[Nakura]

I'll give you the short version for the sake of this thread. The United States and several European countries have forced the president of Bolivia to land his plane in Vienna (Austria), claiming that Edward Snowden is on board. For those of you who don't know, Snowden is the whistle-blower who revealed that the federal government is unconstitutionally spying on American citizens and foreign nationals. This comes after the United States government threatened to cut off aid and trade arrangements with Ecuador, who had previously announced they would accept Snowden's request for asylum.

The Austrian government claims that Snowden isn't on board, but Spain insists they will continue to deny the Bolivian president passage over their airspace until they can investigate the plane themselves. Meanwhile many South American leaders are expressing outrage towards the United States and Europe over this incident. A summit for the Union of South American states has been called to address the issue.

The story is still developing, you can follow it here: http://guardiannews.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

[Black Wolf]

I saw this before and I still haven't seen the basic question answered - why do they need to go through French or Spanish airspace at all? Germany isn't blocking them, nor is the UK, so file a new flight plan, swing north, head into the north sea, overfly the UK and head down the Atlantic. Or head south into Slovenia or Hungary and head out over Africa. They have a plane FFS.

[Bobboau]

it's the principal of the thing.

[Aardwolf]

What were they hoping to accomplish by preventing the plan from going over those countries? Were they worried Snowden would jump out on a parachute? Were they hoping to make an impenetrable wall of off-limits countries, so there would be no path back to Bolivia? In which case, were they seriously willing to shoot down the president of Bolivia in order to enforce it?

Wtf 'Merica?

[Black Wolf]

it's the principal of the thing.

I would have thought it would have been a better symbol to the old colonial master to just be all "**** you, I do what I want" and fly around them, but whatever.

[swashmebuckle]

Man, that's just sad. Government trying to spoil my 4th of July again

[NGTM-1R]

Wtf 'Merica?

Sovereign right of a country to deny entry includes airspace, you realize that right? They don't want him, and don't want to associate with him. (And don't want somebody diverting on a possible declared emergency.)

[Gray113]

I notice that these countries were all very happy to allow CIA rendition flights to pass through their airspace.....

[NGTM-1R]

I notice that innuendo and insinuations of 51st statehood isn't a useful contribution to the topic at hand.

[Gray113]

but a recognition of double standards and hypocrisy is

[Luis Dias]

That's not even an innuendo, but basic fact reporting. We all know that the worst shape these countries are, the more they will bow to the powers that be. And that mostly means the Germans and the US.

Given however how Snowden revealed how incredibly the US is spying on the UE, you would think they would close their eyes to Snowden passing through their own airspace, but the slave mentality is still too strong. Notice how the Germans aren't even news here. I bet they were just like "Oh, Snowden is passing in our airspace? Wave and say hi, yall!"

[NGTM-1R]

but a recognition of double standards and hypocrisy is

Or you could notice that in revealing this he's also damaged their interests because the programs incidentally happen to reveal their own programs that do everything the NSA does, and possibly more, since most of these countries don't have the same level of privacy protection.

So basically you're not educated in what is actually legal in Europe vs. the US here. Luis is showing the same problem.

[Gray113]

In both these examples it has been a case of the US government breaking International law and the European countries in question have actively aided US interests. (Breaking international law themselves in the case of aiding the transit of rendition flights)

Snowden is alledged to have broken the law in the United states by exposing the US governments Illegal activities however if he has not actually been convicted of these crimes in a court of law then any country can grant his asylum request. (something that Bolivia has not done yet as far as I am aware)

The stopping the president of a neutral country from traversing your airspace at the behest of a foreign power based on bad intelligence is legal. It as also morally questionable and will have caused all of the countries involved  (France and the US in particular) to lose a great deal of international good will and respect, especially in South America. How can these countries now attempt to lecture other countries on international rights and obligations when they themselves have been proven to be acting against them?

[Luis Dias]

but a recognition of double standards and hypocrisy is

Or you could notice that in revealing this he's also damaged their interests because the programs incidentally happen to reveal their own programs that do everything the NSA does, and possibly more, since most of these countries don't have the same level of privacy protection.

So basically you're not educated in what is actually legal in Europe vs. the US here. Luis is showing the same problem.

That's a very good point that I completely overlooked, however I have no knowledge of these ulterior programs so I'll abstain to comment further about this. I'll just keep smiling at the carelessness that the Germans obviously deployed here. "Oh there goes the Snowden... what can we do about it? Let's think for a few more hours now, perhaps the problem will just go away by itself..."

[MP-Ryan]

This whole Snowden debacle makes me chuckle.  I have no doubt that certain members of the US administration and intelligence community would like to apply some of their knowledge of extraordinary rendition or 'disappearance' to Mr. Snowden, nor that they could do so in short order if they wanted.  Unfortunately for them, he did everything right in making his public profile - and general whereabouts - well known.  The optics of either choice would sink the US government.

While I'd hardly be surprised if a black bag and plastic cuffs and/or a bullet is in Mr. Snowden's long-term future if he does keep himself from being legally extradited for now, the whole present situation is quite the farce.  Much as I think Snowden's release hurts strategic interests of the US by handing sensitive information to strategic enemies on a platter and revealing PRISM to the world, I'm actually kind of cheering for the guy.

[Luis Dias]

Oh sure. Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. You know the thing about chaos? It’s fair!

[NGTM-1R]

In both these examples it has been a case of the US government breaking International law and the European countries in question have actively aided US interests. (Breaking international law themselves in the case of aiding the transit of rendition flights)

The problem is that while the rendition thing is illegal, reading your email as it crosses the border is actually perfectly legal. (And keep in mind the ideas of the Fourth Amendment are still regarded as deliriously weird in most countries of the world, even in Europe.)

Opening people's mail if it crosses borders is an old and oddly respected practice. It was endemic to Europe for hundreds of years, and literally every such letter that crossed German or German-occupied soil in WW2 was opened, yet you'll notice it wasn't charged at Nuremburg because it wasn't against any law. This is because the right of a country to control their borders for goods, people, and communication is considered sacrosanct, and the first step to control is knowing what's actually coming in and out. The only communication exempt from that is communication which passes under diplomatic seal.

[MP-Ryan]

[The problem is that while the rendition thing is illegal, reading your email as it crosses the border is actually perfectly legal. (And keep in mind the ideas of the Fourth Amendment are still regarded as deliriously weird in most countries of the world, even in Europe.)

Actually, Common Law provides for guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure in all nations based upon it.  A number of them have a similar clause in their Constitutions.

What non-Americans regard as delirious about the 4th Amendment is the case law application of it, which evidence introducing absolute certainty of guilt is excluded from court entirely without discretion because of a rights violation.  Most other countries do a balancing act on the issue, wherein if non-admission of evidence, even if illegally gathered, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (Canadian wording), the evidence is in.

Opening people's mail if it crosses borders is an old and oddly respected practice. It was endemic to Europe for hundreds of years, and literally every such letter that crossed German or German-occupied soil in WW2 was opened, yet you'll notice it wasn't charged at Nuremburg because it wasn't against any law. This is because the right of a country to control their borders for goods, people, and communication is considered sacrosanct, and the first step to control is knowing what's actually coming in and out. The only communication exempt from that is communication which passes under diplomatic seal.

True, and legally justified under international customs laws.  Correspondence receives no protections beyond any other goods when it crosses the border - it's subject to inspection, same as any other good.  This is why Customs can and will search your papers, your electronic devices, and your computers.

[Nakura]

They should just refuel and depart from Austria and fly over Spain, just to show them that they're not going to be bullied by a bunch of thugs. It's not like Spain would shoot down the plane of a world leader.

[NGTM-1R]

They should just refuel and depart from Austria and fly over Spain, just to show them that they're not going to be bullied by a bunch of thugs. It's not like Spain would shoot down the plane of a world leader.

It is entirely possible for Spain to force the aircraft down in that circumstance, without the use of actual violence, and they would be well within their rights to do so. (It's even pretty easy to do with only a couple of other aircraft.) Then they arrest everyone involved who doesn't have any diplomatic standing and revoke the ability of any aircraft originating in that country or belonging to a carrier in that country and it's all kind of a mess. Even if they allow the overflight, they'd probably still do the latter on the grounds that if you won't obey the rules you're a danger to others.