Hacker News Reader

Comment by sorcerer-mar | Hacker News Reader

> The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year, and that doesn't mean everyone will even stay there that long.

Where did you see this contract? I follow quite a few lawyers in this space who have been asking to see said contract and AFAIK it hasn't been produced. Can you link to it please?

> Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court?

Uhh... yes? This person hasn't just not received a life sentence, they weren't even charged.

View on HN

The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract, let alone if it applies to the prisoner in this case.

I think the judge is beyond frustrated and I would expect contempt charges to start flying pretty quickly, particularly after the government seems to keep flaunting her orders.

> The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract

Source?

Hard to prove something's lack of existeance.

But from what I roughly understand, Xinis own documents don't have direct reference to a contract. They rely on AP's reporting of such a contract. So it's legally pretty ephemeral as of now.

Yet another law brokenm since such foreign treaties and contracts should be publicly documeted. But what does that matter at this point?

It was in the defenses own filing. I don't have the link off hand but look up last week's filing of the case and they dug up that the contract was for 1 year, after which the US will decide the disposition of the prisoners. They used it as part of their argument that the US still maintains control over the prisoners, since the contract stated the US has control over their disposition.

It should be findable on either PACER or court listener, although all the ones I read were pdf from various news articles.

FYI because it can be misleading here, "the defense" is Kristi Noem/DHS/the US Government.

Kilmar Garcia has never been charged with a crime and is not a defendant in any case whatsoever. He is a kidnapping victim who is suing his kidnapper.

Into the main topic: I looked and don't see any such filing. I can find references to a memo from El Salvador claiming that it's 1 year for $6 million. I can't find a contract though, so the evidence suggests no such contract has been produced. Curious if you're willing to link directly to it though!

Here's what the aforementioned filing states:

> According to a memorandum issued by El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides that the detainees will be held “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.”

I.e. referencing a memo, not a contract. This is unusual/illegal as any contract that USG signs over $25,000 must be reported.

>El Salvador’s ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it “will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition.” S.A. 149 (quoting Matthew Lee & Regina Garcia Cano, Trump Officials Secretly Deported Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a Notorious Prison in El Salvador, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Mar. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeportations-salvador-tren-a... (emphasis supplied)).

>The Government undertook this action pursuant to its agreement with El Salvador, wherein the United States paid El Salvador six million dollars to hold detainees “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab...

I think this was written by Judge Thacker

All of which references the same memo and not a contract.

A federal judge recognized the imprisonment service agreement in trade for money.

That's a contract.

You can semantic-smith all you want that a memo cannot present the contract. A contract can be referenced without there being some big document that says 'contract' on it. Everyone else but you knows what it is. Whatever you reply next will just be word-garbage to try and refute that. Judges in this case aren't buying it, and they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos.

So you can show me this contract in the Governmentwide Point of Entry, as is required under FAR Part 5?

No, you can't. You can try to escape the substance of the argument with phrases like "semantic-smith" if you'd like, but law is semantics.

And no, the judges referencing the memo that claims such an agreement exists does not indicate that judges "buy it" that there is a contract. The case before them is not about contracting compliance and public records, so they wouldn't be interested to bottom out that issue. The quoted language is not even allegedly from any agreement, contract or not, formal or informal. The quoted language is from a memo about the alleged agreement.

Edit to your edit:

> they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos.

Ah, so it's "an informal arrangement" now? Interesting change of heart you've had. Our government is not allowed to make "informal arrangements" that involve shipping human beings to foreign governments and paying them several million dollars per year, for all sorts of very obvious procurement and budgetary reasons, even aside from the human rights issues.

They're 'not allowed to'.

But they did.

Trump & co pulled one over on you. Just because it's not in the GPoE does not mean it doesn't exist.

It appears to be an informally arranged contract. Federal judges and 'memos' also recognizes this contract. Bukele and Trump publicly have reiterated much of the terms. I do not know if you will ever see a single traditional looking contract paper you desire, but the evidence is everywhere, not the least of which that the memos statements and actual reality of El Salvador taking prisoners on behalf the US and publicly stating they have an agreement to do it.

What? I am not claiming there is no "agreement", duh.

You can't fly aircraft full of prisoners into a foreign country and have a televised propaganda show depositing them into a gulag without "an agreement."

Great job moving the goal posts and answering now to my original point: the USG has not produced evidence of a contract, as they are legally required to have and present.

Neither I, nor you, nor the public, nor the judge actually know what the terms of any agreement actually are. We know only what appeared in a memo written about an agreement.

Sorry but there's no way you thought I was suggesting the US just unilaterally put people in a foreign prison, lol. Good luck lifting those goal posts.

You're punching your fist into the air because the contract is not in a form you'd like. In the same judgements, judges go on to either call, or quote the calling of the facility as a 'contract' facility after establishing the contract agreement.

Just to refresh for anyone reading along:

> The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year

Ty's red herrings about court filings and so on are just that: red herrings. All sources lead back to exactly one piece of information, which is an AP article about a memo from El Salvador about an agreement. That AP article claims the memo says the following:

"El Salvador confirms it will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition"

That's it. It does not say "only" for one year. There is no information about the renewal terms. There is no information about what happens after one year. No one has produced the full set of terms of this agreement, and no one has produced evidence (as is required under US law) that an actual signed contract even exists (as is required under US law).

Readers can assess that how they wish.

> AFAIK it hasn't been produced

That is my understanding and that is indeed a separate issue that appears to be still underway. It was reported that Democrats in Congress already asked DHS for a copy of the contract on April 8 but I have not heard any updates on that yet.

But Occam's razor here... what's more likely? That the sky is falling and the US can and will now send people to their (presumed) death without any charges or day in court whatsoever (while you sit here accepting it, doing nothing), or that this is not actually the beginning of the end of the entire country in one fell swoop?

I choose to believe this is not the end.

> But Occam's razor here... what's more likely? That the sky is falling and the US can and will now send people to their (presumed) death without any charges or day in court whatsoever (while you sit here accepting it, doing nothing), or that this is not actually the beginning of the end of the entire country in one fell swoop?

Given that they've been sent to a brutal prison involving torture and forced labor, and that the people who sent them there are now claiming they have no power to bring them back?

Yeah man Occam's razor says we have a dictator doing and end run around the constitution, not that they are just being held for a few months before their trail date.

> what's more likely? That the sky is falling and the US can and will now send people to their (presumed) death without any charges or day in court whatsoever (while you sit here accepting it, doing nothing), or that this is not actually the beginning of the end of the entire country in one fell swoop?

Thank you for asking. The answer to your question is the first answer. It's not a matter of "can", it's a matter of "did, and publicly plans to do it more".

Did you account for the fact that this person was kidnapped and sent to a foreign gulag without even being charged with a crime?

No, it's not "the end," but no, it is also not certain at all that he's ever coming back or that a contract even exists.

I would like to believe it isn’t either but all of the evidence is starting to pile overwhelmingly over any evidence that it ISN’T.

>what's more likely?

That Trump 47 is true to his word and will keep boiling the frog if we don't stop him. I'm pretty tired of giving the BOTD to an administration that has so far done all teh bad things they promised (oh sorry. "joked about") and none of the good things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com