Skip to main content

Don't hold your breath waiting to see this in our media


Denmark has officially asked the Bush administration to explain possibly illegal CIA flights staged through Greenland's Narsarsuaq airport to move Al Qaeda suspects into secret detention centers in Egypt, Jordan, Romania and Afghanistan, among other countries.

The legal concern arises from the use of private as opposed to official flights to transfer prisoners acquired through rendition, as required by international aviation law. The issue was raised by a recent Danish documentary, The CIA's Danish Connections, which has caused an uproar in that nation's politics:

Per Stig Moeller, Denmark's foreign minister, said: "There is evidence in this film which I had not seen before which shows that the Americans are using private airplanes as government airplanes."

Lars Emil Johansen, one of Greenland's two representatives in the Danish parliament, demanded an in-depth investigation, saying he did not have confidence in the Danish government, a long-time ally of the United States, to shed any light on the affair.

Moeller said: "It is clear that that is unacceptable, and we are going to talk to the Americans about this.

"We can say to the Americans that they have made commitments [to respect international aviation conventions] which they are not apparently keeping. And we would dearly like explanations on this point.

"Neither Danish airspace nor the airspace of Greenland can be used in violation of these conventions."

Last year the centrist and left-wing parties in parliament demanded an independent inquiry into the CIA's use of Danish airspace.

However, the liberal-conservative government and its far-right ally, the Danish People's Party, refused the request.

Figures from the civil aviation authority in Greenland show that a third of 35 private planes operated on a CIA account and suspected of being involved in illegal rendition flights, landed at the Narsarsuaq airport in southern Greenland.


The worst consequence of an interventionist, overtly imperialist foreign policy may well be the damage it does to our long-term relationships with some of our closest allies.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...