Abrego Garcia Was Beaten and Tortured in El Salvador Prison, Lawyers Say
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It's important to note that he made an appointment to seek asylum, then crossed the border when it was time for his appointment. He was granted asylum for credible fear. At no point did he break any US laws as far as anyone knows.
El Salvador is starting to sound like the location for a side plot in a 1990s cyberpunk novel.
The people complicit in this scheme are monsters who've chosen to shed their humanity. Certainly the guards who partake in sadism as a career and enjoy it; but in particular that grinning ghoul Bukele and his virulently racist enablers in the US, as well as anyone who doubles down even after learning that many of the convicts are, in effect, innocent. For God’s sake, they prettied this man up, paraded him out to Senator Van Hollen, and cracked jokes about drinking margaritas. How morally vacant do you have to be to pull a stunt like that?
Even more fucked up that the whole thing was a farce to begin with, given the dropped charges against MS-13 leaders: https://www.inkl.com/news/trump-admin-dropped-charges-agains...
I desperately hope that all these people someday face their own Nuremberg.
* https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalizatio...
"DOJ memo pushes for broader effort to revoke naturalized US citizenship":
* https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5379452-doj-mem...
"DOJ directs US attorneys to seek to revoke citizenship of naturalized Americans over crime"
* https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-directs-us-attorneys-seek-rev...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44438884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44448854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44438360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44434239
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44451722
So no, it's not new information.
I follow the HN raw RSS feed, so I see a lot of articles that don’t make the front page. I find that pretty much any article that refers to trans people is flagged. Many — not all — articles that are show the Trump regime or Musk in a negative light are likely to be flagged.
YMMV.
This follows the content policies of HN.
It clearly does play favorites when we are hearing the first firsthand account of an "unsaleable prison", but users will vote on the 20th AI article posted here.
Also, I expect better from the HN community when it comes to data. 5 (4, in reality. Because one of your links is flagged now) articles in a week not flagged for a forum that receives hundreds of submissions per day does not even meet the minimum statistical threshold.
I've been taking glances at the front page and top daily submissions for a week and was disenheartened that there were no articles on the Big Beautiful Bill that gained traction, or weren't flagged. I'm not particularly surprised at this point given historical trends, but a shame nonetheless.
I really have to question if you ever look at your own biases, because you just made up a story that agrees with your preexisting viewpoint. For the links I posted, I literally just searched "Trump" and took a few of the many unflagged posts from that search. It was in no way exhaustive. Why did you assume it was? It's quite easy to see that in a week, there are literally hundreds of unflagged political posts. My intention was to post an example, not a list of all of them.
Agree with you here. HN users can have some well thought-out and nuanced takes on political issues that span the political spectrum†, but the flamewars are often some of the worst I've seen as well. It's unfortunate because I can't think of anywhere on the internet that has better potential for reasoned political discourse. The only other place is Reddit, and the subreddits there are strictly echo chambers for your own preformed opinion.
† Funnily enough, I've seen flagged accusations that HN users are both too conservative and too liberal; too libertarian and too socialist.
I don't think HN mods operate as conservative or liberal (although curiosity is an extremely liberal cause), but I think they will come to understand the cost of neutrality.
If anything I think they have not fully confronted the paradox of intolerance or realized that the times are different than they were in the last 30 years of internet flame wars. In the past when Godwin's law and flame wars were the rule of every forum, there weren't historians at prestigious universities who studied the holocaust/fascism warning us that fascism is happening here in America right now.
It's very easy to have no flamewars if we don't talk about it at all. Technically correct, but I'm not a big fan of "O(1) performance!" achieved in such way. Optimization is about doing useful work, not avoiding it.
It's a real shame suppression is part of the strategy. Instead, encourage users to 1) be mindful in touchy topics and consider every little word in their post and 2) to ignore those who clearly aren't trying to facilitate a discussion.
> I think Dan G is doing a admirable job with riding the line as well as is possible.
Apathy is submitting in to the status quo. There are plenty of times where I disagree but can understand a status quo that does not benefit me.
This is not one of those times. This status quo is dangerous to everyone.
What’s the split? Who knows. But I’ve seen all three types on HN.
These are mental health preserving and physical health preserving until they are not.
Nobody wants to hear that if you don't do something bad things are going to happen and nobody in power, such as mods, wants to have their power challenged or use it to threaten others in power because it is going to make them uncomfortable or their lives harder.
What you are seeing is how Nazi Germany happened. Not this specific thing, but this behavior scaled over an entire population. People with empathy and others subjected to stress enter a state of grief, and the first stages of grief are shock (disbelief) and denial (not asking questions you know the answer to because the answer is too awful to bear), people tell them they are overreacting or that they are "too political." "Protest somewhere else" is a common sentiment for anyone inconvenienced by those who feel unjustly treated, and only once they personally experience harm do they start to change their mind.
It is flagged because most people want to be comfortable, and hearing uncomfortable things in comfortable spaces is something they don't want to tolerate, even if it threatens the existence of their comfortable spaces in the long term because curiosity is not compatible with authority and authoritarianism.
What has the US become? I am not surprised by the fact that Trump is a fascist, this is a thing I knew in 2016. What surprised me is how little popular resistance he has gotten and with which ease the US population gave away its rights.
I remember a time where americans scolded me online for my countries laws preventing certain types of speech (related to nazi insignia and Hitler), you guys do realize that if your government can just make up bullshit about you and send you to a torture camp abroad without due process, that free speech is no longer free?
Back then you people were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech. But my suspicion back then was that this was mostly a thing guys who grew up in the comfort of a first world civilization would say to come across as tough and manly. And guess what.
There should be no surprise at what has happened, since this is what the US voted for.
It was always the most obvious cover for "say or do something we don't like and we shot you". The current US administration policies were always their end game.
I've only seen shit like this in sicily in the early 90s, when the mob controlled much of the big cities.
The current reality is that the people who say this often say it to those they know don't have guns themselves to fire back with. Bullies, to put it in the simplest terms. They only take easy targets.
The entire model the US has been on since Reagan has been a rapid, uncontrollable concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer. The reality of that is of course, wealth translates (roughly) to power
On the reverse, in an authoritarian state you need to concentrate power in the hands of as absolutely few as possible. The loyal ones who keep the empire running
Of course you also need to convince the working class to "play along" with your game as you fleece the blind. So you enter the role of the fourth estate, particularly after Nixon. You just have to convince enough percentage of the population that you're "fighting for them"
So you create enemies. "The Gays" "The Trans" "The Browns" and all other cornucopia of manufactured enemies. Anything to divide and conquer and prevent the proles from rising up and obliterating your empire
This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. The police state we built internally, lack of trust we engendered externally, economic straitjacket trillions of useless spending caused to our livelihoods and then resulting collapse of the party of Reagan into the vindictive mess it is today, all of these trace from the Iraq War.
But it was still used to avoid full due process. Under treaties that are supposed to be law of the land under the constitution, we are supposed to accept legitimate asylum seekers.
What countries other than the US have the sheer extreme wealth inequality the US does?
Really the only other comparison is China. Which went from an existing authoritarian state to an authoritarian state using its working class as effective slave labor for western capital. It's "state capitalism"
All of South America, Southern Africa and Southeast Asia [1]. Also every single pre-industrial society.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_...
Judging by the name you'd think it would be a place where hacker ethics are prevalent (which would be most close to libertarianism in the original leftist sense, or anarchism). But of course we know that that's not the case, given how the site came to be and who runs it.
Personally I believe that the situation the US is in can largely be attributed to the failures of the democrats. When, due to material conditions, the voting population increasingly becomes accepting of more progressive ideas but instead gets neoliberal pseudo-progressives like Hillary Clinton as possible president, they become disillusioned with their party.
If you live in another country, let it be a lesson that neoliberalism can help the convergence to fascism by dismantling the leftist counter balance needed to be in place and try to stop it while you still can.
The reason this is happening is because people didn't vote to stop it. The far left are more OK with this happening than voting center left, as shown by their continuing to blame the center left for Trump's actions.
To the far left, their disillusion is more important than people being tortured. Truly disgusting politics at the expense of people's lives.
You know how you get people more to the left in the Democratic party? You work at it. You get your people volunteering in the party. You turn out votes. That's how parties/politics work. And you have to keep at it. Not kinda try one time on Burnies team then switch to just criticizing the Dems.
Or you could do nothing and then... enable torture and the loss of healthcare for millions. Not sure what the next step in that plan is but I guess that's where the far left has chosen for us to go. The far left in the US are accelerationists, they want it to all burn down so somehow starting again things go more their way. But they won't. The will be horrible AND we will be coming from a much worse place.
I've gotten into arguments with people (usually non Americans who tend to have an American tinge to their accents from consuming so much U.S. media) who are very pro 2nd amendment and wish their country had similar.
I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?". They usually say "Well at least they have that" then quickly move the discussion on to something else.
Anyone who's seen an episode of Cops knows how much protection a firearm provides you against law enforcement. Zero.
With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.
Also in the case of Vietnam, it's worth noting that the Viet Cong for all intents and purposes lost the insurgency. The war was won by the conventional forces of North Vietnam after the U.S ceased military aid to the south.
I also missed the most important point. Neither country had a 2nd amendment and both insurgencies imported arms illegally. And actual military hardware at that, not revolvers and sporting shotguns.
But the military may turn on its commanders if forced into a guerilla war against Americans.
The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression. There is a massive difference between pacifying a city with a couple of Marines and National Guardsmen and calling in air strikes on the homeland.
You mean a counter-terrorism operation against "Unpatriotic terrorists"?
>The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression
You can achieve that more effectively with a general strike, without alienating those who aren't willing to fire on their own countries military. Legally purchasable firearms would be more of a nuisance than a threat for a modern army.
Yes. The traditional framing is riot or rebellion suppression.
> can achieve that more effectively with a general strike
This is civil action. If protests and strikes work, the point is moot. Where weapons and training have historically made a difference is when the army is sent in to quell a strike.
To be clear, I believe we need stronger gun-control laws in America. And I think the current crop of J6 militias are the most potent terrorist threat this country has faced since Al Qaeda. But the logic of the 2A in making a military coup more difficult is sound. Even if the rest of the argument is not.
You're wrong, twice. Most population doesn't want a dictator king. And founders actually put protections against such scenario, in the form of supreme court.
The actual scenario you're facing is the majority of supreme court (and congress) wanting (or willing to bend a knee to) a dictator king.
He didn't say "most" he said "a large portion", which is definitely correct since he got almost half of the votes. And he's been very clear about wanting to be a dictator, so it should come as no surprise to his voters.
But if the system is not democratic, how is what a large portion of people think even relevant? Under such circumstances, people are not voters, it's a sham. Blaming them for the outcome is at best unhelpful and patronizing.
SCOTUS has zero ability to execute on their decisions - that's up to POTUS. Congress is also voted on by the populace, and most GOP not towing the MAGA line have been primaried because once again, a large portion of the population wants exactly this.
Pointing out that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired under Obama the SC wouldn't now be as extreme.
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
The US did not 'lose' Vietnam to a bunch of citizens/people: it was fighting a proxy war against China and the Soviet Union.
Further, South Vietnam existed for many years and when the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, and for a further two years. When the South fell in 1975 it was not because the US was beaten, but because it had moved on in its priorities.
The Vietnam theatre achieved its larger goal of driving a wedge between the Soviets and Chinese in the Cold War. See this lecture from Sarah Paine of the US Naval War College, "Who Lost the Vietnam War?":
You really can’t imagine an American insurgency finding sympathy among foreign powers?
Compare and contrast say the provisional IRA fighting the Brits to a stalemate in Northern Ireland for 30 years from the 70s-90s and then look at a modern equivalent in Palestine. The idea of a “well trained militia” doesn’t work when they can bomb you from the skies.
The same way the Taliban forced the US military out of Afghanistan, despite not having an air force or any tanks of their own.
And the Taliban had Soviet era military weaponry, not legally purchasable under the 2nd amendment firearms.
Taliban insurgency vs USSR (technically vs "People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan", who, one might add, killed more people in peacetime than the Taliban did in wartime). They had the support of the entire population, because, frankly, the Taliban are an improvement over these communists. Communists left to make the terror attacks stop, and because the USSR collapsed.
Taliban insurgency vs US/International Coalition. They certainly did not have widespread support, with constant claims that it's much less than 50% (in an election, not that 50% of the population was prepared to fight). Essentially the coalition left and the Afghan government surrendered to make the terror attacks stop.
There's 2 lessons here. First, what matters is who's willing to fight (and equipment, to a lesser extent). Afghans are willing to vote against Taliban, but that's just not enough. The Taliban are some 10-20% of the population, and have since betrayed part of their own groups, so it's less now. Part of the problem is that nobody sees a future in Afghanistan under a decent government (or under the Taliban, but that doesn't matter, it's mostly people who can't leave). Two: terror and destroying everything and everyone until you're the only option left ... at least that can work. Communists demonstrated it doesn't work if you keep killing everyone but the Taliban don't do that. Life is terrible under the Taliban, but they don't kill large amounts of people, or at least not quickly. And the UN doesn't mind working with the Taliban, they're even prepared to exclude women from UN departments that work with the Taliban, so I guess that means they're "accepted".
I believe it's fundamentally an economic problem. Either there is some way to give Afghanistan a decent economy that depends on it's people, at which point the Taliban will have to make big concessions, or everyone basically "exchanges terror" with Afghanistan (not the Taliban, the entire population, the same problem as in Gaza if you will) to maintain some kind of balance. They kill/attack/kidnap/... people around the world, effectively in schemes to get money. The rest of the world attacks Afghans and Afghanistan to keep their terror below a reasonable level.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Afghan–Soviet_...
Some of the Taliban's founders had previously fought as Mujahideen in the war against the Soviets, but the government that the Taliban overthrew in 1996 was founded by the Mujahideen.
In a historical survey of ~600 movements between 1900 and ~2010, researchers found those that used violence succeeded in their goals ~25% of the time, while those that did not use violence succeeded ~40%:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...
You almost double your chances by eschewing violence. Further, they found those movement that used violence tended to then enact authoritarian structures (perhaps thinking that someone will come along later and do what they did in the same way).
1. Presidential absolute immunity decision.
2. The fact that they constantly consider the dozens of presidential appeals.
If DT has no risk of jail, he does what he likes with impunity. Also the SC has allowed him to not take any lower court decisions seriously, by not rejecting his numerous vexatious appeals.
No accountability, no risk of punishment = free reign.
It has become what the popular and electoral college vote wished it to become.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/...
Mumdami's potential vote in as Mayor of New York is the only little spark at tihs moment that gives me hope that there may be a blue wave coming next year, when a 3rd of congress is up for election.
>Back then you people were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech. But my suspicion back then was that this was mostly a thing guys who grew up in the comfort of a first world civilization would say to come across as tough and manly. And guess what.
Ding Ding ding. Sadly, the 2A crowd is comprised mostly of people who are in fact fine with a dictator. As long as they agree with the dictator.