General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House Dares EU Leaders to Rat On United States in Morales Flyover Affair
"...There was conflicting information about the passengers who were on board,” said the French president, François Hollande. “When I knew it was the plane of the Bolivian president, I immediately gave permission for it to fly” over French territory, he said.
Some Latin American officials blamed the United States, insisting that the Obama administration had instructed its European allies to stop Mr. Morales’s plane on the suspicion that it carried Mr. Snowden, who is wanted on charges of violating espionage laws for divulging secrets about American surveillance programs. The White House declined to comment on whether the American government had anything to do with the plane’s diversion.
At the State Department, a spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, declined to say whether American authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace to the Bolivian plane. “I would point you to them to describe why they made decisions if they made decisions,” Ms. Psaki told reporters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/snowden.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=world
Yes that's my headline. If you feel it misrepresents this turd of a press release, have at it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)that lead to the plane incident. You have not supplied this evidence even indirectly
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'd saber-rattle, too, if I were him, rather than answer questions about that. I would not want to explain to my electorate why I just allowed Iran into Bolivia for oil and gas exploration.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920411001153
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/9797
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)as Evo Morales and his hairpiece play the fringes.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)They are truly undiplomatic and / or have tremendous complexes and / or are incompetent ... now we can see from your information that they had a reason to create a distraction.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Evo Morales didn't create this incident; European authorities did.
You assume on the basis of absolutely nothing at all that the Bolivian electorate shares American phobias about Iran.
And you scurrilously and inanely suggest that this is some Machiavellian ploy by Morales to distract attention from a business deal that will actually benefit Bolivia.
Piece of trash post.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Razor will eventually land.
Sadly, Comrade, money corrupts. And the deals were signed.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)By your logic one could just as easily state that Morales plane was filled with money transferred to him by the Russian's on behalf of the Iranian's. Afterall Russia did build their nuclear reactors for them. Even though the UN was against it.
See how that works? Pure bullshit yet it fits the same meme as yours.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't see why you think this would be a problem for the average Bolivian, or why he'd have questions to answer. Considering that they'd probably rather have Iran than American, British or Dutch oil companies. (With good reason if you read about Shell in Africa.) The USA is not overwhelmingly popular in South America; there's a reason why Hugo Chavez' strategic partnership with Iran didn't draw much condemnation from his domestic supporters.
See here for instance: http://www.fmbolivia.com.bo/noticia119609-iran-y-bolivia-ratifican-vigencia-de-acuerdos-de-cooperacion-bilateral.html
and here (broadly the same info): http://www.eldeber.com.bo/bolivia-e-iran-reafirman-relacion-bilateral-/130701093932
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but don't UN states in good standing have to abide by sanction regimes? You know, like the kind Iran is under?
Follow the money. If Evo wants Iran in Bolivia, and is okay in co-signing deals with the Egyptian military, then more power to him. If the people of Bolivia are good with being allies of Iran, then more power to them. I think they should eschew all help from the US then, right?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)LOL
There are no international protocols any more. Don't you get it? A president was stopped and frisked for being brown.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)oil and gas exploration?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)entity controlling energy?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Helps accelerate the demise of the scam known as the petrodollar.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Why should oil buyers need to buy dollars to pay for oil which the producers can only invest back in the US? Russia has just agreed a $200 billion de
al with China using their own currencies and Iran has gone over to barter.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)with each other about other things… but that is interesting.
Thank You.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)think Evo's just having a lark because he can.
If Latin America is seriously pissed, they can eschew American foreign aid and let the cartels have free reign.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
Stranded at the airport.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it you are trying to convey? South American nations have no beef with Iran and I doubt they care what the US thinks about it either. We are not highly thought of in that up and coming democratically controlled area of the world. They are NOT our 'colonies'. They don't care about our picking of fights all over the world.
Just because we are attacking Iran who is not an enemy of the US, just as Iraq was not, we expect the whole world to feel the same way?
Europeans don't see Iran as an enemy either, nor do Africans. Nor does the average Canadian.
Evo Morales will be boasting publicly about the deals they are making all over the world. He sure won't care what the US thinks, Iran is an ally of most Latin American countries.
Americans need to get out in this world, this isolation we live in creates delusionary thinking about how the world really is. Some even actually think we rule the world! We are near the top of the list of the most unpopular nations in the world now. Quite an achievement and very damaging to our security in the world.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And, the five nations that were involved have said they will not confirm or deny the US role.
If the US had nothing to do with it (which is laughable), it would be an easy denial.
Also, Bolivia's UN ambassador thinks it was the US:
Bolivia's ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti Soliz, said, "We have no doubt that it was an order from the White House. By no means should a diplomatic plane with the president be diverted from its route and forced to land in another country."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/04/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE9610C520130704
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Please refer to misanthrope's post on this thread regarding reasons why the Bolivians had a shit fit when Portugal had already told them not to refuel there and Spain didn't deny them refueling or say they had to search their plane, another bullshit statement from the Bolivians.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...
The Spanish government has not just annoyed Morales and Bolivia with its refusal to allow his plane through its airspace. The Austrian foreign minister, Michael Spindelegger, is also annoyed. He reportedly said:
We don't understand why Spain is acting like that.
He also maintained that Austrian officials had been on the plane and Snowden was not there. Journalists at the airport had earlier suggested that Austrian authorities could not conclusively attest to Snowden not being on board as the jet's crew were saying no one had been allowed on to the plane.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live
"Our colleagues from the airport had a look and can give assurances that no one is on board who is not a Bolivian citizen," Spindelegger added, saying rumors that Snowden might be on board were untrue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-usa-security-snowden-plane-idUSBRE9620A520130703
Maybe he was looking for a faulty fuel gauge.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)You wrote: "Spain didn't deny them refueling or say they had to search their plane".
If that's the case, then it's hard to imagine why Spindelegger would be annoyed with Spain, or ask Morales to submit to a "voluntary" search of his plane, only to report to the press that he could confirm only Bolivian citizens were on board, not Snowden.
And it is an incident, whether you choose to recognize it as one or not.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Look around and you'll find other accounts
magellan
(13,257 posts)I see from a quick search that you trusted the Guardian and Reuters well enough in the past (in fact the recent past) to post and comment on stories from them without calling their bona fides into question. Curious how suddenly they're "the wrong sources".
Aerows
(39,961 posts)over the stupid things they said can be remarkably overcome with amnesia about what they said, and well, about everything.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)was flying, all countries mentioned were inter-communicating in real time.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...and also took photos of President Morales at the airport. "Reportedly said" because she's not one of the Guardian's reporters.
Do you have something against Tanja? Or is it just that you have to be present to validate a quote you don't like before you believe it?
How about the Reuter's quote? Got something against Reuter's too?
And I'm not sure where you get #2 from.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)You are exactly correct, morningfog. The opposite of that claim is completely nonsensical. For example, if you are France and a previously scheduled flight through your airspace is about to occur, why on earth would you intervene to stop it? What is it about that flight that would make you go to such an extraordinary length to intervene on your own initiative?
But a call from the U.S. asking you to intervene because Snowden might be aboard would make you intervene because you don't want the U.S. to be mad at you.
In fact, how would you know that that particular flight has Snowden on board if you hadn't received a call from the U.S.?
The argument that these countries took it upon themselves to deny permission to Morales's plane to fly through their airspaces is what P.J. Crowely is spewing on every show that he can get on. I heard him say it on Rachel Maddow and on PBS's nightly report. Even a 3rd grader wouldn't buy such BS.
Cha
(297,259 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This wasn't just any plane.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)too.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...does not mean the rest of the world is obliged to follow suit.
We are so used to our Western allies following along, I guess we all see eye-to-eye on the question of Iran. But others do not necessarily agree.
I am not commenting on whether Iran is good or bad; rather, I am pointing out that the question of his dealings with Iran may not be as big a deal, or as black and white, as we tend to view it through our Western prism.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)helpful hint: they don't say anything at all about prohibiting export, transfer, or hire of petroleum-drilling technology and expertise. They're all related to transfer of nuclear technology, barring Iranian-flagged ships engaged in sanctioned activity from ports and requiring inspections of Iranian cargo, and prohibiting financial institutions from opening accounts in Iran. The UN sanctions have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the issues negotiated between Iran and Bolivia.
On edit: see here
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of the UN sanctions and the US banking sanctions, then it pretty much kills the deals.
You might want to spend some time looking at how the interplay of the banking sanctions of the US act in concert with the UN sanctions. Iran is in a chokehold, and is looking for ways to work around.
If Evo wants to help them, great. But let's not pretend this this about principle---this is about MONEY.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Understandably, your country fucked up and there's little denying it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)big, scary NSA dude who apparently engineered this all, you let me know. Right now, I'm just enjoying the latest outrage--it's hysterical.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Wooboy. Denial is never pretty, but that takes the cake.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Doing it 100 times won't make it any more relevant. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)He's going to say it doesn't matter now, since he's been reminded that they do. NOW it doesn't matter because there isn't absolute proof that the US had a hand in preventing Morales from entering 4 countries' airspace. Which is a step up, I guess, from "he landed because he took a left turn in Moscow and had a fuel gauge problem on the Russian freeway".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Become familiar with it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)interpret them.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)right?
1. Did the countries involved know that Morales was on the plane?
2. Is it possible that the countries thought that Snowden was put on that plane and was claiming that Morales was on the plane but was not?
3. Does a head of state being on a plane mean that another country has to allow them transit? For instance, can Obama take off in Air Force One at any time and demand transit through China and Russia? Do they HAVE to say yes? Can he do it every day then at a whim? Does a head of state being on a plane mean that for that instance, no country has sovereignty over their airspace? Does that also apply to territorial waters? Something tells me this isn't as blanket as some folks are making it sound. If a head of state was transiting with dangerous materials or contraband, does every country still need to grant them transit?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yet you feel free to make sweeping statements? Is that what a good journalist does? 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'll post it again:
Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
---------------------------------------------------
So, what's your point again?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That says "I don't know" to me. As does your contention that "there is no controversy here".
Here's a backhoe. The shovel you are using to dig the hole with obviously isn't getting the job done quickly enough for you. It will help.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Unrelated? It's completely related, your point was dismissed out of hand, by your own *self* I might add because you pointed out you don't have any knowledge of why this is a controversy and don't know anything about international law, and I don't think anyone has to see you are just clutching to this with your fingernails to preserve your ego.
Your credibility was shot several posts ago.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Is there or is there not a controversy? Yes, there is. We are discussing it. Was there or was there not an international incident that took place over violation of a sovereign head of state's immunity? Yes, there was.
You don't want to touch that with a one hundred foot pole now that you have been called on it because you know that there is, was and it is continuing. You don't have a way to dig yourself out of the hole you've created, and frankly, I don't know how you could either even if I wanted to help you dig yourself out of that intellectual hole.
I merely suggest quit digging, or then you can borrow the backhoe and go so deep you have to resurface in another country on the other side of the world.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is the best I've seen in years.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Nothing, that's what.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)banking system via it's authority under CISADA. We convinced the EU to hold nearly 2 billion in Iranian assets, and we hold many billions more.
If banking can't take place, then no one gets paid. Take a look a what Citigroup did with Iranian money.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)it doesn't go through the US or any US financial institutions; if it goes through Europe? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206
And a direct central bank transfer likely can't be affected by any such sanctions anyway. I'm sorry, but Uncle Sam's dick just isn't as big as you seem to think it is.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Further, if it goes through Europe, then the EU will seize the assets--it just took Bank Mellat 4 years to even be considered taken off the list of banks not allowed to do business in the UK. Do you have any idea how much Iranian money is under seizure in the UK and the EU? Billions. It's part of the reason HSBC is being investigated.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have no idea why the criticism of the US here.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...with no input from the US? Wow, are you gullible...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)1) the only country which wants Snowden apprehended is the US. He is not an international fugitive.
2) it is quite apparrent from the actions and double-speak of the countries that they denied airspace based on a request from the US govt. Any other explanation simply defies logic.
3) The US request was based on erroneous information that Snowden was aboard. He wasn't. Major embarrassment to US. The honorable thing would be to own up to the error and apologize. I guess Obama isn't honorable.
4) A head of state travelling on an aircraft has diplomatic status similar to an embassy. You don't force them down, either physically or by delaying them until they run low on fuel. Doing so is considered an act of war.
5) Allowing a head of state to use airspace, or to land for refuelling is a common courtesy, extended to all countries who are on friendly terms. Yes, the US may not extend that courtesy to N Korea, Syria, and a few others. France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, ey al, are not enemies of Bolivia...thus there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to Bolivia's President.
indepat
(20,899 posts)fear of reprisal. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)What is the difference between the trips to and from?
treestar
(82,383 posts)That would be a fact, and it might be suggestive, though not evidence.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)More than likely it flew the same route, and made same fuel stops, on the route TO Moscow as it intended to fly on the return trip. Routine permission for overflight was granted then. On return trip, routine permission was stalled until plane was dangerously low on fuel forcing it to land. Only difference between the two trips was erroneous information by US that Snowden was aboard
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)The US sent letters to all countries that were flyover or asylum possibilities and they arrived right at the time Morales was leaving from what I can tell (this is speculation but based on several articles and the Bolivians stating they got a copy in Austria).
Governments took the precautions they thought necessary. We don't know what information / disinformation was involved. We don't know how high level anything was and much of it seems routine.
It's looking more and more like Morales utilized the situation and didn't back off his claims. Partly because he was truly confused and partly because it was convenient to create a stir.
Starting with Portugal they seemed to have lied. Portugal said they couldn't land for refueling and didn't deny them airspace. Why is it that the Bolivians said they did? This was a two day discussion having to do with technical reasons refueling wasn't possible, maybe that was an excuse but there was time to work it out. Why wasn't it worked out.
Incompetence? Maybe.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the principle of the absolute immunity and inviolability of a head of state is a tenet of international diplomatic law. Denying transit to a head of state is a severe breach of convention; it's not something that should happen even if Snowden WERE on the plane (which he wasn't). This is the sort of thing that wars start over.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and these pretenses that there is no controversy is pointing directly to "thou protest too much". It's gotten ridiculous the levels some have gone to announcing that there is nothing to see here citizen, move along.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)or rather, in that instance, it is an issue for the USA as well. "Denying transit" can be tantamount to detention. Heads of state are absolutely inviolable in their persons at all times, everywhere, and may not be arrested or detained. See here, for instance: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2-r0dNI4e0EC&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false
The opinion of the International Court of Justice in a case involving France states: "A head of state enjoys full immunity and inviolability which would protect him against any act of another State which would hinder him in the performance of his duties...thus, the determining factor in assessing whether or not there has been an attack on the immunity of the Head of State lies in the subjection of the latter to a constraining act of authority". Here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q_L23IXwnFQC&pg=PA1622#v=onepage&q&f=false
The de facto detention of Morales by means of denying transit under suspicion that he may have been harbouring Edward Snowden is a prima facie subjection to constraining authority and a clear violation of immunity.
And if the USA was indeed behind the request, it's an incredibly fucking stupid thing to've done.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)*Someone* clearly thought Snowden was on the plane and communicated as much to France, Spain, and Italy. Considering that those are all NATO countries, it doesn't take very much of a leap to see the hand of the USA behind it. Enough plausible deniability to let the blame go to the French/Spanish/Italians/et al, but one can't really see who else might be responsible for the initial misreporting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)in a lake if they disagree.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...then why is there no Interpol notice?
Snowden is officially sought by the US and no one else. As such, it beggars the imagination to think that other European countries would deny overflight to the head of a country, on their own.
If he was listed as wanted on Interpol, then there would be more of a chance that they acted unilaterally. Although even so, when four countries just happen to deny overflight permission at the same time, it still tends to make one think this was a concerted effort. And if it is a concerted effort, then the likely string-puller is the US. This is all basic Occam's Razor logic -- it doesn't prove anything but it is a good starting point for sorting out competing narratives.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I realize there is another potential connotation to that statement and it is one I did not intend.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the only warrant out for Snowden is from the US, and we have not put him on the Interpol list, so no other country is legally obligated to assist us in serving that warrant.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)And enter "Snowden" into the Lastname field, then hit the Search button.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)How reliable do you think a public search of Interpol is?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)As of June 23, 2013, there was no Interpol Red Notice for Edward Snowden:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57590610/hong-kong-edward-snowden-has-left-for-third-country/
I have not found any news report anywhere that updates this status so, I'm sticking with "there is no public Red Notice".
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rise for probable cause to arrest. It's the equivalent of a BOLO for us.
We have the charges filed. So our warrant alone would be enough. And we wouldn't issue out of Europe--we'd issue out of Washington Interpol.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Why just a few moments ago, you were wondering how we could determine whether or not an Interpol notice was filed on Snowden.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to me--that we apparently don't recognize the red notice as sufficient for arrest. Hurrah the 4th amendment!
http://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/faqs.html
Personally, I am quite certain Washington Interpol has put its feelers out on Snowden.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and that at the same time, we can't really know whether Snowden is on the list or not (whether international or Washington ... not sure why that makes a difference ... since it's, you know, Interpol, which is shorthand for ICPO, the International Criminal Police Organization).
But anyway. Whether or not we can determine if Snowden is on the list, you nevertheless close with: "Personally, I am quite certain Washington Interpol has put its feelers out on Snowden."
Personally, I am quite certain that Washington put pressure on our European allies in the Morales incident.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...although I will admit to being bemused by this whole exchange, since it began with your request for evidence about whether or not Snowden was listed on Interpol, and ended with your statement
"Personally, I am quite certain Washington Interpol has put its feelers out on Snowden."
without any evidence to that effect.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)The United States has a public relations problem as the result of not being forthright.
Of course this cuts to the heart of the whole spying issue.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And the common source is Obama's Secret Surveillence State. He seems quite determined to preserve it at any costs, including international goodwill,, legality, honesty, public opinion, and natiinal security.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)because the day ends in Y!
cali
(114,904 posts)that's the controversy here and yes there is something different here.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)their rules and if requested, land or exit their airspace. But that is only tangentially related to my points.
cali
(114,904 posts)denying air space to the President's plane?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)No controversy here. Pay no attention to a head of state having their diplomatic immunity violated as long as their name isn't President Obama.
Some of you are really reaching to minimize this mess, which makes me think there is far more to this mess than I would have originally thought if you just let it take it's course.
11 dimensional chess isn't an easy game and it appears some of you insist on putting yourselves in check just by the vociferous denials.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)You claim there is no controversy. No international incident. The fact that Latin America is in an uproar, France and Portugal offered apologies, and the fact that we are having this discussion period suggests, that yes, an international incident occurred, there is a controversy, and trying to play it off as business as usual looks like damage control.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)its attempting to rebuild their collapsing Cathedrals while experiencing earthquake, fire, and tornado's and using nothing but duct tape and a hot glue gun because they have completely sold their values for cold cash and blindingly short spans of youthful beauty.
its pathetic yet mildly amusing.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but right now they are on such fragile ground that if I hit them that hard, they'd claim I was threatening the President's life. I mean, hell. Someone earlier suggested that the President check the state of diplomacy between Bolivia and the US before flying over that country and two people leapt into the thread and accused them of threatening the President. As though anyone on DU controls Bolivian airspace, or how that in any way related to a sane discussion.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)a human will do or believe anything to get away from pain, and especially ego pain.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bolivia having concerns about the countries that have allegedly denying the airspace.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Should I throw you a lifesaver? Because we both know the position you are in is one where you are absolutely drowning.
You know what? I'm going to remind you that you took this position and you said this. I won't bring it up all of the time, but I *WILL* bring it up. Remember my user name. Sooner or later you will be trying to forget you said all of this and took this position so quickly that you won't even remember the name of the country, how you claimed there was no controversy, and even if there was, uh, well, so what.
I'll just bookmark this for later, and link to it. Blue links. You'll love them 
.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If it's so obvious I'm wrong, show me the facts that back you up. Show me your sources.
If you are pulling things out of thin air, like it seems that you are, you aren't the slightest bit persuasive.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Says the person that admits he knows nothing of international law but makes sweeping statements that "there is no controversy here".
Doing a really good job there on credibility.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ROFLMAO!!!!!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)effectively because you couldn't make the last point effectively and then try to change subjects and argue something else, don't blame me. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)so inconsistent or not, that's nothing to celebrate.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's probably why my post is confusing to you.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Oh my, well you certainly got the last word in there, my dear.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)its almost like domesticating a farm animal for production.
oh, that's right, that's exactly what it is.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)When people can't even see the nose on their own face. The fact that we are having this conversation suggests that it's a controversy, and anyone with a grain of sense can see the damage control being attempted from a mile away. The problem is that many of them don't realize they are just highlighting how bad it must be by continuing to argue inane positions that are plausible under no circumstance.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)but you can't even come up with anything more plausible than "I don't know what the controversy is", when you and everyone else knows EXACTLY what the controversy is, what the international incident is, and that this was mishandled. Continuing down this road of "Oh, I don't know" isn't going to help you out.
In fact, I suggest you get some new ideas to figure out how to discuss this in a way that might actually *do* damage control instead of just making the whole situation worse and damaging your credibility even further would be a good start.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Can you prove that it is not normal or OK for a country that has an indicted criminal or criminal of interest to ask other countries to deny transit to that individual?
If I try, how many examples do you think I can come up with that this is standard?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Our government made the requests but can't admit they were made in error.
That makes us look foolish, petty, and disingenuous.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)The United States caused (yes, caused) a major diplomatic incident and embarrassment by asking (armtwisting, but we'll leave that alone for now) that a foreign head of state's airplane be detained, with the implication he was attempting to sneak a wanted fugitive out of Russia.
They were wrong. Completely, 100% wrong, and the request was an insult. They should apologize, but they are apparently incapable of granting this fundamental gesture of civility.
Please don't come back at me with the same shit - put it aside and think it through. This is Diplomacy 101.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Which is par for the course for the side of folks who criticize the administration on the NSA issue.
You want to criticize the administration so you invent things to do it.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Amazing what the mind can do to attempt to block out the possibility of just being wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And you apparently like to jump to conclusions based on assumptions. That doesnt work for me.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and I'm done. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)LOL, you're done. So typical of people on your side of the issue.
The moment its crystal clear you dont have facts backing up your side, you're 'done'.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nope, that is not what that person is saying.
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here.
When an international criminal of sufficient importance is found to be somewhere in the world, the country that has outstanding warrants for them asks any country holding him to turn them over, any country to where he might want to travel to not accept them, and any country whose train stations, airports or airspace they might be transiting to not allow them transit.
At that point, all the involved 'other' countries have the choice to assist the country that has the warrants, or not. They can take any, all, or none of a myriad of actions.
Is there something supposedly different about this?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Every time you cut and paste that same tripe, it makes your position look more petty and childish.
Admit you were wrong...you'll feel better, I promise. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)and now you're telling people 'oh, well. this is SOP' and implying that we're the idiots for not knowing this! what gives, steven leser?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You have mastered the hysteria.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)If what you say is true, why doesn't the U.S. come out and say so?
3. This is really about the desperate nature of the hunt, in which the U.S. absolutely can not allow Snowden Sanctuary
How much damage to the totalitarians would a successful whistleblower asylum be?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023165190
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The President over stepped in a big way. You can say all you want that it was other countries, but anyone with a bit of intelligence knows who orchestrated it.
It was WRONG. Just because it is a Democrat in the WH does not make it okay.
malaise
(269,020 posts)Alex
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Apparently the answer is "no time soon". They must like being embarassed in public over and over.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...and then wonder why the entire population thinks they're nuts.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)They have cognitive disconnect about their congitive disconnect. Very painful.
It's not the things you don't know that get you, it's the things you know that aren't so.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The effort there is to manipulate the public into believing it wants what it doesn't want and doesn't want what it wants.
cali
(114,904 posts)is an admission that they did. simple as that.
And if you don't know that by now, you should give up discussing politics.
oh, and pressured is more accurate than asked.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Not one of the countries has said the US directed them to do anything related to Morales flight
cali
(114,904 posts)possibly find.
Why on earth wouldn't they straight out deny it if they hadn't asked?
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)The US rep wasn't asked about what other countries do or about their policies. The US rep was asked what the US had done or not done.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)The difference between a tacit admission and a forthright admission is one of honor, a U.S. deficit of which probably eclipses that from trade.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
Melinda
(5,465 posts)
And hopefully, the single jury who agreed with the alerter now understands as well. I mean really. The lack of "informed citizenry" is surreal on many levels. Potential alerters, please review the TOS for this site prior to alerting, and potential jurors, you can do the same while deliberating, unless you are convinced you have it down. TIA. The results:
At Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
White House Dares EU Leaders to Rat On United States in Morales Flyover Affair
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023167397
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
the poster made up a different headline for this story. The new made-up headline claims actions by the whitehouse that aren't even mentioned in the story. The poster even acknowledges that they changed the headline. This is a TOS violation.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:40 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm going to need gloves to read DU soon
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is not the LBN forum. Headlines are not required to match.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not a TOS violation to editorialize a headline (while acknowledging doing so) in GD. That's kind of how discussion works. Suggesting the poster should be TS'd is a ghastly overreach by the alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's not in late breaking news so i believe the title is up to the OP
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: In GD, it is not a requirement to post a headline verbatim. You've confused GD with LBN. No bueno, post is fine.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)People don't always vote according to what violation has or has not occurred. They will vote according to their like or dislike of the person over past grievances or just because they don't like the post.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)If they are responsible, and evidence of their influence is potentially available, outwith their control, which they possibly have no direct knowledge of but can speculate on, their best bet is to play chicken.
They certainly can't simply conifirm it, it's already obvious that that is not going to go down terribly well.
If they deny it and THEN one of the European states tells all, they have lied on the world stage and that's a colossal fuck-up. It's important to note that the US does not employ the European security apparatus and isolated individuals, outwith the legal influence of the US, could fess up without the US being able to manage the narrative or bring about consequences.
If they decline to comment and someone in Europe fesses up, then they aren't on the back foot and can simply respond. It's much easier to believe someone that has been "lied about" than someone who has "lied". People are always far more likely to believe the second story.
Hence - "decline to comment".
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)They could probably even get Morales to withdraw his offer of asylum with the following statement:
"The State Dept. contacted several governments in the EU asking them to deny airspace to a flight suspected of carrying a wanted fugitive. This request was made in error, and State offers its apologies to both the countries involved in the request as well as the Plurinatonal State of Bolivia and President Morales."
We have our heads too far up our asses to make a simple admission of error.
Well I suppose I was operating from the assumption that such an admission of error would be off the cards by default... Now that you put that out, it doesn't sound at all unreasonable. Except Bolivia would probably still say "fuck off."
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)but then they're the bad guy.
I don't think I'd see it that way, but I suppose I can't speak for everyone else...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Anyone who says they think the US didn't orchestrate or make this happen is lying, a fool or a shill.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Even without knowing anything for sure 
WovenGems
(776 posts)Have we heard a word out of the ones who searched the plane?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Have they denied involvement in Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance? NO!
Have they denied sending $10 trillion to Pol Pot? NO!
That says it all.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)All they're guilty of is being too anal retentive to admit a mistake. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)And silence is not to be taken as agreement under the Fifth Amendment. But hey, politicians are evil, so they should have no Fifth Amendment rights. They are servants of Satan, just as medieval people saw those who were heretical in matters of religion.
And who do they call "authoritarians?"
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)except Americans whose self-esteem is dependent on their patriotism.
We fucked up, everyone knows we fucked up. Not admitting it is making everything worse.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)That's just America.
Bummer, huh?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)The US government has admitted that it had been in contact with other nations about potential flights involving Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower. The State Department would not comment on whether it had made any specific representations over Morales's flight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live#block-51d46713e4b0e80ab6523ade
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)At least now we're showing the maturity of a 12-year-old and not a 7-year-old.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I was talking about our foreign policy. Sorry for confusion.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Truth told, having the maturity of a 12 year old IS probably a stretch for me.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)Me? I'm ownee twee!!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I wonder if they are in furious negotiations with the appropriate heads of State.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Daily "DiePresse" reported that the USA demanded Snowden's extradiction from Austrian authorities
03.07.2013 | 21:28 | HELMAR DUMBS UND CHRISTIAN ULTSCH (Die Presse)
Bolivian President Morales was forced to land in Vienna. NSA whistleblower Snowden was suspected to be on his jet. In a telephone conversation with the Foreign Office, the U.S. ambassador demanded they extradite him.
...
Here's the crucial section:
Sie landete gegen 23 Uhr. Kurz danach ging im Wiener Außenamt ein dringlicher Anruf ein. Am anderen Ende der Leitung: US-Botschafter William Eacho. Wie "Die Presse" erfuhr, behauptete er mit großer Bestimmtheit, dass Edward Snowden an Bord sei, der von den USA gesuchte Aufdecker jüngster Abhörskandale. Eacho habe auf eine diplomatische Note verwiesen, in der die USA die Auslieferung Snowdens verlangten.
Translated:
It landed about 11 pm. Shortly after that, the Vienna foreign department received a phone call. The caller was the US embassador William Echo. "Die Presse" learned that he claimed with strong firmness that Edward Snowden was onboard, the whistleblower of the recent surveillance scandals. Eacho referred to a diplomatic note requesting Snowden's extradition.
http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1426275/USA-verlangten-von-Wien-Snowdens-Auslieferung?_vl_backlink=/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1416110/index.do&direct=1416110
Thanks to Temmer for the translation
...
According Foreign Minister Choquehuanca this extradition request explains the actions of several European countries when they closed their airspace to the plane of the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, thinking that Edward Snowden could be on that on the plane, Snowden is wanted by the U.S. for leaking large amounts of classified information from the U.S. National Security Agency.
...
Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/99109-eeuu-bolivia-solicitud-extradicion-snowden
sibelian
(7,804 posts) wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Response to Catherina (Reply #155)
KoKo This message was self-deleted by its author.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)to ask their host country (Austria) to detain and inspect the aircraft of a foreign head of state (Bolivia). Thats an act of war that no diplomat would be allowed to order. The Ambassador without question received the instructions to do so from Sec Kerry, who without a doubt received the order from Obama. So this international incident lies squarely at the feet of Obama.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)they don't make decisions like this on their own. And an Ambassador to just one country, Austria in this instance, would not have been able to tell France, Portugal and Italy to close their air space.
This came from very high up and the Latin Americans know even more about that than we do because I'm sure some of their European counterparts they contacted were mortified on a personal level and told them a few things off the record.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)US was just throwing it's weight around being a big bully. The EU countries were victims also, albeit to a lesser degree. They could have told Obama to go pound sand. Instead, they caved to a bully.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)-- Jennifer Psaki, State Dept spokesperson, when asked if American authorities asked other countries to deny airspace to Prsident Morales' plane.
I'll take that as a "yes."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)fueling access. I believe this because he instead issued an extradition request to Morales, just in case Snowden was aboard the plane. I believe they panicked because if his plane were to be grounded in their country while they attempted to take Snowden in custody, it would create a sticky international incident for them. Of course denying him access had the same effect, which is why they are now denying everything. Snowden apparently was not on the plane at least from Vienna. I'd like to think that they smuggled him off the airplane then and he's probably up in the Austrian Alps by now. Any way if I were writing a spy thriller, I might use this story.
Frankly, I don't think he went to Moscow at all when he left Hong Kong, but went somewhere else or could still be in Hong Kong. All the stories about going to Moscow were just a diversion.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Ambassador received his orders from Kerry, who acted on orders from Obama. Stopping and inspecting the airplane of a foreign head of state is simply not a decision an underling is allowed to make.They would be immediately fired if they did so.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)the plane for a cup of coffee? Wouldn't he be taking orders from his President? I don't think our State Department has any power in ordering around ambassadors from other countries. They might try to influence them with carrots and sticks but order them?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He cannot independantly order Austria to detain and inspect the place. He can only forward a request to Austrian authorities from the US State Dept...which is acting under orders from the POTUS. So detaining the plane for several hours, and inspecting it, are directly Obama's action.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)over Austria and land. I was talking about France, Spain and Portugal. I can't believe he would be telling heads of state in those countries to not allow the plane fly over and fueling privileges. He did issue extradition orders just in case Snowden was on the plane in those countries, but I think those countries decided on their own to refuse access.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It would be a major incident if the plane carrying a head of state was forced to crash.
When the plane left Moscow, it was cleared in advance on a flight plan to fly over certain countries, and stop for fuel in others. It would not have been permitted to take off otherwise. After taking off, permission was withdrawn by several countries. The plane could not reach an alternative fuel stop with the remaining fuel on board. It was effectively boxed in. All it could do is circle until fuel was so desparately low they had to land or otherwise crash. Only after the plane was detained and inspected (and Snowden not found to be onboard) did those countries then allow overflight and refueling. This goes beyond a simple insult to a head of state...it is an act of war upon a foreign nation. No wonder all of South America is pissed off.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Last time I checked, Congress had not declared war on Bolivia, although I'll just bet Louie Gohmert and some of his pals would like to.
Now, if the President didn't do that, we would be hearing a State department spokesman say that the action was not authorized by the President and that an investigation has begun to look into who did. That person's head would roll. Instead, we are hearing about reporters being directed to European governments for answers to any questions about why they acted as they did.
I prefer to believe that the President committed a diplomatic blunder, which this is, than to believe he and Secretary Kerry have have so little over their underlings.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)He has succeeded in uniting most of the countries of South America against us. So now when we go about bullying one of them the others will have their back. It could really gum up trade and other economic advantages we have down there. Frankly, I can hardly wait. I have witnessed first hand what American companies do down there with the blessings of our government.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)As you point out, the fallout is quite extensive.
If a few "free trade" agreements end up in the round file, that's something for which we should thank Obama.
Rex
(65,616 posts)is a simpleton on par with Sarah Palin voters.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
nt.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But there are a few here that would attempt to blow smoke up our ass and attempt it by saying there is no international incident, no controversy, and that is just insult to idiocy.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)can remember their mother's birthday and what they had for breakfast, since they seem to forget what they said a few minutes ago and expect *YOU* to forget it, too.
It's ludicrous, and frankly, a tad weird.
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)in Mercosur countries
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)on an issue of such weighty international magnitude.
Nothing unusual about that
