According to Fox News, the president of Columbia refused to accept a planeload of Columbian criminals because the plan they were on was a military plane. He insisted that he would only take them if they were flown in on a civilian aircraft.

Based on what I understand, the military plane flew them to Columbia, which is at least a 4 hour flight, only to be turned around and flown back to the USA, which makes the total trip time at least 8 hours, only to be flown to Columbia once again, on a civilian plane, making the total flight time at least 12 hours. But that's more humane than just a 4 hour flight on a military plane?

Sean Hannity brought this up yesterday and asked "How safe is it for a
civilian flight crew to accommodate a planeload of undocumented criminals?"

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

Based on what I understand, the military plane flew them to Columbia, which is
at least a 4 hour flight, only to be turned around and flown back to the USA, which makes the total trip time at least 8 hours, only to be flown to Columbia
once again, on a civilian plane, making the total flight time at least 12 hours. But that's more humane than just a 4 hour flight on a military plane?

Sean Hannity brought this up yesterday and asked "How safe is it for a civilian flight crew to accommodate a planeload of undocumented criminals?"

I don't think it was particularly smart, from multiple standpoints but,
then again, I wonder what would have happened during, say, a political
prisoner exchange between the USA and USSR if one of them insisted on using
a military plane to land in the other's country?

The objection could be due to the possible tech that would be included on
the plane. In this case, I wonder if he'd be ok if it was a civilian plane
but flown by a non-civilian crew?

I had actually heard the other day that he was willing to send their
own planes to the USA to pick the returnees up. That was several days ago, though.


* SLMR 2.1a * Keep your stick on the ice
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

According to Fox News, the president of Columbia refused to accept a planeload of Columbian criminals because the plan they were on was a military plane. He insisted that he would only take them if they were flown in on a civilian aircraft.

Based on what I understand, the military plane flew them to Columbia, which is at least a 4 hour flight, only to be turned around and flown back to the USA, which makes the total trip time at least 8 hours, only to be flown to Columbia once again, on a civilian plane, making the total flight time at least 12 hours. But that's more humane than just a 4 hour flight on a military plane?

Sean Hannity brought this up yesterday and asked "How safe is it for a civilian flight crew to accommodate a planeload of undocumented criminals?"

What crimes were they convicted of committing?

And why are we spending boatloads of money on using military assets when chartering a commercial flight is Way cheaper?

--- AfterShock/Android 1.7.5
* Origin: South of Heaven - Chaos rampant, an age of distrust (1:154/30.1)

Sean Hannity brought this up yesterday and asked "How safe is it for a civilian flight crew to accommodate a planeload of undocumented criminal

I don't think it was particularly smart, from multiple standpoints but, then again, I wonder what would have happened during, say, a political prisoner exchange between the USA and USSR if one of them insisted on using a military plane to land in the other's country?

I understand that there could be concern about that, but this guy (Gustavo Petro) didn't cite any security concerns. The stuff he said is AOC-level lunacy.

The objection could be due to the possible tech that would be included on the plane. In this case, I wonder if he'd be ok if it was a civilian plane but flown by a non-civilian crew?

Based on what the media has reported on this, President Petro finally agreed to take them in exchange for no tariffs on his coffee. But they never explained how the transport was ultimately handled.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

The objection could be due to the possible tech that would be included on
the plane. In this case, I wonder if he'd be ok if it was a civilian plane but flown by a non-civilian crew?

Based on what the media has reported on this, President Petro finally agreed t
take them in exchange for no tariffs on his coffee. But they never explained how the transport was ultimately handled.

OK, so he was probably angling for a deal then. That is smart of him.


* SLMR 2.1a * What do you mean, QWK?? It took me over an hour to read!!
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Sean Hannity brought this up yesterday and asked "How safe is it for civilian flight crew to accommodate a planeload of undocumented criminals?"

What crimes were they convicted of committing?

A variety of crimes, not just illegal entry.

And why are we spending boatloads of money on using military assets when chartering a commercial flight is Way cheaper?

Some people would argue that safety is more valuable than money.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

And why are we spending boatloads of money on using military assets when chartering a commercial flight is Way cheaper?

The military-industrial complex wanted their cut?


* SLMR 2.1a * Heisenberg may have slept here.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)