Hacker News Reader

El Salvador's government has stated they have no intention to ever release inmates from CECOT—it's permanent.

They have no rehabilitation programs and do not intend to establish such. There is no intent that the prisoners ever leave.

The plan with these US-sourced prisoners may be different from the ones El Salvador put there themselves, but apparently that's entirely up to Bukele now.

[EDIT] And regardless, "who knows when?" is indefinite.

Garcia's defense argues the opposite as you and claim it is a one year contract with disposition at the discretion of the US. In fact a large portion of their argument relies on this claim as it's their basis as to why the US has meaningful control over his fate.

Yes, and the administration has said they in-fact have no control (they very likely do, but evidently don't plan to use it).

It would be very nice indeed if the defense's assertions were treated as true by anyone with power to fix this.

Wrong. Garcia's defense claims that the Associated Press claims that a memo from El Salvador claims that it's a one year contract.

No one has seen any such contract, which is legally required both to exist and to be publicly listed under US law.

Judge Thacker's opinion was citing it. They are reflecting a contract based on evidence since the government has failed to properly record it. It just doesn't exist in the form you'd like, such as a written formal contract entered into the record.

Quite often contracts are never 'seen' and instead prosecution surrounding them involve gathering evidence, in this case including 'memos' and direct statements of heads of state.

Not true. Judge Thacker’s opinion references a lower court’s reference to an Associated Press article about a memo about an agreement.

You should write Xinis and Thacker your frustration and tell them you object. The rest of us recognize he was under no obligation to meet your evidentiary standards, and that they clearly presented a contract is in place.

Not true. They do not address the question of whether there is an agreement or the terms of it because it is immaterial to the case before them.

Xinis and Thacker represent that an AP article referenced a memo that refers to an agreement.

This is immaterial to the case before them, it is not immaterial to the falsity of your comments.

Not only is it material, it's a lynch pin to the entire case! If you keep reading:

>Considering these facts, and with no evidence to the contrary provided by the Government, the district court properly determined that “just as in any other contract facility, Defendants can and do maintain the power to secure and transport their detainees, Abrego Garcia included.” Dist. Ct. Opinion at 12. In its filings before this court, the Government makes no more than a naked assertion that Abrego Garcia “is in the custody of a foreign sovereign over whom America has no jurisdiction.” Mot. for Stay at 9. But the record demonstrates otherwise. There is no indication that Abrego Garcia has been charged with a crime in El Salvador or is being held there pursuant to the laws of El Salvador. On the contrary, Abrego Garcia is a detainee of the United States Government, who is being housed temporarily in El Salvador, “pending the United States’ decision on [his] long term disposition.” S.A. 149. Thus, the district court’s order does not require the United States to demand anything of a foreign sovereign.

Instrumental here is 'contract facility.'

The District court and Thacker's quote cite the El Salvador facility as a 'contract' facility. On that basis they argue it is not a demand on a foreign sovereign, but rather a detention by the USG.

No, what's critical is not the existence of a contract or not, but whether the US has actual control over the prisoners. That part is undeniable regardless of a contract. Xinis derives this view not from evidence of a contract, but first and foremost from the fact that to have lost control of the prisoners would involve having discarded the INA entirely, which the executive obviously cannot do.

From immediately before your quote:

> Surely, Defendants do not mean to suggest that they have wholesale erased the substantive and procedural protections of the INA in one fell swoop by dropping those individuals in CECOT without recourse

My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention. We have no evidence beyond an AP report about a memo that this is the case. Neither we nor the judges know what the terms of this agreement are. For the judges' purposes, the terms are irrelevant beyond "does the US have control," which of course they do.

> My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention.

Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free.

Where there's money, there's some kind of agreement. Even if it's completely unspoken and unwritten (which I doubt either way).

If the money stops, so would their acceptance of droves of new deportees.

Not to mention that $6M for 300 people indefinitely is nowhere near enough... but for 1 year it certainly makes a lot more sense, I think that comes out to $20k/yr per person, which is cheaper than what it costs the US to do the same.

Nobody is doubting the existence of an agreement. I am asserting that we have no way to be certain about any of the terms of said agreement, given that no one has seen it.

(And as a side assertion, that the Trump administration is breaking the law by not having said contract available for at least the judge, if not the public).

> Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free.

Remember they will be doing forced labor. They've essentially been remanded into slavery.

>[EDIT] And regardless, "who knows when?" is indefinite.

I would have saved the typing and just put this. indefinite can be 2 days, or 200 years. He was never given a sentence and this very article shows the intent to release anyone.

If he was being held under that contract, then it wouldn't be correct for the DoJ lawyers to say he's outside of US jurisdiction. But they keep claiming that he's under El Salvador's jurisdiction. They say they can't ask for him back, it's out of their hands.

That's fundamentally incompatible with the idea that El Salvador is holding him at their direction and under a limited time contract.

> then it wouldn't be correct

Indeed. And then what would be the point of the contract? Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free, even El Salvador, that just Does Not Compute (TM). I would much prefer to assume the DOJ is simply lying and that they are wrong, as to me that seems extremely likely.

If it isn't "indefinitely", then did they specify his return date?

> According to who? Why do you think this is somehow the case?

Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT and has specifically ruled out doing so in this case. Trump says he's powerless to get him released.

> In what scenario does indefinite detention make any realistic sense even for the best-case scenario of its intended purpose i.e. rightfully-deported violent criminals?

Slave labor, which is what the people in CEDOT are being used for, again per their own president.

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

Yes! That's the whole problem!

> Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT

He has released 8,000 people in the last 3 years.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocent...

And yet Bukele's Justice Minister (sorry misremembered not Bukele himself) has said they will "never return to their communities" and somehow we are unable to get back this one man. Saying everyone is lying to openly defy a Supreme Court order when they can get him back anytime just by asking, and he'll be released "sometime" is not the comfort you seem think it should be.

https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-us-rubio-prison-de912...

Sorry if I don't believe the "world's coolest dictator"'s administration whose actions disprove their words.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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".

> 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.