Bolivian President Plans To Sue The US For Diverting Presidential Planes
from the this-could-get-interesting dept
You may recall the craziness from back in July when frantic US officials had an airplane carrying the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, diverted from its planned path and forced to land, because of rumors that Ed Snowden might be hidden away on board. That turned out to be totally false, but the ensuing outrage about US government bullying, and forcing a Presidential plane to land has been growing. Now, Morales has announced that he’s planning to sue the US government for “crimes against humanity” over a similar, but slightly different incident: the supposed diversion of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s plane on his flight to China. While the US has now granted clearance, originally Venezuela claimed otherwise, and Morales is fearful of a pattern:
“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights,” stressed Morales.
Of course, the US can (and probably will) continue to do that sort of thing, because that’s what the US does, but acting like a big bully just for the hell of it really doesn’t seem to make much diplomatic sense these days.
Filed Under: airspace, bolivia, evo morales, human rights, lawsuits, nicolas maduro, venezuela
Comments on “Bolivian President Plans To Sue The US For Diverting Presidential Planes”
what's the legal theory?
The U.S. denied a particular aircraft permission to enter its airspace.
The U.S. leaned of France, Spain and Portugal, and they all denied a particular aircraft permission to enter their respective airspace.
How is any of this illegal? Uncivilized, undignified, petty bullying, yes. But illegal?
Re: what's the legal theory?
Doesn’t it violate Article 5 of the Chicago Convention?
Re: Re: what's the legal theory?
By golly, you’re right. I mean, it’s legalese, but it seems to say that this kind of exclusion is illegal.
Re: what's the legal theory?
By unilaterally denying diplomats and presidents passage without a solid reason, the US is Trampling on the spirit on national soverignty. It might not be illegal by US law, but the UN might issue further sanctions against the US (we are already being sanctioned for bullying countries with our trade policies). And when the US ignores the NEW round of sanctions, The UN continues to lose any concept of credibility. As this happens those nations who already resent our bullying further ignore our laws, continue to violate our copyrights, and the nations who do not have the economic ties to us get more and more beligerent. Violating National Sovergnty and ignoring the value of international goodwill will lead to negative consequences
The theory that diplomatic bags are secure from interference by the host country, unless that host formally decided to declare WAR.
rather old principle for effective diplomacy in peace-time.
wait the US is always at war.
Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
Globalists have taken over in a leveraged buyout. The country’s reputation is just part of what they intend to destroy.
@ Beta: Civilized countries treat diplomats including a country’s president as immune to search and seizure. It’s ancient tradition and largely necessary for any degree of trust. The times it’s been violated are so few that I can’t think of any. This was probably a deliberate knowing act to shock world conscience. I suppose you’re technically right that isn’t illegal meaning aren’t any actual written (or at least not enforceable laws short of going to war), but it’s a crime nonetheless. It’s just short of an act of war. It’s active interference in sovreignty. — As a practical matter, it’s highly enraging and will surely be counter-productive, but I don’t believe that the criminals in control care about a backlash; in fact, for years they’ve been doing everything possible to get rest of the world to hate us, including starting phony wars, murdering and torturing civilians.
To see how it’s a crime, just turn it around so that a US plane was forced down for diplomats to be searched. I’m sure the US jingoists would be outraged and calling for nuclear bombing. This shows the alleged US “exceptionalism” that everyone else in the world so reviles: it IS just bullying, which humanity holds to be a crime when done by those so relatively more powerful as to be immune from retaliation.
BUT the most powerful force in the world is morality, and so even if the former US of A keeps going down the path to empire, it’ll eventually be brought down, just as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were, and the criminals brought to justice.
Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
Assuming this is the “real” ootb – you see, people don’t “censor” you and even vote insightful when you have a point.
I’d still lay off the hyperbole and paranoia in the first and last paragraphs, but you brought logic and an attempt to debate rather a fact-free screed and personal attacks here. Amazing what a difference that can make.
Now, I wonder if you can keep this decorum during a thread on copyright, censorship or business models? It might be difficult, but you might even have something approaching an honest conversation where people can debate actual opinions rather than pile on the troll, as has been happening of late.
Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
I’d still lay off the hyperbole and paranoia
How about you lay off that whole “gigantic douche” thing you’re famous for, and then maybe we’ll talk.
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
Fuck off AJ you were not invited to this thread.
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
Just because you feel offended by his well argumented comments it doesn’t mean everybody knows the strawman you built.
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
I dunno, how about you lay off the whole “I’ll throw in ad hominems instead of addressing any points” thing and we’ll call it even? If by “gigantic douche” you mean “honestly stating opinions and getting attacked by ACs because they can’t refute the facts”, there’s a lot of us here. Perhaps if one of you guys used real arguments there wouldn’t be a problem.
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
I bet you can’t even see the massive irony and hypocrisy in that statement.
You may think Paul’s a “gigantic douche” (what are you, 10?), but pretty much everyone here thinks the same of you. So we’re probably a lot more right than you are.
Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
Agreed with most. The USA Govt is owned by corporations, mainly the financial sector and the military industry. I find it interesting that you brought the Nazi Germany since the Jewish people paid dearly for what a few of their elite were doing and are still doing today. These few Jewish hold enormous power. See how the Israeli youth went to the streets to protest the insane cost of living in Israel. And yet the prejudice hit not that elite but rather millions of innocents.
In any case you are right, the violation of sovereignty displayed here is without precedent. The US behavior brought much hatred and ill-will towards them. Now they are losing friends among long-standing allies. See the Brazilian President’s speech at the UN. The US is nosediving and much like the Jewish millions of innocent Americans will suffer in the process be it via terrorism or simply via prejudice.
An aeroplane blocked from entering air-space by the same country that owns that air-space = ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ This must be a joke. Right? Seriously it’s a joke? No, really.. This has to be a joke.
Re: Re:
The issue has to do with diplomatic immunity and national sovereignty.
Re: Re:
How would you like it if you were dragged out of a plane because the plane you’re in just happened to be flying just inches within some other nation’s airspace?
Re: Re:
Yes, because acts intended to incite a military response aren’t crimes against humanity.
/s
Re: Re:
What do you suppose the US reaction would be if Air Force One were ordered to land while in, say, French air space, with an implied threat of being shot down by French fighter aircraft if the pilot refused? What would the US reaction be if, once on the ground, the plane was searched by armed agents of the French government with the intent to seize a guest of the President of the United States believed to be on board?
That’s pretty much what the US did to the President of Bolivia. Civilized nations don’t do things like that, that sort of thing is what rogue states do.
Re: Re: Re:
How much money has the US given to Bolivia over the years?
How much of that has been paid back?
Hmmm?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
Bolivia is a poor nation and the US (as well as many other countries) give aid to help the people live decent lives. This money is a gift of charity and should obviously not be used to bribe and blackmail people like you are insinuating.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s the type of douchebaggery that has harbored a lot of ill-will towards the US.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Leave him be – it’s merely a cultural extension of the stupid permeating the US Government when ti comes to dealing with Not Americans.
What will be the sentence?
From what I remember, convictions for “Crimes Against Humanity” can carry the death sentence. Will Bolivia, assuming there is conviction, then insist on the death sentence on the appropriate US officials?
Many of the defendants of the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crime Trials were charged with “Crimes against humanity”. Many of the convicted were sentence to death and executed very quickly.
Re: What will be the sentence?
They could do it with drone strikes — after all, Obama’s position is that that sort of thing is a legitimate, lawful act of government, not an act of war at all.
good! the USA needs to be taken to some sort of International Court and made to pay for what it is doing. just because it wants to know what everyone is doing everywhere, doesn’t mean that everyone everywhere else wants to do the same.
this paranoia has gone too far! it’s about time the USA was left on it’s own. it has made it abundantly clear that all it wants other nations for is to force them to buy USA goods and services, while doing nothing but eaves drop and spy on everyone in that country, the leaders in particular in return! it wants to force countries to buy goods it doesn’t want at prices it cant afford, just to keep a USA business going! it fights other countries that bring out generic drugs that people still have a real job trying to afford, expecting already broke people to pay 10 or more times the price for a USA drug. lives mean nothing now. the only thing worth anything is control!
Yes, the US government have been laying down the foundation of a very good sand castle. While we do have allies, countries like Brazil, Bolivia and many more (assuming) that we bully are slowly severing ties with us. If we continue down this path the UN might just collapse, slowly brewing the perfect storm towards WW3. Plus, countries like N.Korea, who are just itching to test their military might are secretly smiling as they watch democracy die, and they might just serve as a catalyst towards war.
I don’t mean to be that guy but what could he possibly gain from this? I only say that because we all know my government will never admit fault. It’s going to be a waste of resources and nothing more. At best he’ll get a partial apology pushing the blame on someone else..
I really wish it would lead to some serious issues in our government being addressed, but I just don’t see that happening.