Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxftw | Hacker News Reader

Many people are saying this is symbolic and cannot be enforced. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Look at what happened to the founder of Telegram. Some jurisdiction decides you're violating their laws, all you need to do is catch a connecting flight or take a vacation on their soil or a place that will eagerly extradite, and you're a political prisoner.

What happens if one of the officers of 4Chan or Gab is on a flight to Paris and the plane is redirected to London? Well, they're going to prison. The UK is a police state.

View on HN

Durov's plane wasn't redirected to France, nor were the French planning to extradite him anywhere else for all we know. He willingly landed his own private jet in Paris.

I understand what point you're trying to make, but Protasevich would have been a better example. Beware of whose airspace you fly over.

Durov is also, relevantly, a naturalized French citizen in addition to his various other passports. It's not just "some jurisdiction", it's one he opted into!

That is a good point I completely overlooked: your international flight can get redirected to a country you never intended to visit.

It has been known that certain middle east countries force passengers crafts to divert and land to get their hands on wanted people

I'm pretty sure the US and Europe do this as well, Evo Morales grounding incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

I still cannot believe the Geneva Conventions allowed this. This should have ended with John Kerry and Jen Psaki in a Swiss prison for at least 10 years, if not Barack Obama himself. We managed to convict accused war criminals with a lot less evidence in the Nuremburg trials. FOR EMPHASIS: I'm not comparing the severity of the crimes, I'm comparing the evidentiary basis for securing convictions.

"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." -Henry Kissinger

  The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What would those have to do with "intelligence contractor leaked our stuff, might be on the Bolivian president's plane, oh no a diplomatic incident"?

All you did was link to the main page of a wikipedia article and copy and paste the first sentence. Your response is so lazy, it doesn't even deserve a response, but I'm putting this out here for the benefit of the general public:

https://www.icrc.org/en/article/grave-breaches-defined-genev... GC 4 Art. 147. "Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION OR TRANSFER OR CONFINEMENT OF A PROTECTED PERSON, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

1. Foreign heads of state are definitely protected persons.

2. Foreign heads of state transiting to and from diplomatic meetings are engaged in a protected activity.

3. If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in declared war, they are even more applicable to countries at peace with one another.

It turns out I'm even more right that I initially thought: this was not only a breach of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, it was also a breach of the very letter of the law! Regardless, someone doesn't understand the purpose of the Geneva Conventions in the first place, so I'll elaborate...

Edward Snowden himself is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden was on that plane. The fact is that the US and its allies used deception to illegally ground a diplomatic flight, detain a foreign head of state, and engage in an illegal search and seizure.

Furthermore, whether or not the countries involved were even at war is irrelevant. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy safe for diplomats. If a foreign head of state can be detained or imprisoned, and if his property can be searched or seized, then diplomatic negotiations for anything are now impossible.

It doesn't matter if the reasons for breaking these rules are justifiable or not, the fact is that you're not trustworthy even in a basic capacity that allows for diplomatic negotiation. You're in the same perfidious bucket as Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, or Ruhollah Khomeini (Iranian Hostage Crisis).

"Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across."

-Sun Tzu

P.S. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations explicitly forbids detaining diplomats. See articles 27 and 29:

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...

YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!

> If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in declared war, they are even more applicable to countries at peace with one another.

So far as I can tell, that claim is your own invention.

Also, according to your own link's link to the full text:

  Article 4 - Definition of protected persons

  Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

  Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

  The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13 .

  Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

-- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

So, not what you say.

Even if it was, Morales was not detained by another state, nor did his plane land under what is recognised as "coercion": The aircraft was denied overflight by several European states after rumours that Snowden was aboard, so it diverted to Austria, where it landed voluntarily for refuelling. Austria’s authorities requested (but, in a legal sense, did not compel) inspection; Morales, in a legal sense, consented.

Also, "search and seizure"? Nothing was seized, IIRC?

> The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy safe for diplomats.

Nope, different laws for that. As you say elsewhere, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Which, importantly, is a different thing than the Geneva Conventions. I mean, you can tell by how most of the words in the name are different…

> YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!

I see you're new here. Such energy doesn't go down well on this site.

Morales' plane wasn't actually forced to land anywhere nor did anyone try to arrest anyone onboard.

His plane was denied access to airspace. At worst, he would have had to turn around and reroute. They only decided to land right away because of a faulty fuel indicator.

Enforcing bad legislation that was enacted through the democratic process doesn’t make a country a police state. It’s just the rule of law. That has always included the enforcement of bad laws as well as good ones.

> the democratic process

There's no such thing. There are many different processes that some people consider democratic and others don't. But "democratic" has no other meaning than rule by the governed. It is not a description of a specific political process. Especially one that bans leading opposition candidates, which is clearly as undemocratic as anything that can occur in government. If a population wants to vote in somebody who is currently in prison for crimes they are obviously guilty of, preventing them from doing it is a direct repudiation of democracy.

Even killing opposition candidates is marginally more democratic, because at least that only lasts for an instant. Saying that people cannot vote for the government of their choice is a restriction on the governed, not a restriction on people who want to govern.

The UK does not ‘ban’ leading opposition candidates. The largest opposition party in Parliament is the Conservatives; Kemi Badenoch is not banned. The opposition party leading in the polls is Reform; Nigel Farage is not banned.

The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety' laws.

You don’t refer to any specific cases so I can’t offer any specific response, but the key phrase is

> under ___ laws.

A police state is one where the police arrest whoever the government directs them to arrest (rather than enforcing the law). Keir Starmer is not phoning up Police chiefs to get people disappeared.

The laws are whatever the UK's kangaroo courts decide they are. It's a total police state.

Courts ruling on matters of legal interpretation is how things are supposed to work. This is like saying “the US Constitution is whatever the kangaroo Supreme Court says that it is.”

> whatever the UK's kangaroo courts decide

I mean there isn't a UK court. There's the supreme court, but one can still appeal to the Hague to get you out of a jam. But yeah, you keep thinking that. Its not like with have a shadow docket going on, undermining the constitution.

> It's a total police state.

I can still, on record call Starmer "a massive fucking prick".

I can do that on TV.

I will not get arrested, I will not have an ICE raid called on me, I won't get death threats.

I won't lose my job[1]

So no, its not a police state, because the judiciary is still working, more or less

[1] not my current job anyway

> The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety' laws.

We used to just out and out shoot them.

We used to demand that they have their voices literally overdubbed by an actor.

We used to round people up and jail them for being too irish.

We used to be in a civil war, up until the 2000s.

You're just having a cyberpunk wet dream. Don't get me wrong, the OSA is an abomination. but you are being a hyperbolic child, especially as actual authoritarianism is happening in the USA, without anything as a peep from the same blowhards talking about the OSA.

You're absolutely right, the UK has always been despotic. And that's just at home, to say nothing about the colonies.

> The UK is a police state.

No it isn’t.

It's a nanny state which is even worse

It's a nanny state with the police arresting and jailing people for tweets. It's a police state, but "we" like to identify police states with Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, or whoever the state's enemy is at the moment.

When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress, and to consider not speaking from now on, you live in a police state. When you have banned political parties and organizations that trigger the mass arrests of peaceful protestors, you live in a police state. People who are comfortable with what is being suppressed never think of their country as a police state. At least until something happens to them or someone they care about, when they suddenly become "activists."

> you live in a police state.

sigh You've not lived in a police state, or more accurately, you've been online too much to actually get context.

In the UK threatening to kill someone has been illegal since at least ~1880 something. Going online an publicly calling for the death of one or more person (which in the eyes of the law is pretty close to sending a good old paper death threat) is not only widely considered a dick move, its illegal.

Now, How do you enforce that? the police investigate, and if its deemed a credible threat, you are visited by the plod. Who most likley go "look mate, don't be a dick".

If you are really being a dick, you might be cautioned (taken to the police station and told "you're being a shit")

The next stage up is appearing in court.

And then you have to be convicted by a jury of your peers, and the burden of evidence is really quite high. ("oh but that mum, she was innocent." I advise you to read all that she wrote, you know the extra bits that the sun can't print)

Its not like you're bundled into the back of a van by masked goons who refuse to identify themselves. Taken to a mass detention centre and not seen for weeks, and then yeeted to an illegal jail.

But why are the police investigating social media?

Now thats a good question. And the answer is: Musk doesn't moderate. Stuff that gets you a visit from the plod is generally against the community standards of social media, even X.

Now to your point here: "When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress"

I've had a visit from the police, why? because I was young and being an antisocial shit. The police were not actually there to arrest me, and I don't think they could actually if they wanted to. The point was, they were there to make the town liveable for all it's citizens. I was "fucking around", and the police were gently telling me that I'd really not like to "find out".

"OH BUT PERSONAL FREEDOM". Now, the thing is, I was perfectly free to carry on my bad ways. The problem was, those ways, had they descended further, would have resulted in jail time. The choice was mine.

I don't want to live in a country where its acceptable to bully whomever I like, in the guise of personal freedom. Sure, speak your mind, but don't be a dick about it.

Let's not act like political speech has not been used to arrest people in the UK. To claim otherwise is a lie, or a level of ignorance only afforded to small children.

> To claim otherwise is a lie, or a level of ignorance only afforded to small children.

And I have not claimed otherwise. during the troubles stuff went south very quickly. What you are doing are conflating political persecution with the censoring of 4chan, an organisation who's adherence to law is flexible at best.

Criminal 1: "Quick, hide the money!"

Criminal 2: "Coppers?"

Criminal 1: "Worse. Nannies."

Nah, it's not worse.

Still only enforceable if they leave the US soil.

> The UK is a police state.

The UK is further from being a police state than the USA is.

And despite what Trump has been doing, both are nowhere near being that.

I mean, UK cops aren't even routinely given firearms… and the cops themselves don't want to change that.

That UK police do not carry firearms really has nothing to do with whether the UK is heading in the direction of being a police state. Firearms are no more necessary for oppression than the private possession of them is sufficient to fight against it.

> and the cops themselves don't want to change that.

I think that you will find that there is a minority of UK police who would welcome being armed with deadly weapons.

Here's an article from 2017:

"A national survey carried out by the Police Federation of England and Wales found more than a third of officers supported the idea of routinely being armed, compared to 23 per cent when the last survey was carried out in 2006.

Another 55 per cent said they would be prepared to carry a gun if asked to – up more than 10 per cent."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police...

I'll be the first to tell you, police in the USA are absolute tyrants. You can be killed for mouthing off to the police here, and likely nothing will happen to them.

We don't jail people for tweets though.

> We don't jail people for tweets though

https://reason.com/2025/10/10/tennessee-man-arrested-gets-2-...

This is supposed to be a surprise? You break the law in a country, and then visit that country, and - shock - they arrest you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com