A Ryanair Flight Carrying an Opposition Journalist Is Forced to Land in Belarus | Hacker News Reader

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

npr.org

69 pointsincomplete24 comments

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.

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.

A plane was diverted under threat of missile attack and forced to land.

Share?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2483490/bolivian-presi...

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.

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.

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).

> 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.

The methods used are somewhat apples to oranges, but they're comparable in that both the United States and Belarus used pretty brazen measures to go after the political crime of unwanted journalism. Faking a bomb threat and intercepting a civilian plane is more serious in a way; blocking off a sovereign leader's path en route & then boarding his plane is arguably more serious in another.

The "blocking" is the only thing the US arranged. The "boarding" was a PR stunt. The plane could have just flown back to Russia, but made up a pretext for why they had to land in Austria (claiming they "couldn't tell how much fuel they had", and yet they were originally intending on flying across the Atlantic).

I haven't seen evidence that it was merely a stunt. But in any case, the sovereign head of state was effectively detained for 12 hours, based on lies and coercion. That itself is outrageous. Belarus used a fighter jet pilot to deliver the lie about a bomb threat and convince the pilot to land, while U.S. lied to Western European governments through diplomatic channels about who was on the Bolivian plane. Both cases are a serious breach of international norms and rules in order to conduct rendition of a political criminal.

How is it anything other than a stunt? There was nothing stopping the jet from returning to Russia. The only reason the plan landed was because the pilots claimed they were "unable to get a correct indication of the fuel level". So either it was a totally innocent technical failure that forced the plane to land, or it was a pretext to land in Austria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03...

I don't disagree that the US should not have pressured countries to deny overflight, but that is _very_ different from sending a military jet to intercept a commercial airliner and force it to land at a specific airport for the purpose arresting a journalist (where he faces a potential death sentence for "terrorism").

The military jet was just a stunt, to reinforce the false pretext that there was a bomb aboard. There was no reported military aggression against the plane, and IIRC, the RyanAir pilot said he didn't see it as a threat, but as a form of routine emergency assistance. The plane may have already started to turn toward Minsk simply because ATC asked them to.

And keep in mind, the U.S. believed Morales may have granted Snowden asylum at that time, and was absolutely willing to flout international law and norms on asylum, on top of the norm for safe unimpeded transit for sovereign leaders. And all that based on mere rumor.

You can say in clarity of retrospect that Morales was free to return to Moscow, but that is a bit of a long flight back, and they had no idea what was happening at the time, or if other countries would also mysteriously deny them transit.

None of this is to take away from an absolutely outrageous incident, but I don't see how the two are so categorically different. Both are shocking abuses of international law and norms to shut down dissent and free and adversarial press. It's important to condemn Belarus without letting Western/American governments play so innocent.

And for the journalist question

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...

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_incide...

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.

Not sure if this [1] started the meme, but it certainly lends it credibility.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

> The US does not do this.

many examples of exactly this: 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)

> 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.

> 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

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.

Maybe not bomb threats, but there was the decade of fake sexual assault accusations against Assange

Reply on news.ycombinator.com