Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: White House Dares EU Leaders to Rat On United States in Morales Flyover Affair [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
223 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
White House Dares EU Leaders to Rat On United States in Morales Flyover Affair [View all]
wtmusic
Jul 2013
OP
You would need to supply just 1 piece of evidence that the US dictated anything to any country
flamingdem
Jul 2013
#1
Psst--Evo Morales signed a trade deal with Iran this week. And the Egyptian military....
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#2
Following the money leads to more answers than not--but it is amusing to watch the poutrage
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#7
I didn't want to see it at first but the statements by the Bolivian ministers were ridiculous
flamingdem
Jul 2013
#13
Given the rise it got out of you, I suspect that the 'follow the money' approach is where Occam's
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#24
Thank you! I've been accused of fabricating the Iranian trade deal. Now, correct me if I am wrong,
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#44
I'm glad to see the attempts at free trade!! Aren't you glad to see another OPEC like
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#114
Yes--because Putin's organization is going to do that? He just wants a piece of the pie. nt
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#174
See, your post is one of those valuable nuggests nestled into the rest of DU. I think we argue
KittyWampus
Jul 2013
#151
You are quite welcome. I tend to take a fairly cynical view when politicians bang the table. I
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#154
Why shouldn't he sign deals with Iran, or any other country he wants to?? What is
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#222
Two things. The state dept is absolutely refusing to answer whether they were involved in it.
morningfog
Jul 2013
#11
This sounds routine, sad that "reporters" want to turn it into an incident nt
flamingdem
Jul 2013
#65
#1. "reportedly said" is NOT a direct quote. #2. you seem to imagine that as the Bolivian president
KittyWampus
Jul 2013
#156
Yes, linked to a tweet by Austrian broadcast journalist Tanja Malle who was right there
magellan
Jul 2013
#167
See my post #2--It's Evo's money trail. I'd saber rattle before I answered questions about Iran,
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#8
Indeed--but UN members are obliged to follow sanction regimes. Follow the money. nt
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#30
Dude--they can transfer the technology, but if the Iranians can't get paid due to the double whammy
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#52
When you can point me to the American air-traffic controller, or the diplomat, or the
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#76
LOL, if you are so familiar with it, post links to the laws and to the court decisions that
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#120
I would generally say yes. I have to look up the specifics on that. But that assumes several things
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#110
Nope, my contentions have to do with something else entirely. Nice try though! LMAO!!!!
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#123
Nope, you are still not addressing my initial points after multiple tries!
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#135
What do US banking sanctions have to do with transfer of funds by Bolivia?
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2013
#81
ahem--then you haven't been paying attention. OFAC has effectively shut down the Iranian
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#98
Which affects a direct transfer of funds from BOLIVIA to IRAN, how, exactly?
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2013
#105
That's correct. It's up to those other countries to decide what they want to do, which is my point.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#33
And five EU countries simultainiously decided to deny Morales airspace...
HooptieWagon
Jul 2013
#111
Precious few are so privileged as to be able to commit an act/acts of war with impunity and have no
indepat
Jul 2013
#218
Not if they denied transit subsequent to a direct request from the USA, it isn't
Spider Jerusalem
Jul 2013
#94
It's a pretty big leap. Particularly considering that these countries are happy to tell us to jump
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#103
By "international criminal" I meant one not currently in the place where the warrant was issued.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#35
We wouldn't use a red notice on Snowden--we don't recognize the red notice as giving
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#164
No--but I can read the DOJ regs on use of Interpol. I had a question, looked it up. It was news
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#173
Did I say it was irrelevant? I am sure if it has a role to play, it will. nt
msanthrope
Jul 2013
#181
Nope, I am not kidding. If Air Force One travels through another country's airspace it has to obey
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#25
Are you saying that China does not have the sovereignty over its airspace and waters to do so?
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#55
None involving the US, that is correct, that is my contention. I can perhaps understand
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#57
LMAO If I'm so wrong, provide me the facts that say so. You are hilarious.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#115
I havent made an inconsistent point yet. I'll repost my initial contention again for you.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#130
its interesting how comfortable people get when they build callouses to the chains they wear
galileoreloaded
Jul 2013
#23
That's a cute post that happens to say nothing factual or specific. Like I said, cute. nt
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#28
at issue is that you cant even see the issue. you are owned, outright. i dont blame you. nt
galileoreloaded
Jul 2013
#38
At issue is that you can't come up with a single fact to support you, after multiple posts. nt
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#53
No, your mistake was attempting to engage when you had no facts to support you. nt
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#66
I stand on my points. The US made a perfectly normal request. Can you prove otherwise?
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#64
LOL, your assertion involves multiple layers for which you have no proof or even semblence of facts.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#92
I'm one of those strange people that likes facts to back up accusations. I know, weird, right?
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#104
If you're so convinced of that, provide me the facts that inform your opinion.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#113
the best part of this discussion is that you VEHEMENTLY denied any US involvement yesterday..
frylock
Jul 2013
#213
1. U.S. has egg on it's face is the big one - so much for their Total Information Awareness. 2.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
Jul 2013
#58
They haven't gotten past the whole "It ain't real until we say so." thing.
Spitfire of ATJ
Jul 2013
#184
What's funny is when they all agree on something that's total fiction,...
Spitfire of ATJ
Jul 2013
#187
declining to say whether American Authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace
cali
Jul 2013
#12
If they had asked it's very possible any one of five countries could have ratted them out
flamingdem
Jul 2013
#17
the WH statement is as classic an example of a non-admission admission as you could
cali
Jul 2013
#61
She explained that they've been in contact with the countries involved in possible asylum nt
flamingdem
Jul 2013
#93
"Psaki, declined to say whether American authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace" n/t
PoliticAverse
Jul 2013
#29
The White House has nothing whatsoever to lose from outright denial if they are not responsible.
sibelian
Jul 2013
#46
Couple that with the nations involved saying they "will neither confirm nor deny" US pressure.
morningfog
Jul 2013
#62
Hah! The silence of the administration is the equivalent as the admission of guilt!
Buzz Clik
Jul 2013
#74
The US AMBASSADOR to Austria called Austria's Foreign Department to report Snowden was on board
Catherina
Jul 2013
#155
Ambassadors don't have the pull to ask their hostOp country to detain and inspect ano
HooptieWagon
Jul 2013
#199
"I would point you to (European govts) to describe why they made descisions, if they made decisions"
Jack Rabbit
Jul 2013
#176
Am I the only one to look at that picture and consider the media there WANTS this story?
Spitfire of ATJ
Jul 2013
#177
I don't think President Obama instructed our allies to deny Morales's airplane flyover and
Cleita
Jul 2013
#190
Of course he did. That is not a decision an Ambassador can independantly make.
HooptieWagon
Jul 2013
#201
Yes, but he was allowed to land in Austria and refuel. No one refused the plane to fly
Cleita
Jul 2013
#209
I would think that commandeering a plane with a head of state on board is an act of war
Jack Rabbit
Jul 2013
#214
The only diplomatic blunder I refer to is delaying Prsident Morales' flight in this manner
Jack Rabbit
Jul 2013
#217