As a general matter, news coverage impresses me as generally sympathetic towards these people, and there is discussion of the US government taking action - including the release of prisoners held in the US - to obtain their release. What sorts of factors do you consider in evaluating such situations?
In general, I’m not terribly sympathetic towards people who violate the laws of countries they visit. And I’m not even terribly sympathetic towards people who choose to travel to and/or do business in potentially risky countries. And I generally do not favor the US changing its foreign policy to extract such people. But I am interested in how others view these situations.
I recognize that the US is not entirely altruistic - I suspect the government takes steps to have bargaining chips of its own for such situations, and I am confident that at least some of these ostensibly innocent travelers were in fact spies or otherwise advancing US goals. But I sure know how I can guarantee that Venezuela will never arrest me for any reason, and Russia will not arrest me for inadvertently bringing drugs into Russia.
I am intentionally limiting the discussion to persons detained by official state governments, as opposed to rebel groups, or in war zones, tho I’m happy to hear views of such situations if it does not overly distract from my question.
First concern is our State Department should endeavor to see that Americans are treated fairly abroad. That does not mean people get a free pass for violating the laws of countries with different laws than the United States. But it does mean we should step up for our citizens who are denied substantive due process or being charged with crimes where the evidence presented is weak or inconclusive. Even if the person is entirely guilty of the crime in the foreign country, it is in America’s interest to not see people subjected to either barbarism or a corrupt legal system that denies them substantive due process. Travel warnings should be prominent and significant for countries that regularly fail to uphold the rule of law.
Many countries–China, Iran and Russia are great examples have a history of arresting Americans on charges that appear to be almost certainly manufactured and false. These cases I think we have an obligation to go further than in cases where the person violated the law, in that the individual is actually being targeted because they are an American. It is in the interests of American foreign policy to use various forms of diplomatic and economic power to punish countries that engage in hostage taking like this.
Espionage is a whole separate layer. Spies are going to get caught, ours and theirs. It’s generally understood and while it often doesn’t make front page news, prominent “prisoner exchanges” happen between us and Russia every few years. It is generally understood at least some people in those batches are spies on both sides, that’s just the name of the game with espionage. Spies know they can get caught and they know the consequences, and countries these days generally are willing to trade spies periodically.
We shouldn’t change foreign policy over hostage taking, other than to increase negative sanctions and attitudes towards hostage taking countries. I am fine with exchanging prisoners for hostages in some contexts, but not fine with paying cash for hostages. I am fine with private entities paying ransom, but not the U.S. government.
Thanks for the detailed response. The WNBA player is the case I’ve heard the most of. Sure, maybe Russia singled her out because of potential advantages, but she DID bring drugs into Russia. AFAIK, she went as part of a team - and no other person was singled out, and all others apparently managed to avoid bringing cannabis. I guess as a general matter I have very little sympathy for folk who bring about their misfortune - either intentionally or carelessly.
I find your mention of substantive due process curious. Surely that is not a universal concept, is it? I may be overly paranoid, but one reason I am generally happier traveling within the US as opposed to abroad, is that I have a pretty good idea of what my rights are supposed to be.
No, it is very clearly not a universal standard. However it is, and appropriately is, U.S. policy to try and secure fair treatment for all of its citizens arrested abroad–even guilty ones. This is in line with our role as the most powerful democratic country and our general stance of trying to promote the rule of law and a basic structure of human rights abroad. Obviously though there are limits to the scope of that, and sometimes we can’t do (and shouldn’t do) much more than issue a stern statement to another country.
It is also an important U.S. goal to see that people are not treated worse than they otherwise would be simply because they were Americans. For example in Indonesia Westerners have been sentenced to death for drug smuggling. Many Western countries that do not have the death penalty have filed vigorous diplomatic protests over that–not because they disagree that their citizens are guilty or that drug smuggling is okay, but because they morally disagree with the death penalty. But there isn’t any strong evidence Indonesia treats foreigners worse in this regard–native Indonesians are far more likely to face capital punishment for drug smuggling than are foreigners.
On the flip side, I would be somewhat surprised to find that a Russian caught with a vial of CBD oil for use in a vaporizer, would be likely to face 10 years in prison. I could be wrong on that. That isn’t to say the product is legal in Russia, but given Russia’s fairly laissez-faire approach to the actual enforcement of its drug laws it would seem Brittany Griner is not being treated in a way typical of someone who committed the offense for which she is charged. That is a valid area of American concern because it suggests our citizen is being treated harshly because they are an American.
Again, thanks. That final paragraph is the only portion that really gives me pause. I would not expect that an international traveller, passing through an airport w/ security and customs, would necessarily be treated by one of that country’s citizens as that citizen goes about their day business. Heck - even as an American traveling domestically, I’m damned careful what I pack in my bags and how I interact w/ airport security. Which is yet another reason I am personally not overfond of air travel.
Eh, so I think it’s fine that your likelihood of being caught with contraband at an airport is higher, because obviously you’re being screened there. I don’t see any reason that if it’s a crime to have CBD oil it should be treated more harshly because you have it at an airport versus being caught in a bar with it. I definitely don’t see a good reason, someone leaving the country, who is a foreign national, should be facing harsher charges than a domestic Russian would. That again, suggests a person is being singled out for harsher-than-norm treatment because they are American. That’s something we have an interest in discouraging.
FWIW none of this has to do with “sympathy” for Griner, or lack thereof, it’s about U.S. policy interests, of which we have valid policy interests in cases of this nature.
Twenty years ago I did a solo cruise of the southern Caribbean. I was walking around the port on Barbados, enjoying myself, smoking a joint.
An old woman was sweeping the ground around her stall where she sold souvenirs. She casually walked by me sweeping, then whispered as she passed, “They watching you. Be careful, you not at home”.
I cupped what was left of my joint, squeezing it out. Then I faked a yawn, brought my hand up to cover my mouth, and swallowed the joint.
Casually glancing around while I continued strolling, I saw the two plainclothes cops. From that day forward my behavior became way more discreet. Had I been arrested in Barbados I wouldn’t have expected US intervention.
I have mixed feelings myself. I’m not too pleased when someone receives a draconion punishment for what I think is a relatively minor crime (or not a crime at all). But then I think it’s rather arrogant for foreigners to enter another country with the expectation that they can violate their laws with impunity. So while I don’t have a lot of sympathy, I have some.
U.S. policy isn’t to argue for impunity in any case with which I am familiar. It is to argue against Americans being singled out for extra-harsh treatment simply due to their American nationality, and in cases where the foreign country has a corrupt judicial system that regularly denies basic due process, we usually make it known our displeasure–note that the U.S. makes known its displeasure for countries that don’t respect basic human rights fairly regularly on a global scale. Some of it is just words, sure, but it’s intended to try and flesh out the broad idea that American foreign policy is pro-basic human rights and against countries that do not uphold them, it gets complicated in that sometimes we cozy up pretty close to such countries, but foreign policy is ultimately about national self-interest at the end of the day.
Under treaty you are entitled to consular assistance if you are arrested in Barbados. They certainly wouldn’t try to “get you off” or anything like that, but they would assist you with navigating the legal system and help you get in contact with a local attorney. Of course, Barbados is a democratic and developed country with a strong respect for the rule of law. If you had been arrested in Barbados for marijuana possession, I have little doubt you would face whatever minor punishment would be typical, and released or possibly told to leave the country. You would not be looking at 10 years in a gulag.
Returning from a trip to the Caribbean just before COVID hit, I was being interviewed by the customs guy. I was 100% legal, but dealing with LEOs always makes me nervous.
The guy noticed my Rolex on my left wrist. He asked me what time it was. Thing is, it’s a tattoo (the only Rolex I could afford) with the time reading 4:20.
I told him, “that is not a watch, it’s a tattoo of a watch, I have no idea what time the tattoo artist made it display”. He cracked up, telling me he noticed the 4:20 and thought it was hilarious. He then told me he was working his shift and he wasn’t the enemy, he was just a guy supporting his family.
My gf told me afterwards that she’d never seen me perspire so profusely.
I didn’t think it was the US government’s position that Americans should be able to violate the laws of foreign nations with impunity. But I can’t help think as though that’s the attitude of many Americans who go to a foreign country and flagrantly break the law.
Speaking of flagrant flouting of the law, @kayaker, you’ve got some big brass balls to spark up a doobie in public while visiting a foreign country. What were you thinking at the time? And I’m asking not because I’m trying to call you out, I’ve certainly done my share of stupid things, but more to understand how these things can happen. Twenty years ago it wouldn’t occurr to me to smoke pot in public here in the United States let alone in a foreign nation where I was an outsider.
I’d spent some time in Jamaica, where the law isn’t enforced. I even had a picture of me with a Jamaican cop at the airport (with a machine pistol slung over his shoulder) while I puffed on a joint.
I was careful as all get out in the US, but just saw the Caribbean as a fun place without laws. Turns out each island enforces their laws the way they see fit, which is as it should be.
Probably getting to an awfully fine point, but I could imagine a situation where such differential treatment might reflect a country disfavoring undesirable influence being brought into their country by foreigners. Whether legitimate or not, I could understand a state treating more harshly a foreigner who violates certain laws, including factors such as where the violation occurred. Jaywalking - or cannabis oil - might be treated more harshly in an airport than in a neighborhood.
I guess overall, my reaction is that the basketball player was solely responsible for her incurring ANY unfavorable repercussions. Like I said, much of the news I have skimmed pretty quickly (and there has been A LOT of such news), has been very sympathetic towards the player, citing her family and other factors, and suggesting that her claim that she hd “inadvertently” “packed hurriedly” was somehow relevant. (Trying to avoid getting “too ranty,” but I do have rather strong feelings on people getting bailed out for their own choices/actions.)
You have obviously followed this story more closely than I have but are you sure about the part I bolded? I wouldn’t necessarily trust the Russian government nor any confession made within Russia.
So, let’s get to the meat of it then–is your concern American foreign policy, and are you saying you do not want the government endeavoring to insure Americans are not treated more harshly by legal systems overseas simply due to their American nationality?
FWIW, to frame the discussion I did a little research on Russian drug laws in regard to cannabis products.
Less than 6g of cannabis is decriminalized, possession of an amount that small is considered an administrative offense which carries a maximum sentence of 15 days in jail and a fine, and is customarily simply a fine with no jail time imposed.
More than 6g but less than 100g is considered a “significant amount” of cannabis, which is the first category of possession that is explicitly criminalized. There is another case of an American in Russia on such charges–Marc Fogel, who was previously a U.S. diplomat in Russia but lost his diplomatic status in 2021 when he left the U.S. government and began working as a teacher at a Russian university, was caught with around 17g of cannabis product in a contact lens case while going through customs. He was recently sentenced to 14 years in prison.
It should be noted that it appears very common in Russia for ‘significant’ amount of cannabis possession to be punished by a fine with no jail time, Marc’s 14 year sentence would suggest a practice in Russia of punishing someone far more harshly than is the norm due to their being an American, and IMO is a valid area of U.S. interest abroad.
Over 100g is considered large scale smuggling, and is actually commonly punished by years in prison, even for Russians. I am not clear on exactly how much Griner had in her possession. However, what is concerning about Marc’s case is that despite Russian authorities acknowledging they confiscated 17g, he actually was sentenced under Russia’s “large-scale drug smuggling” statute which should not apply to amounts less than 100g. This would appear that not only are the Russian courts punishing an American much more harshly than they would a Russian, but that they may also have subverted the normal operations of Russian criminal law to do so.
Yeah - pretty sure. I haven’t heard ANYTHING suggesting the substance was planted or anything. Has impressed me like the folk at the airport who say that didn’t realize THIS gun/knife was in THAT bag.
Well, I don’t have any objection to the government asking another state to - um - not be overly harsh towards a US citizen. Maybe ask if the person can be transferred to complete sentence in the US. But I have considerable potential issues with the exchange of prisoners - that is - if the US arrested someone for some “real” offense, and not just the same as Russia may be doing in this instance.
If the US has some “strong” interest, or has arrested some foreign “bad guy”, I’m not keen on the US making concessions just because some US citizen packed carelessly while traveling.
Also, to the extent that the US is more intrusive in other nations’ internal affairs than - say - Canada, as a US citizen I am more sensitive to the potential risks of being perceived as an American when traveling to certain places. I’d need to check further, but if the player went to Russia in some capacity as a representative of the West, maybe that WOULD suggest some basis for her being treated more harshly than just Joe Schmo Canadian tourist. Maybe in some situations SHOULD be treated more harshly. And I reserve most of my criticism for the individual who placed themselves at the center of foreign policy.
The problem with countries that don’t have open and free societies and open and fair judicial systems is it is incredibly difficult to actually know if the alleged charges are even true or not. It is certainly the case that with Russia, some people we have done prisoner exchanges for actually were people who had committed crimes in Russia, but we know many actually did not. We have this same problem with China, Iran, North Korea etc.
It is also very difficult to even assess the validity of charges without free access to the evidence, which is customarily not provided by these hostage taker countries.
In essence if we adhered to your view, the U.S. government would largely abandon anyone overseas that a hostile regime decided to take into custody on trumped up charges.
I also see little difference between cases where the hostage taking country has manufactured charges (as they likely did with Paul Whelan, or like North Korea has done with most of the people it detained) and one where they take a real charge but then “up charge” it through the system to a result 5000x worse than what is appropriate under Russian law. That’s like arresting someone for jaywalking and putting them on death row and being like “well he’s American he should know.”
Nah, I’m not cool with that. It’s a matter of national power and diplomatic strategy that our citizens be allowed to travel to conduct business abroad without being subject to capricious legal retaliation from a corrupt regime.
If Griner or Marc Fogel were facing the same punishment as a Russian–which my research suggests would probably be a short jail term and a fine, I would agree. But when Russia is sentencing an America to 14 years in prison for 17g of cannabis when the threshold for such a sentence is actually 100g, I view that as little different than hostage taking, and should be dealt with accordingly.
She was not there in any formal role representing anyone. She was hired to play for a Russian basketball team, it was basically a business trip. I think it is in U.S. interests to protect the ability of our citizens to conduct business abroad and not be subject to specific official retaliation, harassment or capricious punishment.
I’m very minimally concerned with “being annoyed” at the U.S. citizen for having a small amount of cannabis. If Russia was treating her like they do a typical Russian defendant with a small amount of cannabis I’d tell her to deal with the (minor) consequences of her actions. The fact they appear to be pursuing major drug smuggling charges with her suggest they are doing the same thing they did with Marc Fogle, which is (against Russian law) charge her with crimes that by definition involve over 100g of cannabis even though she likely had less than that.
Yeah - well I guess I would - more than you - endorse a policy of travel to/doing business with “risky” countries at your own risk. Whether a basketball player seeking to work in Russia, and oil exec working in Venezuela, a bible thumping missionary, or just some camera toting yahoo - these folk choose to travel for their personal advantage. They are free to chose whether or not to travel to some place where the state actor might disadvantage them because of their nationality - or any of the majority of countries where that is not an issue.
Seems to me an example - so common of US companies and individuals - of a desire to privatize the gains while externalizing the risks.