17 ms·

Denmark confirms US sent rendition flight for Snowden

342 points by flexie 11y ago

coldcode 11y ago
Doesn't international law/Danish law require an extradition process or is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime?
- akerro 11y ago
  > is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime If you do it, it's a crime and SWAT will hit your home, if government does it, it's ok, it's for your safety, you know... terrorists.
  - pc86 11y ago
    I know what you're getting at, but there are things a government must do that a civilian must be legally prohibited from doing. As a matter of fact, that's most of the role of government.
    - _ak 11y ago
      The monopoly on power that the sovereign grants to the executive branch is still meant to be within the limits of that grant. This is obviously not the case anymore. The sovereign has lost oversight over the executive branch's actions. Effectively, governments and their organizations have become states within states, with no accountability anymore. That's where state theory completely implodes, as there aren't meant to be any "we're doing secret stuff with no oversight, you have to trust us we're not doing anything illegal" situations.
      - pc86 11y ago
        Surely there is a legitimate need for classified information and secrecy. Who beyond military, executive, congressional committee, and court officials should have that type of access?
- mrweasel 11y ago
  Danish politicians doesn't give a shit, sorry. If the US wants something, they get it, no questions asked. If it turns out to be illegal, oh well, mistakes happen. The only reason Denmark isn't puppet state of the US (to a larger extend than is case) is because the US doesn't care. Our politicians have absolutely zero spine when it comes to arguing against the US.
  - Diederich 11y ago
    When will it get to the point where 'arguing with the US' will become a political boon, rather than a liability?
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence. It's just as stupid when politicians use "stick it to the man" as justification for their bullshit. See Maduro's endless struggle against the evil neoliberal conspiracy.
  - plesner 11y ago
    I agree that Denmark tends to dance to the US's tune but not as spinelessly as you make it sound. If what you're saying was true wouldn't there be US missile on Greenland?
    - arethuza 11y ago
      The US did plan to put missiles in under-ice bases in Greenland, without telling Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm They didn't do it because it didn't work - the ice moves too much, rather than the Danes complaining about it.
    - mrweasel 11y ago
      In 1961, the US asked if the Danish government wished to be brief about nuclear weapons stationed in Greenland. The answer "Not really" (paraphrasing of cause). The Thule scandal, about covering up a nuclear armed B-52 crashing in Greenland is fascinating too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash#Thulegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... But you're right, no missiles.
- oneJob 11y ago
  International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do. Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.
    - oneJob 11y ago
      is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?
  - germanier 11y ago
    Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.
tootie 11y ago
Bringing him back the US would be extradition, not rendition. Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly].
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly]. I'd fully expect from the US government to lock Snowden up in Guantanamo and throw away the keys.
  - tootie 11y ago
    You would expect Obama to add prisoners to Guantanamo while he's desperately trying to close it? And you think he could just disappear an extremely visible personality and no one would be suspicious? The fact is they have him dead to rights on breaking the law and any court would easily convict him and give him at least a few if not many years in jail. He'd probably plea bargain to something face saving and be done with it.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      You've got a lot more faith that extralegal shenanigans won't happen than I do, for sure. Snowden's leaks have shown us that the US government will do anything if it thinks it can get away with it, the law be damned. Besides. What happened with Bradley/Chelsea Manning is all "legal", and that amounts to straight-up torture.
    - beedogs 11y ago
      > desperately trying Haven't heard a peep out of him about Gitmo this decade. If this is what counts as "desperately trying", I've got to wonder what term you use for actual effort.
      - tootie 11y ago
        He's been slowly but steadily releasing people. http://www.gtmoclock.com http://www.gtmoclock.com
tptacek 11y ago
At least this story gets it right that it was the DOJ's flight, not CIA's.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  That really does make a big difference to me. Capturing an escaping fugitive really is their domain, assuming they operated with permission of the governments over which they flew.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The DOJ cannot in fact lawfully fly into other countries to capture escaping fugitives! If Snowden is in Denmark, they need the cooperation of the government of Denmark to take custody of him.
    - s_q_b 11y ago
      Since Danish agents were present when the plane touched down in Copenhagen, couldn't they just detain him awaiting extradition? It's very clear Denmark was onboard given the article.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Yes, they can definitely do that.
        s_q_b 11y ago
        tptacek, you have a J.D, correct? I would love to chat about your experiences in law/tech, if we could exchange info.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Eek, lord no. People on HN to talk to about that: 'rayiner, 'tzs, 'DannyBee, 'pdabbadabba, 'grellas, 'dctoedt. ('tzs has a JD and isn't a lawyer, which I think is interesting. Also, he wrote my all-time favorite HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228350)
mhb 11y ago
The revelation that the US landed a private aircraft in Copenhagen Who owned the plane?
- laut 11y ago
  It might be a English translation of a Danish way of saying "business jet". Talking about the type of plane. As opposed to bigger commercial jets. E.g. a Gulfstream V is a business jet often used by business people. Even when used or owned by government, some people might keep calling it a "privatfly" - private plane.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Thats exactly what it is (Danish here)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
dfc 11y ago
Side Bar: Why do all the articles about the "jewelry law" have quotes around the phrase "jewelry law"? For example: "Denmark faces backlash over 'despicable' 'jewellery law'"
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  Because "jewellery law" is a nickname, and the law is not about seizing jewellery, but seizing any sort of valuable assets.
- Kliment 11y ago
  Because it's not officially called that. The law itself is about confiscating valuables from people who enter the country seeking protection, and it's been dubbed the "jewelry law" by media to make it easier for people to imagine what its effect will be (stealing people's jewelry as they enter).
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    They are not stealing peoples jewelries not sure where you got that from. This is exactly the kind of unfortunate misconceptions about that law and it requires context to understand what the point of it is. Denmark is one of the countries who both take most and provide the most social benefits to immigrants and asylum seekers. There is almost no difference what a citizen and an asylum seeker/immigrant gets in social welfare from the government. They have access to free healthcare, free education, free housing and so on. Denmark is one of the countries who accept the most too. A system like that requires a lot taxation to even be possible and so Denmark is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. What the law is attempting to make sure is that immigrants or asylums seekers who come to Denmark and ask for the government to provide all these things to them don't have any wealth. I.e. before the danish government starts giving you access to the social welfare system you need to have spent your own wealth first. This is the same way they treat their own citizen btw. And on top of that. This is something that Germany, Holland and Switzherland is already doing. The law is much bigger than that and holds all sorts of adjustments to deal with the underlying system. Someone just managed to polemically pick some of this up and interpret it in a way that made it sound like they where literally pulling gold teeth out of peoples mouth. They aren't taking any of affectional value either. So no they are not steal peoples jewelry as they enter.
dorfsmay 11y ago
Can a US citizen explain what seems to me tobe a dissonance, between the government putting huge efforts and resource in trying to arrest a citizen speaking out against the government doing illegal spying on its own people (an almost no reaction from other citizens), and people defending the right to bear weapons to protect themselves from the government turning into a dictatorship?
- oneJob 11y ago
  Sure, a US citizen could, but it would just be one citizen's point of view, and a citizen is not the same as his or her government, which is why a U.S. citizen can be critical of their government without being schizophrenic. We're each allowed our own point of view (and may be punished or rewarded commensurately). Since our laws are not centrally planned and individual rights are dearly cherished (though not universally respected), well, you get this sort of "cognitive dissonance " effect.
- TheRealWatson 11y ago
  What's the dissonance? Sounds like the two things you said are in agreement. Or maybe your main point is the part in parentheses?
- doki_pen 11y ago
  Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what. Snowden broke the law. Gun owners are trying to prevent the law from changing.
  - fwn 11y ago
    They probably didn't learn following the law by observing their government. ..because that would be another dissonance.
  - fukusa 11y ago
    >Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what. But if the government breaks the law, it's OK? When others do it, they're traitors?
ekianjo 11y ago
> “He is sought for a series of legal violations; that's what he is. And the US is a democratic constitutional state,” he added. Looks like this guy never heard of Guantanamo or the other secret camps the US keeps around the globe. It's beautiful to be naive.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Or laws that are blatantly amoral.
- pessimism 11y ago
  His former boss and predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Bush’s biggest supporter and ditto on the Iraq War. He has a vested interest in ignorance of the past—so much so that he shut down the investigative committee for the very same war as one of the first things when he won the election last year.
Erwin 11y ago
This revelation seems me to be a calculated political move. The government at the time was the leftist one led by Helle Thorning Schmidt (now the president of Save the Children). Current government is a right-wing one. Revealing this shows certain groups of traditional leftists how those traditional workers' parties have "betrayed" them (and this leftist government has been quite pragmatic; just recently the leftist opposition parties voting to approve the infamous sufficiency proposal -- i.e. the one where if you're carrying significant amounts of cash and try to seek political asylum you get to pay for it yourself first). You can read that in what the foreign policy spokeperson of the party says: "It is to me unbelievable the that S-SF-R government of that time would prefer to join the hunt on Snowden and thus value the American government over the Danes' fundamental right to freedom" (see http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/pind-fly-i-kastrup-skulle-transportere-snowden-til-usa http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/pind-fly-i-kastrup-skulle-tra...)
pascalmemories 11y ago
Looks like this has turned into a hot topic as more details have evolved. To my mind, this all seems to be a bit of an academic side-show, given how long ago these events were. What should probably be of concern is that Assange is talking about leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK AND the UK police have taken a much lower key approach recently, removing officers from outside etc. Has Assange not considered the risk that, given how friendly the UK was to these flights [landing, refueling at Glasgow Airport for example], the flight is probably sitting waiting at Heathrow right now? If he steps out, he's more likely to be confronted by US agents, possibly posing as UK police, who will detain him and whisk him off to the waiting plane ? The convenient absence of real UK officers will allow for a daylight snatch by the US and bypass the Sweden issue completely.
- appleflaxen 11y ago
  Are you talking about Assange? The article is about Snowden.
  - thrwawy9374 11y ago
    I think the underlying issue is about rendition flights - so it's relevant to Snowden for historical purposes but is relevant for Assange (another target) for very current reasons today following the UN decision on arbitrary detention. The original comment therefor seems pretty valid. Are you saying you don't think it is a valid comment dealing with the underlying issue because it's not restricted to purely Snowden?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
quadrangle 11y ago
Seeing a lot of people asking broader things about Snowden here, the main perspective to have on this is from Eben Moglen: http://snowdenandthefuture.info http://snowdenandthefuture.info cheers

342 points by flexie 11y ago

Doesn't international law/Danish law require an extradition process or is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime?

akerro 11y ago
> is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime If you do it, it's a crime and SWAT will hit your home, if government does it, it's ok, it's for your safety, you know... terrorists.
- pc86 11y ago
  I know what you're getting at, but there are things a government must do that a civilian must be legally prohibited from doing. As a matter of fact, that's most of the role of government.
  - _ak 11y ago
    The monopoly on power that the sovereign grants to the executive branch is still meant to be within the limits of that grant. This is obviously not the case anymore. The sovereign has lost oversight over the executive branch's actions. Effectively, governments and their organizations have become states within states, with no accountability anymore. That's where state theory completely implodes, as there aren't meant to be any "we're doing secret stuff with no oversight, you have to trust us we're not doing anything illegal" situations.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Surely there is a legitimate need for classified information and secrecy. Who beyond military, executive, congressional committee, and court officials should have that type of access?
mrweasel 11y ago
Danish politicians doesn't give a shit, sorry. If the US wants something, they get it, no questions asked. If it turns out to be illegal, oh well, mistakes happen. The only reason Denmark isn't puppet state of the US (to a larger extend than is case) is because the US doesn't care. Our politicians have absolutely zero spine when it comes to arguing against the US.
- Diederich 11y ago
  When will it get to the point where 'arguing with the US' will become a political boon, rather than a liability?
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence. It's just as stupid when politicians use "stick it to the man" as justification for their bullshit. See Maduro's endless struggle against the evil neoliberal conspiracy.
- plesner 11y ago
  I agree that Denmark tends to dance to the US's tune but not as spinelessly as you make it sound. If what you're saying was true wouldn't there be US missile on Greenland?
  - arethuza 11y ago
    The US did plan to put missiles in under-ice bases in Greenland, without telling Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm They didn't do it because it didn't work - the ice moves too much, rather than the Danes complaining about it.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    In 1961, the US asked if the Danish government wished to be brief about nuclear weapons stationed in Greenland. The answer "Not really" (paraphrasing of cause). The Thule scandal, about covering up a nuclear armed B-52 crashing in Greenland is fascinating too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash#Thulegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash... But you're right, no missiles.
oneJob 11y ago
International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do. Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.
- rquantz 11y ago
  Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?
- germanier 11y ago
  Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties? Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.

tootie 11y ago

Bringing him back the US would be extradition, not rendition. Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly].

mschuster91 11y ago
> Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly]. I'd fully expect from the US government to lock Snowden up in Guantanamo and throw away the keys.
- tootie 11y ago
  You would expect Obama to add prisoners to Guantanamo while he's desperately trying to close it? And you think he could just disappear an extremely visible personality and no one would be suspicious? The fact is they have him dead to rights on breaking the law and any court would easily convict him and give him at least a few if not many years in jail. He'd probably plea bargain to something face saving and be done with it.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    You've got a lot more faith that extralegal shenanigans won't happen than I do, for sure. Snowden's leaks have shown us that the US government will do anything if it thinks it can get away with it, the law be damned. Besides. What happened with Bradley/Chelsea Manning is all "legal", and that amounts to straight-up torture.
  - beedogs 11y ago
    > desperately trying Haven't heard a peep out of him about Gitmo this decade. If this is what counts as "desperately trying", I've got to wonder what term you use for actual effort.
    - tootie 11y ago
      He's been slowly but steadily releasing people. http://www.gtmoclock.com http://www.gtmoclock.com

tptacek 11y ago

At least this story gets it right that it was the DOJ's flight, not CIA's.

s_q_b 11y ago
That really does make a big difference to me. Capturing an escaping fugitive really is their domain, assuming they operated with permission of the governments over which they flew.
- tptacek 11y ago
  The DOJ cannot in fact lawfully fly into other countries to capture escaping fugitives! If Snowden is in Denmark, they need the cooperation of the government of Denmark to take custody of him.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    Since Danish agents were present when the plane touched down in Copenhagen, couldn't they just detain him awaiting extradition? It's very clear Denmark was onboard given the article.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Yes, they can definitely do that.
      - s_q_b 11y ago
        tptacek, you have a J.D, correct? I would love to chat about your experiences in law/tech, if we could exchange info.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Eek, lord no. People on HN to talk to about that: 'rayiner, 'tzs, 'DannyBee, 'pdabbadabba, 'grellas, 'dctoedt. ('tzs has a JD and isn't a lawyer, which I think is interesting. Also, he wrote my all-time favorite HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228350)

mhb 11y ago

The revelation that the US landed a private aircraft in Copenhagen Who owned the plane?

laut 11y ago
It might be a English translation of a Danish way of saying "business jet". Talking about the type of plane. As opposed to bigger commercial jets. E.g. a Gulfstream V is a business jet often used by business people. Even when used or owned by government, some people might keep calling it a "privatfly" - private plane.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Thats exactly what it is (Danish here)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

dfc 11y ago

Side Bar: Why do all the articles about the "jewelry law" have quotes around the phrase "jewelry law"? For example: "Denmark faces backlash over 'despicable' 'jewellery law'"

wodenokoto 11y ago
Because "jewellery law" is a nickname, and the law is not about seizing jewellery, but seizing any sort of valuable assets.
Kliment 11y ago
Because it's not officially called that. The law itself is about confiscating valuables from people who enter the country seeking protection, and it's been dubbed the "jewelry law" by media to make it easier for people to imagine what its effect will be (stealing people's jewelry as they enter).
- ThomPete 11y ago
  They are not stealing peoples jewelries not sure where you got that from. This is exactly the kind of unfortunate misconceptions about that law and it requires context to understand what the point of it is. Denmark is one of the countries who both take most and provide the most social benefits to immigrants and asylum seekers. There is almost no difference what a citizen and an asylum seeker/immigrant gets in social welfare from the government. They have access to free healthcare, free education, free housing and so on. Denmark is one of the countries who accept the most too. A system like that requires a lot taxation to even be possible and so Denmark is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. What the law is attempting to make sure is that immigrants or asylums seekers who come to Denmark and ask for the government to provide all these things to them don't have any wealth. I.e. before the danish government starts giving you access to the social welfare system you need to have spent your own wealth first. This is the same way they treat their own citizen btw. And on top of that. This is something that Germany, Holland and Switzherland is already doing. The law is much bigger than that and holds all sorts of adjustments to deal with the underlying system. Someone just managed to polemically pick some of this up and interpret it in a way that made it sound like they where literally pulling gold teeth out of peoples mouth. They aren't taking any of affectional value either. So no they are not steal peoples jewelry as they enter.

dorfsmay 11y ago

Can a US citizen explain what seems to me tobe a dissonance, between the government putting huge efforts and resource in trying to arrest a citizen speaking out against the government doing illegal spying on its own people (an almost no reaction from other citizens), and people defending the right to bear weapons to protect themselves from the government turning into a dictatorship?

oneJob 11y ago
Sure, a US citizen could, but it would just be one citizen's point of view, and a citizen is not the same as his or her government, which is why a U.S. citizen can be critical of their government without being schizophrenic. We're each allowed our own point of view (and may be punished or rewarded commensurately). Since our laws are not centrally planned and individual rights are dearly cherished (though not universally respected), well, you get this sort of "cognitive dissonance " effect.
TheRealWatson 11y ago
What's the dissonance? Sounds like the two things you said are in agreement. Or maybe your main point is the part in parentheses?
doki_pen 11y ago
Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what. Snowden broke the law. Gun owners are trying to prevent the law from changing.
- fwn 11y ago
  They probably didn't learn following the law by observing their government. ..because that would be another dissonance.
- fukusa 11y ago
  >Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what. But if the government breaks the law, it's OK? When others do it, they're traitors?

ekianjo 11y ago

> “He is sought for a series of legal violations; that's what he is. And the US is a democratic constitutional state,” he added. Looks like this guy never heard of Guantanamo or the other secret camps the US keeps around the globe. It's beautiful to be naive.

beeboop 11y ago
Or laws that are blatantly amoral.
pessimism 11y ago
His former boss and predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Bush’s biggest supporter and ditto on the Iraq War. He has a vested interest in ignorance of the past—so much so that he shut down the investigative committee for the very same war as one of the first things when he won the election last year.

Erwin 11y ago

This revelation seems me to be a calculated political move. The government at the time was the leftist one led by Helle Thorning Schmidt (now the president of Save the Children). Current government is a right-wing one. Revealing this shows certain groups of traditional leftists how those traditional workers' parties have "betrayed" them (and this leftist government has been quite pragmatic; just recently the leftist opposition parties voting to approve the infamous sufficiency proposal -- i.e. the one where if you're carrying significant amounts of cash and try to seek political asylum you get to pay for it yourself first). You can read that in what the foreign policy spokeperson of the party says: "It is to me unbelievable the that S-SF-R government of that time would prefer to join the hunt on Snowden and thus value the American government over the Danes' fundamental right to freedom" (see http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/pind-fly-i-kastrup-skulle-transportere-snowden-til-usa http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/pind-fly-i-kastrup-skulle-tra...)

pascalmemories 11y ago

Looks like this has turned into a hot topic as more details have evolved. To my mind, this all seems to be a bit of an academic side-show, given how long ago these events were. What should probably be of concern is that Assange is talking about leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK AND the UK police have taken a much lower key approach recently, removing officers from outside etc. Has Assange not considered the risk that, given how friendly the UK was to these flights [landing, refueling at Glasgow Airport for example], the flight is probably sitting waiting at Heathrow right now? If he steps out, he's more likely to be confronted by US agents, possibly posing as UK police, who will detain him and whisk him off to the waiting plane ? The convenient absence of real UK officers will allow for a daylight snatch by the US and bypass the Sweden issue completely.

appleflaxen 11y ago
Are you talking about Assange? The article is about Snowden.
- thrwawy9374 11y ago
  I think the underlying issue is about rendition flights - so it's relevant to Snowden for historical purposes but is relevant for Assange (another target) for very current reasons today following the UN decision on arbitrary detention. The original comment therefor seems pretty valid. Are you saying you don't think it is a valid comment dealing with the underlying issue because it's not restricted to purely Snowden?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

quadrangle 11y ago

Seeing a lot of people asking broader things about Snowden here, the main perspective to have on this is from Eben Moglen: http://snowdenandthefuture.info http://snowdenandthefuture.info cheers