as well. Then, the US turns round and complains about people hating them and wanting to do them harm!! Look in the mirror. Some of the US population are complicit in this, but I believe many are not. They are just as fed up with it as everyone else. Eventually, it will end, simply because the US is rapidly running itself into bankruptcy. In the meantime, they're creating enemies like it's going out of fashion.
When are the US going to realise that they are the greatest recruiting agent organisations like Al Quaeda could possibly hope for.
I dunno about anyone else, but I'm really starting to feel radicalized by the actions of the US and our own puppet governments.
If it is their intention to use programs like PRISM to PREVENT insurrection, perhaps they need to re-think. It seems to me they are creating the very thing that they are afraid of. Small minded people do this all the time.
"Travel to Ecuador BEFORE leaking top secret stuff." And don't take advice from Wikileaks "legal experts" that didn't even know enough about the laws of the countries they wanted to gain assylum from to know they needed to actually be in those countires to apply.....
it just grates when the proof comes out and not one country is willing to do anything or say anything (truthful) about it.
Snowden will get his asylum I think, unless America really control it's citizens that much that there wouldn't be uproar when they try to try him? especially after they broke their own 4th amendment on their own people.
I read a series of books when I was young by L Ron Hubbard called Mission Earth. The book revolved around an alien secret police agent who was massively corrupt chasing the hero Jettero Heller around the earth who he made the earths most wanted criminal. President Rockefeller "really" putting all earths forces behind him in his pursuit.
It's scary how Snowden reminds me of Jettero Heller in his quest for truth and honor in this series.
The plane would have taken off with enough fuel for a planned great circle route. When France and Spain denied access, in flight, to their airspace, a longer route and more fuel was required.
Expect Spane and France to win some US contracts soon for 'enforcing their sovereign airspace' over a diplomatic flight. Either that or some choice PRISM data dumps will arrive in their in boxes.
The clueless Bolivian president's plane was NOT grounded to search for scumbag Snowden. Certain countries did not allow the plane to fly over because they did not want to support the illegal activities of Snowden or anyone supporting Snowdens efforts to evade capture and prosecution for his documented crimes. Being a roigue nation is what attracts this type of response from the international community who do not support Snowden's treason, hacking and other injury to many people.
Odd. How is it that "rendition" flights, totally illegal in all countries in that the passengers included kidnapped people and so illegal that even the USA tried to deny their existence, were not refused permission to fly over these same countries?
I am not qualified to comment on Snowden's guilt or innocence of what, nor of the veracity of what he is claiming (though the USA seems to be confirming it hourly and repeatedly). But still, odd.
American native here. This is merely one symptom of power-mad governments with no real accountability to their citizens. We, the people of the United Sates (mostly) do NOT condone or support this crap, nor the Patriot Act, TSA, various stupid wars on Stuff, universal data-gobbling, etc.
Before you bash "The US", please consider that. Also admit and accept that YOUR government is doing the exact same things, or trying hard to do so. You cannot show me a government ANYWHERE with clean hands and pure motives, so please spare the general population your sanctimonious condemnation.
It's tough enough to live under this BS without our so-called friends and allies calling me names I don't deserve. Don't claim I voted for these fools either. Candidates are carefully screened by the political establishment, we never get a decent person to vote FOR.
"Don't claim I voted for these fools either. Candidates are carefully screened by the political establishment, we never get a decent person to vote FOR."
Exactly. One of the main reasons I have for maintaining that there are no democracies - especially in those countries that claim most shrilly to have them.
You can elect any leader you want, as long as he belongs to one of the two big parties that have some power and influence. (Both of which are indistinguishable apart from their insignia and superficial rhetoric).
Or you can vote for anyone else, or abstain - both of which have the same effect.
> Planting bugs in foreign embassies or hotels restricted to foreigners has been a spying tactic for decades.
Yes, there are several entertaining stories about this in the "Spycatcher" by Peter Wright, the ex MI5 spook. (Is that book still officially banned in the UK?). It was not even limited to Communist block embassies.
Now all he has to do is actually get to either country and.... Well, who knows what he'll actually do for the rest of his life? It's not like he can start working for the Venezuelan or Nicaraguan monitoring services. Oh, what, you mean you didn't realize they spied on their own citizens? LOL!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019