This would be a great time for Biden to show how things in America are different by dropping all charges against Julian Assange and pardoning Snowden, but of course he won't, because things in America aren't really as different as he would like us to think.
Btw, Matt, "downed a RyanAir jet" might make some readers think the jet was shot down. Maybe "forced a RyanAir jet to land" would have been better phrasing.
LOL You are assuming that Biden isn't just some Breshnev puppet.
We'd be better off if they just turned the teleprompters around and let us read them for ourselves when he makes a spectacle of himself... I mean a SPEECH.
How embarrassing for anyone subscribing to the Washington Post. This is as close as you're going to get to an outright admission from the Post that it has no respect for its own readers and is actively trying to keep them in the dark.
Well, yes, because they could state that the reference was to Morales' forced down plane in order to catch a fugitive and hyperlink to its own story -- LIKE ANY OTHER UNBIASED NEWS SOURCE WOULD.
Also part of the point of the article that included Snowden was to attempt to respond to critics of what the US did to Morales, and to feebly distinguish it as a non-political act. WaPo is garbage.
I'm sad that "news" in the US has really become nothing more than partisan propaganda outrage clickbait.
Thank goodness for independent journalists with integrity. You, Greenwald, and several others on Substack are now my most trusted source of information.
There is a sick part of me that finds comfort in WaPo behaving exactly as I would expect. At least the boundaries, contours, and signature aberrations of this Twilight Zone remain unchanged.
There are many reasons why the American public is so ignorant about international affairs, and especially previous actions by the US in that realm. Chief among this is illustrated by WaPo in this piece.
The Guardian will not permit ANY comments under any Belarus-Pratasevich story that mention Snowden, Morales and the 2013 incident. Literally, any allusion to that historical event will get the comment deleted.
I think they know this, also... Check your area's National Guard base out and see if there are a bunch of troop transport vehicles around that weren't there 6 months ago.
Not surprising at all. The WSJ still tries, weakly and vaguely, to be a real newspaper. Not for long, sadly. It's decided to just be Pravda Light for NYC in an attempt to beat the actual Pravda of NYC.
Yeah. It's all over but the crying. The coup happened first as a n administrative coup using "legal" channels, then under the cover of an engineered virus released either accidentally or "accidentally", they stole the election and acted like nothing happened.
New fences around the WH, a $1.9B law enforcement spending bill for the capital and I see National Guard bases near me stocking up on troop transport trucks and fuel tankers.
Yeah, they'll have their little Domestic War on Terror and we're all invited to the party whether we like it or not.
I don't understand why the Washington Post would white wash a case directly involving Snowden.
Whitewashing the case involving Julian Assange is just as bad, but I can at least understand it on a purely narrow parochial partisanship basis. The courts have actually confirmed at this point that what Edward Snowden identified was in fact illegal behavior on the part of the intelligence agencies and I don't recall him being involved in an hyper partisan dust ups the way Julian Assange was. Why would the Post want to erase the case of Snowden from this story?
Prior to that there was at least an effort to hide their manipulation under the guise of "reportage". Now? Nope. Straight from the CIA to your eyes and ears.
Always remember, CIA serves at the command of the president. CIA doesn't come up with this stuff. To the extent they might do some domestic op, it's illegal and they know it. This sort of thing has little or nothing to do with CIA. This is the civilians showing off their power.
Indeed. Ask Deep Throat who answers to whom. The rogue FBI agent that illegally surveilled and took down a sitting US President with 0 consequences, all because like some jilted lover he did not get the promotion he believed he was owed.
The vast apparatus that runs the Show here got going hardcore under HW Bush and expanded mightily under Clinton, W, Obama and Trump.
The richest people on the planet run this show, and they use the US government's elected offices to "propose legislation" on their behalf, they call the shots for what group is targeted and where -then stolen from, everything.
They've nudged everyone into this slaughter house chute and the herd is braying in fear. Just as planned.
The "civilians" you mention are free from any sort of national allegiances; the world is their oyster and they get what they want. Always.
The CIA is decidedly NOT serving "at the command of the president".
That's just a puppet show meant to distract and polarize.
As you know, the US consists of 3 independent branches: The political branch, the paramilitary branch and the rich elite branch. These 3 branches are entirely insular and report to their own command structure. Status within these organizations matter, so while a police officer is entirely entirely insulated from accountability to the public, if he upsets someone higher up on either rich elite branch, or the political branch there will be real consequences, but that does not mean that ultimately he does not answer to the leaders within his own paramilitary branch.
As you can see, under this model the CIA does not answer to the president any more than Jeff Bezos does.
You're probably right and it's not a dick move at all since I don't understand, but a link to enlighten me would be helpful.
Just to clarify, I understand why in cooperation with the surveillance state they would not like Snowden. What I don't understand is why they would do it in this way given that it's more about their support for the surveillance state than any political objective.
"why they would do it in this way given that it's more about their support for the surveillance state than any political objective"
You're getting warm here, with the exception that I would argue "support for the surveillance state" *does* constitute a political objective. My opinion is that The Post is a political project; it was subtly so in past decades and has become brazenly so in at least the last half-decade (whole decade?). The brazen part is what frightens me. It doesn't think it has anything to hide any more, and it might not be wrong.
Incredibly half-assed example out of probably a million better ones: CIA pays Bezos for server space (what does this say about CIA's inherent computer technology capabilities?) Bezos owns the WaPo.
Why? In case you haven't noticed, the Washington Post, like many other American media outlets, has become a mouthpiece for the American intelligence services. That's why.
Because they want to make an example of him. Or some do. The Obama administration was DEATH on whistleblowers. The most extreme administration in history.
WaPo isn't even any good as bird cage liner. It's shocking that people are shocked that people are shocked at their reporting, or whatever it is they do.
That event would be welcome; however, I'm afraid that, absent an overthrow of the American Empire, we'll remain in expectation of it forever: along with a thorough investigation of the assassinations of the 1960s, of 9/11, of the Anthrax mailings, etc.
Matt, is there any way to contact you? I have a potential story including an ambassador, a former legislator who's eager to talk, and a top university desperately trying to hide the identity of the people running it.
"According to a transcript released by the Belarusian transport ministry, air traffic controllers told the pilot at 09:30 GMT "you have bomb on board and it can be activated over Vilnius". Even though the plane was closer to Vilnius than the Belarus capital, the pilot was told to divert to Minsk. At 09:47 the pilot declared a emergency.
An earlier transcript broadcast by Belarus TV had made it look as though the crew had asked to land in Minsk.
The plane then landed at 10:16 GMT (13:16 local time). A military MiG jet escorted the plane to the airport."
A reasonable interpretation of a fighter jet escorting an airliner to the airport is that the airliner was forced to make the landing. In any event, Belarus did not have the authority to do what they did. They induced the airliner to land by falsely advising the flight crew that there was a bomb threat. This violated international law. The following is from france24.com (link below):
"As to the fake bomb threat claimed by Belarus as the reason for the interception, Article 1 of the 1970 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (ratified by Belarus) states that "a person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally … communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight". Under Article 10 of the Montreal Convention, a state must take ‘all practicable measures’ to prevent the commission of this and other acts. If, in spite of this, the offence is committed, the state must "facilitate the continuation of the journey of the passengers and crew as soon as practicable". So under this provision Protasevich should be allowed to proceed to Vilnius."
Thank you for a succinct and authenticated factual accounting of this incident. From my view, the principle distinction between this event and the failed Snowden scheme is that the former was/is (for the present) a successful international kidnapping crime. The official lie that this latest state sponsored act-of-terrorism event is historically "unprecedented" smacks of corporate media's sycophantic distribution of government's propagandistic BS.
Belarus had the authority. It abused that authority. That’s arguably a more heinous offense than a physical ambush. It’s like the police officer who takes a bribe to arrest you. He should be punished, but if you peacefully obey his illegitimate order to stop and get out of your car, there is no force involved. Unless you want to make the case that all law enforcement is by implied violence and therefore by force.
Yes, that was my reference. There’s a political theory that most governments started out as gangs extracting goods and services via a protection racket. Maybe Belarus has fallen back to that (maybe parts of Mexico and Colombia, too) but for purposes of these posts, I’m assuming it’s still a legitimate government issuing orders that people routinely obey.
Under international law - in a treaty that Belarus ratified - Belarus did not have the authority to cause, by force or not, the airliner to land by falsely advising the crew that they had a bomb on board.
Well they didn't - the air traffic control informed the pilot that they received an email that there is a bomb on board. It was the pilot's decision to land in Minsk, which is pretty much standard procedure in such cases, as is fighter jet escort. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-abduction-of-nexta/
Perhaps I misunderstood your original question. How is a Russian oligarch making a law that profits them, which a citizen must follow not an example of implied violence and therefore force?
I was unclear; it’s the oligarch who profits by cheerfully following an unjust law made by the government. I may be misusing “oligarch” here by assuming he is not part of the government.
The air traffic controller in Minsk almost certainly thought the information in Proton-email was true. No need for cogs to know the details of the big game. The question is who sent the email. We don't know. It could have even really be Hamas, they could have done that in favor exchange with Belarus KGB, which surely has some good info about IDF (just speculating, but within realm of possibility). However, once the plane is on the ground, there is no international law that grants the passengers immunity. Protasevich has a valid arrest warrant in Belarus, and even an extradition request (towards Poland, which was ignored) therefore he was legally detained.
Matt this is why I canceled my subscriptions to the WaPo, NYT, WSJ and don't watch MSM anymore. A double standard in politics? C'est moi? Never! You know what the problem is? All of these people have too much time and need to fill space rather than finding a real story to report about. Meet the new boss same as the old boss!
Ha, ha . . . you mean the article that stated when Morales’s plane was forced to land it was “different” and “did not involve crackdowns on political opposition?” That article? 😏 “Critics accuse . . . .” Damn critics. 😖
Moonofalabama (German blogger) has quite a bit about this not reported in western media in addition to listing not a few other forced landings. Curiously he doesn't mention the Ukrainian forced landing in 2015 to arrest and anti-maidan opposition figure in his list of other forced landings.
This would be a great time for Biden to show how things in America are different by dropping all charges against Julian Assange and pardoning Snowden, but of course he won't, because things in America aren't really as different as he would like us to think.
Btw, Matt, "downed a RyanAir jet" might make some readers think the jet was shot down. Maybe "forced a RyanAir jet to land" would have been better phrasing.
"This would be a great time for Biden to show how things in America are different"
"Nothing will fundamentally change."
LOL You are assuming that Biden isn't just some Breshnev puppet.
We'd be better off if they just turned the teleprompters around and let us read them for ourselves when he makes a spectacle of himself... I mean a SPEECH.
Got my attention, for sure. But I think that was the entire point of using the term. I say "fair ball" ;)
"Other aviation incidents."
How embarrassing for anyone subscribing to the Washington Post. This is as close as you're going to get to an outright admission from the Post that it has no respect for its own readers and is actively trying to keep them in the dark.
B/c paying for wapo is embarrassing enough, yes?
Well no, because they wrote an entire article about the Snowden plane incident yesterday.
Well, yes, because they could state that the reference was to Morales' forced down plane in order to catch a fugitive and hyperlink to its own story -- LIKE ANY OTHER UNBIASED NEWS SOURCE WOULD.
Also part of the point of the article that included Snowden was to attempt to respond to critics of what the US did to Morales, and to feebly distinguish it as a non-political act. WaPo is garbage.
I'm sad that "news" in the US has really become nothing more than partisan propaganda outrage clickbait.
Thank goodness for independent journalists with integrity. You, Greenwald, and several others on Substack are now my most trusted source of information.
There is a sick part of me that finds comfort in WaPo behaving exactly as I would expect. At least the boundaries, contours, and signature aberrations of this Twilight Zone remain unchanged.
The WaPo is the gremlin on the wing of the plane. We are William Shatner.
https://youtu.be/cQQ2xiIqpS8?t=102
:)
There are many reasons why the American public is so ignorant about international affairs, and especially previous actions by the US in that realm. Chief among this is illustrated by WaPo in this piece.
The Guardian will not permit ANY comments under any Belarus-Pratasevich story that mention Snowden, Morales and the 2013 incident. Literally, any allusion to that historical event will get the comment deleted.
Appalling. This is how empires go to the edge and get destroyed. We are minutes away from that midnight.
Let's hope so.
I think they know this, also... Check your area's National Guard base out and see if there are a bunch of troop transport vehicles around that weren't there 6 months ago.
Sort of surprising you can find a far more accurate report in WSJ today. They even cite another US grounding in 1985.
Not just a grounding - US and Italy almost had a clash on ground and in the air over the incident: https://italianmilitaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-sigonella-crisis-of-1985-when-italy.html
Not surprising at all. The WSJ still tries, weakly and vaguely, to be a real newspaper. Not for long, sadly. It's decided to just be Pravda Light for NYC in an attempt to beat the actual Pravda of NYC.
Creeping dystopia. Ain't that the truth...
Just flat out creepy.
Try "crept." Past tense.
Our dystopia crept, is creeping and will creep yet more, I'm afraid.
I bet it just rolls on in a guerilla war that lasts until either China or Russia can exert enough pressure or force to take it over for good.
Yeah. It's all over but the crying. The coup happened first as a n administrative coup using "legal" channels, then under the cover of an engineered virus released either accidentally or "accidentally", they stole the election and acted like nothing happened.
New fences around the WH, a $1.9B law enforcement spending bill for the capital and I see National Guard bases near me stocking up on troop transport trucks and fuel tankers.
Yeah, they'll have their little Domestic War on Terror and we're all invited to the party whether we like it or not.
How about dystopia creep? {:-)
Great reporting Mr. Taibbi.
I don't understand why the Washington Post would white wash a case directly involving Snowden.
Whitewashing the case involving Julian Assange is just as bad, but I can at least understand it on a purely narrow parochial partisanship basis. The courts have actually confirmed at this point that what Edward Snowden identified was in fact illegal behavior on the part of the intelligence agencies and I don't recall him being involved in an hyper partisan dust ups the way Julian Assange was. Why would the Post want to erase the case of Snowden from this story?
"I don't understand why the Washington Post would white wash a case directly involving Snowden."
I don't intend to be a dick, but if you don't understand this you don't understand The Washington Post; its owner, guidance, and purpose.
Or basically ALL MSM from 2016 onward.
Prior to that there was at least an effort to hide their manipulation under the guise of "reportage". Now? Nope. Straight from the CIA to your eyes and ears.
Always remember, CIA serves at the command of the president. CIA doesn't come up with this stuff. To the extent they might do some domestic op, it's illegal and they know it. This sort of thing has little or nothing to do with CIA. This is the civilians showing off their power.
Trump's presidency revealed that the CIA & FBI do what they want.
Really? We didn't know this until the Trump presidency?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Felt
Did you know it was this systematic, openly hostile and defiant? I didn't.
"Always remember, CIA serves at the command of the president. CIA doesn't come up with this stuff."
Yeah, that's the official story. Tell it to JFK and Nixon.
Indeed. Ask Deep Throat who answers to whom. The rogue FBI agent that illegally surveilled and took down a sitting US President with 0 consequences, all because like some jilted lover he did not get the promotion he believed he was owed.
LOL What drivel.
If you really believe that, I feel sorry for you.
The vast apparatus that runs the Show here got going hardcore under HW Bush and expanded mightily under Clinton, W, Obama and Trump.
The richest people on the planet run this show, and they use the US government's elected offices to "propose legislation" on their behalf, they call the shots for what group is targeted and where -then stolen from, everything.
They've nudged everyone into this slaughter house chute and the herd is braying in fear. Just as planned.
The "civilians" you mention are free from any sort of national allegiances; the world is their oyster and they get what they want. Always.
The CIA is decidedly NOT serving "at the command of the president".
That's just a puppet show meant to distract and polarize.
Let me suggest a different model.
As you know, the US consists of 3 independent branches: The political branch, the paramilitary branch and the rich elite branch. These 3 branches are entirely insular and report to their own command structure. Status within these organizations matter, so while a police officer is entirely entirely insulated from accountability to the public, if he upsets someone higher up on either rich elite branch, or the political branch there will be real consequences, but that does not mean that ultimately he does not answer to the leaders within his own paramilitary branch.
As you can see, under this model the CIA does not answer to the president any more than Jeff Bezos does.
You're probably right and it's not a dick move at all since I don't understand, but a link to enlighten me would be helpful.
Just to clarify, I understand why in cooperation with the surveillance state they would not like Snowden. What I don't understand is why they would do it in this way given that it's more about their support for the surveillance state than any political objective.
"why they would do it in this way given that it's more about their support for the surveillance state than any political objective"
You're getting warm here, with the exception that I would argue "support for the surveillance state" *does* constitute a political objective. My opinion is that The Post is a political project; it was subtly so in past decades and has become brazenly so in at least the last half-decade (whole decade?). The brazen part is what frightens me. It doesn't think it has anything to hide any more, and it might not be wrong.
Incredibly half-assed example out of probably a million better ones: CIA pays Bezos for server space (what does this say about CIA's inherent computer technology capabilities?) Bezos owns the WaPo.
That last point is an especially good one because it combines the incestuous financial relationship with the political power dynamic.
Well played. Stay thirsty my friend.
Why? In case you haven't noticed, the Washington Post, like many other American media outlets, has become a mouthpiece for the American intelligence services. That's why.
Because they want to make an example of him. Or some do. The Obama administration was DEATH on whistleblowers. The most extreme administration in history.
WaPo isn't even any good as bird cage liner. It's shocking that people are shocked that people are shocked at their reporting, or whatever it is they do.
Making fun of the WaPo as a blatant tool of the security state is just, like, a hobby, man. I'm in it for the lulz.
...my time would probably be much better spent playing video games.
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- the darkness that Izvestiya-on-the-Potomac is doing its best to propagate.
I'm surprised they kept that header after Orange Man Gone. Waiting for a soup-to-nuts investigation of all the Bidens.
That event would be welcome; however, I'm afraid that, absent an overthrow of the American Empire, we'll remain in expectation of it forever: along with a thorough investigation of the assassinations of the 1960s, of 9/11, of the Anthrax mailings, etc.
Matt, is there any way to contact you? I have a potential story including an ambassador, a former legislator who's eager to talk, and a top university desperately trying to hide the identity of the people running it.
The RyanAir jet was not “downed” nor was it “forced” to land. It was ordered to land by air controllers having the authority to do so.
According to the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57239521):
"According to a transcript released by the Belarusian transport ministry, air traffic controllers told the pilot at 09:30 GMT "you have bomb on board and it can be activated over Vilnius". Even though the plane was closer to Vilnius than the Belarus capital, the pilot was told to divert to Minsk. At 09:47 the pilot declared a emergency.
An earlier transcript broadcast by Belarus TV had made it look as though the crew had asked to land in Minsk.
The plane then landed at 10:16 GMT (13:16 local time). A military MiG jet escorted the plane to the airport."
A reasonable interpretation of a fighter jet escorting an airliner to the airport is that the airliner was forced to make the landing. In any event, Belarus did not have the authority to do what they did. They induced the airliner to land by falsely advising the flight crew that there was a bomb threat. This violated international law. The following is from france24.com (link below):
"As to the fake bomb threat claimed by Belarus as the reason for the interception, Article 1 of the 1970 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (ratified by Belarus) states that "a person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally … communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight". Under Article 10 of the Montreal Convention, a state must take ‘all practicable measures’ to prevent the commission of this and other acts. If, in spite of this, the offence is committed, the state must "facilitate the continuation of the journey of the passengers and crew as soon as practicable". So under this provision Protasevich should be allowed to proceed to Vilnius."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210524-how-belarus-s-aviation-piracy-broke-international-law
Re: Jeff
Thank you for a succinct and authenticated factual accounting of this incident. From my view, the principle distinction between this event and the failed Snowden scheme is that the former was/is (for the present) a successful international kidnapping crime. The official lie that this latest state sponsored act-of-terrorism event is historically "unprecedented" smacks of corporate media's sycophantic distribution of government's propagandistic BS.
As Usual,
EA
Belarus had the authority. It abused that authority. That’s arguably a more heinous offense than a physical ambush. It’s like the police officer who takes a bribe to arrest you. He should be punished, but if you peacefully obey his illegitimate order to stop and get out of your car, there is no force involved. Unless you want to make the case that all law enforcement is by implied violence and therefore by force.
"Unless you want to make the case that all law enforcement is by implied violence and therefore by force."
I'll take that case. It's kind of like Max Weber's definition of the state monopoly on violence.
Yes, that was my reference. There’s a political theory that most governments started out as gangs extracting goods and services via a protection racket. Maybe Belarus has fallen back to that (maybe parts of Mexico and Colombia, too) but for purposes of these posts, I’m assuming it’s still a legitimate government issuing orders that people routinely obey.
Under international law - in a treaty that Belarus ratified - Belarus did not have the authority to cause, by force or not, the airliner to land by falsely advising the crew that they had a bomb on board.
Well they didn't - the air traffic control informed the pilot that they received an email that there is a bomb on board. It was the pilot's decision to land in Minsk, which is pretty much standard procedure in such cases, as is fighter jet escort. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-abduction-of-nexta/
"Unless you want to make the case that all law enforcement is by implied violence and therefore by force."
Implied violence the only case I've ever known. Can you cite and alternate case why I would follow an immoral law required by the State?
Because you are, say, A Russian oligarch and it profits you to do so.
Perhaps I misunderstood your original question. How is a Russian oligarch making a law that profits them, which a citizen must follow not an example of implied violence and therefore force?
I was unclear; it’s the oligarch who profits by cheerfully following an unjust law made by the government. I may be misusing “oligarch” here by assuming he is not part of the government.
The air traffic controller in Minsk almost certainly thought the information in Proton-email was true. No need for cogs to know the details of the big game. The question is who sent the email. We don't know. It could have even really be Hamas, they could have done that in favor exchange with Belarus KGB, which surely has some good info about IDF (just speculating, but within realm of possibility). However, once the plane is on the ground, there is no international law that grants the passengers immunity. Protasevich has a valid arrest warrant in Belarus, and even an extradition request (towards Poland, which was ignored) therefore he was legally detained.
A distinction without a difference...did you have an actual point to make?
See above.
Oh, and there was "authority" involved? Ok. I thought the pilots were just confused.
"Ordered" is not "forced," and ordered "to land" is not downed. Wow, this all makes so much more sense now. Thanks for the clarification.
Matt this is why I canceled my subscriptions to the WaPo, NYT, WSJ and don't watch MSM anymore. A double standard in politics? C'est moi? Never! You know what the problem is? All of these people have too much time and need to fill space rather than finding a real story to report about. Meet the new boss same as the old boss!
However, the Washington Post did publish an article yesterday on the Snowden incident and its relation to current events:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/24/belarus-flight-evo-morales-sndowden-russia/
Ha, ha . . . you mean the article that stated when Morales’s plane was forced to land it was “different” and “did not involve crackdowns on political opposition?” That article? 😏 “Critics accuse . . . .” Damn critics. 😖
I love that the Post is now so bereft of copy editors and competent internet people that the link reads "sndowden."
Snowden? He ain't here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/24/belarus-flight-evo-morales-snowden-russia/
That page is gone.
That was the point. My jokes rarely land. See, the WaPo misspelled "Snowden" in the original URL and...
...like Mark Twain wrote, dissecting a joke is like dissecting a frog. You can do it, but it takes all of the humor out of it.
Mark's link (with Snowden misspelled) works.
https://www.foiaresearch.net/person/roman-protasevich Rather comprehensive unvarnished accounting of this fellow
Moonofalabama (German blogger) has quite a bit about this not reported in western media in addition to listing not a few other forced landings. Curiously he doesn't mention the Ukrainian forced landing in 2015 to arrest and anti-maidan opposition figure in his list of other forced landings.