Bolivian Leader's Plane Rerouted on Snowden Fear(nytimes.com) |
Bolivian Leader's Plane Rerouted on Snowden Fear(nytimes.com) |
It's absolutely shocking.
But France? What could possibly be the motive other than bending to pressure from the US?
Now they deny right-of-passage to a flight carrying the president of Bolivia. Because? Well, you know, doing otherwise would upset the American authorities. It's realpolitik.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Portug...
I just hope that Americans realise this and demand change sooner than later.
The core piece in dampening a desire for change, in my thinking anyway, is the two-party system. Both parties are complicit and supportive of all this nonsense by an overwhelming internal majority. Outliers who join third parties are historically unsuccessful and outliers as candidates within the Democratic and Republican parties are rare. Even if you are lucky enough to have the chance to vote for someone radically pro-transparency or pro-privacy in federal election, the following still apply:
1. They are likely new, and years away from being in a leadership position of an important committee (where real accountability and change might begin).
2. They often fall into line over time. If they buck the party too often, too publicly and on too central of an issue, it is possible that the party will support them less in future national elections.
3. Any legislation they introduce, if acceptable at all, might well be diluted by amendments and through the committee process. Our congress appears slow and deadlocked because, it is in some ways designed to be. That is not me saying I agree with that design decision, but again just shining a light on the point.
The two-party system is a barrier to expressing (electorally) desire for change beyond a certain delta from the status quo. A multi-party system, though it might be fraught with other issues, would go some distance toward representing more varied sets of concerns.
The US is intimidating. It has made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate by waging wars of extermination against them, it is a quarter of the world economy by itself, its military black budget is almost certainly larger than anyone else's open budget and its open budget is greater than the rest of the world's military budget summed.
The US is the global hegemon. Russia, China and maybe Iran are independent of it. The US does not truly view the rest of the world as sovereigns but as subjects.
Curious, then, how many Chinese and Russians there are yet. Is the US inefficient, or are you reaching a bit? And the US can be disgustingly good buddies with non-democratic governments: the Greek and Argentine juntas, various Middle Eastern states.
What about all of the dictatorships that the US created or propped up? Saudi Arabia, Iran pre revolution, Panama under Noriega, etc?
I agree with a lot of your post, but it wasn't anything the US government did that made all non-democratic forms of government illegitimate. They have all been illegitimate since the very first time a gang of stronger men beat and killed a weaker one just because they could.
As Snowden says, they want to intimidate the next leaker.
Radio exchange at http://audioboo.fm/boos/1482009-bolivia-air-force-fuerza-aer...
It says the plane was allowed to land in Spain for refueling before flying on to Austria.
It describes the rerouting as a "hostile act" by the US goverment: This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments"
I don't know what went on exactly but all that re-routing a plane with Snowden on it does for the U.S. is... nothing, really. It's not like they're going to stop them from going to Bolivia, and some kind of blackbag shenanigans while the plane refuels on the runway would lead to much more international outcry than I think either Obama or Kerry would want to accept.
Even if we assume some kind of Darth Obama type nonsense I just don't see where this would have any upside for the U.S., which makes it seem a little implausible... even Obama has to be smarter than that.
Edit: As far as the transcript the possibility would make sense if it was a charter flight and not a Bolivian aircrew. It would still be quite insane for the U.S. to ask for that or any of the countries to participate though.
2. Portugal and France don't control airspace needed to fly from Spain to Bolivia. Neither do they control airspace needed or very desirable to fly between Austria and Bolivia.
3. Therefore what we are hearing now is not likely to be the real story.
During the Azores summit, while Bush, Blair and Aznar discussed the Iraq invasion, our PM (Barroso - yeah, the guy from the EU) was more than happy to be their busboy and serve drinks while the Great Leaders talked.
Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high...
The economy and state security are both suffering from a hugely captured Congress. The flip side is that regaining control of our legislators would mean solving myriad problems at once. Or at least, starting to address them in ways that make sense to and for the people.
Breaking this hold isn't a one shot deal. Rather, it requires dismantling four interlocking institutions which have, in combination, the toxic effect we're becoming acutely aware of.
Specifically, we need to open closed primaries, end partisan redistricting, switch from private campaign finance to public, and brick up the revolving door between the public and private sectors by placing a lifetime hellban on future employment of public officials by any private interest they've overseen.
Obviously, these reforms will make a stint in public office far less lucrative than it is right now, so there is a zero percent chance that Congress will initiate them freely. That means support for these reforms must become the primary condition for winning elected office in the first place.
I have no idea how to get a critical mass of Americans to single-mindedly enforce this condition. But I can't think of any other way for them to recover an essential measure of control over Congress. So that's the problem in a nutshell.
The key is legitimate. Are there any dictatorships that don't even make a nod towards the idea of popular sovereignty? Any states where someone could say "L'etat, cest moi."?
As far as Panama goes, the US's Warsaw Pact.
Are there strong jet streams or something which would cause it to choose a different route?
Neither might nor popularity makes right.
You decide which seems more plausible.
I am old enough to have lived through the Pentagon Papers disclosures, when a lot of people were calling for the execution of Daniel Ellesberg. Now, only right wing whackos don't acknowledge that Ellesberg served interests of US citizens.
EDIT: I am not being critical of you. I appreciate your comment, thanks.
Compare this situation to a British citizen a few years ago who sold sensitive state secrets for money, and got the MAXIMUM PENALTY by UK law: 2 years in prison. Snowden who rightly or wrongly is acting from I believe are his own moral goals, may get the death penalty, tortured like Manning, or life in prison.
"desperately wanted fugitive"? I am curious about you, and why you use a phrase like this. Seriously, please explain your position on this.
But I'm not sure why you're confused. You disagree that he is a wanted fugitive? Or with my characterization that he's "desperately" wanted? I think the US would very much like him to return and face charges.
I am confused by responses such as yours that only consider Snowden and not the public release of information about the NSA. I don't argue that Snowden should not get a year in jail after a fair trial. I personally think he has done the world a service and should get a walk, but a minimal jail sentence would be fair.
The NSA leaks are a big deal, and I believe an opportunity for our country to get its act together. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
So, I assume that you don't agree that our government would coerce foreign politicians. I wish that I could agree with you, but I can't.
"Those who tell us to trust the US's secret, privatised surveillance schemes should recall the criminality of J Edgar Hoover's FBI."
-Barret Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-in...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/surveill...