# Belarus dictator hijacks European plane



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This story is incredible! Here's the Bloomberg coverage.

There was a Ryanair flight, a Boeing 737 flying from Greece to Lithuania. This flight path took the plane over Belarus.

While in Belarus airspace, a Mig-29 fighter jet met the plane and escorted it to land. Some other reports (not the Bloomberg one I linked) said that some kind of agents on the plane, possibly spies from Belarus, claimed there was a bomb, prompting an emergency landing. When the plane landed, police arrested a journalist who has been critical of the president of Belarus.

It's been described as a hijacking of the plane by the dictator of Belarus. Remember, this is a *European* flight, that's flying between two European countries, brought down for political reasons.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is unusual for a dictator to so blatantly and publicly go after their critics.

In Russia and North Korea.......critics get poisoned, in China they disappear, and critics of Saudi Arabia end up in small pieces.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It's been described as a hijacking of the plane by the dictator of Belarus. Remember, this is a *European* flight, that's flying between two European countries, brought down for political reasons.


This is called air sovereignty. Belarus is not in the EU

The police can pull over a car even if it an American driving towards Alaska. The air force can do the same for planes. Normally you file a flight plan beforehand and get any required diplomatic clearance. Just because you went through passport control doesn't mean the police won't question you for any suspicious action

A lot of foreign planes fly over Canadian airspace but I don't think we've grounded one to interrogate a passenger


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> This story is incredible! Here's the Bloomberg coverage.
> 
> There was a Ryanair flight, a Boeing 737 flying from Greece to Lithuania. This flight path took the plane over Belarus.
> 
> ...


So?
The flight was in Belarus airspace, it's subject to the laws of Belarus.

You sound like the 'merican thinking that local laws don't apply to them, because they're American.

They could have always flown around Belarus.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> So?
> The flight was in Belarus airspace, it's subject to the laws of Belarus.
> 
> You sound like the 'merican thinking that local laws don't apply to them, because they're American.
> ...


Forcing a commercial flight to land by use of military power, in order to arrest a journalist, is not aviation procedure or law.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> Forcing a commercial flight to land by use of military power, in order to arrest a journalist, is not aviation procedure or law.


Apparently, from the information in this post, the aircraft was transported someone with an active warrant through Belarusian jurisdiction, and was apprehended by the authorities.

Subjecting yourself to Belarusian jurisdiction is a choice. Honestly why would anyone think you can enter the sovereign territory of a nation and not be subject to their laws. That's insanity.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Apparently, from the information in this post, the aircraft was transported someone with an active warrant through Belarusian jurisdiction, and was apprehended by the authorities.
> 
> Subjecting yourself to Belarusian jurisdiction is a choice. Honestly why would anyone think you can enter the sovereign territory of a nation and not be subject to their laws. That's insanity.


There are reports that Belarus told the pilots there was a bomb onboard the aircraft. Fighter jets then escorted it to land in Minsk. There was no bomb. If they really did that, forced the plane to land via bomb threat, I don’t see how anyone would think that is lawful. It’s governmental terrorism, a hijacking.

It’s not like the journalist drove across the border subjecting himself to the Belarusian authorities. When taking a flight, you have no influence on the flight path and which airspace it enters. Someone with a warrant flying through airspace does it give that country the authority to have the plane land and arrest someone. Belarus knows this. Which is why they had to essentially hijack the plane, claiming a bomb was onboard.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> There are reports that Belarus told the pilots there was a bomb onboard the aircraft. Fighter jets then escorted it to land in Minsk. There was no bomb. If they really did that, forced the plane to land via bomb threat, I don’t see how anyone would think that is lawful. It’s governmental terrorism, a hijacking.


They were ordered to land. 



> It’s not like the journalist drove across the border subjecting himself to the Belarusian authorities.


No he literally flew across the border.



> When taking a flight, you have no influence on the flight path and which airspace it enters.


Yes you do. You can get on or not.
He just pretended that he could pass through Belarusian airspace with impunity.



> Someone with a warrant flying through airspace does it give that country the authority to have the plane land and arrest someone.


BS, you know that if you enter the jurisdiction of a government, you are subject to their laws.
It's insane to think you'd be able to travel with a warrant through their jurisdiction without being held accountable.

I'm not in favour of Belarus, but I think this guy brought it on himself.
If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have chosen to enter Belarusian jurisdiction.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

It comes amid suspicions over the role of up to four mystery Russians on board the aircraft who voluntarily left the plane in Minsk, not continuing with the flight when it flew to its final destination in Vilnius.
Their presence has stoked fears the Kremlin's agents were involved in a murky operation to arrest Protasevich who had begged the crew not to follow the order, saying 'they will kill me' and telling a fellow passenger on the ground that he faced 'the death penalty.' Belarus MiG-29 'threatened to SHOOT DOWN' Ryanair jet if it did not land


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

It’s interesting to note that the plane was actually closer to Vilnius than Minsk when it got intercepted. If there’s a bomb should not plane follow to the closest airport?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Honestly the pilots should not have landed in Minsk. I don’t believe that it would have been shot down.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> It comes amid suspicions over the role of up to four mystery Russians on board the aircraft who voluntarily left the plane in Minsk, not continuing with the flight when it flew to its final destination in Vilnius.
> Their presence has stoked fears the Kremlin's agents were involved in a murky operation to arrest Protasevich who had begged the crew not to follow the order, saying 'they will kill me' and telling a fellow passenger on the ground that he faced 'the death penalty.' Belarus MiG-29 'threatened to SHOOT DOWN' Ryanair jet if it did not land


If he knew that the Belarusian government wanted to kill him, why in the word did he get on that plane?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Honestly the pilots should not have landed in Minsk. I don’t believe that it would have been shot down.


Maybe, but if the pilots refused the direction of ATC, they and Ryanair would be in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Really I don't see the problem, they were transporting a fugitive, likely unknowingly.
They complied with law enforcement. No harm no foul.

There is a reason I personally plan on never entering the jurisdiction of countries like this.

Heck they could just go give someone a fine for calling in the "bomb threat" and be done.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Forcing down the plane and threatening international travelers is an act of terrorism and should be dealt with as such.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Forcing down the plane and threatening international travelers is an act of terrorism and should be dealt with as such.


They were ordered to land by the relevant authority.

Really if all these people wanted to avoid Belarusian authorities, they simply should have flown around them.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

*EU countries to ban flights, discuss sanctions on Belarus after forced flight grounding




*


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> They were ordered to land.
> 
> 
> No he literally flew across the border.
> ...


I’m writing these comments with a high level of professional knowledge of aviation.

I agree it was a risk for him to travel, but what Belarus did was unlawful.

You are free to disagree, but this is what I do for a living.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> I’m writing these comments with a high level of professional knowledge of aviation.
> 
> I agree it was a risk for him to travel, but what Belarus did was unlawful.
> 
> You are free to disagree, but this is what I do for a living.


What law did Belarus violate when they ordered an aircraft, in their airspace, to a particular course of action.
My understanding, as an amateur, is that when you are in a country, you are generally subject to the laws of that country, and the direction of their authority.

Now it might have been inappropriate, even "wrong", might have been a violation of a number of things, but I would bet that they didn't actually violate any laws.

If they actually violated a law, I think someone would have likely pointed that out by now. By their omission, I can only assume they haven't actually violated any laws.

FYI treaties may or may not have the force of law in a particular jurisdiction.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

BTW, I'd advise everyone that if you don't like a particular country, stay out of their jurisdiction.
Women, don't go to Egypt, everyone, don't go to North Korea.

If you piss off the dictator of some country, don't go to that country.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> What law did Belarus violate when they ordered an aircraft, in their airspace, to a particular course of action.
> My understanding, as an amateur, is that when you are in a country, you are generally subject to the laws of that country, and the direction of their authority.
> 
> Now it might have been inappropriate, even "wrong", might have been a violation of a number of things, but I would bet that they didn't actually violate any laws.
> ...



Article 1 of the Chicago Convention provides that a state has "complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory". When overflying a state's national airspace, therefore, civil aircraft are subject to the full jurisdiction of that state and can be intercepted and ordered to land at the indicated airport. Article 3 bis (a) of the Chicago Convention, however, also specifies that "in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered".
So the interception by the military jet and the redirection of the plane to a more distant airport could have potentially endangered the safety of crew and passengers – this will have to be established by an impartial investigation. Appendix 2 of Chicago Convention also states that interception should be undertaken only as a last resort, so the question is whether the Belarusian authorities first requested the plan to land (which I am not sure is the case) or whether they sent the military jet straight away.









How Belarus’s 'aviation piracy' broke international law


Belarus’s forced diversion of a plane to arrest dissident journalist Roman Protasevich has prompted outrage. FRANCE 24 looks at precisely how it broke international law and what – if anything – can be…




www.france24.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> Article 1 of the Chicago Convention provides that a state has "complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory". When overflying a state's national airspace, therefore, civil aircraft are subject to the full jurisdiction of that state and can be intercepted and ordered to land at the indicated airport. Article 3 bis (a) of the Chicago Convention, however, also specifies that "in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered".
> So the interception by the military jet and the redirection of the plane to a more distant airport could have potentially endangered the safety of crew and passengers – this will have to be established by an impartial investigation. Appendix 2 of Chicago Convention also states that interception should be undertaken only as a last resort, so the question is whether the Belarusian authorities first requested the plan to land (which I am not sure is the case) or whether they sent the military jet straight away.
> 
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that no laws were broken, gotcha.

The giveaway is even the title of the article put "broke" in quotes.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> So what you're saying is that no laws were broken, gotcha.
> 
> The giveaway is even the title of the article put "broke" in quotes.


The title actually put “piracy” in quotes.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> So what you're saying is that no laws were broken, gotcha.
> 
> The giveaway is even the title of the article put "broke" in quotes.


I’m sorry if you have trouble reading the article and comprehending the issues here.

What I have said stands and I’ll leave it at that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Forcing down the plane and threatening international travelers is an act of terrorism and should be dealt with as such.


Agreed, this is a terrorist hijacking of a commercial airliner.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Flugzeug said:


> I’m writing these comments with a high level of professional knowledge of aviation.
> 
> I agree it was a risk for him to travel, but what Belarus did was unlawful.
> 
> You are free to disagree, but this is what I do for a living.


Some people on this board think they know everything, and are quite obnoxious about it. Might even be a form of (ongoing) trolling for their own amusement, for all I know.

Just FYI, everyone: I can confirm that Flugzeug knows what he's talking about, and actually works in this space.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

*The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies after a flight was diverted to Minsk on Sunday and an dissident journalist arrested.*
At a meeting in Brussels, the leaders of the 27 member states also told EU airlines not to fly over Belarus, and promised further economic sanctions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

One should not overlook the serious danger to commercial flights due to other countries' domestic turmoils and battles.

Some that come to mind (all of these are civilian casualties)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot down by Russian-backed rebels over Ukraine, with 283 passengers + 15 crew killed
Ukraine International Flight 752, shot down by Iran's military in Iran, with 176 passengers and crew killed (many Canadians dead)
Iran Air Flight 655, shot down by American military over the Persian Gulf, with 290 passengers and crew killed


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Not a fan of Lukashenko, but I agree with MrMatt as
_Article 1 of the Chicago Convention provides that a state has *"complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory"*. When overflying a state’s national airspace, therefore, civil aircraft are subject to the full jurisdiction of that state and can be intercepted and ordered to land at the indicated airport. Article 3 bis (a) of the Chicago Convention, however, also specifies that "in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered". 

So the interception by the military jet and the redirection of the plane to a* more distant airport could have potentially endangered the safety of crew and passengers* – this will have to be established by an impartial investigation. _
could've or couldn't have "will have to be established by an impartial investigation._ " _and not by media


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

james4beach said:


> One should not overlook the serious danger to commercial flights due to other countries' domestic turmoils and battles.
> 
> Some that come to mind (all of these are civilian casualties)
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention _Siberia Airlines *Flight* 1812 was a commercial *flight shot* down by the *Ukrainian* Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from *Tel Aviv*, Israel to *Novosibirsk*, Russia. The *aircraft*, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members. _
P.S. This flight was between 2 cities I lived in


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Again some countries are mixing politics and sport.... btw, it's funny that flags of North Korea or Iran is fine with everyone 








‘State terrorism’: Latvian officials REMOVE Belarus flag from Ice Hockey World Championships display amid plane ‘hijacking’ row


The Belarusian flag has been publicly removed from a display representing the nations at the Ice Hockey World Championships in Latvia, in protest at the alleged ‘state-sponsored hijacking’ of a plane by the authorities in Minsk.




www.rt.com


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

The dictators get their power from order followers. The crew & passengers should have had the courage to fight back & kept on their flight plan.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Again some countries are mixing politics and sport.... btw, it's funny that flags of North Korea or Iran is fine with everyone
> 
> 
> 
> ...


btw, so far Canada lost all 3 games in World hockey Championship , even though almost all Canadian players are from NHL! I've never seen Canada performing so bad


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

gibor365 said:


> btw, so far Canada lost all 3 games in World hockey Championship , even though almost all Canadian players are from NHL! I've never seen Canada performing so bad


I saw that. Pretty wild EH!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gibor365 said:


> You forgot to mention _Siberia Airlines *Flight* 1812 was a commercial *flight shot* down by the *Ukrainian* Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from *Tel Aviv*, Israel to *Novosibirsk*, Russia. The *aircraft*, a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154, carried 66 passengers and 12 crew members. _
> P.S. This flight was between 2 cities I lived in


Thanks, I had not heard of that one, or forgot the news item


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> I’m sorry if you have trouble reading the article and comprehending the issues here.
> 
> What I have said stands and I’ll leave it at that.


I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding that Belarus did several things a bunch of countries don't like, and don't approve of and may violate several norms.

It's interesting that while the false bomb threat was likely a violation, no other laws were broken.

Plus this is just a bunch of countries piling on to a weaker country they don't like.

There is more news about this than the hostage diplomacy China is engaged in. Really seems like a bunch of countries pushing around their weight over a made up crisis.

You don't like Belarutian law, stay the F out of Belarus.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> One should not overlook the serious danger to commercial flights due to other countries' domestic turmoils and battles.


Absolutely, and I strongly recommend "DON'T GO THERE".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Some people on this board think they know everything, and are quite obnoxious about it. Might even be a form of (ongoing) trolling for their own amusement, for all I know.
> 
> Just FYI, everyone: I can confirm that Flugzeug knows what he's talking about, and actually works in this space.


FYI, some people on this board like to post sensationalist headlines, and refuse to actually research and read the facts of the situation.

I think this is just an attempt to fit in with the crowd. 

This is a great example, headline says piracy and all sorts of bad words, but the facts are quite simple, a wanted criminal was arrested in their jurisdiction, in accordance with the law.

I also think it's telling you are sitting back on credentials, rather than an actual fact supported position.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

I wonder if Ryanair's reputation is going to take a hit or not. Imagine if you were a passenger on that flight.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> I wonder if Ryanair's reputation is going to take a hit or not. Imagine if you were a passenger on that flight.


Likely not, they flew over hostile airspace to save a few bucks in fuel.

Apparently they care more about profits than their customers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Again some countries are mixing politics and sport.... btw, it's funny that flags of North Korea or Iran is fine with everyone
> 
> 
> 
> ...


International sports IS Politics.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Likely not, they flew over hostile airspace to save a few bucks in fuel.
> 
> Apparently they care more about profits than their customers.


 ... likely not? Hmmm.... lawsuits await to save a few bucks on fuel?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... likely not? Hmmm.... lawsuits await to save a few bucks on fuel?


naw, they'll just say their the "victim" of piracy or something.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I jus hope the agents that made the false bomb threat are arrested.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

*El Al Flight 402*, a Lockheed L-049 Constellation pressurized four-engine propliner, registered 4X-AKC, was an international passenger flight from Vienna, Austria to Tel Aviv, Israel via Istanbul, Turkey, on July 27, 1955. The aircraft strayed into Bulgarian airspace and was shot down by two Bulgarian MiG-15 jet fighters; it crashed near Petrich, Bulgaria. All 7 crew and 51 passengers on board the airliner were killed.

*Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114* was a regularly-scheduled flight from Tripoli to Cairo via Benghazi. At 10:30 on February 21, 1973, the 727-224 left Tripoli, but became lost due to a combination of bad weather and equipment failure over northern Egypt around 13:44 (1:44 P.M. local). Lost, it entered Israeli-controlled airspace over the Sinai Peninsula, was intercepted by two Israeli F-4 Phantom IIs and shot down after refusing to follow signals from the Israeli pilots. There were 113 people on board, of those there were 5 survivors, including the co-pilot.

*Korean Air Lines Flight 007*, also known as KAL 007 or KE007, was a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 civilian airliner shot down by a Soviet Su-15TM fighter on September 1, 1983 near Moneron Island just west of Sakhalin island. 269 passengers and crew, including US congressman Larry McDonald, were aboard KAL 007; there were no known survivors. It may have been caused by a failure of air navigation, although alternate theories have also been proposed.

*Iran Air Flight 655* (*IR655*) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser USS _Vincennes_ between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew. _Vincennes_ was inside Iranian territorial waters, at the time of the attack and IR655 was within Iranian airspace.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> I jus hope the agents that made the false bomb threat are arrested.


Yup, then it's all wrapped up nicely in a bow.
Legal, even responsible action.

Of course we know it's all BS, it's just another dictator being "powerful".


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> It's interesting that while the false bomb threat was likely a violation, no other laws were broken.
> 
> Plus t*his is just a bunch of countries piling on to a weaker country they don't like.*


It's very true! The most harsh response and threats came from Belarus "old friends" Latvia and Lithuania


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Likely not, they flew over hostile airspace to save a few bucks in fuel.
> 
> Apparently they care more about profits than their customers.


Not sure what the airline was expected to do differently. Sure they save fuel taking the direct airway, but they would have been paying to transit through the airspace for the privilege. Canada, US, most countries charge to overfly them and use their airspace.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> This is a great example, headline says piracy and all sorts of bad words, but the facts are quite simple, a wanted criminal was arrested in their jurisdiction, in accordance with the law.


If it's really that simple, why didn't the US wait for Meng Wangzhou to enter their airspace and force the plane down?
She was passing through Vancouver, on her way to Mexico City.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Retired Peasant said:


> If it's really that simple, why didn't the US wait for Meng Wangzhou to enter their airspace and force the plane down?
> She was passing through Vancouver, on her way to Mexico City.


Because, while legal to detail people travelling through your jurisdiction, it was easier to catch her on the ground in Canada.
There was/is no force required.
Commercial air transport pilots typically listen to ATC.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

But Meng is still in Canada and may or may not ever be extradited to the US.

The US could easily have ordered the plane to land at a US airport to arrest her.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> But Meng is still in Canada and may or may not ever be extradited to the US.
> 
> The US could easily have ordered the plane to land at a US airport to arrest her.


 .. ie. the Canadians' authorities are suckers for the US, doing their dirty job.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

“Maybe, but if the pilots refused the direction of ATC, they and Ryanair would be in a hell of a lot of trouble.”

Not true. There are many reasons to decline ATC direction, and pilots occasionally do. Especially for safety of flight reasons. During an emergency, like a bomb on board, the pilot can land where he deems safest. Prolonging a flight by forcing it (with military force) to fly to a more distant airport put lives in danger.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> .. ie. the Canadians' authorities are suckers for the US, doing their dirty job.


ie......AG Jodie Wilson Raybould makes a dumb decision that creates an international incident and then dumps it all into Trudeau's lap.

As past AG's have commented........ignore the US request until after Meng leaves the country.

Then.......sorry, we just missed grabbing her for you. But oh no, JWR liked to make a big scene out of everything.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> ie......*AG Jodie Wilson Raybould makes a dumb decision *that creates an international incident and then dumps it all into Trudeau's lap.


 ... I wasn't aware Ms. Raybould had "instructed" the Vancouver authorities (as if only they would so obediently listen to her) to ground the plane and retain Ms. Meng. Oh please. 

And please stop blaming Ms. Raybould for just doing her job that PM Trudeau appointed her to do as AG and that's let SNC Lavalin do whatever they want to do, according to the corrupted "boss". Remember, the rot starts at the top.



> As past AG's have commented.......*.ignore the US request until after Meng leaves the country.*


 ... by whom?



> Then.......sorry, we just missed grabbing her for you. But oh no, JWR liked to make a big scene out of everything.


 .. not with Ms. Meng but with SNC Lavalin ... and boy were there alot of worms found in that can ... with Werner, Butt, and every tainted politician associated there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From Ms. Raybould herself.

_Ms. Meng was arrested pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a procedure which is contemplated in both the Extradition Act and the Treaty on Extradition between Canada and the United States in circumstances where urgency has been established. *The decision to seek a provisional arrest warrant from the court is made by Department of Justice officials without any political interference or direction. *_

Then there is evidence from CSIS that they warned the arrest was political in nature. There is no way that AG Raybould didn't know about the arrest.

Her boss.......the PM of Canada wasn't informed of the arrest until a note was passed to him during a meeting with the US and Chinese.

Remember it wasn't Trudeau who gave Raybould the boot. It was the entire cabinet after she secretly taped cabinet conversations.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/csis-meng-wanzhou-arrest-extradition-1.5609753



_h_ttps://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-inside-the-final-hours-that-led-to-the-arrest-of-huawei-executive-meng/


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^Yes, Ms. Raybould would be made aware then of the arrest of which probably was too late to stop but she didn't "instruct" that overzealous "... _judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia," _to go ahead with it, did she?

Also, your quote in bold " ... _*The decision to seek a provisional arrest warrant from the court is made by Department of Justice officials without any political interference or direction. *_*"*

Along with your subsequent comment "Then there is evidence from CSIS that they warned the arrest was political in nature. " ... which is it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Raybould stated there was no political interference from the US, while recent court documents reveal that CSIS informed her US politics were involved.

It looks to me like she believes telling the truth doesn't apply to her.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Raybould stated there was no political interference from the US, while recent court documents reveal that CSIS informed her US politics were involved.
> 
> It looks to me like she believes telling the truth doesn't apply to her.


 ... as AG that is not the type of "truth" she goes. That's called "reality" ie. it's a dirty world (in simplist term).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^Yes, Ms. Raybould would be made aware then of the arrest of which probably was too late to stop but she didn't "instruct" that overzealous "... _judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia," _to go ahead with it, did she?
> 
> Also, your quote in bold " ... _*The decision to seek a provisional arrest warrant from the court is made by Department of Justice officials without any political interference or direction. *_*"*
> 
> Along with your subsequent comment "Then there is evidence from CSIS that they warned the arrest was political in nature. " ... which is it?


All high level cases like this have political implications and are therefore political.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

In an effort to shift gear, I will just like to point out this is another blow to the airline industry. In the future, airline companies will have to frequently and permanently divert away from hostile airspace, which will cost them significantly more money (basically, we go back to the time before the end of USSR). Airlines maybe able to transfer that cost to the customers, but doing so will squeeze the top line.

This is in addition to the more prevalent use of teleconferencing, which reduce the amount of business traveler, the major sources of profit for airline.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> All high level cases like this have political implications and are therefore political.


 ... that's why there is no hope for humanity going into the future (IMHO).


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> In an effort to shift gear, I will just like to point out this is another blow to the airline industries. In the future, airline companies will have to frequently and permanently divert away from hostile airspace, which will cost them significantly more money (basically, we go back to the time before the end of USSR).
> 
> This is in addition to the more prevalent use of teleconferencing, which reduce the amount of business traveler, the major sources of profit for airline.


 ... glad I don't own any airline stocks. Maybe in my next life.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... glad I don't own any airline stocks. Maybe in my next life.


Investing in an industry that hasn't shown a sustainable profit in it's entire, MORE than half century, history is stupid.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Investing in an industry that hasn't shown a sustainable profit in it's entire, MORE than half century, *history is stupid.*


 ... not if you an employee of that company in that industry ... eg. its CEO, CFO, pilot, crew member, etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... not if you an employee of that company in that industry ... eg. its CEO, CFO, pilot, crew member, etc.


Investing in an unprofitable industry, when your income is dependant on that industry is just nuts.

Look at all the Enron staff who put their retirement into Enron stock.

Buying airline stock is dumb, they dont' make money.
Buying airline stock, when your income also depends on airline performance is even dumber, ever hear of diversification?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Investing in an unprofitable industry, when your income is dependant on that industry is just nuts.
> 
> Look at all the Enron staff who put their retirement into Enron stock.
> 
> ...


 ... yes on diversification for non-industry-related investors. But if you're the CEO of the company and own nada in its stock, what does that tell you about how much confidence he/she has of the company? .. for other investors aka shareholders.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes on diversification for non-industry-related investors. But if you're the CEO of the company and own nada in its stock, what does that tell you about how much confidence he/she has of the company? .. for other investors aka shareholders.


It tells them you don't have a stake or confidence in the company.

If I was an airline CEO, I would hold a significant portion of stock, but it wouldn't be my "investment" portfolio, it would be a "job requirement".
Just like a plumber owning tools.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Investing in an unprofitable industry, when your income is dependant on that industry is just nuts.
> 
> Look at all the Enron staff who put their retirement into Enron stock.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Working in Aviation I don’t invest my money in this industry.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Flugzeug said:


> Agreed. Working in Aviation I don’t invest my money in this industry.


 ... are you serious? Not even a dime invested? I guess it depends where on the Echelon ladder requires you to have skin in the game.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... are you serious? Not even a dime invested? I guess it depends where on the Echelon ladder requires you to have skin in the game.


I’d guess only CEO, CFO etc would have that requirement. Probably as part of their compensation, but I’m don’t know for sure. Regular worker bees like me don’t have to of course. 

My paycheque and my pension is enough skin in the game for me. I used to have company stock as part of a pretty good company matching plan, but I always sold after the match and invested elsewhere.

This industry of course had massive layoffs recently. It’s not usually an easy career. Many get laid off a few times during their career, as not too much time passes before the next economic downturn (9/11, financial crisis, Covid). The best time in aviation history was about 2010-2020, between the financial crisis and COVID, all of the sudden it’s now the worst year+ in aviation history. Everyone I know has either been laid off or took a pay reduction. 

If I worked at a big bank, I’d be happy to hold a lot of company stock. Given what I’ve seen, it’s not the best idea in aviation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... are you serious? Not even a dime invested? I guess it depends where on the Echelon ladder requires you to have skin in the game.


You never want all or even most of your skin in a single "game"


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

Proof my point:
*Russia refuses to allow European planes to land in Moscow*


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

Beaver101 said:


> ... glad I don't own any airline stocks. Maybe in my next life.


This make you smarter than Warren Buffett .


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Belarus dictator hijacks European plane and Canadian dictator hijacks Canadian citizens who are coming to Canada!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Oh oh 








Jailed Belarusian activist Protasevich spent Donbass War with Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, but was it as a soldier or journalist?


Belarusian activist Roman Protasevich, who was arrested by police after his Ryanair flight was forced to land in Minsk, once




newsaroundworld.org


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

gibor365 said:


> Oh oh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fighting for Ukraine, fighting russian mercenaries in eastern Ukraine, I see it as a good thing. 
*Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization








Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization - Atlantic Council


The authors of a recent New York Times op-ed produce no clear proof of ongoing links between American right-wing terrorists and a unit within Ukraine’s Interior Ministry.




www.atlanticcouncil.org




*


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Fighting for Ukraine, fighting russian mercenaries in eastern Ukraine, I see it as a good thing.
> *Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization
> 
> 
> ...


The *Special Operations Detachment "Azov"*, often known as *Azov Battalion*, *Azov Regiment*, or *Azov Detachment*, (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard regiment








Azov Battalion - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




There are many references to different sources in wiki article. even FBI calls them Neo-Nazis, so please give me a break!

P.S. You may also tell that Bandera (OUN ) and Shukhevych (Nachtigall Battalion/UPA) who killed hundreds thousands Jews and Poles (and who got Hero of Ukraine by previous Ukranian Neo Nazi president) also just were fighting "russian mercenaries "









Ukrainian unit accused of Neo-Nazi links wants Canada’s help


Ukraine’s Azov Battalion is looking for help from Canada. Unit members are not happy with being branded as Neo-Nazis. Recently, U.S. lawmakers voted…




ottawacitizen.com




Sure! Whom else they gonna ask?!


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

gibor365 said:


> You may also tell


It will be off topic. It doesn’t matter what I say or you say, everyone will be sticking to their side. My side is pro Ukrainian, because I am Ukrainian. And yours is pro russian because you are Russian.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> It will be off topic. It doesn’t matter what I say or you say, everyone will be sticking to their side. My side is pro Ukrainian, because I am Ukrainian. And yours is pro russian because you are Russian.


Obviously! I'm Russian Jewish and know very well who are Nazis


----------

