Skip to main content

This is an act of war:

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — The plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales home from Russia was rerouted to Austria on Tuesday after France and Portugal refused to let it cross their airspace because of suspicions that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was on board, the country's foreign minister said.
Morales should immediately sever all Bolivian diplomatic relations with the U.S., France, Portugal, and Italy (which has also denied transit of their airspace).

This is a whole different kettle of fish than simply strong arming Correa in Ecuador, and goes well beyond the Snowden debacle.  This has N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to do w/Snowden but has E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. to do with sovereign rights of one country's head of state to traverse another country's airspace unimpeded.  It's unprecedented.  

I am gobsmacked by the response of this community.

One country simply does not deny airspace rights to a flight carrying the leader of another country.  I don't give a shit who or what is onboard the flight.

This is unacceptable in the extreme.

But this is, sadly, also what this country (and don't think the U.S. wasn't strong arming France and Portugal and Italy) has come to.  It's been a long time since I've been this disturbed about the executive power in America.  

More.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (29+ / 0-)

    "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

    by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:15:53 PM PDT

  •  Absurd... n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, sviscusi

    John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

    by Walt starr on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:24:04 PM PDT

  •  Would you say that AF1 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, Don midwest, elmo, koNko

    should be able to fly wherever whenever ?
    That the overflight of other countries is a given and no permission is needed ?
    How about landings ?

    Do countries get to control their own airspace ?

     

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

    by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:24:41 PM PDT

    •  AF1 does file a flight plan (4+ / 0-)

      so are you asking if AF1 is flying where we said it would, that other countries can force it down?

      •  The precedence this sets... (9+ / 0-)

        ...is unprecedented.

        "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

        by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:32:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't think airspace has been closed before ? (0+ / 0-)

          You don't think aircraft have been denied permission before ?

          Does Cuba get to control its airspace ?
          If AF1 was to transit Cuba's airspace ,
          would you say to Cuba that it should not
          be upset ?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Cuba
          Unscheduled foreign aircraft are prohibited from entering or encroaching Cuban airspace including disputed international water zones except when permission has been explicitly given by the Cuban Government. The Cuban military has been known to shoot down and destroy unauthorized aircraft without warning including a 1996 incident in which two U.S.-registered aircraft were shot down and destroyed by Cuban Air Force MiGs

          The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

          by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:43:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you honestly think, for one moment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WheninRome

            that Cuba would deny AF1 permission to transit Cuban airspace enroute to wherever if requested?  Of course not.

            Anyway, look at a fucking map.  The U.S. government would never request such permission even if need be, because Cuba can be circumnavigated in international airspace so easily.  

            Your comment is disingenuous.  The U.S. government would never be placed in a circumstance to even request such permission.  

            "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

            by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:50:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You really have no clue. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen

              No US aircraft has permission to traverse Cuban Air Space.

              That includes Air Force One.

              John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

              by Walt starr on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:59:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ummm, daily fights into Guantanamo Bay? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WheninRome, Don midwest

                Last I checked, that was Cuban sovereign territory, with an extended lease by the U.S. government that the Cuban government has chosen (for whatever reason) to honor.

                "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

                by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:09:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What ? Are you joking ? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib
                  that the Cuban government has chosen (for whatever reason) to honor.

                  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/...

                  CUBA has demanded the US return Guantanamo Bay to the island nation and denounced the "war on terror" prison, where six detainees could face the death penalty.
                  http://www.globalpost.com/...
                  Cuba says US must shut Guantanamo, hand back base

                  Cuba's foreign minister demanded Wednesday that Washington shut its controversial jail at Guantanamo Bay and return the long-held military base to Havana.

                  http://www.npr.org/...
                  In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a deal with a liberated Cuba to lease the 45-square-mile area. The price: 2,000 gold coins a year. The lease was later renegotiated to stipulate that it could only be canceled by U.S. abandonment or by mutual agreement. And the U.S. still sends checks for some $4,000 a year.

                  When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, he indicated he would not abrogate the agreement, but he quickly changed his mind. In 1961, President Eisenhower broke off diplomatic relations — and by 1964, Castro was trying to cut off the water supply to Guantanamo. The U.S. started bringing water in by ship.

                  Periodically, the Havana government demanded the return of the land, and it stopped cashing the rental checks.

                  The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

                  by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:39:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not going to get into history GITMO (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Don midwest

                    Google it, if you wish.

                    U.S. has a lease, whether or not Cuba has cashed the rent checks.

                    (And obviously, there's more to it than that...ask this old Navy veteran if you need some perspective...)

                    "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

                    by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:50:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't need to google it or get your take on it . (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      second gen

                      I doubt you could pull up any fact that is not already known .

                      that the Cuban government has chosen (for whatever reason) to honor.
                      "honor" , you claimed they honored . Clearly not the case .

                      The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

                      by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  How do you think they get into (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  second gen

                  Guantanamo Bay ?
                  "extended lease" ? Maybe ?

                  http://www.uabmedicine.org/...

                  February 10, 2010
                  CCT Jet Is First US Aircraft Over Cuba in 50 Years

                  UAB Synopsis, Vol. 29, No. 06, February 10, 2010

                  On a January 13 flight to carry a survivor of the earthquake in Haiti to a Miami hospital, UAB Hospital’s Critical Care Transport (CCT) jet became the first US aircraft in several decades to make an official flight through Cuban airspace.

                  After the earthquake occurred on January 12, US officials made requests of Cuba to allow implementation of a special medical evacuation route over its airspace, although the two countries are still at odds over the US trade embargo and other actions put into place years ago to protest Cuba’s human rights and political record.

                  The base commander at Guantanamo Bay sought a waiver from a Cuban military officer with whom he has regular meetings across the minefield that separates the 45-square-mile base from Cuba proper. The flight route had been negotiated over many years by the US military to expedite medical aircraft flights out of Guantanamo Bay in disaster situations. US diplomats also contacted the Cuban foreign ministry to discuss "this important humanitarian cooperation.''

                  ...........................................................
                   Do you honestly think, for one moment
                  that Cuba would deny AF1 permission to transit Cuban airspace enroute to wherever if requested?  Of course not.
                  Of course not ?  Of course . That has been what has been going on for a long long time .

                  The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

                  by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:47:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  France Is Cuba? (0+ / 0-)

            So the diplomatic relationship between France and Ecuador is the same as that between Cuba and the US? Of course not: Cuba and the US are in a half-century old Cold War.

            But if we follow your logic, then you should agree with this diary: Ecuador should immediately end trade and diplomatic relations with France, Portugal and the US that obviously put them up to this. Because that is the state of affairs between Cuba and the US.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:11:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me, but I think airspace was denied (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            temptxan, semiot, gffish

            and revoked AFTER the flight plan was filed and the plane was in flight.  

            From Rachel Maddow transcript:

            his state airplane was denied access to some of the european airspace that he needed to fly through in order to get home. it was while his airplane was in mid-flight already that the governments of france and portugal revoked the authorization they had previously granted for that plane to use their airspace.
            So all this crap about how countries deny airspace all the time -- that's apples and oranges.  This really is unprecedented, as the diarist said.
      •  You changed the question , (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen

        but you failed to answer the question asked .

        Can AF1 fly wherever whenever ?
        Yes or No ?

        Do countries get to control their own airspace ?
        Yes or No ?

        The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

        by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:33:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  except your question is invalid (7+ / 0-)

          because the Bolivian plane was not flying "wherever whenever" but on the course that had been planned. The way you ask it suggests it was a total shock to the French and Portueguese that this airplane had come out of nowhere and was in their airspace.

          •  My question is very valid . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            second gen

            Answer the questions , stop with the run around .

            The way you ask it suggests it was a total shock to the French and Portueguese that this airplane had come out of nowhere and was in their airspace.
            My question does not say that or suggest that . You are reading that into it .

            So if I file a flight plan , I can go on the flight as planed no matter what ? The countries I plan to fly over can't say no ?

            The country has control over its own airspace , it may say yes it may say no , it may change its mind while the aircraft is in the air .

            The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

            by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:50:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do you not see, by your own questions... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shahryar, CroneWit, DocGonzo

          ...the quagmire that this incident establishes?

          "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

          by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:35:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You say "establishes" ? (0+ / 0-)

            I say air space gets closed and its nothing new .

            Are you ever going to answer my questions ?
            If not why not ?

            Do you think AF1 can fly whenever wherever ?

            Does a country get to control its own airspace ?

            Do you know that there are airlines that we , the US , will not allow into our airspace ?

            Do you know that airspace is closed to Air Force 1 now ?
            Do you know that Air Force 1 can't fly whenever wherever now ?
            Do you know that foreign leaders have to give permission for overflights ?

            The sky isn't wide open , its very controlled , people can get in big trouble for flying into closed airspace , that's not new or remarkable .

            Imagine what would have happened if AF1 flew over China or Russia sans permission a while back .

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

            by indycam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:09:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  AF1 can inflight refuel (0+ / 0-)

      IF a nation denies air space, yawn.

      John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

      by Walt starr on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:35:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "control their own airspace"? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shopkeeper, WheninRome, CroneWit, wu ming

      Snowden is not wanted by the police in France.

      One of the problems with this incident is that countries who should be sovereign are interfering with aviation to please another government, one whom their citizens did not elect.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:28:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I think they were looking out for their own (0+ / 0-)

        interests. They don't want Snowden stuck in a transit lounge at one of their airports. That's a diplomatic and political headache they can do without.

    •  Enemies (6+ / 0-)

      If Air Force 1 were diverted at the last minute by France and Portugal because they, or say Russia on a day it's controlling Western Europe's heating gas that day, asserted that a political refugee seeking US asylum was on board... That would be a very serious insult to the US and to diplomatic immunity.

      I note that "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison"

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:55:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well stated n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit

        "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

        by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:59:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, so now it's an "insult" not an "act of war" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen, sviscusi

          That's a much more reasonable position.

          We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

          by i understand on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:08:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not just any plane, but the president's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo

            official jet, that was diverted (the Guardian as a photo of it up on their live blog).  And it's not AF1, it's a 30-seater.

            Making it circle for three hours for erroneous reasons is a pretty damn serious diplomatic breach.  Argentina's President Kirschner is calling an emergency meeting of all South American leaders tomorrow.  It's more than "an insult".

            Lots of moving pieces these days...

            "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

            by Mogolori on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:19:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Uh, no. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Farugia

    Refusing entry into your territory is not an act of war against a foreign party.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:54:29 PM PDT

  •  Oh, Jeezus tapdancing Krist on a cracker. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    WTF is wrong you this place? Are you HOPING that war is declared? SMMFH

    I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

    by second gen on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:56:04 PM PDT

    •  It's an underwear gnome plan (0+ / 0-)

      1) Bolivia declares war on the US.
      2) BOOM
      3) ?
      4) Profit

      John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

      by Walt starr on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:03:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WheninRome, CroneWit

      It would be absurd for Bolivia to declare overt war on the U.S.  That's why severing their diplomatic relationship with the offending countries would be about as close as they could get.

      But let's turn this around just a skosh, and posit that it was the Chinese Prime Minister who was on a flight that was denied access, and forced to land for fuel because the Chinese version of AF1 was denied transit of airspace.

      Think that might raise a few eyebrows?  Or raise the U.S. defense posture to DefCon 3?

      It's no longer a slippery slope.  We've just set the precedent.

      "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

      by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:07:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You said "act of war" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen

        Don't hide that meaning with words like "overt".

        You think Bolivia would be within its rights to send troops into France and shoot anyone who tries to stop them. That's what war is right? Never mind their chances of winning... you think they'd be in the right.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:05:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you see "overt" anywhere? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit

          Anyway, I'm out for the evening.  Last comment:

          You think Bolivia would be within its rights to send troops into France and shoot anyone who tries to stop them.
          <>

          Why didn't I think of that?  Bolivia sending troops to invade France?  That could be a fucking bloodbath farce.  Like Maggie Thatcher and the Faulklands!!

          Bring it on.

          (We need a good Dr. Strangelove gif here, but I don't have the desire to query my photobucket account right now...)

          "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

          by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:14:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why yes, yes I do see the word "overt" (0+ / 0-)
            It would be absurd for Bolivia to declare overt war on the U.S.
            But you'd support their right to do that though... I mean you think France committed an act of war against them after all. right?

            I warned you that you were embarrassing yourself. Why don't you just fix your diary to say "insult" instead of "act of war"... that's a lot more reasonable and you've already commented that was "well stated".

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:21:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The United States has declared war on the (7+ / 0-)

    world and you're either with us or against us.  Obviously France and Portugal are with us.
    Actually that should be you're either with those that control this country or you're against them.  

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:00:38 PM PDT

  •  This comment HR'd; threadjacking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WheninRome, burlydee, Pluto

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    This guy shows up again and again and again in NSA-related diaries, and his only purpose in them appears to be to disrupt the diary and threadjack it.  Other who have been following these diaries can bear me out in this.

    The earlier diary about the Morales re-routing got threadjacked early on.  In this diary, Richard Cranium is attempting to approach the serious aspects of this development, and sure enough, in comes this known threadjacker right at the top of the comments.  So I spent an HR.

    •  Bullshit. He's talking about the topic of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      diary. Stop the abusive HRs  I didn't even care for the comment, but uprated to counter abuse.

      I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

      by second gen on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:15:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being disruptive is enough for HR. He is. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mogolori

        In NSA diaries in general, and in this diary.  

        I picked that comment because, at the moment I HR'd it, it didn't have any other comments under it.  His other disruptive, threadjacking comments did.  I didn't want to risk removing those other comments, so I picked that one.

        Go back and read Richard Cranium's response to this guy's first comment.  Then go into this guy's Comments in his Profile and check out his comments in the NSA-related diaries.  You may be surprised at how often he elicits that same kind of response the moment he shows up.

        I've been coming to dKos for about 10 years now, and in all the years since I joined, until recently, I've given out maybe 3-4 HR's.  When the nastiness & threadjacking would begin, I'd leave that thread.

        But since the NSA Disclosures began, and I kept seeing the same names over and over in those threads, nastily threadjacking, I've revised my position.  The issues involved in the NSA-related diaries are way too important to allow disruption.  So I'll do what I can to get rid of disruption in these diaries, including giving HRs to habitual disruptive threadjackers.

      •  Thanks for the HR, honeychile (0+ / 0-)

        It's been a long time since anybody gave me one.

        I don't suppose you noticed that the person I criticized was a) being a dick in explicit violation of the "Don't be a dick" rule and b) gleefully anticipating an overt act of war on the part of the United States.

        I thought I was being relatively civil. You, on the other hand, have just been dropping F-bombs for shock value.

        And don't start any "sexist" shit with me, I'm female too.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:49:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Airspace is generally sovereign and the nations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, Farugia, elmo

    over which that airspace resides have pretty much exclusive right under the Paris Convention of 1919 and the Chicago Convention of 1944.  Even commercial flights exist under various sorts of Open Sky agreements, but we should not forget - at least if we are old enough - that commercial airliners were either damaged or shot down by government-controlled fighters in Bulgarian and Soviet airspace in 1955, 1978, and 1983...

    I don't know of any international agreement that provides right of passage to a sovereign leader (links would help)  and I suspect that AF1 would not try to fly over Iran or North Korea with a hope of impunity and probably hasn't asked for that right of passage anyway. I apparently also missed the memo about how France is now a lapdog of the US, but I do know that Bolivia has been anxious to get French and other EU involvement in its economy, so I think it unlikely that Bolivia will sever relations with anybody...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:20:57 PM PDT

    •  If I'm Morales, this crosses more than moral lines (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      I don't care how interested I am in courting the favour of the courtesans in the palace of Versailles.

      It just became more than business, Fredo.

      "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

      by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:32:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh gawd, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, Don midwest, koNko

    my post alert thingy:

    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr
    Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr,Walt starr

  •  I appreciate your attempt to address larger issues (8+ / 0-)

    about the Morales re-routing in this diary, Richard Cranium.  

    Both the Guardian and CNN have liveblogs up on this.  You have the Guardian link in your diary; here's the CNN link --
    http://edition.cnn.com/...

    Some bits from CNN --

    [Bolivian defense minister:]  Bolivia's air travel rights were violated, he said.
    "It is an outrage. It is an abuse. It is a violation of the conventions and agreements of international air transportation,"
    Okay, so now all the squabblers in this diary know that (1) there are conventions and agreements of international air transportation' and the re-routing is an outrageous, abusive violation of them.

    'Technical reasons' claimed by Portugal, France:

    The original flight plan had a refueling stop scheduled in Lisbon, said Saavedra, who is traveling with Morales. Once Portuguese authorities told them they couldn't land there for "technical reasons," the crew changed course for the Canary Islands, the defense minister said. Right before the plane was about to fly over the French border, authorities there said they couldn't enter the country's airspace, again citing "technical issues," according to Saavedra.
    Bolivia's foreign minister calls for a South American countries' conference --
    "We consider this a huge offense, and I will call for a UNASUR special summit with foreign secretaries to discuss this issue," Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said.
    At the Guardian liveblog, France and Portugal have reversed their positions and will let the plane overfly them, but how Italy and Spain (which had allowed the plane to refuel before turning back to Austria) are refusing entry to the plane.
    [Bolivian defense minister] Two countries have changed their positions, first France and now Portugal. We will patiently seek to resolve the negative position taken by Italy and Spain, according to international norms.
    We'll have to hope that some of the Kossites who understand foreign relations (and the relevant laws) will bring their expertise to this issue soon.  I'll be checking out ForeignPolicy.org early tomorrow, hoping for some in-depth reporting.
  •  Whatever you want to call it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Cranium, Don midwest

    It was a strong and crystal clear message to the world.  What the fuck is wrong with this country?  

    And "Progressives" now support this shit.  Thank God I'm not a progressive and never have been.

    •  I'm thinking about East Germany and the Wall (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, Don midwest

      they had guards at the Wall, ready to shoot anyone who tried to get out. I'm wondering if a lot of Americans decided it was time to get out of the U.S., would our government try to make it difficult? Investigate people who wanted to apply for a passport?

      I'm not saying this Administration would do that but it is inevitable, people, no matter how we fight the fight, that a Republican will eventually win the Presidential election.

      With all of these precedents set by the current Administration how likely is it that oppression here will get worse? I'd say very likely. How likely is it that a Republican President would get us into a real war? One that involves real horror for us? Too likely.

      And all because the debate that the President wants to have isn't about whether we should be spying on everybody in the world, including you and me, but whether or not we should lock up the guy who told us about it and whether or not we can force airplanes to land because we think that guy might be on one of them.

  •  US 'declined to confirm' involvement (5+ / 0-)

    Here's an interesting bit from the Guardian's liveblog --

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    3:19am BST
    Our Washington bureau chief, Dan Roberts, has been assessing the potential fallout from the diplomatic row over the diversion of Morales's flight to Vienna. He writes:

    Though the White House declined to confirm whether it ordered Western European allies to block the diplomatic flight containing Bolivia's president, the affair casts further doubt on promises made by Barack Obama that the US would "not scramble jets" to retrieve the whistleblower who has brought so much embarrassment upon his administration.
    That phrase, 'declined to confirm' brought the Watergate-era phrase to my mind:  'the White House would neither confirm nor deny' an allegation.

    If the movie is to be believed, it was that phrase, used repeatedly, that made them catch on to the fact that Something was Up.

    Well, in this instance, the WH obviously didn't deny, or Guardian guy would have reported it that way.  So WH didn't deny, but 'declined to confirm' that it ordered Portugal and France, then Italy and Spain (and others?) to block 'the diplomatic flight containing Bolivia's president'.  

    And here's a possible clue:  In a later liveblog entry, Morales is talking with reporters while in communication with Spain regarding clearance, and a reporter is tweeting back to the Guardian.  Here's one of her tweets:

    #Morales was talking to us for short: "Spain is asking its `friend` (=USA) how to proceed with our flight permission" #vienna #snowden
    So, with the White House's 'non-denial denial' (a phrase coined during Watergate), and the possible clue of the tweet, it's looking like the smart money will be on the US (White House? State? DOD? NSA?) controlling this whole event.

    I don't know if this event is considered an 'act of war' -- I'm unfamiliar with those rules -- but it certainly is unprecedented and a Big Event.  So here's the $64,000,000,000 question:  

    What incentive (or disincentive) is the US using to make all these sovereign countries behave in this unprecedented and offensive way?  And the bonus point will go to whomever can answer the question, Does the US' cyberwarfare capabilities, or the NSA's information, factor into the carrot/stick 'persuasion' of these countries?

    •  If you didn't do something, you deny it, you don't (5+ / 0-)

      "decline to confirm it."  In our current culture of secrecy, I'd just run with that as the truth and make the assholes disprove it.  If they get unlimited secrecy and all our information, we get unlimited conjecture and satire.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:26:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of people wanted to disagree with me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, ER Doc

    in the last diary about my final sentence, "It didn't used to be like this."  

    Well, really, it DIDN'T used to be like that.  (And I'm not even sure that's good English, but we all say it, so until somebody comes up with a grammar correction that doesn't feel even more awkward, I'm sticking to it.)

    We're not just acting like police state bullies in relentlessly pursuing an exiled whistleblower from country to country.  We're quite deliberately making fools of ourselves in the process.  

    Never seen this before.

    EVEN THE FUCKING SOVIET UNION knew when discretion was the better part of valor and when to just drop things, at least publicly.

    It speaks to the arrogance of the US security community -- and the bubble-isolation of the Obama Whitehouse as well -- that they can't even grasp how bad this must look to the rest of the world and how much status and prestige they are pissing away to satisfy the petty spite of bureaucrats.

    "Oh, but Snowden's a traitor!  What good is the rule of law if..."  He's a traitor maybe (I dispute that) HERE.  Not outside the US.  The rest of the world's traitors are often our herioes, too.  Like Solzhenitsyn, declared a traitor by Brezhnev.  We gave him political asylum.  We didn't waste time with bullshit arguments about how we need to respect Soviet law.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site