Hacker News Reader

I see that some people disagree with that claim. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why they do not believe this is evidence.

Note in particular that I'm not claiming this as absolute proof, just that it's evidence. While one might argue over the weight that should be assigned to it, it seems sufficiently irregular that it should be hard to claim that it's not even evidence.

View on HN

There's a [dead] comment below this complaining about the term 'extrajudicial'. The thing is that 'extrajudicial' means 'without benefit of legal process'. We don't really know what process might or might not have been followed had Snowden been captured. Given that forcing the plane down was both highly irregular and against treaties, however, it's hard to make a case that compliance with such things was seen as mandatory. But yes, to be fair, we don't actually know, we simply have evidence that points a certain direction.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it extrajudicial, and maybe you should take it up with the governments of Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com