111–120 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me I could really care less what the plane was used for in the past. A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.
Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight. It's an extremely common occurrence. (Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the chances of anyone ever being brought to justice for the CIA kidnapping and torture programme, anyway?
Zero. Something like half the country still supports it; it's an ideological football.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also enjoyed this tidbit in the article, which I had not known before: "The presidential plane of Bolivian leader Evo Morales was forced to ground in Vienna, after four EU nations refused airspace access on the mistaken belief that Snowden was hidden on board." Can you imagine the feeling of impotence, as a national president, when your plane is forced to land because of such suspicions?
And imagine the shitstorm that would follow the grounding of Air Force One under the exact same circumstances but by any country other than the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
and picture from Reuters story:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight. It's an extremely common occurrence. (Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)
You are right However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero. Something like half the country still supports it; it's an ideological football.
I wonder if there might be prosecutions in 30 years. That's long enough for people to come around and for the perpetrators to still be alive. If evaluated as a strictly criminal matter, these are the sorts of crimes that do not have a statute of limitations, though the fact they were official duties might activate one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's likely it was a jet airplane as the altitude of the flight was 45,000. I suppose in this usage it was implied to be fighter-jets.
It's amazing to witness the gift of gap that high level politicians possess. Obama says "not going to scramble jets." What the public assumes he means: - "Three letter agencies and the military won't be conducting clandestine operations to proactively seek out and remove Snowden from a foreign country." What he actually means: - Quite literally, he's saying that they won't be sending fighter jets to go blow up Snowde…
Speaking of Clinton and document leaks, next time Hillary Clinton is asked about the classified email server scandal take note of her precise replies, it is impressive how politicians can fire out precise answers when pressured to both deflect and deny accusations and protect themselves at the same time by later claiming precision.
I have slightly off-topic question. Did the surveillance program revealed by Snowden violate constitution? if so, has anyone sued the gvt for it?
Not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker. -- Obama 6/27/13 http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama... He's true though, it wasn't jets.
I think possibly you are misinformed on what "scrambling" means[1], with regard to "jets". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
He literally meant "we're not going to send fighter jets to kill him." Taking that to mean "we're not going to try to get him should the opportunity present itself" is just not a realistic interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a country, albeit one in increasingly reluctant political union with England. It would be rare for a Scot to refer to something as happening in the UK rather than specifically Scotland. The legal system is independent and different to England and Wales for instance. The nearest US equivalent would I guess be Puerto Rico rather than Maine.
I don't want to go far into the rabbit hole here but are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states? I understand how they feel about themselves, or more specifically how roughly half of them feel, however, it's not how the world sees them, generally speaking. Chinese understand "the UK" Scotland, as an international political entity will get you sideways looks.
Foreign affairs and defence are UK wide so UN, NATO, EU etc are all UK representations. The UK is the international entity.
Scottish education, healthcare, and the legislature are independent, sometimes markedly so. Since the referendum they've gained somewhat limited control over taxation.
Even Scots who support the Union tend to see themselves as Scots rather than Brits. Meanwhile most English would rarely call themselves English, preferring British. :)
I think that's far enough into the rabbit hole!
If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly.
But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are simply out of control.
Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by those wishing to thwart accountability measures.
Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion?
It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US.
A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists.
When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations had.