
CIA planned rendition operation to kidnap Edward Snowden - kushti
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/01/30/snow-j30.html
======
BWStearns
Seeing as how the US has an extradition treaty with Denmark (and most/all? of
Europe) I'm having a hard time understanding why this is being described as a
"rendition operation". I think a lot of what Snowden did was good and just,
but I don't see the US government attempting to arrest him abroad as being
nefarious. I don't think it's a serious expectation to hold to demand that the
government not try to arrest him. That's why whistleblowing is brave.

Whistleblowing protections that extend to what Snowden did would effectively
convert the entire classification system to a set of recommendations as
opposed to laws (a wholly different demand which I think is patently childish
as a demand).

I'm all for a pardon or some kind of reduced charges due to the motivations
and the subject matter of the disclosed material, but can someone explain to
me the justification of being outraged over enforcing laws in accordance with
US law, treaties, and host country laws? They're not even using controversial
legal mechanisms like the PATRIOT Act or FISC.

EDIT: I've left my initial post in tact (I'm bad and I should feel bad) but
I'd like to amend my confusion about the use of the term rendition in case
anyone else shares it. After years of hearing "extraordinary rendition"
shortened to "rendition" I've basically overwritten the latter with the
former. Rendition is actually just the legal transfer of a suspect from one
jurisdiction to the next, still outside of a legal linguistic context I find
the use of the term to imply the later and I take it as trying to bait
outrage.

~~~
ryanlol
Generally there's this thing called "due process", if they were just planning
on putting Snowden on a CIA plane I really can't see how that's supposed to be
okay.

~~~
at-fates-hands
If the CIA wanted to grab him, they could, regardless of where he is.

The fact that it might ruffle a few feathers diplomatically is hardly
something the CIA considers when they handle operations like the one they're
describing. Also, if they _did_ grab him, trust me, he wouldn't be heard from
again. Considering Snowden has an army of governments after him, it would be
easy for the CIA to run a disinformation campaign to keep people guessing who
really kidnapped him.

It would be easy for the CIA to rotate him between several of their "black
sites" around the world and basically let him wither and die in one these
miserable places.

~~~
ryanlol
It'll look pretty bad when the headline is "Six CIA operatives killed, three
captured in Moscow trying to abduct Snowden"

~~~
DominikR
I really doubt that the Russians would kill CIA operatives.

At least as long as the CIA operatives are not crazy enough to run an armed
operation in Moscow.

~~~
jeletonskelly
Spies generally operate under diplomatic cover and are returned to the embassy
after being caught since they have "diplomatic immunity." Then they fly home,
have their alias changed, and never return to that country. Killing a
diplomat, spy or not, would cause some huge issues between the two nations
involved. So, no, countries are not likely to ever kill spies.

~~~
sangnoir
There's a difference between spies & gun-toting operatives. Spies usually work
under diplomatic cover, but operatives (think seal team six) probably don't
get their passports stamped when they enter a country.

------
poolloop
The original danish article (link below) has a comment section. One user asks
where the documentation is for saying that the flight was intended for S. The
author replies, that he specifically asked the Ministry of Justice for
information on the flight for, and information on rendition of, S. and that
these documents where then released (partly censored). Which is also written
in the article itself.

[https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-
for...](https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-for-at-hapse-
snowden/)

S. has since then made a tweet on this article, which is probably why all the
other posts are now to be found on other sites from all over the world.

~~~
krapp
Are you afraid something bad will happen if you type Snowden's name?

~~~
poolloop
And why am I getting downvotes? Are you afraid of the truth?

~~~
krapp
I'm not the one downvoting you, and none of your comments are that
controversial, so I don't know, and no.

------
vonklaus
Obviously. Look, I disagree with virtually all of what the CIA is doing, but
day one Snowden was pretty up front about this. "There is a CIA field office
close to here, bet those guys are working overtime" or something to that
effect. Thats what you do in this situation. The CIA isn't dumb, their failure
mode is thinking everyone else is. If they could have got him cleanly, they
wouldve.

~~~
sethhochberg
Right? It seems like one of those standard planning exercises that governments
have for just about everything. Plans for if Canada invades the US, plans for
a hypothetical US invasion of the UK, etc, etc, etc. I'd actually be surprised
if someone who was such a high-profile target for the espionage community
_didn 't_ have plans drawn up for their quick retrieval if needed under some
circumstances.

~~~
chippy
There are plans for hypothetical scenarios, and then there is the enacting of
the initial stages of the plan by stationing a plane and team and securing the
cooperation of a host country.

------
skatenerd
[https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N977GA](https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N977GA)

~~~
Sanddancer
Shame there's not a carfax like service for planes that used something less
mutable than a tail number. After that last flight, it was almost certainly
sold to some CIA front company, given a new number, and sent back into the
air.

~~~
ceejayoz
People seem to be pretty good at finding these things.

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

------
apsec112
Is there a more reliable source for this than a fringe political site?

~~~
fishnchips
This seems to link to the original Danish source:
[https://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/danish-government-let-
amer...](https://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/danish-government-let-america.html)

------
meesterdude
I have a prediction: Snowden will come back on his own. It'll be under a
different administration than this one for sure, and it might be many years
from now. But considering his level of patriotism and bravery, I don't see him
staying away for forever. When he feels he has a chance at justice, he'll
answer up for what he did.

~~~
benevol
> Snowden will come back on his own.

The fact of the matter is: Western society (US and EU) has let down Snowden
hard. We haven't done anything to pressure our politicians (who depend on us!)
to protect him like he deserves. We don't deserve people like Snowden. And he
sure must has felt that by now.

So if he comes back, I doubt his level of patriotism will have been able to
survive our sorry collective attitude.

------
bjorns
CIA wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't have plans. I'm sure they have
plans for plenty events more unlikely than the president asking them to go get
Snowden.

~~~
somedangedname
Last comment 534 days ago? Are you serious?

~~~
uxp
Some of us like reading and understanding other people's sentiment more than
contributing what is most likely irrelevant opinions and general noise? Just
because HN, Reddit, /., etc are built around the premise of commenting doesn't
mean one has to comment to participate.

~~~
iolothebard
Yeah because shills don't prep in advance, right? Lmfao.

------
tptacek
_N977GA has a chequered history. It was originally ordered by the US Air Force
for use as a general 's flying gin-palace. But then, shortly after 9/11, it
lost its military livery and acquired civilian registration as N596GA. Under
that designation it was employed in CIA "renditions" \- or kidnappings. In
2011, the "black" jet switched roles again, transferring from the CIA's
contractor to use instead by the Department of Justice (DoJ)._

------
mclovinit
Just a question that seems to always cross my mind when I think of individuals
like Snowden (and I am not a strong believer that everything I see in the
media is rooted in some conspiracy theory): Why are many so confident that he
is operating independently and not just redirecting blame towards himself as
part of a larger CIA operation? i.e. PRISM may have already been leaked at the
time anyway so CIA, then manufactures a "scapegoat".

Sure there is some interesting stuff that has been uncovered, but I cannot
help, but wonder if his hero image is being burned into the psyche of every
rebellious, "hacker" teen out there just to promote a viral effect of some
kind. I am in no way condemning Snowden and the like (I really want to cheer
him on) but I am, at the same time, not going to be totally convinced that I
should be following what he or his constituents share with the masses.

As a side, I am ready "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds and the same
question came up regarding her background. Just thought I would throw this out
there since it has been on my mind for some time. I am wondering if anyone has
here similar thoughts.

~~~
rdancer
There's a no way of knowing the answer to your question, but ultimately, it
shouldn't really matter.

There are people who say that Snowden leaks are a CIA operation against the
NSA, born out of patriotism. There are others who say that he acted on direct
orders from Obama, who had found it impossible to rein the intelligence
agencies in, and needed to foment public support. We can judge by how the
political actors have been behaving since the leaks. Our children will be able
to read about it once internal documents are declassified.

It is never good to idolize a person, and to put them on a pedestal. We all
have flaws. Snowden has done us all a tremendous service, at a great personal
peril, and it seems he will live to tell the story. We should all be so lucky.
But he is a flawed man, just like we all are. People are quick to create cults
around heroes, and then they are disappointed when their idol doesn't live up
to their standards. It is sad, really. If you want to know who Snowden is, go
to Moscow and buy him a cup of coffee; that's as close to the truth as you're
ever gonna get.

In the end, the ideas Snowden stands for are important and valid regardless of
who brought them to the fore.

EDIT: Ron Fournier made the same point slightly more eloquently, back in 2013:
[http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-i-
dont-...](http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-i-dont-care-
about-edward-snowden)

~~~
mclovinit
Good points. I will definitely keep that in mind.

------
DyslexicAtheist
we need to get rid of US military bases across Europe.

~~~
omegaham
Most of Europe would not be okay with that - the US currently massively
subsidizes the defense costs of European military forces with its bases. And
it's not just the actual US forces there - it's logistics and training as
well. For example, France likes to do peacekeeping operations in Africa. They
can do so effectively because the US provides the airlift capability through
their bases in Europe.

Basically, if the US bases go, the capabilities of much of the European
military forces go bye-bye. They're optimized for using American logistical
support, (because they have no reason to develop their own) and all of that
comes through American bases in the region. I'm sure that some political
parties in Europe would be completely okay with losing that capability, but
most people agree that there is one thing worse than a strong military, and
that's a weak military that costs the same amount of money as a strong
military.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
All the more reason. We Europeans should be able to manage this ourselves.

~~~
omegaham
You would have to gut social programs to pay for it, which people may or may
not be okay with.

Just to provide some numbers - the USAF's budget is $170 billion per year. For
comparison, that's about the cost of Britain's entire NHS. A very large amount
of that goes to airlift capability - plenty of money is spent on air
superiority, but the USAF's primary mission in this era of asymmetric warfare
is logistical support.

Basically, the attitude of most European governments is "If the US is willing
to pay for it, why should we reject their help?"

~~~
js8
> You would have to gut social programs to pay for it

Probably not that much. We need defense force, we don't need to "police" the
world (which really means imperialism). We don't need nuclear capabilities.

Also, the relation between defense and social spending is tenuous at best.
Both scale linearly with the size of the economy. Defense spending can
actually be beneficial in creating jobs and improving technology.

~~~
pkinsky
>Probably not that much. We need defense force, we don't need to "police" the
world (which really means imperialism). We don't need nuclear capabilities.

It's not us you'll have to convince of this, it's your government. They tend
to be a bit prickly about such things, no matter how enlightened the general
populace is.

------
saltvedt
There is no "firm evidence" in the documents as this article claims. There is
no reference to Snowden there.

~~~
poolloop
Not true. The original article ([https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-
til-danmark-for...](https://www.denfri.dk/2016/01/usa-sendte-fly-til-danmark-
for-at-hapse-snowden/)) mentions that the Author asked the Ministry of Justice
for information on S.

The documents released (partly censored) may not mention S. but were released
as an answer to this request.

The Author is Peter Kofod. The online newspaper "Den Fri" direct translation:
The Free, is mostly focused on surveillance and fascist tendencies. Anyone can
write as a guest (by going through the board of editors). Peter Kofod writes
weekly. Or even more often.

~~~
saltvedt
The documents released were in response to Peter Kofod's request for
information about the airplane itself.

"Justitsministeriet kan ikke oplyse, hvorvidt ministeriet er i besiddelse af
materiale omfattet af den del af din anmodning om aktindsigt, der angår
korrespondance mellem danske og amerikanske myndigheder vedrørende Edward
Snowden."

Translated: "The Department of Justice can not say whether the Ministry is in
possession of material of your request for access to documents relating to
correspondence between Danish and US authorities regarding Edward Snowden."

[https://www.denfri.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/begrundelse...](https://www.denfri.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/begrundelse_aktindsigt_Snowden_Kofod.pdf)

------
slr555
Not sure that this source is entirely credible. There is no link to the
documents or to the original journalistic source. I also find it hard to
believe that the CIA couldn't spoof a new tail number or just buy a new jet if
they really wanted to keep this quiet. It doesn't really pass the common sense
test. Unless the documents are produced and they are extremely compelling this
seems more like conspiracy theory than good journalism.

------
beedogs
What a high-quality country America has become. "Extra-legal" renditions,
torture, imprisonment without trial, spying on the entire planet, including
all of its own citizens... any wisps of democracy left the air long ago in
Washington.

------
Bud
Planes are fungible. Are we supposed to believe that the CIA has zero other
reasons to want a plane in Europe? It's just about Snowden?

------
ck2
Both Clinton and Trump have made it pretty clear via their attitude towards
Snowden that he is in for death/torture somewhere within their presidency.

I'd like to think Americans would protest but apparently most of the country
has already forgotten or not cared anymore about the NSA, it's like it never
happened, no-one even mentions it anymore in the mainstream.

~~~
r3bl
> it's like it never happened, no-one even mentions it anymore in the
> mainstream.

IIRC, the whole idea of gradually releasing documents instead of dumping them
all at once was to avoid this. Although, I haven't seen any new documents in
quite a while. I wonder what happened. Are the rest of them not as important
as the ones already released?

~~~
toyg
_> Are the rest of them not as important as the ones already released?_

Likely. There is also a question of framing overall discourse. For example,
Der Spiegel and The Intercept recently posted some documents from that pile,
showing how the US hacked Israeli feeds from jet fighters to monitor possible
attacks against Iran. The original piece was extremely balanced, highlighting
the conflicted relationship and conflict on policy choices and overall
strategies.

The Guardian picked it up with a piece that was very much pro-Israel, drumming
up support for Israeli hawks (at a time when they are extremely isolated on
the international stage).

Whenever this sort of material enters the discourse, you have to be very
careful if you want to avoid other people framing it in the "wrong" way. I
don't blame Greenwald's people for taking their time.

------
jacobmarble
The phrase "US ruling elite" is used a couple of times in this article. It's
refreshing to me because we don't use that term much here in the United
States, likely because we (are supposed to) believe in democracy.

------
ommunist
You gotta be kidding. Here is how it works in reality. CIA operatives get the
budget to kidnap Snowden. They organise "leak", but nothing was done in
reality, they just wrote down that money.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
> Snowden embodies a new generation of educated and technologically-trained
> workers and youth who are increasingly hostile to the existing social order.

Aye, we're practically swimming in those.

------
mknits
So "kidnapping" isn't a crime anymore?

------
readme
Why is this even news? Does it actually surprise you all that the CIA would
have a plan to catch Snowden?

~~~
br_smartass
So, after the innumerous crimes and injustices commited by CIA abroad and
home, since nothing was done to the agency, it means it now turned into a free
pass? Justice, like a lot of other stuff in our societies that basically are
just common agreements, is actually pretty fragile, if it's not upheld things
tend to go down. There's consequences and stuff.

~~~
readme
The only criminal in this whole story is Snowden. Literally, no one else broke
the law here. You need to screw your head back on.

~~~
KingMob
Don't mistake legality for morality. By a lot of people's estimations, they're
exactly reversed in this situation with Snowden breaking secrecy laws by
exposing "legal" surveillance.

Plus, it's not even clear the government is acting legally here. An excellent
case can be made that mass surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, and if
the CIA planned anything other than bringing Snowden back to a public trial in
the USA, that would be a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

~~~
br_smartass
It's awkward to even have to compose a reply to that answer! Some people
reaaaally need to affirm to themselves that everything is fine whatever
happens, for some reason. Small minds.

------
throwawaylalala
Well, duh.

------
throwawaylalala
Well, duh

