5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

generj 2y ago
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.
- majorchord 2y ago
  > The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract Source?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    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?
ty6853 2y ago
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.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  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.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    >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-aragua64e72142a171ea57c869c3b35eeecce7 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/abergo-garcia-fourth-circuit-stay-denial.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab... I think this was written by Judge Thacker
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      All of which references the same memo and not a contract.
majorchord 2y ago
> 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.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  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.
- soupfordummies 2y ago
  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.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >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.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > 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".

generj 2y ago

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.

majorchord 2y ago
> The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract Source?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  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?

ty6853 2y ago

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.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
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.
- ty6853 2y ago
  >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-aragua64e72142a171ea57c869c3b35eeecce7 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/abergo-garcia-fourth-circuit-stay-denial.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab... I think this was written by Judge Thacker
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    All of which references the same memo and not a contract.

majorchord 2y ago

> 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.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
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.
soupfordummies 2y ago
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.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>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.
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> 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".