Abrego Garcia Was Beaten and Tortured in El Salvador Prison, Lawyers Say
112 points by perihelions 1 day ago | 73 comments- suzzer99 1 day agoAndry José Hernández Romero, the gay hairdresser whose only crime seems to be having the wrong tattoos, is still stuck in CECOT. His lawyers haven't been able to contact him. No one's sure if he's alive. https://www.advocate.com/news/andry-romero-family-worried-ce...
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.
- thunky 1 day agoThis story and others like it should be front page news every day until this abuse is stopped. Yet sadly this is the first I've heard about this man.
- 1 day ago
- tastyface 1 day agoAnd based on their rhetoric and behavior, I’m sure people like Miller and Noem only smile at the thought of what he may be going through.
- thunky 1 day ago
- pavlov 1 day agoA country that specializes in building outsourced concentration camps and hosting foreign cryptocurrency hustlers.
El Salvador is starting to sound like the location for a side plot in a 1990s cyberpunk novel.
- hyperliner 1 day ago[dead]
- hyperliner 1 day ago
- potato-peeler 1 day agoMeta comment: have noticed some posts get flagged. Is it because they are political?
- archagon 22 hours agoSome people flag them because they’re not tech related. Some people flag them because they frequently fail to produce good discussion. Some people flag them because those people are authoritarian conservatives and want to stifle as much discussion as possible in service of their agenda.
What’s the split? Who knows. But I’ve seen all three types on HN.
- bananapub 1 day agono, there's just a concerted flagging campaign for anything about atrocities perpetrated by the US government.
- sundaeofshock 1 day agoGary Tan is a right wing tool, so this makes perfect sense.
- IAmGraydon 23 hours agoWhy does everyone want to invent a conspiracy these days? There's no "concerted flagging campaign". We, the users, are here to uphold the content policies of HN, and we do so by voting to flag posts that violate it. The content policy is what it is, and it doesn't play favorites. There have been MANY political posts in recent times that have not been flagged. Here's a handful in just the last week:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44438884https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44448854https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44438360https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44434239
- johnnyanmac 16 hours ago>uphold the content policies of HN
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.
- SauciestGNU 22 hours agoThis is new information about the type and extent of extrajudicial torture (and likely murder) the USA is engaging in against its perceived political enemies. This hasn't been discussed in depth since Abu Ghraib.
- sundaeofshock 21 hours agoOne of the articles you linked to is flagged.
- johnnyanmac 16 hours ago
- sundaeofshock 1 day ago
- IAmGraydon 23 hours agoThis really isn't the forum for political discussion, so many users here flag political posts. One the one hand, they're trying to keep intelligent discourse from devolving into flamewars, and I very much agree with that. On the other hand, sometimes I want to hear what the crowd here, who I view as far more intelligent than the average internet forum crowd, thinks about these political issues. So I see both sides. I think Dan G is doing a admirable job with riding the line as well as is possible.
- johnnyanmac 16 hours ago>they're trying to keep intelligent discourse from devolving into flamewars
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.
- hayst4ck 14 hours agoEach act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
- hayst4ck 14 hours ago
- nozzlegear 21 hours ago> One the one hand, they're trying to keep intelligent discourse from devolving into flamewars, and I very much agree with that. On the other hand, sometimes I want to hear what the crowd here, who I view as far more intelligent than the average internet forum crowd, thinks about these political issues.
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.
- hayst4ck 17 hours agoNeutrality is implicit support for whoever can muster the most power, neutrality is in many ways the opposite of law and betrays an ideology where there is no objective truth. When there is no objective truth, there is nothing to be curious about. When authortarians tell you what the truth is or rob you of the data to make your own assessments, curiosity becomes an act of rebellion.
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.
- hayst4ck 17 hours ago
- johnnyanmac 16 hours ago
- hayst4ck 17 hours agoWhen faced with horrifying information which demands response most people will choose a strategy of denial and hoping other people will act. When people are under threat by people who don't seem accountable to the law or who are even able to punish them, most people will choose a strategy of neutrality and rationalizing that it's not them under threat.
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.
- computerthings 16 hours ago[dead]
- computerthings 16 hours ago
- archagon 22 hours ago
- throw0101b 1 day agoSee also "DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship":
* 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...
- tastyface 1 day agoThese do not seem like conditions that an ordinary person would survive for very long. What happened to the other deportees, such as Andry José Hernandez, the gay barber? Are they even still alive? Or just experiencing hell on earth every waking day for the crime of having some tattoos?
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.
- atoav 1 day agoWhich explains why the administration has acted the way it did.
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.
- easyThrowaway 1 day agoAs someone from outside US but who spent some time in LA can't really believe anyone ever took those "second amendment" guys at face value.
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.
- ghufran_syed 1 day agowhy would this be the case? Taking the 2nd amendment argument to its logical conclusion, wouldn't the speaker also have a firearm?
- rgblambda 1 day agoThe speaker would need to sleep every night with a gun under their pillow, in a room with no window.
- johnnyanmac 15 hours agoThe logical conclusion, yes. I hope we don't need to get to that point.
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.
- easyThrowaway 1 day agoIn a game-theory-prisoner-dilemma kind of situation, yeah, maybe. In the real world, those guys were always sure to point their to guns to those they knew very obviously couldn't retaliate back. And I'm not strictly talking about minorities, by the way. Simply, those who weren't part of their circle had a rough time and the police made very clear that they would act in their defense if anyone tried something funny.
I've only seen shit like this in sicily in the early 90s, when the mob controlled much of the big cities.
- rgblambda 1 day ago
- ghufran_syed 1 day ago
- rgblambda 1 day ago>were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech
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.
- matwood 1 day agoAt an individual level you are correct, but that's not what the 2nd amendment was about. An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.
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.
- rgblambda 1 day agoI don't believe either of those examples are appropriate. The U.S military is never going to withdraw from the U.S due to the public growing weary of the war. The opposite would happen. The insurgency would surrender.
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.
- js8 1 day ago> 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.
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.
- yread 1 day agoI don't think you can draw conclusions from wars us lost if you cite such different examples as Afghanistan and Vietnam. By that measure US lost also in Korea and Iraq
- mdhb 21 hours agoThe balance of power hasn’t made that a logical argument for a long time now.
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.
- throw0101b 1 day ago> An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.
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?":
- rgblambda 1 day ago
- throw0101b 1 day ago> 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.
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).
- shiroiuma 1 day ago>I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?"
The same way the Taliban forced the US military out of Afghanistan, despite not having an air force or any tanks of their own.
- rgblambda 1 day agoAs I've said in another reply, the U.S public growing weary of the war would not result in a U.S military withdrawal from the United States, but instead would likely result in a surrender of the insurgency.
And the Taliban had Soviet era military weaponry, not legally purchasable under the 2nd amendment firearms.
- rgblambda 1 day ago
- hyperliner 1 day ago[dead]
- matwood 1 day ago
- lysp 1 day agoI also put this blame on the US supreme court too.
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.
- sussmannbaka 1 day agoThey didn't "become" anything. They didn't "give away" anything. The torture prison and fascism isn't a bug, it's a feature. People voted for this. A large part of this community voted for it, probably the majority.
- johnnyanmac 16 hours agoMy most overly generous interpretation is that any resistance within the party is intimidated down. We have cowards in congress who can't at least be decent enough to run away and live with their principles. If you followed the story of the "Big Beautiful Bill" you see this in action.
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.
- CursedSilicon 1 day agoI think this will be a veeeery unpopular opinion on this site. But I think the simple reality is this is the natural end state of unchecked capitalism.
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
- JumpCrisscross 1 day agoDecent hypothesis, but fails when we compare America to other capitalist countries. (Or non-capitalist countries, extant and historically, with extreme wealth inequality.)
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.
- CursedSilicon 1 day ago>Decent hypothesis, but fails when we compare America to other capitalist countries. (Or non-capitalist countries, extant and historically, with extreme wealth inequality.)
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"
- cma 1 day agoUnder the first Bush and continued under Clinton, Haitian asylum seekers were interdicted at sea and sent to Guantanamo to avoid due process, which set the stage for its use in the war on terror. However, in these earlier uses it was for additional processing to give a chance at asylum for those claiming persecution and others not seeking it were deported back to Haiti directly.
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.
- CursedSilicon 1 day ago
- sureglymop 1 day agoI was about to remind the person you replied to that we are on hacker news.
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.
- orwin 1 day agoNote that this doesn't need to be neoliberals. Liberals/conservative do the same each time the status quo is at risk (see Spanish civil war). The most famous are Hindenburg and Papen making a deal with Hitler with the help of their midwife Shroder, because they were afraid of the agrarian reform supported by the left and saw the electoral decline of their 'center' and their right (including NSDAP) in the last free elections of 32. Nazi were given the power, they weren't voted into it.
- 1 day ago
- _DeadFred_ 19 hours agoTo the far left, Trump torturing people is because of the center left.
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.
- orwin 1 day ago
- JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
- throw0101b 1 day ago> What has the US become?
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/...
- khazhoux 1 day ago> What surprised me is how little popular resistance he has gotten and with which ease the US population gave away its rights.
There should be no surprise at what has happened, since this is what the US voted for.
- boabp 1 day ago[dead]
- easyThrowaway 1 day ago
- 1 day ago