Who started the rumor about Snowden being on President Morales' plane?

[ProSense]

CNN report the day of the incident:

<...>

"We are told that there were some unfounded suspicions that Mr. Snowden was on the plane," Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said. "We do not know who has invented this lie. Someone who wants to harm our country. This information that has been circulated is malicious information to harm this country."

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/

Today:

European states were told Snowden was on Morales plane, says Spain

Spanish foreign minister declines to say where information came from that NSA whistleblower was on Bolivian leader's flight

Spain says it and other European countries were told that the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board the Bolivian presidential plane that was diverted to Austria this week, causing a diplomatic row.

The foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, said on Spanish National Television on Friday that "they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside".

The minister did not say who supplied the information and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the United States. But he said European countries' reactions were based on this information.

- more -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/european-states-snowden-morales-plane-nsa

Who started the rumor is a key piece of information.

[cali]

1. How is it a rumor?

Spain has stated in no uncertain terms that they were informed of this.

— Spain says it and other European countries were told that fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden was aboard the Bolivian presidential plane that was diverted to Austria this week, causing a diplomatic row.

Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo said Friday on Spanish National Television "they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside."

The minister did not say who supplied the information and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the United States. But he says European countries' reactions were based on this information.

<snip>

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/spain-says-it-was-told-snowden-bolivia-plane

Sorry, Pro, that is not the stuff of rumor.

Try again.

[tridim]

2. Pro already posted that excerpt. It's the definition of "rumor".

Do you have an answer? Was it you?

[ProSense]

4. Maybe I should have said: "We do not know who has invented this lie"

To make it more clear.

[ProSense]

3. Because

"How is it a rumor?"

...it wasn't true? What's your definition of a rumor?

"Sorry, Pro, that is not the stuff of rumor.

Try again."

Are you saying Snowden was on the plane?

[cali]

5. no. I was saying it's not a rumor that the Spanish FM was informed

of it. Yes, that was a rumor.

Who did it? Cui bono? Occam's Razor, etc.

[ProSense]

8. So

"no. I was saying it's not a rumor that the Spanish FM was informed

of it. Yes, that was a rumor."

...you were responding to your own straw man?

I said nothing about the Spanish FM's claim being a rumor.

[cali]

11. you didn't. I wasn't constructing a straw man.

I simply misread your op. it happens.

[baldguy]

7. So, those nefarious US agents must have got to Morales' pilot too?

The reason the plane was diverted was that the pilot was having a problem with his fuel gauge. Remember? It had nothing to do with anything anyone outside the plane had done.

[WinkyDink]

10. How conveeenient of an after-the-fact reason, n'cest-pas?

[baldguy]

19. Right. The recorded conversation between the cockpit and ATC was falsified.

The one where the pilot initiates the call to request an alteration to the flight plan to land.

[LondonReign2]

20. You're really still sticking to this?

HO.LY.FUCK

I guess France, Spain, and Portugual admitting they were involved in this, and saying they were told Snowden might be on the plane...none of those inconvenient facts can get through to you? Just a little machanical issue , eh?

I used to argue with right-wingers on the Yahoo boards back in the Bush days. Let me tell you, they got nothing on you in the willful ignorance department.

[treestar]

41. Now baldguy get with the program

The US hacked the gas gauge by drone!

[KittyWampus]

68. I think the story goes: the plane was en-rout, denied air space even though its flight plan had

already been approved, was forced to fly in circles burning fuel thus the recording from the pilot.

[WinkyDink]

9. "This rumor" might seem ambiguous, but not at closer reading.

"This rumor" refers not to whether or not the Spanish authorities' statement about being informed is just a rumor; clearly the Spanish authorities have spoken.

"This rumor" refers to the claim that Snowden was aboard the plane, AKA "who supplied the information"?

[JaneyVee]

6. It was me. I started it. Sorry, I messed up.

[treestar]

42. lol

I spread it when I heard it from you!

[dawg]

12. I heard it was Ralph Nader.

[HardTimes99]

63. Now that, my friend, is an 11-dimensional

"Oh, snap!"

I stand in awe

[KittyWampus]

69. I just spit my water out… darned you.

[Savannahmann]

13. While Interesting, it is not the core of the incident or the main question.

The core is diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions. Either it matters, or it doesn't. Either it is respected, or it's open season on diplomats and place your bets on how that one goes.

The principles of Diplomatic Immunity are easy to understand. What happened in Europe is several nations, apparently at the urging of the US, decided that Diplomatic Privilege was to be decided on a case by case basis. This is a huge violation of the Vienna Conventions, and as is now obvious, an intolerable insult to South America.

All over one pathetic little dolt who stole some documents that have been denounced here so often and in the media as "Everyone knew it" and "Old news". We have actions that are completely at odds with the propaganda coming out of our own White House, and carried by the defenders of the authoritarian regime in posts just like this one.

The distraction isn't going to work here, it's not working in South America, and our prestige in the world is taking hit after hit all to get one little dolt.

This was one of those times when Principles needed to outweigh politics, and it didn't. So what other international understandings, laws, treaties, and principles will be violated all in an effort to get what we want? Where is the line we won't cross? The distraction is who tricked Europe, but the United States Government isn't asking that question, because it was almost certainly us.

[ProSense]

14. Disagree.

"While Interesting, it is not the core of the incident or the main question.

The core is diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions. Either it matters, or it doesn't. Either it is respected, or it's open season on diplomats and place your bets on how that one goes."


It matters because who did it is relevant to the breach of protocol. The countries involved have extradition treaties, and there is no international law governing a country's decision to close its airspace.

Think about it: If Snowden was on the plane. He would have been in the protective custody of President Morales. There would likely have been an attempt to arrest him in Austria. That is not insignificant.

Was the rumor an intentional act by the U.S. government?

Was it the U.S. government acting on bad information?

Was it another party trying to embarrass the U.S. government?

It's relevant, as indicated by Bolivia's initial response.

[Savannahmann]

38. What were the causes of the war of 1812?

One of the big reasons was the right of nations and the ships that sail under their flags. The British warships would stop American Flagged merchantmen, and then decide that some of those sailors were really British Citizens, and impress, that is to say draft them on the spot and take them to fight for the British. The Americans contended that this violated international law, and the right of neutrals, and was arbitrary in it's violation of vessels flagged as American.

We fought a war over the issue once, when it was done to us. Even then the British did not invade our Embassy, or come ashore to find more people to man their warships during their ongoing war with France. Britain was soundly criticized by history, when you have one war going on, the last thing you do is invite more people to come in against you. German repeated the mistake in World War I, and again in World War II.

The reason for all these secret programs is that we are fighting a war on Terror, that at least is the reason given. So we aren't happy with the situation of extremist forces covering their hatred in the flag of religion, so what do we do? We do everything possible to make sure that we bring in more people against us. We insult South America, calling it America's back yard. In other words children, play but be nice and don't bother the grown ups.

We are making the same historical mistake that has been made time and time again. We have adopted the asinine either you are for us, or against us mentality. Absolute loyalty, or absolute hostility. The nations of Europe, apparently at our urging, just repeated a historic blunder. One of even more epic proportions, because instead of boarding and searching a merchant vessel in the Atlantic, they obstructed the flight of a Diplomatic Vessel containing the Democratically Elected President of an independent nation recognized by the United Nations.

Nothing good will come of this. If we manage to avoid another war, we'll be mighty lucky, and luck will be what it is. We are facing another war we can't win. What will we do? Will we occupy South America? Have you ever seen the terrain we are talking about? The second highest mountains in the world. The driest desert in the world. The wettest rainforest in the world. Most areas have rocky goat trails instead of roads, and we are going to do what? Try Viet-Nam all over again? Fight the war with Helicopters? They may not be able to strike at us, and sure, we can bomb the crap out of them, but then what? Another enemy for a few more generations?

An apology delivered now would go a long way to ending this. But we're too proud, and the entire thing is just secret, and we have to get the little jackass Snowden. We are so desperate to get one little prick we would risk war with most if not all the Continent of South America. Whatever the little prick has stolen, it must be of incredible importance if we are willing to commit the very act that led to our declaring war on the British in 1812.

Remember what has been said here. If it's too big to fail, it's too big. Yet we have secrets that are too important to worry about such things as Diplomatic Privilege. If Snowden had been on the plane, Austria would have committed an act of war to board the plane and get him. It would be equally an act of war to refuse to let the plane pass. When I say wars were fought over this issue, I'm not joking. We fought one, and it resulted in Washington D.C. being burned. Any secret that is so bad we can do that, is something we shouldn't be doing.

[ProSense]

43. Oh please,

We are making the same historical mistake that has been made time and time again. We have adopted the asinine either you are for us, or against us mentality. Absolute loyalty, or absolute hostility. The nations of Europe, apparently at our urging, just repeated a historic blunder. One of even more epic proportions, because instead of boarding and searching a merchant vessel in the Atlantic, they obstructed the flight of a Diplomatic Vessel containing the Democratically Elected President of an independent nation recognized by the United Nations.

Nothing good will come of this. If we manage to avoid another war, we'll be mighty lucky, and luck will be what it is. We are facing another war we can't win. What will we do? Will we occupy South America? Have you ever seen the terrain we are talking about? The second highest mountains in the world. The driest desert in the world. The wettest rainforest in the world. Most areas have rocky goat trails instead of roads, and we are going to do what? Try Viet-Nam all over again? Fight the war with Helicopters? They may not be able to strike at us, and sure, we can bomb the crap out of them, but then what? Another enemy for a few more generations?

...you don't have all the facts but you're offering prose based on your assumptions. It seems the people trying to hype this situation the most are those who continue to push it as possibly leading to "another war."

An apology delivered now would go a long way to ending this. But we're too proud, and the entire thing is just secret, and we have to get the little jackass Snowden. We are so desperate to get one little prick we would risk war with most if not all the Continent of South America. Whatever the little prick has stolen, it must be of incredible importance if we are willing to commit the very act that led to our declaring war on the British in 1812.

No, it will not: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023173214#post9

Again, you don't have all the facts, but you're insisting on an "apology."

[HardTimes99]

64. Your responses here and in post #13 are two of the most important in this thread, imho.

What ProSense and others either don't get, fail to acknowledge or willfully ignore is that, for all intents and purposes, that plane carrying President Morales was Bolivian territory. Any attempt by Austria, Spain or anyone else to board that plane and search it for anyone without the express consent of the Bolivian government is a violation of Bolivian sovereignty.

This is no laughing matter, the attempts of these defenders of might-makes-right realpolitik notwithstanding.

The next time President Obama (or any U.S. President or dignitary) flies over Latin America, can those nations (aside from the right-wing regimes of Peru and Colombia) refuse right of passage to Air Force One? Can the plane and its passngers be impounded for 13 hours at any airport where it lands? People who dismiss this attack upon Bolivian sovereignty as trivial would do well to consider those questions after they're done chortling and tut-tutting.

[Marr]

30. You've articulated my feelings much better than I could myself.

I saw the word "distractivists" used here the other day, and that certainly seems to fit.

[Arctic Dave]

15. Word on the street says it was Obama.

So, it was absolutely Obama.

[cali]

21. No it is not. provide a link for that.

word on the street is that it came from the U.S. NOT the same thing as coming from the President.

[Arctic Dave]

22. It the word on the street.

So there for, it is a fact.

Sorry, that's the way it is.

[Coyotl]

27. But, it is already an Internet meme, so we know it is true.

Fault!

[LordGlenconner]

31. Is Morales dubious human rights record Obama's fault as well?

[Coyotl]

33. Ooophs, I misplaced a post here. n/t

[cali]

45. and what about the U.S. drone bombing and the policies of

signature strikes and double tapping both of which have been confirmed multiple times? How does that reflect on President Obama's human rights record?

[LordGlenconner]

54. What possible relevance does that have?

We've already established that you believe Obama is a murderous thug. Two wrong don't make a right, as they say.

[hlthe2b]

16. Well, in whose interest would it be to do so?

I would suggest the answer lies therein.

[hootinholler]

17. Who started the rumor is not key

It matters not one whit. The situation seems to be that the US contacted these countries and requested the plane to be denied overflight. The denial of overflight rights for a diplomatic mission is a pretty big deal and counter to international law and norms and should never have happened.

The difference between this and if say Air Force One had been placed in the same situation is that AF1 would have refueled from a tanker while finding a longer route home.

But IIRC, didn't you recently say that it was just a faulty gas gauge and no one refused the flight?

[ProSense]

18. You say

"It matters not one whit. The situation seems to be that the US contacted these countries and requested the plane to be denied overflight. The denial of overflight rights for a diplomatic mission is a pretty big deal and counter to international law and norms and should never have happened."

...it doesn't matter based on your claim that the U.S. government made a specific request. That has nothing to do with the rumor.

Again, it matters because who did it is relevant to a breach of protocol. The countries involved have extradition treaties, and there is no international law governing a country's decision to close its airspace.

Think about it: If Snowden was on the plane. He would have been in the protective custody of President Morales. There would likely have been an attempt to arrest him in Austria. That is not insignificant.

Was the rumor an intentional act by the U.S. government?

Was it the U.S. government acting on bad information?

Was it another party trying to embarrass the U.S. government?

It's relevant, as indicated by Bolivia's initial response.

[hootinholler]

23. Care to try again? That's not what I said. Maybe I can simplify.

I said the rumor doesn't matter.

It does matter that the US asked countries to violate diplomatic immunity, and those countries complied.

What those requests were based on is immaterial to the international situation. Is there a "My bad we got punked" exception to diplomatic protocol?

[ProSense]

32. Actually,

"I said the rumor doesn't matter. "

...I understood your comment, which is why I stated that the rumor does matter. Let me try again...

You're saying it doesn't matter because the U.S. government made a specific request: "It does matter that the US asked countries to violate diplomatic immunity, and those countries complied."

You're claiming that the U.S. government asked countries to "violate diplomatic immunity." Initially you stated: "The situation seems to be that the US contacted these countries and requested the plane to be denied overflight. "

That's your claim. You don't know that. It also doesn't make sense. You are claiming the U.S. directly made the call about "the plane." That implies that the source of the rumor was the U.S. government (whether or not it was acting on flawed information).

You don't know that.

We do know that these countries have extradition treaties.

I said breach of protocol. You said, "violate diplomatic immunity," but it was a protocol that was breached, not a law.

"What those requests were based on is immaterial to the international situation. Is there a "My bad we got punked" exception to diplomatic protocol?"

No, it's not "immaterial."

There is no international law governing a country's decision to close its airspace.

Think about it: If Snowden was on the plane. He would have been in the protective custody of President Morales. There would likely have been an attempt to arrest him in Austria. That is not insignificant.

Was the rumor an intentional act by the U.S. government?

Was it the U.S. government acting on bad information?

Was it another party trying to embarrass the U.S. government?

It's relevant, as indicated by Bolivia's initial response.

[hootinholler]

36. For the last time. The source of the rumor is immeterial.

Since I wrote my first response, I've seen several threads all confirming that the US did indeed act on it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023174554 for one. So I retract my seems to be, since it appears to be wrapping you around the axle, and will state we did act on it.

The US acted on it. Once they do that, the source doesn't matter, it only matters that the US requested and they complied.

There may be some gentlemen at the Hague who disagree with your assessment of international law. I for one simply don't know.

Please proceed.

[ProSense]

44. You can keep repeating that. Also, the claim at that link is nonsense. n/t

[hootinholler]

49. There's a hole in your bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza.

Just for you hon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023172143

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023169452

[ProSense]

51. Wait,

what does threatening to close the embassy (first link you provided) have to do with who started the rumor?

From the second link:

It landed about 11 pm. Shortly after that, the Vienna foreign department received a phone call. The caller was the US ambassador William Echo. "Die Presse" learned that he claimed with strong firmness that Edward Snowden was onboard, the whistleblower of the recent surveillance scandals. Eacho referred to a diplomatic note requesting Snowden's extradition.

A call after the fact does not indicate the source of the rumor.

[hootinholler]

52. Of course it doesn't.

It does however support the notion the rumor's source is immaterial. Once the apparatus of state acts, they own it.

[ProSense]

53. Right, it has nothing to do with the source or the rumor or its relevance. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Wow you finally got it.

Or not.

But perhaps you should consider that the national security state operates with considerable independence from the nominal "public" government. Obama might have had little if anything to with the detention of Morale's plane, aside from having to put out the fires after the fact. The problem is that our little monster, the National Security State, is pretty much separate from the traditional legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the "public" state. But you should consider what that might mean with respect to your endless defense of the indefensible: you don't have to continue. You can be an Obama Loyalist, a Party Stalwart, and you can oppose this monster. It is independent of "party". It isn't the Bush/Cheney Republican National Security State, it isn't the Obama Democratic National Security State. It grew into its own before either regime, it will continue, until we manage to put an end to it, long after Obama has left office. You can stop now. Its OK.

[ProSense]

56. Again

But perhaps you should consider that the national security state operates with considerable independence from the nominal "public" government. Obama might have had little if anything to with the detention of Morale's plane, aside from having to put out the fires after the fact. The problem is that our little monster, the National Security State, is pretty much separate from the traditional legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the "public" state. But you should consider what that might mean with respect to your endless defense of the indefensible: you don't have to continue. You can be an Obama Loyalist, a Party Stalwart, and you can oppose this monster. It is independent of "party". It isn't the Bush/Cheney Republican National Security State, it isn't the Obama Democratic National Security State. It grew into its own before either regime, it will continue, until we manage to put an end to it, long after Obama has left office. You can stop now. Its OK.

...you're throwing around speculation as fact, and then attributing your own perception of my position to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. It isn't speculation unless you have blinders on.

Which you do. Too bad, you seem otherwise to be a thoughtful intelligent person.

[ProSense]

58. Please

"It isn't speculation unless you have blinders on. Which you do. Too bad, you seem otherwise to be a thoughtful intelligent person."

...spare me. There are people throwing around and eating up the most absurd claims, and you have the audacity to accuse someone of having "blinders on"?

Save the backhanded compliment.

[galileoreloaded]

60. as opposed to Prosense!!

[ProSense]

61. Wow, the cleverness is astounding. n/t

[galileoreloaded]

62. lightenup

[kentuck]

24. It's hard to keep secrets anymore.

Ain't it?

[Cleita]

25. Our goons either in the military, the CIA or homeland security.

They probably told the intelligence committees of Congress and the White House that Morales was going to smuggle Snowden out of Russia. One or both of those bodies acted on what they thought was good information and that has resulted in the clusterfuck we now have. That's my theory right now. I don't think I'm far off either.

[cthulu2016]

26. some folks were saying it was Ambassador Echo (US to Austria)

[Democracyinkind]

28. For all we know, Eacho involved himself @ 11pm wednesday...

...long after the airspace debacle. Although it would be interesting to know what exactly he said.

[HardTimes99]

66. He may well have been briefed by his CIA Station Chief, thereby putting

the ball back in the court of the National Security State.

[Marr]

29. This is a bit like asking what the little nerd did to provoke the bully into beating him up.

Who started the rumor is irrelevant. It's the over-the-top actions taken because of that rumor that matter, and those a quite plain.

[Coyotl]

34. Austrian MP: Order to search Morales' plane came from CIA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023174554

[ProSense]

35. That makes no sense. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

37. It makes no sense if you are determined to deny the whole affair to begin with.

"CIA" or any other of the spook agencies we operate that have working relations with similar spook agencies in France, Italy, etc. Some spook agency determined (or perhaps had a panic attack) that Snowden was on the plane and then, either on its own secretly chartered spook initiative acted to effect the search and seizure of Morales's plane with the cooperation of other similar spook agencies, or kicked the mess upstairs and the decision to act was actually made at the executive level by actual "public state" agencies rather than "secret state" agencies. Or a combination of the two. I vote for low level spookery all the way until the mess blew up in Vienna at which point a lot of contradictory bullshit was let loose from the cleanup crews along with apologies mixed in with denials by various public state actors.

I also vote that the FSB/KGB was the source of the Snowden on the plane misinformation and that we get punked by Putin. Payback is a bitch.

[treestar]

40. You can believe anything you want to be by inserting "CIA"

into the mix. But that's not real evidence.

It's also possible that Julian got it started. I think Evo had a hand in it, as supposedly he joked about taking Eddie with him. This was floated about the Venezuelan President there too. Evo's name would have been highly unknown before this, so this chance to play victim gives him a lot of press and fame he did not have before. Evo could have enemies too, about which we know nothing, knowing nothing about Bolivian politics.

All sorts of things are possible.

[treestar]

39. Interesting that Foreign Minister David

thinks that it would "harm" his country. I thought it would be a very good thing to rescue Eddie from his imprisonment and give him shelter from the evil US?

[Silent3]

46. Why would anyone need to start it?

The idea Snowden might have been on Morales' plane is one that, given the circumstances, many people would have independently considered without having to get the idea from someone else.

[Fumesucker]

47. Bolivian intelligence of course

This whole thing was a setup to make Obama look bad and it worked like a charm.

Damn those eeevil leftist Bolivians anyway.

[rug]

48. Who wants Snowden the most?

[AgingAmerican]

50. Perhaps the NSA started the rumor

n/t

[Rex]

59. Bhengazi?

I hear they are real upset with losing the spotlight and wanted to be the topic of discussion again!

[Drew Richards]

65. Wow forest for trees...it doesnt matter if they were or not "informed" snowden might be on the plane

Its still a fucking diplomatic plane and per international treaty and convention...

1. No diplomate may be impeaded or detain.

2. No diplomat nor his persons, property or state property may be seized, inspected, confiscated NOR trespassed upon without direct consent from the diplomat in charge.

3. No diplomat may be incarcerated for ANY crime they are charged with but must be expelled from the nation of origin of the offence and barred from returning under a diplomatic passport.

So no matter how you want to spin it some or all of these nations were in violation of standard international diplomatic protocol...they had no right to impeade or inspect diplomatic property or persons.

[Rex]

67. That doesn't matter to some here, that goes directly against their agenda.

You will have better luck trying to convince a wall that it is actually a door.

[ProSense]

70. No,

"That doesn't matter to some here, that goes directly against their agenda."

...it matters, it just wasn't the question in the OP, which was about who started the rumor. I stated that it was a key piece of information. I mean, you can dismiss that as irrelevant, but don't pretend it's in lieu of any other concerns.

It's as relevant a question as the rest: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023177352#post3

[Rex]

71. Yes and your question was answered.

Our U.S. ambassadors get their marching orders from Washington D.C.

Was there something else in that, that I missed out on?