Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jul 2, 2013 in Breaking News | 19 comments

Bolivian President Evo Morales’ Plane Rerouted to Austria Over Fears Edward Snowden Aboard

BREAKING NEWS:  Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane was rerouted to Austria on suspicion NSA leaker Edward Snowden was onboard.

David Choquehuanca has denied that Snowden was on the plane, saying “we don’t know who invented this lie, but we want to denounce to the international community this injustice with the plane of President Evo Morales.”

Bolivia’s foreign minister said Tuesday that both France and Portugal canceled authorization for the plane to enter their airspace. Source: Associated Press

Wikileaks also tweeted that Spain blocked President Evo Morales’ plane from entering its airspace. Did anyone really think most of the European countries don’t stand with America? This isn’t a game. Edward Snowden leaked classified documents about an EU counterpart — the United Kingdom.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The Moderate Voice
  • Waiting patiently for a TMV editor to actually talk about NSA spying…

  • epiphyte

    Tweet tweet…

  • sheknows

    Looooong wait. The funny part is, is that after Snowden goes wherever it is he is going, and/or they catch him or whatever, we will never hear anymore about the issue of govt. surveillance. Even if 500 websites have debates about it day and night, and discuss the pros and cons til we’re blue in the face, it will NEVER be brought to the attention of the Government, and if it is, it will be ignored..just like it has always been.

  • DaGoat

    Agree with the above sentiments but this seems like a pretty legitimate article and topic. It’d be interesting to know why they thought Snowden was on the plane, or were they just strong-arming Morales to send a message? I wouldn’t think those countries would refuse to let the plane enter their airspace without some solid information, but it looks like their intelligence was wrong. Who told them Snowden was on the plane?

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Barky says:

    “Waiting patiently for a TMV editor to actually talk about NSA spying…”

    I have not addressed your comments directly, Barky, as I was taken somewhat aback by a previous comment. However, you are correct that we need to talk more about the actual NSA Surveillance programs, about how we must balance our need/desire for security with our fundamental rights for privacy, civil liberty and just basic individual freedoms.

    I have read your comments and I have read and enjoyed your excellent, thoughtful writings at your blog. May I suggest something in all sincerity?

    Please give us your thoughts as to how you believe this entire “balance” issue –security vs. privacy, etc. — should be handled and I guarantee you will start the debate we all have been looking for and we — here at TMV — are capable and proud of.

    I mean all this earnestly and I hope that you will accept it in the same vein.

    Thank you and have a great Fourth.

  • sheknows

    DaGoat, from what I have read in WAPO, the French govt. did NOT deny them airspace. Things are very patchy because everyone who knows anything is not talking. One thing that is clear though is that Morales is pissed by this treatment.
    Perhaps the U.S. govt. in it’s panic to get Snowden is becoming too aggressive and too obviously paranoid. What next, commandeering passenger flights? Rummaging through suitcases at airports?
    This behavior makes us look very, very bad.
    If our intel is so good based on our surveillance ability, then maybe the world really DOES have nothing to worry about!

  • In response to the exchange about a fuller discussion of surveillance:

    I respectfully disagree with the premise above. Any honest discussion should be unconditional. To assume that there must be a “balance” narrows the scope of the discussion. Some civil libertarian types might well argue that constitutional liberties should not be “balanced” against anything, but are immutable. To some, the very idea that constitutional liberty should be compromised for the sake of security is anathema. For others such compromise is seen as necessary.

    Perhaps the first question in the discussion should be whether constitutional liberty should be compromised if it would result in increased security. Some would say yes; others would argue that freedom necessarily entails risk. But, let’s not preclude that part of the argument, or limit our discussion, by assuming that a balance/compromise is necessary.

  • sheknows

    Anyone know when We The People, are going to have this discussion with our government? It is a great thing for all of us to exchange our beliefs about this issue here at TMV but what we really need is an official discussion. Not to belittle the attempt at understanding a discussion like that may bring for all concerned, it is just a huge MSNBC panel discussion that is interesting but meaningless as far as our rights are concerned.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Point well-taken, ES.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Good point, too, SK.

  • sheknows,

    Just my view, but I don’t think our government has any real interest in serious discussion at this time. That will only occur when politicians believe their next re-election is in jeopardy. Right now politicians are far more fearful, from an electoral perspective, of a successful terrorist attack than they are of curtailing constitutional rights. Which reminds me – another of our subjects to discuss should be to what extent it is reasonable/unreasonable to allow our decision making to be driven by fear.

    Discussion begins among individuals and grows until it reaches the political leadership. We need to begin by insisting that we have the discussion among ourselves. Our leaders can follow along if they like.


  • sheknows

    Fair enough I suppose tidbits, and I know I am being naïve to think all the petitions online for town meetings to address this issue will have any effect.

    We will however , be somewhat at a disadvantage here, just as we would be there because we LACK INFORMATION ( it all being classified). 🙂

  • sheknows,

    Just an aside, meant to be both humorous and perhaps enlightening. I was reading yesterday that our classification system costs taxpayers $10 billion a year. And that doesn’t include the CIA and NSA whose classification systems are “off budget.” The same article said that some 90 million items are classified annually and that over 5 million people have security clearances to deal with all the classified information. To those concerned about leaks, 5 million is a lot of potential whistle blowers.

    Who knew we had so much to hide and were willing to spend so much to hide it? 🙂

  • sheknows

    Hmmm, looks like it’s mighty profitable for contractors and investors. This security gig is big business! That in part explains so much of why the NSA Trailblazer program was taken over the Thin Thread program even though the latter would have saved billions and had a built in system to protect more privacy. As it was, Trailblazer was abandoned after spending over a billion for reasons that were left unclear.

  • ordinarysparrow

    Agree fully with Tidbits and sheknows….

    It is beyond obvious, the impetus for the rapidly growing surveillance industry’ is about insuring U.S. Gov. and Corporate American economical dominance and profit.

    They are playing the fear and patriotism of the American people; it is not about the safety of American people. Let me state again, 350,000 deaths from guns in the U.S. since 911 and nothing has been done for the safety of the citizens. Trillions on Homeland Security since 911…

    If ever there is a follow the money, these two move to the top.

    ARRRRGGGGG. . . .

    How do pirates make their money?

    By hook or by crook.

  • Returning briefly to the topic of the article: by what footnote of international law do we presume to impose upon our allies to “re-route” the plane of the President of a sovereign nation, force it to land and search it?

    Can you even imagine the outrage here if another nation, or nations acting jointly, forced down and searched Air Force One during a presidential mission? My guess is that many Americans would regard it as an act of war.

  • dduck

    An act of bullying perhaps and we are the best at that.

  • DaGoat

    ES I had the same thought. To my knowledge Snowden isn’t some international criminal and other than the US I can’t think of any other country that would go to this extreme to catch him. There was some major arm-twisting going on.

    I guess it’s possible he may be carrying some NATO secrets and maybe that was the basis for forcing the plane to land.

  • sheknows

    Then again…maybe he wasn’t. IMO I don’t think we are in a position to rationalize what our government is doing when it acts irrationally.

    tidbits is absolutely on target. We would never allow another country to strong arm us in that manner, nor would any OTHER major power. I doubt we would do this to China or Russia.
    This hunt for Snowden has become frenetic and beyond desperate. I am no longer sure that the people making these stupid decisions based on erroneous information are even smart enough to earn the pay we give them. This is hurting our country far more than anything Snowden has revealed. The U.S. has revealed a side of it’s personality that is pretty ugly.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :