4 ms·

Recall the Forced Landing of Bolivia's Plane to Find Snowden

59 points by lobo_tuerto 5y ago

totalZero 5y ago
The comparison is a weak one. Sending a fighter jet to intercept an aircraft in your airspace is not the same as denying permission for an aircraft to enter your airspace.
- plank 5y ago
  I am actually not convinced it is that different. Method is perhaps different, motivation and effect (had Snowden been on board) is quite similar. And yes, the threat to the flying airplane is the same: it would be a shame of something happened to that nice plane of yours in our airspace.
- newsclues 5y ago
  Raw power vs surreptitious influence. They achieved the same goal. I think I prefer the brutal honesty.
- vkou 5y ago
  If you believe that countries can have sovereign control over their airspace, which includes the power to demand that planes land, and also the power to send fighter jets up for any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever, it's not a weak comparison. The United States, for instance, has, and will continue to send fighter jets up to intercept private aircraft, whenever the hell it chooses to. European, and other countries do the same. [1] [2] Pretty clearly, countries have the right to scramble jets, and also the right to deny flight privileges to planes in their airspace. Likewise, countries clearly have the right to send armed ships to tail ships in their territorial waters, send armed police to tail vehicles on their roads, etc, etc. The legality of it only becomes questionable when someone starts shooting. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to-intercept-private-plane-12185918 https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 5y ago
  That seems like an irrelevant technical distinction considering that Austrian officials searched President Morale's plane when it made an emergency landing in Vienna. The whole charade was clearly planned. The optics may have looked different as compared to sending up a military interceptor, but certainly the political substance was the same. It's not like officials search every diverted flight; they search the ones they conspired to ground in their jurisdiction. And the legal substance may have been the same if those other EU countries violated treaties in rescinding their overflight permission.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Though in practice what happens if you deny permission to enter your airspace and the plane doesn't comply? You send the fighter jet…
- a1369209993 5y ago
  They didn't deny permission; they gave permission (when the flight plan was filed), then illegitimately (and specifically; other planes were allowed) revoked it after the plane was already in the air.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  One side has enough soft power they don't need fighter jets. End goal is the same. We set precedent and then we're surprised when others realize "Huh it's actually okay to do shit like this"
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    hijacked planes are often escorted anyway, with pilots prepared to down the hijacked plane should they be ordered to do so. Not something that's talked about frequently, but bomb threats do not actually open restricted airspace.
academia_hack 5y ago
The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Both of these factors seem like more than minor details and much more dangerous precedents. Lying about bomb threats is far beyond the pale of acceptable behavior for a national aviation authority.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  A king merely has to wave his finger to indicate his displeasure, while a peasant uses whatever means available to him. I don’t think what happened in either situation (Snowden and Belarus) is acceptable.
- jlg23 5y ago
  > The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Different to disallowing refueling? Last time I checked, planes come down without fuel, "threatening the lives of pilot and crew". One does not have to agree on that equivalence, but I think one should accept that the narrative is equally compelling.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Unless it was going to refuel mid-air, denying refuelling is not a deadly threat.
torstenvl 5y ago
The difference between two is the difference between having to pay taxes or you'll owe a debt to the IRS and the government sending jackbooted thugs to ransack your house for money and valuables. Coercion through a system of laws, courts, and diplomacy is fundamentally not the same as coercion by force.
zorked 5y ago
Choice quote for those who will claim (ignorantly or in bad faith) there was no threat to human life and coercion and that this was "completely different" (it wasn't): "Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna." The plane would crash and everybody in it would die if they didn't comply. The plane was searched by Austrian police on the ground.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  This only makes sense if they were planning on refueling mid-air. It says they were denied fuel, not denied emergency landing clearance.
  - zorked 5y ago
    From that point of view the Ryanair jet wasn't denied the option to land so that Protasevich could be arrested so it suffered no threat. See the ridiculousness of that argument? What actually happened is that both planes were coerced under the threat of death.
  - jules-jules 5y ago
    Your false distinction is worthy of the State Department. Jen Psaki would be proud.
ceilingcorner 5y ago
Illustrating how little the U.S. cares about even pretending to abide by the standards it imposes on others, the Biden administration on Monday sent out Psaki herself to condemn Belarus’ conduct as “a shocking act” and “a brazen affront to international freedom and peace and security by the regime.” It would not even occur to Biden officials — just for the sake of appearances if nothing else — to try to find someone to do this other than the same person who, in 2013, obfuscated and defended the actions of the U.S. and E.U. in doing the same thing to Bolivia's presidential plane. U.S. officials simply do not believe that they are bound by the same standards to which its adversaries must be subjected. Buried near the end of the article. Gotta love Greenwald’s extensive research.
dade_ 5y ago
Obama was wrong then and Lukashenko is wrong now. Greenwald is right to bring up the comparison, but it should only be used to shame errors in the past, not to justify additional wrongdoing.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  Exactly right. I don't actually fully understand what Greenwald is trying to do, here. This article reads as an attempt to justify the actions of Belarus (as opposed to criticizing the actions of the US and the EU, of which there was certainly no shortage back in 2013), which I find utterly astonishing and makes me further wonder what the heck is going on with Greenwald these days. In the past he never really struck me as an apologist for a dictator, but something has clearly changed.
  - mhoad 5y ago
    I’m constantly shocked at how otherwise intelligent people still keep holding him up as a serious journalist, that really hasn’t been true for years now. I think it kind of speaks to just how big a deal first impressions matter on a deeply psychological level because many people seem incapable of acknowledging that something major changed with him a while ago. Positions I’ve seen him take in the past few months include: - Matt Gatez did nothing wrong and there is no evidence against him anyways. - Hunter Biden’s laptop is the key story to the 2020 election - There is no meaningful difference between people who believe there was something suspect about Trumps relationship with Russia and QAnon - January 6th was non violent He is a fundamentally unserious person at this point. But like Elon Musk he has some of the strangers defenders on the internet who will aggressively defend him at all costs and I don’t understand it.
  - jules-jules 5y ago
    It is generally useful and helpful for the discussion to read the article in full before commenting >None of what happened with this Morales incident has any bearing on the justifiability of what Belarus did on Sunday. That the U.S. and its E.U. allies committed a dangerous international crime in 2013 does not mitigate the criminal nature of similar actions by Belarus or any other country eight years later. The dangers of forcing down airplanes in order to arrest someone who is suspected to be on that plane are manifest. The danger increases, not decreases, as more countries do it.
sneak 5y ago
The funny part is that Biden, who chimed in condemning the incident recently, was VP at the time of the last one and was the actual person on the phone making the demands to European countries to get Morales' plane on the ground. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/biden-condemns-arrest-belarus-journalist/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/biden-condemns-arres... Large groups are expected to be a bit hypocritical sometimes, because of diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Here we see the moral flexibility of a single individual. It's only terrorism when the Bad Guys do it.

59 points by lobo_tuerto 5y ago

The comparison is a weak one. Sending a fighter jet to intercept an aircraft in your airspace is not the same as denying permission for an aircraft to enter your airspace.

plank 5y ago
I am actually not convinced it is that different. Method is perhaps different, motivation and effect (had Snowden been on board) is quite similar. And yes, the threat to the flying airplane is the same: it would be a shame of something happened to that nice plane of yours in our airspace.
newsclues 5y ago
Raw power vs surreptitious influence. They achieved the same goal. I think I prefer the brutal honesty.
vkou 5y ago
If you believe that countries can have sovereign control over their airspace, which includes the power to demand that planes land, and also the power to send fighter jets up for any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever, it's not a weak comparison. The United States, for instance, has, and will continue to send fighter jets up to intercept private aircraft, whenever the hell it chooses to. European, and other countries do the same. [1] [2] Pretty clearly, countries have the right to scramble jets, and also the right to deny flight privileges to planes in their airspace. Likewise, countries clearly have the right to send armed ships to tail ships in their territorial waters, send armed police to tail vehicles on their roads, etc, etc. The legality of it only becomes questionable when someone starts shooting. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to-intercept-private-plane-12185918 https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wahern 5y ago
That seems like an irrelevant technical distinction considering that Austrian officials searched President Morale's plane when it made an emergency landing in Vienna. The whole charade was clearly planned. The optics may have looked different as compared to sending up a military interceptor, but certainly the political substance was the same. It's not like officials search every diverted flight; they search the ones they conspired to ground in their jurisdiction. And the legal substance may have been the same if those other EU countries violated treaties in rescinding their overflight permission.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Though in practice what happens if you deny permission to enter your airspace and the plane doesn't comply? You send the fighter jet…
a1369209993 5y ago
They didn't deny permission; they gave permission (when the flight plan was filed), then illegitimately (and specifically; other planes were allowed) revoked it after the plane was already in the air.
aaomidi 5y ago
One side has enough soft power they don't need fighter jets. End goal is the same. We set precedent and then we're surprised when others realize "Huh it's actually okay to do shit like this"
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  hijacked planes are often escorted anyway, with pilots prepared to down the hijacked plane should they be ordered to do so. Not something that's talked about frequently, but bomb threats do not actually open restricted airspace.

academia_hack 5y ago

The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Both of these factors seem like more than minor details and much more dangerous precedents. Lying about bomb threats is far beyond the pale of acceptable behavior for a national aviation authority.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
A king merely has to wave his finger to indicate his displeasure, while a peasant uses whatever means available to him. I don’t think what happened in either situation (Snowden and Belarus) is acceptable.
jlg23 5y ago
> The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Different to disallowing refueling? Last time I checked, planes come down without fuel, "threatening the lives of pilot and crew". One does not have to agree on that equivalence, but I think one should accept that the narrative is equally compelling.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Unless it was going to refuel mid-air, denying refuelling is not a deadly threat.

torstenvl 5y ago

The difference between two is the difference between having to pay taxes or you'll owe a debt to the IRS and the government sending jackbooted thugs to ransack your house for money and valuables. Coercion through a system of laws, courts, and diplomacy is fundamentally not the same as coercion by force.

zorked 5y ago

Choice quote for those who will claim (ignorantly or in bad faith) there was no threat to human life and coercion and that this was "completely different" (it wasn't): "Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna." The plane would crash and everybody in it would die if they didn't comply. The plane was searched by Austrian police on the ground.

koheripbal 5y ago
This only makes sense if they were planning on refueling mid-air. It says they were denied fuel, not denied emergency landing clearance.
- zorked 5y ago
  From that point of view the Ryanair jet wasn't denied the option to land so that Protasevich could be arrested so it suffered no threat. See the ridiculousness of that argument? What actually happened is that both planes were coerced under the threat of death.
- jules-jules 5y ago
  Your false distinction is worthy of the State Department. Jen Psaki would be proud.

ceilingcorner 5y ago

Illustrating how little the U.S. cares about even pretending to abide by the standards it imposes on others, the Biden administration on Monday sent out Psaki herself to condemn Belarus’ conduct as “a shocking act” and “a brazen affront to international freedom and peace and security by the regime.” It would not even occur to Biden officials — just for the sake of appearances if nothing else — to try to find someone to do this other than the same person who, in 2013, obfuscated and defended the actions of the U.S. and E.U. in doing the same thing to Bolivia's presidential plane. U.S. officials simply do not believe that they are bound by the same standards to which its adversaries must be subjected. Buried near the end of the article. Gotta love Greenwald’s extensive research.

dade_ 5y ago

Obama was wrong then and Lukashenko is wrong now. Greenwald is right to bring up the comparison, but it should only be used to shame errors in the past, not to justify additional wrongdoing.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
Exactly right. I don't actually fully understand what Greenwald is trying to do, here. This article reads as an attempt to justify the actions of Belarus (as opposed to criticizing the actions of the US and the EU, of which there was certainly no shortage back in 2013), which I find utterly astonishing and makes me further wonder what the heck is going on with Greenwald these days. In the past he never really struck me as an apologist for a dictator, but something has clearly changed.
- mhoad 5y ago
  I’m constantly shocked at how otherwise intelligent people still keep holding him up as a serious journalist, that really hasn’t been true for years now. I think it kind of speaks to just how big a deal first impressions matter on a deeply psychological level because many people seem incapable of acknowledging that something major changed with him a while ago. Positions I’ve seen him take in the past few months include: - Matt Gatez did nothing wrong and there is no evidence against him anyways. - Hunter Biden’s laptop is the key story to the 2020 election - There is no meaningful difference between people who believe there was something suspect about Trumps relationship with Russia and QAnon - January 6th was non violent He is a fundamentally unserious person at this point. But like Elon Musk he has some of the strangers defenders on the internet who will aggressively defend him at all costs and I don’t understand it.
- jules-jules 5y ago
  It is generally useful and helpful for the discussion to read the article in full before commenting >None of what happened with this Morales incident has any bearing on the justifiability of what Belarus did on Sunday. That the U.S. and its E.U. allies committed a dangerous international crime in 2013 does not mitigate the criminal nature of similar actions by Belarus or any other country eight years later. The dangers of forcing down airplanes in order to arrest someone who is suspected to be on that plane are manifest. The danger increases, not decreases, as more countries do it.

sneak 5y ago

The funny part is that Biden, who chimed in condemning the incident recently, was VP at the time of the last one and was the actual person on the phone making the demands to European countries to get Morales' plane on the ground. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/biden-condemns-arrest-belarus-journalist/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/biden-condemns-arres... Large groups are expected to be a bit hypocritical sometimes, because of diversity of opinion and viewpoint. Here we see the moral flexibility of a single individual. It's only terrorism when the Bad Guys do it.