Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

newstalk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#31

Post by ipaddr »

georgyo wrote: post #7
kobiguru wrote: post #2

no It's not exhibit A: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bolivian-presidents-pla...

First, your evidence of another incident of a government strong arming a plane to land and capture someone is not evidence that either are not an abuse of power. But even if we take as such, there are some major differences. 1. This was a journalist, not a government employee who stole classified information. 2. They claimed a bomb threat, and used a fighter jet to escort the plane down. There was no order to make th…

I agree that what Belarus did was wrong on many levels.

Just a reminder. Assange was journalist as well.

Not exactly the same case but a debate could be had that the moral high ground was given away allowing for this to be seen as more acceptable.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#32

Post by throwaway21_ »

alkonaut wrote: post #23
throwaway21_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be silly - Belarus is a sovereign state, they control their airspace and they had every right to land that plane down. Assange made US looked stupid in that incident while Lukashenko made Protasevich looked stupid yesterday. btw nobody sane is believing that US wouldn't force to land plane flying over US with Snowden in it - but Snowden isn't that stupid I guess.

I'm not saying either instance was right - I'm saying they are quite different kinds of wrong. The Snowden story is plausible - but it's still hypothetical. And of course the same international community (of US allies) that would resist extraditing Snowden today, would protest if the US forced a plane between two other countries and full of their citizens to land in the US. All that aside: the focus shouldn't be take…

US allies kept CIA black sites on their territory without raising a voice (I guess they were very happy to prove their usefulness to the big boss), I certainly doubt they would protest for landing a plane for a few hours.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#33

Post by ipaddr »

alkonaut wrote: post #9
kobiguru wrote: post #2

no It's not exhibit A: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bolivian-presidents-pla...

That's not an exhibit of how this isn't state sponsored hijacking. That's a poor attempt at whataboutism, that has surfaced several times in ALL the threads on this topic. There are several reasons that wasn't even remotely comparable, and the most obvious one is that that was diplomacy (the US closing airspaces and thereby giving the plane no choice but to land). That kind of power is wielded by the US becuase it's…

They both are hijacking using your definition.

Neither were in my opinion.

In both states used the powers they had to force a plane to land. Very wrong on both cases. In both cases they had the right.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#34

Post by ryanlol »

toyg wrote: post #16
kobiguru wrote: post #2

no It's not exhibit A: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bolivian-presidents-pla...

As much as I agree with the equivalence, the answer really is that Snowden's abduction would also have been a shameful state-sponsored hijacking.

Not really, that plane was forced to land by not allowing it enter certain airspace. Very different from having fighter jets intercept and force a plane to land.

Shameful? Maybe. Hijacking? No.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#35

Post by newacct583 »

londons_explore wrote: post #19

What did that journalist do to anger Belarus that badly? He was only 26 years old... How do you stoke a regime so badly they send a bunch of KGB agents after you? Most journalists at age 26 are still writing about cats stuck up trees...

Belarus was home to VERY large protests last year, which were quashed not with compromise but with state force. This is not a stable government, at all.

It's less what Protasevich did per se and more that Lukashenko desperately needs to be seen as unopposable. The problem with employing crackdowns as a means to ensure stability is that you need to keep escalating so long as the opposition isn't completely crushed.

We're seeing the same thing happening in Russia right now, though on a much slower fuse.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#38

Post by snypher »

ryanlol wrote: post #34
toyg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree with the equivalence, the answer really is that Snowden's abduction would also have been a shameful state-sponsored hijacking.

Not really, that plane was forced to land by not allowing it enter certain airspace. Very different from having fighter jets intercept and force a plane to land. Shameful? Maybe. Hijacking? No.

This case is the dictionary definition of hijacking. An act of unlawfully seizing an aircraft, vehicle, or ship while in transit.

Re: O'Leary: Forced landing in Belarus was 'state-sponsored hijacking'

#39

Post by _xnmw »

ryanlol wrote: post #34
toyg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree with the equivalence, the answer really is that Snowden's abduction would also have been a shameful state-sponsored hijacking.

Not really, that plane was forced to land by not allowing it enter certain airspace. Very different from having fighter jets intercept and force a plane to land. Shameful? Maybe. Hijacking? No.

A slight diplomatic difference in tactics to achieve the same effect. I'm sure they would've ratcheted up the tactics and eventually sent fighter jets if closing the airspace failed to achieve what they wanted.
Post reply on HN