Hacker News Reader

Comment by constantcrying | Hacker News Reader

I guess it depends on what will be happening. Are they trying to give him enough rope to hang himself with? Or are they actually going to try to exonnerate him in some way?

(The usual "rope to hang yourself with" genre in journalism is the interview, where the journalist has significantly more control, compared to a public talk.)

The biggest question to me is why he isn't in prison or at least why there seems to be some possibility that he won't end up in handcuffs the moment he lands in the US.

View on HN

The reason he might not end up in handcuffs when he lands in the US is that the Bahamian government currently has control of him and wants to try him first. They'll only let him come to the US if the U.S. guarantees he'll go back to the Bahamas for their charges. Or, if he uses zoom.

And as of now, they can only be handing him more rope. The media can help convict, but they cannot exonerate anyone. A prosecutor can just go forward and find 12 people who never saw this fairly niche event.

> They'll only let him come to the US if the U.S. guarantees he'll go back to the Bahamas for their charges.

The US has a law that says they will invade The Hague if the court there makes a decision they don't like. Are you sure there's such thing as "the US guarantees"?

Source on the law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

"Hague Invasion Act" is in the first sentence, not hard to Google...

“However, this is an extreme interpretation of the act, and the act does not expressly authorize nor mention military action against the Netherlands (a close ally of the United States) or any ICC members, nor does it threaten an invasion of The Hague.”

Not hard to read either…

> the law authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"

It might not be expressly stated, but it's pretty clear. Sure, it's a super-extreme case - but it's there, explicitly saying "by all means necessary ...".

The US has always abided by such agreements. The Hague requires the US to rescue soldiers held by an international body whose authority over US forces they publicly and perpetually deny the legitimacy of. It's not going back on your word when you keep reiterating you're not involved.

The biggest question to me is why he isn't in prison

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. He hasn't even been charged with anything yet.

(Aside: prison is for sentences of greater than 1 year. Defendants awaiting trial who were denied bail are held in a jail.)

>He hasn't even been charged with anything yet.

That is exactly my point.

Once charges are filed there is a limited window of time to bring the case to trial, and you can only try a defendant once for a particular set of acts (in the U.S. at least; "double jeopardy").

FTX hasn't even finished collapsing. There will be plenty of time to prosecute him once all of the facts are known, assuming he hasn't been killed by one of his many victims before then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com