SNP reveals CIA flight dossier

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Jan 18, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. [c]
  2. A memo from the FO has been leaked to the New Statesman.

    Among the issues raised is the topic of the PM trying to shrug off the matter in public while a file search is carried out, apparently because there may have been more requests other than the couple mentioned.

    The memo states that rendition is almost certainly illegal under international law, or something like that.

    So any movements personnel, air traffic controllers etc with knowledge of such matters better get their lawyers, as sh!t flows inexorably downhill...
  3. BFD. The majority of us up here could'nt give a fcuk. They could could torture the ragheads on the runway of Edinburgh Airport and most Scots would only complain if their flight was delayed.
    The only people who care about ER flights are politicians, laywers and other scum. Real people have much more important things to worry about.
  4. you wouldn't be saying that if you had a foreign sounding name and was picked up by guys in black then bundled into the nearest 'private jet' and taken to the back of beyond for questioning, only to be released 6mnths later and told it was a mistake.
  5. That's seems a rather alarmingly simplistic attitude. So it's OK to torture and kill people as long as they're only "ragheads"? Even if they are guilty of some nefarious activities, shouldn't some kind of due process be applied in line with international laws? Laws passed expressly to prevent this type of illegal process happening.

  6. i live up here and i give a fcuk - though i'm neither politician, lawyer - or hopefully - scum.

    if it breaks the law then it breaks the law, simple as that. if the septics think its a good idea then they should do it on their own turf - and avoiding our airspace - rather than hiring out their idiot ideas of counter-terrorism to nasty tin-pot dictatorships - which helped cause this gangfcuk in the first place!

    i'm not surprised the SE claim to have no knowledge of such flights, i imagine they've tried very hard not to ask any questions of anyone who might give them answers they may not like.
  7. Isn't the whole idea of rendition supposed to be that it keeps the US within the law? If the men in dark glasses wanted to be nasty the unlucky ones would be getting the good news in Wyoming or somewhere. As it is, the CIA seem to falling over themselves to be seen to be acting within the law. Ruins a good conspiracy though, doesn't it?

    Also, US aircraft have been dropping in for fuel after crossing the Pond since Alcock and Brown. Suddenly it's sinister because someone has a tinfoil axe to grind?
  8. theres no conspiracy, the septics are doing something that many consider counter-productive in operational terms and deeply dubious in moral terms.

    new zealand doesn't allow vessels with nuclear weapons or nuclear power (i think) within their terratorial waters, thats their choice. we should not allow aircraft doing something we don't like - or is against our domestic law - to fly though our airspace or transit our airfields.

    property rights, simple as that.
  9. What about the Law of the Air?
  10. does the law of the air say that anybody can fly anything though anyone elses airspace and land at their airfields?

    if so, how did the french ban the septics from flying though their airspace in the Lybia raids?

    if so, how did the septics - and everyone else - close their airspace on 9/11?

    i'm sure we can think of vastly more examples, but you get the gist...
  11. No the Law of the Air (ICAO) says that you can land anywhere, at least in any nation that has signed up to the Montreal Convention in extremis or to refuel. If the UK refused to allow those jets to land we would be the ones breaking international law. Now you wouldn't want that, would you?
  12. Ummm... one question suddenly springs to mind. How do we know that any of these planes were actually used for anything like rendition? The only evidence I can find of it anywhere is a single sentence on the BBC website saying "The planes in question have been subject to diplomatic and parliamentary inquiries in different countries." attributed to Angus Robertson of the SNP. All they seem to have done is got a list of all the aircraft connected in any way with enquiries into this and checked to see if they had ever landed in Scotland.

    If that's all they actually checked, then the report counts for roughly the square root of f*** all...
  13. i extremis perhaps, but the aircraft can be impounded - witness the sudden enlargement of the iranian air force in 1991.

    i would suggest the refueling - as a routine event - is bollocks. otherwise why would the septics pay so much to dodgy central asian republics for refueling rights? or how can states control which airlines can fly into which airports and how often - or how we 'force' unwanted aircraft to fly to stanstead?

    you still haven't answered how states maintain control of their airspace if its a free for all.
  14. They're trying to pretend they're proper grown-up politicians again after their Union Flag faux pas.

    It's probably heresy to say it, but wouldn't the CIA have the wit to ensure that they weren't clocked by the plane-spotting tendency -assuming it was happening?
  15. Why would they pay for refueling rights in Central Asia? Perhaps because they need to refuel, like in Scotland. American planes have been refueling here for 70 years. Is there any evidence the amount of traffic has suddenly increased, or has someone heard screams from the cargo holds?

    I never said it was a free for all in the airspace, I said they could land to refuel. America is a very long way away you know.