The 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.
> And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom
I guess this headline is because The National (Scotland) is a Scottish national newspaper that might ride any horse if they see it as helping Scottish independence from the UK.
to provide some context on the newspaper that this article is on. The national is a newspaper specifically set up at the time of the Scottish Referendum to provide a more nationalist viewpoint to counter the perception that the mainstream UK media had a Unionist slant.
A minor quibble in that is was setup after the referendum to try to cater for the 45% of people who voted for Independence given that no daily paper in Scotland backed Independence.
I don't see why you quibble over the use of 'rendition,' then turn around and minimize the generally understood. If he was just being extradited via official and lawful process, shouldn't that be the term, rather than apparently grabbed via secret flights and skullduggery?
You also can't say what the intentions of the US government were regarding bringing Snowden back to US soil, and even if that were the case it doesn't seem to mean much especially as it seems the Chicago Police are operating a "black-site" on US soil in contravention of the Constitution.
In fact, I would say the evidence is far stronger for the supposition that Snowden was intended to be "extraordinarily" renditioned than simply and lawfully extradited and your post subjects are ill-argued.
You talk elsewhere in this thread about being charitable in your arguments. You are either being deliberately obtuse or distinctly uncharitable in this comment.
The GP (I believe) is making the point that the CIA doesn't hold a monopoly on abduction under color of law. Furthermore I think GP is questioning the assertion that this was not an extraordinary rendition mission, being that this seems not to fit the pattern of a simple extradition.
I see that some people disagree with that claim. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why they do not believe this is evidence.
Note in particular that I'm not claiming this as absolute proof, just that it's evidence. While one might argue over the weight that should be assigned to it, it seems sufficiently irregular that it should be hard to claim that it's not even evidence.
There's a [dead] comment below this complaining about the term 'extrajudicial'. The thing is that 'extrajudicial' means 'without benefit of legal process'. We don't really know what process might or might not have been followed had Snowden been captured. Given that forcing the plane down was both highly irregular and against treaties, however, it's hard to make a case that compliance with such things was seen as mandatory. But yes, to be fair, we don't actually know, we simply have evidence that points a certain direction.
There was some talk about a similar plane (the same one?) having received a landing permit in Copenhagen. Much of the content of the emails that would confirm this were redacted, but the parties involved (ie metadata, ironically enough) weren't and they were several rungs above the ladder over those who would normally have to approve landing permits.
That may very well be true. But in the absence of a publicly known flight plan, involving a plane that in the past has been used in a program that involved all kinds of human rights abuses, it seems worth assuming it is worth asking questions about.
Can you help me understand what it is about a specific piece of equipment having in the past been used for human rights abuse that makes it unsuitable for any future use? It would be one thing if the CIA had operated the flight, but this plane is known to have been transferred to the DOJ long before the flight to extradite Snowden.
Human psychology, the secrecy, the person targeted and the history of lies surrounding the rendition program.
There's nothing inherent about the plane that makes it unsuitable, but people should also be totally unsurprised that it contributes to making people ask extra questions about the flight.
They may have officially transferred the plane, but do you really think that means the CIA would have to stop operating it? I mean it is totally possible that they did, but I could see an equally possible scenario where they just "transfered" it for political cover.
Since the DOJ has been using it for all sorts of non-Snowden business (Google will show you this quickly), I'm not sure where this logic gets you; the same logic suggests any US plane could be a secret CIA plane. That's true, they all could. And?
It sounds like the CIA (and the Obama administration), drawing on past experience, got wise and figured the mission would look less "dirty" if it wasn't a spook plane, but a regular government-registered plane that actually came to pick Snowden up.
But the main point is that adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that some kind of a rendition operation was being planned.
Again: nobody doubts there was a "rendition" planned. Snowden had been indicted for multiple felonies. "Rendition" is what happens when someone is extradited.
It's the preponderance of the multiple factors (as cited in the article), along with the immediacy of the flight and the USG's well-documented predilection for pulling similar shenanigans for the sake of far lesser targets, that are sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion.
And it's the immediate dispatch of the plane which strongly suggests that the U.S. wasn't going to wait to go through normal judicial channels to pick up their target.
I would expect the US to have planned for how to perform such a kidnapping, because dealing with rogue agents in one way or another is very definitely someone's job. I would be amazed if there wasn't a report giving a number of options and pros and cons for each compiled—of course, how it was acted on is anyone's guess.
That would be having it both ways: Tptacek claims this isn't kidnapping because the plane is a DoJ asset, at least nominally. So it would not need DoD secrecy.
I wonder if there might be prosecutions in 30 years. That's long enough for people to come around and for the perpetrators to still be alive. If evaluated as a strictly criminal matter, these are the sorts of crimes that do not have a statute of limitations, though the fact they were official duties might activate one.
There's no precedent for that in American history, though, and while the CIA torture program was unmistakably evil, it's far from the worst thing that has happened in the US over the last 100 years.
They have a pretty nasty history in central and south America.
The CIA have been plugging away for decades, supporting right wing paramilitaries and anyone that could help them dissuade any kind of social of left leaning politics from their 'backyard', and they didn't care who died in the process.
Choosing Scotland over the more usual U.K. or British, is peculiar. It's like saying a Russian aircraft violated Alaskan airspace rather than US airspace. This choice is possibly indicative of other subsurface politics.
Eh. It's a Scottish newspaper, and the countries in the UK are quite different from the US states. Doubly more so for Scotland whose independence ambitions are well known. That said, the newspaper in question is pro-independence, but just choosing Scotland over UK is scarcely a sign of political bias.
Scotland is the UK. Scotland's airspace is managed by the UK central government. This is like saying "flying over Maine, rather than over the more typical USA, is suggestive of subsurface politics".
It's still a country, albeit one in increasingly reluctant political union with England. It would be rare for a Scot to refer to something as happening in the UK rather than specifically Scotland.
The legal system is independent and different to England and Wales for instance.
The nearest US equivalent would I guess be Puerto Rico rather than Maine.
I don't want to go far into the rabbit hole here but are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
I understand how they feel about themselves, or more specifically how roughly half of them feel, however, it's not how the world sees them, generally speaking. Chinese understand "the UK" Scotland, as an international political entity will get you sideways looks.
Foreign affairs and defence are UK wide so UN, NATO, EU etc are all UK representations. The UK is the international entity.
Scottish education, healthcare, and the legislature are independent, sometimes markedly so. Since the referendum they've gained somewhat limited control over taxation.
Even Scots who support the Union tend to see themselves as Scots rather than Brits. Meanwhile most English would rarely call themselves English, preferring British. :)
You're not going to find one magic rule that defines "a country". And I would particularly caution you against using "Does China think you are a country in your own right?" as the measuring stick - they have quite notable differences in this area when compared to others.
With a couple of exceptions, it's fairly straightforward. Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, does it issue passports, does it control import and export of goods, does it enter into international treaties?
Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes that.
You are assuming "country" and "sovereign state" are synonyms, but that isn't true in general. The word "country" is used to refer to the four first-level subdivisions of the UK - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - this is standard and well-established English usage (well, certainly standard British English). The concept of a sovereign state having subdivisions known as "countries" is not unique to the UK, as the following article attests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country
Scotland in particular is one of those exceptions.
There really is no one magic rule that says 'country vs no country' - even what you offered up is a collection of rules, where some rules catch edge cases that other rules don't.
I'm thinking more exceptions where military might and economic might are immediate threats whereas that's not the case most people would concede about Scotland.
> are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
FIFA, UEFA, World Rugby.
Regardless of the comparison with Alaska being flawed, I wouldn't see anything peculiar in an Alaskan newspaper referring to a Russian plane over Alaskan airspace, so I don't see an issue with Scottish people or entities referring to their country as Scotland.
Alaska and Maine have different legal systems too. Scotland is culturally considered a country, sure, but I'm curious whether that has any concrete meaning.
"country" in the UK has a meaning not entirely dissimilar to "state" in the US (in both cases, this is somewhat distinct from the usual use of the term internationally.)
Sure, what I meant to say was really "there is no concrete meaning to them being 'countries' as opposed to 'states' or 'autonomous/semi-sovereign provinces'".
The newspaper is implicitly arguing that if Scotland becomes independent enough to have their own air authority, they would be able to prevent those. “Look what is happening in your name that you disagree with.”
Yes but it's a political subdivision of the U.K. if the plane flew over one of the Swiss cantons, we don't mention the canton, we mention the main superdivisional entity, typically. It sounds peculiar. It's not wrong, but it's non standard.
Airspace is the dominion of the central government, not the political subdivisions, just like territorial waters.
To add: "flying over" is descriptive, "airspace" is a geopolitical term, in this context. Hence the question. But now I understand it's a pro indep publication.
Yes, as noted in a sibling comment, The National is a Scottish newspaper that leans towards Scottish devolution/independence. That they would take a chance to jab at "London" is no surprise.
What should have happen is that the US should be banned in all eternity from any kind of rendition, "extraordinary" or otherwise and the plane put up on the white house lawn as a permanent object of shame.
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.