Denmark confirms US sent rendition flight for Snowden

http://www.thelocal.dk/20160205/denmark-confirms-us-sent-rendition-flight-for-snowden

by flexie • 10 years ago

342 303 10 years ago

coldcode• 10 years ago

Doesn't international law/Danish law require an extradition process or is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime?

akerro• 10 years ago

is kidnapping for political purposes not a crime

If you do it, it's a crime and SWAT will hit your home, if government does it, it's ok, it's for your safety, you know... terrorists.

pc866• 10 years ago

I know what you're getting at, but there are things a government must do that a civilian must be legally prohibited from doing. As a matter of fact, that's most of the role of government.

mrweasel2• 10 years ago

Danish politicians doesn't give a shit, sorry. If the US wants something, they get it, no questions asked.

If it turns out to be illegal, oh well, mistakes happen. The only reason Denmark isn't puppet state of the US (to a larger extend than is case) is because the US doesn't care.

Our politicians have absolutely zero spine when it comes to arguing against the US.

Diederich• 10 years ago

When will it get to the point where 'arguing with the US' will become a political boon, rather than a liability?

plesner• 10 years ago

I agree that Denmark tends to dance to the US's tune but not as spinelessly as you make it sound. If what you're saying was true wouldn't there be US missile on Greenland?

oneJob8• 10 years ago

International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do.

Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.

rquantz• 10 years ago

Your comments about US states may have been true prior to the civil war, but certainly have been true since then.

germanier3• 10 years ago

Can individual states sign international treaties? Can states give out citizenship based on their own criteria? Can states impose import duties?

Because Germany, China, Australia, Bolivia and France can. The US is not unique in its federal structure.

vacri3• 10 years ago

still as sovereign as Germany or China

Ah, I see. So China, just like a US state, has to honour the public acts and judicial proceedings of neighbouring states via a 'full faith and credit clause'?

tootie5• 10 years ago

Bringing him back the US would be extradition, not rendition. Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly].

mschuster91• 10 years ago

Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly].

I'd fully expect from the US government to lock Snowden up in Guantanamo and throw away the keys.

tootie5• 10 years ago

You would expect Obama to add prisoners to Guantanamo while he's desperately trying to close it? And you think he could just disappear an extremely visible personality and no one would be suspicious? The fact is they have him dead to rights on breaking the law and any court would easily convict him and give him at least a few if not many years in jail. He'd probably plea bargain to something face saving and be done with it.

barney54• 10 years ago

Snowden would not have been sent to Guantanmo because he is an American citizen. The point of Guantanmo is that the US wanted a place to keep people who weren't US citizens and wasn't on US soil.

tomp2• 10 years ago

So... wouldn't this be a rendition from Denmark to USA (where he would be - no doubt - interrogated harshly)?

tootie5• 10 years ago

Interrogated over what? He's publicly confessed repeatedly to what he's done. AQ subjects were tortured because the administration believed at the time they could find out about upcoming plots. Snowden has already done his business, boasted about it and fled the nation. If he ever set foot in the US he'd be very easily convicted by due process without needing to answer a single question.

ianhawes• 10 years ago

No, you're thinking of extradition. Rendition means sending him someplace away from American courts to be [interrogated harshly].

ZeroGravitas• 10 years ago

Rendition just means giving something e.g. giving someone up for extradition.

"Extraordinary rendition" is some weird orwellian way of saying "we kidnapped people and took them to countries that will torture them for us"

tptacek8• 10 years ago

That's not true. Rendition is the act a host country takes in yielding a subject to the country requesting extradition.

What you're referring to is the Orwellian term "extraordinary rendition" (the correct term is "kidnapping"), in which subjects are detained extrajudicially and shipped to a third party jurisdiction to be tortured. "Torture" is important to the definition of "extraordinary rendition", as getting subjects to countries where they can be tortured is the reason "extraordinary" measures have to be taken in the first place.

pc866• 10 years ago

Serious question: is it kidnapping if US Marshals go into Mexico and grab a fugitive to bring him back to the US? Maybe it is, maybe we (generally, as a country) are okay with it under certain circumstances or for certain offenses.

luso_brazilian• 10 years ago

Extradition is a well defined process subject to a defined judicial review by the countries involved.

According to the Wikipedia article on (extraordinary) rendition "in the United States, the first well-known rendition case was that of an airline hijacker abducted in Italy and brought to the U.S. for trial, authorized by President Ronald Reagan".

It seems like the Snowden case would fit the same definition.

vageli• 10 years ago

The US would extradite him, but the Danes would render him.

tptacek8• 10 years ago

At least this story gets it right that it was the DOJ's flight, not CIA's.

s_q_b4• 10 years ago

That really does make a big difference to me. Capturing an escaping fugitive really is their domain, assuming they operated with permission of the governments over which they flew.

tptacek8• 10 years ago

The DOJ cannot in fact lawfully fly into other countries to capture escaping fugitives! If Snowden is in Denmark, they need the cooperation of the government of Denmark to take custody of him.

flexie• 10 years ago

Do we know that yet?

The article is based on this admission from the Danish minister of Justice (in Danish): http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/reu/bilag/163/1596061....

It just mentions the "American government".

Freedom of information requests have shown that FBI (Department of Justice) asked several countries to be notified should Snowden pass through their airports.

Also, it is believed that the plane is a privately owned gulfstream with ID N977GA.

ipsin• 10 years ago

https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N977GA

mhb• 10 years ago

The revelation that the US landed a private aircraft in Copenhagen

Who owned the plane?

laut• 10 years ago

It might be a English translation of a Danish way of saying "business jet". Talking about the type of plane. As opposed to bigger commercial jets. E.g. a Gulfstream V is a business jet often used by business people. Even when used or owned by government, some people might keep calling it a "privatfly" - private plane.

ThomPete8• 10 years ago

Thats exactly what it is (Danish here)

dfc• 10 years ago

Side Bar: Why do all the articles about the "jewelry law" have quotes around the phrase "jewelry law"? For example: "Denmark faces backlash over 'despicable' 'jewellery law'"

wodenokoto• 10 years ago

Because "jewellery law" is a nickname, and the law is not about seizing jewellery, but seizing any sort of valuable assets.

Kliment• 10 years ago

Because it's not officially called that. The law itself is about confiscating valuables from people who enter the country seeking protection, and it's been dubbed the "jewelry law" by media to make it easier for people to imagine what its effect will be (stealing people's jewelry as they enter).

ThomPete8• 10 years ago

They are not stealing peoples jewelries not sure where you got that from.

This is exactly the kind of unfortunate misconceptions about that law and it requires context to understand what the point of it is.

Denmark is one of the countries who both take most and provide the most social benefits to immigrants and asylum seekers.

There is almost no difference what a citizen and an asylum seeker/immigrant gets in social welfare from the government. They have access to free healthcare, free education, free housing and so on.

Denmark is one of the countries who accept the most too.

A system like that requires a lot taxation to even be possible and so Denmark is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world.

What the law is attempting to make sure is that immigrants or asylums seekers who come to Denmark and ask for the government to provide all these things to them don't have any wealth. I.e. before the danish government starts giving you access to the social welfare system you need to have spent your own wealth first.

This is the same way they treat their own citizen btw.

And on top of that. This is something that Germany, Holland and Switzherland is already doing. The law is much bigger than that and holds all sorts of adjustments to deal with the underlying system. Someone just managed to polemically pick some of this up and interpret it in a way that made it sound like they where literally pulling gold teeth out of peoples mouth.

They aren't taking any of affectional value either.

So no they are not steal peoples jewelry as they enter.

pessimism2• 10 years ago

The law involves confiscating valuables and money, but it does so much more than that, including, but not limited to, increasing the waiting period for family reunification.

People put it in quotes, because they think it gives them an excuse to use the misnomer, which is bad journalism on their part.

It’s basically in the interest of the administration that people only thought the bill concerned jewelry confiscation, as it distracted from all the other heinous things in the text.

The former bill, which has since become law, is L87 (ie Bill 87).

ThomPete8• 10 years ago

Thank you for showing us your political opinion. Now here is the real challenge.

Make a long list of other countries that are dealing with refugees and immigrants more civilized than Denmark.

Sweden? Who is now sending home 80.000 people?

Germany? Who are doing the same as Denmark? Holland (Doing the same), Switzerland? (Doing the same)

There is a context to why Denmark do what they do which is a very liberal social security system.

It's ok to disagree but please put things in more contect than just showing your personal opinion.

dorfsmay• 10 years ago

Can a US citizen explain what seems to me tobe a dissonance, between the government putting huge efforts and resource in trying to arrest a citizen speaking out against the government doing illegal spying on its own people (an almost no reaction from other citizens), and people defending the right to bear weapons to protect themselves from the government turning into a dictatorship?

oneJob8• 10 years ago

Sure, a US citizen could, but it would just be one citizen's point of view, and a citizen is not the same as his or her government, which is why a U.S. citizen can be critical of their government without being schizophrenic. We're each allowed our own point of view (and may be punished or rewarded commensurately). Since our laws are not centrally planned and individual rights are dearly cherished (though not universally respected), well, you get this sort of "cognitive dissonance " effect.

TheRealWatson• 10 years ago

What's the dissonance? Sounds like the two things you said are in agreement. Or maybe your main point is the part in parentheses?

doki_pen2• 10 years ago

Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what. Snowden broke the law. Gun owners are trying to prevent the law from changing.

fwn• 10 years ago

They probably didn't learn following the law by observing their government. ..because that would be another dissonance.

fukusa4• 10 years ago

Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what.

But if the government breaks the law, it's OK? When others do it, they're traitors?

callinyouin2• 10 years ago

While the group of Americans who "believe in following the law no matter what" might partially intersect with the gun owner/advocate group, I'd like to add that there are apparently many 2nd Amendment folks who also believe in armed occupation of federal facilities, which is obviously super illegal.

Edit: Not sure why I've been downvoted. I said "apparently many" because I've made the horrible mistake of reading comment sections on articles about the occupation event, and there were a number of very vocal supporters in those comments. To me that constitutes "many" supporters of this position. Obviously I have no idea what percentage of total gun rights advocates are in agreement with the occupation as I highly doubt those numbers exist. In addition, I wasn't even trying to make a statement for or against the 2nd Amendment/gun rights, merely pointing something out.

beeboop3• 10 years ago

Most people don't care about NSA surveillance or they agree with it. A surprisingly large number of Americans approve of the Patriot Act. Those who disagree with surveillance often don't understand the full implications of it and don't make any connection between that and the idea that citizens might need to protect themselves from their government by force. For a lot of people, their desire for stricter gun control largely outweighs any desire to arm themselves against their government.

pc866• 10 years ago

I don't want to turn this into a 2A debate, but it might be partly because gun control seems much more real than someone in a building in Maryland seeing which route they take to work in the morning, even if most of them never had any interaction, positive or negative, with a firearm.

forgetsusername3• 10 years ago

A surprisingly large number of Americans approve of the Patriot Act.

Because the vast majority of those people don't understand the repercussions of it. They think it allows the government to "catch the terrorists" on our soil. That's the way it was pitched.

The people in power are still immigrants to the internet and this sort of technology in general. The views regarding domestic spying will change as more technologically savvy people age and move into politics. That's why they're trying so hard to push certain legislation, before it's too late.

fukusa4• 10 years ago

Those who disagree with surveillance often don't understand the full implications

No, those invading countries, killing people with drones, torturing people in concentration camps, creating even more animosity against the USA don't understand the full implications. Why aren't we talking about those implications?

sampo• 10 years ago

Most people don't care about NSA surveillance or they agree with it.

John Oliver went to the streets with the question, if people have ever send a naked photo of themselves with a cellphone or email, should the government have the right to collect and look at those photos?

None of the people agreed that the government should have that right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M#t=24m54s

Arnt3• 10 years ago

Said an acquaintance who used to live in the US: "Americans individually are the nicest people you can imagine, and 80% of them have no idea how their government represents them abroad".

It is a puzzle.

logfromblammo6• 10 years ago

I always imagined that the U.S. negotiates abroad rather like Darth Vader negotiates with Lando Calrissian.

"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."

"Perhaps you believe you are being treated unfairly?"

Does that make me part of the 80%, or the 20%?

MCRed3• 10 years ago

When all you consume, day in and day out, is propaganda, it becomes reality for you.

I spent 6 years living abroad and got to see the perception of the USA (south america counts as "americans" too) -- in the media in foreign countries, including some discussions of politics with people in europe and south america.

I can answer your puzzle very simply: The media in the USA is controlled by the FCC to a high degree, and all we get to consume inside this country is propaganda of one sort or another. From Fox news to CNN to MSNBC to your local affiliate, you get a very slanted, very consistent take on the news.

John Stewart used to run clips of various reporters reporting on the same story and using the exact same words. This was supposed to be funny- but the thing is, this is because the government manufactures the news for us. Investigative journalism is basically a dead art. And the places that do it still (like Rolling Stones coverage of the housing bubble) are basically putting forth political propaganda pieces as if they were investigative journalism.

13thLetter3• 10 years ago

More accurately, 80% of them have no idea how the foreign media portrays the way their government represents them abroad. Don't make the mistake of assuming that your giant government-associated news corporations full of hard-ideological reporters and editors are any more trustworthy than Americans'.

pc866• 10 years ago

Is your second point referring specifically to nationalists/separatist militias, or those who believe that Americans have an individual right to bear arms? The answer would depend on what you mean.

Shivetya• 10 years ago

well if you cherry pick your news sources, or your news sources cheery pick what they want to relay, it would be easy to gain the impression that those defending the 2nd have no problem with them trying to get Snowden back.

However that is the crux of the issue. The media spends is way to cozy with the governments of the countries they operate in. Far too many in the media are trying to create news instead of reporting it. So putting two and two together... many of the media are against the gun rights advocates and take liberties with their reporting to put those advocates in the worst possible light.

I am quite sure if you asked many of the advocates you could get very different replies based on how you phrased your question. Like many others there are pro government supported and gun advocates and those who don't trust the government.

nsxwolf4• 10 years ago

I have guns because I am afraid of the government. Snowden confirmed my fears were justified.

forgetsusername3• 10 years ago

The media spends is way to cozy with the governments of the countries they operate in.

Say what you will about the quality of journalism in the US, but is as diverse, open, available and free as anywhere in the solar system. There is no singular view; you can easily find sources form any angle.

kyleblarson• 10 years ago

In all seriousness just watch Team America by the South Park guys. Pretty much sums it up.

pekk4• 10 years ago

This is a lazy cop-out for people who don't really care to spend any time thinking or looking at evidence. Which might be emblematic of the real problem. Knee-jerk anti-Americanism isn't a bit more sophisticated than knee-jerk pro-Americanism.

mcjon772• 10 years ago

I can only give my perspective as a US citizen. The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.

Lets take the Snowden case. He released tons of info regarding the US spying on it's own citizens, but how does that directly effect my life today? To put another way, how do I FEEL the day to day impact of these programs? The answer is simple, I don't.

I have no idea whether the NSA has a record of every website I have viewed. I have no idea if I have a file on some government server detailing my porn preferences based on my google searches. I don't know if the government knows of my relationship status based on listening in to my phone calls. Essentially, unless and until the government decides to use this information that they may (or may not) have to blackmail/arrest/detain/publicly humiliate me, it doesn't impact my life in a noticeable way

Now, lets compare that with the gun issue. When the federal/state/local government passes a gun law, if I am a gun owner I FEEL the impact of that law. If someone wants to buy an AR-15 and there is a threat of banning the weapon, that person feels the direct impact of the issue in his life. If someone wants to carry a concealed firearm in public (something completely legal in the vast majority of states, btw) but they live some place that does not permit it, they FEEL the impact of that law.

This is also why for people who don't own guns and have no interest in doing so, gun restrictions me nothing to them. Banning assault weapons have no negative impact on the lives of people who have no desire to own such firearms.

I am certainly not saying that the right to firearms is more important than the right to privacy from government surveillance. What I am saying is that it is FAR easier to find and organize people who have felt (or would feel) the real life impacts of gun restrictions, than those who have felt the impact of the NSA's surveillance program.

david_mitchell• 10 years ago

The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.

This sounds like a general problem with modern democracy. Theres so much going on that none of us can keep up with it, including the people who work in politics full-time. The inevitable result is an inability to make intelligent decisions in our own interests. The wisdom of the crowd is all that saves us, except when it doesn't.

edwhitesell2• 10 years ago

Essentially, unless and until the government decides to use this information that they may (or may not) have to blackmail/arrest/detain/publicly humiliate me, it doesn't impact my life in a noticeable way

I think that's the crux of it for many people (myself included).

I don't support what the Patriot Act has become, though I do believe in what it "should be". In a perfect world, I really could care less if the government stored all of my data and everything about me. If it could only be used to prove/prosecute my status as a bad actor/terrorist.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the government can be trusted to limit scope in that way. Possibly more relevant, I don't believe all people who work for the government (and could/would/should have access to said information) will always act with my best interest in mind either. Ethics don't come easy to all people.

Also, it's always possible for my information, which I may otherwise choose to keep private, to be lost/stolen/hacked from wherever it resides. I would prefer that door not exist, rather than the keys being held by someone else who may or may not be trustworthy.

It _feels_ like a slippery slope to me. One that seemingly should never exist, based on constitutional rights, etc.

(Note: not trying to flame or troll anything mentioned here, just to discuss serious thoughts).

*EDIT: typo/spelling

atmosx2• 10 years ago

Lets take the Snowden case. He released tons of info regarding the US spying on it's own citizens, but how does that directly effect my life today? To put another way, how do I FEEL the day to day impact of these programs? The answer is simple, I don't.

That's a shame because you're in a position to understand what is at stake here. But you don't care and when you'll do, it will most likely too late.

This masterpiece was written by a pastor, Martin Niemöller for the raise of Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

IMHO this poem applies in every case were we are able to understand the repercussions of some actions, but we choose not to take action because.

By taking action I don't mean take on the streets and protest (that's good too of course), but the very least techies should do in my opinion is to create awareness about the dangers that high-tech, state-level surveillance can bring to a democratic society.

geon• 10 years ago

but they live some place that does not permit it, they FEEL the impact of that law.

How is that any diffrent from living in a country where you know you are under 24-7 surveillance? Unless you planned carry a concealed gun all the time, you'd hardly ever be affected - only on the occasions where you'd have otherwise carried.

rm_-rf_slash4• 10 years ago

Americans have always had a distrust of government. That's why we fought a war for independence against Britain even though the eventual peaceful federalization of former colonies like Canada and Australia provided that violence wasn't necessary.

Then consider how our constitution was created: it was designed to protect people from the tyranny of the state (which is why gun rights are so prevalent) but also tyranny of the mob (hence the survellience state approach to preventing conflicts from getting out of hand).

I think much of the democratic west is moving towards autocracy, not because of cultural preference, but because of concentrated power from industry and wealthy individuals whose interests dominate politics and so nothing changes.

I think the solution is for more direct democracy, and I believe that many of us on the right and left would prefer that to the fear of powerful top-down implementation of a way of life preferred by one side or the other.

jowiar• 10 years ago

It is worth noting that the particular bit of federal tyranny the constitution was designed to prevent was ensuring slavery never got abolished. It was the top priority for half the states ratifying it.

cgriswald2• 10 years ago

I'm not convinced that more direct democracy is the solution. In fact, I think democracy is the weapon wielded by powerful industry and individuals. When you control the primary sources of information, how difficult is it to convince the people to vote your way? (Not that I know what the solution is...)

The California proposition system reveals, IMO, both the strengths and the weaknesses in direct democracy. On the one hand, when representatives are not doing their jobs, the people can perform an end-run around them and pass any legislation they want.

On the other hand, it's easily manipulated.

Imagine I'm a lawnmower manufacturer. My bought and paid for representatives are concerned, because their constituents are very concerned about the safety of squirrels and want their representatives to pass a law requiring a new type of (more expensive, less efficient) lawn mower. They can't not act, or they won't get re-elected, but they also know they have to do what I want or they won't get my contributions. What to do?

We write a bad law and have someone submit as a proposition. We wage a campaign against it (while our representatives speak out in favor of squirrels), pointing out the very flaws we had put into it and some sob stories about lawn mower factory employees losing jobs and how much more expensive it will be to cut your grass. If it passes, no big deal; we've put enough weaknesses into it to make it largely ineffective. If it doesn't, great! The people have spoken: they don't care about squirrels; and it's not the representatives fault. We probably don't have to worry about it again.

arca_vorago3• 10 years ago

No, direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority. What we need is to return to our idealogical roots of our actual governmental system: constitutional republic, or, in better words, constitutional representative democratic republic.

The power of true American exceptionalism lies in the fact that individualism and individual sovereignty is our foundational principle.

As Christopher Hitchens said: "The American Revolution, the one that says, build your public on individual rights, not group rights, have a bill of rights that inscribes these and makes theme legible to everybody, separate the church from the state, separate the executive from the judicial, and the political branch. Do all these things; It doesn't sound like much but it's really a very revolutionary idea. There is hardly a country in the world that wouldn't benefit from adopting those principles. I think that gives the United States a really good claim to be a revolutionary country as well as of course, paradoxically a very conservative one."

"Of course, objectively as well as subjectively, the American revolution is now the only revolution with a fighting chance of survival and success: the idea that you could create a multicultural democracy over a vast expanse of the earth's surface that could possibly be emulated by other people."

What I think is that in allowing the separation of powers and checks and balances functions to erode, particularly giving power to the executive under the banner of war, we have strayed from the fundamental principles of our Constitution, and a return to this model is where the true future of America lies. Of course I don't like saying "a return to" because our history has been filled with issues in this regard, so I want to avoid giving any pretence of a panacea of the past, but the beauty of our system was supposed to be that it would continually, if gradually and slowly, be improved. I no longer thing we are improving in a constitutional sense, and supranational global governance is all but openly accepted on the hill. Borderline treasonous if you ask me.

In an oath the Constitution, one swears to protect and defend it from enemies foreign and domestic. I tell you now, with full conviction, that our Constitution has more numerous and more engrained and powerful domestic enemies than foreign ones.(or domestic enemies backed by foreign ones) The thing is though, our true foreign enemies, the ones who are actually a constitutional threat, don't wear a thwab... they wear business suits and ties.

In my many years of trying to understand the larger geopolitical chessboard since I got out of the military, my conclusion is that all roads of corruption in America lead to DC and to Wallstreet, but that most roads of corruption from there lead to the City of London and to the various hidden vestiges of European monarchy and oligarchy, including the papacy. (and this is giving you the sanitised version so as not to explode your head with conspiracy theory.)

Until this is understood, we will be unable to truly defend our country and it's constitution.

voodootrucker4• 10 years ago

The baby boomer generation grew up before computers, and most of them don't even know how to check their email. They are very patriotic, and very insular. They believe that God gave America to white Christians, and the government is defending it.

In short, they understand guns, but not computers.

Young people grew up with the internet and are better informed, but they have no control. District lines and campaign financing have made it impossible to make an impact.

The numbers are reaching a tipping point though, and you should expect to see a very different America in the next decade or so.

voodootrucker4• 10 years ago

I think there is also a prevailing sense of impotency and apathy. The capital is so far away from most people (geographically and culturally) that they don't feel like they can change things. American politics are very divided on party lines, and neither party addresses these issues.

I don't know what country the parent commentator is from, but US states are the size of most countries. At a local level there may be vigorous debate, but the only other comparable governments are the EU and maybe China. I imagine that the citizens of those governments also feel like they have very little voice?

(edit, the EU is not a country)

peeters2• 10 years ago

Are opinions on guns really divided along generational lines though? I mean going from my experience on Reddit, any time someone even suggests the U.S. should restrict gun ownership, that person gets a dozen or so upvoted replies reminding them that God gave Moses the 2nd Amendment on Mt Sinai. I find it hard to believe those are all baby boomers.

DonHopkins• 10 years ago

Because being impotent and having a short penis doesn't make people want cryptography to compensate, but it does make people want guns.

mindslight3• 10 years ago

It sure does make people engage in needless tribal bickering, too. Rather than being part of the political design wherein each half of the population supports half of the tyranny, why don't you try rooting for a sports team instead? The Super Bowl is on this weekend, and you can even nonchalantly call it "sportsball" to feel like you're still above it.

jokoon• 10 years ago

I agree that what the NSA did was bad, but I really don't understand your anti government stance.

The main problem with those NSA programs is not that spying is evil (it's necessary and it's part of defending your country against many different types of threat), the problem is that this spying program, as a tool, could be used for other things than security purposes. This is in fact very worrying and it's what Snowden complains about: this massive chest of data was not encrypted and could be read by many government operatives by means of bribery, or even by individual with political goals.

So the problem has been about how those tools has been designed and managed with very sloppy consideration, and that politicians are not able to fix it because as always, technology is beyond what democracy is about.

What I understand about this scandal is not about trivial corruption in government, it's more about what sort of political problems, technologies can create.

an almost no reaction from other citizens

I think every citizen who use computers for sensitive purpose, or people who might be the target of spying, are now aware of the NSA, and might have taken precautions that made NSA's job a little more difficult.

I don't think you can really have a protest against the NSA. It's not a simple issue, especially from the technical standpoint.

ninkendo• 10 years ago

Can a US citizen explain

It's not some monoculture over here. Your guess is as good as any's.

newday3• 10 years ago

Not an American, but it really comes down to fear, and the illusion of safety; the TSA is a perfect example. A gun doesn't keep you or your family safe, but it gives you the illusion of safety. Government surveillance is the same, since the rhetoric is that it will keep America safe from terrorists, yet like the TSA and guns, when we look at the data, all of these provide no tangible benefit, and often great harm.

MCRed3• 10 years ago

A gun doesn't keep you or your family safe

Defensive gun use is far more common in the USA than murders by firearms:

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

when we look at the data, all of these provide no tangible benefit, and often great harm.

No tangible benefit? Even 100,000 people saved by guns annually (the low end number) is "tangible benefit".

According to the CDC, there are 11k homicides by firearms: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

If you look at other countries, when guns are banned there is a shift from guns to other methods of killing ,but not a significant decline in homicides.

This is what you see when looking at the data.

caskance2• 10 years ago

Why value tangible benefits over intangible ones?

Calling it an illusion implies that air travel is not safe, when in fact it is very safe. However, people did not feel safe, so the government constructed an agency (perhaps deliberately, perhaps not) to provide security theater and help people feel safe.

In general, American citizens today are safe from terrorism. If anything, the greatest danger comes not from terrorists themselves but from the American peoples' unjustified fear of terrorism. We could use some more security theater.

mindslight3• 10 years ago

IMHO, the keeping of guns acts as a crutch [0] that lulls people into thinking they can always fight back when the true time comes. I believe they think there's no need to prematurely worry about mass surveillance (thus Snowden is a criminal), because if the ultimate results are used wrongly, then their guns can be used to put an end to it.

Of course the same pathology applies to democracy itself, so out of the (ballot, jury, ammo) boxen, the only avenue us individualists really have left is the S-box.

[0] Please don't misjudge my perspective - I think people have the right to keep and bear whatever tools regardless of purpose. And I think the 2A, as written, quite obviously covers fully auto, explosives, and armored vehicles. It should perhaps have been revisited with the advent of nuclear weapons though. A good legal test would be stewardship - what type of weapons can an individual/group practice with and store without causing harm to others?

voodootrucker4• 10 years ago

I agree, and I find the viewpoint that guns will protect from Americans from a totalitarian government as naive.

The US military has proven itself very effective at fighting those only armed with small arms. In Iraq roadside bombs have proven a far better weapon than assault rifles.

Trying to imagine the Oregon militia fighting against predator drones seems insane. IMO, the 2A is just an opiate that the government uses to lull right wing voters into acquiescence.

rsync• 10 years ago

I want nothing at all to do with a 2A debate, but ...

The "nuclear weapons" argument is actually a useful and substantive retort from gun control advocates - I don't think it should be waved away as if it's absurd or silly.

But at the same time, I think there is a very, very simple solution to the "nuclear weapons" problem, and that is to cap firearms capability at whatever the highest capability employed by the state and local law enforcement that one is subject to.

No SWAT team or sheriffs department will have a nuke, so the problem is solved.

Because of posse comitatus[1], you can't end up with a situation where local law enforcement disarms itself completely (and thus, disarms all citizens) and hands over larger tasks to the military, since they can't do that. On some level, local law enforcement in the US needs firearms, so that unintended consequence is skirted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

mikeash3• 10 years ago

I think the anti-dictatorship is not as common as it might look. Certainly some people believe that, but in my experience most gun advocates merely believe that you can't count on the government to protect you from criminals so you need to be able to do it yourself. I think these people welcome the government's efforts to protect them, they just don't think it does a very good job sometimes, or that it's simply not possible to provide perfect protection.

Lots of people don't see the NSA's activities as "illegal spying on its own people," but rather as strong anti-terror efforts that don't give up when terrorists enter the US.

The idea that we need strong gun rights as a way to stop the government from becoming tyrannical has at least two major obvious holes in it, but a lot of people's views are more subtle and nuanced than that. As usual.

AI_Overlord2• 10 years ago

Please explain the two major holes please and be ready to defend them if they are not solid.

Zigurd• 10 years ago

While it doesn't explain the soccer moms going along with the security state, part of the explanation is the Washington DC area culture. "Snowden" is a four letter word to anyone working for the DoD, DHS, DoJ and all their suppliers and providers - the beltway bandits. People outside this large circle don't understand that. But, inside, what Snowden did is unquestionably wrong. On top of that there are oddities like people with security clearances not being allowed to read the leaks. That just heightens the disconnect.

Coincidentally, the people arming-up against the government are the most alienated from this circle. But that's just a coincidence. There's no connection through Snowden. It's all about creating a hostile environment for government officials. For the group in Oregon, they are probably more aware of Joseph Smith and the Oath of Vengeance than Edward Snowden.

linkregister• 10 years ago

You're begging the question here.

The U.S. Department of Justice's reason for pursuing Snowden is because he perpetrated the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history. Speaking out against the government, which isn't a crime in the U.S., is not sufficient for being arrested.

Can you imagine one of your customers permitting a developer to walk away with their entire code repository and internal strategy docs, without calling the police?

Speaking against the government alone isn't a crime. It happens daily across many venues. Hell, I've got folks on my Facebook feed practically plotting to overthrow the government over the Oregon/Bundy controversy.

zaphar• 10 years ago

This explains the motivation of the US intelligence community in calling the police, yes. But It doesn't explain the willingness of the people of the nation to abet his prosecution.

To take your analogy and apply it more accurately:

Can you imagine one of your customers permitting a developer to walk away with the entire code repository that demonstrates massive violations of US law and internal strategy docs about how they intend to violate those laws without shutting him up permanently?

mc32• 10 years ago

Two things come to mind,

Many people are glad some things were exposed like the scope of data gathering, what many dislike is disclosing of state secrets that went along with the mostly uncurated dumps. Expose government overreach good; expose state secrets bad.

Two, the armed occupation/protest in places like Oregon has a lot more to do with disagreement over government control over grazing lands, and other natural resources many locals believe should be locally devolved, typically to enable more liberal exploitation of the resources [to the chagrin of the environmentally minded, but these are typically areas with poor economies] So these issues are completely disconnected.

dreamdu5t• 10 years ago

Can you explain why you think US citizens have power over what their government does?

crdoconnor• 10 years ago

The right to bear arms has strong institutional support from the NRA (the gun manufacturer's lobby). Edward Snowden has very little institutional support (a bit from a few rights groups but none as powerful or rich as the NRA).

Most political insanity in America boils down to this.

mercurialshark• 10 years ago

Well part of it is pretty simple. He stole, as in removed classified information without permission from a secure facility and disseminated millions of pages of classified information to non-approved parties (everyone in the world). If it were legal to remove classified information without permission, because you felt entitled to, then that could be a legal defense. But it's clearly not, so he sought political asylum in Russia. If however, there was a directive from the President or office of legal counsel to shut down the program and if NSA had kept it running, him exposing an illegal program could be a legal defense - had he gone through the appropriate channels. But there was nothing illegal about it at the time. So he committed the crime, not NSA...

MichaelApproved• 10 years ago

To add to your comment, he took an enormous amount of data. It was sweeping and pretty indiscriminate. And he gave it to the media.

Some of what he took and shared could be legitimately argued as whistle blowing but there's lots of other classified data about legitimate programs that was taken as well.

striking2• 10 years ago

I think he did try the "appropriate channels" but nothing happened.

alexandercrohde• 10 years ago

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the comparison. The right to bear arms is in part a check against tyranny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...), in that if the citizens are armed a corrupt government may have to be stopped by force. So from a historical perspective there is a clear acknowledgment that a corrupt government's laws may need to be broken to fix a corrupt government.

The initial comment is wise to point out digression in thought from the founding fathers and our current attitude toward government.

aagha• 10 years ago

There's a Catch-22 situation if I ever heard one

spangry• 10 years ago

Some of what you say is true, but highly misleading (and the 'appropriate channels' issue is still an open question in my opinion). Although Snowden accepted political asylum in Russia, he had little choice at the time.

The US government revoked his passport while he was in an international "no man's land" (i.e. the international side of Russian customs), effectively making him stateless. He had originally planned to transit through Russia on to Cuba, and thereafter Ecuador or Venezuela. By cancelling his passport, the US government effectively trapped him in Moscow.

Heck, he couldn't have even have gotten himself illegally smuggled out. The US government forced the Bolivian president's plane, on its way back from Moscow to Bolivia, to land in Austria, where it was searched. Just on the mere suspicion that Snowden was on board. Forcing down the plane of the head of a sovereign nation and subjecting them to a search in a foreign jurisdiction sounds pretty damn illegal to me. Actually, it sounds like an act of war. But I suppose that doesn't matter when your country spends more on its military than the next 19 countries combined.

Also worth noting that the crimes Snowden has been charged with are two counts of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed just after the US entered WWI. Its original intent is clearly to punish people who endangered military operations during a time of total war. Given this intended purpose, it's a near certainty Snowden would be found guilty if he ever came back to the US to 'face the music':

Professor at American University Washington College of Law and national security law expert Stephen Vladeck has said that the law “lacks the hallmarks of a carefully and precisely defined statutory restriction on speech.” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticis...

kafkaesq3• 10 years ago

But it's clearly not, so he sought political asylum in Russia.

No, that's not what happened.

Go back and read the basic chronology of what happened to him after leaving HK, please.

drjesusphd• 10 years ago

I think your argument was best summarized by doki_pen below:

Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what.

mcv2• 10 years ago

It's worth noting that there were no appropriate channels, though. People who tried those in order to address illegal NSA programs either got ignored or had their life ruined (see Thomas Drake). Snowden took the only possible course of action to address this. That the only remaining channel was illegal, is part of the problem.

japhyr• 10 years ago

I think you could make an argument that many of the people who are loud advocates for gun rights don't understand the nuances of what Snowden did. Many gun advocates are an odd mix of "f the government" and "US is the best!"

I just started subsistence hunting this year, so I own a gun and I want to keep the ability to hunt. I have zero concerns that the US government will "take away" my hunting rifle. But I'd love to see handguns and assault weapons under much tighter control. I think there's a middle ground between "no guns" and "you can own any gun you want". But not many people look for the middle ground right now, and most of our prominent politicians couldn't even give an accurate description of the what the term "middle ground" really means.

forgottenpass2• 10 years ago

"Middle ground" on gun control, eh? http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/...

rmc• 10 years ago

People think Snowden is a traitor.

lostlogin4• 10 years ago

It's absurd that this is still a thing. Without that charge there is plenty that he could be prosecuted with. Crap like "betraying your country" belongs back centuries ago along with imperial expansion, prosecution for speaking ill of the King etc.

kbenson2• 10 years ago

Because arrest does not mean convict, and his actions consisted of more than speaking out. He has publicly admitted to something that, from the surface facts, appears to be illegal (regardless of whether you think it was morally right and acceptable). As such, until convicted or exonerated, it is the job of the justice system to bring him in for trial.

It's comparable to killing someone in what you believe was self defense. You may still have to go to trial to prove your innocence if the government believes it may not have been self-defense. That is the point of the justice system, and trial by a jury of your peers.

The right to bear arms is to protect from overreach by the government. As long as government consists of representatives of the people making laws in accordance with the constitution and prior laws, there should not be a case where arms are required to defend against the state. It ensures the government cannot monopolize force.

tzaman• 10 years ago

But they can try him in absence, can they not?

puppetmaster32• 10 years ago

I moved to USA from Europe, here is my POV: Citizens are mostly poorly educated relative to Europe. Also politicians are more corrupt.

So the politicians have a free hand. For an empirical illustration : http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVOuK_KB9ew 85,000 callers out of 90,000 callers to a California senator (representing among others Silicon Valley) wanted a no vote. Senator voted yes. Or http://bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03hd981

Confidence level is 15% with media support, this is normal: http://pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm You have a choice of 2 parties. It is not a Euro style multi party democracy. Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

So: most people support Snowden, despite thought shaping that happens on forums. And Aaron. And Ian. Daniel. Hastings. But in age of big data, surveillance meta data can be used bayesian/predictive for internal politics (not for 'scary' external imagination). The winning move then is to be or appear passive. And anticapte tyrany. hth

puppetmaster32• 10 years ago

Ex: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/eglin-air-force-base-...

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dz470/most_red...

forgottenpass2• 10 years ago

Can a US citizen explain what seems to me tobe a dissonance

Americans will, unsurprisingly, pay lip service to the American ideals of democracy because that's what they were taught. The two disconnects I see are: do they actually believe in them? And can the identify a compromise of the ideas as such? Not always, and infrequently.

People are exceptionally good at ignoring ingnorable things that they don't want to deal with, the "someone else's problem" phenomenon.

Political groups that don't frequently recommit to American ideals mean that the political trends sway away from them. Add in some "this time it is different" type of rationalization, and boneheaded "America could never possibly X" attitude that makes them think the groundwork for X is always and forever unambiguously benign.

So different political groups have different levels of commitment to different American ideals. Someone can believe in gun rights as important to maintain like all the other rights that strengthen our democracy. Or they could just like guns and find out the political groups they're already predisposed to disagree with want to take them away. Their commitment to American ideals is repackaged into hatred of the other party -- and as long as this hypothetical person got to keep their gun and a few other pet political issues, they'd welcome a dictator.

fnordfnordfnord4• 10 years ago

Hoo boy! I wish I could explain it. I live right smack in the middle of a bunch of people who can be observed to do exactly that. They are oblivious to the irony or logical inconsistency. My only guess is that these people see pro military industrial complex hawks as defenders of the America in their fairy tales and implicitly trust that their motives are pure. The only other thing is maybe that they've been defending the MIC for so long that they've stopped (or were never) thinking critically about their position.

a3n• 10 years ago

My opinion, I can't see even a significant minority of gun owners rising up in rebellion and revolution against the US. Ever. At most, the odd Timothy McVeigh or Ammon Bundy.

The 2nd Amendment, and its implications, are mostly a convenient argument. We, as a population, just want our guns.

duaneb• 10 years ago

illegal

Legal.

a dissonance, between the government putting huge efforts and resource in trying to arrest a citizen speaking out against the government doing illegal spying on its own people (an almost no reaction from other citizens), and people defending the right to bear weapons to protect themselves from the government turning into a dictatorship?

These are, arguably, two different reactions to perceived xenophobic threats.

superuser2• 10 years ago

Everyone is free to critize the government, to accuse it of any atrocity and to denounce it on the basis of those accusations.

What you cannot do is disclose internal information to which you have privileged access as a government agent/employee/contractor. You have ample notice of this fact before agreeing to become one. In fact you must go out of your way to apply for a security clearance. If you find this an unacceptable infringement of your freedom, you may choose not to work for the government.

Snowden is not subject to arrest for dissent, but for what is effictively a breach of his employment contract.

SCOTUS recently held that government employees cannot even be fired for disparaging the government provided they do not identify themselves as government employees when doing so.

iaw• 10 years ago

Additionally, in the USA there are theoretically protections for "whistleblowers" who reveal illegal or immoral practices by large institutions. The problem is that the security apparatus hides behind the cloak of national security needs preventing any open rational debate on the subject.

AndrewBissell• 10 years ago

There's actually quite a lot of overlap in the U.S. between people who vociferously support gun rights (which includes libertarians and some left anarchists) and support for Edward Snowden and opposition to mass surveillance.

Up until Rand Paul dropped out, he and Bernie Sanders were the only two U.S. presidential candidates speaking out against the NSA's overreach. Paul is staunchly pro gun rights, and Sanders has taken criticism from Hillary Clinton and many on the left for being insufficiently anti-gun for their tastes.

metaphorm• 10 years ago

you're correct. it is a huge cognitive dissonance. many of the most vehemently pro-gun anti-government people in the U.S. only selectively apply their views to "keep the government away from MY PROPERTY". they are often also enthusiastic supporters of aggressive, militaristic foreign policy and all kinds of really nasty shit including but not limited to assassinations, drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, torture, extra-judicial detainment, and persecution of whistle-blowers on the ground they are "traitors".

it makes me sick to think about, but thats how it is. the U.S. is a country of many contradictions.

Lawtonfogle3• 10 years ago

I have a hard time explaining it. I know many very pro-gun people who constantly think the government is trying to take their guns but who don't have a problem with spying. My father is one of them.

One of the only things I can see is the propaganda has worked. They think spying is only to catch online child abusers and terrorist, and they know they aren't one of those so they have nothing to worry about. The spying is also much harder to grasp. Taking someone's gun is a very easy think to understand. Even a toddler can understand someone taking something from them. In comparison, spying, especially the really large scale stuff, is much harder to understand.

But besides for that, I don't really know why there is such a divide between the reactions.

sroerick• 10 years ago

This issue can also be explained a bit by illustrating some of the divides that make up party lines.

The call to arrest Snowden has been echoed by both political parties. The mainstream of both parties is very pro-surveillance. While surveillance programs were certainly in place before 9/11, the Bush administration really furthered the goals of the surveillance (and the larger National Security state). The Obama administration continued that advancement without restriction.

I would say that the two political parties in the US both support surveillance in a pretty vast majority. The bureaucratic reasons for this are fairly complex, but the simplest way of putting it is that the mainstream of both parties is very authoritarian (what some, myself included would label fascist.) Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (to some extent), and the neoliberal movement has effectively the same foreign policy goals as the neoconservative movement that gave rise to the Bush administration.

On the fringes of both parties, you have outspoken activists trying to address both surveillance and the larger natsec state. The libertarians on the right, (Rand Paul, Justin Amash), and the progressives on the left (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren) have all been outspoken against the NSA. The problem is that the mainstream in both parties tends to control Congress, the bureaucracy, and the media.

Gun Rights is a mainstream Republican issue. Every republican has to be strongly pro gun (both the mainstream GOP and the libertarians are) whereas every democrat has to be against it (Both the neoliberals and the progressives are.)

There are a lot of issues (or, in my opinion, non-issues) in American politics that tend to split the fringe in both parties. Topics like Gun Control, Abortion, Immigration, etc. are hot button issues that generally take the focus away from issues that theoretically should be very, very important, like NSA surveillance, illegal rendition and torture programs, assassination programs, and war.

It's sad, because the anti-establishment (Progressives and Libertarians) in both parties tend to agree on these issues. Frankly, most of the people who are pro-gun-rights are also anti-surveillance. These are the constitutional libertarians on the right: gun rights are guaranteed by the US second amendment, and privacy by the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure.

The dissonance you're seeing isn't so much due to logical inconsistencies, but rather due to the weird, schizophrenic nature of US politics.

smaddox• 10 years ago

It's very simple: political beliefs are rarely logically consistent (at least not through a logic that excludes human psychology). This is not limited to the US.

awl130• 10 years ago

there is no dissonance. spying is about privacy. guns are about lives. spying can lead to loss of life but guns do lead to loss of life.

ekianjo• 10 years ago

“He is sought for a series of legal violations; that's what he is. And the US is a democratic constitutional state,” he added.

Looks like this guy never heard of Guantanamo or the other secret camps the US keeps around the globe. It's beautiful to be naive.

beeboop3• 10 years ago

Or laws that are blatantly amoral.

pessimism2• 10 years ago

His former boss and predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Bush’s biggest supporter and ditto on the Iraq War.

He has a vested interest in ignorance of the past—so much so that he shut down the investigative committee for the very same war as one of the first things when he won the election last year.

Erwin• 10 years ago

This revelation seems me to be a calculated political move. The government at the time was the leftist one led by Helle Thorning Schmidt (now the president of Save the Children). Current government is a right-wing one. Revealing this shows certain groups of traditional leftists how those traditional workers' parties have "betrayed" them (and this leftist government has been quite pragmatic; just recently the leftist opposition parties voting to approve the infamous sufficiency proposal -- i.e. the one where if you're carrying significant amounts of cash and try to seek political asylum you get to pay for it yourself first).

You can read that in what the foreign policy spokeperson of the party says: "It is to me unbelievable the that S-SF-R government of that time would prefer to join the hunt on Snowden and thus value the American government over the Danes' fundamental right to freedom" (see http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/pind-fly-i-kastrup-skulle-tra...)

pascalmemories• 10 years ago

Looks like this has turned into a hot topic as more details have evolved. To my mind, this all seems to be a bit of an academic side-show, given how long ago these events were.

What should probably be of concern is that Assange is talking about leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK AND the UK police have taken a much lower key approach recently, removing officers from outside etc.

Has Assange not considered the risk that, given how friendly the UK was to these flights [landing, refueling at Glasgow Airport for example], the flight is probably sitting waiting at Heathrow right now?

If he steps out, he's more likely to be confronted by US agents, possibly posing as UK police, who will detain him and whisk him off to the waiting plane ? The convenient absence of real UK officers will allow for a daylight snatch by the US and bypass the Sweden issue completely.

appleflaxen• 10 years ago

Are you talking about Assange? The article is about Snowden.

thrwawy9374• 10 years ago

I think the underlying issue is about rendition flights - so it's relevant to Snowden for historical purposes but is relevant for Assange (another target) for very current reasons today following the UN decision on arbitrary detention.

The original comment therefor seems pretty valid.

Are you saying you don't think it is a valid comment dealing with the underlying issue because it's not restricted to purely Snowden?

quadrangle• 10 years ago

Seeing a lot of people asking broader things about Snowden here, the main perspective to have on this is from Eben Moglen: http://snowdenandthefuture.info

cheers

Denmark confirms US sent rendition flight for Snowden

Related Stories