comment: >
  
  Depends on how holistic you read my entry. Obviously, you can understand that the American Privilege is demanding a negotiation or a trade for a convicted American felon in another country just because the punishment is considered harsh by American standards. It's America-centrism. Thinking that the world revolves around America?
context: /u/veryveryundude (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, 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 ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  Britney Griner got arrested for breaking Russian law
  
  First, you're right that she was arrested for breaking Russian law. To the extent that you claim that alone, you're right.
  
  demanding her being brought back was American Privilege
  Demanding Griner back was disrespectful to every single country in the world.
  
  It is not disrespectful for countries to demand the return of citizens that were prosecuted in another country. This is true even if Russia did not have a kangaroo court system that routinely ignores its own stated internal rules when prosecuting American citizens. This happens all the time, it doesn't mean each nation condemns or is disrespectful of the other nation. Do you think it's necessarily disrespectful for Russia to demand the return of it's nationals?
  
  It was a message to the world: "Our nationals do not have to respect your laws if it's not like ours. But you can't do the same thing to us. We can do this because we are strong." 
  
  A prisoner exchange, which is what occurred after the verdict in the Russian kangaroo court system, sends a different message: "We are willing to negotiate for the release of our citizens, even if it means trading someone who committed far worse crimes in our land, because we value rule of law and our citizen was punished in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law." 
  
  Also, in the future, if an unpopular US citizen is arrested because of the same reason in a foreign country and the government does nothing about it, that would not just be hypocritical, it would mean that means that popular individuals are more important than other citizens. Isn't that concerning?
  
  That would be concerning. Luckily, as the Washington Examiner and other outlets have reported, that is not the case under this administration's state department. Other prisoner exchanges have occurred that don't involve anyone nearly as famous - which is probably why they aren't as reported on. >
  
  
  our citizen was punished in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law."
  
  As if we dont  imprison people for marijuana here >
  
  While I have mixed feelings about the Brittney Griner situation, I also think most people don't know how Russian "laws" work.
  The way crimes are prosecuted in Russia isn't always black and white. In some cases, the government is aware that you are breaking the law, but only acts for political (Putin's) gain.
  In essence, they use the fact that they know you committed a crime, as an invisible gun to the back of your head that they can fire at any time for any reason.
  For example:
  
  Nearly ALL of Russias elites engage in corruption
  Corruption is illegal in Russia...like over a decade in prison illegal
  The Russian government likely knows who all of the high profile corrupt officals are
  They do not immeadietly prosecute corrupt officals when they find out
  
  The point being that whenever Putin feels like it, he can remove an elite and say they were corrupt, and would actually have real evidence. But he isn't going after these people because they re corrupt and he wants to clean up the country...he is doing it for some arbitrary reason that benefits himself.
  So on the one hand, it is plausible that if Brittney Griner had drugs on her, she likely did this before, and the Russian's knew about it.
  But the fact that they chose to act now, was likely political in nature. They were about to do something that would be condemned internationally, and wanted ammunition to shoot back.
  So while yes, Britney Griner broke the law and should be called out on it, that doesn't change the fact that her detention was most likely politically motivated.  And if it was politically motivated, a political solution isn't all that absurd or a sign of "American Privilege" >
  
  
  So on the one hand, it is plausible that if Brittney Griner had drugs on her, she likely did this before, and the Russian's knew about it.
  
  We can not attest to what likely happened in criminal case circumstances. This argument would not hold anywhere. It is just an assumption. I invite you to argue with the data that is shared with us, instead of conspiracy theories.
  ​
  
  But the fact that they chose to act now, was likely political in nature. They were about to do something that would be condemned internationally, and wanted ammunition to shoot back
  
  We also do not have data to state whether they waited to act or Griner was caught red-handed. Not trusting Russia is a trait you and I both have but conspiracy theories are not arguments. >
  
  I don’t know about standards of evidence required in court, but we aren’t putting Putin on trial in this comments section. Nor, I believe, was the United States. People here are just saying, with evidence, that it is likely that the actions of Russia were political in nature. The people in the American government who made the decision to bargain seem to think that Russia was making a political move, and they probably have a better understanding of global politics than any of us here. So, under your view, the American government officials are either wrong or they are lying. It seems most likely that if they are more right than you, given their qualifications (unless you have some kind of undisclosed expertise). If you assume that they know what they’re doing, then your position entails that they are lying. This is equally as conspiratorial as the previous commenter’s claim, so it seems to me that your position is no stronger than theirs. 
  Also, I’m not claiming that it is unlikely that the US government lied. That seems very likely to me. But, on the other hand, so does the possibility that Russia was making a political move. >
  
  
  It seems most likely that if they are more right than you, given their qualifications (unless you have some kind of undisclosed expertise). If you assume that they know what they’re doing, then your position entails that they are lying.
  
  So basically you're saying that unless I am an expert on this issue, I have no authority to make better arguments than anyone else. I don't think so. >
  
  I’m saying you’re not making an argument
  Edit: sorry that was unclear, I’m saying specifically you’re not making an argument about whether or not Russia’s actions were political in nature. >
  
  Honest question for you: do you think she would have been charged with "trafficking" and not just "possession" if not for the current US/Russia political climate?  Or better yet, is it reasonable for people to believe that? >
  
  So the problem is her sentence? Would you be okay if the sentence was 5 years but not 13 years? Or just write your number. 
  Every country has a different approach to drugs. Russia for instance is extremely suffering from drug addiction and alcoholism. If you triple the amount of the worst places in America, that would give you the best place in Russia. Maybe they are harsher because of that? Not just only the US-Russia political climate (which was never good). 
  Every country has unique reasons for the severity of its law. Many US states grant you to kill the people who trespass on your yard. In my opinion, letting someone get away with killing someone else just because of trespassing is extreme. Many other countries do not allow that, including Russia. If you kill someone in your yard, you're in for murder. So, I don't think, as Americans, we have the position to dictate what is harsh or not. >
  
  The problem in this case is the REASON she was sentenced the way she was.  I am not asking "Is her punishment reasonable from Russia's point of view" I am asking "Is her punishment harsher than it should be because she is American?"  For example, she had a vape cartridge, and they said she was trafficking a significant amount of cannibis.  Do you agree that people who view her as being charged harder because she is american have a reason to want her back, but not a person arrested in the UK who was arrested for breaking the law with nothing indicating there was a "prosecute the american" element to it? >
  
  
  Demanding Griner back was disrespectful to every single country in the world. It was a message to the world: "Our nationals do not have to respect your laws if it's not like ours. But you can't do the same thing to us. We can do this because we are strong."
  
  But they did do the same thing to us, we released a Russian who broke our laws. The facts do not comport with your assessment. >
  
  It was a trade proposal we initiated. >
  
  Irrelevant. Russia would just say no if they respected US law. Russia respects no laws, not even their own. >
  
  Russia played politics from the very first opportunity.
  That made her valuable.
  A wnba player of good quality who was openly gay ticked alot of boxes for the creation of an example for the Russian people to see. It also pissed off alot of americans.
  We got the better deal... and the Russian people know we will take care of our own regardless of sexual orientation.
  note: Russian womens basketball will take a hit come international play whenever Putin's stupid war is over. >
  
  It was a trade. The Merchant of Death was released too. It was an exchange between two parties. Being part of a trade isn’t a display of privilege. >
  
  I can see the argument that the US negotiating that trade is a privilege.  That said, I believe she was sentenced so harshley because she's from the US, so the US was responsible for getting her free as a result. >
  
  In many countries, carrying drugs means capital punishment. It's their law, it is their country. It is not in our power to dictate to them what is harsh or not. >
  
  Hypothetical for you: Let's say they 100% treated her harsher than they would a Russian BECAUSE they wanted a pawn to use against the US.
  Do you agree that because she got a harsher punishment because of the US/Russia political sphere, that it's wouldn't be hypocritical to negotiate her release, but not a person who just broke the law in the UK and got the same punishment a person in the UK would have had? >
  
  It would have been an interesting topic to discuss if she didn't plead guilty. 
  However, we can argue if her plea deal was by force or not. But that would be diving into conspiracy theories. I think we can only discuss the information that is shared with us. >
  
  "Today BG pleaded guilty. It was her decision informed by discussion with her legal defense team in Russia. Brittney sets an example of being brave. She decided to take full responsibility for her actions as she knows that she is a role model for many people. Considering the nature of her case, the insignificant amount of the substance and BG’s personality and history of positive contributions to global and Russian sport, the defense hopes that the plea will be considered by the court as a mitigating factor and there will be no severe sentence."
  That's from the article.  They gave her 9 years out of a possible 10.
  Also, from that article:
  
  Many said they see the guilty plea as a route to a potentially more lenient sentence in a country that has a conviction rate that is higher than 97 percent. Meaning, no matter if she admitted guilt, she was — in all likelihood — going to be found guilty.
  
  Think about that, a 97 percent conviction rate...why would you fight it?
  Additionally:
  
  Added St. Julian-Varnon: “You don’t see prisoner swaps with Russia, usually until the foreigner has admitted guilt. So, I think if there is a prisoner swap, this would be the first step.”
  Understanding the two charges
  
  So, that's another reason to admit guilt: to have a chance of getting set free.
  
  while traveling into the country with a controlled substance carries a harsher five-year minimum to 10-year maximum sentence, though judges can choose a lesser penalty if they so decide.
  
  She got 9 years, close to the maximum sentence for .702 grams of hash oil, which has trace amounts of cannibis oil.
  Does a person who goes "I never mean to do this crime, it was an accident, and I plead guilty" deserve close to the maximum punishment?  Or does it appear that she is being prosecuted so harshley for another reason?
  Are all the things I mentioned "conspiracy theories?" or does the fact that she was arrested right before Russia invaded Ukraine supposed to be ignored because russia never said "we are doing it to hurt America"? >
  
  
  She got 9 years, close to the maximum sentence for .702 grams of hash oil, which has trace amounts of cannibis oil.
  
  We cannot say that it was unjust punishment for their country. They followed their guidelines and she got her sentence that is in the books. 
  My argument is, again, YOU say it's a harsh punishment. Other countries may have different views, if you do not respect that and demand her back, it is out of privilege and entitlement to nose your way into other countries' affairs.
  What a person say and what they deserve are unrelated things. Courts are run by evidence. 
  In my opinion, in a case where a foreign citizen is killed by an American because of trespassing and tell the victim's country to suck it it's our law when freeing the killer, we do not have the right and position to say what is harsh or not. >
  
  I'm saying it's a harsh punishment USING THEIR STANDARDS!
  What case deserves a minimum sentence more than "trace amounts of cannibis in less than one ounce of oil that a person didn't mean to bring with them"?
  Answer that question.  Give me a situation where minimum should be used to better show that this isn't a trumped up charge against an american. >
  
  Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy that is in a rivalry with America and you trust them to a) not make up charges and b) not overcharge for anything that did happen? >
  
  So what view are you explaining here and open to changing? Because I assumed the title was your thesis, but you don't seem to reference "American privilege" ever again and seem to veer into a lot of unconnected topics.