[farss]

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.

[newacct583]

> 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.

[farss]

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.

[JshWright]

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).