3 ms·
Many people here are talking about how more powerful people are also corrupt and are getting away with it. All corruption is bad. This soldier put the life of e
by ghtbircshotbe 6mo ago
Many people here are talking about how more powerful people are also corrupt and are getting away with it. All corruption is bad. This soldier put the life of everyone on the mission in danger by doing this.
- enraged_camel 6mo agoAll corruption is bad. Selective enforcement of the law is worse. It increases corruption by giving a strong incentive to win favors from powerful people.
- cucumber3732842 6mo agoAt least they're still pretending to not be corrupt. Inequality codified into the law, literal separate rules, is worse still.
- nonethewiser 6mo agoDo you think this guy's chances of getting away with it would have increased if he solicited favors from powerful people?
- throwaway85825 6mo agoA pardon costs ~1M, just need to still more than that and you're golden.
- TSiege 6mo agoThe sentiment is not that this man shouldn't be prosecuted it is that the blatant double standard and growing endemic societal cancer that is corruption is being allowed to blossom while leaders target scape goats for the same behavior. What this administration is trying to signal with going after this guy is that the problem is not with them, it's someone else, that they're on the up and up. It is why scapegoating is an effective tactic
- fsckboy 6mo agoit's a blatant double standard if you have evidence of people "doing it and getting away with it", but you don't, you just suspect it. and it's scapegoating if blame is centered on a person or group to explain away the totality of a widespread (or made up) problem, and that is also not happening here, instead "a person did something" and got arrested.
- kodt 6mo agohttps://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/us-senator-alleges-insider-trading-143233942.html https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/us-senato... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/08/polymarket-trump-us-iran-ceasefire https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/08/polymarket-...
- tranceylc 6mo agoI don’t understand the point of denying reality when it unfolds in front of you. Plenty of evidence for these things. Denial of obvious truth is an American epidemic and cultural export
- HDThoreaun 6mo agoThe point is that none of the congressional cases would end in a conviction. So unless you want to suspend rule of law theres not really much we can do without some hard evidence.
- tranceylc 6mo agoRule of law has been suspended in your country already. That’s an observable fact
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- superxpro12 6mo agorelevant: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/traders-place-760-million-bet-falling-oil-ahead-hormuz-announcement-2026-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
- copper4eva 6mo agoThese things aren't mutually exclusive. I don't see what is wrong with rightfully complaining about how insider trading is very rampant. This soldier deserves his punishment. I just wish they would enforce these laws on our congressmen.
- alberto467 6mo agoUnfortunately enforcing any laws on congressmen is very difficult. In all decent democracies elected politicians have immunity or similar safeguards, since the separation of powers (as theorized by Montesquieu in the middle of illuminism) which represents the foundation of democracy demands that both the legislative and executive power be separated from the judicial one. “Making the politicians pay for their crimes” is often just a populist argument, while there are ways to incriminate them, expecting that they can be prosecuted like us normal citizens is not compatible with democracy. You may not like what I said but I said it. Go read the original works by Montesquieu, he understood it first.
- inetknght 6mo agoWhat one theorycrafter says does not make it right; nobody should be above the law in a democracy. We should have no kings in a democracy.
- mcepl 6mo agoYou said SHOULD. Yes, I absolutely agree that politicians (and I very intentionally do not call any names) should be criminally punished most harshly for abusing their position for personal enrichment or for some other egoistical goals. On the other hand, these are the people we, as totality of all voters, chose for their function. The main punishment for a politician in democracy should be the threat of losing next elections, not criminal prosecution. And of course, per definition, in every democracy every politician has a majority of citizens, who considers him stupid and in the hysterical environment of the current political life (hysterical for many more or less good reasons) such politician is not only opponent, but an enemy if not a traitor. There is an unfortunate tendency to convert this adversarial feeling into full blown hate and accusations of criminal misconduct.
- 45qyqy45 6mo ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 6mo agoIsn't this war profiteering, just with a slight indirection? And what does Paul Graham have to do with it?
- akmiller 6mo agoThe issue is that the people enforcing this have made a huge amount of money doing the same thing, but with a full on war!
- freedomben 6mo agoThank you, this was my first thought as well. He essentially leaked classified mission info for the purpose of scoring some cash on it. Insider trading in congress is a big problem too, but there are some real differences here.
- trollbridge 6mo agoSuch as that Congress can legally do insider trading since they won’t pass a law outlawing it.
- freedomben 6mo agoYes, absolutely. It's truly grotesque what they've done (exempting themselves from laws that apply to everyone else).
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- TheCoelacanth 6mo agoThey literally did pass a law outlawing it in 2012. Enforcement has been very poor, though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- idiotsecant 6mo agoYes, those real differences are that the soldier was not the chair of any powerful legislative committees.
- CGMthrowaway 6mo agoThey didn't make the bet until after the raid - but before the announcement. Surely they endangered people, perhaps more and different people than simply those on the mission
- ghtbircshotbe 6mo agoCan you provide a reference? From a Reuters article: > prosecutors said Van Dyke bet more than $33,000 on Polymarket between December 27, 2025, and January 2, 2026, that Maduro would soon be out of office and that U.S. forces would soon enter Venezuela Maduro was taken on January 3. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-soldier-charged-over-maduro-removal-insider-bets-released-250000-bond-2026-04-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-soldier-charged-...
- themafia 6mo agoUnless someone knows the bets are placed by an insider how does this create any sort of risk?
- HDThoreaun 6mo agoIncentivizes him to take on more risk to ensure mission success. When someone bets 32k that a political opponent of the US is going to be kidnapped I think its fair to say some will assume it was placed by an insider.
- b0rtb0rt 6mo agohe was more incentivized for the mission to succeed? how horrible!
- acdha 6mo agoHe was incentivized to win the bet. The military does not want people to have outside loyalties because that creates problems any time they’re not perfectly aligned – for example, if they had orders to minimize team or civilian casualties you don’t want this guy starting a messy firefight because he’s thinking the target is getting away and willing to risk someone else’s lives for half a million dollars. You also have to think about leaning information: if people do this, bodyguards around the world are going to monitor betting markets looking for unexplained changes. The military doesn’t like anything which can leak timing information since that increases the risk of a mission failing.
- theptip 6mo agoBoth are true. No sympathy for this guy if he’s guilty as charged. But also don’t forget that this guy’s trades are a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of the likely insider trading that’s visible in the Polymarket logs. (Eg on timing of Iran attacks, Trump tariff announcements, etc)
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- CodeMage 6mo ago> All corruption is bad. This is true, just like "all lives matter" is true, and it misses the point in the exact same way. Those people you are replying to are not saying that this soldier should get away with his corruption because more powerful people are getting away with theirs. They are saying that those who abuse greater power are doing greater harm, and that their corruption should be punished with greater urgency. On top of the harm the powerful people inflict directly through their corrupt actions, there's a secondary effect on the society at large. Unlike trickle-down economics, trickle-down corruption is a real thing. People see those in power get away with corruption and say "Why should I do the right thing?" Of course, the usual answer from those in power ends up being "because we have the power to punish you and you don't have the power to punish us". And that's how you end up with the arrest and prosecution of a US soldier on the same 5 counts that the top politicians and their cronies are getting away with on a daily basis, aided by the president himself.
- scoofy 6mo agoTwo wrongs don't make a right. Legitimizing small time corruption because bigger corruption exists just legitimizes corrupt behavior in general. It should be offensive no matter who does it.
- CodeMage 6mo agoI have to ask: did you read what I wrote before you replied to me? I know the question might come across as an attack, but it's not. I'm genuinely curious about what process lead to your comment being a reply to mine, when mine explicitly states the following: > Those people you are replying to are not saying that this soldier should get away with his corruption because more powerful people are getting away with theirs. They are saying that those who abuse greater power are doing greater harm, and that their corruption should be punished with greater urgency.
- scoofy 6mo agoI did read it. Your point is effectively irrelevant. It means the same thing. Creating an "urgency chain" is effectively the same thing as justifying behavior. It's like saying "we shouldn't worry about enforcing traffic laws because we need to use our resources to bring war criminals to justice" when the reason where not bringing war criminals to justice isn't for lack of concern, it's just that we have no coercive power. Caring about prioritizing things where we do not have coercive power is pointless.
- afroboy 6mo ago*He's a terrorist that put the life of other terrorists in danger.
- 8954789543547 6mo ago[dead]
- folkrav 6mo agoIs the far left in the room with us?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- nonethewiser 6mo agoIt's posturing. And a very predictable narrative. Of course the DOJ did the right thing here. But how can we frame it so that the DOJ=bad?
- michaelsshaw 6mo ago[flagged]
- shortstuffsushi 6mo agoMan, you've been on a streak of these purely vitriolic posts. Maybe take a break from the internet for a bit? These posts read like someone who needs help.
- michaelsshaw 6mo agoI didn't realize that acknowledging the enormous amount of bad blood the US has sowed was sign of mental illness.
- ncr100 6mo agoYes, and: It's a short step from the Congress people taking advantage of foreknowledge, vs them MAKING self advantageous opportunities. And it's not guaranteed their "making" is in the public interest.