PRISM at play - Airlines warned NOT to fly Snowden or face fines..what else can happen to them I won

Link

So, now if you aid someone who is not even charged or convicted of a crime, it is a crime. This is outrageous to me, especially since it is headed by none other than Eric Holder.

Airlines have been warned by the Home Office not to fly the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden to Britain as he would be turned away on arrival. The move signals the Government’s determination to avoid a repeat of the controversy over the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for nearly a year, after being granted asylum by the South American nation. Mr Snowden, a former CIA contractor, is in hiding after admitting being the source of classified documents that revealed the huge extent of US surveillance operations. His current whereabouts is unknown after he disappeared from a Hong Kong hotel this week. He has not yet been charged with any offence, but the US Government looks certain to attempt to bring him back to the US to face criminal charges. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, said: “I can assure you we will hold accountable the person who is responsible for these extremely damaging leaks.

Will this be the norm to threaten those who may want the truth, or to assist someone who is not a traitor or charged yet?

He did not do anything against these nations but...

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has powers to turn away foreign nationals whose presence in the UK is deemed “detrimental to the public good”. The Home Office refused to comment on the letter sent out by the Risk and Liaison Overseas Network, part of UK Border Agency.

to the public good????

reply to post by esdad71


Last I heard is that the UK doesn't want him in the country.

I don't think this is a big deal. Countries have refused entry to people before.

I'm confused, where does it mention fines, or any criminal act? The British government has simply warned airlines that if they allow him to board to come to the UK, he'll be turned away (I doubt that highly, he would be arrested and immediately shipped off to the US like the good little lap dog our government is), and that would likely make him their responsibility.

It's kind of stupid for them to state this, because this is probably the last place he'd want to head to other than the US.

I guess they wanted to say it to make it on the record, like kissing US butt and making it clear for all to hear.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
I'm confused, where does it mention fines, or any criminal act? The British government has simply warned airlines that if they allow him to board to come to the UK, he'll be turned away (I doubt that highly, he would be arrested and immediately shipped off to the US like the good little lap dog our government is), and that would likely make him their responsibility.

It's kind of stupid for them to state this, because this is probably the last place he'd want to head to other than the US.

I guess they wanted to say it to make it on the record, like kissing US butt and making it clear for all to hear.

It says it in the by line

Carriers who fly him to the UK are told they face fines and the costs of his detention

To me, this is a broad stroke and warning to anyone who wants to assist that they will face fines and not just the UK.

It is obvious that the UK government is acting under strict orders from the US government. Personally he is welcome to stop by this little country if he likes. The government is crooked to the hilt and a bad joke.

OP this is not PRISM at play this is just the UK saying to the airlines there is no point in even letting this guy on one of your planes to the UK because as soon as he sets foot on UK soil we will deny him entry and send him back to where ever he came from.

its happened before, and there is nothing wrong with it, the UK is simply stating that Snowden will not be permitted to access the UK.

its not PRISM at play as your title says.

Also i cant see any evidence from your opening post that any airline ignoring this advice would be committing a criminal act, they wouldn't be it would just mean they would have to send him back and cover the cost of doing so.

The Fed has a variety of things they can do.

Pretty much anything. Especially financially if not criminally.

BTW, your title is cut off, might want to edit that.

~Tenth

Originally posted by esdad71
It says it in the by line

Carriers who fly him to the UK are told they face fines and the costs of his detention

To me, this is a broad stroke and warning to anyone who wants to assist that they will face fines and not just the UK.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by esdad71
It says it in the by line

Carriers who fly him to the UK are told they face fines and the costs of his detention

To me, this is a broad stroke and warning to anyone who wants to assist that they will face fines and not just the UK.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It says no such thing, you are grossly misinterpreting what is going on here.
The airlines are allowed to fly him anywhere they want to fly him, but because the UK will deny him entry they are telling the airlines that if they carry him there they will pay for the expenses incurred with detaining and returning him.

Nowhere in that article does it say anything about being able to fly him to any country that will grant him entry.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/14/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

exactly the whole OP of this thread is misleading, even the title "PRISM at Play" is wrong, how is this possibly PRISM at play?

its just the UK saying he isn't welcome here

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Open the Article and read the by line..you are the second to post without reading...

Prism revelations: Home Office warns airlines not to fly NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to Britain

PRISM at play....read and then comment please.

reply to post by esdad71


I did, the UK government has said they will not permit Snowden access to the UK and as such have told airlines not to bother letting him even have a seat on a flight to the UK because they will turn him away and the airline will have to pay for him to be sent packing.

It is not PRISM at work

and it is not the UK prohibiting any UK based airline carriers form flying him to anywhere, just not to the UK.

Your whole OP is basically wrong,

reply to post by defcon5


This is the conspiracy forum, right. I said, I feel that this is a warning and it is. A broad stroke to tell others that they would be smart to not admit him with the US wanting to bring him in...like Assange. I really brought out the arguments here, didn't I?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


and I quote...

The European Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding said yesterday US security measures should not be conducted at the expense of the public’s rights. She said there were still “fundamental issues” over the use of Prism against targets in Europe.

This has everything to do with Prism. Did I say the info was collected with Prism, no, it is associated with the leak of PRISM and the man who did it.


Britain is trying to distance itself from the whole thing....

Link

Thank you.

reply to post by esdad71


Thant link and that whole quote has nothing to do with Snowden being refused access to the UK (although i dont know why he would even want to in the first place)

I am not going to sit about and argue semantics with you.

So, now if you aid someone who is not even charged or convicted of a crime, it is a crime

You have no proof of this, none , that is my point of contention,

In my experience you are a poster who likes to be controversial and just argue for the sake of so it i am not going to bother getting to over-excited by this thread for that reason and because while the article you have posted is accurate your commentary is utter rubbish.

The UK has only advised that no airline carrier allows Snowden on a flight to the UK because if they do then the UK will just send him to wherever he came from at the expense of the carrier.

that's it, nothing more

have fun continuing trying to make out there is more to it than that.

And by the way

ALREADY POSTED!

someone beat you to this one!

reply to post by esdad71

The airlines were warned not to fly him or face fines. That is exactly what was said. I then asked, what else could happen to them. In light of recent events I think it is all warranted and I mentioned Holder because of this statement also in the article.

Glad I make such sensationalist posts you stop by to read Supershill.

The problem with the entire Snowden case is this:

He is a criminal, make no mistake about that. He did break the law, he did reveal classified information to the world, and took other classified information with him. The question now is what all did he take and how damaging for the USA.

The problem is Snowden, as he fled to a country that he stated he was worried about, China. If he was worried about what the Chinese would do to him, then why flee to where they are in control. Did he not understand that Hong Kong was returned to the control over mainland China and that ultimately now it is the Chinese government that is going to decide on what to do with him?

Then we are looking at airlines now denying him the right to fly on their air craft, on the orders of country leaders. Can you blame any country for not wanting him in their country?


If you were the leader of a country, could you trust this person to be there, without restrictions, and knowing that the USA is wanting him for criminal charges. Even though it was for a noble purpose, he did break the law and will have to pay for it. The question for him would be, is he man enough to stand up and pay the price for his actions or is he going to run and try to use what he has as payment to other countries to let him in.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I understand the criminality part but who and what can we believe? Is he a double agent, a spy or a patriot?

Personally, if the government does not want you to know they do not let you know so why is this being released. What else is going on that they do NOT want us to know about? Is there something on the horizon that this is deflecting from? There are more questions for me I guess at this point.

Like, based on this, was Snowden a member here?

During those years, he posted hundreds of messages on a public Internet forum under a pseudonym.

Could he really be what he says he is or have we based on a government who spies on us already found him guilty? I hope he is not selling secrets but then again, I don't think the Chinese need him for anything they cannot already access themselves.

During those years, he posted hundreds of messages on a public Internet forum under a pseudonym.

It sounds like a slightly different version of Clancys Threat Vector which was based on Chinese espionage.

reply to post by esdad71

We do not know if he is or is not a double agent. Right now the NSA and federal government is trying to down play this in hopes that is will die down. If anything that is a good indication that this is far worse than what we are being told by the federal government.

It is real funny, how so many of the congressmen and people in the federal government are quick to accuse Snowden of being a Traitor, yet fail to understand there is a good reason why it is in the constitution and why it is a real pain to prove that a person is or is not a traitor.

From a historical point of view, before the US, treason was used by the ruling class, namely the monarchy to have someone put to death, all on the grounds of circumstantial evidence, some valid others not so valid. The founding fathers decided that it was a charge that could have been easily abused and misused by the government and thus put down what was required to show someone being a traitor to the country.

What I find provocative in the case of Snowden, is his statement, as he clearly stated he did not want to be taken by the Chinese government. If that is so, then why did he travel to Hong Kong, a provence under the control of the Chinese government? What did he hope to do, play one country against the other for who would have him? Ultimately, now he is stuck in Hong Kong and it is in the perview of the diplomats and lawyers to decide his fate. While the Chinese may not need him and probably know what all he is stating, it is always good to have first hand accounting to verify that information.

As he made this public, the federal government can not just find him guilty, as he would have to now go through a public trial infront of every one. And this is going to further erode the public confidence in the federal government when it all comes out and we can see most of the evidence. And here is the real problem is that the federal government, which will have to try this case, is going to be caught between a rock and a hard spot. If it supresses the evidence, then they will be accused of a bigger conspiracy, if they let it out, it could add gas to a smoldering fire of discontent in the people.

Originally posted by esdad71
The airlines were warned not to fly him or face fines. That is exactly what was said.

That's not what the article said. It said that airlines where told not to fly him to the United Kingdom, and if they did they would be fined the cost of detaining and returning him from the United Kingdom.