Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

thenational.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 244 posts

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#201

Post by marincounty »

grandalf wrote: post #137
PavlovsCat wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A principled president This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful…

This is a valid point. I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged. We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepti…

I don't think the average American cares unough to dig deeper for the truth. I politely used the word care; I hope it's not another word?

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#202

Post by jccc »

tptacek wrote: post #195
jccc wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.

There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.

For whatever it's worth:

> albeit perhaps unintentionally

You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators.

The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo.

(Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#203

Post by mc32 »

vacri wrote: post #194
mc32 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a couple of exceptions, it's fairly straightforward. Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, does it issue passports, does it control import and export of goods, does it enter into international treaties? Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes…

"With a couple of exceptions"... Scotland in particular is one of those exceptions. There really is no one magic rule that says 'country vs no country' - even what you offered up is a collection of rules, where some rules catch edge cases that other rules don't.

I'm thinking more exceptions where military might and economic might are immediate threats whereas that's not the case most people would concede about Scotland.

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#204

Post by skissane »

mc32 wrote: post #183
vacri wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to find one magic rule that defines "a country". And I would particularly caution you against using "Does China think you are a country in your own right?" as the measuring stick - they have quite notable differences in this area when compared to others.

With a couple of exceptions, it's fairly straightforward. Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, does it issue passports, does it control import and export of goods, does it enter into international treaties? Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes…

You are assuming "country" and "sovereign state" are synonyms, but that isn't true in general. The word "country" is used to refer to the four first-level subdivisions of the UK - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - this is standard and well-established English usage (well, certainly standard British English). The concept of a sovereign state having subdivisions known as "countries" is not unique to the UK, as the following article attests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#205

Post by funkysquid »

grandalf wrote: post #120

If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. 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 ano…

Chelsea Manning

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#206

Post by digler999 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #178
pessimizer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all these revelations have done is increase paranoia and misunderstanding It was a leak of truthful information. Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding. I'd also argue that it didn't increase paranoia; it massively reduced the number of people who were classified as paranoid by confirming some of their darkest fears.

> Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding I disagree with the idea that adding more truthful information will necessarily reduce misunderstanding. It is very possible to say something which, while containing no falsehoods, does not tell the whole story and thereby increases misunderstanding. Note that, for instance, the oath sworn in an American courtroom is not only to tell the truth and nothing but the tru…

Snowden told as much as he possibly could. He was in a privileged position, but hardly the highest-cleared position in the agency. Your concerns would be more aptly applied to clapper or other higher-up clowns that have destroyed our freedom.

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#207

Post by PavlovsCat »

dragonwriter wrote: post #155
PavlovsCat wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A principled president This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful…

> Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president Or, as yet (and possibly ever) any president...

Whoops yeah, I worded that badly :)

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#208

Post by PavlovsCat »

marincounty wrote: post #201
grandalf wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a valid point. I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged. We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepti…

I don't think the average American cares unough to dig deeper for the truth. I politely used the word care; I hope it's not another word?

Maybe it's the way someone who never breathed fresh air doesn't miss fresh air. That is, if we knew what we're missing, even if it's just in relation to "how things could be", we'd care more, I think. And we really are missing out. We have the know-how, technology and morally, for everybody on the world to have a great and dignified life. We just don't have the culture.

I often wish I had been born as some kind of genius film maker or author, because I think creating a realistic "utopian" (read: less dystopian) world which is a direct continuation of a realistic rendition of reality could do a lot to inspire us, and overcome our short attention spans and short-sightedness a bit. Then again, I don't know any examples of art really changing much, so I'm not sure. But I do wish there were more such movies and books.. we know about the problems, we need solutions, or at least constructive steps to take, and bigger perspectives than this year or decade.

"Stuff is much worse than you think, but I don't have any good ideas how to fix it" is simply too hard a sell. We need to extend helping hands and encouragement, and be good examples. That is banal and easy to say I know, in the end organizing is important, too. I don't mean this in an Alex Jones way, but we need to help each other to wake up. Which reminds me of a slashdot comment I kept around because it struck a chord:

> It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander [danger?] level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel.

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=4083632...

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#209

Post by Natsu »

Natsu wrote: post #145
Natsu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far. We have the downing of President Evo Morales' plane as evidence in support of that. You can read a more full explanation of that here: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/15/julian_assange_us_spyi...

I see that some people disagree with that claim. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why they do not believe this is evidence. Note in particular that I'm not claiming this as absolute proof, just that it's evidence . While one might argue over the weight that should be assigned to it, it seems sufficiently irregular that it should be hard to claim that it's not even evidence.

There's a [dead] comment below this complaining about the term 'extrajudicial'. The thing is that 'extrajudicial' means 'without benefit of legal process'. We don't really know what process might or might not have been followed had Snowden been captured. Given that forcing the plane down was both highly irregular and against treaties, however, it's hard to make a case that compliance with such things was seen as mandatory. But yes, to be fair, we don't actually know, we simply have evidence that points a certain direction.

Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

#210

Post by caskance »

mturmon wrote: post #72
doe88 wrote: post #5

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 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?

That feeling is warranted. Relative to the US, Bolivia is impotent.
Post reply on HN