I’m sure they did know that, and since it has minimal effect on them, they decided they didn’t care very much. But I’m glad we’re agreed these countries decided to cooperate with a U.S. request since that’s very different from saying the U.S. made them turn the plane away. The bottom line here is that this sounds like an intelligence failure. That never makes anyone look good, but it’s also not that big a deal.
It’s not just denial of clearance; detention of a foreign head of state isn’t something that happens every day. It seems like something that the Administration ought to explain publicly.
Presumably there’s some sort of standard diplomatic apology for an offense like this; maybe it’s in the works.
I have no problem presuming the US was involved in the absence of evidence. But being outraged based on this weak presumption is pretty silly. It’s entirely possible these countries wanted to avoid the small chance of ending up in Russia’s unenviable diplomatic position.
That, but it’s also possible that the stuff Snowden’s leaking, although from American intelligence, includes things that other nations don’t want released, either. Say the France has Secret X. The NSA, while spying on France, learns Secret X. Snowden steals NSA files pertaining to Secret X, and releases them. Now everyone knows France’s secret. Ergo, France has a reason to want to see Snowden in US custody that’s unrelated to any desire to curry favor with the US.
Wow. A politician is really a lying asshole scumbag, despite apeearances and promises to the contrary. Or perhaps I can come up with some homliy about the corrosive, corruptive effects of power, those who wield it, or even the nature of those who seek it in the first place.
I’d offer a kleenex or hanky for you to wipe the wet from behind your ears, but my internet plan doesn’t cover that.
I rather thing it IS a big deal to these other countries:
Judging by your link, I think what you meant to say was: “Clapper says he did not lie; he says he erred.” Given that he had a chance to review the questions prior to the hearing, that he unequivocally gave a false statement, that he refused to correct the statement publicly until Snowden’s revelations, and that his first explanation afterward (to Andrea Mitchell) was quite different than his latest explanation (to Senator Wyden)… I’m inclined to believe he lied.
But more on-topic: Snowden claims that the US is hindering his “universal right to seek asylum.” If the US did have a hand in detaining the Bolivian president, and searching his plane for Snowden, this seems like a violation of that right. Does the US’s legal authority to try Snowden trump his right to asylum? How do those two prerogatives line up?
It sounds like the U.S. asked some countries to do something with regard to their own airspace, and they decided to cooperate. The U.S. chose to revoke his passport, which is its prerogative and can’t have been a surprise to anybody. Lately Snowden has been asserting a lot of rights he doesn’t actually have.
I can’t see how Portugal or France or Italy would be on a serious diplomatic shitlist simply because they let the Bolivian president’s plane overfly their country as usual. If true, it would make the U.S. out to be a bigger bully than it already is.
And ISTM that from a diplomatic standpoint, this is a big fuckin’ deal. If this isn’t a chapter-and-verse violation of diplomatic immunity, it’s certainly an action that’s hostile to the underlying concept.
If some country had pulled a similar stunt with us - for example, suppose Tanzania had driven a bunch of dump trucks in a circle around Air Force One on Obama’s recent stop there, and said the airplane wasn’t going anywhere until the Tanzanian authorities inspected it - half of America would be all for having our military replacing Tanzania with a radioactive crater. (Most of the remaining half would be OK with craterizing just Dar es Salaam, while leaving the rest of the country intact.)
It’s not just the flyover but also the risk of landing. And countries aren’t always rational in their diplomatic analysis.
I imagine we’ll find out eventually what role the US had, if any.
Thank you. It’s so easy to see espionage cases as good guys vs. bad guys despite the reality that international politcs rivals the heirarchies and protocols that govern high school girls in complexity. The US DOES have a few countries that are officially referred to as “Our Solid Besties” with whom we share some fairly intimate information because we have some solid shared interests. France, Portugal, and Austria are not on that list. At best, they’re on our “Avoid Blatant Snubbing” list, but they neither have our back, nor are they willing to risk their own skins unless doing so benefits them in a meaningful way. For a reductio ad absurdum example see our ‘ally’ Pakistan, who merely appears (in pencil) on our, “Do Not Nuke” list.
Strangely enough not everybody loves Bolivia, and their reasons are not necessarily related to ours.
Yes, and let’s not forget that most countries don’t like leakers. This guy is a leaker, and he doesn’t have a lot of friends out there, contrary to what he might think.
If there is “some concrete evidence” in this case it can only come by leaked by a whistleblower.
At that point, nobody would care about the proof or the theory that is being proved but rather - as this thread and many other clearly demonstrate – detached debate about the US exceptionalism and the stuff that professional sports team fans debate about endlessly.
Countries like China, Russia, Israel?
Or, you had some other countries in mind?
I’m going to assume you meant Iceland, not Israel, and then I’m going to ask what you’re talking about regardless. Russia seems to view Snowden as a headache and they want to be rid of him. Iceland has not done anything to help him; the proposal that they offer him citizenship has little support and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Hong Kong says they made a mistake in letting him leave.
Probably he didn’t want them to find his Bolivian Marching Powder. 
I consider him a hero and so do a lot of Americans, contrary to what you might think. That said, I doubt he has a lot of powerful friends – and he’s got a lot of very powerful enemies.
“Directors Cut” DVD box sets of his favorite movie(s). In the wrong region code.
He’s two things. He is a 4th Amendment Paladin (if only 2nd level), and he is also a traitor.
I haven’t read much about this yet, but I tend to agree with Evil Captor that this is a political screwup, in any case. I almost wonder if France et al. did what they thought the US would want them to do (which happened to align with some self-interest, as others have noted), not realizing that messing with Bolivia in this way would have such symbolic repercussions that the Obama folks would rather not bother*.
For example, Morales is viewed worldwide as an indigenous leader – someone who successfully pushed through the continued effects of colonialism in the racial and socioeconomic barriers which many indigenous groups face in their various countries. Not a good idea to piss all these folks off (“justified” or not.)
*Unlike Evil Captor, I still hold onto my belief that Obama and his folks are smart about things like this. But I, too, am starting to have serious doubts.