13 ms·
Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
- Smircio 11y agoI guess Obama wants to wrap loose ends up before he passes the buck.
- doe88 11y agoNot 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-not-scrambling-jets-to-get-nsa-leaker-snowden?lite http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama... He's true though, it wasn't jets.
- wavefunction 11y agoWell, 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.
- GordonS 11y agoAh, yes, but 'jet' in the singular - Obama had said 'jets' in the plural!
- uremog 11y agoEverything I said was true, from a certain point of view.
- deelowe 11y agoIt'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 Snowden. Of course that would be silly and not make any sense whatsoever, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what he was referring to.
- kbenson 11y agoWell, yeah. Because "scrambling jets" actually means something specific[1]. I actually don't think it was his intention to imply "we won't send any planes to where he's at" because that's stupid. Of course there's the possibility of a diplomatic mission, or DOJ officials visiting the country in question to discuss matters with the officials there. To assume his words meant we had no intention of even visiting a location he was at requires either assumptions about words people don't know the meaning to, or a very naive interpretation of how things get physically get done. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
- pakled_engineer 11y agoAs an aside a good example of this politically evasive precision in speaking was Clinton's famous "I did not inhale" line when confronted if he had ever used marijuana. His answer was true, he's allergic to smoke and was well known around campus for baking/eating marijuana not inhaling it. 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.
- gaius 11y agoAlso his use of "boots on the ground"
- bobinator606 11y agothe jet in question is a Gulfstream G-V. Its a very fancy passenger, long-range passenger jet
- mturmon 11y agoI 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?
- peterkelly 11y agoAnd 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
- mturmon 11y agoOK, I bit. Turns out this was a major brouhaha. France participated, but later apologized, and Assange was involved as well. Quite fascinating in its own right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident and picture from Reuters story: http://www.webcitation.org/6O7egNjku http://www.webcitation.org/6O7egNjku
- revelation 11y agoCan you imagine the feeling of impotence, as NSA/CIA/$100b+ industrial extralegal agency, of telling people to stop that plane without having any remote certainty on the information? It's this somewhat unnoticed fact of the saga: these agencies are really, really terrible at whatever they imagine their job to be. I wonder if there is still some intern at NSA combing manually through log files to figure out what Snowden possibly took.
- caskance 11y agoThat feeling is warranted. Relative to the US, Bolivia is impotent.
- mturmon 11y agoIndeed. Having it demonstrated so viscerally would make an impact. Apparently the Austrian police briefly boarded his plane, although a spokesman in his government denied it. It also speaks to the panic of the American government in those days about Snowden.
- kbenson 11y agoI think possibly you are misinformed on what "scrambling" means[1], with regard to "jets". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling_(military)
- pc86 11y agoI'm not sure why someone down voted you for this. When the Commander in Chief uses a military term, I think it's a safe bet he knows what the definition is and actually meant it in that way. 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.
- Shivetya 11y agoI have no problem with the US filing a criminal complain against Snowden and dispatching a plane to pick him up. I have an entirely big problem with the US government using shadow planes or whatever they want to call them to act on it. If there is a public filing of a criminal charge all following actions need to be out in the open and "above the board". This cloak and dagger shit screams "you don't have rights if you piss us off" is something the Administration should have changed from day one but instead they just doubled down on it.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoOne thing I don't understand - why would the US care? Why expend resources on trying to capture Snowden? He's basically harmless at this point - he's passed all the information he had to few journalists (which would be a better target now) and there's no way anyone will ever let him near anything more secret than grandma's cookies recipe. Besides petty vengeance, what's the point?
- glogla 11y ago> Besides petty vengeance, what's the point? Yeah. Besides petty vengeance, there's no point.
- goldenkey 11y agoYeah, there's no governments predicated on petty vengeance..cough cough
- ethbro 11y agoAs someone else noted, "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."
- tonylemesmer 11y agotrying to dissuade future whistleblowers
- jinpa_zangpo 11y agoTo discourage anyone who might try something similar.
- david_mitchell 11y agoTo send a message to others contemplating doing something similar: "If you do this we'll get you".
- crdoconnor 11y agoTo prevent copycats.
- vlunkr 11y agoI really hope they pardon him eventually. I could be wrong, but don't most americans support what he did? EDIT: you are probably all correct, plenty of people don't understand/care who he is or what he stands for. I still wish the government would recognize that the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and he called them out on it.
- nbclark 11y agoAnecdotal, but I have some friends in government jobs, and they definitely have a less favorable view of him. They view him as failing to respect the proper procedures in place to surface that kind of information, and throw the traitor word around liberally.
- finid 11y agoThat's not surprising, if you consider that it became very unsafe for the guy that exposed the Abu Ghraib tortures and prisoner abuse to move around freely in his village, which was a military town. He was considered a traitor.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- CptJamesCook 11y agoMost Americans probably do not even know who he is. Of those who do, I'd say roughly half support him and half think he should go to jail.
- ghrifter 11y agoMost "tech savvy" people support him and how he made us aware of the NSA bs, but a lot of normal people who just watch the news view him as a "traitor" to 'Murica (America). Sadly, people think "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the government/NSA monitors my internet usage/history/etc". Personally, I think the terrorists have won in a small sense. TSA is a joke (American airport security), NSA monitors everything so nothing is really secure, backdoors are built into all devices, encryption across several companies is being questioned because "terrorists" use it (even though the Paris attacks communication were over SMS). Edit: typos
- 3327 11y agoThe best execution of a sleeper Russian agent in history, cograts KGB.
- gchokov 11y agoFYI, the plane was "Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream V" flying above 45000ft. Impressive plane.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 11y agoThe craft was used in controversial US ‘rendition’ missions This is apparently true, but misleading. The specific plane we're discussing was used by the CIA, but by this point had been transferred to DOJ for some time. It's also misleading to use the word "rendition" as a shorthand for "extraordinary rendition" (which is itself newspeak for "kidnapping"). "Rendition" itself is simply the process of effectuating extradition. The term "extraordinary rendition" is doubly Orwellian, because "rendition" is the word for what a host jurisdiction does. A government cooperating in extradition renders subjects. The CIA kidnapped people, apparently without engaging any process of the host government. To make matters worse, the CIA's kidnapping program sent terrorism subjects to foreign jurisdictions, allegedly (and almost certainly) to enable them to be interrogated by the norms of countries that weren't squeamish about coercive, torturous interrogations. The USG wanted Snowden back on US soil. I suppose there's a coherent argument to be made that the US should have destroyed the CIA's torture charter jet, and that any further use of that particular piece of equipment is tainted by its history. To me, it's just a plane, and if we're going to do something drastic in response to the CIA's complicity (and participation) in torture, that thing should probably be a series of criminal prosecutions. Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far. So far, the facts we know about support a pretty boring narrative: the USG knew it was going to charge Snowden with crimes for which most of Europe would comply with extradition, and sent a DOJ plane to streamline that process. It's hard to blame media outlets for reporting like this, because the story of how we came to know that this particular plane had participated in the CIA's kidnapping scheme makes for really good reading. But it's still important to know the whole story. And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, proprietors of GCHQ, the west's most unhinged signals intelligence agency. A DOJ plane flying over Scotland to fetch a SIGINT leaker isn't particularly newsworthy.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kchoudhu 11y agoIs there anyone naive enough to think that the US government would turn the other cheek after getting egg all over its face? Of course they made extraordinary efforts to capture Snowden before he got away.
- otterley 11y agoThe article isn't very clear on an important point: What evidence is there to indicate that the flight was made for the purpose of capturing Snowden?
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoShouldn't that be "British" airspace? If the Scots don't like it, they should declare independence (but that failed) and maybe build an air defense network to shoot down unidentified possible CIA rendition jets (not very feasible).
- vidarh 11y agoIt is both British airspace and Scottish airspace. Scotland is formally a constituent country of the United Kingdom, with it's own devolved government. And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence (and several other areas), it does have a legitimate interest in asking questions of the UK government if they feel there is a possibility that what the UK government has allowed is not in the interest of Scotland. There's very little they can do about it, unless there's an indication that a law has been broken. But there's plenty of room for political point scoring.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago"And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence" That's pretty much it.
- dalke 11y agoThe term doesn't mean what you think it means. Rather, if so, then you should also complain about all of the following: "Mexican Helicopter Spotted in Texas Airspace" - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-helicopter-spotted-in-texas-airspace/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-helicopter-spotted-in-te... "F-16 escorts Cessna away from Fla. airspace during Obama visit" - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/16/nation/la-na-nn-florida-no-fly-zone-obama-20130216 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/16/nation/la-na-nn-flor... "U.S. Jets Intercept Six Russian Planes That Approached The Alaskan Airspace" - http://www.inquisitr.com/1486667/u-s-jets-intercept-six-russian-planes-that-approached-the-alaskan-airspace/ http://www.inquisitr.com/1486667/u-s-jets-intercept-six-russ... "Bill seeks to regulate drones in Maine airspace" - http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/26/politics/bill-seeks-to-regulate-drones-in-maine-airspace/?ref=storyPrevNextLinks http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/26/politics/bill-seeks-to... In addition to US states, the construction "---- airspace" is also used in reference to: lakes - "a good chunk of Lake Michigan airspace is restricted" - http://www.reallyrocketscience.com/node/18 http://www.reallyrocketscience.com/node/18 cities - "traffic flow with radar lateral separation between aircraft heading South entering Habana airspace and those flying Northbound to Miami airspace" - http://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2013/ANIWG01/ANIWG01WP27.pdf http://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2013/ANIWG01/ANI... Disney theme parks - "Ad Banner Planes Still Kept Out of Disney Airspace" - http://www.newsmax.com/US/Disney-planes-advertising-banners/2014/11/10/id/606501/ http://www.newsmax.com/US/Disney-planes-advertising-banners/...
- wangii 11y agoJust wondering if EU going to give Obama another Nobel prize.
- yodsanklai 11y agoI have slightly off-topic question. Did the surveillance program revealed by Snowden violate constitution? if so, has anyone sued the gvt for it?
- empyrical 11y agoThere was a lawsuit, but it got dismissed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA
- ctstover 11y agoFour legs good, two legs bad! Snuff him out!
- grandalf 11y agoIf 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 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.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago> 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 orgs? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary... > They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ” A principled population, now that would be something :)
- 13thLetter 11y agoAttention, Americans in this comments section: even though you're complaining now, if you guys obediently line up to re-elect the party doing this come November, you are part of the problem.
- krapp 11y agoAre you implying the next Republican president will put a stop to it? That's what the partisan argument in your comment seems to imply. Which comes down to probably Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump... I don't see that happening.
- 13thLetter 11y agoI am not implying anything. I am straight up stating that if you don't throw the bastards out, they will never learn. If you actually care about policy instead of about avoiding the hated outgroup, your relationship with politicians needs to be transactional. If they don't deliver, find another one, even if said politician is (gasp! shock!) not a Democrat. I would recommend the same, by the way, to Republicans who are upset that the Congressional GOP isn't cutting spending. Vote them out of power, it's the only way to get your point through.
- TheRealDunkirk 11y agoI don't know what they were afraid of. They've been able to get the media to be reserved enough in their judgements and reporting that no elected officials have felt the pressure to do anything, and, therefore, nothing has changed. As I read elsewhere recently: What happens when the government has perfect clarity on everything everyone does, when we're all guilty of "3 felonies a day?"
- slr555 11y agoThe range of a Gulfstream V is about 6500 miles. Given that fact the jet could have easily flown without entering UK airspace at all. The Gulfstream V also has an initial cruising altitude of 41,000 feet with a max of 51,000 feet. 45,000 feet may be high for a commercial jet but the G5 cruises comfortably at that altitude. Given these facts I am not sure why the CIA would create the exposure flying over the UK would create. My guess is they have heard of flight aware and know a transponder does.
- ThrustVectoring 11y agoThere's safety restrictions for flight paths - in case of sudden engine failure, you want the plane to be able to glide to an airfield or other inhabited areas that you can get rescued from. I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.
- slr555 11y agoThat makes sense but there are so many transpacific routes that spend huge stretches of time over open water that I am not sure it is even feasible for all commercial flights. CIA SAD/SOG operations likely have a much broader risk envelope.
- ThrustVectoring 11y agoFurther brief research suggests it's "flight time with one failed engine" that's a constraint, somewhere between 60 and 180 minutes, depending on how the plane is certified. The Gulfstream 5 is a twin-engine aircraft, which makes it more awkward for crossing large bodies of water. For long-distance flights, you're more likely to be on a four-engine plane, which has more lenient safety margins in case of engine failure. That said, the Pacific has a good chunk of diversion airports available as well.
- bobinator606 11y agothe G-V is certified for ETOPS -- extended twin-engine overwater operations. Second, there's no "gliding" involved. ETOPS flight plans are designed for single engine operation. That floating seat cushion is for when both engines fail.
- BuckRogers 11y agoThe UK knew. They just aren't going to answer to Alex Salmond.
- oneJob 11y agoNot my government.
- gnu8 11y agoThe people on that airplane ought to be in prison and rightfully deserve to be killed. They have no doubt flown out countless times to kidnap people who they proceeded to torture and kill, or deliver to others to torture and kill. Worse still, those people are walking around as civilians in the United States as if they had done nothing wrong. I'm nauseated to think that these people are free. Anyone in a position to leak their identities so that they can be dealt with should consider it their moral obligation to do so.
- kafkaesq 11y ago"I know -- let's kill all the perpetrators and evil-doers in the old regime. That'll teach 'em!" You see where this leads to, right?
- dang 11y ago> rightfully deserve to be killed You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html