... for any even tangential evidence that suggests that this was the purpose for this plane being in Denmark.

The article offered none.

It's plausible -- after all I've seen bigger wastes from the spooks and their infinite pile of my tax money, stolen from critical infrastructure projects to protect us from some guy in a cow pasture near Kabul.

So I agree -- there is at least one competing theory.

Care to expound on any of YOUR alternates?

the article.

1. Inserting one or more CIA operatives into northern Europe.

2. Picking up one or more CIA operatives from northern Europe.

3. Dropping off a high level diplomat.

4. Dropping off a high level military person.

5. Picking up a prisoner arrested in Denmark for extradition.

etc.

We have NATO bases in the Baltics which are half the distance from Moscow that Denmark/Copenhagen is. Compare Copenhagen, Riga and Moscow on this map:

The plausibility just went up considerably given this particular little gem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-scrambling-to-nab-snowden-hoped-he-would-take-a-wrong-step-he-didnt/2014/06/14/057a1ed2-f1ae-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html

The burst of activity during that period — including the White House meetings, a broad diplomatic scramble and the decision to force a foreign leader’s plane to land — was far more extensive than U.S. officials acknowledged at the time.

At any moment, the US Government has tons of these small jets flying all over the world ferrying all kinds of high level military and diplomatic and other government staff.

This is not proof and its not journalism.

Another way of saying that is that the article is a complete waste of time because it hurls around completely unsubstantiated allegations without even an attempt at proving them.

A credible reporter has written a paper with anonymous sources through a paper of record with an editorial vetting process.

The government always can dispute the claims, perhaps by the end of Monday they will. We'll see.

But as things stand, your claims of "unsubstantiated allegations" are mostly reflections of your inability to recognize that we made complete jackasses of ourselves over the Morales affair.

We made jackasses of ourselves in the Morales affair because we are spineless fools afraid to "man up" (Kerry's playground words, in case you are offended) and actually tell our population the extent to which we spy on them. That required a leaker. Shame on us.

We are spineless fools afraid to "man up" because OUR PARTY LEADERS sold their souls and continued the Bushie programs that should have been shut down immediately upon the change of administrations. Who the here was actually stoopid enough to not realize that a deep-dark-shade-of-gray program run by a bunch of Republican appointees is going to continue to be a Republican program?

Your reap what you sew. Sorry you're ticked off, but it all follows simply from poor judgement five years ago.

There are no gems there. There is no evidence provided.

And your argument about the person being a good journalist is disproved at least in this case by this article that is thrown out there without any proof. Its possible that they were having a bad day or they were desperate to try to make some sort of connection, but whatever it was, it was a miserable failure.

But that drip-drip-dripping will be continuing.

Besides your analogy is deliberately obtuse. Cleveland sounds just fine as a staging area for my Black Ops jet-o-dispair if the alternative is coming all the way from Hawaii once my legion-o-spooks score themselves a leaker. All those tedious appeals and legal motions can be shut down if you can just spirit away the target quickly enough. Basic geography demonstrates Cleveland is obviously closer to Miami than Hawaii is and that time might matter. Besides, if my all knowing dragnet surveillance can't tell me any better than the collar could be made in Miami, Newark, Pittsburgh or Raleigh, it makes sense to park in a place in some average location where I can be at any of them quickly if need be. It ain't rocket science to plan something like that out and that plane was EXACTLY where it should have been if the Cheneyites and Jack Ryan wannabes still run the intel services -- which they do, sadly.

After twelve months of constant disproven lies spook truthtelling stock is so low, I could formulate a theory involving Elvis wearing a tinfoil hat in and it would be worth testing. That's what happens when out intelligence people throw their integrity away so easily -- they is no reason whatsoever to place any faith in them.

when they stated that the detaining of Evo Morales' plane was done on behalf of the US. Don't people EVER get tired of trying to defend these things only to be proven wrong, over and over again

They were 'scrambling' the latest story says, to find a way to get him IF he passed through one of our Western allied countries. Of course he knew that, which is why we have told those attempting to lie about his ending up in Russia, he carefully chose a route that would avoid such a trap.

Fortunately Hong Kong refused to hand him over. No Whistle Blower should be subjected to the kind of persecution and torture Whistle Blowers have been in this country.

By the time the President said that 3 days later, the jet(s) had already been scrambled.

That, and presidents lie.

But the plane is registered to DoJ.

However I'm pretty sure Obama believed Putin would hand Snowden over. Their relations at that time were pretty good

and the various sorts of under-the-table wink-wink-nudge-nudge not-officially-recognized covert transfers or snatch-and-grabs practiced by the Bush regime are standardly described as "extraordinary rendition" to emphasize their unusual, irregular, and altogether-iffy character under international standards. I rather suspect the Bush thugs deliberately set out to blur this distinct and, in their communications with other countries, insisted on describing their extraordinary renditions as renditions in the ordinary sense: it would be quite in keeping with their I-think-I'll-poke-my-finger-in-your-eye style of diplomatic relations

The plane in question here N977GA has, in the past, been claimed to be involved with the extraordinary renditions of the Bush-era. If it were, its identification as such would have limited its usefulness in covert operations. It seems to have been transferred to the DoJ late in the last Bush years

The point of my post upthread is that the DoJ is regularly involved in ordinary rendition activities: on average, something like 17 persons a week are extradited to the US, and this could explain why this DoJ plane is regularly seen in Europe, as I have documented downthread

If you wish to contemplate the theory that the plane was sent to seize Snowden, then, of course, you need to consider why it apparently ended at Copenhagen, over 1500 km from Moscow

Thanks.

So this plane allegedly flew from the Washington DC area to Denmark..around the same time Snowden arrived in Russia.

Therefore, this is proof that the US intended to snatch Snowden from Russia and Obama lied about not scrambling jets to get him when he spoke 3 days after this plane allegedly landed in Denmark to snatch Snowden who was about 1000 miles away in Moscow?

Did you read the article at the news site? I can't make any sense at all out of your post.

I'm trying to understand the link between this plane allegedly landing in Denmark and Snowden 1000 miles away in Moscow...and then of course your OP mentions Obama.

Help me out here...

And you still trust the Danes? After this? --

The only proof offered is the timing somewhat correlates. But correlation by itself is never proof of causation.

...but correlation is a very useful tool when one is attempting to connect the dots in an environment filled with secrecy and disinformation.

So no, there is no proof that jet was flown to Europe to pick up Edward Snowden. It is, however, a rather suggestive "coincidence".

Any reporter worth his or her salt will pay attention to interesting correlations -- because sometimes correlation really does indicate a causal relationship. And when the target of interest is unwilling to share information (e.g., NSA, CIA, US government in general), then one is left with the tools that are available, which includes using all available information to make rational inferences.

I'm willing to say I don't know for sure whether that jet was in Europe to pick up Snowden. Are you willing to admit that it might have been?

It might be worth a look if the jet was flown to one of the Baltic states and we could confirm that no one disembarked and no new passengers were taken on.

Do we know for sure if anyone disembarked in Copenhagen? Or anyone boarded for a trip to wherever else the jet went afterwards? That's an important piece of information, right? Because if it was taking on or dropping off passengers, the jets purpose was not Snowden. The article doesnt address that at all, it doesnt even guess at it.

What we have is absolutely zero. For folks who have even a little bit of knowledge, this doesn't even pique curiosity.

..."this doesn't even pique curiosity."

Apparently you put yourself in the category of folks with a little bit of knowledge... can't say I disagree.

...and you agree with my agreement, and then you fling insults.

Gosh, my feelings are... not hurt.

... you apparently had no idea there are NATO bases in the Baltics 500 miles closer to Moscow than Copenhagen. Even that isn't exactly close but it is the closest US/NATO military bases the US could use easily if the effort was in fact to get Snowden.

Of course, the other point is, if the Russians were going to turn him over or negotiations were going on about that, there is no reason the jet couldnt have flown to Moscow and waited there. That would have made the most sense if the point was to get Snowden.

... you don't seem to be able to acknowledge there is no proof offered in the article.

... everything in this sub-thread has been you trying to avoid acknowledging that.

I am not surprised you aren't slighted. You have to really understand what is being said to you first before you can feel slighted.

Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:43 PM - Edit history (1)

...you are showing us all how to do it.

So let's go point-by-point here:

1 - You say "you apparently had no idea there are NATO bases in the Baltics 500 miles closer to Moscow than Copenhagen".

How did you come up with this? I have not discussed NATO bases or airport proximity with you or anyone else, although I have followed some of the discussions with interest. So please, cite anything from any of my posts showing me talking about these specifics and showing my supposed ignorance on the topic.

2 - You say "if the Russians were going to turn him over or negotiations were going on about that, there is no reason the jet couldnt (sic) have flown to Moscow and waited there"

Okay, sure. But then Putin never turned Snowden over, did he? Nor was there ever any indication that he might do so. Therefore your scenario is non-operational.

3 - You say "you don't seem to be able to acknowledge there is no proof offered in the article.

So did you miss my statement upthread: "So no, there is no proof that jet was flown to Europe to pick up Edward Snowden." I guess you want me to use your words instead of my own. Okay: there is no proof offered in the article.

Here is my challenge to you, from that same post: "I'm willing to say I don't know for sure whether that jet was in Europe to pick up Snowden. Are you willing to admit that it might have been?" Are you now willing to use my words: That jet might have been in Europe to pick up Snowden. It is after all one possibility, certainly a more likely one than that it was there to pick up aliens from Jupiter.

4 - You say "everything in this sub-thread has been you trying to avoid acknowledging that" (that there is no proof in the article).

As I have demonstrated, that point was addressed early on in our exchange -- you not only missed it, you persist in denying it.

5 - You say "You have to really understand what is being said to you first"

See point 4, and then ponder the wonder that is the simple hand mirror.

Addressing the actual point is much more difficult than going for the irrelevant cheap-shot taken often by half-wits and dolts.

(insert self-validating rationalization here)

...just some sentences about what we would need to find out in order to establish without question why the plane was there. This from a poster who cannot bring himself to admit that there is even a possibility it was there to pick up Snowden. Why this notion is so hard to entertain is anyone's guess. My guess: saving face.

I'm willing to say I don't know for sure whether that jet was in Europe to pick up Snowden. Are you willing to admit that it might have been?

In the absence of any attempt at proof one way or the other, there are an infinite amount of reasons for that plane being in Copenhagen. Nothing can be ruled out, including that you and I sent it there to pick up aliens from Jupiter.

...look, what I said doesn't ask you or anyone else to "prove a negative". I didn't ask you to prove anything; just to acknowledge that you don't know for certain what that plane was doing there, any more than I do. The difference is, you refuse to acknowledge one possibility, because that possibility is the one that your opponents in this debate favor.

Your response here just demonstrates how accomplished you are at evasive maneuvers. There may be infinite possible reasons the plane was there, but when I sort it out in my mind, somehow "it was there to pick up Edward Snowden, should the US get lucky" came up a lot higher on the list of possibilities than "it was there to pick up aliens from Jupiter". If the same is not true for you, then that in itself says a lot about where you're coming from.

... try reading my post before you go on a rant about it next time.

So asking you to acknowledge one possibility of many, is like asking you to prove that telepathy doesn't exist?

BTW, saying "nothing can be ruled out" and following that statement with some nonsense about picking up aliens from Jupiter, is simply a clever way of avoiding acknowledging that ONE of the possibilities is that it was there to pick up Snowden.

What's funny about this is, I really don't know if that's why that jet was there nor do I care much. But the hysteria engendered by suggesting that's why it was there, is really compelling to me. I admit that when dealing with the hysteria around the Snowden case, I am drawn like a moth to a flame...

...for l'il old me? I'm flattered... although I'm curious how you're going to indicate the posts are just for me to read, as I assume you'll still want to communicate with others in the usual format.

1) That's pretty wastefull of money, no?
2) Obama iscontinuing Bush's illegal renditions? Does that not concern you? Or are you clinging to the "its OK if Obama does it" philosophy inre to war crimes and human rights violations?

You'll just give yourself a headache.

Sid

If Putin did hand him over, what would have been the point of a secretive rendition flight? It's not like he could have been disappeared and nobody would have noticed.

The US has diplomatic personnel in Russia. Handing him over would have been pretty seamless and would have been public. What's the point of using some shadowy aircraft?

and making Eddie a victim.

But that wont stop this OP from getting hundreds of OMG it was a plot to water board him posts. I would be willing to bet a month or two from now it will be in a list of all the nefarious things Obama has done.

Yup

Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Sid

For example, where have you contributed anything to what we know about the Bush Family Evil Empire, SidDithers of DU? That's a criminal conspiracy that's haunted America since the days of Smedley Butler.

Here's a page showing it was in Dublin 16 February 2012

Here's a page showing it was in Dublin 12-14 June 2013

Here's another tracking webpage reporting the same plane at the UK's Mildenhall base on 6 October 2013 and in Berlin on 6 June 2013

Here's a tracking website showing a flight of the same plane from DC to London on 2 June 2014

I guess the only possible interpretation is they're hanging out over there, hoping to snatch Snowden ewhen he tries to escape from his Russian handlers

Denmark to pick me up.

Duncan Campbell is an investigative journalist, author, consultant and television producer specialising in privacy, civil liberties and surveillance issues. His best-known investigations led to major legal clashes with successive British governments. He now also works and is recognised as a forensic expert witness on computers and communications data.



Duncan Campbell, Britain, is a founder member of International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and played a pivotal role in a series of international investigations revealing that the world’s largest tobacco companies were involved with organised crime in the large scale smuggling of their own products. He worked as ICIJ's Data Journalism Manager on the Secrecy for Sale investigation.

Trained in physics and working as an investigative journalist and television reporter and producer since 1975, Campbell has specialized in investigating sensitive political topics, including defense, policing, intelligence services and electronic surveillance. He has also specialised in medical fraud and malpractice.

His awards include Britain’s Investigative Report of the Year. His scoops including revealing for the first time many aspects of international espionage, including telephone tapping and the Echelon satellite interception network. The investigations led to new legislation and several international parliamentary enquiries. Successive British governments prosecuted him under the notorious Official Secrets Act (subsequently repealed) and sought to ban an investigative series he produced for the BBC, Secret Society (subsequently shown).

Campbell’s production company, IPTV, has produced investigative documentaries for Britain’s Channel 4 Television. He currently works freelance as a reporter and commentator for print, broadcast and online publications, including The Register. Campbell is also a visiting lecturer in media studies at Bournemouth University and works separately as a forensic specialist on computer-based evidence.

He was for many years a writer and assistant editor for the British political weekly New Statesman, and has continued to challenge government secrecy in areas where its object is the defeat of public accountability. His personal website is duncancampbell.org.

President Obama is not your running buddy or bestie planning a surprise party for a mutual friend. He's the President of the "free world;" the "most" powerful nation in the world. He's running a country and influencing change around the globe. Some of that shit is done in secret partly because of our enemies but mostly because there are a certain element in America who confuse Obama with the daddy they always wanted but never had.

that there was a flight sent to intercept Snowden. Only rumored.

Re-read the first part of the OP.

Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

K&R

So when does the movie come out?

Corruption on top of corruption.

if he was 1000 miles away in Moscow? And if Putin did hand him over, what is the purpose of a secretive rendition flight? Countries hand people over to other countries all time time. It's not unusual.

Snowden was big news back in June 2013. It's not like he could have been taken to Gitmo and tortured without anybody noticing if Putin did hand him over.

I know you think I'm a paid government operative/propagandist, so you probably won't answer my question, but I'm hoping we can have some kind of exchange here.

Although I find actual paid propagandists for those persecuting whistleblowers to be morally beneath contempt, I still would like to hope that those spending our money to manipulate us insist on a *little* more quality than your typical contributions here.

Let me say this as gently as possible, Cali_Democrat. And it is an observation on your posting, not you as a person. Most of the time you post little more than vitriol, snark and smear. You pursue others to bait them with snarky comments, as you did to begin this very exchange between us. You are a regular, gleeful participant in every thread smearing liberals or namecalling whistleblowers. Occasionally you copy the talking points of the day, as you have clearly done here. You see, others have been repeating them for a while now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025096199#post34

But your posts don't engage, really. They don't even acknowledge when the questions ignore the content of the article, as yours does here. And they don't acknowledge when questions have been asked and answered.

That's why people don't respond. And why I will stop here too. You have a good day, Cali.

How was this flight supposed to get Snowden who was 1000 miles away in Moscow?

... because there IS no answer that makes any sense - and they know it.

Thats usually how planes get around.

Every single day, there is more.

Every single day.

For the anti Snowden types to appear.

What was that plane doing so CLOSE to Russia then? Stopping off for a coffee or a dip in real Scandinavian spa pool? I doubt it.

I, for one, like to know when my Govt is spying on me. Thanks to Mr Snowden, I now know the Govt in MY country is doing the exact same thing. And we don't like it either.

This is like flying a plane from Los Angeles to NY to be "close" to Miami.

"Mr. President, will you use U.S. military assets to in any way intercept Mr. Snowden should he at some point in the future leave Russia to try to find safe passage in another country?"

No military assets involved. Just a DoJ aircraft.

Getting kind of lame and formulaic, and does absolutely nothing to stifle anything, anymore.
I heard the journalist involved has boxes in his garage and left his girlfriend.

Revelations of mass abuse of power by a government against its own people always yield strong and desperate defensive measures.

then I take great delight in their impotent rage.

Which could be used to force down a civilian aircraft by non- lethal (or lethal ) means.

As far as we know, the black-ops, rendition plane did not have that capability.

Just sayin'

And disregard the haters. They're a thin-skinned bunch and will alert any slight. I know!

why reverse bad policies when people will just assume, against all facts, that you are?

Nothing to say about the United States acting like its above the law when it comes to protecting the secrets of the police state?

Snowden Is No Traitor. What He EXPOSED Is What's TREASON.

the argument it was forced down at US behest, that might be a point worth exploring.

But no, the US did not force down the plane.

As long as Snowden's on-board, right Steve?

That was part of the OP. However, if I'm wrong, no problem. I'll admit that.

Otherwise, what facts, exactly, did I get wrong?

I stand by the analysis that the United States violated international law in order to board and search a sovereign head of state's aircraft.

Keep that in mind as you toil away here.

anything-in fact, keeping the class agenda of the 1% and, to the shame of all of US that voted for and then reelected President Obama, he's now talking shit straight from the RW.

Thank you Ed Snowden, wherever you are, thank you Chelsea Manning for serving your nation, thank you WikiLeaks. An informed citizen is a necessity of a democracy, yes? Thanks to ALL who put that first.

The Intercept (Glenn Greenwald)
http://firstlook.org/theintercept/dispatches

The "allegations" in that "article" were spurious at best...

The article clearly states that "the online tracking information reveals that the Gulfstream did not make it all the way to Moscow, but set down and waited at Copenhagen Airport."

It doesn't matter whether the plane was ever headed for Moscow or not. What's important is the fact that it never made it there - proof positive that Moscow was its intended destination.

Several dozen flights landed at our international airport here in Toronto in the past few hours. The PTB can deny all they want that those flights were destined for Toronto all along - yeah, I'll bet. Apparently they were ALL headed for Moscow, they just didn't "make it all the way".

You people who want actual facts to back up "news stories" are truly annoying. Why can't you just don your and swallow what you're told?

okay..

Obama and the CIA are behind it and it is being warehoused in Russia somewhere. I know! They are going to kidnap Eddie and use Flight 370 plane to take him to Gitmo. All secret and unnoticed of course. That Obama! No end to his devious cleverness!

I'm sure the anonymous enthusiasts can explain. Putin could have been sending Eddie to Copenhagen so as to maintain plausible deniability. That must have been how it happened! See, I've fixed it!

From the WaPo article:

President Obama in particular seemed to strike a dismissive pose, saying on June 27 that he was “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.” Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said Obama’s remark referred only to the prospect of using military assets. “The president made clear he wouldn’t,” Hayden said in recent statement the The Washington Post. “Not because we weren’t working hard to get Snowden back to the U.S.,” but because it was a law enforcement matter.

Do you have a list you could provide? Are there 205 Paulbots here? 57, perhaps? (*)

Because if there's one thing I'm not seeing here at DU, it's an infestation of Paulbots.

As I do not wish to be exiled, I'll refrain from opining on other sorts of infestation here.

(*) Joe McCarthy, Wheeling speech, Feb. 9 1950: "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party" -- the number was amended to 57 when the speech was entered into the Congressional Record.