The Biden Presidency - 2020

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by henry296

Were other American citizens also released from Russian custoday in exchange for Russian Arms Dealers? While not publicized, I'm sure Griner isn't the only American being held in Russian jail.

Arms dealer? No Cocaine Dealer? Yes

Trevor Reed, Marine veteran, released from Russia in U.S. prisoner exchange : NPR

This is a masterful political move by Putin. He may be a better politician in the US than he is in Russia.

[Lathum]

People are out there on social media, mostly right wing ghouls, are acting like Biden was offered Whelan and was like, nah, you keep him!

The constant level of outrage these people have to generate must be exhausting.

[JPhillips]

SS is fine. All of the deadlines are just the date that payments exceed dedicated taxes. At that point either payments will be reduced to match taxes(lol) or money will start being pulled from the general fund (this is what will happen). Even if the "worst" case scenario happens it will just mean that eventually SS payments will drop by a quarter or so. There is no scenario where Social Security goes bankrupt.

[Edward64]

Pretty sure we have different definitions of "fine".

You are right, SS won't go bankrupt. But we were talking specifically about insolvency.

Social Security and Medicare Are Approaching Insolvency | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees released their annual reports on the state of the trust funds today. The Trustees find that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund will be insolvent by 2028, Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund will run out of reserves by 2034, and the theoretically combined Social Security trust funds will be insolvent by 2035. Upon insolvency, Social Security benefits will be reduced across-the-board by 20 percent under current law while Medicare Hospital Insurance payments will be reduced by 10 percent.

[JPhillips]

Inslovency just means the payments exceed the taxes, but when that happens no politician is going to let SS payments be cut by 20%, so they'll just start pulling money from the rest of the budget. They may even, God forbid, raise taxes to cover the gap.

We're not going to see SS suddenly drop by 20%.

[Edward64]

I do agree politicians won't let it drop by 20%. But it's not fine, there has to be a "fix" (and for Medicare also).

Originally Posted by Edward64

... I'll also bet the politicians will do something to save SS as we get closer to the insolvency date.

[albionmoonlight]

SS payments are not guaranteed by law, so the whole idea of a "trust fund" is silly.

All it does is let politicians who want to cut it point to the fact that it is running out of money. Even though the entire US economy runs on deficit spending.

Congress should eliminate payroll taxes and increase income taxes to make up for it. And then just put all the money into the same pot.

[Edward64]

Yay (even though it was more than what Biden had asked for)

The U.S. House has passed a massive bill to fund the Defense Department for fiscal year 2023, teeing up a final vote in the Senate in the coming days that would send the $858 billion behemoth to President Joe Biden’s desk, where he is expected to sign it.

Uh oh.

Among the more than 4,000 pages of legislation is a requirement that the Pentagon drop its Covid vaccine mandate for active duty servicemembers within 30 days of its enactment.

The Covid risk has certainly lessened and has impacted younger generation much less. And we aren't in a shooting war (but lots of low intensity stuff) I think.

I think a happy compromise is to require vaccinations for anyone service member that will be overseas. But don't think the GOP will go for that. Tough decision for Biden but looks like he will concede to the GOP demands.

But the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, said on the House floor Thursday that it was the right time to end the vaccine requirement. His comment was seen as a strong signal that the White House will back the final bill.

[Edward64]

FWIW

Nicolas Cage as Yuri Orlov (largely based on the exploits of international arms dealer Viktor Bout)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yay (even though it was more than what Biden had asked for)


Uh oh.


The Covid risk has certainly lessened and has impacted younger generation much less. And we aren't in a shooting war (but lots of low intensity stuff) I think.

I think a happy compromise is to require vaccinations for anyone service member that will be overseas. But don't think the GOP will go for that. Tough decision for Biden but looks like he will concede to the GOP demands.

If there's one thing that's usually bi-partisan it's that can spend more money on the military.

Did we really need a $81,000,000,000 increase over last year's number?

Can we just get one major political party that is fiscally responsible?

[Brian Swartz]

Nope. Fiscally responsible doesn't win elections. Spending the people's money, and the money of their children and grandchildren, is what they are elected to do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If there's one thing that's usually bi-partisan it's that can spend more money on the military.

Did we really need a $81,000,000,000 increase over last year's number?

Can we just get one major political party that is fiscally responsible?

$75 billion for a bomber that will use weapons that haven't been invented yet.

[Swaggs]

I like feeling safe, so don't mind staying out in front with military spending, but if the last year has taught me anything, seeing our 2nd or 3rd biggest rival (China seems pretty clearly #2 after seeing how this Russian-Ukrainian war has gone) in the world struggle with Ukraine makes me believe that sacrificing some small percentage of that safety in order to provide some additional services or comforts on the domestic front would be good thing.

[GrantDawg]

We spend more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. You think maybe we can that down to the next three countries at least?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

People are out there on social media, mostly right wing ghouls, are acting like Biden was offered Whelan and was like, nah, you keep him!

The constant level of outrage these people have to generate must be exhausting.

Lost in the argument is the fact that Bout was scheduled to be released in a little over 6 years. So it's not like he was looking at life or even long term incarceration here.

It would have been nice to get Whelan out, but we don't know the full picture here so it's hard (for me, obviously not for others) to be outraged by anything.

EDIT:

Reading up on this, Russia early on offered a 2 for 2 swap that would have included Whelan but backed out and their final offer was the Bout for Griner swap or nothing. My guess is they didn't want to give the Biden administration a "win" at home because of the support we've given Ukraine. Considering Bout was scheduled for release in August of 2029 I'm kind of ok with this if it was the only option on the table. If we kept him incarcerated here any longer Russia would have probably been ok with just waiting his sentence out. At least with this we brought a wrongfully imprisoned American home.

[Edward64]

Here's the swap. It started off like in a spy movie and then ... not

https://youtu.be/rIkzBcGUs4w

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Atocep

At least with this we brought a wrongfully imprisoned American home.

"Wrongfully?" No.

She did commit a crime in the country she was in. Might be a rather excessive punishment by our standards, and I have no doubt there were political motivations behind the sentence, but she was not innocent.

And we traded a guy responsible for god knows how much death, who will almost certainly go right back to his old trade. Madness.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We spend more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. You think maybe we can that down to the next three countries at least?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I know in raw $, the US does spend much more than any other country.

I do wonder what the nos are when "normalized" for "cost of living". And it's not just expensive military equipment, it's also expensive labor cost, training etc. See below article when compared to China.

How does China's defense spending really stack up against the US? - Sandboxx

In 2020, China’s Defense budget was a claimed 1.268 trillion yuan, or about $196 billion. America’s, on the other hand, was a hearty $778 billion.
:
To do some back-of-the-envelope math for 2020 then, China’s claimed $196 billion on defense likely looked more like $254.8 to $276.4 billion (30% and 40% over their claims, respectively).

... a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army makes around $3,105 per month, or about $37,260 per year. In another report penned by Dr. Marcus Clay at China Aerospace Studies Institute, he explained how the Chinese equivalent of a Brigadier General in the U.S. Army makes under $42,000 per year.
:
For context, American service members receive both basic pay and entitlements in various forms, some of which are based on dependent status, location, and type of duty. A married Marine Private First Class (E-2) with less than 2 years of service stationed aboard Camp Lejeune, North Carolina will take home $2,000.70 in basic pay, $386.50 for Basic Allowance for Subsistence, and $1,263.00 as their Basic Allowance for Housing. Combined, that comes to $3,650.20 per month, or about $43,800 per year.

I know cost of living is not a near accurate way to do the comparative analysis but is somewhat indicative. So just for kicks the $778B x (1 - .64) = $280B in yuan when using COL

The average cost of living in China ($758) is 64% less expensive than in the United States ($2112). China ranked 108th vs 6th for the United States in the list of the most expensive countries in the world.

Ultimately, I'm sure the US still outspends China by a considerable margin. But it sure was nice to have all those spare toys to give to Ukraine on a moments notice (relatively speaking).

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

"Wrongfully?" No.

She did commit a crime in the country she was in. Might be a rather excessive punishment by our standards, and I have no doubt there were political motivations behind the sentence, but she was not innocent.

And we traded a guy responsible for god knows how much death, who will almost certainly go right back to his old trade. Madness.

If we are going to trust the Russian legal system in one case, shouldn't we trust the Russian legal system in all cases?

Whelan, a former marine who is a US, Irish, British and Canadian citizen, was detained at a Moscow hotel in December 2018 by Russian authorities who alleged he was involved in an intelligence operation. He was convicted and sentenced in June 2020 to 16 years in prison in a trial US officials denounced as unfair.

Now I am extremely biased. I have zero trust in the Russian legal system when it comes to American citizens. I don't trust the authenticity of the video the Russians released as evidence against BG in the same way I do not trust that the evidence that Paul Whelan knowingly received a flash drive containing the names of Russian border guards. I don't think either one of them committed a crime under Russian law. Both are wrongfully detained IMO.

If the preference is for BG to remain in a Russian prison for the next nine years so Viktor Bout can remain in a US jail for the next seven years, well okay I guess. Even if that has remained the case, I don't that has any bearing on Whelan. I think it is pretty clear that Whelan is not on the trading block for anything less than a top level Russian spy at the very least.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If we are going to trust the Russian legal system in one case, shouldn't we trust the Russian legal system in all cases?

Ummmm no, that's terrible logic.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Ummmm no, that's terrible logic.

Do you trust them?

[Edward64]

Are you saying you do not believe that she has cannabis on her person/luggage and that it was planted/made up?

I think there is enough evidence to show she did have the cannabis. And if so, that did break Russian laws.

But there is no doubt in my mind that she got a stiffer sentence because of the geopolitics.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't trust them on their own citizens, let alone those from other countries. I think it's better for Griner to not be in prison than in a Russian prison.

Is it remotely worth setting someone like this free prematurely? No. It's incredible to me that it's even a matter for discussion. I think it's obvious what the reaction would be if Trump did this. The reaction should be the same for Biden doing it.

It goes beyond just Bout of course. The precedent that you get a prisoner of that stature for incarcerating a well-known American is 100% intolerable IMO.

The US has lots of guilt in many areas. This isn't a nationalistic/patriotic approach in my mindset. It's a 'you just don't do this kind of thing. Ever. You don't think about it.' Any reaction other than laughing loudly and slamming the proverbial phone down as hard as you can is unacceptable.

I hope Bout doesn't resume something similar to his former activities, and is content to grow old gracefully or whatever. And even if he does, yes there are many other arms dealers out there and one more or less isn't going to make an appreciable difference. To my mind that's completely beside the point. There has to be some semblance of equality in these kinds of trades, and even then they are highly questionable.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Lost in the argument is the fact that Bout was scheduled to be released in a little over 6 years. So it's not like he was looking at life or even long term incarceration here.

I really, really don't get this. Griner wasn't looking at life either. They had similar lengths yet to serve - more for Griner, but similar.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Are you saying you do not believe that she has cannabis on her person/luggage and that it was planted/made up?

I think there is enough evidence to show she did have the cannabis. And if so, that did break Russian laws.

But there is no doubt in my mind that she got a stiffer sentence because of the geopolitics.

What I am saying is that I do not trust any evidence presented against American citizens in Vladimir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. I do not trust the Russian legal system to treat American citizens fairly in Vladamir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. No, I do not believe BG intentionally brought the cannabis oil into the country as the Russian prosecutors argued. I do not believe Paul Whelan knowingly received a flash drive containing the names of Russian border guards as a spy for the United States as the Russian prosecutors argued in his case.

I believe in both cases Russian authorities used its legal system as a pretext for holding Americans as leverage. Am I biased? Absolutely! But that is what I truly believe.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I really, really don't get this. Griner wasn't looking at life either. They had similar lengths yet to serve - more for Griner, but similar.

It's not to compare those two. It's to point out that this wasn't a guy that was going to rot away in an american jail. He was going to be released in 6.5 years. Some of the outrage as if we had this guy locked up for the rest of his life.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Is it remotely worth setting someone like this free prematurely? No. It's incredible to me that it's even a matter for discussion. I think it's obvious what the reaction would be if Trump did this. The reaction should be the same for Biden doing it.

Trump's admin negotiated the release of 5,000 taliban prisoners and I don't remember this amount of bitching from the left. We definitely didn't hear a peep from the right about it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

What I am saying is that I do not trust any evidence presented against American citizens in Vladimir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. I do not trust the Russian legal system to treat American citizens fairly in Vladamir Putin's Russia especially this version of Putin. No, I do not believe BG intentionally brought the cannabis oil into the country as the Russian prosecutors argued. I do not believe Paul Whelan knowingly received a flash drive containing the names of Russian border guards as a spy for the United States as the Russian prosecutors argued in his case.

I believe in both cases Russian authorities used its legal system as a pretext for holding Americans as leverage. Am I biased? Absolutely! But that is what I truly believe.

Okay, I can see an argument where she did not "intentionally" plan to bring the cannabis. Personally, I think she knew she was bringing it in. She just thought it was okay because she had a prescription or that she's done it before and it wasn't an issue before.

But no argument that she was used as leverage and disproportionately sentenced.

FWIW, watching the YT Canada border security, I know that it's illegal to bring any cannabis (regardless of a valid prescription, regardless of quantity) into Canada.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And we traded a guy responsible for god knows how much death, who will almost certainly go right back to his old trade. Madness.

I think people overhype Bout's impact. He was a frontman for and a face to put to something happening, but ex-Soviet weapons were probably still flowing out of the country at the same rate after he was out of the game. If you look at his actual arrest it was borderline entrapment to get him to come out of semi-retirement and help broker a deal. Even the judge who convicted him came out and said she didn't think his sentence should be that law but it was a mandatory minimum.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think people overhype Bout's impact. He was a frontman for and a face to put to something happening, but ex-Soviet weapons were probably still flowing out of the country at the same rate after he was out of the game. If you look at his actual arrest it was borderline entrapment to get him to come out of semi-retirement and help broker a deal. Even the judge who convicted him came out and said she didn't think his sentence should be that law but it was a mandatory minimum.

I think below article shows he was a very dangerous person when he was captured. I do hope he is happy with retirement and doesn't get back into the business (I can rationalize the trade then). But then, it bears asking why does Putin want him back if not for his connections and negotiation skills.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/w...o%2025%20years.

U.S. authorities finally caught up with him in Bangkok in 2008. Mr. Bout met with undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents he believed represented rebels from Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces, or FARC, which the United States considered a terrorist organization until last year.

When the prospective buyers told him the weapons could be used to kill American pilots, Mr. Bout responded, “We have the same enemy,” prosecutors said.

Thai authorities arrested him on the spot. He was extradited to the United States in 2010 and two years later was sentenced to 25 years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Is it remotely worth setting someone like this free prematurely? No. It's incredible to me that it's even a matter for discussion. I think it's obvious what the reaction would be if Trump did this. The reaction should be the same for Biden doing it.

You don't have to guess what the reaction would be if Trump did this because he did. He traded 3 commanders in the Haqqani terrorist organization for an American professor. He traded a man who laundered a billion dollars for Hezbollah. I'd say you can look up the immense backlash for those decisions, but you won't find much because there wasn't.

And lets not forget that Trump signed an agreement to release 5000 Taliban prisoners, including 400 who had committed violent acts including the murder of Americans. This was in return for a promise that the Taliban wouldn't allow Al-Qaeda back into the country, which they almost immediately reneged on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We spend more on defense than the next 9 countries combined. You think maybe we can that down to the next three countries at least?

You'd think with all that spending, our military could actually win a war.

The additional spending has little to nothing to do with fighting China or Russia. It's to enrich defense contractors.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You don't have to guess what the reaction would be if Trump did this because he did. He traded 3 commanders in the Haqqani terrorist organization for an American professor. He traded a man who laundered a billion dollars for Hezbollah. I'd say you can look up the immense backlash for those decisions, but you won't find much because there wasn't.

And lets not forget that Trump signed an agreement to release 5000 Taliban prisoners, including 400 who had committed violent acts including the murder of Americans. This was in return for a promise that the Taliban wouldn't allow Al-Qaeda back into the country, which they almost immediately reneged on.

If this were Tom Brady they were freeing, do you think there would be the same outrage?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The additional spending has little to nothing to do with fighting China or Russia. It's to enrich defense contractors.

Exactly. We could reduce spending by a large percentage if we cleaned up the waste in the system. Never going to happened.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If this were Tom Brady they were freeing, do you think there would be the same outrage?

Personally, I would still ask the question on what Bout will be doing after being freed. If the assessment is he will be returning to Nic Cage, then I would still be against it.

For example, Bergdahl was a deserter and was exchanged for 5 Taliban. I couldn't find any articles that said the 5 caused allied deaths after the exchange. But based on their current status, I'd say it was highly likely they caused additional deaths. Was Bergdahl worth it? No, not then but do continue negotiations for a better deal

Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports.

The four members of the so-called “Taliban Five” who have joined the new government are Acting Director of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq, Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs Norullah Noori, Deputy Defense Minister Mohammad Fazl, and Acting Minister of Information and Culture Khairullah Khairkhah. The fifth member of the Taliban Five, Mohammad Nabi Omari, was appointed governor of eastern Khost province last month.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Exactly. We could reduce spending by a large percentage if we cleaned up the waste in the system. Never going to happened.

I agree with this. But I'd apply the "clean up the waste" to any other large government programs

[NobodyHere]

Well, she can no longer be considered a DiNO

Democratic Sen. Sinema has registered as an independent

[PilotMan]

Wow, does that just fuck the Dems now for committee's and such? What a bitch power play.

[BYU 14]

I don't see any change to what she has always been and she will still caucus with Dems. This is likely something she has had planned for a long time, but could not have gotten elected as a independent. Now, she uses this to run like Bernie Sanders does, knowing she can count on the independent and some centrist GOP voters, while giving Dems no choice but to support her because the progressive wing in AZ is not strong enough to primary her.

It is still very self serving, but at least the cat is out of the bag now.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I don't see any change to what she has always been and she will still caucus with Dems. This is likely something she has had planned for a long time, but could not have gotten elected as a independent. Now, she uses this to run like Bernie Sanders does, knowing she can count on the independent and some centrist GOP voters, while giving Dems no choice but to support her because the progressive wing in AZ is not strong enough to primary her.

It is still very self serving, but at least the cat is out of the bag now.

I'm a dumbass but wouldn't she face a Dem and a Rep in an election? I was thinking this move was only to prevent facing a primary challenge.

[Ksyrup]

Not if the Dems are concerned that splitting the vote would elect a Republican. I see this playing out the way the Lee-UT race worked, with McMullin running as an independent and the Dems agreeing not to run a candidate against him to try to beat Lee. Except here, she's an incumbent senator as opposed to a challenger to an incumbent.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'm a dumbass but wouldn't she face a Dem and a Rep in an election? I was thinking this move was only to prevent facing a primary challenge.

She will still run on a Dem ticket by touting how she caucuses with the Dems, because she knows running as a straight Ind would in fact get a republican elected. She also may elect not to run again, who knows with her.

The funny thing is during the 2020 election the GOP here ran attack ads talking about how she wanted to join Al Qaeda and was more "extreme" than AOC. Money well spent LOL

[Swaggs]

I think it is a pretty shrewd political move for her political survival. Given her low level of popularity and support among Dems, Rep. Ruben Gallego has been angling to primary her in 2024 and would have almost certainly defeated her. With this move, it seems like she is going to run as an independent and dare someone like Gallego to run as a Democrat, which will almost certainly lead to a Republican winning OR the Dems can clear the field in order to invite her to run on their ticket in order to give them a chance. And she will then have had a chance to fashion herself as above bipartisan politics and beholden to no party and probably be more attractive to the 'Mavericky' group of voters in Arizona.

Not the best thing for the party, but the best thing for Sinema and her survival.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Is it remotely worth setting someone like this free prematurely? No. It's incredible to me that it's even a matter for discussion. I think it's obvious what the reaction would be if Trump did this. The reaction should be the same for Biden doing it.

It goes beyond just Bout of course. The precedent that you get a prisoner of that stature for incarcerating a well-known American is 100% intolerable IMO.

The US has lots of guilt in many areas. This isn't a nationalistic/patriotic approach in my mindset. It's a 'you just don't do this kind of thing. Ever. You don't think about it.' Any reaction other than laughing loudly and slamming the proverbial phone down as hard as you can is unacceptable.

I hope Bout doesn't resume something similar to his former activities, and is content to grow old gracefully or whatever. And even if he does, yes there are many other arms dealers out there and one more or less isn't going to make an appreciable difference. To my mind that's completely beside the point. There has to be some semblance of equality in these kinds of trades, and even then they are highly questionable.

I missed this last night. This is a worthy discussion to have. Going beyond Britney Griner, Paul Whelan and even Trevor Reed, should the US be exchanging famous or even non famous citizens who have been "unjustly detained" in hostile nations for foreign citizens we have in our jails that said those hostile nations like Russia, North Korea, China etc. want back home. For all the talk of whether it should have been Whelan or whether it should be Griner, it is clear that Bout is the one who was going to be exchanged. Would it have been better "trade value to exchange Bout for the director of global security and investigations for an international automotive parts manufacturer based in Michigan?

[JPhillips]

The thing with Sinema is that her approval ratings for any group you want to define are in the toilet. She's loathed by Dems, GOPers, independents, old people, young people, whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

She can't win, but she might keep another Dem from winning. As always, it's all about her ego.

[HerRealName]

It didn't occur to me that the Dems would cuck themselves over by supporting Sinema's run as an Independent. Sounds 100% plausible though.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The thing with Sinema is that her approval ratings for any group you want to define are in the toilet. She's loathed by Dems, GOPers, independents, old people, young people, whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

She can't win, but she might keep another Dem from winning. As always, it's all about her ego.

[RainMaker]

It's just a move to try to blackmail the Democrats into not running another candidate against her and supporting her. She knows she is toast in a primary. It's a desperate move but really all she has at this point. I figured she would not run and just work for some lobbying group.

The Dems should absolutely ignore her and run a primary like normal. If she ends up being a spoiler, so be it. It's better than bowing to the least popular Senator in the country. And I do wonder if she'd actually run as an independent if the Democrats called her bluff.

And regardless, I don't think she ends up being much of a spoiler. She's loathed in Arizona by everyone. In fact, she's more popular with Republicans than Democrats. I'd seriously wonder if she'd be more of a threat to spoil some far-right candidate who the more moderate Republicans refuse to vote for.




[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think below article shows he was a very dangerous person when he was captured. I do hope he is happy with retirement and doesn't get back into the business (I can rationalize the trade then). But then, it bears asking why does Putin want him back if not for his connections and negotiation skills.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/w...o%2025%20years.

He was out of the game for 6 years before the US targeted him. I don't know the legal definitions but it really was borderline entrapment.

Amid increasing international pressure, including an Interpol arrest warrant issued in 2002, Bout returned to Moscow.

By many accounts, Bout at that time stepped back from his most intense work in the arms trade. He lived in Golitsyno, a small town outside Moscow. A friend visiting his home in 2008 later noted that it was filled with books as well as, surprisingly, a DVD of the 2005 Nicolas Cage film “Lord of War,” which was reportedly inspired by Bout’s life.

Unfortunately for him, that guest — former South African intelligence agent Andrew Smulian — was working for the DEA.

Bout was arrested later in Thailand, where he had been secretly recorded by the DEA organizing the purchase of 100 surface-to-air missiles, 20,000 AK-47 rifles, 20,000 grenades, 740 mortars, 350 sniper rifles, five tons of C-4 explosives and 10 million rounds of ammunition for people he thought were agents for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), an insurgent group.

The elaborate sting operation got around a key problem in the U.S. pursuit of Bout: He hadn’t broken any U.S. laws. In 2011, a federal court in New York found him guilty of a variety of charges, including conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump's admin negotiated the release of 5,000 taliban prisoners and I don't remember this amount of bitching from the left. We definitely didn't hear a peep from the right about it.

I'll just say that this shows me once again I am assuming too much common ground in how we see the world. That's at least half my fault, probably more than that. I don't think this situation is analogous. Probably a bad decision to be sure, but it's not even remotely close to the Griner-Bout exchange.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Going beyond Britney Griner, Paul Whelan and even Trevor Reed, should the US be exchanging famous or even non famous citizens who have been "unjustly detained" in hostile nations for foreign citizens we have in our jails that said those hostile nations like Russia, North Korea, China etc. want back home.

Fair question. I think prisoner exchanges are sometimes a good idea. They just need to be remotely equal, and not in the sense of 'one or both countries brings absurd, trumped-up/inflated charges to make them equal'. All of that can be hard to sort out. Celebrity/notoriety, much as I detest it, certainly is a factor also. From what I understand Whelan was never on the table. In any case, my objection here is that it's just not in the area code of equal. None of the people who have been discussed; not Whelan, not Griner, unless one of them is doing a lot more than is known publicly, is worth giving up Bout for.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Are you saying you do not believe that she has cannabis on her person/luggage and that it was planted/made up?

I think there is enough evidence to show she did have the cannabis. And if so, that did break Russian laws.

But there is no doubt in my mind that she got a stiffer sentence because of the geopolitics.

What evidence do you or anyone have honest question? I mean they say she had this but I wasn’t there next to her? Is the evidence that she is a black, tattooed, lesbian, basketball player so of course she had drugs? For the right that is obviously the take.

[Flasch186]

Well it’s often the case that half our country trusts Russian information and Russian intelligence FAR more than they do our own across the board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll just say that this shows me once again I am assuming too much common ground in how we see the world. That's at least half my fault, probably more than that. I don't think this situation is analogous. Probably a bad decision to be sure, but it's not even remotely close to the Griner-Bout exchange.



Fair question. I think prisoner exchanges are sometimes a good idea. They just need to be remotely equal, and not in the sense of 'one or both countries brings absurd, trumped-up/inflated charges to make them equal'. All of that can be hard to sort out. Celebrity/notoriety, much as I detest it, certainly is a factor also. From what I understand Whelan was never on the table. In any case, my objection here is that it's just not in the area code of equal. None of the people who have been discussed; not Whelan, not Griner, unless one of them is doing a lot more than is known publicly, is worth giving up Bout for.

I think this captures why there is not the common ground you are looking for. First off, I think that most people will agree with the general sentiment here in a vacuum. This is a matter of policy regardless of the people involved. That does not mean exceptions can't and wont be made but I think everyone can at the very least agree to disagree with the sentiment.

However this has not played out in a vacuum and it has not been something that has been discussed as a matter of policy as you have here. It has been a personal discussion against Britney Griner IMO. It has been discussed as Griner somehow deserves her fate while Whelan, Reed and Marc Fogel do not because the Russians legal system was legit in her case and bogus in the others. It has been discussed that exchanging Bout for a WNBA player is ridiculous while at the same time arguing that the director of global security and investigations for an international automotive parts manufacturer based in Michigan who was in Russia for a wedding should have been the person exchanged for Bout. It has been discussed as while not an apples to apples comparison, we have allowed the "Merchant of Death" to go potentially get back to selling illegal guns that will kill Americans for just Britney Griner while not acknowledging that we also allowed 5,000 Taliban prisoners to go back to doing what they do that will kill Americans for well nothing. There is so much more but you get my gist.

If the argument is the Griner/Bout trade was a loser for the US according to the prisoner exchange version of the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart, I think there is a certain amount of common ground there and arguements can be made why it should or should not have been made. However, if we are arguing that this trade is lopsided and then arguing that the Reed trade was and potential Whelan(with the provision you stated above) or Fogel trades for Bout would have been winners or at the least fairer value for the US, then no there is no way to have common ground in that case.