Hacker News Reader

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if they picked this idea up after seeing the attempt to capture Snowden by grounding morales' plane.

Civilian aircrafts actually have somewhat stronger protections than government/military in that regard. So it is worse than Morales'

I wasn't trying to draw an ethical distinction, but if I were this wouldn't be the defining attribute of an action that constitutes "better". They're both reprehensible.

while clearly an asshole move, "grounding" morales' plane did not involve fighter jets coercing the plane down.

Why did you use quotes?

the plane technically had to land in austria after all other countries refused entry for 'technical' reasons.

This one involved KGB agents who coerced the flight to divert by claiming there was a bomb

what was the basis and the motive for ally countries unilaterally not to allow the plane to land? If the motives are not different, then the fighter jet could be seen as a similar "technical reason" in this case too.

Mental gymnastic you are doing there. Spain and France denied the airspace, meaning the flight couldn't gone through either of them. There is no "not to allow the plane to land". In fact an airplane calling emergency has priority to land anywhere, regardless of the political difference with the host country.

On this topic, this happened with a flight from a US's air base in Afghanistan, rerouted to Iran because of a "bureaucratic issue":

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-iran-aircraft/u-s-says-p...

> Mental gymnastic you are doing there.

Quite contrary, I'm asking for the basis and the motive of denying one specific flight with one specific individual on board a routine procedure of air travel, something that was allowed to hundreds of other flights on that same day. "landing" vs "airspace" is a non-essential detail here, and depending on the context of a situation, either could be denied to achieve the desired goal. I'm asking about the motives of the goal.

It was US pressure obviously, for which the countries apologized. It was an asshole move by the US but this is on another level, it involves foreign civilians, KGB agents, fake bomb threats and fighter jets

> It was an asshole move by the US but this is on another level, it involves foreign civilians, KGB agents, fake bomb threats and fighter jets

no doubt, when force is the standard a murderer wins over a pickpocket. And then it escalates.

I would say the Morales grounding was worse because it also infringed on the immunity of states of head on top of grounding a plane.

It uncovered international political coercion to catch dissidents and that sets a much more troubling precedents.

Aside from pragmatism, is there any ethical reason why state leaders should enjoy extra rights above anyone else?

it didn't even "have" to land in austtria, they landed there because it was easy. They probably had fuel enough to land in any one of a ton of other countries if they so chose.

No, they certainly didn't have to land in Austria. But somehow, god knows why, certain countries closed their airspace for that specific plane. I'm inclined to belive that more countries would suddenly close their airspace too if plane chose not to land in Austria but to go to some country where Snowden won't be in danger of being arrested - France, Spain, Portugal and Italy are hardly the only one that would bow under US pressure.

so modus operandi matters. if there were no fighter jets then the arrest was ok, it looks like.

Don't you see the difference? US pressured France and Spain to deny their airspace, but landing in Vienna was pilot's call. The pilot could have returned to Russia if they wanted. They erred on the caution side, and they were greeted by Austria's president. So shady, but not illegal, compared to for example the poisoning of Russia's dissidents by FSB.

What do you think would happen if Ryanair's pilot refuse to cooperate with Belarus's request?

One was tricked into grounding, the other was forced shrug

In both cases it was to detain somebody doing an act of public service on behalf of their country - an act treated as criminal. This is the important part.

Right, so forced and tricked aren't that much different in your book.

Passengers on the Bolivia's flight were at no point in danger. They could have picked another country, Russia or Russia-friendly one to land. Can you say the same with Ryannair's ones? Did they have the choice?

In Bolivian case the search was highly illegal and constituted casus beli. In Belorusian case all formal legal procedures were followed.

You jest, surely?

What would France and Spain have done if Bolivia's jet entered their airspace? I'm betting it would have involved fighter jets. That threat is why denying someone entry into your airspace is possible. Well, that and ground-to-air missiles. There's no need to exhibit force if it is already understood that force will by applied if you do not cooperate.

All of the comments defending it as if it is somehow different.

It's not, your kettle is also black.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com