Inside the torture camp where Trump accidentally deported dad to be abused
Remember Kilmar Abrego Garcia? The Salvadoran father of a 5-year-old disabled child that the Trump administration sent to a torture prison in El Salvador by mistake and (initially) refused to bring back?
Well, he's back in the US, facing charges of migrant smuggling - to which he has pleaded not guilty and which a magistrate has found to be based on "insufficient evidence".
He's still in custody - after his lawyers warned that he is at risk of being captured and deported again by ICE if he's let out on bail.
But he's filed a complaint against the government, outlining in extreme detail how he was beaten and subjected to torture while being held at Salvadoran mega-gulag CECOT.
In the court document are a lengthy list of horrific abuses suffered by Garcia - and many other people wrongly imprisoned in the "prison."
Here's a recap of the case - and some of the "highlights" of Garcia's legal complaint.
Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia - and why was he deported?
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a dad from Maryland, who was rounded up by ICE and rendered to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador, despite having no criminal record, a 'do not deport' order on his file and government lawyers admitting he'd been wrongly deported.
Even after the Supreme Court told the administration they should really bring him back and give him at least a day in court, they steadfastly refused.
Garcia, who is married to a US citizen has no criminal record in the US.
And after fleeing gang threats in El Salvador to the US in 2011, aged 16, he was granted protected legal status known as "withholding of removal" from a judge who found he would be targeted by gangs if he was deported back.
But the White House has variously claimed he's a member of the MS-13 gang, a people smuggler, and is guilty of "monstrous crimes against humanity."
And Trump himself claimed a manifestly photoshopped image of Garcia's hands was evidence of gang membership.
Garcia, like many Americans, has tattooed knuckles - a marijuana leaf on his index finger, then a smiley face with crossed out eyes, a cross and a skull on his pinkie.
Trump was pictured holding a photograph handily marked up to point out that marijuana starts with an M and smiley starts with an S...then it gets a bit confusing.
The cross, which one could imagine standing for a T at a push, is marked up as standing for a digit 1, with the skull for no adequately explained reason standing for a 3.
This is, of course, nonsense.
But what would be even more nonsense is if someone thought the "MS-13" text overlaid clumsily on top to "illustrate" the translation, was actually part of the tattoo. Which Trump apparently did.
What is CECOT?
CECOT is the biggest and most notorious "mega prison" in El Salvador
Salvadorian mega prisons are notoriously brutal.
In fact, the US State Department's travel advisory for El Salvador includes a stern warning about "harsh" prison conditions, without access to due process.
It reads: 'Overcrowding constitutes a serious threat to prisoners' health and lives. In many facilities, provisions for sanitation, potable water, ventilation, temperature control, and lighting are inadequate or nonexistent.'
Nayib Bukele, the President of El Salvador, has been very close to Trump since his re-election.
Bukele has been exceptionally successful at reducing the crime rate in El Salvador, mainly through a brutal crackdown on gang membership.
He increased prison sentences for gang members from 3-5 years to 20-30 years and reduced the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 12.
He launched a nationwide crackdown, arresting and detaining some 85,000 people over the course of three years. Many of them are held in CECOT, which is said to have capacity to hold as many as 40,000.
Human rights groups have raised concerns that the arrests were largely arbitrary, and had little to do with gang violence - suggesting Bukele had used them to consolidate his own power and to target critics of his Presidency. Many arrests were based on the suspect's appearance, tattoos or location. Human Rights Watch said the government's policy had been "first arrest, then tweet, and investigate later".
On the other hand, in El Salvador he and his crackdown is incredibly popular with those who haven't been arrested and thrown in the gulag.
El Salvador currently has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
In 2019, when he was trying to get the legislature to sign off funding for his crackdown, he called for his supporters to surround the Assembly building and ordered 40 soldiers into the meeting to coerce legislators into approving it. Opposition politicians have described this as a "self-coup" - a term regular readers of our Trump roundups will be familiar with.
Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp!
As the world attempts to keep up with Trump's antics, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond.
We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in.
All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group.
We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Here's what Kilmar Abrego Garcia says happened to him in CECOT
The legal complaint says Garcia "was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival at CECOT, including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture.."
"Upon arrival at CECOT, the detainees were greeted by a prison official who stated, "Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave." Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was then forced to strip, issued prison clothing and subjected to physical abuse including being kicked in the legs with boots and struck on his head and arms to make him change clothes faster. His head was shaved with a zero razor and he was frogmarched to cell 15, being struck with wooden batons along the way..."
"In Cell 15, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia and 20 other Salvadorans were forced to kneel from approximately 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM, with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion. During this time, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself…"
"After approximately one week at CECOT, prison director Osiris Luna and other officials separated the 21 Salvadorans who had arrived together. Twelve individuals with visible gang-related tattoos were removed to another cell, while Plaintiff Abrego Garcia remained with eight others who, like him, upon information and belief had no gang affiliations or tattoos."
And this one's the kicker, given how much Trump himself wailed about Garcia having MS-13 tattoos on his hands...
"As reflected by his segregation, the Salvadoran authorities recognised that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang, and at round this time, prison officials explicitly acknowledged that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia's tattoos were not gang-related, telling him "your tattoos are fine."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
15 hours ago
- Metro
First group of detainees arrive at Trump's brutal 'alligator Alcatraz'
Footage has shown what appears to be the first group of handcuffed detainees being led into Trump's 'alligator Alcatraz'. Days ago, Trump visited the makeshift facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in Ochopee, Florida, which received federal approval to house thousands of undocumented immigrants. The president said that 'some of the most vicious people on the planet' will be held at the detention centre. Today, the Florida Division of Emergency Management wrote: 'The first group has arrived at Alligator Alcatraz. Florida is proud to help facilitate Trump's mission to enforce immigration law.' It will cost an estimated £330,000,000 to operate each year when it's fully established. Deep in the Florida Everglades and surrounded by miles of swampland, the facility has been likened to early-stage concentration camps by some. 'Alligator Alcatraz' was coined by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who shared a video about it on X (formerly Twitter) a week-and-a-half ago and called it 'the one-stop shop to carry out President Trump's mass deportation agenda'. It has 3,000 beds and was built in eight days after DeSantis authorised its construction. The Trump administration said it will eventually hold up to 5,000 people. It is slated to become the biggest migrant detention facility in the country in the heart of the Everglades, which is home to alligators, pythons, mosquitoes and other dangerous wildlife. The 11,000-foot runway at the airport has recently been used for training, but officials indicated that it could soon be used for deportation flights. But the facility isn't without concerns. In an opinion article for MSNBC, author Andrea Pitzer, who researches concentration camps, wrote: 'When people think of concentration camps, they think of more than a million people murdered at Auschwitz. 'But extermination camps appeared only after nearly a decade of Nazi rule and several evolutions in wartime detention. We're still in the early stages of this arc, but Americans aren't helpless before the administration and its allies.' More Trending In addition to humanitarian concerns, historic worries and environmental issues have been brought up. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians has also gotten involved in the matter, slamming the use of its ancestral lands in the Big Cypress National Preserve for detention purposes. Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, pointed out that the site posed an 'existential threat' to the national park. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Elon Musk says he has set up a new political group – the 'America Party' MORE: At least 51 dead in Texas floods including girl, 8, 'forever living best life' MORE: 'Bear Alcatraz' floated as migrant detention center near alligators opens for Trump
Economist
16 hours ago
- Economist
What becomes of Republicans who cross King Donald?
United States | He loves me, he loves me not Photograph: Getty Images D ONALD TRUMP'S One Big Beautiful Bill act ( BBB ) is a Frankenstein's monster of hand-outs, carve-outs, tax cuts and ideological splurges and purges. Independent analysis suggests it will increase America's deficit, stunt the economy and hit the poorest hardest. A recent poll by YouGov and The Economist found that just over one in three Americans support the bill. Elon Musk, a big Republican donor and a former 'first buddy' of Mr Trump, is so unhappy that he is proposing to create a new political party. Even so, only five Republican members of Congress voted against it—fewer than any budget of Mr Trump's first term. Donald Trump says they missed an existential threat from Iran. Why should anyone trust their findings now? The Trump administration has taken aim at the University of Virginia The president is using emergency cases to expand his power Coercion and corporate expedience meet in a $16m settlement New York's mayoral front-runner thinks so Choked for funds, the Bureau of Labour Statistics is cutting corners
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rushing Supreme Court trans judgement is likely to breach human rights
The commission rushed out an 'interim update' that lacked clarity, nuance, human rights considerations, nor the full range of what may be appropriate within the law. They opted for blanket exclusion of trans people – and rightly have faced considerable challenge. We then saw their public consultation on their draft Code – this too told only half of the likely legal story. It detailed how services could exclude trans people but not how they might remain inclusive, as per their human rights duties. We do not believe that the Supreme Court's ruling implies blanket exclusion; if it does, the law needs to be changed as soon as possible. Read More: The ruling said that 'sex', for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, means 'biological sex'. It did not then follow this statement with 'and that means that trans women cannot access women's services.' It didn't even define biological sex, nor woman - other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act. It did say, clearly, that trans women should not be subject to discrimination. The court also said that they had a 'more limited role which does not involve making policy.' Their ruling did not ascribe ANY policy changes. Organisations must follow the law, sure - but what does that look like in practice? There isn't certainty about what those changes should be that would mean people are indeed doing so. It is important that there is clarity on what the law really means in practice for all. The primary legal narrative being pushed by some is the one suggesting that all trans people should be segregated and / or that trans people should be barred from accessing services that they need. This is dangerous, seemingly ignorant of human rights obligations and an incomplete narrative. Though it may be fair for the commission to say that their final code cannot cover every service and every eventuality, it surely must enable people to make lawful decisions, and to decide whether they will or will not allow trans people to use services in line with who they are. We believe this can be done lawfully, but this part seems to be missing. At Equality Network we agree (even with those people with whom we profoundly disagree about what the changes should entail) that all organisations need to be operating within the law. We too are very aware that the law effectively 'changed' when the judges made their ruling. It of course turned previous understanding of how the Equality Act was meant to work with regards to trans people on its head. We, among thousands of others, were surprised at this new revelation - and apparent decades of misunderstanding and implementation. Despite the fact that it was a profound change to how people had previously understood the law to work, this change only applied to the question of whether trans people with gender recognition certificates (GRCs) (which is a tiny percentage of trans people) were to be considered as their birth sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Prior to the judgment, people who had a GRC were believed to have changed their sex in the law (all law), and that sex was protected by the 'sex' part of the Equality Act. However, with sex now being understood for the purposes of the Act as 'biological sex', this is no longer the case. Though the court confirmed that trans people ARE still protected by Gender Reassignment (GR) protections. However, a much larger percentage of trans people do not have a GRC – these people are of course also still protected by GR protections within the Equality Act. Nothing here has changed following the ruling. Given that the huge majority of trans people, before the Supreme Court ruling, were already considered in the act to be their "biological sex", it isn't at all clear that there is now a legal requirement to exclude trans people from all services that align with their gender identities, nor force them to use only segregated spaces and /or services or spaces exclusively aligned with their 'biological sex' as recorded at birth. There wasn't this requirement before, and nothing has changed about that part of our understanding of how the law works. So while we totally agree that organisations should follow the law, it is patently obvious from the vast and various responses and debates among people of many stripes and flavours about what it means, that anyone who is selling certainty (and pushing demands for trans people to be excluded and segregated in all circumstances as what is actually required) is massively, and harmfully, overplaying their hand. Organisations are being pressured to change the way they operate to become less inclusive despite it being patently evident that this would be deeply harmful to trans people, and without alternative to better that situation. Many, rightly so, are in no rush to do that ahead of sight of complete finalised guidance that incorporates full and accurate information on how the law stands - and on how they might go about delivering their inclusive services within the law. The implications of the Supreme Court judgment, and the developing guidance on its implementation, will have a significant impact on the lives of trans people. This must be recognised and given due time and consideration. From some (loud and impatient) quarters there is a push to implement exclusionary practice now. But it remains unclear that the law allows or even supports that. We don't believe it does. As it stands, the draft code is unworkable and harmful. It details only how services can be exclusionary and asks, 'is that clear?' It is as clear as mud. We hope that it is fixed ahead of being laid at UK Parliament for approval. If it isn't, it will be necessary to clarify the law by adjusting the Equality Act. Otherwise, trans people are at serious risk of multiple breaches to their human rights to safety, dignity and privacy. We would hope for a code from our national equality and human rights body that considers the equalities and human rights of those most marginalised and details how services can cater for all whilst remaining lawful. If the Code doesn't do this, it is not doing its job, and nor is the commission. The Code of Practice consultation has only just closed, with over 50,000 responses in total. To analyse those properly will take time. In the meantime, despite what some may say, there is not legal clarity. To push for exclusionary implementation, with significant likelihood of harm, having not first analysed the responses to develop a comprehensive and legally holistic code, is deeply concerning. The commission should be supporting public bodies to carry out their responsibilities effectively and inclusively for everyone. Nobody, not even they, know yet how inconsistencies in the draft code are to be resolved, and how the code is to be made compatible with human rights requirements. Only with such an explanation will public bodies be in any position to responsibly 'follow the law'. Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy is chief executive of the Equality Network
