Bolivian president's treatment stirs up fury in Latin America

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by khimbar

 

Apparently misconstrue things, considering the real reason they landed in Austria was because the plane was broken. But saying that those countries refused them permission to fly through their airspace, breaking some imaginary law sounds so much better, doesn't it.

Mr. Zaphod sir, didnt France and Spain admit to to closing their airspace?

Please see following link and excerpt:

The French foreign ministry issued a statement on the incident.

Ministry spokesman Philippe Lalliot said: "The foreign minister called his Bolivian counterpart to tell him about France's regrets after the incident caused by the late confirmation of permission for President Morales' plane to fly over [French] territory."

LINK

I believe they have formally apologized as well. So what exactly is going on? Coincidence that the jet also had a malfunction?

reply to post by MDDoxs


Apparently the malfunction started the whole thing. Spain said that they never closed their airspace, and France said it was just temporary due to a miscommunication. Portugal has since said the only thing they denied was a refueling stop.

Two officials with the French Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that Morales' plane had authorization to fly over France. They would not comment on why Bolivian officials said otherwise. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be publicly named according to ministry policy.

An official with Spain's foreign ministry said Wednesday that the country on Tuesday authorized Morales' plane to fly within its airspace and to make a refueling stop. The official said Bolivia asked again this morning for permission and got it.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

There's an ATC recording where they clearly say to the control tower they are landing for precautionary measures, as they can't get a good fuel reading in the cockpit.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Hmm very interesting. Thank you for the link and the information sir!

However, why did this still occur:

Once the plane was on the ground, members of the airport police force walked through the plane, according to a reporter who spoke with the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald. According to The New York Times, permission to do so was granted by the Bolivians.

And why is the Bolivian President arguing so fervently about this?

Many coincidences...

Do the actions undertaken by all parties involved have precedence? Has this happened before when a country closes it airspace in a similar manner? Zaph you would probably know best to answer this.

reply to post by MDDoxs


According to reports they were asked to, so they could prove he wasn't on the plane. This isn't the first time I've seen politicians from any country blow things out of proportion for whatever reason. Maybe he really thinks what he is saying is what happened because someone under him is telling him that for their own reasons. I don't know, but it well be at least a few more days before we even start to get a good picture of what really happened.

reply to post by Zaphod58

This isn't the first time I've seen politicians from any country blow things out of proportion for whatever reason.

Nor will it be the last time

I think you may be right and that time will tell as more facts coming to light in this already incredibly convoluted situation. It seems like the whole world has been pulled into this drama...

Something more nefarious must be happening that we are being blinded from by this stuff..

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by liveandlearn
St this snowden theory is nonsense since he took off from an airport on the opposite side of Russia from snowden,

I think you have a little geography issue here. Snowden is at Sheremetyevo International Airport on the Northwest side of Moscow city center. The diplomatic aircraft was at Domodedevo Airport on the Southeast side of Moscow. I have been to both and I can assure you they are both in Moscow, not the other side of Russia.

This American gov't has become intolerable. They spy on everyone in the world; they use the FBI, IRS, DOJ etc to screw their political enemies; they counterfeit trillions of dollars to buy foreign assets and cause high inflation; they let NYC banksters rob billions from people all over the world and refuse to prosecute them; the US State Dept refuses to allow any of the banksters to be extradited to countries wanting to prosecute them: these financial criminals run a totally crooked stock market: high speed computers front-run trades and run wash schemes (computers run prices up or down allowing billions to be skimmed); they set all futures prices and rates crookedly to skim billions; they support wars everywhere for profit and plunder; they murder people using drones and other means; they're most favored companies are like Blackstone and Monsanto which sells seeds that make mammals sterile and cause numerous health problems; the US gov't promotes Cultural Communism, porno, homosexuality; they steal other countries gold; etc. Their is flagrant vote fraud and we cannot vote them out. Please if you can, sell American stocks and bonds; then buy gold and silver which they have driven down or farmland, etc. My sympathy to User12345 above especially since NYC banksters probable made it worse but I would rather see my American finance and gov't collapsed and have a chance to democratically replace it than have it continue to piss off the world until countries unite to destroy us.

reply to post by user12345


You are so right, and we in the US are hearing almost nothing about what is actually happening in Portugal. They are in the middle of a crisis that is collapsing their Government and they do something like this? It is absolutely surreal. It is very clear that we absolutely do not have all the facts - there is so much going on behind the scenes.

Please give us your thoughts on why you believe Portugal denied air space.

reply to post by antoinemarionette


The current US administration is either daft as a drunk bug or purposely out to destroy as much of the world's respect for America, as well as undermining it from within as well, as possible.

There just isn't that many other possibilities for this behavior.

Originally posted by antoinemarionette
Please give us your thoughts on why you believe Portugal denied air space.

Because they didn't. They denied them a fuel stop, not their airspace according to the government of Portugal. There was some kind of problem with their fuel system, so they weren't going to be able to refuel I believe they said.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I trust your obviously informed opinion, however, if all this is simply a rant by the Bolivian President to create an international incident, why did France apologize and why hasn't Portugal and others said it was not what actually happened?

Why are they participating?

They are virtually admitting to breaking multiple international laws.

reply to post by antoinemarionette


There was no law to break. A Presidential plane can be told to land, and can be searched without violating any law. Just because it's almost never happened, and hasn't happened in recent times doesn't mean that it breaks a law.

France probably apologized because of a snafu that originally told the Bolivians that airspace use was denied, but was changed within a very short time.

Have you heard the ATC recording from Austria? About halfway across the country the pilot tells the tower they have to land as a precaution because they have a faulty fuel gauge, so they didn't have an accurate reading.

reply to post by F4guy


well then i suppose that point in my post was wrong, thanks for correcting my mistake.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I definitely don't believe that this was a mistake on France's part. That is simply not credible, and knowing them as I do, extremely unlikely. Buying time while the plane has to choose other options in flight - yes. Confusion, delay or snafu - no.

Imagine the aircraft of the president of France being forced down in Latin America on "suspicion" that it was carrying a political refugee to safety – and not just any refugee but someone who has provided the people of the world with proof of criminal activity on an epic scale.

Imagine the response from Paris, let alone the "international community", as the governments of the west call themselves. To a chorus of baying indignation from Whitehall to Washington, Brussels to Madrid, heroic special forces would be dispatched to rescue their leader and, as sport, smash up the source of such flagrant international gangsterism. Editorials would cheer them on, perhaps reminding readers that this kind of piracy was exhibited by the German Reich in the 1930s.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by antoinemarionette


Regardless of the reason behind it, no one broke any laws. The aircraft was not covered under the Chicago Convention, because it's a State Aircraft. Besides that, under international law, a Presidential plane is subject to orders to land, and to being searched, whether it belongs to Bolivia, the US, the French, the Russians, it doesn't matter.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Perhaps you are correct, but the Bolivian Ambasssador to the UN seems to have a difference of opinion on this issue:

The country's ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti, said the enforced rerouting to Austria was an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The US admitted that it had been in contact with other nations over potential flights by Snowden.

I am mad about how the US and EU lets the Evil in the World get more power and getting away with it.

So my country doesn't seem too care about the Whole NSA / Snowden Issue.

Denmark is one of the biggest Aasa liking the US & their God Obana.

before we got our New government here called RED. we had a government from 2000-2009 called Blue. where we have follow the US all the way. like the PM of Denmark of the Blue Government, any one can guess where is has been after 2009 ? puz:

jaaah that right he is now: Secretary General of NATO. since august 2009 has been Secretary General of NATO
say that again.


but to the point now, the Government we have now RED. Had a whole other point of view of the USA, when they where not in Government, THEN they where like.

NO to IRAQ WAR. NO to all about plans with the USA. demanding a lot of investigations to many ( also 9/11 parts ) but NOW when we have this RED government that was against the USA before becoming Government have turned Up Side DOWN. on all of there Plans and Ideas.

But RED lied to get to POWER and have picked up where, Blue left( starting over with ass liking the US )

reply to post by antoinemarionette

Update, Thursday: According to a statement from Portugal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs excerpted by Negocios Online (and translated by a reporter that contacted us), Portugal and Bolivia went back and forth for two days over how Morales' plane might use Portuguese airspace. On Monday, Portugal told Bolivia it could fly over Portugal but not stop and refuel in Lisbon due to "technical reasons." The Bolivia pilots insisted on including that stop in their flight plan; Portugal again said it wasn't possible. Eventually, the Bolivian plane asked to fly over Portuguese territory to land in Las Palmas, a territory of Spain of the West African coast. That request was granted.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs ends its statement by saying, in essence: Sorry for the inconvenience, but you had 24 hours to develop an alternate route, and didn't.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

Being an ambassador doesn't make one an expert on every law on the books. The ATC tapes clearly show that the plane landed due to a mechanical problem. The pilot very clearly states that they were landing for precautionary measures when asked if they required assistance upon landing.

Control tower: Do you need any assistance?

Pilot: Not at this moment. We need to land because we cannot get a correct indication of the fuel indication so as a precaution we need to land.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

Interestingly though, Bolivia can't even get the story straight. They have claimed repeatedly that the plane was searched for Snowden, now they're saying that it was never searched, because they refused to allow anyone on board.

It was originally thought that President Morales' plane was searched in Vienna. But the country's defence minister later said that this was not the case. Ruben Saavedra said no one boarded the presidential aircraft because President Morales refused them entry. Bolivia's vice president did say that officials had made their way up to the door of the aircraft.

www.channel4.com...

If anything, Bolivia broke the law. International law states that a Presidential aircraft can be ordered to land, and it can be searched. By not allowing them to search the plane, they violated the law.

Preventing the passage of a presidential jet and even searching it is legal under international law but unprecedented in recent memory, aviation experts said.

"It is extraordinary to prohibit passage through one's state air space en route to another state," said Ken Quinn, former chief counsel at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and head of the aviation practice at the Washington-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop. "From a diplomacy standpoint, one does not normally interfere with diplomats and high-ranking public officials in transit."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Unprecedented doesn't mean that a law was broken.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Preventing the passage of a presidential jet and even searching it is legal under international law but unprecedented in recent memory, aviation experts said.

"It is extraordinary to prohibit passage through one's state air space en route to another state," said Ken Quinn, former chief counsel at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and head of the aviation practice at the Washington-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop. "From a diplomacy standpoint, one does not normally interfere with diplomats and high-ranking public officials in transit."

So you consider this to be technically legal, though totally unprecedented?

I believe that if this was done to any Western leader it would have been declared an act of terrorism. Don't you?

reply to post by antoinemarionette


They would try to probably. It wouldn't get very far though.