I feel this way because there is much doubt as to whether the crime actually occurred as described (if it occurred at all), and because it is obviously a cheap political attack on the U.S… This is Putin doing what he does best.
Plus even if she did what they claim, the verdict is much more than justified by the crime. (She’s been in jail for five months. That alone is more than enough time.)
Then the question becomes to what extent will it help or hurt the reputation of the United States to bend over backwards to bring home a murderer. Also it would depend heavily on whether the person was arrested primarily because they murdered someone, or as in the case of Griner primarily to gain leverage over the United States.
For those who automatically trust that Russia is treating Griner honestly and fairly, do you automatically trust authority in every situation? Or do you have different rules for certain people and certain charges?
I mean, come on.
My question wasn’t intended to focus on Russia. It was more of a question about the attitude that “the US should always do all it can to bring US citizens home”.
Since we don’t trust Russia, what if a US citizen committed a crime in the UK or Germany? If we trust the systems there, should the US government still do all it can to bring those people home to the US? Or is it OK to let them serve their jail sentences in those countries?
I think there’s two dimensions here
- The severity of the crime
- The trustworthiness of the country
Does “the US should always do all it can to bring US citizens home” apply no matter what #1 and #2 are?
If we have the diplomatic capital to do so, yes. There is no circumstance where we should say “this country will probably do a good job with this prosecution.” The US doesn’t even have a trustworthy justice system, so we should assume that every country is flawed, and probably flawed in a way that disadvantages Americans.
Recognizing pragmatically that diplomatic capital is finite, we can’t save everyone, so the more interesting question is who gets to go first. And this is 100% a balancing act between what the government is willing to trade, and what its citizens are demanding to happen. I won’t deny that there’s something of a popularity contest here, but I would say this is the only controlling principle given that a foreign government’s accusations hold no weight whatsoever. Lifeboat ethics, we save whoever means most to us.
I actually can see merit in the argument that it’s a bad trade to exchange a dangerous arms dealer for a basketball player. Ultimately I reject it, but it’s a legitimate conversation to have. Infinitely more legitimate than suggesting she deserves 9 years in Russian jail because that’s what you get for being careless. That’s just like Americans who watch a tape of a cop beating someone to death and saying “yeah, but what was he doing before they started recording.” American law enforcement doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, and this is 100x more true for any foreign country, no matter how “like us” they are.
Bolding mine, this is a major difference and the whole point. Germany and the UK are not presently waging a war agaisnt a peaceful, non-threatening country. Nor are they trumping up minor charges against a US citizen with draconian sentencing.
Russia not only hasn’t earned the benifit of the doubt here they are flaunting their ability to be abusive.
If it’s not a hijack, can you explain why you reject it? I think I agree, I’d just like to hear your reasoning.
We’re getting serious now:
If he pulls this off, I’m serious, man, give him the Nobel Peace Prize.
If he pulls it off, it will only happen because Putin is trying to embarrass and humiliate us and Rodman is playing along just to promote himself.
And if instead of “pulling this off” he winds up arrested and in jail?
You know what? I’m ok with that. If it means Griner is safely back in the US at no real cost to us, give him his 15 minutes of dog and pony show and then let him be promptly forgotten again by modern America.
No semi-intelligent person will be fooled and the ones taken in by Putin already parrot his propaganda verbatim and are a lost cause anyway.
It would be a shame but in that case, he really would have brought it on himself.
When someone hiking around Iran’s border gets arrested as a spy, do we actually believe he was a spy? My first assumption is “no”, that Iran grabbed the nearest American and faked the charges.
Now of course, the hiker could actually be a spy, because that’s why spies do (skulk around innocently and claim they aren’t spies, nosireee), but innocent people do the same thing. Who do we trust? Not Iran, and not Putin.
My reaction is “possibly.” And if not, stupid enough that I don’t really care what happens to them. It is pretty easy to avoid being wrongfully arrested near Iran’s borders…
Then next, Kim Kardashian will head over to negotiate both their releases.
The US Navy made the same mistake that the hikers did:
Personally I’m not a risk-taker. I’m not going to be hiking in Iraq, playing basketball in Russia, or bringing fruit into Canada. I could adopt the attitude that Americans that take risks above my threshold are stupid and I shouldn’t have to cover for them, but I don’t think that’s fair.
We’re a big, messy country and the standard deviation on risk-tolerance is large. I like it that way. I benefit from Americans taking risks I wouldn’t. Three young people working in Iraqi-Kurdistan creates a richer population than if they hid out in the 'burbs. If I want those advantages, then I have to be willing to accept some mistakes and even some bad decisions.
Not that most folks in this thread really need it, but the irony of having a separate thread about how many Russian energy moguls (and journalists and basically anybody else) have “accidental” deaths while some here in this thread are defending the idea of a largely trustworthy or impartial Russian legal system is hilarious.
They just don’t understand the gravity of the situation.
Has anyone in this thread said that the Russian legal system is trustworthy or impartial? Link?
I would think that no one on the SDMB would be foolish enough to believe that.
Any word on Rodman?