Bolivian leader's plane rerouted because Snowden suspected on board

reply to post by lightyears


Under the Chicago Convention, civil airlines are allowed free passage through airspace.

Article 3
Civil and state aircraft
(a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil
aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft.
(b) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services
shall be deemed to be state aircraft.
(c) No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the
territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by
special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms
thereof.
(d) The contracting States undertake, when issuing
regulations for their state aircraft, that they will have due regard for
the safety of navigation of civil aircraft.

www.mcgill.ca...

Meanwhile the real criminals can do whatever they want and go wherever they want. Sickening.

President Morales is claiming that he has IN FACT been targeted by the US GOV in grounding his plane and essentially putting him in a kidnapping scenario since he was not allowed to leave the Austrian airport for about 13 hours.

Bolivia has accused America of violating international law and is taking this to the UN.

We all know how the UN works but it would be hilarious to see the organization slap America on the wrist for this.

I sure hope for Snowden's sake he was smart enough to plant a few copies of what he's got in some safe hands, in case something "happens" to him.

It'd be one way to ensure the safety of his life.

Fight fire with fire - as much as I don't like to say that. What he's dealing with is quite the force. Not one that can escape it's ultimate fate...nothing on this planet can, but it can ensure his life.

You would think with all the anger at the US from France the other day that France would of gave two fingers to the US and let him fly ofer there airspace as much as he likes. As we all know sometime the French can be a bit........well French.

reply to post by eLPresidente


They weren't grounded though. They had to land for fuel, because they were supposed to refuel in either France or Portugal, I'm not sure which, and without that permission they didn't have the fuel to make it. Spain and Italy also reportedly denied use of their airspace, which is why they were on the ground for so long. They were trying to get permission to go through their. Spain wound up giving permission to refuel in their territory, on the way to Vienna.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

They weren't grounded though. They had to land for fuel, because they were supposed to refuel in either France or Portugal, I'm not sure which, and without that permission they didn't have the fuel to make it. Spain and Italy also reportedly denied use of their airspace, which is why they were on the ground for so long. They were trying to get permission to go through their. Spain wound up giving permission to refuel in their territory, on the way to Vienna.

You're telling a much different story than the President of Bolivia.

Originally posted by lightyears
The difference between Obama and Bush dissapears by the day. The disrespect for international law, privacy rights and human rights gets stunning. Yet Obama is talking in Africa beautiful stories about freedom, human rights and internatiojnal cooperation. And while telling this, he is pushing other countries to deny airspace against the airforce 1 of a friendly nation.
And for years he criticized China for spying. Now it looks like the Chinese spying was piece of cake in comparison to NSA spying. Yet when the major spying comes out he says " all counties spy". Well spying at this level (billion phone calls per month) is only comparable to the spying of countries like the Soviet union, China, Iran and Syria. Quite a league.
How far can hypocrisy go?

edit on 3-7-2013 by lightyears because: (no reason given)

All countries do spy, what matters here is the targets. Spying on ones own citizens is not legally allowed in pretty much any country, and no nation on earth has even attempted to spy on everyone before. The closest it gets is when groups like nkvd or the stazi would look for dissidents. If they had the technology I'm sure they would have spied on everyone, but again we're comparing some of the most totalitarian governments in history to the actions of our current one. That's not a good comparison to be able to make. Learning about this is a pretty big deal since it's a highly illegal action.

As for other spying, the vast majority of the spying countries do is on each other, and this is where I can't support Snowden. Revealing things like GCHQ spying on the G8 summit or whatever it was. All nations spy on each other and it's a good thing that they do. It gives insight to what the nation is thinking when not talking at the diplomatic table and leads to stability, peace, and trade when nations are willing to work together. There's a Reagan quote of "trust but verify" and it essentially means trust each other but use spies to make sure the diplomatic talks are what's actually happening behind closed doors. Without governments spying on each other there would be a lot less peace and the leaks from Snowden in this arena are very damaging to the US and others. Far more so than Bradley Mannings release of diplomatic cables, because Manning released content while Snowden released methods.

Originally posted by lightyears
I read your earlier post And maybe you are right about that it is not strictly acoording to law. But it is at least very very very unusual that countries with bilateral diplomatic relations with each other deny each others airspace. In international diplomacy this is certainly insulting and very disrespectful. Even Iranian Amadinjehad was not denied to travel by plane to New York. Altough Iran has no bilateral ties with the US.

edit on 3-7-2013 by lightyears because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2013 by lightyears because: (no reason given)

Part of the agreement that the US signed to allow the UN to be built in New York is we have to let the leader or ambassador of any nation into the country to visit the UN (and a certain amount of distance around it to cover hotels, food, etc). In the case of Amandenajab or however his name is spelled we also allowed him to visit where he wanted which is why he went to Columbia University after being invited. Not letting a foreign leader enter into your airspace is a pretty big diplomatic snafu. South American countries all tend to stick together too, so while Bolivia isn't very powerful individually there could be some meaningful repercussions from this. Though I think this entire situation could have been avoided had Snowden stuck to releasing only material relating to spying on civilians rather than governments. Revealing spying of governments against each other is a very quick way to make enemies.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Apparently I'm not, considering that I took that information from an article that quoted the Vice-President and Government of Bolivia.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Preventing the passage of a presidential jet and even searching it is legal under international law but unprecedented in recent memory, aviation experts said.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And it appears that all is not as claimed. There is a recording between the pilots of the plane, and Austrian ATC where ATC asks if they need assistance on landing, and the pilots says they have to land as a precaution, because they can't get a good reading on fuel levels.

audioboo.fm...

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Logarock

 

Iceland is part of the NSA spying.

www.datacenterknowledge.com...

new data center in a former NATO Command Centre in Keflavik, Iceland.

Being a NATO Command Center it has all of the cables ran for Top Secret communications. They don't let just anybody build on top of them.

I made this post yesterday. And now I have Martin Hannigan running around my computer. Do you think it is just a coincidence?

ip.robtex.com...

twitter.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Apparently I'm not, considering that I took that information from an article that quoted the Vice-President and Government of Bolivia.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Preventing the passage of a presidential jet and even searching it is legal under international law but unprecedented in recent memory, aviation experts said.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And it appears that all is not as claimed. There is a recording between the pilots of the plane, and Austrian ATC where ATC asks if they need assistance on landing, and the pilots says they have to land as a precaution, because they can't get a good reading on fuel levels.

audioboo.fm...

Did you even look at the headline and substance of the guardian article you posted?

Why would you post sources that contradict your own claims?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Yes I read it. They were ACCUSED of. But if you read other sources as well, you get to hear the pilot of the plane very clearly say "we need to land as a precaution" because they had a fuel gauge problem. Not they had to land sure to political issues, they were broke.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Yes I read it. They were ACCUSED of. But if you read other sources as well, you get to hear the pilot of the plane very clearly say "we need to land as a precaution" because they had a fuel gauge problem. Not they had to land sure to political issues, they were broke.

Your narrative does not fit with the actual story:

So you think the president of Bolivia was just waiting for this Snowden story to come out so he could frame the US and begin to sever all ties? No, of course not, that would be an insane thought to have.

You think you know more than the man this story encompasses? Of course!!!!

If it was just a simple incident of re-fueling, do you think it would cause leaders of South America to come together right after to denounce the acts of the US Government and Obama admin?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Actually LISTEN to the ATC recording. The pilot very clearly says "WE HAVE TO LAND AS A PRECAUTION". Nothing about any political things happening, or airspace being closed, or anything else. He clearly said they had a mechanical problem.

Oh wait, I forgot that all politicians outside the US are completely honest and would NEVER use a situation for their own agenda.

Whats to say US wasn't convinced Snowden was on MH370?

If US was convinced he was, I'm certain they would have had it redirected westward then shot it down to frame it as a hijacking