Presumably, it's the Air Force that's making deals with Russian contractors since the plane they hired was in transit from the base on Diego Garcia to the base at Kandahar.

US plane forced to land in Mumbai, crew questioned

Nimisha Srivastava / CNN-IBN

TimePublished on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:00, Updated on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 13:49

Mumbai: A Russian cargo aircraft AN-124, which was hired by the US military, triggered panic at the Mumbai airport on Friday night. The plane carrying arms, ammunition and five people onboard was asked to land at the airport after it violated the Indian airspace.

The question is why?

Not why did the plane stray, but why is the U.S. hiring planes from Ukraine in the first place?

The AN-124 aircraft is used by military to haul cargo and is owned by a Ukraine-based logistics and cargo company. On landing, the Russian crew of the aircraft was immediately taken for questioning by officials of the central investigative agencies and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

Though, the answer to the first question is also dubious. According to the Times of India,

According to the sources, the aircraft while seeking permission from the defence ministry to fly over Indian airspace had identified itself as a civil aircraft doing a non-scheduled (charter) operation. All foreign aircraft doing non-scheduled or defence flights are required to submit their flight plans to obtain permission from Indian authorities to overfly Indian airspace.

"This aircraft had asked for the status of a non-scheduled aircraft and it flew over Indian flight information region as such. But to enter Pakistani airspace, it identified itself as a defence aircraft. It was still in Indian territory when this happened. The ambiguous status of the aircraft forced the defence ministry to issue orders to divert it to Mumbai," said the source.

Having it both ways seems to be a perennial goal on the part of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Though the matter seems to have been resolved on the ground with the Russians pleading ignorance and the plane being cleared to resume its journey, the most recent summary raises some warning flags.

The AN-124, the largest heavy transport aircraft manufactured by Ukrainian Antonov company with NATO code name Condor, was carrying military cargo, which included land vehicles, equipment and weapons for the US' fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, they said.

....

IAF officials said there were a total of 18 persons on board the aircraft, including a five-member crew. Securitymen from the CISF had cordoned off the aircraft and sleuths from the Intelligence Bureau and officials from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation carried out checks in the plane's cargo hold. They also questioned the crew and passengers on board the aircraft, they added.

A Ukrainian company codenamed "Condor"? Really? And a baker's dozen of unidentified persons in addition to the crew? One has to wonder what plausible story they told.

Perhaps I'm just more than usually suspicious after running across a Chomsky screed, in which he makes the point that:

Since Vietnam, "the U.S. has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy—paying, arming, training, and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed." Obama's ban "doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of 'armed conflict,' which is where much torture happens anyway .... His is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more U.S.-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years" (News and Comment, January 24, 2009, www.allannairn.com).

Have we contracted out rendition, like torture, to a foreign nation to whom the Constitution doesn't apply? Chomsky's take is interesting.

Obama adopted the Bush position, "filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue," arguing that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere in the world—in the case in question, Yemenis and Tunisians captured in Thailand and the UAE—"can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind—as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo."

But, I think it misses the central issue--not just whether the Constitution follows the flag and applies wherever American government officials happen to be, but whether the nature of the Constitution as a restriction on government officials is fully realized. You see, as long as the focus is on Americans' and/or aliens' rights or lack of them, it's easy to ignore that the Constitution sets limits on the behavior of government agents, regardless of whom they interact with or where they do it. In other words, since our agents of government aren't permitted to initiate aggressive actions, when the CIA undertakes clandestine operations to overthrow another government that's un-Constitutional.

But, who's going to enforce that? We still haven't figured out how to respond to un-Constitutional behavior here at home. Removing people from office clearly doesn't prevent its being repeated.

A self-restrained nation is a lovely idea. However, building up a huge military arsenal doesn't make it any more real. Especially not if we keep putting off self-restraint until we're so powerful that nobody will challenge us.