12 ms·

The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would

The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would indisputably have done so. The choice to land in Austria was a political decision.

vkou 5y ago
What the pilot chose to do in the situation has no bearing on what France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain did, and whether they should have done it. I will ask again - do you think it is appropriate for countries to disrupt third party, commercial air travel, in order to force travelers down into a jurisdiction where they can make political arrests? It's a very simple, yes, or no question.
- comex 5y ago
  Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.
  - vkou 5y ago
    You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.
    - relativ575 5y ago
      > I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. Why does it matter that the intent is the same? Victim of a crime obviously intends to punish the criminal, but there is much difference between taking the matter in one's own hands and relying on the justice system. Can't you see the difference? > So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? You accused the GP of speculation, yet you're doing exactly that here. How do you know that Morales incident was to capture Snowden? It could have been just a political message to deter those who were thinking of harboring Snowden, especially if they weren't sure he was onboard. They weren't forced to land in Vienna. The plane could have come back to Russia. Perhaps they did what they did for their own PR game.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    It’s relevant to the original post. Do you think it’s appropriate?
adamjb 5y ago
The Dassault Falcon 900EX doesn't have enough range to get from Moscow to Bolivia. It might've had enough fuel to get across the Atlantic, but only if they were planning on refueling in the US or Canada after making a large deviation from the direct route. I think it's most likely they were planning on making a fuel stop somewhere in the old world and were carrying an amount of fuel commensurate with that. edit: Yep, according to Portugal they initially requested a fuel stop in Lisbon before they were grounded. When they ultimately left Vienna they refueled at the Canary Islands. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live#block-51d43c1ce4b03a793030bb0e https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden...
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Even Lisbon to La Paz is pushing it at 8670km. Their plane doesn't have winglets, so its range is max 8300km. Not sure if that's fully loaded or best-case scenario. Good thing they went to the Canary Islands. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lis-lpb&DU=km http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lis-lpb&DU=km Or maybe they planned another tech stop in the Americas.
  - emn13 5y ago
    A more plausible Portuguese refueling stop could have been the azores, those are sort of close to half-way between moscow and la paz, and both legs of that journey are well within the 900EX's range.
Scoundreller 5y ago
> The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic Maybe to Canada or USA, but their presence over Austria was already inoptimal for that. I suspect they were planning on a european tech stop anyway. The long range Dassault version with the extra winglet option can do 8800km. Moscow to La Paz is 12500. A stop in Lisbon would just barely let them make it direct to Bolivia. Otherwise they'd have to stop in Gander or NYC. Definitely not Miami. edit: No winglets, so 8300km range (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9436252 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9436252) What was their flight plan? I can guess why it was necessary to interrupt them while over landlocked Europe if they really wanted to search the plane. If you let them get to Portugal or Spain and then denied them landing/passage, they could always exit to Africa. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lpb&DU=km http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lpb&DU=km >it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. We can never really know if they legally could because we don't know if they would receive transit approval back over Austria's neighbours or just remain trapped in an obviously coordinated program to deny passage.
- emn13 5y ago
  He may well have been heading to the Azores, which are in range to both La Paz and Moscow, and would explain the bits of the story about the Portuguese denying a refueling stop. If Evo Morales wanted to fly back to Moscow, they would have requested clearance to return, and that would have been part of the scandal. He did not ask. Also, don't forget that being victimized by imperialist forces is pretty much exactly what Evo Morales wanted; it supports his political persona perfectly. And indeed, he used the incident to his political advantage. Incidentally: just because it's plausible this was a set up by Evo Morales doesn't diminish the impropriety of denying overflight; but it does mean I'm skeptical of all the speculation beyond that; it's just too convenient. Frankly, it's rather convenient that apparently American intelligence agencies thought Snowden was on the plane in the first place - and given Morales statements beforehand on national Russian TV, it's at least conceivable even that was an intentional misdirection. I mean, make no mistake - the hounding of Snowden for exposing US hypocrisy is a travesty; and the lengths to which the US was willing to go to recapture him too. But just because the US actions were the opposite of noble does not somehow mean Evo Morales was entirely on the level.
ric2b 5y ago
And what if after going across the Atlantic other countries also restrict your air travel? I guess then you have 2 options: - Crash into the ocean - Enter unauthorized airspace and be shot down But sure, it was just a "choice".

vkou 5y ago

What the pilot chose to do in the situation has no bearing on what France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain did, and whether they should have done it. I will ask again - do you think it is appropriate for countries to disrupt third party, commercial air travel, in order to force travelers down into a jurisdiction where they can make political arrests? It's a very simple, yes, or no question.

comex 5y ago
Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.
- vkou 5y ago
  You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.
  - relativ575 5y ago
    > I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. Why does it matter that the intent is the same? Victim of a crime obviously intends to punish the criminal, but there is much difference between taking the matter in one's own hands and relying on the justice system. Can't you see the difference? > So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? You accused the GP of speculation, yet you're doing exactly that here. How do you know that Morales incident was to capture Snowden? It could have been just a political message to deter those who were thinking of harboring Snowden, especially if they weren't sure he was onboard. They weren't forced to land in Vienna. The plane could have come back to Russia. Perhaps they did what they did for their own PR game.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  It’s relevant to the original post. Do you think it’s appropriate?

adamjb 5y ago

The Dassault Falcon 900EX doesn't have enough range to get from Moscow to Bolivia. It might've had enough fuel to get across the Atlantic, but only if they were planning on refueling in the US or Canada after making a large deviation from the direct route. I think it's most likely they were planning on making a fuel stop somewhere in the old world and were carrying an amount of fuel commensurate with that. edit: Yep, according to Portugal they initially requested a fuel stop in Lisbon before they were grounded. When they ultimately left Vienna they refueled at the Canary Islands. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live#block-51d43c1ce4b03a793030bb0e https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden...

Scoundreller 5y ago
Even Lisbon to La Paz is pushing it at 8670km. Their plane doesn't have winglets, so its range is max 8300km. Not sure if that's fully loaded or best-case scenario. Good thing they went to the Canary Islands. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lis-lpb&DU=km http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lis-lpb&DU=km Or maybe they planned another tech stop in the Americas.
- emn13 5y ago
  A more plausible Portuguese refueling stop could have been the azores, those are sort of close to half-way between moscow and la paz, and both legs of that journey are well within the 900EX's range.

Scoundreller 5y ago

> The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic Maybe to Canada or USA, but their presence over Austria was already inoptimal for that. I suspect they were planning on a european tech stop anyway. The long range Dassault version with the extra winglet option can do 8800km. Moscow to La Paz is 12500. A stop in Lisbon would just barely let them make it direct to Bolivia. Otherwise they'd have to stop in Gander or NYC. Definitely not Miami. edit: No winglets, so 8300km range (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9436252 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9436252) What was their flight plan? I can guess why it was necessary to interrupt them while over landlocked Europe if they really wanted to search the plane. If you let them get to Portugal or Spain and then denied them landing/passage, they could always exit to Africa. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lpb&DU=km http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dme-lpb&DU=km >it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. We can never really know if they legally could because we don't know if they would receive transit approval back over Austria's neighbours or just remain trapped in an obviously coordinated program to deny passage.

emn13 5y ago
He may well have been heading to the Azores, which are in range to both La Paz and Moscow, and would explain the bits of the story about the Portuguese denying a refueling stop. If Evo Morales wanted to fly back to Moscow, they would have requested clearance to return, and that would have been part of the scandal. He did not ask. Also, don't forget that being victimized by imperialist forces is pretty much exactly what Evo Morales wanted; it supports his political persona perfectly. And indeed, he used the incident to his political advantage. Incidentally: just because it's plausible this was a set up by Evo Morales doesn't diminish the impropriety of denying overflight; but it does mean I'm skeptical of all the speculation beyond that; it's just too convenient. Frankly, it's rather convenient that apparently American intelligence agencies thought Snowden was on the plane in the first place - and given Morales statements beforehand on national Russian TV, it's at least conceivable even that was an intentional misdirection. I mean, make no mistake - the hounding of Snowden for exposing US hypocrisy is a travesty; and the lengths to which the US was willing to go to recapture him too. But just because the US actions were the opposite of noble does not somehow mean Evo Morales was entirely on the level.

ric2b 5y ago

And what if after going across the Atlantic other countries also restrict your air travel? I guess then you have 2 options: - Crash into the ocean - Enter unauthorized airspace and be shot down But sure, it was just a "choice".