I don't follow your argument. It sounds like you're saying that as long as something is legal in the U.S., American citizens should be free to do it anywhere in the world, despite local laws to the contrary, but that makes no sense. Of course a tourist is obligated to follow the laws of the country they are visiting. It seems the real point of your post is to share your make-believe world view in which one of the political parties (whichever it is you dislike) is oppressive and looking for power, while the other (your party) is kind and fair.
I feel bad for Griner, and I'm sure if she could go back and do it over she wouldn't break the law, but I understand that anyone who visits a foreign land follow the laws of that land, not their own land.
reply
share
MichaelJPollock (813)
3 years ago
Understood friend, it's the law of the land and she should expect to face the consequences of her actions.
She was at the very list very careless. Probably even stupid and/or arrogant. But does she 'deserve it' though (10 years imprisonment or whatever the penalty in Russia is for her transgresssion)?
It's the law of the land (or more exactly the custom -which is equivalent to the Law, when no official record of laws ia available) to genitally mutilate and infibulate pre-teen girls in several middle eastern and sub-Saharan African countries. Do they deserve it?
Not all laws stand on the same morally justifiable grounds. Some laws are unethical.
I'm with the OP here.
reply
share
FilmBuff (7436)
3 years ago
Plenty of countries have laws that we consider unethical, but that's their right as sovereign states, isn't it? Short of going to war against every country whose laws differ from ours, what do you suggest we do about it? If an American citizen breaks the law abroad, we can't expect that country to forgive and free him anymore than we'd forgive and free a sub-Saharan African who came here and genitally mutated a pre-teen girl, nor should we.
reply
share
MichaelJPollock (813)
3 years ago
You are exactly right I think.
But I think the OP was making a point -which I believe is no less valid than yours- about the difference between the ethical nature of a law (does Griner "deserve it or not"? / Is it fair or not? / Does it respect basic humans right and does the punishment fit the transgression? / Does it sacrifice the life of an individual to serve an ulterior political agenda?) and the sovereign nature of a country with regards to its laws (no matter how unethical).
And in reply to your (great) question: I'd certainly not advocate going to war with a foreign nation or state over a law that prescribes, say, hanging of anyone found in possession of amphetamines, but intervention is less easy to disregard in certain other cases (for example when a law leads to slavery, or ethnic purification and systematic extermination of a people).
Genitally "mutate" ? Sounds straight outo of a Cronenberg film. :)
reply
share