Rodman ended up not going. He announced it on the same day, but it didn’t seem to make the headlines. The State Department discouraged the trip.
Wait, seriously? It’s implicit in the OP. Or am I in the wrong thread?
As for explicitly, it comes not long after the OP:
So, um…yeah, the point of the OP (and several other posts) was basically an assertion that in the case of Griner, the Russian justice system acted impartially and justly. There is no reasonable reading of those posts that can be taken otherwise.
I disagree with your characterization. Instead, I - and I think several other folk - pointed out Griner’s contributory culpability, and questioned the interests of the US in such situations.
The OP itself points out the relevance of the oppressive government with an antagonistic dictator.
Even the post you quote simply says any country has the right to enforce their laws how they wish. It says NOTHING about that enforcement being impartial and just.
There are likely points to be made in favor of Griner that can be made without misrepresenting alternative positions.
As I noted, it was “implicit” not only in the OP but in subsequent posts.
There are several posts suggesting that any violation of Russian law makes Griner’s treatment at least acceptable, that how Russia deals with things is different from the West, etc. Very little of that matters if the system of justice is not impartial or fair but they kept being brought up.
Your post strategically snipped my quote in order to mischaracterize my argument.
Here’s my position.
-
Brittney Griner brought some trace amount of a controlled substance into Russia. Russian authorities didn’t plant it or invent it. Her own defense lawyers concede this point!
-
Not just Russia but lots of other countries, upon finding controlled substances at customs, would have arrested Ms. Griner. Even democracies with respected legal systems!
Now… here’s the nuanced part.
-
What is outrageous about Russia’s treatment of Ms. Griner was not the arrest itself but her draconian sentence. Nine years in prison… for possessing less than a gram of hashish oil! Not only is this outrageously disproportionate on its face, but it also goes far beyond how Russia has treated similar cases committed by Russian citizens.
-
The circumstances, and our past experiences with Russia, strongly suggest that Russia has handed this case so harshly for political reasons, to ensure a prisoner swap for one of their own. This in itself is another grave miscarriage of justice.
You know what, if that’s the case, I got it wrong. Mea culpa. I’ll accept that.
But if that is the case, I’ll still stand by the assertion that it is very easy to misconstrue many posts made, especially early in this thread, to what I took away from it. If that was only me and nobody else, so be it.
I’m glad we could get past this misunderstanding!
Believe me, I too would have little patience with anyone trying to defend Russian “justice.”
Her appeal has been rejected:
When it is all said and done, she packed her own bag.
It’s hard to believe that one could prepare to travel to a country with a ruthless, totalitarian government, yet pack so hastily that drugs would be included in one’s bag without one realizing it. Yet, there you have it.
It’s hard to imagine that someone would prepare to get on a plane and yet pack so hastily that a gun would be included in one’s bag without realizing it. Yet, there you have it.
Personally, I wonder how many of those claims are actually true.
What claims? When someone goes through the TSA checkpoint, something gun-shaped is seen on x-ray and then a hand inspection finds an actual gun?
Edited to add, and then the passenger admits to having forgotten that the gun was in the bag?
Those claims?
The claim that, after TSA opens the suitcase; “Gee, how did that 357 magnum get in there?!”
One thing I have been wondering is whether her defense lawyers were de facto free to deny the charge. The calculus in the moment could well have been that fighting the charge could have led to a worse outcome.
My understanding is that the nine-year sentence is completely out of line with what others get for similar crimes.
While it seems very likely Griner did inadvertently* screw up, my understanding is exactly that. Russian lawyers typically won’t advise foreigners to contest the case on factual grounds because a charge that the evidence was planted never works and leads to a potentially even worse outcome. If Russian customs planted evidence to frame you they almost certainly did it on orders, not on a lark and the court system will more or less be in on it.
*Inadvertent because of the tiny amount and the partially used nature of what was found. If she has a habit to support she’s not doing it with that minuscule bit of material. It just screams of a hasty packing fuck-up. Dumb, in isolation. But not unrelatable and definitely not worth an iota of jail time.
This is what I find questionable. How do we know it wasn’t planted by Russian officials and that she was not coerced into saying she must have inadvertently packed it. Why are we trusting Putin’s people over an American citizen while Russia is openly committing war crimes?
I say they targeted her because she is known to use weed AND that she is a high profile black gay athlete that they could use to sow divisions in America public support. And a large part of the American people don’t even question that it is possible she is being set up because of their own prejudices. It’s happening to those other people who are not part of my tribe sort of thinking.
I’m honestly surprised that there are people anywhere in the world who believe that this whole thing is anything other than political.
Yeah, the fact that the Russians are floating exchanging this woman imprisoned for the most minor of drug charges for a convicted arms dealer pretty much guarantees it was a political feint. Which is separate from the question of whether they set her up or just took advantage of a situation that fell into their lap. Either is plausible in this case.