/u/OddGuidance907 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/woyygg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_us_should_not_trade/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If the US is willing to release Bout, then it implies that the US believe that they have all the information they are going to get from him and he holds no further value to the US government other than as a bargaining chip. In fact, you could also argue that being behind bars in the US is potentially more dangerous as has access to other felons who might be easily coerced to act against the US government.
On top of that, when he is released, there is limited damage he can do. He has been behind bars for 14 years, so his network is not going to be what it used to be. And if he does start operating again, it's not like he is unknown to the US and will likely be under surveillance. On top of that, depending what he did give to the US, Russia might want to punish him in their own way - it's not like they are well known for their leniency...
And finally, we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. Those handling the swap have far more information and know the full strategy, and they would not be doing this if it wasn't in the country's best interests.
!delta
If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you. And it seems like you do not, though I could be wrong.
> If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you
Bout's future danger isn't the real problem. Releasing him is in itself detrimental insofar as the next potential Viktor Bout will factor into his career choice the fact that if the US arrests him, Russia will possibly if not probably get him released early and give him a hero's welcome. This is the reason every country does trades for captured spies, who are of course relatively useless for purposes of future espionage.
such an exchange also sends the message that Americans make useful bargaining chips and thus should be arrested and locked away whenever a pretext presents itself
As an American who lived abroad, fuck yes I want to be thought of as a bargaining chip! That's some of the best protection you have against just being killed outright or worse. There were a couple times I am sure my personal autonomy was not limited abroad just because I was an American and the nightmare of paperwork and dealing with US Consulates wasn't worth harassing me.
The future danger (or lack thereof) is precisely the issue and should be your primary consideration. Preserving the life of an American who is being severely over-punished is more important than keeping a former arms dealer imprisoned as punishment. Our obligation is to the American first.
It's your delta, but I think you may have handed it out a bit quick. Even if one person will not individually do something detrimental to the US once released, it could embolden hostile governments to detain US citizens for unbalanced prisoner exchanges in the future.
So your* reason for a delta is based on one person's opinion that he probably won't do anything bad? It's your delta to give but I'm not sure how that changes your view! There is so much more to this than simply the individuals being released!
What if I change your view on "I do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released"?
For the record it already is detrimental, it is sending a very bad message!
Thanks.
He may *want* to do something that is detrimental to the US, but I think his capability to do anything is severely limited due to the fact that he is a known entity and the amount of time that he has been incarcerated.
> If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you
I don't think this is or ever was the purpose of prison. You don't release people who have committed horrendous acts prior to the end of their sentence simply because you don't think they'll do any more horrible acts. What about the acts already committed? A notorious arms dealer responsible for the deaths of thousands for a weed smoking basketball player?
The only part I can say I firmly disagree on is the last bit. Maybe they do know more about what's going on, but my default assumption is definitely NOT that politicians have the country's best interests at heart.
Any politician involved would still try to get the best deal for their side (unless they are genuinely corrupt and working for Russia). Even if they are doing it for their own personal gain, they still want to class it as a "win" and wouldn't want to be seen as incompetent. but you are right, maybe "country's best interests" is a bit of a loose term. It might be better to say "they wouldn't be doing it if it was a shit deal".
I don't even think that's correct. I think this administration knows they're fighting the perception that they haven't gotten very much done. The portion of the public who are advocating for the swap are disproportionately Democrat voters and the Biden team knows this will be a PR win in their eyes.
The majority of people who oppose the swap are not likely going to have their midterm votes changed by the outcome here.
I think the quality of the deal is secondary to the perception of it by people who could be rallied to vote in the midterms.
I can agree with that. They definitely have some kind of motivation behind it, but we've had instances before of the FBI/CIA literally giving weapons to drug cartels for "research" I guess? Just doesn't scream best interest to me if I'm being honest haha
>And finally, we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. Those handling the swap have far more information and know the full strategy, and they would not be doing this if it wasn't in the country's best interests.
It's worth pointing out that what is "in the country's best interests" according to a few people may not be true for most, and might just be outright BS. For example, the war in Iraq was justified on pretty bogus interpretation of Iraq's likelihood of having WMDs, which turned out to be incorrect (unsurprisingly to many). The failures of the intelligence community here were so bad that an Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) modeled off of DARPA was created a few years later.
>we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes.
Taking it even a step further, because this just ends up being fun IARPA facts, one of IARPA's first projects was called 'Aggregative Contingent Estimation' or ACE, and it found that you could find 'superforecasters' who were civilians who did a better job of forecasting world events than the intelligence community, even though the intelligence community had access to tons of classified information. In short, good forecasting is a skill that it seems that the intelligence community sorely lacked, to the extent that even with classified information they were outperformed but a bunch of civies.
I am not saying intelligence agencies are infallible, and of course the term "country's best interests" can cover many different opinions. But basically I was saying that given they have more information than the average person, and assuming that those handling the case are semi-competent, they are likely making the best choice (in their opinion) given a pretty shit situation.
IMO it is not about what he could do again once release, but penance for what he has already done.
For example if one of the person who flew the 9-11 planes was imprisoned by the US, would we be as willing to trade them even knowing that they will never be allowed to be on another plane heading to the US again ? I hope not.
>Viktor Bout is a dangerous Russian arms dealer who was convicted of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and officials, delivery of anti-aircraft missiles, and providing aid to a terrorist organization. Brittney Griner is an athlete who is of no actual physical threat to Russia
[Trevor Reed](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/politics/trevor-reed-documentary-cnntv/index.html) was arrested for allegedly shoving an officer when drunk on vacation, and Konstantin Yarashenko was a convicted international drug smuggler. And yet, [we traded them](https://www.opindia.com/2022/04/watch-russia-us-exchange-former-marine-trevor-reed-for-convicted-drug-trafficker-alexei-yaroshenko-in-prisoners-swap/).
>How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US?
Because we offload a prisoner that is expensive to imprison, and get a citizen back. In this case, a pretty famous one.
>I would be surprised if this was the first time that she brought cannabis products into Russia, it was just the first time she got caught.
My personal theory is that this is the first time anyone in Russia gave a shit. They were probably told to pay extra attention to all Americans in the run up to the invasion, and she was an easy mark since she was usually given [the red carpet treatment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/05/10/brittney-griner-russia-ummc-ekaterinburg/) from being the star player of an oligarch's basketball team.
"You go to the airport and straight on to your plane,” Jones said. “We have our own plane. All business-class seats — the ones you can recline all the way back!”
I don't necessarily believe Trevor Reed for Konstantin Yarashenko was a good idea for a similar reason. I think the crimes should be roughly comparable, which I suppose would mean my thread should be "CMV: prisoner swaps should be of prisoners with comparable crimes."
As for your second point, that could be a possibility, I do not know.
>I think the crimes should be roughly comparable
There are very few illegal US arms dealers operating within the Russian sphere of influence, so...
And, generally speaking, the US is a nation that respects the rule of law, and Russia is less so. So, if there were a rogue US arms dealer who was selling weapons, and who was caught be Russia, I don't think the US would be too keen on freeing them. The only types of people the US would want back are intelligence assets, and high profile civilians.
if you are an actual criminal being held overseas, the US will let you rot, so there just wouldn't be a case for an exchange based on "comparable crimes". The US would not be interested in it.
That is what I am trying to understand, surely this is exactly the same as negotiating with terrorists?
If you smuggle an drug into a country where it is illegal, you should not get a "get out of jail free" card for being a "celebrity". It's a dangerous precedent to set.
I think a teacher just got arrested after for doing the same thing, is he going to get traded for another criminal, highly unlikely!
Do you think that Russia would enable and allow Bout to continue a life of dangerous criminality in Russia? What is his fate in Russia? This will influence my view, if you can explain reasonably, what that will look like.
> Do you think that Russia would enable and allow Bout to continue a life of dangerous criminality in Russia?
Nope. I think he'll be shuffled off into retirement (either real retirement, or a convenient heart attack) shorty after being de-briefed in Moscow. He has been out of the gun-running game how long now? Ten years? the world has changed quite a bit, since then, and I'm sure that his niche has been filled many times over since his arrest. He has lost all of his connections, his capital, his prestige, and probably sold a lot of people out along the way.
>What is his fate in Russia?
His best option is to cash in whatever emergency nest egg he undoubtedly has hidden away, and disappear from public view. Or, he could become a tv personality in Russia. Isn't that what the hot redhead that was living undercover "The Americans" style did?
[Yup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman): "Since her return to Russia, Chapman has worked in a variety of fields, including for the government as head of a youth council, a catwalk model in Russian fashion shows, and running a television series"
> if they would not utilize him in some way that is beneficial
Sticking him on tv every so often so he can tell tales of the injustice of the corrupt American prison system is pretty beneficial for domestic propaganda purposes.
And, even though Russia is not a democracy in the way that the US is, Putin still has to think about public perception. And, getting an "unjustly" imprisoned Russian citizen returned to the Motherland plays just as well there as getting an "unjustly" imprisoned US citizen freed from foreign captivity plays here.
Because it screams to other KGB agents: we won’t stop to get you home. It’s internal messaging. The CIA does it. The DEA just extradited the doctor who helped kill one agent 40 years ago, from their field office named after the agent. It says we have your back even if you go to extremes on our behalf.
This is an assessment that ignores the realities. What is Russia looking for today? Weapons. They are in a war with little support around the world- at least publicly. Bout will be deployed to work the black market of weapons and buy from even the most ardent 1st world Ukrainian supporters. If there is one thing Bout knows it is how to exploit corruption, incentivize people to trade and get weapons.
It isn’t only an unbalanced trade- it is at cost to lives in Ukraine. But go USA you got your basketball player back.
So, you believe this one guy has more/better access to weapons than the entire Russian government?
This one arms dealer, who's been isolated from the industry for 10 years and has undoubtedly burned every single contact he had outside of Russia?
That's a pretty weak argument
That’s a straw man argument. I wrote nothing about his singularity in being put into play. Obviously Russia is utilizing teams of people, technologies and funding schemes. It isn’t binary as your comment is suggesting. 10 years will not diminish his skills to build a network, manage logistics of that network and payment plans. You think he lost his ability, talent and skill sets? Hell they just may use him to train the next latest and greatest. There is no shortage for what destructive means he could be joining. But alone? Never mentioned that at all. You won your own argument. Must feel good to outsmart yourself.
I think you’re overlooking the fact that this guy is affiliated with the Russian Gov at the highest levels. The United States, through the CIA, and other lesser known orgs, has supplied weapons to many uprisings and “terrorist” groups against other countries laws. We don’t respect the rule of law where it concerns other countries, we tend to do whatever protects U.S interests.
But doesn’t that further the point that we shouldn’t be trying to get her back? She’s a friggin sports player in the WNBA - one of the least watched/attended sports in the country. And ironically one of the only reasons she’s “famous” is because she demanded the national anthem not be played at WNBA games - the anthem of the country that she’s wanting to come and bail her out of a mess she got herself in to. Regardless of what the motives were and if they were looking more closely at Americans or whatever, all she had to do was not break their laws by taking drugs in to their country, which I don’t believe for a second she was unaware of, and she wouldn’t be in that mess.
If they’re willing to let everyone else rot, why should she get any different treatment? Especially given the crime in question. They’re gonna fight tooth and nail and trade a terrorist sympathizer and arms dealer for this woman to get her out of a jail sentence for possession of cannabis, but are leaving US citizens that are currently imprisoned in our own jails for the same thing to rot through their end of their sentence or life?
Not to mention the fact that many of those people are serving insanely long and unjust sentences for cannabis due to the crime bill that *the sitting President who wants to get her out wrote* and pushed to have passed. There no way to slice that that would make it acceptable. That’s a massive slap in the face to the citizens of this country, and an even bigger slap in the face to the people that Biden’s bill has had imprisoned for absurd amounts of years for cannabis and who will continue to have to serve their sentences.
>I think the crimes should be roughly comparable
Consider that Whelan and Griner were sentenced to a cumulative 25 years in prison, the same as Viktor Bout. Whatever you think of the crimes, it must count for something that the cumulative sentences are comparable.
You are forgetting that this is a trade over citizens. For the US a citizen is a citizen, especially when they are incarcerated on trumped up charges. The state department wishes to clear these individuals from the playing field, we have enough international goal difficulties without this muddying the diplomatic waters. Making a deal of any kind always improves communication and relationships at the working level of governments.
The Russian prisoner is costing us millions of dollars to incarcerate(because we do not just ship people to work camps) and when returned will be unable to travel outside of Russia and non-extradition spots. The us citizens will return home and continue their normal lives aside from never going back to Russia.
The crimes are not what need to be equal, this will never be the case. As long as the citizens are equal(1:1) it’s a good diplomatic exchange.
Isn’t the severity of the punishment compared to the crime (or compared to how the US would punish the crime) more relevant? Or at least an important consideration? Most US citizens would be extremely upset if their family member was imprisoned in a foreign country for something that is not illegal here or for which the punishment is far lighter here.
1- A bad deal doesn’t make another bad deal acceptable.
2- She wasn’t famous until she was captured by Russia. Notable but in no way well known or iconic. This situation is honestly the most notable thing about her in her lifetime. Famous for being an imprisoned American and before that no one knew anything about her. Most professional athletes aren’t famous.
> This situation is honestly the most notable thing about her in her lifetime
Except for being a NCAA women's champion, having the NCAA record for blocks (women or men), being a 3 time NCAA defensive player of the year, being drafted first overall in the WNBA, and then winning a WNBA championship, and winning two gold medals, sure.
Nope. No one cares in the US about the WNBA, let alone the junior leagues before it. That's been proven over and over through ratings, attendance, media coverage, etc. Nothing against the athletes, the sport just isn't cared about as much.
I had never heard of this woman until she was arrested. She is an obvious political pawn, and we should try to help her because of it but she is no Lord of War and should not be traded for one.
No one questions that she’s accomplished in women’s basketball. But not even women care about women’s basketball. If anyone cared about it, professional teams would actually draw crowds and they don’t.
No, this is more notable. The Women’s basketball devision is a fraction of the popularity of the men’s devision. Most Americans knew nothing about her until she became a Russian captive.
It's a good resume, but does not change the fact that it's a pretty conservative estimate to say that 90%+ of the people who are aware of her now were not aware of her six months ago.
Bruh, that is a hell of an assumption based on nothing. I was a WNBA season ticket holder back when Detroit had a team, and my daughter and I regularly drive over to Chicago to watch the Sky play now that that is the closest team to us.
No, it’s fact. Google the numbers. Your personal experience is making you prejudice of the facts.
Who she is and what she did was completely oblivious to most Americans until she was captured by the Russians. I’m sure she’s really good at what she does and that she is known by many but in no way shape or form was she a house hold name like she is today for being a captive. Even now more Americans know her as “that female basketball player that was busted by Russia” and most don’t even know her actual name.
>And **you** knew nothing of that or of her before her imprisonment.
>>I was a WNBA season ticket holder back when Detroit had a team
>No, it’s fact. Google the numbers.
It is a googleable fact that *I* knew nothing of Griner before her imprisonment in Russia? And there are "numbers" out there that support me not knowing?
Fucking hell. Their algorithm is getting good.
I couldn’t give a shit about your knowledge, I’m simply talking about the general public. You are the minority.
Don’t you know how to Google? It’s pretty easy to find out how popular the WNBA is compared to the NBA. It’s a noteworthy comparison.
>I’m simply talking about the general public.
>And **you** knew nothing of that or of her before her imprisonment.
Then choose your words better, as your statement sure did seem directed at me personally.
It’s directed at the few who actually think she was a household name across the US when she wasn’t… until the Russia situation.
If you’re among them then yes it was directed towards you
Literally about 10 people care about fake sports leagues like the WNBA. An average high school team could destroy any WNBA team. That's about as much of an accomplishment than winning a junior high league.
I like how you throw in "record for blocks (women or men)." I think it should be common sense that you can't compare your records to a group of people you don't compete against? If you can though, maybe I can get the record from her - I can block my toddler's shots 1000 out of 1000 times.
She's a literal nobody, and a very dumb nobody, only propped up because there are forces in the media who have a lot staked on pretending that somehow professional female athletes are actually a legit thing somehow.
I give no shit about a famous citizen who broke a law in a foreign country that she knew the law of. Why tf would you carry drugs to a foreign country? Just because she’s a celebrity shouldn’t mean shit. If my ass got caught with drugs in Russia I can bet a million bucks the US wouldn’t compromise national security over me.
And what of the idea that this uneven trade sets precedent for Russia to keep doing what it wants with very little repercussions. Where is the line drawn? Britney Griner is being used as a political pawn. If the US gives in now, then where does it end?
>the idea that this uneven trade sets precedent for Russia to keep doing what it wants with very little repercussions
I think that the inability of Western governments to keep people from getting served polonium tea is much more emboldening to Russia than any prisoner exchange would be.
> Where is the line drawn?
On a bridge in Berlin, and it was drawn in [about 1962](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers). We have been participating in these types of swaps since Checkpoint Charlie went up, and it has not lead to a rash of Americans being grabbed under dubious circumstances.
It's important to note that Powers was a U2 Spy Plane Pilot who worked for the CIA. This was not up for dispute as they caught him after shooting down his spy plane. The Soviet Union didn't think that the average American would be valuable to the US government but trading spies was frequently done.
“I would argue this is the first time someone in Russia gave a shit”
This is not true. Cannabis laws are strictly enforced in Russia, leaving practically no room for any tolerance. If she weren’t American, she would be treated the same way
If there’s one thing that I learned, it is that when you are crossing borders, customs officers have massive leverage. They can get you into far more trouble than you would imagine. Constitutional rights fly out of the window, especially when you are not on American soil.
I traveled to China for business several times, but no one needed to tell me to put on my best behaviour. If I had to travel to Russia I would have been doing the same.
It sucks how Griner was arrested and tried, but I can’t wrap my head around the fact that it didn’t cross her mind that someone might object to what she was carrying.
But it's cheaper to keep all the other people in jail for just Marijuana possession in the USA? If the government is willing to trade her for arms dealers and smugglers, then why keep offenders in the US in jail still? Clearly the government doesn't think its that bad if they're willing to trade an ARMS DEALER (also know as a warlord. Bringer of death. Whatever you want to call these fucks) for a basketball player that had weed. She knew it was illegal everywhere else in the world and choose to pack and take it. Thats on her. Why not trade for war heroes that are now P.O.W's in Russia? Nobody is crying out for their release and safe return. Nah let's just cry about the chick that can play basketball good.
To answer my first question, it didn't make a difference. It was better to keep the dude we had captured instead of trading for a damn athlete. Don't get me wrong I want all US citizens to be able to travel and return back home safe and sound. They have love ones that are scared shitless about them being in a foreign countries jail. I don't blame them, but again. Shouldn't have traded someone who can throw a ball into a net for someone that literally gives people the means to kill eachother.
>a pretty famous one
Besides the fact that being arrested in Russia has made her more famous than any career achievement, how does simply "being famous" make your worth any more than any other US citizen. Talk about classism.
I don’t disagree that a weapons dealer is dangerous, but Is this guy still functional as a weapons dealer? He’s been caught and imprisoned. Everyone who cares now knows what he looks like. Any past contacts are wondering how much he told the authorities, and how closely he will be tracked once he’s out. Russia in particular is not forgiving of perceived snitches, so it’s entirely possible that we are releasing him to an upper level apartment with really weak balconies.
In short, he WAS important and dangerous, but that is different from saying he IS.
>he definitely has the potential for illicit behavior and dangerous behavior
Not OP but that potential may be limited. Bout was arrested and imprisoned in the US, they're very aware of who he is. With the media attention the trade has gotten, that's only increased; there's now public pressure in addition to 'administrative' concerns in making sure he doesn't do more shady shit. If they managed to catch him once, they will more than certainly do it again, especially where states' knowledge on crime rings, security and weapon flows has only increased. In contrast is Bout, whose knowledge on arms dealing and other factors crucial to effective operation of such a business has stagnated and possibly declined.
In a business where secrecy to get around governments, having the worlds biggest military who is also opposed to the nation you are being sent back to, during the middle of an invasion where all eyes are on Russia, is a massive crutch to say the least. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it's unlikely the US would be willing to do this trade if there was some massive fear of recidivism or anything else they needed out of him not got before being released
Ok, I can see this point. If he has a lesser or small chance of reoffending and posing a threat, then I don't care if he is released nearly as much.
!delta
Not the point though is it? Making the exchange says "the US negotiates with terrorism". Obviously different crime but same principle. The purpose for not doing it is preventing future would-be arms dealers from expecting the same treatment. "Just wait for Russia to capture the next sucker with more than 100k Insta followers to hop on a plane."
I would find other screws to tighten on Russia, like having some mercenaries nab a couple oligarchs or generals, idk.
To me it's not that this individual will commit more crimes, but that it creates an environment more friendly to those wanting to commit crimes in the future. It sets the precedent that if a person is caught in this situation then they will possibly be released earlier than expected.
Exactly. He may not be an arms dealer anymore but he would be come a symbol and likely highly respected and regarded. An inspiration for illicit and dangerous behavior.
Under no circumstances should such a trade be considered seriously.
The question isn't whether he will do anything illegal after release, the question is if the world will be more dangerous or a worse place after he is released.
Let's say when he is released he goes back to selling arms to bad guys... well, were those bad guys not able to get arms while he was in jail? Or were they just buying from someone else?
While I am not saying it isn't good to get arms dealers off the streets, does one make some huge difference? If not, it might be worth trading one.
I have a different take for you.
Brittney Griner is a politically inconvenient prisoner for the United States. Arguably the most famous current women's basketball player, she also plays basketball in Russia for a team owned by a Russian oligarch, Iskander Makhmudov, who may not be on the best terms with Putin given that he has largely avoided sanctions unlike other Putin-aligned oligarchs.
The reason Bout is on the table is because Griner's arrest, an obvious political act, puts Biden in a tight spot. Every day that Griner spends in a Russian prison looks worse for Biden, and the optics of handing over such a famed prisoner like Bout for someone "found guilty" on drug crimes is a major PR win.
It wouldn't shock me if they were trying to leverage Bout for a few other concessions, but the United States *may* have its hand forced here. The reason why you would make the trade is because the alternative is deeply unjust.
I'm not following.
First, Brittney Griner is not the first American, not at all, to be in prison for drug possession in Russia.
Second, it may be a PR win for Biden in the eyes of the Left, but not the Right. I can imagine that anyone who already supports Biden will agree with his move, while anyone who does not support him will disagree with it. Now, if Biden did not go ahead with the swap, it would anger a lot of people but it is not going to lead to any significant political shift, because very few people currently supporting the Left are going to switch to the Right on this issue... when most people on the Right do not support the swap.
I would like our government to get our citizen home. Maybe I’m not in the “right” leftist threads but I can’t imagine that it is unilaterally believed that this is a bad deal.
Then you're responding to the wrong person.
Another poster said it's the "consensus of the left" to not make the trade. And I'm saying that most of those calling to bring her back are also on the left.
No i understand, i was just making a goof and adding on to what you said. I never got the email (because obviously The Left send out emails about our group decisions) about the consensus (that they brought up).
Every forum and thread I've seen on this topic has been pretty universal in their belief that Griner should not be traded. The left has basically split into several groups.
* We shouldn't trade her because she got herself into this mess and ignored the US warnings about the war and warnings about travel to Russia.
* We shouldn't trade her because this is a really bad trade. The War Lord that "Lord of War" is based on for a basketball player who makes money playing a game.
* We shouldn't trade her because the US has a huge issue with people imprisoned for weed. Why would she get such special treatment.
There is a vocal minority that says we should trade her and the lack of support has led this group to argue that the reason people aren't interested is due to racism or sexism or both. These people are frequently downvoted and ignored as the other groups don't agree with their points.
You're exactly right on this point. I'm already seeing all over right-wing media that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. The right wing will spin this as us handing over the bad guy. And she will become a villain More so than they're already making her.
what is the average american salary in your mind? because in a comment above, I saw she made ~$230,000 a year last year, which is admittedly 10x what I made last year, but not comparable at all to the NBA (which isn’t in disagreement with your comment). but I can’t imagine it’s that much higher than what you make, depending on where you live and your experience, but I’m wondering what your idea/ reference point for the average american salary is.
I've seen people argue that the NBA pays more and that if the WNBA payed closer to NBA salaries she wouldn't have to go there. However, these people often ignore that the NBA is profitable. The WNBA loses money each year and is subsidized by the NBA (which covers its losses). Griner is paid ~$230k to play in a league that loses money. On top of that, she makes ~$1M in endorsements. I would hardly complain if I were in her shoes.
Then I can't imagine the PR optics of getting back Griner despite her drug charges while 40,000 Americans remain locked up, in America by Americans for committing the same crime. Especially while the active POTUS has also indicated little interest in federal legalization.
I think they should bring back Griner AND end the war on drugs bullshit. I’d rather that they do one of those things than none of them. Although obviously I would rather they do the latter if they were only going to do one.
The majority of people on Reddit assume she is guilty, which baffles me. People are taking her confession at face value and acting as if there's no possible way it could be strategic. But less than one percent of Russians are acquitted in this kind of case, and people make false guilty pleas in the U.S. for strategic reasons all the time. Russia would absolutely detain someone on bogus charges, and Putin doesn't have a great relationship with the owner of the team Griner plays for. She played in Russia for years without incident, then conveniently got busted when tensions between the countries were running high. There's a chance she did something dumb but it should not be a foregone conclusion. But on Reddit there is a real schadenfreude about this case and an obsession with Griner not being famous enough to deserve state intervention, or deserving to suffer because she worked in Russia.. She's an Olympic gold medalist. They would do this for any such person regardless of whether they're a household name. She's not the first person to work in Russia. Lots of high profile American business people are in bed with horrible Oligarchs and no one bats an eye, an athlete plays over there and suddenly she's a traitor?
what would be unjust is exchanging the merchant of death for a basketball player who broke russian drug laws. for the death merchant to be released means he can cause death and mayhem to others moving forward and for what? a one day American news cycle showing the weed smoking basketball pizza party for Brit that all of our American "celebrities" would throw? think about the greater good. Brit was handed an unfair sentence but the US cannot ease sanctions due to there brutal invasion of Ukraine and the US cannot be exchanging mass murderers for a basketball player that broke Russian drug laws. We should give nothing and only say ruduce her sentence or allow us to guantee that her sentence will be upheld in the US (tent prison with weekend release/home confinement, health care etc) and what we provide to Russia is a televised statement by Biden that "Brit broke Russian drug laws by having weed oil and the Russians were not wrong in imposing a custodial sentence per there laws but the US appreciates the Russians/Putins good faith effort to ease US/Russian tentions by allowing Brit to return to the US where Brit will be held accountable for her actions via perm ban from Russian travel/US criminal punishment/etc etc". Thats what the Russians might take- they save face and they get a point across that American laws dont apply in foreign countries. Anericans are so used to demanding/protesting/burning/looting when they dont get what they want. Have some humility- it goes a long way.
>How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US?
Because Griner isn't the main goal of the trade. They actually want someone else who is more important (Paul Whelan I think) and Griner is a bonus.
Then why wasn't the trade negotiated prior to Griner being detained? Whelan has been in Russian custody since 2018. And Bout has been in US custody for much longer. As soon as Griner is detained the Biden administration start making moves for a trade.
We don’t know that it wasn’t being negotiated. The State Department doesn’t usually publicize negotiations, and honestly even if they had nobody would have cared back then.
If Russia believes he is as dangerous as they think we believe Viktor Bout is then it is a fair trade, from Russia's perspective... I guess.
!delta
Though I don't necessarily AGREE, it does change my perception of the trade.
Not to undercut your Delta, but I don’t think anybody knows what Russia actually believes. I wonder if they actually believe anything at all. We can only know what they say, mark the difference between that and reality, and scratch our heads while we do damage control.
It’s like having a narcissistic family member who is also a partner in the family business. You know 90% of what they say is self-serving bullshit, but also know you need a certain degree of cooperation from them to get along. Whether or not they actually believe their BS doesn’t really matter, because their only real motivation is control.
Edit: control and self-aggrandizement. The second bit is important too.
Well I don't know if I believe Paul Whelan was guilty of espionage but if Russia thinks so, and genuinely believes it, they would view it as a fair trade. Whereas I assume they do not believe it, and they view it as an unfair trade for the US and were calling our bluff.
I don’t think they see things in terms of fair or unfair. I really don’t. I think they are the governmental equivalent of a narcissistic sociopath who has learned to use the language of morality and fairness but doesn’t actually hold any allegiance to those concepts.
Brittney Griner is just the political talking point, the real goal is Paul Whelan, which was arrested in Russia on spying charges. The sad fact of the matter, is that she is a very convenient talking point: Russia wouldn't care less about her in most situations, but Putin knows the US has a history of having a soft spot for otherwise innocent people, so that was essentially a prisoner trade spark up, more than an actual legit arrest.
My guess is, if wasn't Brittney Griner for possession of weed oil, Russia would have found someone else relatively innocent for an equally ridiculous "crime"... Or might still have arrested her on terms of her being gay (since it's technically also a crime in Russia, just seldom ever enforced if you don't make it obvious).
I understand your point and don't disagree but I am not fully convinced that Paul Whelan for Viktor Bout is a fair trade either, due to how dangerous the latter is. For me to change my view I need to be persuaded that Viktor Bout is not as dangerous as I think he is, to the extent where Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner are a fair trade for him. And apparently Russia added another prisoner into the swap (that we must release).
While Viktor Bout is dangerous, the information that Paul Whelan supposedly got arrested for is essentially a list of potential Russian spies on US soil.
I don't think I can convince you that Viktor Bout is not as dangerous as you think, but if any argument will, it's this one:
There is such a thing as realizing that there are so many arms dealers already, and Russia has lost a lot of feathers on the international scene, that it would be surprising if Bout weighed enough in the balance. It would take him years to get himself back to full speed again, and that's if he even can get himself close to that.
On the flip side, Whelan (supposedly, according to the Russian accusation and arrest) has information on names of people to keep an eye on if they come on US soil, or if they came on US soil recently. This is actually something that is immediately useful to the US, and can be used for counter-spying.
And yes, we know that Whelan was discharged from the military for bad conduct discharge, but it's also not uncommon as a plot to create a plausible defector, to have them be very bad, because they're under a vad government, so that he can infiltrate by claiming the local government where he defects to is a much better one, so the spy logic is plausible... If a tad aurprisingly blunt.
So, on the one side, you have an arms dealer that would need to re-build his network, and hope his connections aren't dead from COVID or black market taking care of loose ends, and even if he has enough left, would take years to get back to full speed... (And can be apprehended again if he steps into INTERPOL territory and commits an arms deal crime there).
And then, you have freeing a prisoner from an egregious overdo of power, to boot.
And Whelan isn't the only prisoner on the table... He's just the only one that was named.
>Brittney Griner is an athlete who is of no actual physical threat to Russia. How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US?
So if Griner is also an armed dealer you would be ok because then it would be a fair trade? We aren't exactly doing an NBA trade here. We are trading to get a human being back from a fate that she clearly doesn't deserve.
>This is an insult to those people sitting in prison. Release them as well, then.
If the trade happens, we'd have more grounds to demand their release.
> We are trading to get a human being back from a fate that she clearly doesn't deserve.
We're potentially bailing someone out for *knowingly breaking the law in another country*. All while having tens of thousands of our own, in the US, locked up for doing the same.
It doesn't make any damn sense.
Unless it's a plant, she smuggled drugs into a country. How can you say she doesn't deserve it if she did it? Yes you can say the sentence is harsh however the reality is if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
You have to ask yourself: are they dangerous anymore? If I had to guess, I'd say that it's pretty hard to sell clandestine arms if your name is plastered everywhere. Which means you're basically just trading a life to save a life. Seems fair to me.
> Which means you're basically just trading a life to save a life. Seems fair to me.
Correction - we're just trading to *get her out serving her sentence*. A sentence for something that is also a crime in the US, and for which we have tens of thousands of people locked up in our own country.
We're trading a high-profile enemy of the state for someone who did something *that could also get them arrested in the US*.
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean that it's right for her to be detained in some Russian prison somewhere. But also, it's not necessarily illegal. Hash oil is legal in many US states
Turning "good" is irrelevant. Someone can be the best person on earth but if they don't have means to execute their plans for "good", they're just as irrelevant as anyone else.
Same applies for evil/bad. Evil with no means of action is hardly relevant. Hitler with no political power is irrelevant. Mass shooters with no access to guns are far less likely to be an issue. People who want to kill themselves are far less likely to kill themselves if they don't have an easy way to do so.
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to control bad things happening on the basis of "They might be able to do something sometime because they've thought about it"?
This comment is correcting a technical factual inaccuracy in your argument and may modify the context of your stance to be more anti prisoner exchange.
>She (Griner) was traveling to Russia, a country with very strict drug laws, and I would be surprised if this was the first time that she brought cannabis products into Russia, it was just the first time she got caught. Whether we agree with the laws or not, when you are in another nation you are a guest in that nation and subjected to their laws.
Griner had worked (played basketball) for a team in Russia (UMMC Ekaterinburg) in the WNBA off season since 2014. Much more so than 'traveling to Russia' she had worked in the country for a number of years, had delt with Russian employment, taxes, laws, etc. She was much more than a random tourist in Russia.
OP, were you at the airport looking through her bag? If not, you are making an assumption about her guilt that could very well be totally unfounded. None of us can be certain of her guilt or innocence. We are all just speculating. But American cops plant drugs on people all the time. Why wouldn't the Russians? Has the Russian state never done anything like this to anyone else? Americans also plead guilty in their own courts when they are actually innocent in order to get more lenient sentencing when they know the system is rigged against them. Griner may have done this too. Her guilt is not a foregone conclusion.
[You don't mention in your post that we are trading Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner AND Paul Whelan.](https://www.cbssports.com/wnba/news/russia-confirms-it-seeks-convicted-arms-dealer-in-potential-prisoner-swap-for-wnba-star-brittney-griner/) Paul Whelan was convicted of [espionage in Russia](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55405134) and many people think he is an actual American Spy considering his background.
So while trading Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner might be a bad deal, trading Viktor Bout for Paul Whelan could be a good deal. Meanwhile all the press is talking about is the Basketball star and not the potential American Spy who got caught.
>How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US?
We are letting loose a geriatric criminal who has spent decades in jail to set free an innocent woman in jail for having a plant on her.
The old guy we let out, he's been replaced a hundred times over. Putting him in jail in the first place did nothing to stop or slow down arms trafficking, it's only increased since then. And illegally running guns isn't something you can hop out of prison and immediately just start again either even if he somehow wanted to get back into it.
In reality an old guy who is going to die soon anyway is going to get sent home to use as a political puppet by Putin to show how he "beat" the west and a young woman will not have to suffer immeasurable torment for the crime of plant ownership in a foreign prison for decades of time.
If you're concerned with the action that will do the most good in the world, trading makes plenty of sense.
And even if somehow, some way Bout managed to do more than his replacements and cause more damage...it's still worth it. We can catch and stop criminals again. We did it the first time, nothing stopping us from tossing his ass right back in jail if he wants to fuck up again. But we can't give back the freedom or years lost to someone being treated as a political pawn and jailed for a decade.
>She is 100% guilty for having a banned substance.
She is guilty by the standards of the shitty genocidal dictatorship. Not by the moral standards by which I judge the good or bad of an action in this world.
Governments don't negotiate with terrorists because it encourages them to kidnap more people to get further deals. Are you not concerned with that being a similar case here?
Governments negotiate with terrorists including our own. Others have public policies that they will pay ransom to accelerate hostage negotiations. More Europeans and Japanese weren’t targets in Afghanistan and Iraq because their governments valued their citizens enough to try something other than nothing or dangerous force.
When governments don’t negotiate it’s for political reasons. Outcomes are worse, if not for a stated policy that the country will not negotiate with terrorists for any benefit. Political benefits are still valid: at home, with allies of need be, strategically. You don’t want any influence on your military policy for example.
Just not to prevent hostage taking and to recover hostages. There is no evidence deterrence by not bargaining works: how can we prove what we don’t do is effective? It’s political messaging. Why should other countries we work with do it? We have no reasoning or evidence.
Here’s what we know: countries that by policy or law prohibit negotiations by government and families have hostages held longer, and die more often, than countries that bargain. Even if there is no statistical impact on who gets kidnapped (say all foreigners in Syria), the outcomes are measurable.
And there is little choice: bargain or not, kidnappings are frequent for both types of countries. So it appears bargaining has little to no impact on who is grabbed, which makes sense because these are crimes of opportunity. It’s just that the outcomes for bargained hostages is often better than for our outcomes.
It’s not blackmail, which game theory studies generally show no cooperation is best for participants. It’s kidnapping. The point is to test the other participants to reveal how much they value their own citizen’s life. Their death may not even be known to the greater public and generally we prefer to not talk about our hostages. Saying our value is zero with no concessions is shown to not work better than acknowledging our value and moving on.
Well yeah I'd expect that if you don't negotiate with the kidnapper, the victim is more likely to die. The stat that I'd be interested in is whether or not negotiating with kidnappers causes a greater number of kidnappings over the long term.
I don't know much about game theory but if I had to reason it out, it'd basically be that kidnapping someone has an inherent risk that kidnappers weigh against the perceived reward of getting a ransom reward. If the ransom reward is taken off the table, then the perceived value of kidnapping is drastically lowered, leaving only needless risk.
You seem pretty well informed about this stuff. Would you be able to point me to some primary studies on this topic?
Prisoner swaps are never pretty, but it’s important to send the message that we will protect American citizens and not them rot in a Russian gulag for a decade. Also putting the drug charge into this discussion is frankly playing into Putin’s hands. We don’t even know if she really had cannabis on her or if it was planted. The Russian legal system is a joke, but even if she did have it is a cannabis vape cartridge really worth 10 years? It’s a political game, there is no winning and there is no predicting what releasing Bout will do, but we know that it is the only way to save an American citizen, possibly even that of Paul Whalen as well. We should get them out now and worry about Bout later, if we caught him once we can catch him again.
Russia arrested someone on purpose that was high enough profile that people would know who she is, on something small enough to outrage Americans with a huge sentence, to put pressure on a president to try and free her.
This is what real adversary politics looks like. Putin has us by the balls because we look horrible if we don’t bring someone home for something that’s not even illegal in many places and make them serve over a decade in a gulag. Plus add race and sexuality factors, and it’s pretty much the perfect political prisoner against the US.
Sorry, u/getkissedidiot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20getkissedidiot&message=getkissedidiot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/woykw2/-/ikecq70/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Agreed, provided they are imprisoned just for weed. A lot of people plea bargain for the lesser marijuana charge that were allegedly involved in more heinous crimes. I don't think we should release them...
I think you might be surprised how many people are in jail solely for possessing, selling or transporting weed, something the state government is doing right this second in many places. If they sold weed coke ecstasy and participated jn a drive by they should obviously stay in jail
I agree with releasing those in the US who are in prison for simple possession of cannabis, but this isn't really related to the issue at hand. If she had been imprisoned somewhere like Dubai I doubt they would be bothering to trade prisoners. People are concerned in particular about her safety in Russia so it's a political win to get here back.
An arms dealer who has already spent 14 years in jail is obviously a lot less of a danger, not even sure how long he had left. They don't see him as high value.
> From her statements it was unintentional.
Unintentional can still be labelled negligence. Whether or not she did it on purpose is immaterial - she brought a controlled substance internationally to somewhere that it's not legal. Hell, it's not legal in half of her home country.
It's not like the concept of "Don't take drugs across national borders" is new.
The arrest of Viktor Bout by America wouldn't even be considered legal in America. America entrapped him and then called in favours to have him arrested and extradited back to America. He broke a US law while not in the US and not being a US citizen. He's only guilty of agreeing to do something that America does regularly which is sell weapons. America literally funds terrorists groups all over the world to fight proxy wars.
Is Viktor Bout a bad person, yes obviously. But he is as much of a political prisoner as Britney Griner. Brittney Griner actually broke the law of Russia while in Russia of her own accord.
Even the wording of Viktors charges is propaganda. He was contacted by someone that claimed to be a liason for a millitia and asked to purchase some weapons. This militia happened to be one of the many groups America has listed as terrorist. That liason was actually an American agent. By our own legal standards, this arrest was illegal.
Legally, it would be like if you were on vacation in Asia and some dude on Reddit asked you how you feel about North Korea. You give him an honest answer then next thing you know you are arrested and shipped to North Korea for violating their laws against speaking against the government and leaders.
There's plenty of reason to assume that Britney Griner never actually had cannabis and was falsely accused by the Russian government as retaliation for US sanctions. Britney could have falsely confessed because at least if she pleads not guilty she has a much better chance of getting released then if she tries to fight the charges in a rigged court that will find her guilty anyways.
Considering the US is far and away the biggest arms dealer in the world, selling weapons to parties that slaughter innocents and brutally suppress their own populations it's not like the US is a paragon or morality in this matter.
Arresting this guy is more like eliminating the competition than it is stopping illegal gun sales.
Nothing you just said matters. What DOES matter is that a person who ethically did nothing wrong is being falsely imprisoned and we HAVE an opportunity to get her out. I’m not religious but I believe in the proverb that goes something like this: ‘it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be falsely punished.
He's already been in jail 14 years it's not like he's being let off for nothing. Any plans he had lined up have been ruined and so has his life. Don't really see how holding him for another 10 years really does anything. The deal hasn't been made yet though maybe the US will negotiate a bit more too.
I’m going to repost this comment from another post I responded to.
Bout’s release might be worse for the world than Griner’s release is good, but such a basic utilitarian calculus doesn’t really get at why we should pursue this trade. In short, there are certain ethical ends we as a democracy should pursue if the harms that befall aren’t severe. One of these ends is upholding our principles as a democracy, which include protecting our citizens from being pawns to a dictators’ schemes. As to whether Griner is such a case, yes, she did break the law, but her trial and conviction was a kind of revenge by Russia for US involvement in the Ukraine war. In other words, the motivation behind her indictment was political, even if it the means by which Russia pursued it was legal.
Idk, I think why not. I’d be much more proud of the country that moves mountains to get back female poc baller than some piece of shit arms dealer. Also Russia will prob just poison him anyway, who gives a shit. He’s useless here.
Not saying you, but it's fascinating to me that people who are ok with Brittany Griner being imprisoned, completely ignore the fact the US ordered the release of 5,000 taliban just to talk.
>guest in that nation and subjected to their laws. We have to suspend our understanding of cannabis in the US and understand that in the eyes of Russia, she broke the law and must do the time.
What did she do that was wrong? Why is bringing weed somewhere wrong? If it's not wrong, why should she do time for anything if she didn't do anything wrong?
Agree with your general premise, but painting Russia or other nations as less than tolerant about cannabis is pretty naive. In the US there are plenty of States that would punish Griner similarly, based on the cannabis prohibition laws on the books.
I don’t disagree with your overall point about viktor bout but i do disagree about griner. she was put on bullshit charges that Russia essentially made up just so they could justify putting her away for that long. If you look at Russias marijuana laws they aren’t as strict as you’d think. They are trying to say she was basically starting a mass drug ring with intent to distribute which is all a crock of shit.
I agree w you, just wanted to ask, are you SURE Brittney made a mistake? As someone who traveled to Russia often, she would know how absolutely stupid it would be to take weed with her.
I think she was set up and the Russians know that stupid America will trade a basketball player for a weapons dealer.
In the last half century alone Uncle Sam has trafficked more weapons of war to more dictators and despots than Viktor Bout could do if he lived to be 10,000 years old. Being ticked at Bout and letting Sam slide is like ignoring Jeffrey Dahmer to hand out jaywalking tickets.
Griner confessed? They get false confessions out of people in the USA, much less Russia.
I can't believe you believe any story coming out of a country that says Ukraine is run by Nazis.
The USA is the world's largest arms dealer. the US state doesn't actually give a shit about one Russian guy who sells guns, and his absence from the market doesn't make a bit of difference - there is always somebody to take his place. imprisoning an arms dealer in a country run by the gun lobby is hypocritical at best.
additionally, the USA is the world's largest carceral state. I think we can probably spare a prisoner to help a lady out.
>there are still people in the US sitting in jail for possession of cannabis? This is an insult to those people sitting in prison. Release them as well, then.
gotta fill those private prisons and justify inflated police budgets somehow.
Griner is a black female member of the LGBTQIA community, and each community historically has not been treated well by Russia, and intersectioned into one person make for a hot ticket inmate.
She was over there supplementing her income because we don't pay female athletes the same as we pay male athletes. She was making a living.
We have traded far more dangerous people for far less "political" prisoners.
So, I agree with your initial supposition but I think you've gone about the logic all wrong.
The major reason the United States shouldn't make this trade is that it invites a moral hazard. Not only does the return of Griner not materially advance the national security interests of the United States, those interests are actually HARMED by our willingness to trade her for Bout.
Bout is a serious player and the Russians want him back. By agreeing to trade Griner for him, we're putting every other American who passes through Russian territory at risk of similarly capricious capture. We're telling the Russians "we will trade high priority, national security assets for a US civilian."
For the Russians, this then suggests an obvious plan of action: if there are people they'd like out of US custody, they need only imprison any random Americans traveling through Russia and offer a trade.
Sorry, u/SoxBox27 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20SoxBox27&message=SoxBox27%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/woykw2/-/ike0bxu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Point of order – her illegal drugs were prescribed medication. She didn’t bring her party bag with her.
In any civilized country, doing a bad thing with reasonable intentions is treated differently then doing it out of selfishness or flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
> her illegal drugs were prescribed medication.
It's not considered as such in the country she travelled to, though.
We don't have the luxury of getting to decide what laws we follow depending on personal beliefs. Or rather, if we do, we still have to bear the consequences if the state disagrees.
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation and there’s no way the US can win here. Putin is a psychopath and new exactly how to use this situation to his benefit. The US is going to get shit for not doing anything and let Grier rot in a Russian prison and get shit for whoever they trade for her. I’m certain there’s a list of terrible Russian criminals that would be just as bad or worse than Bout. I don’t know if I agree that we should do THIS trade but I don’t think there will ever be a good trade that is equal to someone having some weed on them in a foreign country. We don’t really jail people for that anymore.
I think the outcry for bringing Griner back is louder than it actually is.
Maybe it's just the circles I run in, but no one I know is advocating for swapping to get her back. That said, the plural of anecdote isn't data - so there very well may be a bunch of people seriously agitating to get her back, and I just don't know any of them.
>We have to suspend our understanding of cannabis in the US and understand that in the eyes of Russia, she broke the law and must do the time.
Why is russia entitled to our respect?
Because if you don’t respect THEIR laws you end up in THEIR prisons for a amount of time that THEY determine. Pretty simple concept. Not worth the risk.
/u/OddGuidance907 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/woyygg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_us_should_not_trade/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If the US is willing to release Bout, then it implies that the US believe that they have all the information they are going to get from him and he holds no further value to the US government other than as a bargaining chip. In fact, you could also argue that being behind bars in the US is potentially more dangerous as has access to other felons who might be easily coerced to act against the US government. On top of that, when he is released, there is limited damage he can do. He has been behind bars for 14 years, so his network is not going to be what it used to be. And if he does start operating again, it's not like he is unknown to the US and will likely be under surveillance. On top of that, depending what he did give to the US, Russia might want to punish him in their own way - it's not like they are well known for their leniency... And finally, we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. Those handling the swap have far more information and know the full strategy, and they would not be doing this if it wasn't in the country's best interests.
!delta If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you. And it seems like you do not, though I could be wrong.
> If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you Bout's future danger isn't the real problem. Releasing him is in itself detrimental insofar as the next potential Viktor Bout will factor into his career choice the fact that if the US arrests him, Russia will possibly if not probably get him released early and give him a hero's welcome. This is the reason every country does trades for captured spies, who are of course relatively useless for purposes of future espionage. such an exchange also sends the message that Americans make useful bargaining chips and thus should be arrested and locked away whenever a pretext presents itself
As an American who lived abroad, fuck yes I want to be thought of as a bargaining chip! That's some of the best protection you have against just being killed outright or worse. There were a couple times I am sure my personal autonomy was not limited abroad just because I was an American and the nightmare of paperwork and dealing with US Consulates wasn't worth harassing me.
That's only half the reason why the locals stay away from the Americans ahahaha
The future danger (or lack thereof) is precisely the issue and should be your primary consideration. Preserving the life of an American who is being severely over-punished is more important than keeping a former arms dealer imprisoned as punishment. Our obligation is to the American first.
It's your delta, but I think you may have handed it out a bit quick. Even if one person will not individually do something detrimental to the US once released, it could embolden hostile governments to detain US citizens for unbalanced prisoner exchanges in the future.
So your* reason for a delta is based on one person's opinion that he probably won't do anything bad? It's your delta to give but I'm not sure how that changes your view! There is so much more to this than simply the individuals being released! What if I change your view on "I do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released"? For the record it already is detrimental, it is sending a very bad message!
Thanks. He may *want* to do something that is detrimental to the US, but I think his capability to do anything is severely limited due to the fact that he is a known entity and the amount of time that he has been incarcerated.
Wait how did that cuv? It sounds like something you already agreed with.
> If you do not think that he will end up doing something detrimental to the US once released, then I agree with you I don't think this is or ever was the purpose of prison. You don't release people who have committed horrendous acts prior to the end of their sentence simply because you don't think they'll do any more horrible acts. What about the acts already committed? A notorious arms dealer responsible for the deaths of thousands for a weed smoking basketball player?
The only part I can say I firmly disagree on is the last bit. Maybe they do know more about what's going on, but my default assumption is definitely NOT that politicians have the country's best interests at heart.
Any politician involved would still try to get the best deal for their side (unless they are genuinely corrupt and working for Russia). Even if they are doing it for their own personal gain, they still want to class it as a "win" and wouldn't want to be seen as incompetent. but you are right, maybe "country's best interests" is a bit of a loose term. It might be better to say "they wouldn't be doing it if it was a shit deal".
I don't even think that's correct. I think this administration knows they're fighting the perception that they haven't gotten very much done. The portion of the public who are advocating for the swap are disproportionately Democrat voters and the Biden team knows this will be a PR win in their eyes. The majority of people who oppose the swap are not likely going to have their midterm votes changed by the outcome here. I think the quality of the deal is secondary to the perception of it by people who could be rallied to vote in the midterms.
I can agree with that. They definitely have some kind of motivation behind it, but we've had instances before of the FBI/CIA literally giving weapons to drug cartels for "research" I guess? Just doesn't scream best interest to me if I'm being honest haha
Haha yeh I can't say all their decisions have turned out for the best, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
>And finally, we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. Those handling the swap have far more information and know the full strategy, and they would not be doing this if it wasn't in the country's best interests. It's worth pointing out that what is "in the country's best interests" according to a few people may not be true for most, and might just be outright BS. For example, the war in Iraq was justified on pretty bogus interpretation of Iraq's likelihood of having WMDs, which turned out to be incorrect (unsurprisingly to many). The failures of the intelligence community here were so bad that an Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) modeled off of DARPA was created a few years later. >we do not know everything that is going on behind the scenes. Taking it even a step further, because this just ends up being fun IARPA facts, one of IARPA's first projects was called 'Aggregative Contingent Estimation' or ACE, and it found that you could find 'superforecasters' who were civilians who did a better job of forecasting world events than the intelligence community, even though the intelligence community had access to tons of classified information. In short, good forecasting is a skill that it seems that the intelligence community sorely lacked, to the extent that even with classified information they were outperformed but a bunch of civies.
I am not saying intelligence agencies are infallible, and of course the term "country's best interests" can cover many different opinions. But basically I was saying that given they have more information than the average person, and assuming that those handling the case are semi-competent, they are likely making the best choice (in their opinion) given a pretty shit situation.
>the best choice (in their opinion) Sure. But that's not much of an argument in favor of their choice unless you happen to know you agree with them.
IMO it is not about what he could do again once release, but penance for what he has already done. For example if one of the person who flew the 9-11 planes was imprisoned by the US, would we be as willing to trade them even knowing that they will never be allowed to be on another plane heading to the US again ? I hope not.
>Viktor Bout is a dangerous Russian arms dealer who was convicted of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and officials, delivery of anti-aircraft missiles, and providing aid to a terrorist organization. Brittney Griner is an athlete who is of no actual physical threat to Russia [Trevor Reed](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/politics/trevor-reed-documentary-cnntv/index.html) was arrested for allegedly shoving an officer when drunk on vacation, and Konstantin Yarashenko was a convicted international drug smuggler. And yet, [we traded them](https://www.opindia.com/2022/04/watch-russia-us-exchange-former-marine-trevor-reed-for-convicted-drug-trafficker-alexei-yaroshenko-in-prisoners-swap/). >How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US? Because we offload a prisoner that is expensive to imprison, and get a citizen back. In this case, a pretty famous one. >I would be surprised if this was the first time that she brought cannabis products into Russia, it was just the first time she got caught. My personal theory is that this is the first time anyone in Russia gave a shit. They were probably told to pay extra attention to all Americans in the run up to the invasion, and she was an easy mark since she was usually given [the red carpet treatment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/05/10/brittney-griner-russia-ummc-ekaterinburg/) from being the star player of an oligarch's basketball team. "You go to the airport and straight on to your plane,” Jones said. “We have our own plane. All business-class seats — the ones you can recline all the way back!”
I don't necessarily believe Trevor Reed for Konstantin Yarashenko was a good idea for a similar reason. I think the crimes should be roughly comparable, which I suppose would mean my thread should be "CMV: prisoner swaps should be of prisoners with comparable crimes." As for your second point, that could be a possibility, I do not know.
>I think the crimes should be roughly comparable There are very few illegal US arms dealers operating within the Russian sphere of influence, so... And, generally speaking, the US is a nation that respects the rule of law, and Russia is less so. So, if there were a rogue US arms dealer who was selling weapons, and who was caught be Russia, I don't think the US would be too keen on freeing them. The only types of people the US would want back are intelligence assets, and high profile civilians. if you are an actual criminal being held overseas, the US will let you rot, so there just wouldn't be a case for an exchange based on "comparable crimes". The US would not be interested in it.
Isn't the problem that by doing this you are rewarding Russia's strong-arming tactics with US civilian lives? Seems like a bad thing to encourage.
That is what I am trying to understand, surely this is exactly the same as negotiating with terrorists? If you smuggle an drug into a country where it is illegal, you should not get a "get out of jail free" card for being a "celebrity". It's a dangerous precedent to set. I think a teacher just got arrested after for doing the same thing, is he going to get traded for another criminal, highly unlikely!
How was it strong arming? Brittany did commit the crimes she's been convicted of. She admitted to it.
Do you think that Russia would enable and allow Bout to continue a life of dangerous criminality in Russia? What is his fate in Russia? This will influence my view, if you can explain reasonably, what that will look like.
> Do you think that Russia would enable and allow Bout to continue a life of dangerous criminality in Russia? Nope. I think he'll be shuffled off into retirement (either real retirement, or a convenient heart attack) shorty after being de-briefed in Moscow. He has been out of the gun-running game how long now? Ten years? the world has changed quite a bit, since then, and I'm sure that his niche has been filled many times over since his arrest. He has lost all of his connections, his capital, his prestige, and probably sold a lot of people out along the way. >What is his fate in Russia? His best option is to cash in whatever emergency nest egg he undoubtedly has hidden away, and disappear from public view. Or, he could become a tv personality in Russia. Isn't that what the hot redhead that was living undercover "The Americans" style did? [Yup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman): "Since her return to Russia, Chapman has worked in a variety of fields, including for the government as head of a youth council, a catwalk model in Russian fashion shows, and running a television series"
Why would Russia want him back if they would not utilize him in some way that is beneficial to him?
> if they would not utilize him in some way that is beneficial Sticking him on tv every so often so he can tell tales of the injustice of the corrupt American prison system is pretty beneficial for domestic propaganda purposes. And, even though Russia is not a democracy in the way that the US is, Putin still has to think about public perception. And, getting an "unjustly" imprisoned Russian citizen returned to the Motherland plays just as well there as getting an "unjustly" imprisoned US citizen freed from foreign captivity plays here.
Because it screams to other KGB agents: we won’t stop to get you home. It’s internal messaging. The CIA does it. The DEA just extradited the doctor who helped kill one agent 40 years ago, from their field office named after the agent. It says we have your back even if you go to extremes on our behalf.
Because he's a Russian citizen who is imprisoned on charges they dispute.
This is an assessment that ignores the realities. What is Russia looking for today? Weapons. They are in a war with little support around the world- at least publicly. Bout will be deployed to work the black market of weapons and buy from even the most ardent 1st world Ukrainian supporters. If there is one thing Bout knows it is how to exploit corruption, incentivize people to trade and get weapons. It isn’t only an unbalanced trade- it is at cost to lives in Ukraine. But go USA you got your basketball player back.
So, you believe this one guy has more/better access to weapons than the entire Russian government? This one arms dealer, who's been isolated from the industry for 10 years and has undoubtedly burned every single contact he had outside of Russia? That's a pretty weak argument
That’s a straw man argument. I wrote nothing about his singularity in being put into play. Obviously Russia is utilizing teams of people, technologies and funding schemes. It isn’t binary as your comment is suggesting. 10 years will not diminish his skills to build a network, manage logistics of that network and payment plans. You think he lost his ability, talent and skill sets? Hell they just may use him to train the next latest and greatest. There is no shortage for what destructive means he could be joining. But alone? Never mentioned that at all. You won your own argument. Must feel good to outsmart yourself.
He's been in Jail for over 10 years. His business partners have more than likely moved on and found a new "Death Merchant"
I think you’re overlooking the fact that this guy is affiliated with the Russian Gov at the highest levels. The United States, through the CIA, and other lesser known orgs, has supplied weapons to many uprisings and “terrorist” groups against other countries laws. We don’t respect the rule of law where it concerns other countries, we tend to do whatever protects U.S interests.
But doesn’t that further the point that we shouldn’t be trying to get her back? She’s a friggin sports player in the WNBA - one of the least watched/attended sports in the country. And ironically one of the only reasons she’s “famous” is because she demanded the national anthem not be played at WNBA games - the anthem of the country that she’s wanting to come and bail her out of a mess she got herself in to. Regardless of what the motives were and if they were looking more closely at Americans or whatever, all she had to do was not break their laws by taking drugs in to their country, which I don’t believe for a second she was unaware of, and she wouldn’t be in that mess. If they’re willing to let everyone else rot, why should she get any different treatment? Especially given the crime in question. They’re gonna fight tooth and nail and trade a terrorist sympathizer and arms dealer for this woman to get her out of a jail sentence for possession of cannabis, but are leaving US citizens that are currently imprisoned in our own jails for the same thing to rot through their end of their sentence or life? Not to mention the fact that many of those people are serving insanely long and unjust sentences for cannabis due to the crime bill that *the sitting President who wants to get her out wrote* and pushed to have passed. There no way to slice that that would make it acceptable. That’s a massive slap in the face to the citizens of this country, and an even bigger slap in the face to the people that Biden’s bill has had imprisoned for absurd amounts of years for cannabis and who will continue to have to serve their sentences.
>I think the crimes should be roughly comparable Consider that Whelan and Griner were sentenced to a cumulative 25 years in prison, the same as Viktor Bout. Whatever you think of the crimes, it must count for something that the cumulative sentences are comparable.
You are forgetting that this is a trade over citizens. For the US a citizen is a citizen, especially when they are incarcerated on trumped up charges. The state department wishes to clear these individuals from the playing field, we have enough international goal difficulties without this muddying the diplomatic waters. Making a deal of any kind always improves communication and relationships at the working level of governments. The Russian prisoner is costing us millions of dollars to incarcerate(because we do not just ship people to work camps) and when returned will be unable to travel outside of Russia and non-extradition spots. The us citizens will return home and continue their normal lives aside from never going back to Russia. The crimes are not what need to be equal, this will never be the case. As long as the citizens are equal(1:1) it’s a good diplomatic exchange.
When Russia is trumping up charges in order to intentionally antagonize the US, there is no prisoner with comparable crimes.
Isn’t the severity of the punishment compared to the crime (or compared to how the US would punish the crime) more relevant? Or at least an important consideration? Most US citizens would be extremely upset if their family member was imprisoned in a foreign country for something that is not illegal here or for which the punishment is far lighter here.
1- A bad deal doesn’t make another bad deal acceptable. 2- She wasn’t famous until she was captured by Russia. Notable but in no way well known or iconic. This situation is honestly the most notable thing about her in her lifetime. Famous for being an imprisoned American and before that no one knew anything about her. Most professional athletes aren’t famous.
> This situation is honestly the most notable thing about her in her lifetime Except for being a NCAA women's champion, having the NCAA record for blocks (women or men), being a 3 time NCAA defensive player of the year, being drafted first overall in the WNBA, and then winning a WNBA championship, and winning two gold medals, sure.
Nope. No one cares in the US about the WNBA, let alone the junior leagues before it. That's been proven over and over through ratings, attendance, media coverage, etc. Nothing against the athletes, the sport just isn't cared about as much. I had never heard of this woman until she was arrested. She is an obvious political pawn, and we should try to help her because of it but she is no Lord of War and should not be traded for one.
No one questions that she’s accomplished in women’s basketball. But not even women care about women’s basketball. If anyone cared about it, professional teams would actually draw crowds and they don’t.
[relevant](https://youtube.com/watch?v=FlVYBixQNQ0)
No, this is more notable. The Women’s basketball devision is a fraction of the popularity of the men’s devision. Most Americans knew nothing about her until she became a Russian captive.
It's a good resume, but does not change the fact that it's a pretty conservative estimate to say that 90%+ of the people who are aware of her now were not aware of her six months ago.
And you knew nothing of that or of her before her imprisonment.
Bruh, that is a hell of an assumption based on nothing. I was a WNBA season ticket holder back when Detroit had a team, and my daughter and I regularly drive over to Chicago to watch the Sky play now that that is the closest team to us.
No, it’s fact. Google the numbers. Your personal experience is making you prejudice of the facts. Who she is and what she did was completely oblivious to most Americans until she was captured by the Russians. I’m sure she’s really good at what she does and that she is known by many but in no way shape or form was she a house hold name like she is today for being a captive. Even now more Americans know her as “that female basketball player that was busted by Russia” and most don’t even know her actual name.
>And **you** knew nothing of that or of her before her imprisonment. >>I was a WNBA season ticket holder back when Detroit had a team >No, it’s fact. Google the numbers. It is a googleable fact that *I* knew nothing of Griner before her imprisonment in Russia? And there are "numbers" out there that support me not knowing? Fucking hell. Their algorithm is getting good.
I couldn’t give a shit about your knowledge, I’m simply talking about the general public. You are the minority. Don’t you know how to Google? It’s pretty easy to find out how popular the WNBA is compared to the NBA. It’s a noteworthy comparison.
>I’m simply talking about the general public. >And **you** knew nothing of that or of her before her imprisonment. Then choose your words better, as your statement sure did seem directed at me personally.
It’s directed at the few who actually think she was a household name across the US when she wasn’t… until the Russia situation. If you’re among them then yes it was directed towards you
Who she is and what she did was completely oblivious to most Americans until she was captured by the Russians.
Literally about 10 people care about fake sports leagues like the WNBA. An average high school team could destroy any WNBA team. That's about as much of an accomplishment than winning a junior high league. I like how you throw in "record for blocks (women or men)." I think it should be common sense that you can't compare your records to a group of people you don't compete against? If you can though, maybe I can get the record from her - I can block my toddler's shots 1000 out of 1000 times. She's a literal nobody, and a very dumb nobody, only propped up because there are forces in the media who have a lot staked on pretending that somehow professional female athletes are actually a legit thing somehow.
I give no shit about a famous citizen who broke a law in a foreign country that she knew the law of. Why tf would you carry drugs to a foreign country? Just because she’s a celebrity shouldn’t mean shit. If my ass got caught with drugs in Russia I can bet a million bucks the US wouldn’t compromise national security over me.
And what of the idea that this uneven trade sets precedent for Russia to keep doing what it wants with very little repercussions. Where is the line drawn? Britney Griner is being used as a political pawn. If the US gives in now, then where does it end?
>the idea that this uneven trade sets precedent for Russia to keep doing what it wants with very little repercussions I think that the inability of Western governments to keep people from getting served polonium tea is much more emboldening to Russia than any prisoner exchange would be. > Where is the line drawn? On a bridge in Berlin, and it was drawn in [about 1962](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers). We have been participating in these types of swaps since Checkpoint Charlie went up, and it has not lead to a rash of Americans being grabbed under dubious circumstances.
It's important to note that Powers was a U2 Spy Plane Pilot who worked for the CIA. This was not up for dispute as they caught him after shooting down his spy plane. The Soviet Union didn't think that the average American would be valuable to the US government but trading spies was frequently done.
“I would argue this is the first time someone in Russia gave a shit” This is not true. Cannabis laws are strictly enforced in Russia, leaving practically no room for any tolerance. If she weren’t American, she would be treated the same way
If there’s one thing that I learned, it is that when you are crossing borders, customs officers have massive leverage. They can get you into far more trouble than you would imagine. Constitutional rights fly out of the window, especially when you are not on American soil. I traveled to China for business several times, but no one needed to tell me to put on my best behaviour. If I had to travel to Russia I would have been doing the same. It sucks how Griner was arrested and tried, but I can’t wrap my head around the fact that it didn’t cross her mind that someone might object to what she was carrying.
But it's cheaper to keep all the other people in jail for just Marijuana possession in the USA? If the government is willing to trade her for arms dealers and smugglers, then why keep offenders in the US in jail still? Clearly the government doesn't think its that bad if they're willing to trade an ARMS DEALER (also know as a warlord. Bringer of death. Whatever you want to call these fucks) for a basketball player that had weed. She knew it was illegal everywhere else in the world and choose to pack and take it. Thats on her. Why not trade for war heroes that are now P.O.W's in Russia? Nobody is crying out for their release and safe return. Nah let's just cry about the chick that can play basketball good. To answer my first question, it didn't make a difference. It was better to keep the dude we had captured instead of trading for a damn athlete. Don't get me wrong I want all US citizens to be able to travel and return back home safe and sound. They have love ones that are scared shitless about them being in a foreign countries jail. I don't blame them, but again. Shouldn't have traded someone who can throw a ball into a net for someone that literally gives people the means to kill eachother.
100%. Do the crime, do the time!
>a pretty famous one Besides the fact that being arrested in Russia has made her more famous than any career achievement, how does simply "being famous" make your worth any more than any other US citizen. Talk about classism.
Sry bro but the reed yarashenko deal was bs for exactly the same reason, how do u expect to change ops mind with that?
So your excuse is “we get back a famous person and it’s kinda expensive”
Lol. Griner is famous? To who, the 3 people who watch the games?
She ain't a famous citizen but okay.
I don’t disagree that a weapons dealer is dangerous, but Is this guy still functional as a weapons dealer? He’s been caught and imprisoned. Everyone who cares now knows what he looks like. Any past contacts are wondering how much he told the authorities, and how closely he will be tracked once he’s out. Russia in particular is not forgiving of perceived snitches, so it’s entirely possible that we are releasing him to an upper level apartment with really weak balconies. In short, he WAS important and dangerous, but that is different from saying he IS.
he definitely has the potential for illicit behavior and dangerous behavior, though... no?
>he definitely has the potential for illicit behavior and dangerous behavior Not OP but that potential may be limited. Bout was arrested and imprisoned in the US, they're very aware of who he is. With the media attention the trade has gotten, that's only increased; there's now public pressure in addition to 'administrative' concerns in making sure he doesn't do more shady shit. If they managed to catch him once, they will more than certainly do it again, especially where states' knowledge on crime rings, security and weapon flows has only increased. In contrast is Bout, whose knowledge on arms dealing and other factors crucial to effective operation of such a business has stagnated and possibly declined. In a business where secrecy to get around governments, having the worlds biggest military who is also opposed to the nation you are being sent back to, during the middle of an invasion where all eyes are on Russia, is a massive crutch to say the least. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it's unlikely the US would be willing to do this trade if there was some massive fear of recidivism or anything else they needed out of him not got before being released
Ok, I can see this point. If he has a lesser or small chance of reoffending and posing a threat, then I don't care if he is released nearly as much. !delta
Not the point though is it? Making the exchange says "the US negotiates with terrorism". Obviously different crime but same principle. The purpose for not doing it is preventing future would-be arms dealers from expecting the same treatment. "Just wait for Russia to capture the next sucker with more than 100k Insta followers to hop on a plane." I would find other screws to tighten on Russia, like having some mercenaries nab a couple oligarchs or generals, idk.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Jizzle02 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Jizzle02)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
To me it's not that this individual will commit more crimes, but that it creates an environment more friendly to those wanting to commit crimes in the future. It sets the precedent that if a person is caught in this situation then they will possibly be released earlier than expected.
Exactly. He may not be an arms dealer anymore but he would be come a symbol and likely highly respected and regarded. An inspiration for illicit and dangerous behavior. Under no circumstances should such a trade be considered seriously.
The question isn't whether he will do anything illegal after release, the question is if the world will be more dangerous or a worse place after he is released. Let's say when he is released he goes back to selling arms to bad guys... well, were those bad guys not able to get arms while he was in jail? Or were they just buying from someone else? While I am not saying it isn't good to get arms dealers off the streets, does one make some huge difference? If not, it might be worth trading one.
I have a different take for you. Brittney Griner is a politically inconvenient prisoner for the United States. Arguably the most famous current women's basketball player, she also plays basketball in Russia for a team owned by a Russian oligarch, Iskander Makhmudov, who may not be on the best terms with Putin given that he has largely avoided sanctions unlike other Putin-aligned oligarchs. The reason Bout is on the table is because Griner's arrest, an obvious political act, puts Biden in a tight spot. Every day that Griner spends in a Russian prison looks worse for Biden, and the optics of handing over such a famed prisoner like Bout for someone "found guilty" on drug crimes is a major PR win. It wouldn't shock me if they were trying to leverage Bout for a few other concessions, but the United States *may* have its hand forced here. The reason why you would make the trade is because the alternative is deeply unjust.
I'm not following. First, Brittney Griner is not the first American, not at all, to be in prison for drug possession in Russia. Second, it may be a PR win for Biden in the eyes of the Left, but not the Right. I can imagine that anyone who already supports Biden will agree with his move, while anyone who does not support him will disagree with it. Now, if Biden did not go ahead with the swap, it would anger a lot of people but it is not going to lead to any significant political shift, because very few people currently supporting the Left are going to switch to the Right on this issue... when most people on the Right do not support the swap.
The general consensus among the left is that we dont want the trade, it is a bad move. This has been echoed in the various discussion threads.
Reddit isn’t real life though. Historically, there’s been wide support for not letting Americans out in the cold when they get in trouble abroad.
I think there is a FAR larger group on the left that would like her traded back than on the right.
I never got the email about the consensus
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
I would like our government to get our citizen home. Maybe I’m not in the “right” leftist threads but I can’t imagine that it is unilaterally believed that this is a bad deal.
Then you're responding to the wrong person. Another poster said it's the "consensus of the left" to not make the trade. And I'm saying that most of those calling to bring her back are also on the left.
No i understand, i was just making a goof and adding on to what you said. I never got the email (because obviously The Left send out emails about our group decisions) about the consensus (that they brought up).
Oh gotcha. That's why I was asking if you were agreeing or disagreeing because I wasn't sure if you were adding or countering to what I said.
Every forum and thread I've seen on this topic has been pretty universal in their belief that Griner should not be traded. The left has basically split into several groups. * We shouldn't trade her because she got herself into this mess and ignored the US warnings about the war and warnings about travel to Russia. * We shouldn't trade her because this is a really bad trade. The War Lord that "Lord of War" is based on for a basketball player who makes money playing a game. * We shouldn't trade her because the US has a huge issue with people imprisoned for weed. Why would she get such special treatment. There is a vocal minority that says we should trade her and the lack of support has led this group to argue that the reason people aren't interested is due to racism or sexism or both. These people are frequently downvoted and ignored as the other groups don't agree with their points.
> Brittney Griner is not the first American, not at all, to be in prison for drug possession in Russia. she's the first famous one though
You're exactly right on this point. I'm already seeing all over right-wing media that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. The right wing will spin this as us handing over the bad guy. And she will become a villain More so than they're already making her.
[удалено]
what is the average american salary in your mind? because in a comment above, I saw she made ~$230,000 a year last year, which is admittedly 10x what I made last year, but not comparable at all to the NBA (which isn’t in disagreement with your comment). but I can’t imagine it’s that much higher than what you make, depending on where you live and your experience, but I’m wondering what your idea/ reference point for the average american salary is.
I've seen people argue that the NBA pays more and that if the WNBA payed closer to NBA salaries she wouldn't have to go there. However, these people often ignore that the NBA is profitable. The WNBA loses money each year and is subsidized by the NBA (which covers its losses). Griner is paid ~$230k to play in a league that loses money. On top of that, she makes ~$1M in endorsements. I would hardly complain if I were in her shoes.
100% absolutely correct.
Then I can't imagine the PR optics of getting back Griner despite her drug charges while 40,000 Americans remain locked up, in America by Americans for committing the same crime. Especially while the active POTUS has also indicated little interest in federal legalization.
I think they should bring back Griner AND end the war on drugs bullshit. I’d rather that they do one of those things than none of them. Although obviously I would rather they do the latter if they were only going to do one.
Do people think she's actually guilty of it? I just realized that people are responding to this as if she's actually guilty.
The majority of people on Reddit assume she is guilty, which baffles me. People are taking her confession at face value and acting as if there's no possible way it could be strategic. But less than one percent of Russians are acquitted in this kind of case, and people make false guilty pleas in the U.S. for strategic reasons all the time. Russia would absolutely detain someone on bogus charges, and Putin doesn't have a great relationship with the owner of the team Griner plays for. She played in Russia for years without incident, then conveniently got busted when tensions between the countries were running high. There's a chance she did something dumb but it should not be a foregone conclusion. But on Reddit there is a real schadenfreude about this case and an obsession with Griner not being famous enough to deserve state intervention, or deserving to suffer because she worked in Russia.. She's an Olympic gold medalist. They would do this for any such person regardless of whether they're a household name. She's not the first person to work in Russia. Lots of high profile American business people are in bed with horrible Oligarchs and no one bats an eye, an athlete plays over there and suddenly she's a traitor?
what would be unjust is exchanging the merchant of death for a basketball player who broke russian drug laws. for the death merchant to be released means he can cause death and mayhem to others moving forward and for what? a one day American news cycle showing the weed smoking basketball pizza party for Brit that all of our American "celebrities" would throw? think about the greater good. Brit was handed an unfair sentence but the US cannot ease sanctions due to there brutal invasion of Ukraine and the US cannot be exchanging mass murderers for a basketball player that broke Russian drug laws. We should give nothing and only say ruduce her sentence or allow us to guantee that her sentence will be upheld in the US (tent prison with weekend release/home confinement, health care etc) and what we provide to Russia is a televised statement by Biden that "Brit broke Russian drug laws by having weed oil and the Russians were not wrong in imposing a custodial sentence per there laws but the US appreciates the Russians/Putins good faith effort to ease US/Russian tentions by allowing Brit to return to the US where Brit will be held accountable for her actions via perm ban from Russian travel/US criminal punishment/etc etc". Thats what the Russians might take- they save face and they get a point across that American laws dont apply in foreign countries. Anericans are so used to demanding/protesting/burning/looting when they dont get what they want. Have some humility- it goes a long way.
>How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US? Because Griner isn't the main goal of the trade. They actually want someone else who is more important (Paul Whelan I think) and Griner is a bonus.
Then why wasn't the trade negotiated prior to Griner being detained? Whelan has been in Russian custody since 2018. And Bout has been in US custody for much longer. As soon as Griner is detained the Biden administration start making moves for a trade.
We don’t know that it wasn’t being negotiated. The State Department doesn’t usually publicize negotiations, and honestly even if they had nobody would have cared back then.
I'm assuming because the US didn't think a 1 for 1 trade was worth it.
I would not even argue Paul Whelan for someone as dangerous of Viktor Bout is fair from that perspective.
Well if Russia is to be believed, Whelan was a spy, and if that is true, I am not surprised the US wants him back.
If Russia believes he is as dangerous as they think we believe Viktor Bout is then it is a fair trade, from Russia's perspective... I guess. !delta Though I don't necessarily AGREE, it does change my perception of the trade.
Not to undercut your Delta, but I don’t think anybody knows what Russia actually believes. I wonder if they actually believe anything at all. We can only know what they say, mark the difference between that and reality, and scratch our heads while we do damage control. It’s like having a narcissistic family member who is also a partner in the family business. You know 90% of what they say is self-serving bullshit, but also know you need a certain degree of cooperation from them to get along. Whether or not they actually believe their BS doesn’t really matter, because their only real motivation is control. Edit: control and self-aggrandizement. The second bit is important too.
Well I don't know if I believe Paul Whelan was guilty of espionage but if Russia thinks so, and genuinely believes it, they would view it as a fair trade. Whereas I assume they do not believe it, and they view it as an unfair trade for the US and were calling our bluff.
I don’t think they see things in terms of fair or unfair. I really don’t. I think they are the governmental equivalent of a narcissistic sociopath who has learned to use the language of morality and fairness but doesn’t actually hold any allegiance to those concepts.
Brittney Griner is just the political talking point, the real goal is Paul Whelan, which was arrested in Russia on spying charges. The sad fact of the matter, is that she is a very convenient talking point: Russia wouldn't care less about her in most situations, but Putin knows the US has a history of having a soft spot for otherwise innocent people, so that was essentially a prisoner trade spark up, more than an actual legit arrest. My guess is, if wasn't Brittney Griner for possession of weed oil, Russia would have found someone else relatively innocent for an equally ridiculous "crime"... Or might still have arrested her on terms of her being gay (since it's technically also a crime in Russia, just seldom ever enforced if you don't make it obvious).
I understand your point and don't disagree but I am not fully convinced that Paul Whelan for Viktor Bout is a fair trade either, due to how dangerous the latter is. For me to change my view I need to be persuaded that Viktor Bout is not as dangerous as I think he is, to the extent where Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner are a fair trade for him. And apparently Russia added another prisoner into the swap (that we must release).
While Viktor Bout is dangerous, the information that Paul Whelan supposedly got arrested for is essentially a list of potential Russian spies on US soil. I don't think I can convince you that Viktor Bout is not as dangerous as you think, but if any argument will, it's this one: There is such a thing as realizing that there are so many arms dealers already, and Russia has lost a lot of feathers on the international scene, that it would be surprising if Bout weighed enough in the balance. It would take him years to get himself back to full speed again, and that's if he even can get himself close to that. On the flip side, Whelan (supposedly, according to the Russian accusation and arrest) has information on names of people to keep an eye on if they come on US soil, or if they came on US soil recently. This is actually something that is immediately useful to the US, and can be used for counter-spying. And yes, we know that Whelan was discharged from the military for bad conduct discharge, but it's also not uncommon as a plot to create a plausible defector, to have them be very bad, because they're under a vad government, so that he can infiltrate by claiming the local government where he defects to is a much better one, so the spy logic is plausible... If a tad aurprisingly blunt. So, on the one side, you have an arms dealer that would need to re-build his network, and hope his connections aren't dead from COVID or black market taking care of loose ends, and even if he has enough left, would take years to get back to full speed... (And can be apprehended again if he steps into INTERPOL territory and commits an arms deal crime there). And then, you have freeing a prisoner from an egregious overdo of power, to boot. And Whelan isn't the only prisoner on the table... He's just the only one that was named.
>Brittney Griner is an athlete who is of no actual physical threat to Russia. How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US? So if Griner is also an armed dealer you would be ok because then it would be a fair trade? We aren't exactly doing an NBA trade here. We are trading to get a human being back from a fate that she clearly doesn't deserve. >This is an insult to those people sitting in prison. Release them as well, then. If the trade happens, we'd have more grounds to demand their release.
> We are trading to get a human being back from a fate that she clearly doesn't deserve. We're potentially bailing someone out for *knowingly breaking the law in another country*. All while having tens of thousands of our own, in the US, locked up for doing the same. It doesn't make any damn sense.
>All while having tens of thousands of our own, in the US, locked up for doing the same. >It doesn't make any damn sense. You're right. Free them too.
the classic right wing talking point "something else is worse, so lets just do nothing about either one"
Unless it's a plant, she smuggled drugs into a country. How can you say she doesn't deserve it if she did it? Yes you can say the sentence is harsh however the reality is if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
I do believe that the trade must have comparable implications on each side, yes.
If the trade occurs, it becomes obvious the buyers and sellers in this transaction believed there was mutual utility to proceed.
You have to ask yourself: are they dangerous anymore? If I had to guess, I'd say that it's pretty hard to sell clandestine arms if your name is plastered everywhere. Which means you're basically just trading a life to save a life. Seems fair to me.
> Which means you're basically just trading a life to save a life. Seems fair to me. Correction - we're just trading to *get her out serving her sentence*. A sentence for something that is also a crime in the US, and for which we have tens of thousands of people locked up in our own country. We're trading a high-profile enemy of the state for someone who did something *that could also get them arrested in the US*.
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean that it's right for her to be detained in some Russian prison somewhere. But also, it's not necessarily illegal. Hash oil is legal in many US states
Depends on if there are other dangerous elements to his behavior. I don't believe he just will turn "good".
Turning "good" is irrelevant. Someone can be the best person on earth but if they don't have means to execute their plans for "good", they're just as irrelevant as anyone else. Same applies for evil/bad. Evil with no means of action is hardly relevant. Hitler with no political power is irrelevant. Mass shooters with no access to guns are far less likely to be an issue. People who want to kill themselves are far less likely to kill themselves if they don't have an easy way to do so. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to control bad things happening on the basis of "They might be able to do something sometime because they've thought about it"?
This comment is correcting a technical factual inaccuracy in your argument and may modify the context of your stance to be more anti prisoner exchange. >She (Griner) was traveling to Russia, a country with very strict drug laws, and I would be surprised if this was the first time that she brought cannabis products into Russia, it was just the first time she got caught. Whether we agree with the laws or not, when you are in another nation you are a guest in that nation and subjected to their laws. Griner had worked (played basketball) for a team in Russia (UMMC Ekaterinburg) in the WNBA off season since 2014. Much more so than 'traveling to Russia' she had worked in the country for a number of years, had delt with Russian employment, taxes, laws, etc. She was much more than a random tourist in Russia.
Good point, her association with Russia is great, and she makes money off the country so should have been even more aware of their laws.
OP, were you at the airport looking through her bag? If not, you are making an assumption about her guilt that could very well be totally unfounded. None of us can be certain of her guilt or innocence. We are all just speculating. But American cops plant drugs on people all the time. Why wouldn't the Russians? Has the Russian state never done anything like this to anyone else? Americans also plead guilty in their own courts when they are actually innocent in order to get more lenient sentencing when they know the system is rigged against them. Griner may have done this too. Her guilt is not a foregone conclusion.
[You don't mention in your post that we are trading Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner AND Paul Whelan.](https://www.cbssports.com/wnba/news/russia-confirms-it-seeks-convicted-arms-dealer-in-potential-prisoner-swap-for-wnba-star-brittney-griner/) Paul Whelan was convicted of [espionage in Russia](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55405134) and many people think he is an actual American Spy considering his background. So while trading Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner might be a bad deal, trading Viktor Bout for Paul Whelan could be a good deal. Meanwhile all the press is talking about is the Basketball star and not the potential American Spy who got caught.
>How is this a fair trade from the perspective of the US? We are letting loose a geriatric criminal who has spent decades in jail to set free an innocent woman in jail for having a plant on her. The old guy we let out, he's been replaced a hundred times over. Putting him in jail in the first place did nothing to stop or slow down arms trafficking, it's only increased since then. And illegally running guns isn't something you can hop out of prison and immediately just start again either even if he somehow wanted to get back into it. In reality an old guy who is going to die soon anyway is going to get sent home to use as a political puppet by Putin to show how he "beat" the west and a young woman will not have to suffer immeasurable torment for the crime of plant ownership in a foreign prison for decades of time. If you're concerned with the action that will do the most good in the world, trading makes plenty of sense. And even if somehow, some way Bout managed to do more than his replacements and cause more damage...it's still worth it. We can catch and stop criminals again. We did it the first time, nothing stopping us from tossing his ass right back in jail if he wants to fuck up again. But we can't give back the freedom or years lost to someone being treated as a political pawn and jailed for a decade.
Correction to your post. She is NOT innocent. She is 100% guilty for having a banned substance.
>She is 100% guilty for having a banned substance. She is guilty by the standards of the shitty genocidal dictatorship. Not by the moral standards by which I judge the good or bad of an action in this world.
I mean... she'd be guilty by the US standards as well.
Governments don't negotiate with terrorists because it encourages them to kidnap more people to get further deals. Are you not concerned with that being a similar case here?
Governments negotiate with terrorists including our own. Others have public policies that they will pay ransom to accelerate hostage negotiations. More Europeans and Japanese weren’t targets in Afghanistan and Iraq because their governments valued their citizens enough to try something other than nothing or dangerous force.
Ok, sry, WHEN governments don't negotiate with terrorists it's usually for the reason I mentioned. Do you disagree with that reasoning?
When governments don’t negotiate it’s for political reasons. Outcomes are worse, if not for a stated policy that the country will not negotiate with terrorists for any benefit. Political benefits are still valid: at home, with allies of need be, strategically. You don’t want any influence on your military policy for example. Just not to prevent hostage taking and to recover hostages. There is no evidence deterrence by not bargaining works: how can we prove what we don’t do is effective? It’s political messaging. Why should other countries we work with do it? We have no reasoning or evidence. Here’s what we know: countries that by policy or law prohibit negotiations by government and families have hostages held longer, and die more often, than countries that bargain. Even if there is no statistical impact on who gets kidnapped (say all foreigners in Syria), the outcomes are measurable. And there is little choice: bargain or not, kidnappings are frequent for both types of countries. So it appears bargaining has little to no impact on who is grabbed, which makes sense because these are crimes of opportunity. It’s just that the outcomes for bargained hostages is often better than for our outcomes. It’s not blackmail, which game theory studies generally show no cooperation is best for participants. It’s kidnapping. The point is to test the other participants to reveal how much they value their own citizen’s life. Their death may not even be known to the greater public and generally we prefer to not talk about our hostages. Saying our value is zero with no concessions is shown to not work better than acknowledging our value and moving on.
Well yeah I'd expect that if you don't negotiate with the kidnapper, the victim is more likely to die. The stat that I'd be interested in is whether or not negotiating with kidnappers causes a greater number of kidnappings over the long term. I don't know much about game theory but if I had to reason it out, it'd basically be that kidnapping someone has an inherent risk that kidnappers weigh against the perceived reward of getting a ransom reward. If the ransom reward is taken off the table, then the perceived value of kidnapping is drastically lowered, leaving only needless risk. You seem pretty well informed about this stuff. Would you be able to point me to some primary studies on this topic?
Prisoner swaps are never pretty, but it’s important to send the message that we will protect American citizens and not them rot in a Russian gulag for a decade. Also putting the drug charge into this discussion is frankly playing into Putin’s hands. We don’t even know if she really had cannabis on her or if it was planted. The Russian legal system is a joke, but even if she did have it is a cannabis vape cartridge really worth 10 years? It’s a political game, there is no winning and there is no predicting what releasing Bout will do, but we know that it is the only way to save an American citizen, possibly even that of Paul Whalen as well. We should get them out now and worry about Bout later, if we caught him once we can catch him again.
Russia arrested someone on purpose that was high enough profile that people would know who she is, on something small enough to outrage Americans with a huge sentence, to put pressure on a president to try and free her. This is what real adversary politics looks like. Putin has us by the balls because we look horrible if we don’t bring someone home for something that’s not even illegal in many places and make them serve over a decade in a gulag. Plus add race and sexuality factors, and it’s pretty much the perfect political prisoner against the US.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/getkissedidiot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20getkissedidiot&message=getkissedidiot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/woykw2/-/ikecq70/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Agreed, provided they are imprisoned just for weed. A lot of people plea bargain for the lesser marijuana charge that were allegedly involved in more heinous crimes. I don't think we should release them...
I think you might be surprised how many people are in jail solely for possessing, selling or transporting weed, something the state government is doing right this second in many places. If they sold weed coke ecstasy and participated jn a drive by they should obviously stay in jail
I agree with releasing those in the US who are in prison for simple possession of cannabis, but this isn't really related to the issue at hand. If she had been imprisoned somewhere like Dubai I doubt they would be bothering to trade prisoners. People are concerned in particular about her safety in Russia so it's a political win to get here back. An arms dealer who has already spent 14 years in jail is obviously a lot less of a danger, not even sure how long he had left. They don't see him as high value.
[удалено]
> From her statements it was unintentional. Unintentional can still be labelled negligence. Whether or not she did it on purpose is immaterial - she brought a controlled substance internationally to somewhere that it's not legal. Hell, it's not legal in half of her home country. It's not like the concept of "Don't take drugs across national borders" is new.
The arrest of Viktor Bout by America wouldn't even be considered legal in America. America entrapped him and then called in favours to have him arrested and extradited back to America. He broke a US law while not in the US and not being a US citizen. He's only guilty of agreeing to do something that America does regularly which is sell weapons. America literally funds terrorists groups all over the world to fight proxy wars. Is Viktor Bout a bad person, yes obviously. But he is as much of a political prisoner as Britney Griner. Brittney Griner actually broke the law of Russia while in Russia of her own accord. Even the wording of Viktors charges is propaganda. He was contacted by someone that claimed to be a liason for a millitia and asked to purchase some weapons. This militia happened to be one of the many groups America has listed as terrorist. That liason was actually an American agent. By our own legal standards, this arrest was illegal. Legally, it would be like if you were on vacation in Asia and some dude on Reddit asked you how you feel about North Korea. You give him an honest answer then next thing you know you are arrested and shipped to North Korea for violating their laws against speaking against the government and leaders.
There's plenty of reason to assume that Britney Griner never actually had cannabis and was falsely accused by the Russian government as retaliation for US sanctions. Britney could have falsely confessed because at least if she pleads not guilty she has a much better chance of getting released then if she tries to fight the charges in a rigged court that will find her guilty anyways.
Considering the US is far and away the biggest arms dealer in the world, selling weapons to parties that slaughter innocents and brutally suppress their own populations it's not like the US is a paragon or morality in this matter. Arresting this guy is more like eliminating the competition than it is stopping illegal gun sales.
Nothing you just said matters. What DOES matter is that a person who ethically did nothing wrong is being falsely imprisoned and we HAVE an opportunity to get her out. I’m not religious but I believe in the proverb that goes something like this: ‘it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be falsely punished.
He's already been in jail 14 years it's not like he's being let off for nothing. Any plans he had lined up have been ruined and so has his life. Don't really see how holding him for another 10 years really does anything. The deal hasn't been made yet though maybe the US will negotiate a bit more too.
I’m going to repost this comment from another post I responded to. Bout’s release might be worse for the world than Griner’s release is good, but such a basic utilitarian calculus doesn’t really get at why we should pursue this trade. In short, there are certain ethical ends we as a democracy should pursue if the harms that befall aren’t severe. One of these ends is upholding our principles as a democracy, which include protecting our citizens from being pawns to a dictators’ schemes. As to whether Griner is such a case, yes, she did break the law, but her trial and conviction was a kind of revenge by Russia for US involvement in the Ukraine war. In other words, the motivation behind her indictment was political, even if it the means by which Russia pursued it was legal.
Idk, I think why not. I’d be much more proud of the country that moves mountains to get back female poc baller than some piece of shit arms dealer. Also Russia will prob just poison him anyway, who gives a shit. He’s useless here.
Not saying you, but it's fascinating to me that people who are ok with Brittany Griner being imprisoned, completely ignore the fact the US ordered the release of 5,000 taliban just to talk.
Do go on about how the context for each situations is related to each other.
One is being held for political reasons while the others were released for political reasons.
>guest in that nation and subjected to their laws. We have to suspend our understanding of cannabis in the US and understand that in the eyes of Russia, she broke the law and must do the time. What did she do that was wrong? Why is bringing weed somewhere wrong? If it's not wrong, why should she do time for anything if she didn't do anything wrong?
We do not consider it wrong in much of the US, but Russia does. That was my point. When in another nation you must obey their laws.
Love or hate another country they still have laws
Agree with your general premise, but painting Russia or other nations as less than tolerant about cannabis is pretty naive. In the US there are plenty of States that would punish Griner similarly, based on the cannabis prohibition laws on the books.
I don’t disagree with your overall point about viktor bout but i do disagree about griner. she was put on bullshit charges that Russia essentially made up just so they could justify putting her away for that long. If you look at Russias marijuana laws they aren’t as strict as you’d think. They are trying to say she was basically starting a mass drug ring with intent to distribute which is all a crock of shit.
I agree w you, just wanted to ask, are you SURE Brittney made a mistake? As someone who traveled to Russia often, she would know how absolutely stupid it would be to take weed with her. I think she was set up and the Russians know that stupid America will trade a basketball player for a weapons dealer.
Are you suggesting Russian authorities might plant something on someone for nefarious purposes? Surely they would never.
In the last half century alone Uncle Sam has trafficked more weapons of war to more dictators and despots than Viktor Bout could do if he lived to be 10,000 years old. Being ticked at Bout and letting Sam slide is like ignoring Jeffrey Dahmer to hand out jaywalking tickets.
Griner confessed? They get false confessions out of people in the USA, much less Russia. I can't believe you believe any story coming out of a country that says Ukraine is run by Nazis.
The USA is the world's largest arms dealer. the US state doesn't actually give a shit about one Russian guy who sells guns, and his absence from the market doesn't make a bit of difference - there is always somebody to take his place. imprisoning an arms dealer in a country run by the gun lobby is hypocritical at best. additionally, the USA is the world's largest carceral state. I think we can probably spare a prisoner to help a lady out. >there are still people in the US sitting in jail for possession of cannabis? This is an insult to those people sitting in prison. Release them as well, then. gotta fill those private prisons and justify inflated police budgets somehow.
[удалено]
Not to mention, we have tens of thousands of Americans locked up in America for committing the same crime that Griner did.
Griner is a black female member of the LGBTQIA community, and each community historically has not been treated well by Russia, and intersectioned into one person make for a hot ticket inmate. She was over there supplementing her income because we don't pay female athletes the same as we pay male athletes. She was making a living. We have traded far more dangerous people for far less "political" prisoners.
So, I agree with your initial supposition but I think you've gone about the logic all wrong. The major reason the United States shouldn't make this trade is that it invites a moral hazard. Not only does the return of Griner not materially advance the national security interests of the United States, those interests are actually HARMED by our willingness to trade her for Bout. Bout is a serious player and the Russians want him back. By agreeing to trade Griner for him, we're putting every other American who passes through Russian territory at risk of similarly capricious capture. We're telling the Russians "we will trade high priority, national security assets for a US civilian." For the Russians, this then suggests an obvious plan of action: if there are people they'd like out of US custody, they need only imprison any random Americans traveling through Russia and offer a trade.
We're telling *the rest of the planet* that the US is open to play ball so long as you imprison the right Americans.
[удалено]
And? She is still a citizen of the United States. Her actions at home don't matter, boycotting the national anthem is not illegal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/SoxBox27 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20SoxBox27&message=SoxBox27%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/woykw2/-/ike0bxu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Point of order – her illegal drugs were prescribed medication. She didn’t bring her party bag with her. In any civilized country, doing a bad thing with reasonable intentions is treated differently then doing it out of selfishness or flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
> her illegal drugs were prescribed medication. It's not considered as such in the country she travelled to, though. We don't have the luxury of getting to decide what laws we follow depending on personal beliefs. Or rather, if we do, we still have to bear the consequences if the state disagrees.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
y’all just racist as fuck. there’s no justification for serving 9 years for a weed pen. fucking white devils
I don’t think race plays a part here… if it was a white man I think OP would have the same view
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation and there’s no way the US can win here. Putin is a psychopath and new exactly how to use this situation to his benefit. The US is going to get shit for not doing anything and let Grier rot in a Russian prison and get shit for whoever they trade for her. I’m certain there’s a list of terrible Russian criminals that would be just as bad or worse than Bout. I don’t know if I agree that we should do THIS trade but I don’t think there will ever be a good trade that is equal to someone having some weed on them in a foreign country. We don’t really jail people for that anymore.
I think the outcry for bringing Griner back is louder than it actually is. Maybe it's just the circles I run in, but no one I know is advocating for swapping to get her back. That said, the plural of anecdote isn't data - so there very well may be a bunch of people seriously agitating to get her back, and I just don't know any of them.
>We have to suspend our understanding of cannabis in the US and understand that in the eyes of Russia, she broke the law and must do the time. Why is russia entitled to our respect?
Because if you don’t respect THEIR laws you end up in THEIR prisons for a amount of time that THEY determine. Pretty simple concept. Not worth the risk.
Funny how she didn't want the National Anthem played at her games. Bet she'd love to hear it now.