HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » White House Dares EU Lead...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:23 PM

White 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.



223 replies, 8050 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 223 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House Dares EU Leaders to Rat On United States in Morales Flyover Affair (Original post)
wtmusic Jul 2013 OP
flamingdem Jul 2013 #1
msanthrope Jul 2013 #2
flamingdem Jul 2013 #4
msanthrope Jul 2013 #7
flamingdem Jul 2013 #13
Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #20
msanthrope Jul 2013 #24
go west young man Jul 2013 #180
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #34
msanthrope Jul 2013 #44
reusrename Jul 2013 #216
Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #86
msanthrope Jul 2013 #114
Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #168
dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #172
msanthrope Jul 2013 #174
dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #182
KittyWampus Jul 2013 #151
msanthrope Jul 2013 #154
Life Long Dem Jul 2013 #223
sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #222
morningfog Jul 2013 #11
flamingdem Jul 2013 #14
magellan Jul 2013 #54
flamingdem Jul 2013 #65
magellan Jul 2013 #70
flamingdem Jul 2013 #71
magellan Jul 2013 #85
Aerows Jul 2013 #191
KittyWampus Jul 2013 #156
magellan Jul 2013 #167
rusty fender Jul 2013 #153
Cha Jul 2013 #221
stevenleser Jul 2013 #3
morningfog Jul 2013 #6
msanthrope Jul 2013 #8
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #19
msanthrope Jul 2013 #30
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #37
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #43
msanthrope Jul 2013 #52
wtmusic Jul 2013 #73
msanthrope Jul 2013 #76
wtmusic Jul 2013 #78
stevenleser Jul 2013 #87
wtmusic Jul 2013 #100
stevenleser Jul 2013 #102
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #106
Aerows Jul 2013 #109
stevenleser Jul 2013 #116
Aerows Jul 2013 #117
stevenleser Jul 2013 #120
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #188
stevenleser Jul 2013 #110
Aerows Jul 2013 #119
stevenleser Jul 2013 #123
Aerows Jul 2013 #125
stevenleser Jul 2013 #131
Aerows Jul 2013 #133
stevenleser Jul 2013 #135
Aerows Jul 2013 #139
Aerows Jul 2013 #132
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #81
msanthrope Jul 2013 #98
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #105
msanthrope Jul 2013 #128
stevenleser Jul 2013 #33
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #111
stevenleser Jul 2013 #112
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #138
indepat Jul 2013 #218
treestar Jul 2013 #126
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #140
treestar Jul 2013 #175
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #179
flamingdem Jul 2013 #9
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #10
Aerows Jul 2013 #31
stevenleser Jul 2013 #68
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #94
stevenleser Jul 2013 #96
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #101
stevenleser Jul 2013 #103
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #15
stevenleser Jul 2013 #35
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #40
msanthrope Jul 2013 #59
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #77
msanthrope Jul 2013 #152
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #157
msanthrope Jul 2013 #164
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #170
msanthrope Jul 2013 #173
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #178
msanthrope Jul 2013 #181
ljm2002 Jul 2013 #185
wtmusic Jul 2013 #16
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #41
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #149
whistler162 Jul 2013 #163
cali Jul 2013 #18
stevenleser Jul 2013 #25
cali Jul 2013 #45
stevenleser Jul 2013 #55
Aerows Jul 2013 #21
stevenleser Jul 2013 #26
Aerows Jul 2013 #39
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #49
Aerows Jul 2013 #51
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #56
stevenleser Jul 2013 #57
Aerows Jul 2013 #107
stevenleser Jul 2013 #115
Aerows Jul 2013 #122
stevenleser Jul 2013 #124
Aerows Jul 2013 #127
stevenleser Jul 2013 #130
Aerows Jul 2013 #143
stevenleser Jul 2013 #159
Aerows Jul 2013 #161
L0oniX Jul 2013 #89
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #23
stevenleser Jul 2013 #28
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #38
Aerows Jul 2013 #42
stevenleser Jul 2013 #53
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #60
stevenleser Jul 2013 #66
L0oniX Jul 2013 #91
Aerows Jul 2013 #48
stevenleser Jul 2013 #64
wtmusic Jul 2013 #72
stevenleser Jul 2013 #79
wtmusic Jul 2013 #82
stevenleser Jul 2013 #84
wtmusic Jul 2013 #88
stevenleser Jul 2013 #92
wtmusic Jul 2013 #99
stevenleser Jul 2013 #104
wtmusic Jul 2013 #108
stevenleser Jul 2013 #113
wtmusic Jul 2013 #136
stevenleser Jul 2013 #141
wtmusic Jul 2013 #147
stevenleser Jul 2013 #158
frylock Jul 2013 #213
Buzz Clik Jul 2013 #75
galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #83
L0oniX Jul 2013 #95
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #58
Marrah_G Jul 2013 #194
malaise Jul 2013 #207
bemildred Jul 2013 #5
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #184
bemildred Jul 2013 #186
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #187
bemildred Jul 2013 #189
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #193
cali Jul 2013 #12
flamingdem Jul 2013 #17
cali Jul 2013 #61
flamingdem Jul 2013 #63
cali Jul 2013 #90
flamingdem Jul 2013 #93
wtmusic Jul 2013 #27
DirkGently Jul 2013 #22
PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #29
Melinda Jul 2013 #32
cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #36
L0oniX Jul 2013 #97
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #118
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #144
wtmusic Jul 2013 #47
sibelian Jul 2013 #46
wtmusic Jul 2013 #50
sibelian Jul 2013 #142
wtmusic Jul 2013 #169
LineLineLineLineLineReply !
sibelian Jul 2013 #200
morningfog Jul 2013 #62
flamingdem Jul 2013 #69
WovenGems Jul 2013 #67
Buzz Clik Jul 2013 #74
wtmusic Jul 2013 #80
treestar Jul 2013 #121
wtmusic Jul 2013 #134
sibelian Jul 2013 #145
ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #129
wtmusic Jul 2013 #137
ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #146
wtmusic Jul 2013 #148
ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #150
Kurovski Jul 2013 #220
sibelian Jul 2013 #160
Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #165
ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #166
Catherina Jul 2013 #155
sibelian Jul 2013 #162
wtmusic Jul 2013 #171
Catherina Jul 2013 #203
Catherina Jul 2013 #202
sibelian Jul 2013 #212
KoKo Jul 2013 #183
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #199
Catherina Jul 2013 #204
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #208
Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #176
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #177
Cleita Jul 2013 #190
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #201
Cleita Jul 2013 #205
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #206
Cleita Jul 2013 #209
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #211
Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #214
Cleita Jul 2013 #215
Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #217
Rex Jul 2013 #192
randome Jul 2013 #195
Rex Jul 2013 #197
Aerows Jul 2013 #198
Aerows Jul 2013 #196
mitchtv Jul 2013 #210
99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #219

Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:25 PM

1. You would need to supply just 1 piece of evidence that the US dictated anything to any country

that lead to the plane incident. You have not supplied this evidence even indirectly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

2. Psst--Evo Morales signed a trade deal with Iran this week. And the Egyptian military....

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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:31 PM

4. Thanks, good info nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:33 PM

7. Following the money leads to more answers than not--but it is amusing to watch the poutrage

as Evo Morales and his hairpiece play the fringes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:37 PM

13. I didn't want to see it at first but the statements by the Bolivian ministers were ridiculous

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:41 PM

20. What utter rubbish!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:44 PM

24. Given the rise it got out of you, I suspect that the 'follow the money' approach is where Occam's

Razor will eventually land.

Sadly, Comrade, money corrupts. And the deals were signed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:28 PM

180. Speculate much?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

34. And?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #34)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:54 PM

44. Thank you! I've been accused of fabricating the Iranian trade deal. Now, correct me if I am wrong,

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:25 PM

216. "in good standing"

 

LOL

There are no international protocols any more. Don't you get it? A president was stopped and frisked for being brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:31 PM

86. Can you tell me why there is a problem letting Iran help develop

oil and gas exploration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #86)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:05 PM

114. I'm glad to see the attempts at free trade!! Aren't you glad to see another OPEC like

entity controlling energy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #114)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:08 PM

168. I have no problem with Bolivia developing their resources. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #114)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:16 PM

172. I am.

Helps accelerate the demise of the scam known as the petrodollar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #172)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:18 PM

174. Yes--because Putin's organization is going to do that? He just wants a piece of the pie. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #174)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:34 PM

182. Pie does''nt come into it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:42 PM

151. See, your post is one of those valuable nuggests nestled into the rest of DU. I think we argue

with each other about other things… but that is interesting.

Thank You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #151)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:45 PM

154. You are quite welcome. I tend to take a fairly cynical view when politicians bang the table. I

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #154)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 05:06 AM

223. I had the same thought

 



Stranded at the airport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 04:15 AM

222. Why shouldn't he sign deals with Iran, or any other country he wants to?? What is

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:36 PM

11. Two things. The state dept is absolutely refusing to answer whether they were involved in it.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:39 PM

14. This guy is incompetent. Soliz has no proof but he made that statement.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:04 PM

54. And bullshit from the Austrian foreign minister too, I guess?

Morales said he refused a request by the Spanish authorities to inspect his plane in Vienna and has not been granted permission to use Spanish airspace, according to Reuters.
...
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


"Morales agreed to a voluntary inspection," Spindelegger told reporters at the airport.

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #54)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:12 PM

65. This sounds routine, sad that "reporters" want to turn it into an incident nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:17 PM

70. Not reporters, direct quotes.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:18 PM

71. You're reading the wrong sources

Look around and you'll find other accounts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #71)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:30 PM

85. Really? lol

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #85)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:57 PM

191. People with their backs to the wall

over the stupid things they said can be remarkably overcome with amnesia about what they said, and well, about everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:46 PM

156. #1. "reportedly said" is NOT a direct quote. #2. you seem to imagine that as the Bolivian president

was flying, all countries mentioned were inter-communicating in real time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #156)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:08 PM

167. Yes, linked to a tweet by Austrian broadcast journalist Tanja Malle who was right there

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:44 PM

153. The U.S had EVERYTHING to do with it!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:57 AM

221. But, it's his fucking opinion and he doesn't need any further proof. lol nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:30 PM

3. 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:32 PM

6. Absolute diplomatic immunity for head of state is why.

This wasn't just any plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:34 PM

8. See my post #2--It's Evo's money trail. I'd saber rattle before I answered questions about Iran,

too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:41 PM

19. Just because we in the US see Iran as Enemy #1...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

30. Indeed--but UN members are obliged to follow sanction regimes. Follow the money. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

37. Yes, that is a fair point... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:53 PM

43. You clearly don't even know what the sanctions entail

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:03 PM

52. Dude--they can transfer the technology, but if the Iranians can't get paid due to the double whammy

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:21 PM

73. You're diverting this thread faster than Evo's jet

Understandably, your country fucked up and there's little denying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:23 PM

76. When you can point me to the American air-traffic controller, or the diplomat, or the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:26 PM

78. You believe all of these governments acted alone, do you?

Wooboy. Denial is never pretty, but that takes the cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:31 PM

87. 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #87)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:47 PM

100. Please don't cut and paste your same comment from elsewhere in the thread.

Doing it 100 times won't make it any more relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #100)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:49 PM

102. Don't tell me what I should put in my 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #102)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:54 PM

106. Do Heads of State have absolute diplomatic immunity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #106)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:59 PM

109. Just wait for it

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #109)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

116. Too late, I already responded. And your assumptions are wrong! ROFLMAO!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

117. International Law

Become familiar with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:09 PM

120. LOL, if you are so familiar with it, post links to the laws and to the court decisions that

interpret them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #109)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:49 PM

188. LOL nailed it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #106)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:59 PM

110. I would generally say yes. I have to look up the specifics on that. But that assumes several things

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

119. So you just admit you have know knowledge of international law

Yet you feel free to make sweeping statements? Is that what a good journalist does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #119)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:10 PM

123. Nope, my contentions have to do with something else entirely. Nice try though! LMAO!!!!

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #123)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:12 PM

125. You stated you'd have to look it up

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #125)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:16 PM

131. Which is generally what I say when someone makes an unrelated point.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #131)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:18 PM

133. We're back to "I don't know"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #133)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:19 PM

135. Nope, you are still not addressing my initial points after multiple tries!

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #135)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:23 PM

139. Because you can't address the fundamental one

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:16 PM

132. The song and dance

is the best I've seen in years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:28 PM

81. What do US banking sanctions have to do with transfer of funds by Bolivia?

Nothing, that's what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #81)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:45 PM

98. ahem--then you haven't been paying attention. OFAC has effectively shut down the Iranian

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:54 PM

105. Which affects a direct transfer of funds from BOLIVIA to IRAN, how, exactly?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:14 PM

128. We just halted gold and currency trade in Iran--

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/world/middleeast/new-sanctions-imposed-on-iran-to-halt-gold-trading.html?_r=0

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

33. That's correct. It's up to those other countries to decide what they want to do, which is my point.

I have no idea why the criticism of the US here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #33)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:59 PM

111. And five EU countries simultainiously decided to deny Morales airspace...

...with no input from the US? Wow, are you gullible...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:00 PM

112. Nope, for the umpteenth time, that is not my contention.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:22 PM

138. Yes, there are many differences.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #138)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:46 PM

218. Precious few are so privileged as to be able to commit an act/acts of war with impunity and have no

fear of reprisal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:12 PM

126. You are making assumptions without evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #126)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:25 PM

140. Morales probably flew over those countries on the way TO Moscow.

What is the difference between the trips to and from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #140)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:20 PM

175. Probably? How did he go?

That would be a fact, and it might be suggestive, though not evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #175)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:27 PM

179. The route is determined by the plane's range and fuel stops.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:35 PM

9. I agree this is the background of the incident

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:36 PM

10. Yes, something is very much different about this

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

31. These denials that are being offered

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:14 PM

68. Which is an issue for those countries denying transit, yes? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:39 PM

94. Not if they denied transit subsequent to a direct request from the USA, it isn't

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #94)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:42 PM

96. Which is a massive assumption to make without proof, isn't it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #96)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:48 PM

101. Not really, no

*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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #101)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:50 PM

103. It's a pretty big leap. Particularly considering that these countries are happy to tell us to jump

in a lake if they disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:39 PM

15. If Snowden is "an international criminal"...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

35. By "international criminal" I meant one not currently in the place where the warrant was issued.

I realize there is another potential connotation to that statement and it is one I did not intend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #35)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:51 PM

40. And my point is...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #40)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

59. How do you know he is not on Interpol? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #59)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:26 PM

77. Try this:

http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons

And enter "Snowden" into the Lastname field, then hit the Search button.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #77)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:43 PM

152. Funny--I just searched for Assange, and he wasn't there, either.

How reliable do you think a public search of Interpol is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #152)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:48 PM

157. How about a statement from Interpol?

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/

Interpol said there is no public Red Notice -- an international alert that an individual is wanted for arrest by an Interpol member country -- at the moment for Snowden.


I have not found any news report anywhere that updates this status so, I'm sticking with "there is no public Red Notice".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #157)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:04 PM

164. We wouldn't use a red notice on Snowden--we don't recognize the red notice as giving

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #164)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:10 PM

170. So now you're an authority on our use of Interpol?

Why just a few moments ago, you were wondering how we could determine whether or not an Interpol notice was filed on Snowden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #170)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:17 PM

173. No--but I can read the DOJ regs on use of Interpol. I had a question, looked it up. It was news

to me--that we apparently don't recognize the red notice as sufficient for arrest. Hurrah the 4th amendment!

Can a person be arrested based on an INTERPOL Red Notice? Once published by INTERPOL, each member country determines what effect to give a Notice within its jurisdiction according to its national law and practice. The United States does not consider a Red Notice alone to be a sufficient basis for the arrest of a subject because it does not meet the requirements for arrest under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, the United States treats a foreign-issued Red Notice only as a formalized request by the issuing law enforcement authority to “be on the look-out” for the fugitive in question, and to advise if they are located.


http://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/faqs.html


Personally, I am quite certain Washington Interpol has put its feelers out on Snowden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #173)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:25 PM

178. I see. Now you seem to think Interpol might be relevant...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #178)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:33 PM

181. Did I say it was irrelevant? I am sure if it has a role to play, it will. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #181)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:43 PM

185. True, you never said it was irrelevant...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:39 PM

16. What controversy?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:51 PM

41. "The United States has a public relations problem". This. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:38 PM

149. Actually, the US has several public relations problems.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:59 PM

163. The United States has a public relations problem....

because the day ends in Y!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:41 PM

18. uh, are you kidding? It was the plane of the President of a sovereign nation.

that's the controversy here and yes there is something different here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:45 PM

25. Nope, I am not kidding. If Air Force One travels through another country's airspace it has to obey

their rules and if requested, land or exit their airspace. But that is only tangentially related to my points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:54 PM

45. so you would have no problem with China

denying air space to the President's plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #45)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:05 PM

55. Are you saying that China does not have the sovereignty over its airspace and waters to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:42 PM

21. Unsurprising

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:46 PM

26. What 'thing' are you accusing me of 'vociferously denying' ? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

39. That this was an international incident

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:56 PM

49. its more than mere damage control.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:01 PM

51. True

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:05 PM

56. you cant blame em though.

 

a human will do or believe anything to get away from pain, and especially ego pain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

57. None involving the US, that is correct, that is my contention. I can perhaps understand

Bolivia having concerns about the countries that have allegedly denying the airspace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #57)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:55 PM

107. LMFAO!

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 .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #107)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:06 PM

115. LMAO If I'm so wrong, provide me the facts that say so. You are hilarious.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:10 PM

122. Uh huh

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #122)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:11 PM

124. Because I am arguing a different point entirely. Once again, nice try!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #124)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:13 PM

127. If you can't make your point

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #127)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:15 PM

130. I havent made an inconsistent point yet. I'll repost my initial contention again for you.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #130)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:27 PM

143. You haven't exactly made a point yet, either

so inconsistent or not, that's nothing to celebrate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #143)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:51 PM

159. I haven't leaped to an unsupported conclusion, that much is true.

That's probably why my post is confusing to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #159)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:52 PM

161. I'm confused?

Oh my, well you certainly got the last word in there, my dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:37 PM

89. Oh there ya go ...that's just going to piss off the worshipers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:44 PM

23. its interesting how comfortable people get when they build callouses to the chains they wear

 

its almost like domesticating a farm animal for production.

oh, that's right, that's exactly what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:46 PM

28. That's a cute post that happens to say nothing factual or specific. Like I said, cute. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #28)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

38. at issue is that you cant even see the issue. you are owned, outright. i dont blame you. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:52 PM

42. That's what it looks like to me

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:04 PM

53. At issue is that you can't come up with a single fact to support you, after multiple posts. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

60. My mistake was engaging you in complex abstractions. my apologies. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:13 PM

66. No, your mistake was attempting to engage when you had no facts to support you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:38 PM

91. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #28)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:55 PM

48. Sir, no offense

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:10 PM

64. I stand on my points. The US made a perfectly normal request. Can you prove otherwise?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:18 PM

72. Your points are irrelevant to the issue stated in OP.

Our government made the requests but can't admit they were made in error.

That makes us look foolish, petty, and disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:27 PM

79. The US request was normal and not in error. Can you prove otherwise? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #79)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:28 PM

82. Yes. By all accounts, Snowden wasn't on the plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:30 PM

84. And? I will once again restate my contention

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:36 PM

88. Not sure how much simpler I can make this.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #88)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:38 PM

92. LOL, your assertion involves multiple layers for which you have no proof or even semblence of facts.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #92)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:45 PM

99. And you believe all of these governments acted alone.

Amazing what the mind can do to attempt to block out the possibility of just being wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #99)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:51 PM

104. I'm one of those strange people that likes facts to back up accusations. I know, weird, right?

And you apparently like to jump to conclusions based on assumptions. That doesnt work for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #104)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:55 PM

108. No, you're in denial

and I'm done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #108)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:04 PM

113. If you're so convinced of that, provide me the facts that inform your opinion.

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'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #113)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:21 PM

136. Here you go, you can open your eyes and unplug your ears now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #136)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:26 PM

141. All that does is prove my initial contention. See bolded part

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #141)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:34 PM

147. No one gives a crap about your initial contention. It's irrelevant.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #147)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:50 PM

158. The advantage my contentions have over yours is that they are true. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #158)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:09 PM

213. the best part of this discussion is that you VEHEMENTLY denied any US involvement yesterday..

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:23 PM

75. LOL! Wow. You really have gotten your DU stride.

You have mastered the hysteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #75)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:28 PM

83. im a giver! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:41 PM

95. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

58. 1. U.S. has egg on it's face is the big one - so much for their Total Information Awareness. 2.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:01 PM

194. Would it be okay for China to hold Pres. Obama because of a rumor?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

207. How about International Law for $2,000

Alex

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:31 PM

5. I keep wondering when our "leaders" will tire of these shenanigans.

Apparently the answer is "no time soon". They must like being embarassed in public over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:42 PM

184. They haven't gotten past the whole "It ain't real until we say so." thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #184)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:44 PM

186. Yep. It's like they just cannot believe it's not going to work. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #186)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:47 PM

187. What's funny is when they all agree on something that's total fiction,...

...and then wonder why the entire population thinks they're nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #187)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:50 PM

189. Cognitive disconnect, and it's recursive too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #189)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:00 PM

193. What's REALLY funny is when polls are manipulated...

The effort there is to manipulate the public into believing it wants what it doesn't want and doesn't want what it wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:37 PM

12. declining to say whether American Authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:40 PM

17. If they had asked it's very possible any one of five countries could have ratted them out

Not one of the countries has said the US directed them to do anything related to Morales flight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

61. the WH statement is as classic an example of a non-admission admission as you could

possibly find.

Why on earth wouldn't they straight out deny it if they hadn't asked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:09 PM

63. The US rep can't speak for what other countries do and their policies nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:38 PM

90. that is not an answer. at least not an answer to the question asked.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #90)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:39 PM

93. She explained that they've been in contact with the countries involved in possible asylum nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:46 PM

27. Thanks for the advice.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:43 PM

22. That is certainly a fair interpretation of what's going on. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

29. "Psaki, declined to say whether American authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:47 PM

32. Someone who doesn't understand TOS alerted on you for a TOS violation.



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

36. Juror 2 should be off juries forever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:45 PM

97. An example of why the clown jury system is fucked up.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #97)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

118. Agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #36)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

144. Juror 2 owes wtmusic a big apology, imho - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:55 PM

47. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:55 PM

46. The White House has nothing whatsoever to lose from outright denial if they are not responsible.


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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:59 PM

50. Of course they can simply confirm it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:27 PM

142. Hm.


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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #142)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:09 PM

169. There's always that risk

but then they're the bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #169)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

200. !


I don't think I'd see it that way, but I suppose I can't speak for everyone else...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:08 PM

62. Couple that with the nations involved saying they "will neither confirm nor deny" US pressure.

Anyone who says they think the US didn't orchestrate or make this happen is lying, a fool or a shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:15 PM

69. But in the meantime why not have a super duper POUTRAGE attack!

Even without knowing anything for sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:14 PM

67. The Austrian

Have we heard a word out of the ones who searched the plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:22 PM

74. Hah! The silence of the administration is the equivalent as the admission of guilt!

Have they denied involvement in Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance? NO!
Have they denied sending $10 trillion to Pol Pot? NO!

That says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:27 PM

80. Guilty of what?

All they're guilty of is being too anal retentive to admit a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:09 PM

121. It's so medieval

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?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #121)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:19 PM

134. No one in the world is blind to what's going on

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #121)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:32 PM

145. Well, the world doesn't have a 5th Amendment.


That's just America.

Bummer, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:15 PM

129. .........

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #129)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:22 PM

137. Thanks for info.

At least now we're showing the maturity of a 12-year-old and not a 7-year-old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #137)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:33 PM

146. Somehow I think I was just insulted. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #146)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:35 PM

148. My bad.

I was talking about our foreign policy. Sorry for confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #148)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:40 PM

150. LOL - no problem.

Truth told, having the maturity of a 12 year old IS probably a stretch for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #150)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:11 AM

220. LOL

Me? I'm ownee twee!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #129)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:52 PM

160. I think this is peculiar.


I wonder if they are in furious negotiations with the appropriate heads of State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #129)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:05 PM

165. Thank you! I have been looking for that quote since yesterday! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #165)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:06 PM

166. You're welcome. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:46 PM

155. The US AMBASSADOR to Austria called Austria's Foreign Department to report Snowden was on board

Daily "DiePresse" reported that the USA demanded Snowden's extradiction from Austrian authorities

US Requested that Vienna Extradite Snowden

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

The U.S. Government has presented Bolivia with an extradition request for the former CIA anylist Edward Snowden, according to Bolivia's Minister of Foreign Affairs

...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #155)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:53 PM

162. Would you mind reposting as an OP, Catherina?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #162)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:10 PM

171. Seconded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to Catherina (Reply #202)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 05:21 PM

212. Thank you! :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #155)


Response to KoKo (Reply #183)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

199. Ambassadors don't have the pull to ask their hostOp country to detain and inspect ano

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #199)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:34 PM

204. Totally correct. These guys follow instructions

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #204)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:44 PM

208. Agreed. Portugal, et al don't want a war with Bolivia.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:20 PM

176. "I would point you to (European govts) to describe why they made descisions, if they made decisions"

-- 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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:21 PM

177. Am I the only one to look at that picture and consider the media there WANTS this story?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:51 PM

190. I don't think President Obama instructed our allies to deny Morales's airplane flyover and

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #190)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:30 PM

201. Of course he did. That is not a decision an Ambassador can independantly make.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #201)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:34 PM

205. What ambassador are you talking about, the one from Spain who wanted to board

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #205)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

206. US Ambassador to Austria.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #206)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:46 PM

209. Yes, but he was allowed to land in Austria and refuel. No one refused the plane to fly

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #209)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:57 PM

211. Well, at some point the plane had to land and refuel.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #190)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:17 PM

214. I would think that commandeering a plane with a head of state on board is an act of war

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #214)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:21 PM

215. There's more than one diplomatic blunder here.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #215)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:38 PM

217. The only diplomatic blunder I refer to is delaying Prsident Morales' flight in this manner

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:58 PM

192. Anyone that believes the U.S. is saintly and above all other countries

is a simpleton on par with Sarah Palin voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #192)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:03 PM

195. I doubt anyone believes that.



I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #195)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:04 PM

197. I don't.

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #195)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:06 PM

198. No one with a grain of sense does

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:04 PM

196. I'd be surprised if some folks in this thread

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:55 PM

210. Look for more Spanish businesses to run into trouble

in Mercosur countries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Original post)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 01:06 AM

219. Wow. So many officials suddenly go mum all at once

on an issue of such weighty international magnitude.

Nothing unusual about that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread