
Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden - inderm
http://www.thenational.scot/news/secret-us-flight-flew-over-scottish-airspace-to-capture-snowden.13226
======
grandalf
If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US
Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable.

If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the
inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or
impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the
bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly.

But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are
simply out of control.

Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most
private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now
his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by
those wishing to thwart accountability measures.

Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question
the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion?

It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and
suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run
aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US.

A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps
to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the
chilling effect on journalists.

When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked
information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and
billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations
had.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
> A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps
> to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the
> chilling effect on journalists.

There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and
_also_ supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a
presidential candidate.

Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it
still needs major reform." [3]

[1]
[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201)

[2] [http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-
protect-...](http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-
neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-
utility)

[3] [http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-
act/](http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/)

~~~
vonklaus
link [1] is down, in fact several links at senate.gov are down. I don't want
to say your claim is disingenuous because you did throw a caveat in there,
however Rand Paul did not support handing the internet off to the FCC to
regulate if we want to call that defensible. He did however publicly rail
against the freedom act and tried to fillibuster it though ultimately that
failed.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. You're right though, Rand
Paul did _a lot_ to fight the "Freedom" Act.

~~~
vonklaus
> My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders.

I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On
balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of
pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he
has been consistently vocal about them.

Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well.

edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him
out.

------
tptacek
_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.

~~~
halviti
To me I could really care less what the plane was used for in the past.

A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain
wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.

~~~
tjohns
Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight.
It's an extremely common occurrence.

(Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I
just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)

~~~
raverbashing
You are right

However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.

~~~
niccaluim
I wouldn't be so sure. Not a lot of weather at FL450, and in the UK that's
Class C airspace, not Class A like it is in the States.

~~~
bobinator606
Even in Class C in UK airspace, you need a clearance.

------
doe88
_Not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker. -- Obama 6
/27/13_

[http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama...](http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama-
not-scrambling-jets-to-get-nsa-leaker-snowden?lite)

He's true though, it wasn't jets.

~~~
wavefunction
Well, it's likely it was a jet airplane as the altitude of the flight was
45,000. I suppose in this usage it was implied to be fighter-jets.

~~~
deelowe
It's amazing to witness the gift of gap that high level politicians possess.
Obama says "not going to scramble jets."

What the public assumes he means:

\- "Three letter agencies and the military won't be conducting clandestine
operations to proactively seek out and remove Snowden from a foreign country."

What he actually means:

\- Quite literally, he's saying that they won't be sending fighter jets to go
blow up Snowden. Of course that would be silly and not make any sense
whatsoever, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what he was referring
to.

~~~
pakled_engineer
As an aside a good example of this politically evasive precision in speaking
was Clinton's famous "I did not inhale" line when confronted if he had ever
used marijuana. His answer was true, he's allergic to smoke and was well known
around campus for baking/eating marijuana not inhaling it.

Speaking of Clinton and document leaks, next time Hillary Clinton is asked
about the classified email server scandal take note of her precise replies, it
is impressive how politicians can fire out precise answers when pressured to
both deflect and deny accusations and protect themselves at the same time by
later claiming precision.

------
TeMPOraL
One thing I don't understand - why would the US care? Why expend resources on
trying to capture Snowden? He's basically harmless at this point - he's passed
all the information he had to few journalists (which would be a better target
now) and there's no way anyone will ever let him near anything more secret
than grandma's cookies recipe. Besides petty vengeance, what's the point?

~~~
danielvf
Four reasons off the top of my head:

1\. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside
sponsorship.

2\. There's no guarantee that all the information that he took was released
publicly. It would be helpful to know the extent of what was taken, and who
else knows it.

3\. It would be helpful to know what other intelligence services have asked
him/taken from him.

4 "To encourage the others"

~~~
finid
> 1\. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside
> sponsorship.

That has been debated and put to rest.

Our elected officials initially tried to say he was a Russian spy, but could
not provide any evidence to support the claim.

If he were a foreign asset, like for the Russians, for example, he would not
have acted the way he did. In fact, his handlers would have preferred that he
continued to operate in secret and continue to feed them as much info as he
can.

------
vlunkr
I really hope they pardon him eventually. I could be wrong, but don't most
americans support what he did?

EDIT: you are probably all correct, plenty of people don't understand/care who
he is or what he stands for. I still wish the government would recognize that
the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and he called them out on it.

~~~
ghrifter
Most "tech savvy" people support him and how he made us aware of the NSA bs,
but a lot of normal people who just watch the news view him as a "traitor" to
'Murica (America).

Sadly, people think "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the
government/NSA monitors my internet usage/history/etc".

Personally, I think the terrorists have won in a small sense. TSA is a joke
(American airport security), NSA monitors everything so nothing is really
secure, backdoors are built into all devices, encryption across several
companies is being questioned because "terrorists" use it (even though the
Paris attacks communication were over SMS).

Edit: typos

~~~
tptacek
I don't think it's particularly charitable to caricature people who don't
support Snowden as being jingoist "'muricans". In fact, the term "'murica" is
pretty classist; even the word itself mocks the accents of flyover country.

There is a serious, defensible, coherent argument against what Snowden did.
You don't have to be a low-information cable news consumer to agree with it,
nor do you have to believe that "if you have nothing to hide surveillance is
no problem".

(To put my biases on the table: I understand what he did better, I think, than
most HN people, and think the ideal outcome would be a felony conviction and
an immediately commuted sentence; thus far, I think he's done more good than
harm, but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened
in exactly that way again.)

~~~
FireBeyond
"but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in
exactly that way again.)"

I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 had never -had- to happen
in any way.

~~~
tptacek
That's also true, but orthogonal to what I'm saying.

~~~
throwawaymaroon
The point is that you've put the criticism on the person in the situation
(Snowden) instead of the people/system that created the situation.

There isn't any perfect way, in the eyes of the state, to deal with a police
state _because it 's a police state_.

------
otterley
The article isn't very clear on an important point: What evidence is there to
indicate that the flight was made _for the purpose of capturing Snowden_?

------
yodsanklai
I have slightly off-topic question. Did the surveillance program revealed by
Snowden violate constitution? if so, has anyone sued the gvt for it?

~~~
empyrical
There was a lawsuit, but it got dismissed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA)

------
gchokov
FYI, the plane was "Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream V" flying above 45000ft.
Impressive plane.

------
13thLetter
Attention, Americans in this comments section: even though you're complaining
now, if you guys obediently line up to re-elect the party doing this come
November, _you are part of the problem._

~~~
krapp
Are you implying the next Republican president will put a stop to it? That's
what the partisan argument in your comment seems to imply.

Which comes down to probably Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump... I don't
see that happening.

~~~
13thLetter
I am not implying anything. I am straight up stating that if you don't throw
the bastards out, they will never learn.

If you actually care about policy instead of about avoiding the hated
outgroup, your relationship with politicians needs to be transactional. If
they don't deliver, find another one, even if said politician is (gasp!
shock!) not a Democrat. I would recommend the same, by the way, to Republicans
who are upset that the Congressional GOP isn't cutting spending. Vote them out
of power, it's the only way to get your point through.

------
slr555
The range of a Gulfstream V is about 6500 miles. Given that fact the jet could
have easily flown without entering UK airspace at all. The Gulfstream V also
has an initial cruising altitude of 41,000 feet with a max of 51,000 feet.
45,000 feet may be high for a commercial jet but the G5 cruises comfortably at
that altitude. Given these facts I am not sure why the CIA would create the
exposure flying over the UK would create. My guess is they have heard of
flight aware and know a transponder does.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
There's safety restrictions for flight paths - in case of sudden engine
failure, you want the plane to be able to glide to an airfield or other
inhabited areas that you can get rescued from.

I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be
sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or
Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.

~~~
slr555
That makes sense but there are so many transpacific routes that spend huge
stretches of time over open water that I am not sure it is even feasible for
all commercial flights. CIA SAD/SOG operations likely have a much broader risk
envelope.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Further brief research suggests it's "flight time with one failed engine"
that's a constraint, somewhere between 60 and 180 minutes, depending on how
the plane is certified. The Gulfstream 5 is a twin-engine aircraft, which
makes it more awkward for crossing large bodies of water. For long-distance
flights, you're more likely to be on a four-engine plane, which has more
lenient safety margins in case of engine failure.

That said, the Pacific has a good chunk of diversion airports available as
well.

------
TheRealDunkirk
I don't know what they were afraid of. They've been able to get the media to
be reserved enough in their judgements and reporting that no elected officials
have felt the pressure to do anything, and, therefore, nothing has changed. As
I read elsewhere recently: What happens when the government has perfect
clarity on everything everyone does, when we're all guilty of "3 felonies a
day?"

------
BuckRogers
The UK knew. They just aren't going to answer to Alex Salmond.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Shouldn't that be "British" airspace? If the Scots don't like it, they should
declare independence (but that failed) and maybe build an air defense network
to shoot down unidentified possible CIA rendition jets (not very feasible).

~~~
vidarh
It is both British airspace and Scottish airspace. Scotland is formally a
constituent country of the United Kingdom, with it's own devolved government.
And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign
policy or defence (and several other areas), it does have a legitimate
interest in asking questions of the UK government if they feel there is a
possibility that what the UK government has allowed is not in the interest of
Scotland.

There's very little they can _do_ about it, unless there's an indication that
a law has been broken. But there's plenty of room for political point scoring.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
"And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign
policy or defence" That's pretty much it.

------
kchoudhu
Is there anyone naive enough to think that the US government would turn the
other cheek after getting egg all over its face? Of _course_ they made
extraordinary efforts to capture Snowden before he got away.

------
ctstover
Four legs good, two legs bad! Snuff him out!

~~~
pekk
Are you really saying that the US government is Stalinist?

~~~
ctstover
Stalinist, no. Mob culture? Lost its way? Disconnected from history? yes.

------
oneJob
Not my government.

------
gnu8
The people on that airplane ought to be in prison and rightfully deserve to be
killed. They have no doubt flown out countless times to kidnap people who they
proceeded to torture and kill, or deliver to others to torture and kill. Worse
still, those people are walking around as civilians in the United States as if
they had done nothing wrong.

I'm nauseated to think that these people are free. Anyone in a position to
leak their identities so that they can be dealt with should consider it their
moral obligation to do so.

~~~
dang
> _rightfully deserve to be killed_

You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about
the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please
don't do it again.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
wangii
Just wondering if EU going to give Obama another Nobel prize.

------
Shivetya
I have no problem with the US filing a criminal complain against Snowden and
dispatching a plane to pick him up. I have an entirely big problem with the US
government using shadow planes or whatever they want to call them to act on
it.

If there is a public filing of a criminal charge all following actions need to
be out in the open and "above the board". This cloak and dagger shit screams
"you don't have rights if you piss us off" is something the Administration
should have changed from day one but instead they just doubled down on it.

