Journalist Claims Secret US Flight 'To Capture Snowden' Overflew Scottish Airspace (thenational.scot)

schwit1 writes with a story in The National (a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland) describing the charge laid by a Scottish journalist that in 2013 a secret U.S. flight involving a plane involved in CIA renditions crossed Scottish airspace, as part of a secret plan to capture whistleblower Edward Snowden. Alex Salmond, then Scotland's First Minister, is calling for transparency with regard to the knowledge that the UK government had of the flight and its mission. According to the report, The plane, which passed above the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, was dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow. The craft was used in controversial US 'rendition' missions. Reports by Scottish journalist Duncan Campbell claim the aircraft, traveling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan, was part of a mission to capture Snowden following his release of documents revealing mass surveillance by US and UK secret services. ... [N977GA, the aircraft named as involved in this flight] was previously identified by Dave Willis in Air Force Monthly as an aircraft used for CIA rendition flights of US prisoners. This included the extradition of cleric Abu Hamza from the UK. Snowden accused the Danish Government of conspiring in his arrest. In response to flight reports, he said: "Remember when the Prime Minister Rasmussen said Denmark shouldn't respect asylum law in my case? Turns out he had a secret."

Comments

British Airspace

[mrbill1234]

It would be British airspace. Scotland isn't a country.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be British airspace. Scotland isn't a country.

Bollocks. Scotland is a country. Britain is an Island (collection of- Great Britain).

Re:British Airspace

[Frigga's Ring]

I've wondered this myself, but several sites - including Wikipedia which states "The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." - all disagree with you.

Re:British Airspace

[mrbill1234]

Please direct your complaints to your local Scottish embassy.

Re:British Airspace

[petermgreen]

The problem here is the term "country" is vauge. In most contexts when people say country they mean "Sovereign state" which Scotland is not (they had an independence refferendum recently but voted against independence). Yet the constituant parts of the united kingdom are reffered to as countries despite not being sovereign.

Re:British Airspace

[jrumney]

If we're being pedantic, shouldn't it be UKOGBANI?

Re:British Airspace

[dcarmi]

Scotland isn't a country.

I suggest you come over and say that, pal!
What we are not is a Sovereign State, though this is may well to change in the near future.

Re:British Airspace

[Viol8]

"Scotland is a country"

Scotland hasn't been a country since 1707. Its a region of the UK. The fact that a lot of scots want to believe its still a country doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

What's "country" got to do with it? It went over Scotland, in what way is that not Scottish airspace? Are you fine with drones hovering outside your windows, because you're not a country so it's not your airspace?

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Another graduate of the American school system, no doubt.

Re:British Airspace

[wonkey_monkey]

Scotland is a country. It's not a sovereign state.

Re:British Airspace

[NotDrWho]

If the U.S. controls French, Spanish, Italian, and Austrian airspace, I'm pretty sure they control UK airspace as well (Scotland or otherwise)

Re:British Airspace

[Viol8]

"What we are not is a Sovereign State, though this is may well to change in the near future."

Your glorious independent future where you get fat on the billions in north sea oil revenue, oh , hold on, that'll be gone in 20 years. The billions in ship building! Oh, thats almost gone already.

Oh I know - whisky and hand outs from the EU. Which will be fitting given how many scots are on hand outs from the state.

Re:British Airspace

[Tx]

Even us Brits have trouble with this sometimes. Scotland is a country, just not an independent one, it's part of a larger entity, the United Kingdom; that bit is clear. But our government is called the "British Government" even though it governs the whole United Kingdom, not just the island of Great Britain. Likewise our army is the "British Army" even though it includes the Royal Irish Regiment, and Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So "British" as an adjective seems to mean "of the United Kingdom", rather than "of Britain". It's probably correct in at least some senses to describe the airspace above Scotland as Scottish, British or UK.

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

Strange how the UK itself disagrees with you. "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales..."

Re:British Airspace

[Richard_at_work]

The Scottish government do not retain control of the airspace over Scotland, it is a contiguous airspace zone with the rest of the airspace over England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore its not Scottish airspace, its British airspace.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor bitter little Englishman. How far have the glorious Empire fallen, all the way down to bitter little twats crying in their tea, blaming the world for their downfall.

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

Britain isn't a country, and doesn't control airspace over Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, not Britain. You seem confused about the difference between the sovereign country of the UK and the countries of Scotland, Wales, England (which comprise Great Britain), and Northern Ireland (which collectively form the UK).

Re:British Airspace

[internerdj]

Ok. Now that we've established that. Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace? That would be the most relevant to identifying the actual meaning of the original comment.

Re:British Airspace

[mossy the mole]

The status of the component parts of the UK is one of those odd historical things. But in this case it does say in the summary the that source is an strongly scottish nationalist newspaper so they would of course refer to it as scottish airspace regardless.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Shoot, we've only got a consulate down here...

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a separate Scottish FIR,

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace?

Glorious Supreme Leader Obama (may he live forever).

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just call someone a Moron for not knowing Scotland's political structure?

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

What does legal control over the airspace matter? "Scottish airspace" was used in a geographic sense. It provided more specificity than saying "UK airspace," and therefore made the statement more informative.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

So "British" as an adjective seems to mean "of the United Kingdom", rather than "of Britain".

In fairness there isn't a derivative of United Kingdom which rolls off the tongue as easily as British, in the same way that people tend to say "the American government" rather than "The USA government", despite the fact that "American" can refer North or South America. Arguably even though the UK encompasses places which aren't in Britain, most of the major historical and political events which define the UK happened in Britain/to people from Britain.

It does irritate me when certain newspapers claim to have investigated such-and-such a thing in the UK, but it's only when I've spent time reading the article that realist that either they mean Britain, or worse, they just mean England and Wales.

Re:British Airspace

[Viol8]

Bitter?? ITYM laughing at a bunch of skirt wearing professional whingers north of the border who blame everyone except themselves for their non existent economy.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

But our government is called the "British Government" even though it governs the whole United Kingdom, not just the island of Great Britain

Technically it's "Her Majesty's Government" which would make more sense, it's just commonly referred to as the British Government.

Re:British Airspace

[Shortguy881]

One could argue that its just piss poor naming on the part of the UK. Their "Country" is equivalent to our statehood, or a municipality, or, in this case, a bunch of drunks in a closet.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Another graduate of the Colonial school system, no doubt.

FTFY

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

If by our you mean the US, the use of the term state to refer to something that is not an independent nation state is at odds with most of the rest of the world.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

They can say what they like - particularly if they are using the word "country" to mean a historical region which is now subordinate to another legislature, has limited economic independence, cannot negotiate with other powers in its own right, and cannot field its own army.

Re:British Airspace

[Pax681]

"Scotland is a country"

Scotland hasn't been a country since 1707. Its a region of the UK. The fact that a lot of scots want to believe its still a country doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Then you don't klnow much bud. Scotland is a country in it's own right and even has a separate and distinct legal system.
As wonkey_monkey says.. it's a country and not a sovereign state. It is one of 4 constituent countries of Great Britain.

Re:British Airspace

[internerdj]

If legal control doesn't matter then how is the geographic region relevant to the article? I presumed this was hinting at some sort of collusion. If that wasn't the case then how they attempted to get there is pretty irrelevant.

Re:British Airspace

[Righ]

You could argue that but it would make you seem pretty stupid. There are historic and legal reasons why the state is a United Kingdom of multiple countries and why this is not constitutionally similar to the United States of America.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of William Wallace:

They can take our freedom, but they'll never take our PENSIONS!!

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

They flew over Scotland. The local officials want answers from the UK government about how this was allowed. That shouldn't be hard to figure out, and isn't any different than things that occur on a regular basis between US States and the federal government, when federal actions occur within state borders.

Additionally, stating "Scottish airspace" provides more detail than simply saying "UK airspace," making the statement more informative, and providing the basis for the Scottish interest in the matter.

Re:British Airspace

[RabidReindeer]

If by our you mean the US, the use of the term state to refer to something that is not an independent nation state is at odds with most of the rest of the world.

Except for the United States of Mexico, the Federated States of Micronesia, and perhaps a few others.

Then again, some thought when the USA was founded that the states should be independent. Abraham Lincoln pretty much put a stop to that, though.

Re:British Airspace

[quenda]

But our government is called the "British Government" even though it governs the whole United Kingdom, not just the island of Great Britain.

"Great Britain" refers to the largest of the British Isles. Ireland is also British, once known as Little Britain.
They'll probably still call it the British Government after Scotland secedes, so as not to upset the Welsh.

Re: British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Britain and Ireland are both British isles.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is.

England, Wales, and Scotland. All three together form Great Britain. Add in Northern Ireland and you have the United Kingdom.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Little Britain... yeah I know.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Sovereign and nation are two distinct words with separate meanings. Why do you suppose that is?

Re:British Airspace

[SvnLyrBrto]

The first person in the thread to get it wrong was immediately corrected by half a dozen people, some citing the UK governments own published material on the matter. So yes, I think it's perfectly fair to consider people who continue to get it wrong... while in many cases insisting on their own false correctness... to be morons.

Re:British Airspace

[dave420]

Ireland is NOT British, as 'Britain' means 'the United Kingdom'. If Scotland leaves, they will still be called 'Britain' and 'British Government' as the United Kingdom will still exist, albeit in a smaller part of the British Isles.

Re:British Airspace

[dave420]

You are getting somewhat confused. I can try to help:

1. Great Britain is a geographical term, meaning the largest island in the British Isles.
2. Britain is a political term synonymous with "the United Kingdom"

So yes, the government is British as it represents all of Britain (the United Kingdom). The British Army is similarly named correctly.

Re:British Airspace

[cold fjord]

...and even has a separate and distinct legal system.

Not merely distinct but one with some admirable features. I've always thought that its choice of three verdicts was both interesting and has a certain wisdom to it. Of course that system is under pressure.

"... this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"."

Re:British Airspace

[dave420]

'Britain' is a political term meaning precisely the same thing as 'UK'. 'Great Britain' is a geographic term for the large island. I can understand your confusion, but you are unfortunately wrong on this subject.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't anyone would say Welsh Airspace or Cornish Airspace.

In America things are much clearer. There is US, Canadian, Mexican and Texan airspace. And the US can do pretty much it wants in any of them except Texas.

Re:British Airspace

[Pax681]

yeah I remember a few choice characters getting the "not Proven " verdict.. it's a case of "we know you did it but we can't prove it" as I have been told.

Re: British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget that they have their own national football team that can play internationally. What other criteria could one possibly ask for?

Re: British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

And Hong Kong technically isn't a country either, although to call it part of China is also misleading, as it is self-governed, has its own visa and border policies, and laws passed in China don't apply to Hong Kong, and vice-versa.

Really the concept of a country is a vague term. Depending how you look at it, Scotland, the UK, and even the EU all are country-like, and the fact the Scotland is a country and the UK is made up of four countries just comes down to semantics.

Re: British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah you're thinking Bretagna.

Re:British Airspace

[amicusNYCL]

Fucking Slashdot. I read the summary, think "hmm, that's interesting", and want to read through the comments to see if people are talking about the plane that was used, maybe some other links to information about the plane, the flight path, where it landed or took off from, how they thought they were going to capture Snowden, or any number of other interesting things, and here you guys are 8 comment levels deep arguing about whether or not Scotland is a country.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that this touches a nerve, but Ireland is most definitely "British", not in the sense that it is ruled from London (anymore), but it it IS one of "the British Islands". The bigger one, known as "Great Britain" would be the part containing Wales, England, Scotland. So while Ireland is still ire-land, quite obviously, it's still "British", since it's part of the archipelago.

Rather confusingly though, the post you're replying to is wrong too, because he applies logic to anything "British", "Little Britain" would not be Ireland, since it's the next biggest island in the British archipelago, no sir. That would be Britannia Minor", which we today call "Brittany", or An Bhreatain Bheag, which I just found out would be Wales, of all places.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

How would you know, you're not even a True Scotsman!

Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission, and they feel entitled to information because they're somebody important from... a different government than has control over the airspace. So they don't know if it was with permission, and they're not the people who would be told.

What I want to hear about is, why do they think an overflight affects the village councils and things that they fly over? This isn't a case of a supersonic plane bursting local tomatoes or anything. They didn't even know they should be "concerned" until somebody told them it happened. Too bad nobody pointed out to them it isn't their business to manage it.

Just imagine how the "transparency" they seek would work. The US and UK are close military allies. If every town council can have access to any information about secret US flights there, then the US would have to stop all secret activities in the UK that matter. Things that are just part of frivolous plots are schemes could still continue, of course; but anything with military importance would have to be done somewhere else. Preparing for D-Day? We'd have had to go in through Italy.

If these fools had half a clue about the subject, if they had put some serious thought into it, they would have come up with something better to ask for than to sniff around under Uncle Sam's drawers. He's not gonna pull `em down for you, give it up. And the UK's legit governing authorities are not going to interfere with their closest military ally when nothing actually happened in the UK. Of course they let us fly over whenever we want. They let us park nuclear submarines there when we're driving by, too, and all manner of airplanes with secret weapons on them. How would it work to still be military allies with a "special relationship," and yet allow town councils to make queries about secrets that don't affect them in any way?

Re:British Airspace

[Richard_at_work]

Civilian air traffic control for Northern Ireland is handled by the Prestwick control centre of the National Air Traffic Service, which is licensed by the CAA (a Department for Transport statutory corporation, owned by the British government).

Yes, the government that covers the UK is colloquially known as the British Government. So yes, the British Government does control the airspace over Northern Ireland.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

Wikipedia mixes different languages together under the same heading; American English, British English, even Aussie. In a case such as this, it would be expected to be British English. In British English I have no doubt that it is as wikipedia states. However, in American English it isn't true. Scotland is called a country formally, but that is simply part of the formal naming of the province of Scotland. Just as, American States would often not be considered "states" in British English.

Presumably everybody saying that Scotland isn't a country is saying so in American English, and people saying it is a country are saying it in British English.

And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"

To which I reply: Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

Davey, Britain can't mean that. It isn't even available for consideration. One is an ancient term with established meaning, the other is a modern political unit. The ancient term can't be defined originally or primarily in terms of the modern term.

Or to translate that for you: Hoo dae ye say 'United Kingdom' in Scots? A dinna onerstaun. See approach proud Edward's power - Chains and Slaverie. Scots wha hae. Damned few an' they're a' deid.

Presumably most of the Irish agree.

Scotland was part of Britain long before anything was united. Unity is not a necessary element of living on the same island, and historically is not the standard state of affairs.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

"You disagreed after I contradicted you, you must be a moron."

I'm not sure your analysis really leads where you want it to. Especially if you're trying to correct somebody's American English statement, that is true in American English, with British English in which the same words are not true. They don't have to be an moron to continue disagreeing, but if somebody has to be one, you're a prime candidate.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

British describes things that are owned by the government of the United Kingdom whenever the context is within an era such as the modern one when all of Great Britain is united under the same sovereign power.

When reading history it is very important to understand these terms. Historical discussions will use British to describe everything on the island, or just the things from the island. Often in descriptions of battlefield movements and things the term British is used there to describe the native armies on both sides separately from the foreign armies also on the field. You can't just presume that the words all mean the same thing they would mean if the evening newsreader said them that way. Often there is a very clear, very explicit, non-ambiguous but complicated variety of semantics.

I'll give you an example. There is a battle near the border of England and Scotland. There are French fighting on the side of the Scots, and Welsh fighting with the English. Somebody says, "The Brits are winning!" What does that imply? It implies the battle is a draw, a tie, but the French are all getting slaughtered. In all the many wars between Scotland and England, both sides were British. Get over it.

Re:British Airspace

[msauve]

If you want to insist the airspace is not Scottish on a pedantic/semantic/legal basis, then don't use colloquial terms like British in your argument, because you're wrong. If you want to use informal terms, then it's not incorrect to call it "Scottish airspace," and you're still wrong.

Either argue with technically correct terms, or use informal ones. But be consistent. You're trying to win your point by arbitrarily redefining terms to match your argument.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the office of the President that demonstrates such abuse, not the person. Don't think for a minute that President Trump or President Cruz or President Hillary wouldn't have done the same thing.

Re:British Airspace

[Coren22]

My curiosity is why they think this was:

1. A rendition flight at all
2. Had anything to do with Snowden

I think people have a higher opinion of how much Snowden matters than is actual reality.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Now that we've established that. Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace? That would be the most relevant to identifying the actual meaning of the original comment.

The same country that has authority over Scottish law - Scotland.

Britain isn't a country - it's a set of islands.

The UK isn't a country - it's a nation made up of 4 countries.

Re:British Airspace

[Coren22]

I'm not your pal, friend.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Don't Mess with Texas

Re:British Airspace

[HiThere]

That's a problem of historic nomenclature. Originally the States were independent nations acting independently, and banded together for common goals. And in frequent disagreement. This was under the "Articles of Confederation". Some people thought this was a bad idea, so they got together a revolutionary committee and wrote the "Federal Constitution". They had no legal authority do to so, but many were strongly connected politically, so they got away with it, and got most of the original states to agree (after including the first 10 amendments). Officially the states were still independent nations, but bound together a bit more tightly. The Constitution was supposed to be a limitation of what the Federal Government was allowed to do. And the states were still in theory independent states. As such the common reference was "These United States". Then there arose a massive disagreement and about half these states decided that they didn't like the federal government, so they were going to split and form a new government. They called it the Confederacy. Well, the Federal government didn't like that much, and so a war was fought to keep them from leaving. (There was no enabling power to allow this to be done in the Constitution, and that was supposed to mean that the Feds couldn't stop them, but military power disagreed.) Since then the US has been "The United States", and the states have continually lost power which has accrued to the Federal government in defiance of the Constitution. Patrick Henry predicted this whole thing (well, sort of) when after reading the constitution he said of it "I smell a rat. It stinks of monarchy."

So the states are called states not because of an improper use of the term, but rather as a part of the process of history. One may confidently predict that if the EU survives over the centuries, some similar process will occur.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission,

Murican huh? And you wonder why the world hates you.

Re:British Airspace

[Alioth]

The Scottish upper FIR is controlled by something called Scottish control. The FIR boundary is actually south of the Scottish border.

Re:British Airspace

[Hognoxious]

Given that most of the members here are Americans, I suspect that few of them could point to it on a map. I'd predict a three way split between Ireland, New Zealand, and that one that looks a bit like a camel.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that most of the members here are Americans, I suspect that few of them could point to it on a map. I'd predict a three way split between Ireland, New Zealand, and that one that looks a bit like a camel.

When I first flew into LAX back in 1991, I wrote British as my nationality on my landing card. The US immigration guy crossed it out and wrote UK instead.
Those folk from 'murica aren't as stupid as they look.

Re:British Airspace

[ChunderDownunder]

Her majesty's governments of Canada, NZ, Australia, Isle of Man, Jersey etc aren't part of the UK.

Re:British Airspace

[SvnLyrBrto]

This isn't some random appeal to "I'm right because *I* say so." au-thor-i-tah. This is a case of easily-verifiable facts. The error in question was about the organization and legal status of the various entities which comprise the United Kingdom. One can goto any number of sources to find the correct answer. One of the cited sources was the UK government itself.

To present a falsehood as a fact, and continue to hold said falsehood as true even when you are corrected and provided an authoritative source is either moronic or trolling.

Re:British Airspace

[Darinbob]

Back on alt.fan.pratchett we used to refer to Americans and Yukians.

Re:British Airspace

[KGIII]

You Sir, and I reserve the right to not agree with everything you say, have just found a spot on my "friends" list. (It's how I keep track of posts that I might want to read.) And no, no... I seem to recall that you've said a number of things that I don't entirely agree with and that's okay - you've always presented such logically and some dignity (well, that last part made *me* snicker).

Nope... I don't always agree with the conclusions you make - usually because we've a marginally different perspective but nothing so major as to remove all commonality. So, onto that friends list with you. Why? Well, you worded it well and are factually accurate (though I suppose we might argue a detail or two).

The sad thing is, that posting such and knowing such is what got you there. See, I find it sad that you had to explain that to someone who is, in all likelihood, an American. They're also likely to be an adult and likely to have graduated from at least high school. Yet you had to, or felt you had to, explain the very basics of why we're a country and what it meant.

I recently had the chance to explain who Amerigo Vespucci is to someone. I guess they can be forgiven. They're a young kid who hasn't taken American History yet. I see your post as something similar. At least, in my case, he's just a kid. I've also kind of adopted 'em and his little brother but that's a long story. They're well spoken and intelligent - quite inquisitive, really. They're a joy to have around the house and I live vicariously through their exploits. But, 'tis a long story and they're horrible time-stealers! Buggers keep eating into my /. time!

Re: British Airspace

[KGIII]

Anything old, such as the concept of borders and governance, is bound to have some ambiguity. This concept, in particular, has had a whole bunch of varied implementations over the years and spans the globe by its nature. Pinning the word to a single definition that is accepted by all is likely an exercise in futility.

It's probably best to not use the word as having a strict definition but to avoid it, where possible, by being less vague. I don't imagine that will satisfy a whole lot more people but it might lead to fewer instances of genuine confusion. So, there's that.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

What all of our American Friends don't realise there is a big political dimension to all of this. The Devolved Government in Scotland [which has no powers over defence, tax, airspace etc. - their only concern in spending someone else's money] is comprised of the Scottish National Party whose primary purpose is to blame England [and especially the right-of-centre Government which currently runs the UK or previous even left-of-centre ones] for everything.

They are a rabid mob of lefties who froth at the mouth at any mention of US involvement in spying, defence, renditions etc. Their sense of outrage needs to be stoked. The ex-First Minister will do ANYTHING to get his mug back on TV on in the papers.

This is a same mob who at the Independence vote promised the punters a land of milk, honey and dole money for all - all sustained by a $100+ oil price : and still lost.

Re:British Airspace

[Jack Griffin]

Yet no representation at the United Nations? Weird....

Re:British Airspace

[Jack Griffin]

The United Nations disagrees with you.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are. My passport says "British Citizen", not "United Kingdomish Citizen.

Re:British Airspace

[tehcyder]

Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission

Because of course no one in America would care if a Russian or French plane flew over mainland USA at 45,000 ft without permission.

Re:British Airspace

[tehcyder]

The term "the British Isles" definitely includes Ireland, and it's a geographical rather than political term. The British Isles include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are also not part of the United Kingdom.

This stuff is quite confusing even if you're English. Er, British.

Re:British Airspace

[tehcyder]

And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"

Translation: dinna fuck wi' me pal!

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

Right, but your reply right here? It does not show that you read the post you're replying to. Instead of just waving your hands as if I hadn't said anything, and presuming I would consider that, you need to alter your words to take into consideration what I said. Show enough theory of mind so that I think you understood my point, and I might consider whatever your opposing view is. If I can't even tell that you read my words, I'm not going to attempt to identify your ideas.

Re:British Airspace

[Aighearach]

Nobody in America would think that our government doesn't have the authority to give that permission, or claim that the local town councilors need "transparent" access to the government's approval process for military overflights by major allies.

Details are important, try to pay attention to the details you're responding to.

If it was too long to read it all, just skip over it without replying please.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, how about that, a "citizen." I always thought you guys were considered "subjects," i.e. property of the queen.

Re:British Airspace

[RockDoctor]

Different areas have different controlling authorities at different times. Just for starters, the airspace downrange from the South Uist missile launch range goes on military control from time to time. The airspace around the foreign nuclear missile bases is, surprisingly, under foreign control. Some of the airspace is under control of the UK's civilian aviation authority near London (i.e. foreign control). Other airspace in the North Sea is under control from somewhere in Fife (not sure if that's a Scottish government or a British government control).

Like any country with several borders with peers, it's a complex mess. That means just about any country that isn't the US or Canada.

Re:British Airspace

[Pax681]

The Act of the Union 1707 Disagrees with you ;)

Re:British Airspace

[dcarmi]

I'm not your pal, friend.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with Scottish turn of phrase.

Re:British Airspace

[dcarmi]

Bitter?? ITYM laughing at a bunch of skirt wearing professional whingers north of the border who blame everyone except themselves for their non existent economy.

Yeah well. You'll soon have managed to get rid of us and then you can start of the Welsh and the Irish and those irritating Northern Folks, who moan when it gets a little bit damp. A sad, selfish and short-sighted attitude, typical of the Southern "Elite".

Re:British Airspace

[Coren22]

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

It was a joke, but I guess I screwed it up.

Re:British Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak for the whole world, wow! In regards to your statement: Nope, just terrists, gurlymen and the results of revurse natral selecshun like you.

Keep regurgitating the musings of your liberal professors and pod-people peers kid. 20-30 years from now, the effects should wear off.

Cold Fjord!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! Some call cold_fjord! National Security and Honor are at stake! Think of the... uh, whatever.

Re: Cold Fjord!

[bill_mcgonigle]

"National honor" really is at stake. The Espionage Act of 1917 is a democratic disaster and leads to most of our current ills (those who installed a "secret government") weren't fools - they see the bugs as features.

If we have users here who support the secret state, they're really against this country's founding principles and can be safely dismissed as cowards or cronies.

Re: Cold Fjord!

[Anonymous Coward]

> "National honor" really is at stake. The Espionage Act of 1917 is a democratic disaster [...]

Couldn't agree more. Sadly, that's not an US prerogative. Practically all those "democracies" and "states of right" out there have some shady, self-serving (and overly powerful) organizations doing nasty stuff and not being held accountable for it.

They are at least as dangerous for our civil societies as those Terrorists(TM) or Enemies of the State(TM) they are supposed to fight.

Okay...

[Rei]

I don't know any of the details of what they're alleging here concerning Snowden. But Abu Hamza wasn't "rendered". He underwent an 8 year extradition process involving tons of appeals, ultimately his case to block extradition failed (after receiving binding pledges from the US as to the maximum sentence that would be sought and in what sort of conditions he'd be kept in), and he was extradited to the US to be tried on terrorism charges. Last year he was sentenced to life in prison for them.

The fact that they're playing fast and loose with the terminology on the stuff that's easy to double check here makes me question this report. There might be something to it, but it's not a good start. Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy. And Abu Hamza wasn't rendered, it was an entirely above-board, fully within normal legal processes extradition.

Re: Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism is the art of writing fiction with a few verifiable bits of data.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think perhaps that the use of the aircraft in a legitimate extradition is proof of who controls the aircraft and for what general purpose it is used. 1) being the US Gov 2) for moving people around the US gov doesn't like.

Re:Okay...

[rmdingler]

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

By TFS's own admission, the Scottish paper at the heart of this accusation has an agenda.

Look. The U.S. still rightly wears some egg on its face from the government's routine disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, but at the time of the alleged flyover, at worst, the UK was probably just assisting an ally.

Re:Okay...

[NotDrWho]

I strongly suggest that, for anyone who doubts just how far the U.S. is willing to go to get Snowden (and Julian Assange too, for that matter), to just ask the President of Bolivia how far the U.S. is willing to go.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have encountered "journalists" who have spend their time trying to say that $SUBCULTURE (goth/punk/country/western/metal) is inherently evil, and taking people's statements, spoken, and online out of context.

Journalism means squat these days. It is about making stuff to get eyeballs, as opposed to actual news. In fact, stating one is a journalist is a good way to be removed and banned from groups/forums these days.

Re:Okay...

[wonkey_monkey]

But Abu Hamza wasn't "rendered"

Yes he was. An extradition is a rendition.

Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy.

No-one said anything about extraordinary rendition.

Re:Okay...

[Type44Q]

Extraordinary rendition is a very serious charge to levy.

Extremely serious; no doubt they're quivering in their boots...

Re:Okay...

[Rei]

Funny that you mention both Assange and the president of Bolivia in that same context, given that Assange later admitted to having "SWATed" the president of Bolivia, leading to the president of Bolivia to demand an apology from him. He was the source of the misinformation that Snowden was on the president's airplane.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like both of those guys, but am still shocked at their levels of denial, idiocy, or amateurism that led them to have no physical security plan in place for the INEVITABLE shitstorm their actions would cause. That's just stupid.

Even a cursory reading of late 20th century history shows what The US makes happen (physically, legally, financially, reputationally) to those who get in the way of, oppose too cleverly and effectively, or embarrass the US government. Remember COINTELPRO, anyone? Well, God only knows what they're up to now, with the PATRIOT act as their cover...

WTF were these two thinking? Why were they such dopes per the real world consequences?

Re:Okay...

[Holi]

Yep, let's get rid of all journalists because a handful are bad.

Re:Okay...

[Jerry Atrick]

The actual words are clumsy but the most reasonable interpretation is 'the plane was also used to extradite Abu Hamza'. Just the bad writing letting people read rendition into it.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about lazy journalism, celebrity journalism, and yellow journalism, which have always existed.

The impassioned, truth-based, investigative/expose/finger-pointing-naming-names journalism has ALWAYS been the exception, hence it is so notable when it exists. Those whom the reports gore, hate it. Those who love truth and courage, encourage the journalists and prize their work.

There's People and the other fluff journalism, then there are people who report the news. But, then there's I. F. Stone, Edward Morrow, Bradlee/Woodward/Bernstein, or Rachel Maddows (who would NOT let up on the poisoned water story in Flint) who wind up famous after a long time as pariahs (certainly inside the power structure) if they aren't crushed outright.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

telesur isn't a credible source.

Re:Okay...

[wonkey_monkey]

It's not bad writing because an extradition is a rendition.

Re:Okay...

[spacepimp]

How about Assange himself to Democracy Now!?

JULIAN ASSANGE: He was in Moscow. And then we looked for, well, how can we get him out of Moscow without a diplomatic—sorry, without a passport? Because the airplanes won’t take him, commercial airliners won’t take him. And we noticed that there was an oil conference in Moscow, and President Maduro was going to be there, amongst other presidents. And one of those other presidents was President Evo Morales. Now, we then reached out our feelers to Maduro, who had already given an informal, and maybe even by that stage public, offer of asylum to Snowden. But we decided that because there was so much surveillance, that in this communication our code word for "Maduro" would be "Morales," because he was so surveilled. And we had lawyers involved, and non-technical people who couldn’t really communicate themselves. And then Evo made a joke, while he was in Russia at this oil conference. President Evo Morales joked that—at the end of an interview, he said, well, he was off to meet Snowden now. It was just a joke.

Anyway, these things seemed to have combined, the interceptions of us and this joke by Morales. And the U.S. intelligence services put two and two together and made 22, and decided that they then had to expend vast amounts of political capital, ringing up the countries of Western Europe and trying to close their airspace to a presidential jet flight from Evo Morales, which they did. And Spain, France and Portugal closed their airspace, incredibly, to a presidential jet flight, because U.S. intelligence had asked them to, and done so without any legal or administrative process. And then the Morales flight took off and tried to go into its overflight path to refuel in the Canary Islands, to go off to Bolivia. They couldn’t do so because the airspace had been closed, and it was forced to land in Vienna. And then there was a 12-hour process, where President Morales was stuck in the airport waiting lounge of Vienna because he couldn’t get the clearance anywhere else. Now, a presidential jet is protected under the Vienna Convention. That’s the convention that in fact protects me in this embassy. It surrounds diplomatic territory. And presidential jets are listed as diplomatic territory. So you had a violation, enormous violation, of the Vienna Convention in Vienna.

Now, this really sealed Edward Snowden’s successful asylum application, when eventually it became clear it was too dangerous to take any other option, in Russia, because what could be the Russian response to this downing of President Evo Morales’s flight? The only response that they could give to seem like a credible country is that if he asks for—if Snowden asks for asylum, then they would accept the asylum request. And that’s what ended up happening. So this incredible diplomatic own goal led to this bullying of Western Europe, which provided the ultimate proof that Edward Snowden was being politically persecuted, which is what ended up giving him asylu

Re:Okay...

[ultranova]

Fruit of the poisonous tree.
By TFS's own admission, the Scottish paper at the heart of this accusation has an agenda.

So if I present arguments for my case they should be disregarded because I have an agenda (making my case)? Nice logic.

Re:Okay...

[rmdingler]

Idealogical bias is allowed, of course, and typically it is ubiquitous. Truth is not.

GP was shown to have exaggerated one debate point, and so we must at least consider the possibility other debate points are suspect.

Re:Okay...

[dave420]

He was rendered, though. 'Render' just means to give something to someone, in this case a prisoner to whoever extradited him. The process is "extradition", and the act is "rendering". 'Extraordinary rendition' is not the same thing as 'rendition', hence the extra word in there to highlight the difference.

Re: Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have ran out of tape. Anyway, what I meant when saying 'not credible' was 'incredible'.

Re: Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if the rendition is rendered impossible?

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

except that the Vienna convention doesn't, in any way, allow you to fly across other people's airspace.

Re:Okay...

[guestapoo]

Yeah, it's true that Assange spread this misinformation, the same Assange convinced Snowden to flee to Russia instead of S. America.

But, it doesn't change the fact that *some one* forced to ground and searched airplane of a PRESIDENT of a country by that information. Assange use this misinformation to prove the fact that (reposted):

The story, by Greg Miller, recounts daily meetings with senior officials from the FBI, CIA, and State Department, all desperately trying to come up with ways to capture Snowden. One official told Miller: “We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: ‘You’re in our airspace. Land.’ ” He wasn’t. And since he disappeared into Russia, the US seems to have lost all trace of him.

Re:Okay...

[Aighearach]

The fact that they're playing fast and loose with the terminology on the stuff that's easy to double check here makes me question this report.

It's a bird! It's a plane! Nemo me impune lacessit!!!!

Re:Okay...

[Aighearach]

Newsflash: still close military allies.

You'll need to change that first, for it to end. You not feeling the love anymore? Nope, doesn't change the relationship between nations in any way.

Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.

Re:Okay...

[cold fjord]

There is no US warrant for Assange. If the US wanted him they could have simply asked the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US. Instead people construct these Rube Goldberg schemes which require not one country to agree to extradition, but two! The fantasy idea that the US is going to extradite Assange from Sweden requires both Sweden to agree and the UK (due to EU treaty). The people claiming the US is going to extradite Assange from Sweden can't really explain why the UK won't agree to direct extradition but will to indirect extradition through Sweden.

Re:Okay...

[Aighearach]

... without any legal or administrative process. ...

There is no international government with authority to apply a "legal process." The administrative process was also the legal process on both sides of those phone calls; they were diplomatic calls, diplomatic requests. As long as the people closing the airspace are locally authorized to do so, then it is all legal. And if they actually should have said "no" under local law, it is all still legal under international law. Those are local matters. Maybe they just don't like the way President Morales conducts his diplomacy and they said yes for their own local reasons? Local politics can work that out.

It is disheartening when so many who claim that they want to support laws really don't care what they are. They neither want to establish agreed laws through a representative system, nor to follow the existing laws. They ignore the existence of the laws they dislike, the existence of process they dislike, and they assert the existence of laws they would like but that do not actually exist.

Re:Okay...

[Aighearach]

Worse, the plane in question wasn't deployed as a diplomatic mission to any of the places that refused passage. They were deployed to Russia on a diplomatic mission. It would have been a violation for Russia to deny exit passage, but nobody else is implicated.

Each diplomatic officer that the Vienna Convention applies to has to be declared in advance and accepted by the host nation. It doesn't apply to anybody who the foreign nation just says is some sort of diplomat. It is only actual diplomatic staff that have been formally assigned and accepted.

For example, the Martian Ambassador to France has diplomatic immunity in France, but not in Australia. Even if there is also a Martian Embassy in Australia. Likewise, the Martian Ambassador to Australia doesn't have any immunity or right of passage in France.

If heads of State automatically had diplomatic immunity, that would lead to a new war tactic; elect Rambo and have him invade your enemy who won't be allowed to fight back. But no, treaties were not that poorly thought out in most cases. ;)

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm sure it's standard policy for the UK to spend millions of pounds a year monitoring an embassy 24/7 for harboring a "fugitive" not even formally accused of a crime. It had nothing to do with the U.S. pressuring them to get him to Sweden at any cost.

Re:Okay...

[cold fjord]

You mean fugitive, not "fugitive," Assange jumped bail in the UK and is now a fugitive from both British justice and Swedish justice. Assange is wanted on a EU arrest warrant. Under the Swedish justice system changes come later in the process just like they do in various other continental justice systems. If there was a problem with the process it would have been discovered in the trips up to both the UK Supreme Court and the Swedish Supreme Court. Please explain why you think and what evidence there is for the US pressuring anyone to get Assange to Sweden, and why? If the US wanted him they could have asked for him and avoided getting extradition permission from two countries instead of one. Assange is wanted in Sweden to answer for allegations of rape, it is that simple.

Re:Okay...

[Coren22]

Heck, Assange hasn't even broken any laws in the US, why would they want him at all? He published embarrassing stuff, so did Greenwald and I don't see anyone trying to rendition him from Brazil. Why all this conspiracy theory persists, I can't imagine. The guy raped two women, why do people defend him like this?

Re:Okay...

[Coren22]

But how does that apply to rendering fat? /sarcasm

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzzt! Wrong construct buddy. Try a new Rube Goldberg scheme.

Assange is not in the UK. Assange is in Ecuador's embassay, which is Ecuador and the only thing the UK can do is spend millions of pounds in policemen parked at the door to keep him prisoner.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Slashdot's new owners cut off long rants mid-sentence? Thanks Whiplash!

Re: Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could the difference be that the UK may not extradite people to face the death penalty? And that the US wants to seek the death penalty for the crime, thus they might be seeking extradition to a country more amenable to extradition without limitation?

I have to admit I don't know if the UK generally require the death penalty be taken off the table for extradition. But it is a potential consideration.

Re: Okay...

[cold fjord]

Nope, that won't be it. The UK still has to agree to extradition as well as Sweden agreeing to extradition if the US were to try to extradite from Sweden. It makes no sense, the UK has to agree in both cases. And remember that the US has no warrant for Assange, so how could they ask to have him extradited? The only thing that makes sense if the US wanted to extradite Assange would be for the US to ask to extradite Assange from the UK directly. That way it doesn't have to get Sweden to agree also. But the US has not done that. The death penalty could be taken off the table by the prosecutor if need be, but there are no charges known to be filed, there is no warrant, and the US hasn't tried to extradite him after years. This is nonsense from advocates for Assange to excuse his flight from justice for the allegations of sexual assault.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand the scheme. The imaginary scheme that has been dreamed up by Assange and / or his supporters is that the secret plot is to get him to Sweden where he will be extradited to the US instead of just doing it from the UK. It overlooks the flaws I have pointed out elsewhere in the thread.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no US warrant for Assange. If the US wanted him they could have simply asked the UK which has an extradition treaty with the US.

You reply to the wrong post.

Re:Okay...

[tehcyder]

For example, the Martian Ambassador to France has diplomatic immunity in France, but not in Australia.

I appear to have missed a rather important news story recently.

I take it we're on good terms and it wasn't some War of the Worlds scenario at least?

Re:Okay...

[Aighearach]

No, you just never read a philosophy or physics book. ;)

It is the standard intellectual device for a truly neutral third party without an identifiable cultural bias.

In physics it takes the form of discussing the quality of explanations; how would you explain an objective scientific concept to a visiting Martian anthropologist? It is used as a thought experiment to try to uncover assumptions. Often when people first try to phrase things without assumptions, they leave a bunch in that they assume are general enough, so the Martian exercise is necessary to try to bridge that gap and get them to agree to make less cultural assumptions in the explanation.

In philosophy it takes a similar form, but is more often used to challenge negative assumptions; you can't prove negatives, so when somebody tries to, it is normal to say, "Well you can't even prove that the Martians aren't going to invade tomorrow. They could have an invasion fleet parked behind the moon right now and nobody would know! Prove they don't!"

Re: Okay...

[eric_harris_76]

Are you sure about that? It's close, but not quite. I think.

I thought journalism was a kind of sausage making, creating a product made from staged media events, press releases, filler, facts, and fact by-products.

rendition

[Anonymous Coward]

So they absolutely were trying to snatch him up and disappear him, looks like even before the arrest warrant was issued. Color me not surprised.

Scotlandâ(TM)s

[Anonymous Coward]

To whipslash,

Let's Make ASCII Great Again. Slashdot must remain an American website with American-centric views, conventions, focus, and everything.

Don't be tempted by the evil suggestions of UTF-8! It's a Eurosocialist conspiracy!

Re:Scotlandâ(TM)s

[Incadenza]

U+1F44D

Re:Scotlandâ(TM)s

[Flavianoep]

Since when is Scotlandâ a trade mark?

Re:Scotlandâ(TM)s

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's Make ASCII Great Again. Slashdot must remain an American website with American-centric views, conventions, focus, and everything.

Don't be tempted by the evil suggestions of UTF-8! It's a Eurosocialist conspiracy!

Oh come on... think of all those poor starving Emojii's.

Re:Scotlandâs

[Anonymous Coward]

Real Americans use UTF-32 because bigger = better. YEAH!

will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp?

[sittingnut]

will time will come(within our and their lifetimes) when mass murderers like obama, bush, clintons,etc (criminals worse than any terrorists) will be made to taste their own painful bloody methods.
i hope so!

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that since you didn't check the AC button, your remaining lifetime is extremely short and you are about to be disappeared by goons in dark suits, Avaiator sunglasses, and black SUVs.

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump 2016!!!

UTF-8 summary

[Rik Sweeney]

Yep, in response to the "Ask Slashdot: How Can We Improve Slashdot?" post, I think the first port of call is definitely proper UTF-8 support.

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll 2016!!!

Scotlandâ(TM)s First Minister

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotlandâ(TM)s First Minister

This post brought to you by Scotland TM

ScotlandÃ(TM)s

[slashdice]

Hey whiplash -- it's 2016. How about fixing the text encoding?

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[Anonymous Coward]

Muffy the Dog 2016!!!

Come on guys, edit ...

[gstoddart]

Come on "editors", if you can't post a submission which doesn't have unicode artifacts, it pretty much means you're not even trying to be "editors".

Surely you guys have a preview button too?

Because 3 unicode artifacts says you're ability to review what you're posting is sorely lacking.

Obama lied??

[haruchai]

Wasn't this around the time Obama said on TV that he "wouldn't be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old .....hacker"

Re:Obama lied??

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop the presses! A government official lied!

Re:Obama lied??

[Anonymous Coward]

No he didn't, but good job with your limp little spin, you weak minded wing nut. Your masters at Fox and the Koch brothers and even Trumpy must be so proud of you.

Actually they are all proud of themselves. You are a product of their creation after all.

Re:Obama lied??

[Anonymous Coward]

Story

Yes, those were his words exactly. So you lied, covered up for a liar in office, and made personal attacks to someone who pointed out the truth.

Re:Obama lied??

[Flavianoep]

No he didn't, but good job with your limp little spin, you weak minded wing nut. Your masters at Fox and the Koch brothers and even Trumpy must be so proud of you.

Actually they are all proud of themselves. You are a product of their creation after all.

Don't be fooled! Obama is a politician, politicians lie all the time. It only happens that some lies turn out to be the truth. Just because the guy said that Obama lied doesn't mean he is a conservative.

Re:Obama lied??

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad bit is it should garner a lot of attention, an elected/appointed government official lying should be a career ending move earning them the scorn of the entire electorate. Instead it is tolerated and even expected.

Re:Obama lied??

[amicusNYCL]

Wasn't this around the time Obama said on TV that he "wouldn't be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old .....hacker"

Jets! Plural! This was only 1.

Re:Obama lied??

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow.

They waited a whole day. I'd hardly call that "scrambling".

This surprised nobody

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is above international law, after all.

Re:This surprised nobody

[Righ]

The US aircraft are, at least when flying over Den Haag.

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what is the thought process of your average voting republican these days. I imagine it's something like, hmmm, Cruz, Trumpy, Rube-io...which one is worse: The spawn of satan, ACTUAL satan, or satan's little brother.... Hmmmm...

Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the summary hoping for news that the US had done its duty to capture the wanted criminal Snowden to bring him to justice, only to read it's about some Scottish twats not respecting the country they live in.

"It support"

[wonkey_monkey]

(a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland)

"It support"? C'mooon. Maybe you should call "it support" to fix your apostrophe problem.

Re:"It support"

[dtmos]

a newspaper which makes no bones about it support for an independent Scotland

Maybe you should call "it support" to fix your apostrophe problem.

Sorry, no. The GP poster's statement is merely missing an "s" -- an apostrophe would be incorrect there. (It should read, "a newspaper which makes no bones about its support for an independent Scotland.")

Remember it this way: his, her, its. If you can replace "its" with "his" or "her", it does not need an apostrophe.

Re:"It support"

[wonkey_monkey]

The apostrophe problem I was referring to was the liberal sprinkling of â about the summaries of late. As snarky comments go, it wasn't well thought out.

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[rmdingler]

Teddy Cruz as Little Nicky?

"The Prince of Darkness should have a sort of distinguished look to him, and let's face facts, I'm no George Clooney."

That you, Adam?

Re:will obama etc be 'rendered' to a tourture camp

[TheCarp]

As much as I wish you were right, I don't think it will happen.

Irrelevant

[argStyopa]

....as Scotland isn't a country.

It's as meaningful as insisting a plane overflew "Iowan" airspace.

It may have overflown UK airspace, and I'd suspect that the UK was cool with it (whether they knew what it was doing or not, as I'm guessing US/UK flights don't necessarily engender too much scrutiny).

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

I's say "Iowan airspace" would be a pretty useful distinction if you had any interest at all in where it actually flew, it's not exactly like Hawaii and Iowa are next doors, you know, both being US airspace and all.

If you're interested, you could take a look at a map, and have a look at where the Falkland Islands are, and where Scotland is. Both are "UK airspace".

A lengthy discussion on place names

[dtmos]

The confusion of place names in this region affects even how to address postal mail. See the excellent discussion on the various place names in Frank's Compulsive Guide to Postal Addresses.

(n.b.: Frank's agrees that "SCOTLAND is one of the countries of Britain.")

Arrest A Hero!

[JimSadler]

What a misuse of government power and tax dollars. Give the man a freedom award, not an arrest. This is why secrecy is such a mess. We need a government that is wide open with a total release of all information to our public. In regard to Snowden, the US government is the terrorist.

Re:Arrest A Hero!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even otherwise us govt is a terrorist organisation

Re:Arrest A Hero!

[cold fjord]

Release "all information" to the public? What about war plans, nuclear launch codes, the names of police informants, and encryption keys?

Re:Arrest A Hero!

[tehcyder]

Release "all information" to the public? What about war plans, nuclear launch codes, the names of police informants, and encryption keys?

Plus the passwords to the government's online banking accounts.

Re:Arrest A Hero!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all traitors should have medals. Great idea!

Secrets are not for children and bad people. All governments have secrets. Children think there should be no secrets.

All capable governments have offensive and defensive intelligence programs including surveillance and hacking type things to name just a couple. The losers of the world are simply jealous that the U.S. is the best at it.

Hmmm....too bad....

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame they couldn't have captured the traitor.......

But

[rossdee]

Never mind Scotland or other EU/NATO countries, to capture Snowden they would have to fly into Russian airspace, and I don't think Putin would be too pleased about that...

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a comment that actually makes sense

Briish Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA rendition aircraft landed in Copenhagen and was posted there, ready to intercept Snowden if he left Russia on an aircraft that landed anywhere in Europe.

Re:Briish Airspace

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.rt.com/news/330486-snowden-snatch-plane-denmark/

Where's the article??? This is old news

[freak0fnature]

This story was published in 2014....why is it on /. today?

Re:Where's the article??? This is old news

[ColdWetDog]

Quality editorial review takes time.

Can't be too careful these days. New Management and all.

Re:Where's the article??? This is old news

[PPH]

Because the Slashdot Unicode post processor blocked on three symbols until now.

You insensitive clods!

[PPH]

What about all the people with nothing more than a Model 33 Teletype?

NO MORE LOWER CASE.

Re:You insensitive clods!

[Coren22]

WHAT IS LOWERCASE?

Re:You insensitive clods!

[PPH]

One of two islands that make up the country of San Serriffe.

Re:You insensitive clods!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the numpties up thread "IT'S NOT A COUNTRY"

I wasn't thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot the word "think" in the first sentence.

N-blank, please

[ThatsNotPudding]

Wasn't this around the time Obama said on TV that he "wouldn't be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old .....hacker"

You really think a mere elected official (a black one at that) *really* has complete control over the US organs of security? They are a priesthood all to themselves and answer to no one - especially politicians.

Just assassinate him and be done with it.

[Tharkkun]

Just shoot the damn journalist and Snowden in the face and be done with it. This guy is so tiresome.

Above standard aviation altitudes?

[Alioth]

45000 feet is not "above standard aviation altitudes". Bizjets quite frequently fly up that high.

Re:Okay..

[rmdingler]

I'm all for all the allies I can get and Mah faither's fowk come frae Scootlund.

It wasn't carrying Polonium.

[dsmatthews9379]

I just thought I'd point that out in case you needed a bit of perspective.

Because Snowden's masters don't think twice about transporting radiological toxins into other countries, in order to render political refugees dead.

Re:Okay..

[tehcyder]

I'm all for all the allies I can get and Mah faither's fowk come frae Scootlund.

An impression worthy of Dick van Dyke himself.

So what?

[ebvwfbw]

Even if they did, so what? It's not illegal.

Maybe the Scotts wanted to give the plane flying at 30,000' the finger or something?

BTW, send over some more scotch.