4 ms·

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. The

by HWR_14 4y ago

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.

leethaxor 4y ago
> 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"?
- phyalow 4y ago
  Source on the law?
  - leethaxor 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... "Hague Invasion Act" is in the first sentence, not hard to Google...
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      “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…
      - leethaxor 4y ago
        > 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 ...".
- HWR_14 4y ago
  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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by HWR_14 4y ago

leethaxor 4y ago

> 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"?

phyalow 4y ago
Source on the law?
- leethaxor 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... "Hague Invasion Act" is in the first sentence, not hard to Google...
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    “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…
    - leethaxor 4y ago
      > 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 ...".
HWR_14 4y ago
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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]