5 ms·

A Ryanair Flight Carrying an Opposition Journalist Is Forced to Land in Belarus

69 points by incomplete 5y ago

talal7860 5y ago
Similar to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27255561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27255561
sschueller 5y ago
The US does it too for people they want but I would argue that even if you had to emergency land you should be protected from arrest until you cross the technical border (immigration) and that you can not be forced to do this. We have extradition treaties for this and arresting someone who was forced to cross your border doesn't negate those. You still need to go through the courts.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Fuck this. Where is this meme coming from? The US does not do this. The US didn't do this to Snowden either. What notably happened here is not that Belarus arrested a prominent journalist[1] opposing the ruling regime. Tin pot regimes do that every week. What happened was that Belarus used its air defense apparatus and a faked "bomb threat" to force down a foreign aircraft[2] to which it had granted airspace transit privileges under false pretenses. That's an act of war, sorry. [1] Something that the US also does not do. [2] Irish. Sadly, not a NATO member, which may be why this was tried.
  - bobthebuilders 5y ago
    A plane was diverted under threat of missile attack and forced to land.
    - jonny_eh 5y ago
      Share?
  - prostoalex 5y ago
    https://www.computerworld.com/article/2483490/bolivian-president-s-plane-diverted-over-suspicion-snowden-on-board.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2483490/bolivian-presi...
    - JshWright 5y ago
      You really don't see the difference between telling a flight that it does not have permission to fly through a given airspace (but is otherwise free to do what it wants) and telling a flight it must land a certain airport under the false pretense of a "security threat"? The Bolivian plane was not forced to land anywhere (it could have returned to Russia if it wanted), it simply wasn't given permission to overfly certain countries.
      - farss 5y ago
        The Morales incident wasn't simply one country choosing to deny airspace. It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries, and then having the plane boarded and searched before it was allowed to take off again. Belarus's version is a weapon of the weak to the same or very similar end.
        JshWright 5y ago
        Your argument relies on the fact that the plane "had" to land where it did. It did not. There was nothing preventing the plane from returning to its origin (which is what I would guess the actual intent was).
        newacct583 5y ago
        > It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries Adjectives aside, that sounds very much like you're admitting that this was basically diplomacy. "You may not fly Snowden through our airspace", says NATO[1]. So Morales landed in Austria instead, proved Snowden wasn't aboard, and flew on. At no point were NATO military or law enforcement on his plane, and no one was arrested. Belarus just forced down an Irish airliner after (1) granting transit under false pretenses, (2) lying about a "bomb threat", (3) forcing a landing with military assets, (4) forcing an evacuation of the aircraft, searching it, and arresting five people who never intended to enter Belarus legally at all. And you really don't see the difference? [1] Strictly France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. This wasn't a NATO action, but it was leveraging exactly that alignment of interests.
  - bobthebuilders 5y ago
    And for the journalist question https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/journalist-arrest-seattle-chaz-protest-police-prison-black-lives-matter-a9606846.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
  - halsom 5y ago
    The U.S. almost certainly does this, but the U.S. would be able to wield its dominance to achieve a far more covert operation. The U.S. has grounded and delayed flights of foreign government officials numerous times. What makes you think the U.S. would consider a commercial flight off limits? “On 20 September, Evo Morales announced a lawsuit against the U.S. government for "crimes against humanity" for repeatedly blocking presidential flights, after an incident in which authorization for an overflight of Puerto Rico by President Maduro of Venezuela was delayed, although U.S. authorities said that they were entitled to three days' advance notice. Maduro had been en route to arrive in Beijing for bilaterial talks with the People's Republic of China.[14]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...
    - newacct583 5y ago
      The example you cite is of the US petulantly harassing the itinerary of a foreign leader. That is the US being a dick, in the vernacular. The situation at hand is an act of war against an Irish airliner. Sorry, but it's just not the same, and you know it.
  - jmacd 5y ago
    Not sure if this [1] started the meme, but it certainly lends it credibility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
  - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    > The US does not do this. many examples of exactly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition if anything the US normalized this. thanks to this nobody can today say "how dare them Bela|Russians ... we'd never do that". we're all morally complicit (whether it's Europe or the US)
    - newacct583 5y ago
      > thanks to this nobody can today say So... you won't even try? That's the part I don't understand. An Irish airliner got forced down in an act of war so Lukashenko could kidnap an enemy, and everyone is all "But the fucking Americans amiright?" Is it bad or not? The distinct impression that I get is that you kinda think this kidnapping was OK, and the US makes a convenient excuse. Please tell me I'm wrong.
      - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
        > you kinda think this kidnapping was OK, and the US makes a convenient excuse. Please tell me I'm wrong. it is absolutely _not_ ok so yes you are wrong. Couple weeks ago I suggested[1] arming insurgents, training civilians, and sanctioning them so they can no longer fly to Malta & Cyprus to visit their offshore money. But talk is cheap, violating international laws on engagement yourself and then pointing the finger at China, Russia or whatever country is hypocrite. In fact I wonder how can one suggest intervention fully knowing your own camp does the same shit. The level of entitlement in such an argument is pot-kettle-black insane. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887900
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    Watching your cognitive dissonance work itself out is funny and sad at the same time. You might be about ready to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Anyway, this "meme" is coming from the facts. The main difference is that the US failed at it. They targeted Morales' plane based on guesswork, but whistleblower Snowden wasn't on it, and they humiliated themselves. There are other minor differences and hairs you could split, just like anybody will do who is disinclined to see the similarities. We can't force you to see it.
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Maybe not bomb threats, but there was the decade of fake sexual assault accusations against Assange

69 points by incomplete 5y ago

Similar to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27255561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27255561

The US does it too for people they want but I would argue that even if you had to emergency land you should be protected from arrest until you cross the technical border (immigration) and that you can not be forced to do this. We have extradition treaties for this and arresting someone who was forced to cross your border doesn't negate those. You still need to go through the courts.

newacct583 5y ago
Fuck this. Where is this meme coming from? The US does not do this. The US didn't do this to Snowden either. What notably happened here is not that Belarus arrested a prominent journalist[1] opposing the ruling regime. Tin pot regimes do that every week. What happened was that Belarus used its air defense apparatus and a faked "bomb threat" to force down a foreign aircraft[2] to which it had granted airspace transit privileges under false pretenses. That's an act of war, sorry. [1] Something that the US also does not do. [2] Irish. Sadly, not a NATO member, which may be why this was tried.
- bobthebuilders 5y ago
  A plane was diverted under threat of missile attack and forced to land.
  - jonny_eh 5y ago
    Share?
- prostoalex 5y ago
  https://www.computerworld.com/article/2483490/bolivian-president-s-plane-diverted-over-suspicion-snowden-on-board.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2483490/bolivian-presi...
  - JshWright 5y ago
    You really don't see the difference between telling a flight that it does not have permission to fly through a given airspace (but is otherwise free to do what it wants) and telling a flight it must land a certain airport under the false pretense of a "security threat"? The Bolivian plane was not forced to land anywhere (it could have returned to Russia if it wanted), it simply wasn't given permission to overfly certain countries.
    - farss 5y ago
      The Morales incident wasn't simply one country choosing to deny airspace. It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries, and then having the plane boarded and searched before it was allowed to take off again. Belarus's version is a weapon of the weak to the same or very similar end.
      - JshWright 5y ago
        Your argument relies on the fact that the plane "had" to land where it did. It did not. There was nothing preventing the plane from returning to its origin (which is what I would guess the actual intent was).
      - newacct583 5y ago
        > It was a hegemonic superpower using it's leverage to create a wall of un-passable countries Adjectives aside, that sounds very much like you're admitting that this was basically diplomacy. "You may not fly Snowden through our airspace", says NATO[1]. So Morales landed in Austria instead, proved Snowden wasn't aboard, and flew on. At no point were NATO military or law enforcement on his plane, and no one was arrested. Belarus just forced down an Irish airliner after (1) granting transit under false pretenses, (2) lying about a "bomb threat", (3) forcing a landing with military assets, (4) forcing an evacuation of the aircraft, searching it, and arresting five people who never intended to enter Belarus legally at all. And you really don't see the difference? [1] Strictly France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. This wasn't a NATO action, but it was leveraging exactly that alignment of interests.
- bobthebuilders 5y ago
  And for the journalist question https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/journalist-arrest-seattle-chaz-protest-police-prison-black-lives-matter-a9606846.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
- halsom 5y ago
  The U.S. almost certainly does this, but the U.S. would be able to wield its dominance to achieve a far more covert operation. The U.S. has grounded and delayed flights of foreign government officials numerous times. What makes you think the U.S. would consider a commercial flight off limits? “On 20 September, Evo Morales announced a lawsuit against the U.S. government for "crimes against humanity" for repeatedly blocking presidential flights, after an incident in which authorization for an overflight of Puerto Rico by President Maduro of Venezuela was delayed, although U.S. authorities said that they were entitled to three days' advance notice. Maduro had been en route to arrive in Beijing for bilaterial talks with the People's Republic of China.[14]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...
  - newacct583 5y ago
    The example you cite is of the US petulantly harassing the itinerary of a foreign leader. That is the US being a dick, in the vernacular. The situation at hand is an act of war against an Irish airliner. Sorry, but it's just not the same, and you know it.
- jmacd 5y ago
  Not sure if this [1] started the meme, but it certainly lends it credibility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  > The US does not do this. many examples of exactly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition if anything the US normalized this. thanks to this nobody can today say "how dare them Bela|Russians ... we'd never do that". we're all morally complicit (whether it's Europe or the US)
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > thanks to this nobody can today say So... you won't even try? That's the part I don't understand. An Irish airliner got forced down in an act of war so Lukashenko could kidnap an enemy, and everyone is all "But the fucking Americans amiright?" Is it bad or not? The distinct impression that I get is that you kinda think this kidnapping was OK, and the US makes a convenient excuse. Please tell me I'm wrong.
    - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
      > you kinda think this kidnapping was OK, and the US makes a convenient excuse. Please tell me I'm wrong. it is absolutely _not_ ok so yes you are wrong. Couple weeks ago I suggested[1] arming insurgents, training civilians, and sanctioning them so they can no longer fly to Malta & Cyprus to visit their offshore money. But talk is cheap, violating international laws on engagement yourself and then pointing the finger at China, Russia or whatever country is hypocrite. In fact I wonder how can one suggest intervention fully knowing your own camp does the same shit. The level of entitlement in such an argument is pot-kettle-black insane. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26887900
- rdiddly 5y ago
  Watching your cognitive dissonance work itself out is funny and sad at the same time. You might be about ready to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Anyway, this "meme" is coming from the facts. The main difference is that the US failed at it. They targeted Morales' plane based on guesswork, but whistleblower Snowden wasn't on it, and they humiliated themselves. There are other minor differences and hairs you could split, just like anybody will do who is disinclined to see the similarities. We can't force you to see it.
gentleman11 5y ago
Maybe not bomb threats, but there was the decade of fake sexual assault accusations against Assange