Griner
-
Damn. There was a veteran held on suspicion of being a cia agent that was going to be part of the swap.
He should have been prioritized over this chick.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
Damn. There was a veteran held on suspicion of being a cia agent that was going to be part of the swap.
He should have been prioritized over this chick.
-
Damn. There was a veteran held on suspicion of being a cia agent that was going to be part of the swap.
He should have been prioritized over this chick.
-
Well to be fair I have no idea whether the Russians were really against releasing Paul Whelan or if they only had one and chose Griner.
The comments from Whelan’s family suggest the former, they said Biden did the right thing trading for Griner rather than hold out for a deal that can’t be done.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
There was more juice in getting Griner out. I would not be surprised if they prioritized her.
Yes. Supposedly the Russians are considering Whelan an espionage case, so it's not the same as a petty drug crime.
So, we gave them an arms dealer.
Right....
-
Frankly, I think the Russians just got tired of the athlete’s incessant assertions of being discriminated against because of being black and gay along with her whining about the food and accommodations. Besides that, the other inmates probably disliked her sense of entitlement.
-
In the meantime nobody is even mentioning Mark Fogel.
-
In the meantime nobody is even mentioning Mark Fogel.
-
A Terrible Concession to Putin’s Russia
Today you’re going to hear a lot of people defending the Biden administration’s deal to secure the release of Brittney Griner by giving Viktor Bout, the world’s most notorious arms dealer with a metaphorical ocean of blood on his hands, back to Russia. (I called the then-potential deal a “moral abomination” back in August.) Not securing the release of Paul Whelan makes this bad deal even worse.
A lot of defenders of the deal will contend that critics are indifferent to the suffering of Griner, which is a dodge and a smear. The question is not, “is it in the interest of the U.S. government to secure the release of Brittney Griner?” That’s a silly question; the U.S. never wants to see its citizens unfairly detained under brutal conditions on trumped-up charges. The question is, what is an appropriate concession to secure the release of those citizens, and does the payment of the ransom make future problems like this more likely?
It is hard to overstate the crimes of Bout; if any human being deserved to rot in prison for the rest of his days, it’s him. Longtime State Department official Witney Schneidman, who tracked Bout delivering arms to both sides of the Angola civil war, called Bout “the personification of evil.” From the end of the Cold War until his arrest in 2008, if there was an arms embargo, Bout flouted it — Liberia, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Congo, Libya. Whenever there was a dictator or warlord who needed weapons to mow down his enemies or suppress a suffering population, Bout was there to make a profit off of bloodshed. He earned his nickname, “the Merchant of Death.”)
After all, if the U.S. government is willing to release Viktor Bout — at one point, the second-most-wanted man after Osama bin Laden! — under enough pressure, then the U.S. government will release anyone under enough pressure: terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, spies like Robert Hanssen.
It is likely that one of the reasons the Biden administration went ahead with this deal was their confidence that enough allies would choose to characterize it as a major diplomatic victory, not an epic concession to a hostile state that is likely to try to use the same strongarm tactics again in the future.
