comment: >
  
  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.
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.