15 ms·
CIA planned rendition operation to kidnap Edward Snowden
- skatenerd 11y agohttps://flightaware.com/live/flight/N977GA https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N977GA
- Sanddancer 11y agoShame there's not a carfax like service for planes that used something less mutable than a tail number. After that last flight, it was almost certainly sold to some CIA front company, given a new number, and sent back into the air.
- ceejayoz 11y agoPeople seem to be pretty good at finding these things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_aircraft
- ryanlol 11y agohttp://www.planefax.com/ http://www.planefax.com/
- jlgaddis 11y agoICAO codes can change (although they usually don't) but may be a little more "static".
- jlgaddis 11y agoI put together a few "ADS-B receivers" recently (using Raspberry Pis, RTL SDRs, etc.) and, for a few days afterwards, was watching all of the aircraft in my vicinity pretty intently. I live a few miles from the Monroe County, Indiana, airport, KBMG, and (on 16 November 2015) saw a small airplane go over my house that had just taken off from there (heading east at altitude 2700 feet). I looked up the tail number, N721AL, and saw that it was registered to the US Department of Justice. A little bit of Googling (the tail number) turned up an article [0] entitled "Track 115 Aircrafts the FBI uses for surveillance". I was left wondering why they'd be performing any such surveillance in my area (if that is, indeed, what they were doing), as we're not exactly a "hot spot" of criminal activity, but I suppose no one is exempt. [0]: http://blog.enigma.io/track-84-aircrafts-the-fbi-uses-for-surveillance/ http://blog.enigma.io/track-84-aircrafts-the-fbi-uses-for-su...
- swordswinger12 11y agoNice to see a fellow Hoosier on HN - I went to school at IU and lived in Monroe County for several years. Anyway, the plane could have been involved with the Crane naval research center: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NSWCCrane.aspx http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NSWCCrane.asp...
- apsec112 11y agoIs there a more reliable source for this than a fringe political site?
- fishnchips 11y agoThis seems to link to the original Danish source: https://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/danish-government-let-america.html https://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/danish-government-let-amer...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoOld news. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/cia_rendition_jet_was_waiting_in_europe_to_snatch_snowden http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/13/cia_rendition_jet_wa...
- poolloop 11y agoThis is the original source (in danish): https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for-at-hapse-snowden/ https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for...
- CrowFly 11y agoThank you.
- hjek 11y agoThe landing permit itself as referenced in the Danish article: https://www.denfri.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/overflight_permission-585x511.png https://www.denfri.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/overflight_...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- saltvedt 11y agoThere is no "firm evidence" in the documents as this article claims. There is no reference to Snowden there.
- poolloop 11y agoNot true. The original article (https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for-at-hapse-snowden/ https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for...) mentions that the Author asked the Ministry of Justice for information on S. The documents released (partly censored) may not mention S. but were released as an answer to this request. The Author is Peter Kofod. The online newspaper "Den Fri" direct translation: The Free, is mostly focused on surveillance and fascist tendencies. Anyone can write as a guest (by going through the board of editors). Peter Kofod writes weekly. Or even more often.
- saltvedt 11y agoThe documents released were in response to Peter Kofod's request for information about the airplane itself. "Justitsministeriet kan ikke oplyse, hvorvidt ministeriet er i besiddelse af materiale omfattet af den del af din anmodning om aktindsigt, der angår korrespondance mellem danske og amerikanske myndigheder vedrørende Edward Snowden." Translated: "The Department of Justice can not say whether the Ministry is in possession of material of your request for access to documents relating to correspondence between Danish and US authorities regarding Edward Snowden." https://www.denfri.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/begrundelse_aktindsigt_Snowden_Kofod.pdf https://www.denfri.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/begrundelse...
- ck2 11y agoBoth Clinton and Trump have made it pretty clear via their attitude towards Snowden that he is in for death/torture somewhere within their presidency. I'd like to think Americans would protest but apparently most of the country has already forgotten or not cared anymore about the NSA, it's like it never happened, no-one even mentions it anymore in the mainstream.
- Spooky23 11y agoThat's a certainty. His value declines over time, and eventually the Russian's ask will hit the number that the US is willing to pay.
- r3bl 11y ago> it's like it never happened, no-one even mentions it anymore in the mainstream. IIRC, the whole idea of gradually releasing documents instead of dumping them all at once was to avoid this. Although, I haven't seen any new documents in quite a while. I wonder what happened. Are the rest of them not as important as the ones already released?
- toyg 11y ago> Are the rest of them not as important as the ones already released? Likely. There is also a question of framing overall discourse. For example, Der Spiegel and The Intercept recently posted some documents from that pile, showing how the US hacked Israeli feeds from jet fighters to monitor possible attacks against Iran. The original piece was extremely balanced, highlighting the conflicted relationship and conflict on policy choices and overall strategies. The Guardian picked it up with a piece that was very much pro-Israel, drumming up support for Israeli hawks (at a time when they are extremely isolated on the international stage). Whenever this sort of material enters the discourse, you have to be very careful if you want to avoid other people framing it in the "wrong" way. I don't blame Greenwald's people for taking their time.
- DyslexicAtheist 11y agowe need to get rid of US military bases across Europe.
- omegaham 11y agoMost of Europe would not be okay with that - the US currently massively subsidizes the defense costs of European military forces with its bases. And it's not just the actual US forces there - it's logistics and training as well. For example, France likes to do peacekeeping operations in Africa. They can do so effectively because the US provides the airlift capability through their bases in Europe. Basically, if the US bases go, the capabilities of much of the European military forces go bye-bye. They're optimized for using American logistical support, (because they have no reason to develop their own) and all of that comes through American bases in the region. I'm sure that some political parties in Europe would be completely okay with losing that capability, but most people agree that there is one thing worse than a strong military, and that's a weak military that costs the same amount of money as a strong military.
- bjelkeman-again 11y agoAll the more reason. We Europeans should be able to manage this ourselves.
- omegaham 11y agoYou would have to gut social programs to pay for it, which people may or may not be okay with. Just to provide some numbers - the USAF's budget is $170 billion per year. For comparison, that's about the cost of Britain's entire NHS. A very large amount of that goes to airlift capability - plenty of money is spent on air superiority, but the USAF's primary mission in this era of asymmetric warfare is logistical support. Basically, the attitude of most European governments is "If the US is willing to pay for it, why should we reject their help?"
- steve-howard 11y ago
- poolloop 11y agoThe original danish article (link below) has a comment section. One user asks where the documentation is for saying that the flight was intended for S. The author replies, that he specifically asked the Ministry of Justice for information on the flight for, and information on rendition of, S. and that these documents where then released (partly censored). Which is also written in the article itself. https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for-at-hapse-snowden/ https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for... S. has since then made a tweet on this article, which is probably why all the other posts are now to be found on other sites from all over the world.
- krapp 11y agoAre you afraid something bad will happen if you type Snowden's name?
- poolloop 11y agoObviously. God will strike me down. With drones.
- poolloop 11y agoAnd why am I getting downvotes? Are you afraid of the truth?
- krapp 11y agoI'm not the one downvoting you, and none of your comments are that controversial, so I don't know, and no.
- huxley 11y agoI assumed it was a reference to Kafka's The Trial
- vonklaus 11y agoObviously. Look, I disagree with virtually all of what the CIA is doing, but day one Snowden was pretty up front about this. "There is a CIA field office close to here, bet those guys are working overtime" or something to that effect. Thats what you do in this situation. The CIA isn't dumb, their failure mode is thinking everyone else is. If they could have got him cleanly, they wouldve.
- sethhochberg 11y agoRight? It seems like one of those standard planning exercises that governments have for just about everything. Plans for if Canada invades the US, plans for a hypothetical US invasion of the UK, etc, etc, etc. I'd actually be surprised if someone who was such a high-profile target for the espionage community didn't have plans drawn up for their quick retrieval if needed under some circumstances.
- chippy 11y agoThere are plans for hypothetical scenarios, and then there is the enacting of the initial stages of the plan by stationing a plane and team and securing the cooperation of a host country.
- BWStearns 11y agoSeeing as how the US has an extradition treaty with Denmark (and most/all? of Europe) I'm having a hard time understanding why this is being described as a "rendition operation". I think a lot of what Snowden did was good and just, but I don't see the US government attempting to arrest him abroad as being nefarious. I don't think it's a serious expectation to hold to demand that the government not try to arrest him. That's why whistleblowing is brave. Whistleblowing protections that extend to what Snowden did would effectively convert the entire classification system to a set of recommendations as opposed to laws (a wholly different demand which I think is patently childish as a demand). I'm all for a pardon or some kind of reduced charges due to the motivations and the subject matter of the disclosed material, but can someone explain to me the justification of being outraged over enforcing laws in accordance with US law, treaties, and host country laws? They're not even using controversial legal mechanisms like the PATRIOT Act or FISC. EDIT: I've left my initial post in tact (I'm bad and I should feel bad) but I'd like to amend my confusion about the use of the term rendition in case anyone else shares it. After years of hearing "extraordinary rendition" shortened to "rendition" I've basically overwritten the latter with the former. Rendition is actually just the legal transfer of a suspect from one jurisdiction to the next, still outside of a legal linguistic context I find the use of the term to imply the later and I take it as trying to bait outrage.
- ryanlol 11y agoGenerally there's this thing called "due process", if they were just planning on putting Snowden on a CIA plane I really can't see how that's supposed to be okay.
- BWStearns 11y agoFair point, but it doesn't really say the manner in which they planned to put him on a plane, so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. It's not like the death penalty would be sought (I think the last execution under the Espionage Act was the Rosenbergs) so they'd have no problem meeting the requirements of the extradition treaty. Edit: >> Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt? If it's a) legal, b) gets the job done, why on earth would you make an unforced error when you know everyone on the planet would be watching how you handled this? I'm not relying on the better angels of men here, I'm relying on self interest, path of least resistance, and government laziness. Each on their own has rarely failed me and never all three at once.
- throwawaylalala 11y agoWell, duh.
- throwawaylalala 11y agoWell, duh
- nickpsecurity 11y agoShit like this is why we're beyond being in 2nd Amendment territory. Maybe someone needs to dust off the old Assassination Politics scheme and limit it to obvious corruption as we've seen with CIA and NSA. Each time they pull some shit the people ordering it get hosed. Survival will eventually have them pull less shit. The law, ethical arguments, media... nothing stops these organizations. Rogue behavior starts with dirty leaders. Eliminate them and push for wiser replacements. Seems to be at that point.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Bud 11y agoPlanes are fungible. Are we supposed to believe that the CIA has zero other reasons to want a plane in Europe? It's just about Snowden?
- bjorns 11y agoCIA wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't have plans. I'm sure they have plans for plenty events more unlikely than the president asking them to go get Snowden.
- somedangedname 11y agoLast comment 534 days ago? Are you serious?
- uxp 11y agoSome of us like reading and understanding other people's sentiment more than contributing what is most likely irrelevant opinions and general noise? Just because HN, Reddit, /., etc are built around the premise of commenting doesn't mean one has to comment to participate.
- iolothebard 11y agoYeah because shills don't prep in advance, right? Lmfao.
- jonstewart 11y agoYes. It's their job to have a plan, and it's the CIA's job because it's not the Department of Agriculture's job or the Treasury Department's job. It's just a bureaucracy.
- readme 11y agoWhy is this even news? Does it actually surprise you all that the CIA would have a plan to catch Snowden?
- br_smartass 11y agoSo, after the innumerous crimes and injustices commited by CIA abroad and home, since nothing was done to the agency, it means it now turned into a free pass? Justice, like a lot of other stuff in our societies that basically are just common agreements, is actually pretty fragile, if it's not upheld things tend to go down. There's consequences and stuff.
- vlehto 11y agoI believe the point was that usually every foreign intelligence agency plays exactly as nasty game as diplomacy allows. As we are living the era of U.S. hegemony, we can assume CIA is playing as nasty as humanly possible. So the news in this case would be that there is some evidence that CIA actually did a thing that was expected of them. They either are not very competent, or they don't care because they get away with it anyhow. They probably also have a plan to assassinate Snowden. But currently the costs outweigh the benefits.
- readme 11y agoThe only criminal in this whole story is Snowden. Literally, no one else broke the law here. You need to screw your head back on.
- KingMob 11y agoDon't mistake legality for morality. By a lot of people's estimations, they're exactly reversed in this situation with Snowden breaking secrecy laws by exposing "legal" surveillance. Plus, it's not even clear the government is acting legally here. An excellent case can be made that mass surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, and if the CIA planned anything other than bringing Snowden back to a public trial in the USA, that would be a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
- slr555 11y agoNot sure that this source is entirely credible. There is no link to the documents or to the original journalistic source. I also find it hard to believe that the CIA couldn't spoof a new tail number or just buy a new jet if they really wanted to keep this quiet. It doesn't really pass the common sense test. Unless the documents are produced and they are extremely compelling this seems more like conspiracy theory than good journalism.
- meesterdude 11y agoI have a prediction: Snowden will come back on his own. It'll be under a different administration than this one for sure, and it might be many years from now. But considering his level of patriotism and bravery, I don't see him staying away for forever. When he feels he has a chance at justice, he'll answer up for what he did.
- tw04 11y agoIf Bernie somehow wins... probably not TOO far into the future. I'm guessing he'll let Bernie get through at least one full year in office... because let's be honest (Sorry Bernie!) some of his stances are the kind of stances that see you get snuffed.
- benevol 11y ago> Snowden will come back on his own. The fact of the matter is: Western society (US and EU) has let down Snowden hard. We haven't done anything to pressure our politicians (who depend on us!) to protect him like he deserves. We don't deserve people like Snowden. And he sure must has felt that by now. So if he comes back, I doubt his level of patriotism will have been able to survive our sorry collective attitude.
- jacobmarble 11y agoThe phrase "US ruling elite" is used a couple of times in this article. It's refreshing to me because we don't use that term much here in the United States, likely because we (are supposed to) believe in democracy.
- beedogs 11y agoWhat a high-quality country America has become. "Extra-legal" renditions, torture, imprisonment without trial, spying on the entire planet, including all of its own citizens... any wisps of democracy left the air long ago in Washington.
- mknits 11y agoSo "kidnapping" isn't a crime anymore?
- ommunist 11y agoYou gotta be kidding. Here is how it works in reality. CIA operatives get the budget to kidnap Snowden. They organise "leak", but nothing was done in reality, they just wrote down that money.
- loggmein 11y agoDoesn't anyone else know Snowden was a patsy.
- mclovinit 11y agoJust a question that seems to always cross my mind when I think of individuals like Snowden (and I am not a strong believer that everything I see in the media is rooted in some conspiracy theory): Why are many so confident that he is operating independently and not just redirecting blame towards himself as part of a larger CIA operation? i.e. PRISM may have already been leaked at the time anyway so CIA, then manufactures a "scapegoat". Sure there is some interesting stuff that has been uncovered, but I cannot help, but wonder if his hero image is being burned into the psyche of every rebellious, "hacker" teen out there just to promote a viral effect of some kind. I am in no way condemning Snowden and the like (I really want to cheer him on) but I am, at the same time, not going to be totally convinced that I should be following what he or his constituents share with the masses. As a side, I am ready "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds and the same question came up regarding her background. Just thought I would throw this out there since it has been on my mind for some time. I am wondering if anyone has here similar thoughts.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoSo if Snowden isn't the whistleblower, then who is the Snowden behind him?
- mclovinit 11y agoMy thought had to do more with if he had been operating under someone else's orders within the U.S. govt to intentionally play the role of a fabricated whistleblower. However, I can see how that might be a stretch based upon some of the compelling information released. Sibel Edmonds seem to have some apprehension regarding Snowden's and his constiuents roles. Her stance is what triggered my doubts. Some of her views on are not necessarily directed at Snowden himself, but they do raise some questions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ekhmXG_41Bc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ekhmXG_41Bc
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rdancer 11y agoThere's a no way of knowing the answer to your question, but ultimately, it shouldn't really matter. There are people who say that Snowden leaks are a CIA operation against the NSA, born out of patriotism. There are others who say that he acted on direct orders from Obama, who had found it impossible to rein the intelligence agencies in, and needed to foment public support. We can judge by how the political actors have been behaving since the leaks. Our children will be able to read about it once internal documents are declassified. It is never good to idolize a person, and to put them on a pedestal. We all have flaws. Snowden has done us all a tremendous service, at a great personal peril, and it seems he will live to tell the story. We should all be so lucky. But he is a flawed man, just like we all are. People are quick to create cults around heroes, and then they are disappointed when their idol doesn't live up to their standards. It is sad, really. If you want to know who Snowden is, go to Moscow and buy him a cup of coffee; that's as close to the truth as you're ever gonna get. In the end, the ideas Snowden stands for are important and valid regardless of who brought them to the fore. EDIT: Ron Fournier made the same point slightly more eloquently, back in 2013: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-i-dont-care-about-edward-snowden http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-i-dont-...
- tptacek 11y agoN977GA has a chequered history. It was originally ordered by the US Air Force for use as a general's flying gin-palace. But then, shortly after 9/11, it lost its military livery and acquired civilian registration as N596GA. Under that designation it was employed in CIA "renditions" - or kidnappings. In 2011, the "black" jet switched roles again, transferring from the CIA's contractor to use instead by the Department of Justice (DoJ).
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago> Snowden embodies a new generation of educated and technologically-trained workers and youth who are increasingly hostile to the existing social order. Aye, we're practically swimming in those.