Comment by Xx_motocross_xX | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xx_motocross_xX | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Xx_motocross_xX

Yes and no. With the 'owner' of BTC-e now facing extradition to Russia instead of the US, it appears that the US is rapidly losing control of the world monetary system. BTC-e was back up within a month as WEX, so it appears the US effort had no effect. There is nothing stopping someone from opening and operating a cryptocurrency exchange from a country without an extradition treaty. Even countries with extradition treaties are less keen than ever to extradite to the US, especially with the US facing war crimes charges in international courts. The US has made their position on torture clear. Other countries are concerned that by sending their citizens to a nation complicit in torture, they might face legal penalties or lawsuits themselves.

It's ironic, since the US gloated heavily when they took over the BTC-e domain. They thought that this would be another cut and dry Liberty Reserve, but this time they're caught in an international tug of war.

Hold up. The US is not “facing war crimes charges in international courts.” That’s a very dangerous mischaracterization of what’s actually happening, and you can’t just type things like that.

A year ago, Bensouda made some noise and said her administration at ICC wanted to investigate Afghanistan. (They’ve been looking at it informally for eleven years. They’ve been investigating Darfur since 2005; how’s that going?) Now, she has made more noise and requested formal authorization to investigate. She doesn’t have it yet. This seems like a pedantic point but is actually extremely important, otherwise we could say President Trump is facing obstruction of justice charges. He isn’t. They’re looking for them, and they don’t exist yet. Big difference.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=171120-otp-stat...

It’s certainly possible, though I consider it extremely unlikely given the political situation and resources of ICC, that charges will surface in the future. That said, ICC does not charge nations. It charges individuals. Long ago, we had our own debate on this under Gonzales regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to unlawful combatants, which is how multiple administrations (and nations) have considered detained terrorists. The Hague is late to the party.

Worth noting that Bensouda is looking to investigate the “Situation in Afghanistan” (that’s a quote) as a whole, lumped us in with the Taliban and Afghani forces, and hedged our alleged crimes to 2003-2004, a courtesy she did not extend to other parties. I think it’s safe to say we all know what that’s about.

The ICC deal with matters under the following conditions:

1) The state is a party to the Rome Statute; or 2) Referral by the UN security counsel; and 3) The internal judicial processes of the state cannot deal with the apparent crimes

The US is not a party to the Rome statute (see "Invasion of the Hague Act" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...), and with veto power on the security counsel it seems unlikely to be referred to the Court by that body.

Therefore any suggestion that any US citizen/president is tried by the ICC is ridiculous. The threat is toothless. The ICC has no enforcers.

Do you have any good sources you recommend on the BTC-e "owner" and his story so far? I would like to read more about it.

Sources?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com