Hacker News Reader

Comment by halviti | Hacker News Reader

To me I could really care less what the plane was used for in the past.

A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.

View on HN

Why do you assume that the UK (and all the other European countries this plane flew over) weren't involved in coordinating this flight?

That may very well be true. But in the absence of a publicly known flight plan, involving a plane that in the past has been used in a program that involved all kinds of human rights abuses, it seems worth assuming it is worth asking questions about.

Can you help me understand what it is about a specific piece of equipment having in the past been used for human rights abuse that makes it unsuitable for any future use? It would be one thing if the CIA had operated the flight, but this plane is known to have been transferred to the DOJ long before the flight to extradite Snowden.

Human psychology, the secrecy, the person targeted and the history of lies surrounding the rendition program.

There's nothing inherent about the plane that makes it unsuitable, but people should also be totally unsurprised that it contributes to making people ask extra questions about the flight.

I'm pretty sure that last sentence is also the gist of the last part of my comment upthread.

They may have officially transferred the plane, but do you really think that means the CIA would have to stop operating it? I mean it is totally possible that they did, but I could see an equally possible scenario where they just "transfered" it for political cover.

Since the DOJ has been using it for all sorts of non-Snowden business (Google will show you this quickly), I'm not sure where this logic gets you; the same logic suggests any US plane could be a secret CIA plane. That's true, they all could. And?

"Hey, remember that plane we gave you a while back? Can we borrow it for a few days?"

It sounds like the CIA (and the Obama administration), drawing on past experience, got wise and figured the mission would look less "dirty" if it wasn't a spook plane, but a regular government-registered plane that actually came to pick Snowden up.

But the main point is that adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that some kind of a rendition operation was being planned.

Again: nobody doubts there was a "rendition" planned. Snowden had been indicted for multiple felonies. "Rendition" is what happens when someone is extradited.

OK, some sort of extra- or pseudojudicial rendition, then.

Based on what evidence? Most of the EU will respond to extradition requests and render subjects in response to the crimes Snowden was indicted for.

It's the preponderance of the multiple factors (as cited in the article), along with the immediacy of the flight and the USG's well-documented predilection for pulling similar shenanigans for the sake of far lesser targets, that are sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion.

And it's the immediate dispatch of the plane which strongly suggests that the U.S. wasn't going to wait to go through normal judicial channels to pick up their target.

I would expect the US to have planned for how to perform such a kidnapping, because dealing with rogue agents in one way or another is very definitely someone's job. I would be amazed if there wasn't a report giving a number of options and pros and cons for each compiled—of course, how it was acted on is anyone's guess.

There was some talk about a similar plane (the same one?) having received a landing permit in Copenhagen. Much of the content of the emails that would confirm this were redacted, but the parties involved (ie metadata, ironically enough) weren't and they were several rungs above the ladder over those who would normally have to approve landing permits.

The quote is "claim the flight, travelling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan"

If it flew below FL660 it should be inside controlled airspace, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class#United_Kingdom

However the flight plan might have been filled through defense channels rather than civilian ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan

That would be having it both ways: Tptacek claims this isn't kidnapping because the plane is a DoJ asset, at least nominally. So it would not need DoD secrecy.

I think I'm saying it isn't kidnapping because there is no evidence at all of an attempt to kidnap Snowden.

At least not a succesful one.

> * I could really care less*

do you mean "couldn't care less"?

Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight. It's an extremely common occurrence.

(Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)

You are right

However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.

I wouldn't be so sure. Not a lot of weather at FL450, and in the UK that's Class C airspace, not Class A like it is in the States.

Even in Class C in UK airspace, you need a clearance.

Who are these boarders and how are they relevant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com