Europe under extreme duress

[SteveHolt!!!]

A few points..

- The administration is repeatedly calling Griner "innocent" and framing this as releasing someone responsible for the deaths of countless actual innocent lives in exchange for an innocent American. BS. She plead guilty. We just don't agree with their law against drug trafficking being applied to hashish oil or whatever.

- why was she prioritized over an actual American-loving patriot in Paul Whelan? Politics. They claim it was Griner or nobody. BS. Giving up Bout gives us less leverage to get Paul or others.

- If you think Griner was wrongfully detained, then this just encourages Russia and others to wrongfully detain more Americans to use as bargaining chips. Especially if they happen to be lesbian minority females that will drive the political narrative wild in a way that jailing a white male former Marine will not.

Curious what I'm missing here.

Well for one you start by misrepresenting administration statements. The claims have been that Griner was wrongfully detained, not that she was innocent. The argument is that an unjust and illegitimate process led to exorbitant detainment. After that, what does "actual American-loving patriot" have to do with anything? Do we protect our citizens based purely on their patriotism now? That's just a gross argument, frankly. Whelan was a Marine. Great. As mentioned by others, Whelan received a bad conduct discharge after a special court martial. None of that has anything to do with whether we should try to address what we see as the unjust detainment of a citizen abroad. I also suspect that if Whelan were released and not Griner, you wouldn't be making the argument that it encourages Russia to grab Americans for bargaining chips.

Maybe the administration worked harder for Griner than Whelan because of domestic politics. Maybe the Russians have some agency and assigned a much higher worth to Whelan because they see him as a spy. Probably a combination of everything, and the US found a solution to one unjust detainment at an imbalanced exchange rate. This is neither surprising nor scandalous, it's just the way the world works.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Well for one you start by misrepresenting administration statements. The claims have been that Griner was wrongfully detained, not that she was innocent. The argument is that an unjust and illegitimate process led to exorbitant detainment. After that, what does "actual American-loving patriot" have to do with anything? Do we protect our citizens based purely on their patriotism now? That's just a gross argument, frankly. Whelan was a Marine. Great. As mentioned by others, Whelan received a bad conduct discharge after a special court martial. None of that has anything to do with whether we should try to address what we see as the unjust detainment of a citizen abroad. I also suspect that if Whelan were released and not Griner, you wouldn't be making the argument that it encourages Russia to grab Americans for bargaining chips.

Maybe the administration worked harder for Griner than Whelan because of domestic politics. Maybe the Russians have some agency and assigned a much higher worth to Whelan because they see him as a spy. Probably a combination of everything, and the US found a solution to one unjust detainment at an imbalanced exchange rate. This is neither surprising nor scandalous, it's just the way the world works.

OK, so optics and emotions won the day. Good for Griner. Maybe not so good for US foreign policy and national security. I’d rate this one as a net loss.

But hey, what’s one arms dealer more or less?

 

[Mirage]

Well for one you start by misrepresenting administration statements. The claims have been that Griner was wrongfully detained, not that she was innocent. The argument is that an unjust and illegitimate process led to exorbitant detainment. After that, what does "actual American-loving patriot" have to do with anything? Do we protect our citizens based purely on their patriotism now? That's just a gross argument, frankly. Whelan was a Marine. Great. As mentioned by others, Whelan received a bad conduct discharge after a special court martial. None of that has anything to do with whether we should try to address what we see as the unjust detainment of a citizen abroad. I also suspect that if Whelan were released and not Griner, you wouldn't be making the argument that it encourages Russia to grab Americans for bargaining chips.

Maybe the administration worked harder for Griner than Whelan because of domestic politics. Maybe the Russians have some agency and assigned a much higher worth to Whelan because they see him as a spy. Probably a combination of everything, and the US found a solution to one unjust detainment at an imbalanced exchange rate. This is neither surprising nor scandalous, it's just the way the world works.

I can point you to many statements by the press secretary and others describing Griner as "innocent". Look it up. They're outright lying in order to justify their narrative and dumb actions.

As for patriotism, I never said we should be making decisions based purely on patriotism, so don't put words in my mouth. It should be one of many factors we consider, though, when deciding whom to trade for, in what order, and what to give up to get them back, though. Should it not? Should we give up anyone we have detained for anyone who is detained in equal measure? Is an innocent SEAL and one of the Jan. 6th rioters of equal value to us as a nation? I think not.

You say if Whelan was released I wouldn't be making the argument about holding someone illegitimately to gain a bargaining chip. I have no idea if Whelan is being held illegitimately, and neither does anyone here. So if he were released, nobody should be making that argument.

 

[Gonzo08]

Wasn’t he thrown out of the USMC for something?

Tin foil hat: Sounds like a discharge from the USMC is an awful good cover to set someone up as a spy.

 

[SynixMan]

I can point you to many statements by the press secretary and others describing Griner as "innocent". Look it up. They're outright lying in order to justify their narrative and dumb actions.

As for patriotism, I never said we should be making decisions based purely on patriotism, so don't put words in my mouth. It should be one of many factors we consider, though, when deciding whom to trade for, in what order, and what to give up to get them back, though. Should it not? Should we give up anyone we have detained for anyone who is detained in equal measure? Is an innocent SEAL and one of the Jan. 6th rioters of equal value to us as a nation? I think not.

You say if Whelan was released I wouldn't be making the argument about holding someone illegitimately to gain a bargaining chip. I have no idea if Whelan is being held illegitimately, and neither does anyone here. So if he were released, nobody should be making that argument.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the negotiations that you don't know and using it to fit a preferred narrative. None of us know what the price was for Whelen or if he was even on offer. I trust they're doing everything they can to get him out and weighing the costs appropriately, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary. Even Whelen's family supported the swap.

 

[VMO4]

I believe Whelen was given a BCD and thrown out of the USMC for theft, and there are aspects of his story that he traveled to Russia, on his brother's passport, to go to a wedding, such that I have a hard time believing he is just a patriotic tourist being treated unfairly, I think there is a bunch more to the story.

 

[Mirage]

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the negotiations that you don't know and using it to fit a preferred narrative. None of us know what the price was for Whelen or if he was even on offer. I trust they're doing everything they can to get him out and weighing the costs appropriately, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary. Even Whelen's family supported the swap.

What assumptions have I made about the negotiations? I haven't discussed the negotiations, just the results. We traded an arms dealer serving 25 years for targeting Americans for an athlete who was given a completely legitimate and legal sentence for breaking the law in a foreign country (something people are doing in any number of our allied countries without fanfare). She would have been out in line 8 years if we'd done nothing. That sucks, but she broke the law, and thank God she didn't break the law of Saudi Arabia or many other countries with far worse punishments that we don't trade arms dealers to get people out of.

 

[taxi1]

he traveled to Russia, on his brother's passport

I think he used his own, but he used his US passport instead of others. He is a citizen of Canada, UK, and Ireland too.

 

[Mos]

I can point you to many statements by the press secretary and others describing Griner as "innocent". Look it up.

Can you just point us to these statements? Kinda asinine to say you can show us something and in the same breath tell us to look it up ourselves.

 

[Mirage]

Can you just point us to these statements? Kinda asinine to say you can show us something and in the same breath tell us to look it up ourselves.

Though I could have sworn I heard the PS say innocent, I can't find it quickly except from news outlet analysts and former ambassadors, so perhaps that's just how my mind simplified everything they said that means the exact same thing, such as wrongfully detained, that she was unjustly convicted, etc. I don't get the difference or what that changes. They're all lies, which was my point. Or can you explain how saying she was unjustly convicted is the truth?

 

[taxi1]

that's just how my mind simplified everything they said that means the exact same thing, such as wrongfully detained, that she was unjustly convicted, etc

Those don’t mean the same thing.

 

[Mos]

I don't get the difference or what that changes. They're all lies, which was my point. Or can you explain how saying she was unjustly convicted is the truth?

First, I don't think anyone in government has said that she was 'unjustly convicted'. Sec State has said that she was 'unjustly sentenced', which is different. I agree that Griner violated the Russian law since there's been no evidence to indicate that she was framed, but saying she's been unjustly treated does not require that she is 'innocent'.

'Innocent' means that one has not violated the law. As applied to this situation, it would mean that Griner did not commit the offense for which she was accused. The only statement I've found arguing for this is by journalist Jason Rezaian before her trial, and even he caveated that she was 'innocent until the world sees otherwise'.

'Unjust' means that a law, order, or handling of a legal matter violates higher laws or principles of morality or fairness, causing harm against individuals, groups, or society. Your logic seems to require that the harm is against a person innocent of a particular offense, but that is an oversimplification. Unjust could apply to convicting a person innocent of a crime, but it could also be the enactment and enforcement of an immoral law, disproportionate punishments for a particular crime, selective enforcement of a law for reasons other than the actual enforcement of law,... and the list goes on.

Saying that Griner was treated unjustly is not a lie, it's an opinion based on the U.S. perspective of Russia's law and the sentence they awarded Griner. I think a reasonable person can gather from the State Department's statements and reporting on the matter that the U.S. views Russia's handling of the case as politically motivated and her sentence as excessive. Russia will obviously have a different opinion since it's their law and they have different perceptions of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in their culture.

I'm not a lawyer, this is just my college-educated layman's understanding of the matter. I'm not happy about this trade either, but I think you're reading unwarranted opinions into the administration's statements.

 

[Mirage]

First, I don't think anyone in government has said that she was 'unjustly convicted'. Sec State has said that she was 'unjustly sentenced', which is different. I agree that Griner violated the Russian law since there's been no evidence to indicate that she was framed, but saying she's been unjustly treated does not require that she is 'innocent'.

'Innocent' means that one has not violated the law. As applied to this situation, it would mean that Griner did not commit the offense for which she was accused. The only statement I've found arguing for this is by journalist Jason Rezaian before her trial, and even he caveated that she was 'innocent until the world sees otherwise'.

'Unjust' means that a law, order, or handling of a legal matter violates higher laws or principles of morality or fairness, causing harm against individuals, groups, or society. Your logic seems to require that the harm is against a person innocent of a particular offense, but that is an oversimplification. Unjust could apply to convicting a person innocent of a crime, but it could also be the enactment and enforcement of an immoral law, disproportionate punishments for a particular crime, selective enforcement of a law for reasons other than the actual enforcement of law,... and the list goes on.

Saying that Griner was treated unjustly is not a lie, it's an opinion based on the U.S. perspective of Russia's law and the sentence they awarded Griner. I think a reasonable person can gather from the State Department's statements and reporting on the matter that the U.S. views Russia's handling of the case as politically motivated and her sentence as excessive. Russia will obviously have a different opinion since it's their law and they have different perceptions of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in their culture.

I'm not a lawyer, this is just my college-educated layman's understanding of the matter. I'm not happy about this trade either, but I think you're reading unwarranted opinions into the administration's statements.

The PS said: "She is an important role model and inspiration to millions of Americans, particularly the LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color. She should never have been detained by Russia".

Aside from acting like her race, gender, and sexual orientation matters in this case for some reason (I can't imagine why), PS stated that Griner should never have been detained. Griner admitted to breaking Russian law (and a law in many US states for that matter). How is it true that she should never have been detained? Should authorities not detain people for breaking legitimate laws?

The only thing unique about Griners detention is that we aren't on good terms with the country who did it. If they gave her the maximum sentence because of it, then they did it to secure the release of someone more important to them. If so, we gave them exactly what they wanted. Regardless, nothing about her detention was objectively unjust. I bet there are Russians serving just as much time for the same offense, and I guarantee you there are Americans in prisons around the world for sillier things than this that our overlords don't give 2 shits about because they arent publicized and aren't Olympians or "LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color".

 

[taxi1]

If they gave her the maximum sentence because of it, then they did it to secure the release of someone more important to them.

That right there is considered wrongful detention.

 

[Mirage]

That right there is considered wrongful detention.

First off, there's an if there. An 8 year sentence for drug smuggling is not some slam dunk obvious overkill by Russian standards. Second, it's not wrongful detention unless you say she deserved no sentence, as the administration has, which is ludicrous. You break the law, you get punished. Nothing to raise an eyebrow about.

If Russia snatched an American off the street and trumped up charges of espionage just to use them as trade capital, that's wrongful detainment. That may or may not have been what happened to Whelan, for example.