The Danish government has confirmed that the U.S. had a jet laying in wait for Edward Snowden:
The twin-engined Gulfstream aircraft, which had previously been used to fly Abu Hamza to the US from the UK, landed shortly before the FBI called on Scandinavian police forces to arrest Snowden and hand him over for extradition. Søren Pind, the justice minister, wrote to Danish MPs (pdf): "The purpose of the aircraft's presence in Copenhagen airport is most likely to have been to have the opportunity to transport Edward Snowden to the United States if he had been handed over from Russia or another country."
This week, Pind confirmed to the Danish parliament that the aircraft had been given high-level permission to land in Copenhagen, but said he did not know the purpose of its visit. "I must note that my answer was not adequate at this point," he wrote in the letter, dated Thursday 4 February and revealed by MPs on Friday. "Usually, information of this nature is confidential because of Denmark's relations with foreign states. In view of the impression that my earlier answer may have created, I think it proper to inform parliament thereof. The US authorities have also been informed."
The admission confirms speculation about the aircraft after enthusiasts in the UK saw the jet flying at very high altitude through Scottish airspace on its way to Copenhagen, as first reported in 2014 by the Register. The Gulfstream jet was identified by its registration number, N977GA, as the aircraft used to extradite radial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, and other prisoners, to the US in 2012.
[...] Redacted emails among the documents released by the Danish government reveal high-level discussion about N977GA between Danish police and top civil servants between 25 and 27 June. Permission for the jet to land was granted on 24 June. The United States took drastic methods in trying to grab Snowden in the summer of 2013: a plane carrying the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was forced to land in Vienna because of rumours that Snowden was on board.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:25PM
Beyond accountability, beyond law, beyond reason.
How is it that "We the People," at considerable cost, chose to prioritize the hundreds of thousands of dollars it took to move this plane across the ocean, to simply wait, in the hopes of capturing a man who commited the crime of informing us that our rights were being silently stolen and abused by "Our" government behind our backs? This is just beyond ridiculous. Sanders or Trump 2016 - preferably Sanders - just so long as the establishment is out, please.
When "enlightened" Liberals and Republicans alike used to tell me that I was insane for voting for Ron Paul, stating, "He'll destroy the government!!!!!!" I, not once, ever, understood why they were inclined to believe that was a negative thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:32PM
while Sanders or (hold my nose) Trump may be a start, either would have 535 other idiots they can't fire. while either would have some choice in how the Executive Branch departments go, and could in theory play Queen of Hearts on their leadership, the bureaucracies have a power and inertia that would be...resistant, to either... and those bureaucracies have their congressional allies too.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 07 2016, @08:47AM
Right, the other 535 idiots that the President would not need to smile and nod to in order to keep their mutual funding partners happy. When a corrupt Senator approaches either Trump or Sanders with a proposal "Hey now would you like to meet my boss - er -campaign financier? He could help you out in your next run, if you'd be willing to just consider a little something for us..."
Either of them will:
a) Tell them to fuck off
and
b) Sound the alarm that that Senator is corrupt as shit
Once the establishment shows a crack in its armor, the time for tongue-in-cheek is over, and it's every senator for themselves. If The People can elect an uncorrupted candidate for President, they can, will, and want to elect an uncorrupted Senator for Congress, and it will send that message more loudly and clearly than anything else would.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:42PM
Yes, completely out of control! Can you just imagine, given the thought that someone known to have grabbed and dumped classified materials might be turned over to authorities, that they would want to send a plane to pick him up? It just blows my mind! Can you imagine it when a person commits a crime in one state and is caught in another that the cops of the first state ACTUALLY GO AND PICK HIM UP???? Wow! Blows my mind. I figured the cops would ask the guy very nicely to come back, or maybe the other state would purchase him a bus ticket or something.
OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @08:02PM
> Can you imagine it when a person commits a crime in one state and is caught in another
That's not speculative. Sending a plane across the ocean on a rumour is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:20PM
Was it a rumor? Where did it say it was a rumor besides in your head? If the Danes or Russians or whoever say "we think we might arrest him", are you saying that's not good enough? And what is your threshold before deciding when to send the plane? And why the hell is sending a gulf stream 5000 miles some kind of implied scandal?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:31PM
To the SoylentNews denizens:
I hereby wish to withdraw my above AC comment on the grounds of "Speaking Against Our Lord and Savior Snowden". I realize that my criticism of this story also becomes criticism of Snowden and this is against site policy. I humbly accept my -1 moderation and I will henceforth not speak again against the groupthink for fear of disrupting our "balanced discussions".
Humbly yours,
J. Galt
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:50PM
Here's a box of Kleenex and some hand lotion, Johnny. Clean up when you're done and try not to make too much noise; the grownups are having a conversation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:28PM
Yessum ma'am. I'll be good now. Won't hear me messing up the echo chamber. Not me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:33PM
Wow. You're quite the dominatrix on this topic, aren't you? And quite an arrogant response for someone who so quickly slings the "arrogant" slur on others.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:50PM
Exactly. It still amazes me that Hillary is not only walking around free but is also still running for President.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:53PM
I'm still curious about how the hell the US was able to force the plane down in Vienna.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:50PM
Morales' plane landed in Vienna because it needed to refuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:59PM
US press release via Austrian media: Morales' plane landed in Vienna because "it needed to refuel". Word.
There, I fixed it for you.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @05:44AM
Looking more carefully--the statement in Wikipedia is supported by an RT (formerly Russia Today) article, http://www.webcitation.org/6O7fE1feo [webcitation.org], with RT's usual anti-U.S. bias. That article says the landing in Vienna was "unexpected". I surmise that additional fuel became necessary after France, Spain and Portugal, pressured by the U.S., refused to allow the plane into their air-space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:50PM
Where is that joke gif when you need it of the US stomping a big dick all over the gameboard of its allies?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Arik on Saturday February 06 2016, @08:37PM
Bernie Sanders, assuming very optimistically he *might* actually stop some of the insanity, would only kill us with more. His economics are utterly toxic - he'd happily take us down the same route that the Soviet Union rode to collapse; and he's admitted repeatedly he doesn't actually care much about foreign policy so there is a very good chance he would cede it early and let the Necons do their thing in return for help implementing his domestic agenda, so we'd be even more screwed.
And Trump is very similar. Next to the crowd of clowns the RNC quislings lined up, he does look a little better by comparison, if only because he is willing to give them a well-deserved tweaking whenever he can, and that gets everyone rooting for him. But follow the money. This guy is a long term friend and ally of the Clintons. It's not a bad bet, in fact, that he's only running in order to throw the race to Hillary. And he gives every indication that if he does win the job he'll do a pretty mean Mussolini imitation.
I don't see any chance of either of these people making any sort of a positive change, even if they won.
The only glint I can see in the silver lining is that the american people are instinctively backing outsiders, those who seem to dissent at least a little from the smug 'wisdom' that has gotten us into our current mess. That's encouraging. But these are still Madison-avenue creations to capture votes, not genuine agents of change.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:08PM
Sanders' economics are far less toxic than you accuse them of. To me, this looks like Eisenhower-style domestic focus with a splash of FDR. The only people this is "toxic" to are the greedheads, like that Goldman-Sachs asshole whining about how "dangerous" Sanders' momentum is. Yeah, dangerous to hellspawn rent-seeking parasites like him. I give slightly fewer fucks than a coked-out honey badger for his angst.
Besides, the status quo ain't exactly workin' so good for us, if you hadn't noticed. We are suffering from a bizarre combination of de jure inflation and de facto deflation. Hear me out: the total money supply is huge thanks to QE, but fiat currency, like the photon, is essentially massless (i.e., no intrinsic worth) and only has value when it has velocity. Ever larger amounts of this currency are being sequestered offshore or (rarely) in solid assets by the super rich.
The rich do not consume, which means their "investments" have the effect of removing money from the circulating supply WITHOUT causing its value to increase as it should under what is essentially deflationary pressure. This isn't good for ANYONE (except the very rich), because you end up with the twin problems of low purchase power per dollar (inflationary) and not enough dollars circulating in the local economy (deflationary).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Arik on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:47PM
"esides, the status quo ain't exactly workin' so good for us, if you hadn't noticed."
No shit.
"We are suffering from a bizarre combination of de jure inflation and de facto deflation. Hear me out: the total money supply is huge thanks to QE, but fiat currency, like the photon, is essentially massless (i.e., no intrinsic worth) and only has value when it has velocity. "
Yes, that's essentially correct, although I hadn't thought of it in those terms before. Another good word for fiat money is 'confidence money' - it is only equivalent to money as long as people have confidence in it. Just like in any con game, once confidence starts being eroded the whole game can collapse quite quickly. Your 'super rich' of course are all aware of this and intend to profit from it just like they try to profit from all other large-scale economic events. And of course the game is tilted a bit in their favor so that is what usually happens.
"Ever larger amounts of this currency are being sequestered offshore or (rarely) in solid assets by the super rich."
I'm not sure where you get your certainty that you know what the super rich do with their money, but other than that this doesn't sound crazy or anything. You may underestimate their 'real' holdings - by a large amount, I would imagine. Land, either idle investment property or actively productive property, has always been a favorite investment among those with enough to do it, and for good reason. As I understand it, much of the US currency 'sequestered' offshore is in the reserves of foreign governments, or perhaps corrupt foreign government members/royals and the like, and little if any is actually sequestered by wealthy US citizens or even wealthy 'westerners' more broadly, but I am making at best a somewhat informed guess I have no real citations for, as I suspect you were doing as well.
And ultimately I suspect none of us can honestly claim to have better than a 'somewhat informed' guess as to what these people are really up to. It's not like you or I have access to the NSA files on these people, and even if we did we'd probably need to go through them carefully for months if not years to start to piece the real picture together, don't you think?
"The rich do not consume"
Huh? Sure they do. How do you figure that?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:56PM
Okay, I should rephrase that: the rich don't consume like the middle class and poor do. Middle class and poor people, we spend the money we get, usually locally, on things like food and rent and heat and gas. The very rich tend to either invest in solid assets, play the stock market (gamble with taxpayer money), or as you point out, send the money offshore and very often into the hands of foreign governments.
Their consumption, in other words, almost never benefits the local economy and usually doesn't even benefit the national economy. All that offshored money SHOULD be, but ISN'T, being counted as "no longer in general circulation." The net effect of this is large portions of the money supply effectively do not exist, but are still counted. This means the dollars that DO circulate have far lower purchasing power than they ought to.
I don't know a solution to this honestly. The only thing I can think of is going to an "energy standard," tying our total currency to our generation capacity. That's less insane than a gold standard, and has the added perk of goosing us into getting off foreign countries' oil for our energy needs, but I do worry it would artificially limit innovation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:45PM
"The only thing I can think of is going to an "energy standard," tying our total currency to our generation capacity. That's less insane than a gold standard, and has the added perk of goosing us into getting off foreign countries' oil for our energy needs, but I do worry it would artificially limit innovation."
While I do like the idea of the energy standard (and have mentioned it myself before) I don't see anything necessarily crazy about the gold standard. Also, at present, the energy standard has virtues but it also has serious problems of its own. Would it be based on electricity? Storage and transmission are still too lossy, unfortunately. Uranium pellets? Not only is fission way too expensive for decentralized use it's too dangerous as well. Barrels of crude oil? You still have storage and transmission issues, it's not actually useful without refinement, and believe me you don't want to try to lug these things around with you when you go shopping. You can create a virtual currency based on some basket of these commodities (or most likely, their futures) but you're back into a confidence currency at that point. It's only good as long as you can trust it to be administered fairly, by people who have every incentive to cheat.
Gold and other metals have been by far the most common sort of money used historically simply because they have loads of very useful qualities for that role. Any replacement needs to be able to at least roughly match those qualities.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:54PM
He can't do that for the same reason that the Anonymous Coward mentioned - the 535 members of Congress. Any free college plans will simply fizzle.
As for his foreign policy, he's simply an isolationist. It's less fashionable to be one right now because of scaaaary ISIS. Hypothetically, Trump or Sanders could reduce military spending by closing some bases.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday February 06 2016, @11:06PM
No, actually, he isn't.
First off I have never met an actual isolationist and doubt they exist.
Usually the word is used as a slur against anti-interventionists.
But Bernie Sanders is no anti-interventionist either. Not by a long long shot.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/27/foreign-policy-sanders-style-backing-saudi-intervention/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/30/the-problem-with-bernie/
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-russia/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 07 2016, @01:38AM
Why has "isolationist" been redefined to essentially mean "anyone who doesn't want to go to war every five seconds"? We would still trade and negotiate with other countries, as well as defend ourselves if we were attacked by clearly-defined enemies, so how are these people (not just Sanders, but even people like Rand Paul who previously were accused of being isolationists) isolationists? The warmongering has gotten so bad that it has become inconceivable for people to imagine us not being at war.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 07 2016, @03:17AM
When I use the word "isolationist", I don't mean it to be a slur against a candidate. I would prefer an "isolationist" candidate, depending on what that means. The scales of American imperialism are tipped very far away from "isolationist".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by CirclesInSand on Sunday February 07 2016, @04:51AM
Isolationist is what Japan was until they opened up ports in Nagasaki to the Dutch.
The term you want is "non-interventionist".
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday February 08 2016, @01:32AM
A big part of it is just projecting. Most of the warmongers are enthusiastic about punitive tariffs and trade embargos, such as with Cuba, Iran, or threats against China. Their policy of "let's shut down trade with anyone we don't like" leaves them being correctly called isolationists. Then like children they go and accuse their non-interventionist opponents of being isolationists, having never understood the charge in the first place.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @11:32PM
First you can't let neocons do anything hoping they will let you go on with your plans - neocons are like rabid dogs, the only way is to put them down. Rich people should have studied history and what happened to their ancestors in theft in 1789.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:13PM
Rich people should have studied history and what happened to their ancestors in theft in 1789.
Problem is they are banking it will happen after they get theirs. Short sighted for personal gain. Just like we see in corporate ideology. Short term gains with little worry about long term prospects.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 07 2016, @06:00AM
Ok, since I'm playing Civ this weekend (just discovered the Caveman2Cosmos mod, fantastic so far), you get this:
Universal Basic Income (Economic Civic)
- High Upkeep
- Unlimited specialists
- +25% Research
- +2 Unhappiness for civilizations without Universal Basic Income¹
- Grants 1 Great Scientist and Great Artist
- +6 health in all cities
- -10% Espionage
- +100% growth for Cottage, Hamlet, Village
- All Corporations have no effect (Beyond the Sword only)
- One additional trade route per city
Required technology: Robotics
Enables World Wonder: Phoenix (requires Antimatter Power, Alcuiberre Drive) (ok, I'm going out on a limb here with that)
Note: After building Phoenix, all existing civilizations become vassal states. Begins Interstellar Era. (waaay out on that limb)
¹ Warning! Immigration problems abound! Expect Montezuma to declare war. Eh, at least if he hasn't already and somehow is still around after the Medieval Era. I'd keep my eye on Ragnar as well. Build a wall!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @07:54AM
But Sanders isn't a totalitarian state capitalist, so your statement is total nonsense and pure FUD.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 07 2016, @08:58AM
"I'm afraid you are too optimistic."
"I don't see any chance of either of these people making any sort of a positive change, even if they won."
" But these are still Madison-avenue creations to capture votes, not genuine agents of change.
So let me get this straight - establishment news media, other politicians, campaign financers, etc. hate both of these candidates, said neither of them would ever be taken seriously, are constantly shilling for all of the other candidates, yet Trump or Sanders are perfectly in line with their goals?
Something just doesn't add up, here.
"Follow the money"
Please, practice what you preach.
Sanders is the longest running Independent Senator in Congressional History. His views are objectively consistent and reliable - something so incredibly rare it would be unbelievable if his history were not recorded. He is principled and will ask the People what they want to do when Congress wants to pass something insanely anti-freedom that big business wants. Congress will obey the citizens he empowers like the dogs that they are or they will lose their positions.
Trump is a businessman. He is going to do what he wants to make the country the most money, to make the country proud of him for the sake of his ego. He has everything he needs and more. Why would he pander to merchants behind closed doors for negligible financial gains when he could:
a) Make the single most stunning 4-year-long advertising campaign for his company humanly possible: Being a great President and international diplomat.
and
b) Gain the adoration of hundreds of millions of people who will then buy your products, stay at your hotels, golf on your courses, etc.
If you think Trump is going to throw away those two critical things for some lobbyist shill who offers him $100k in campaign funding, you are not a healthy skeptic, you are willfully ignorant.
(Score: 2, Troll) by shortscreen on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:04PM
Even though the government admits to doing all manner of objectionable things and everyone likes to complain about them, when the time comes to talk about doing something about it, that is all quickly forgotten. Suddenly government is our best buddy. Because people have fallen into the trap of believing that OTHER_DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP is their enemy and therefore they need government to protect them from their enemy.
Any proposed solution to government disfunction that comes from OTHER_DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP needs to be dismissed out of hand with some name calling thrown in for good measure.
dems: how come the feds keep harassing our cannabis dealers that we legalized in our state?
reps: maybe we should revisit the balance of power between the states and the feds...
dems: states rights? that would be RACISM!!!1
dems: public schools are crap!
reps: what if we gave out a voucher so that parents could choose a private school or homeschooling?
dems: on second thought, public schools are perfect, and you are all religious nuts
reps: Obama wants to enter us in a database and then round us all up!
dems: nah, we have civil rights and stuff. btw, maybe we should close gitmo...
reps: Trump should enter Muslims in a database and then round them all up!
dems: we are Occupying Wall St to protest stuff
reps: damn dirty hippies! hope you like pepper spray
reps: we are Liberty groups and Oregon ranchers protesting stuff
dems: oh government! please save us from the scary gun nuts!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:23PM
What the Bundy Bunch did is domestic terrorism, plain and simple. Your point is largely true (the two parties constantly snipe at one another instead of getting anything done), but most of the examples listed here really are evil on the R side.
You must have noticed that pretty much everything that comes out of the GOP's collective greasy bloodstained mouth is a twisted, zombified, antimatter parody of what the words mean by now, surely? "Religious liberty" means "liberty for my particular perverted Baptist or Calvinist sect to do what we want to others." Their interpretation of "personal responsibility" is simply to destroy the social safety net without addressing, and indeed by their other policies CAUSING, the problems it was created to solve. "Patriotism" means blind unthinking authoritarianism.
The Democrats aren't perfect either; heaven knows they've been Mammon-worshiping sellouts since Slick Willie, heaven knows. But most of their faults come from being greedy, rather than being spit-flinging, mad-eyed theocrats with a dash of sociopathy. Just look at Ted Cruz; the man's face does not move in sync with what he's saying, and his affect is very clearly, well, affectation. His smiles don't reach his eyes, and his gaze stops six inches in front of his eyes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday February 07 2016, @02:48AM
Thanks for proving my point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @04:02AM
Holy shit, you've got some blinders on.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Hairyfeet on Sunday February 07 2016, @12:29AM
Allow me to say to all those "Sweden just want him to answer for the rape charge" TOLD YA SO! Allow me to do "the dance or moral superiority" because I said all over the web then it was just bullshit to give him a rendition ride, where he would have either been thrown in a hole in Gitmo (if he was lucky) or take him to some hellhole like Afghanistan where they could seriously fuck him up and make an example out of him.
As for "the government" being out of control? Its the CIA and the CIA don't answer to nobody anymore. They remind me of the Soviet NKVD where even the politicians feared them because they answered to no one but old Uncle Joe but in the case of the CIA I have to wonder if they even answer to the president anymore, because I can't really see Obama saying "Yes lets do something really fucking DUMB right in the middle of the primary to make my party look like shit when Trump is winning in the polls. Lets do that". But from what we've seen from the CIA these past 40+ years? I think they are just a nest of honey badgers and do not give a fuck.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @04:23AM
Allow me to say to all those "Sweden just want him to answer for the rape charge" TOLD YA SO!
You may be conflating NSA whistleblower Snowden and Wikileaks' Assange.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2016, @08:10PM
What arrogance. We've become the Soviets, right down to getting bogged down in an endless quagmire in Afghanistan. This is the kind of thing we were taught does not happen in America, because we're better than that.
There really is nothing new under the sun is there? History flows like a river, and rhymes with itself if not actually repeats. Assuming we manage to pull ourselves out of this terminal nosedive in time, I believe history will remember Snowden fairly. He's not a hero, exactly; he just did what he had to do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @09:24PM
What arrogance in you idiots. There apparently was reason to think that he'd be handed over to the US in Copenhagen, so they sent a plane to pick him up. What about that is unreasonable? How the hell is that arrogance? "Hey, we want to arrest him" "Ok, he might be handed over to us. Come pick him up." How was the US supposed to get him, have him shipped FedEx?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 07 2016, @01:44AM
How was the US supposed to get him
They weren't. Instead of going after whistleblowers who alert The People of the government's unconstitutional and/or unethical activities, they should be going after the ones who are engaging in these activities. The whistleblower's actions should be celebrated, because without them, we cannot even begin to hold our governments accountable.