Journalist Claims Secret US Flight 'To Capture Snowden' Overflew Scottish Airspace (thenational.scot) 198
schwit1 writes with a story in The National (a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland) describing the charge laid by a Scottish journalist that in 2013 a secret U.S. flight involving a plane involved in CIA renditions crossed Scottish airspace, as part of a secret plan to capture whistleblower Edward Snowden. Alex Salmond, then Scotland's First Minister, is calling for transparency with regard to the knowledge that the UK government had of the flight and its mission. According to the report,
The plane, which passed above the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, was dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow. The craft was used in controversial US 'rendition' missions. Reports by Scottish journalist Duncan Campbell claim the aircraft, traveling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan, was part of a mission to capture Snowden following his release of documents revealing mass surveillance by US and UK secret services. ... [N977GA, the aircraft named as involved in this flight] was previously identified by Dave Willis in Air Force Monthly as an aircraft used for CIA rendition flights of US prisoners. This included the extradition of cleric Abu Hamza from the UK. Snowden accused the Danish Government of conspiring in his arrest. In response to flight reports, he said: "Remember when the Prime Minister Rasmussen said Denmark shouldn't respect asylum law in my case? Turns out he had a secret."
Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know any of the details of what they're alleging here concerning Snowden. But Abu Hamza wasn't "rendered". He underwent an 8 year extradition process involving tons of appeals, ultimately his case to block extradition failed (after receiving binding pledges from the US as to the maximum sentence that would be sought and in what sort of conditions he'd be kept in), and he was extradited to the US to be tried on terrorism charges. Last year he was sentenced to life in prison for them.
The fact that they're playing fast and loose with the terminology on the stuff that's easy to double check here makes me question this report. There might be something to it, but it's not a good start. Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy. And Abu Hamza wasn't rendered, it was an entirely above-board, fully within normal legal processes extradition.
Re: Okay... (Score:2, Funny)
Journalism is the art of writing fiction with a few verifiable bits of data.
Re: (Score:3)
By TFS's own admission, the Scottish paper at the heart of this accusation has an agenda.
Look. The U.S. still rightly wears some egg on its face from the government's routine disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, but at the time of the alleged flyover, at worst, the UK was probably just assisting an ally.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I present arguments for my case they should be disregarded because I have an agenda (making my case)? Nice logic.
Re: (Score:3)
GP was shown to have exaggerated one debate point, and so we must at least consider the possibility other debate points are suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: still close military allies.
You'll need to change that first, for it to end. You not feeling the love anymore? Nope, doesn't change the relationship between nations in any way.
Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.
Re:Okay.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for all the allies I can get and Mah faither's fowk come frae Scootlund.
An impression worthy of Dick van Dyke himself.
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
I strongly suggest that, for anyone who doubts just how far the U.S. is willing to go to get Snowden (and Julian Assange too, for that matter), to just ask the President of Bolivia how far [wikipedia.org] the U.S. is willing to go.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Funny that you mention both Assange and the president of Bolivia in that same context, given that Assange later admitted [telesurtv.net] to having "SWATed" the president of Bolivia, leading to the president of Bolivia to demand an apology from him. He was the source of the misinformation that Snowden was on the president's airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it doesn't change the fact that *some one* forced to ground and searched airplane of a PRESIDENT of a country by that information. Assange use this misinformation to prove the fact that (reposted [wired.com]):
The story, by Greg Miller, recounts daily meetings with senior officials from the FBI, CIA, and State Department, all desperately trying to come up with ways to capture Snowden. One official told Miller: “We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: ‘You’re in our airspace. Land.’ ” He wasn’t. And since he disappeared into Russia, the US seems to have lost all trace of him.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
How about Assange himself to Democracy Now!?
JULIAN ASSANGE: He was in Moscow. And then we looked for, well, how can we get him out of Moscow without a diplomatic—sorry, without a passport? Because the airplanes won’t take him, commercial airliners won’t take him. And we noticed that there was an oil conference in Moscow, and President Maduro was going to be there, amongst other presidents. And one of those other presidents was President Evo Morales. Now, we then reached out our feelers to Maduro, who had already given an informal, and maybe even by that stage public, offer of asylum to Snowden. But we decided that because there was so much surveillance, that in this communication our code word for "Maduro" would be "Morales," because he was so surveilled. And we had lawyers involved, and non-technical people who couldn’t really communicate themselves. And then Evo made a joke, while he was in Russia at this oil conference. President Evo Morales joked that—at the end of an interview, he said, well, he was off to meet Snowden now. It was just a joke.
Anyway, these things seemed to have combined, the interceptions of us and this joke by Morales. And the U.S. intelligence services put two and two together and made 22, and decided that they then had to expend vast amounts of political capital, ringing up the countries of Western Europe and trying to close their airspace to a presidential jet flight from Evo Morales, which they did. And Spain, France and Portugal closed their airspace, incredibly, to a presidential jet flight, because U.S. intelligence had asked them to, and done so without any legal or administrative process. And then the Morales flight took off and tried to go into its overflight path to refuel in the Canary Islands, to go off to Bolivia. They couldn’t do so because the airspace had been closed, and it was forced to land in Vienna. And then there was a 12-hour process, where President Morales was stuck in the airport waiting lounge of Vienna because he couldn’t get the clearance anywhere else. Now, a presidential jet is protected under the Vienna Convention. That’s the convention that in fact protects me in this embassy. It surrounds diplomatic territory. And presidential jets are listed as diplomatic territory. So you had a violation, enormous violation, of the Vienna Convention in Vienna.
Now, this really sealed Edward Snowden’s successful asylum application, when eventually it became clear it was too dangerous to take any other option, in Russia, because what could be the Russian response to this downing of President Evo Morales’s flight? The only response that they could give to seem like a credible country is that if he asks for—if Snowden asks for asylum, then they would accept the asylum request. And that’s what ended up happening. So this incredible diplomatic own goal led to this bullying of Western Europe, which provided the ultimate proof that Edward Snowden was being politically persecuted, which is what ended up giving him asylu
Re: (Score:2)
... without any legal or administrative process. ...
There is no international government with authority to apply a "legal process." The administrative process was also the legal process on both sides of those phone calls; they were diplomatic calls, diplomatic requests. As long as the people closing the airspace are locally authorized to do so, then it is all legal. And if they actually should have said "no" under local law, it is all still legal under international law. Those are local matters. Maybe they just don't like the way President Morales conducts h
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, the plane in question wasn't deployed as a diplomatic mission to any of the places that refused passage. They were deployed to Russia on a diplomatic mission. It would have been a violation for Russia to deny exit passage, but nobody else is implicated.
Each diplomatic officer that the Vienna Convention applies to has to be declared in advance and accepted by the host nation. It doesn't apply to anybody who the foreign nation just says is some sort of diplomat. It is only actual diplomatic staff that
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, Assange hasn't even broken any laws in the US, why would they want him at all? He published embarrassing stuff, so did Greenwald and I don't see anyone trying to rendition him from Brazil. Why all this conspiracy theory persists, I can't imagine. The guy raped two women, why do people defend him like this?
Re: (Score:2)
But Abu Hamza wasn't "rendered"
Yes he was. An extradition is a rendition.
Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy.
No-one said anything about extraordinary rendition.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual words are clumsy but the most reasonable interpretation is 'the plane was also used to extradite Abu Hamza'. Just the bad writing letting people read rendition into it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not bad writing because an extradition is a rendition.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy.
Extremely serious; no doubt they're quivering in their boots...
Re: (Score:2)
He was rendered, though. 'Render' just means to give something to someone, in this case a prisoner to whoever extradited him. The process is "extradition", and the act is "rendering". 'Extraordinary rendition' is not the same thing as 'rendition', hence the extra word in there to highlight the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
But how does that apply to rendering fat? /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they're playing fast and loose with the terminology on the stuff that's easy to double check here makes me question this report.
It's a bird! It's a plane! Nemo me impune lacessit!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
UTF-8 summary (Score:4)
Yep, in response to the "Ask Slashdot: How Can We Improve Slashdot?" post, I think the first port of call is definitely proper UTF-8 support.
ScotlandÃ(TM)s (Score:2)
Obama lied?? (Score:5, Informative)
Wasn't this around the time Obama said on TV that he "wouldn't be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old .....hacker"
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't this around the time Obama said on TV that he "wouldn't be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old .....hacker"
Jets! Plural! This was only 1.
N-blank, please (Score:2)
You really think a mere elected official (a black one at that) *really* has complete control over the US organs of security? They are a priesthood all to themselves and answer to no one - especially politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
No he didn't, but good job with your limp little spin, you weak minded wing nut. Your masters at Fox and the Koch brothers and even Trumpy must be so proud of you.
Actually they are all proud of themselves. You are a product of their creation after all.
Don't be fooled! Obama is a politician, politicians lie all the time. It only happens that some lies turn out to be the truth. Just because the guy said that Obama lied doesn't mean he is a conservative.
This surprised nobody (Score:2, Insightful)
The USA is above international law, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
"It support" (Score:2)
(a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland)
"It support"? C'mooon. Maybe you should call "it support" to fix your apostrophe problem.
Re: (Score:2)
a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland
Maybe you should call "it support" to fix your apostrophe problem.
Sorry, no. The GP poster's statement is merely missing an "s" -- an apostrophe would be incorrect there. (It should read, "a newspaper which makes no bones about its support for an independent Scotland.")
Remember it this way: his, her, its. If you can replace "its" with "his" or "her", it does not need an apostrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
The apostrophe problem I was referring to was the liberal sprinkling of â about the summaries of late. As snarky comments go, it wasn't well thought out.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
....as Scotland isn't a country.
It's as meaningful as insisting a plane overflew "Iowan" airspace.
It may have overflown UK airspace, and I'd suspect that the UK was cool with it (whether they knew what it was doing or not, as I'm guessing US/UK flights don't necessarily engender too much scrutiny).
Arrest A Hero! (Score:3)
But (Score:2)
Never mind Scotland or other EU/NATO countries, to capture Snowden they would have to fly into Russian airspace, and I don't think Putin would be too pleased about that...
Where's the article??? This is old news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quality editorial review takes time.
Can't be too careful these days. New Management and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Slashdot Unicode post processor blocked on three symbols until now.
Above standard aviation altitudes? (Score:2)
45000 feet is not "above standard aviation altitudes". Bizjets quite frequently fly up that high.
It wasn't carrying Polonium. (Score:2)
Because Snowden's masters don't think twice about transporting radiological toxins into other countries, in order to render political refugees dead.
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Informative)
Re:British Airspace (Score:4, Funny)
Please direct your complaints to your local Scottish embassy.
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is the term "country" is vauge. In most contexts when people say country they mean "Sovereign state" which Scotland is not (they had an independence refferendum recently but voted against independence). Yet the constituant parts of the united kingdom are reffered to as countries despite not being sovereign.
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Interesting)
Even us Brits have trouble with this sometimes. Scotland is a country, just not an independent one, it's part of a larger entity, the United Kingdom; that bit is clear. But our government is called the "British Government" even though it governs the whole United Kingdom, not just the island of Great Britain. Likewise our army is the "British Army" even though it includes the Royal Irish Regiment, and Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So "British" as an adjective seems to mean "of the United Kingdom", rather than "of Britain". It's probably correct in at least some senses to describe the airspace above Scotland as Scottish, British or UK.
Re: (Score:2)
But our government is called the "British Government" even though it governs the whole United Kingdom, not just the island of Great Britain.
"Great Britain" refers to the largest of the British Isles. Ireland is also British, once known as Little Britain.
They'll probably still call it the British Government after Scotland secedes, so as not to upset the Welsh.
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland is NOT British, as 'Britain' means 'the United Kingdom'. If Scotland leaves, they will still be called 'Britain' and 'British Government' as the United Kingdom will still exist, albeit in a smaller part of the British Isles.
Re: (Score:3)
Davey, Britain can't mean that. It isn't even available for consideration. One is an ancient term with established meaning, the other is a modern political unit. The ancient term can't be defined originally or primarily in terms of the modern term.
Or to translate that for you: Hoo dae ye say 'United Kingdom' in Scots? A dinna onerstaun. See approach proud Edward's power - Chains and Slaverie. Scots wha hae. Damned few an' they're a' deid.
Presumably most of the Irish agree.
Scotland was part of Britain long b
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff is quite confusing even if you're English. Er, British.
Re: (Score:3)
You are getting somewhat confused. I can try to help:
1. Great Britain is a geographical term, meaning the largest island in the British Isles.
2. Britain is a political term synonymous with "the United Kingdom"
So yes, the government is British as it represents all of Britain (the United Kingdom). The British Army is similarly named correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Her majesty's governments of Canada, NZ, Australia, Isle of Man, Jersey etc aren't part of the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Back on alt.fan.pratchett we used to refer to Americans and Yukians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia mixes different languages together under the same heading; American English, British English, even Aussie. In a case such as this, it would be expected to be British English. In British English I have no doubt that it is as wikipedia states. However, in American English it isn't true. Scotland is called a country formally, but that is simply part of the formal naming of the province of Scotland. Just as, American States would often not be considered "states" in British English.
Presumably everybody
Re: (Score:2)
And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
Translation: dinna fuck wi' me pal!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Scottish government do not retain control of the airspace over Scotland, it is a contiguous airspace zone with the rest of the airspace over England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore its not Scottish airspace, its British airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Britain' is a political term meaning precisely the same thing as 'UK'. 'Great Britain' is a geographic term for the large island. I can understand your confusion, but you are unfortunately wrong on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilian air traffic control for Northern Ireland is handled by the Prestwick control centre of the National Air Traffic Service, which is licensed by the CAA (a Department for Transport statutory corporation, owned by the British government).
Yes, the government that covers the UK is colloquially known as the British Government. So yes, the British Government does control the airspace over Northern Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Either argue with technically correct terms, or use informal ones. But be consistent. You're trying to win your point by arbitrarily redefining terms to match your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
British describes things that are owned by the government of the United Kingdom whenever the context is within an era such as the modern one when all of Great Britain is united under the same sovereign power.
When reading history it is very important to understand these terms. Historical discussions will use British to describe everything on the island, or just the things from the island. Often in descriptions of battlefield movements and things the term British is used there to describe the native armies on
Re: (Score:2)
If the U.S. controls [slashdot.org] French, Spanish, Italian, and Austrian airspace, I'm pretty sure they control UK airspace as well (Scotland or otherwise)
A lengthy discussion on place names (Score:3)
The confusion of place names in this region affects even how to address postal mail. See the excellent discussion on the various place names in Frank's Compulsive Guide to Postal Addresses [columbia.edu].
(n.b.: Frank's agrees that "SCOTLAND is one of the countries of Britain.")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first person in the thread to get it wrong was immediately corrected by half a dozen people, some citing the UK governments own published material on the matter. So yes, I think it's perfectly fair to consider people who continue to get it wrong... while in many cases insisting on their own false correctness... to be morons.
Re: (Score:2)
"You disagreed after I contradicted you, you must be a moron."
I'm not sure your analysis really leads where you want it to. Especially if you're trying to correct somebody's American English statement, that is true in American English, with British English in which the same words are not true. They don't have to be an moron to continue disagreeing, but if somebody has to be one, you're a prime candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't some random appeal to "I'm right because *I* say so." au-thor-i-tah. This is a case of easily-verifiable facts. The error in question was about the organization and legal status of the various entities which comprise the United Kingdom. One can goto any number of sources to find the correct answer. One of the cited sources was the UK government itself.
To present a falsehood as a fact, and continue to hold said falsehood as true even when you are corrected and provided an authoritative source
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Informative)
Scotland is a country. It's not a sovereign state.
Re:British Airspace (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Funny)
Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace?
Glorious Supreme Leader Obama (may he live forever).
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:British Airspace (Score:4, Interesting)
Additionally, stating "Scottish airspace" provides more detail than simply saying "UK airspace," making the statement more informative, and providing the basis for the Scottish interest in the matter.
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Interesting)
Fucking Slashdot. I read the summary, think "hmm, that's interesting", and want to read through the comments to see if people are talking about the plane that was used, maybe some other links to information about the plane, the flight path, where it landed or took off from, how they thought they were going to capture Snowden, or any number of other interesting things, and here you guys are 8 comment levels deep arguing about whether or not Scotland is a country.
Re:British Airspace (Score:4)
How would you know, you're not even a True Scotsman!
Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission, and they feel entitled to information because they're somebody important from... a different government than has control over the airspace. So they don't know if it was with permission, and they're not the people who would be told.
What I want to hear about is, why do they think an overflight affects the village councils and things that they fly over? This isn't a case of a supersonic plane bursting local tomatoes or anything. They didn't even know they should be "concerned" until somebody told them it happened. Too bad nobody pointed out to them it isn't their business to manage it.
Just imagine how the "transparency" they seek would work. The US and UK are close military allies. If every town council can have access to any information about secret US flights there, then the US would have to stop all secret activities in the UK that matter. Things that are just part of frivolous plots are schemes could still continue, of course; but anything with military importance would have to be done somewhere else. Preparing for D-Day? We'd have had to go in through Italy.
If these fools had half a clue about the subject, if they had put some serious thought into it, they would have come up with something better to ask for than to sniff around under Uncle Sam's drawers. He's not gonna pull `em down for you, give it up. And the UK's legit governing authorities are not going to interfere with their closest military ally when nothing actually happened in the UK. Of course they let us fly over whenever we want. They let us park nuclear submarines there when we're driving by, too, and all manner of airplanes with secret weapons on them. How would it work to still be military allies with a "special relationship," and yet allow town councils to make queries about secrets that don't affect them in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
My curiosity is why they think this was:
1. A rendition flight at all
2. Had anything to do with Snowden
I think people have a higher opinion of how much Snowden matters than is actual reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that most of the members here are Americans, I suspect that few of them could point to it on a map. I'd predict a three way split between Ireland, New Zealand, and that one that looks a bit like a camel.
Re:British Airspace (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission
Because of course no one in America would care if a Russian or French plane flew over mainland USA at 45,000 ft without permission.
Re: (Score:3)
The Scottish upper FIR is controlled by something called Scottish control. The FIR boundary is actually south of the Scottish border.
Re: (Score:3)
If by our you mean the US, the use of the term state to refer to something that is not an independent nation state is at odds with most of the rest of the world.
Except for the United States of Mexico, the Federated States of Micronesia, and perhaps a few others.
Then again, some thought when the USA was founded that the states should be independent. Abraham Lincoln pretty much put a stop to that, though.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a problem of historic nomenclature. Originally the States were independent nations acting independently, and banded together for common goals. And in frequent disagreement. This was under the "Articles of Confederation". Some people thought this was a bad idea, so they got together a revolutionary committee and wrote the "Federal Constitution". They had no legal authority do to so, but many were strongly connected politically, so they got away with it, and got most of the original states to agre
Re:British Airspace (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:British Airspace (Score:4, Informative)
"Scotland is a country"
Scotland hasn't been a country since 1707. Its a region of the UK. The fact that a lot of scots want to believe its still a country doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Then you don't klnow much bud. Scotland is a country in it's own right and even has a separate and distinct legal system.
As wonkey_monkey says.. it's a country and not a sovereign state. It is one of 4 constituent countries of Great Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
...and even has a separate and distinct legal system.
Not merely distinct but one with some admirable features. I've always thought that its choice of three verdicts [wikipedia.org] was both interesting and has a certain wisdom to it. Of course that system is under pressure. [gov.scot]
"... this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"." [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What we are not is a Sovereign State, though this is may well to change in the near future."
Your glorious independent future where you get fat on the billions in north sea oil revenue, oh , hold on, that'll be gone in 20 years. The billions in ship building! Oh, thats almost gone already.
Oh I know - whisky and hand outs from the EU. Which will be fitting given how many scots are on hand outs from the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitter?? ITYM laughing at a bunch of skirt wearing professional whingers north of the border who blame everyone except themselves for their non existent economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not your pal, friend.
Re: Cold Fjord! (Score:3)
"National honor" really is at stake. The Espionage Act of 1917 is a democratic disaster and leads to most of our current ills (those who installed a "secret government") weren't fools - they see the bugs as features.
If we have users here who support the secret state, they're really against this country's founding principles and can be safely dismissed as cowards or cronies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You insensitive clods! (Score:2)
What about all the people with nothing more than a Model 33 Teletype?
NO MORE LOWER CASE.
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT IS LOWERCASE?
Re: (Score:2)
One of two islands that make up the country of San Serriffe [wikitravel.org].
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I wish you were right, I don't think it will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Prince of Darkness should have a sort of distinguished look to him, and let's face facts, I'm no George Clooney."
That you, Adam?