4 ms·

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 b

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.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
Yup, upon a second reading, I agree, my comment was overstating Greenwald's thesis. I do think he's spinning things in his own way. For example, toward the end of the article he claims: > Indeed, the only two differences between these situations that one can locate are factors against the Western nations responsible for the downing of Morales’ plane. Unlike what Belarus did, the U.S. and its European allies obviously had no confirmation of Snowden's presence on the plane. They forced it to land based on a guess, on rumor, on speculation, which turned out to be utterly false. The second difference is that there are obviously additional international and diplomatic implications from forcing the plane of a democratically elected president to land as opposed to a standard passenger jet: that is, at the very least, a profound attack on the sovereignty of that country. Again, there are no valid justifications for what Belarus did, but to the extent one wants to distinguish its actions from what US/EU nations did in 2013, those are the only identifiable differences. But this conveniently ignores that 1) Belarus scrambled a fighter jet and all but forced the aircraft to land, 2) did so under the guise of a fake bomb threat, all while 3) Russian agents appear to have been on the aircraft. This is clearly and materially different from revoking passports and access to airspace. So I reject Greenwald's claim that what Belarus did, here, was indistinguishable from actions of Western governments back when Snowden was on the run, and IMO Greenwald is guilty of misrepresenting the facts in service of his own narrative, which appears to be as simple as: everyone is equally bad.
- mhoad 5y ago
  Belarus’s KGB kidnapped a journalist from a civilian aircraft who criticised the government while he was flying between two EU nations and very likely may kill him. The comparison is ridiculous on so many levels.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    I absolutely agree. I debated whether to get into this point, as there's probably a lot of people that view Snowden, his actions, and the US/EU response as somehow being equivalent to Protasevich, his actions, and the Belarussian response. IMO that's utterly absurd, but I wasn't sure I wanted to invite that debate...

CarelessExpert 5y ago

Yup, upon a second reading, I agree, my comment was overstating Greenwald's thesis. I do think he's spinning things in his own way. For example, toward the end of the article he claims: > Indeed, the only two differences between these situations that one can locate are factors against the Western nations responsible for the downing of Morales’ plane. Unlike what Belarus did, the U.S. and its European allies obviously had no confirmation of Snowden's presence on the plane. They forced it to land based on a guess, on rumor, on speculation, which turned out to be utterly false. The second difference is that there are obviously additional international and diplomatic implications from forcing the plane of a democratically elected president to land as opposed to a standard passenger jet: that is, at the very least, a profound attack on the sovereignty of that country. Again, there are no valid justifications for what Belarus did, but to the extent one wants to distinguish its actions from what US/EU nations did in 2013, those are the only identifiable differences. But this conveniently ignores that 1) Belarus scrambled a fighter jet and all but forced the aircraft to land, 2) did so under the guise of a fake bomb threat, all while 3) Russian agents appear to have been on the aircraft. This is clearly and materially different from revoking passports and access to airspace. So I reject Greenwald's claim that what Belarus did, here, was indistinguishable from actions of Western governments back when Snowden was on the run, and IMO Greenwald is guilty of misrepresenting the facts in service of his own narrative, which appears to be as simple as: everyone is equally bad.

mhoad 5y ago
Belarus’s KGB kidnapped a journalist from a civilian aircraft who criticised the government while he was flying between two EU nations and very likely may kill him. The comparison is ridiculous on so many levels.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  I absolutely agree. I debated whether to get into this point, as there's probably a lot of people that view Snowden, his actions, and the US/EU response as somehow being equivalent to Protasevich, his actions, and the Belarussian response. IMO that's utterly absurd, but I wasn't sure I wanted to invite that debate...