World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Cruelty and staggering financial costs: why expanding Guantánamo is a grave mistake | Karen J Greenberg and Mike Lehnert

      by

      Nine days into the country’s 47th presidency, Donald Trump issued an executive memorandum that contained his latest mass deportation plan. The three-paragraph, 148-word order called for a migrant facility located at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be expanded “to full capacity”. The US president later said the camp would house 30,000 migrants.Troop deployments quickly followed and on 4 February, the first planes carrying a few dozen migrants arrived at Guantánamo, with officials sending more each day.If the past is any guide, rather than accelerating Trump’s drive for unprecedented mass deportations, the Guantánamo migrant detention plan is destined to repeat the cruelty, confusion, protracted legal battles and staggering financial costs that have defined US detentions at Guantánamo since the September 11 attacks.Today we know Guantánamo mainly as the detention facility that held a total of 780 war on terror detainees over the past 23 years. The cruelty of Guantánamo has been exhaustively documented, notably in the 2023 UN special rapporteur’s report on the detention facility which described “the depth, severity, and evident nature of many detainees’ current physical and psychological harms”, both those still in Guantánamo and those who had been released as constituting human rights violations.Instead of acting as an effective deterrent, Guantánamo has become a worldwide symbol of US hypocrisy.View image in fullscreenThe US has also found it impossible to bring to trial those who are charged with conspiring in the attacks of September 11. In sum, once detention in Gitmo was set up, it has seemed doomed to perpetual limbo, all too easy to fill up and nearly impossible to empty.And the prison complex, which currently holds 15 prisoners, has served taxpayers poorly as well. It now operates at an astounding estimated cost of $44m – per prisoner per year – up from $13m in 2019 when the prison held 40 detainees. Every ounce of water used on the base must be created by a single desalinization plant. Food, construction material and all other supplies must be brought in by barge. Troops for security and logistics support must be deployed. Medical personnel as well.The war on terror’s prison is not the only warning sign from the past. For decades before September 11, Guantánamo served as a warehouse for migrants, a zone where laws were conveniently pushed aside, and legal resolution remained elusive.Originally established as a coaling station in 1903, the island military base took on a new role in the 1990s when Cubans, and then Haitians fleeing the overthrow of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, were apprehended at sea while seeking asylum in the United States.Culminating in Operation Sea Signal, 50,000 migrants were detained over time, with 24,000 in place at the peak, housed in vast expanses of tent cities where conditions were dangerously unsanitary, legal processes slow to nonexistent, and treatment of the migrants reportedly harsh. Despite the Clinton administration’s promises of processing their cases for asylum, most of the Haitians were summarily returned to Haiti. Cubans as well often remained in legal limbo in one “sad camp” or another.Since then, the Migrant Operations Center (MOC) has continued to serve as a holding facility for migrants apprehended at sea. In 2020-2021, the MOC held an average of 14 detainees at a time. By 2024, 37 migrants were housed there, reportedly living in legal limbo, under unsanitary conditions and reported mistreatment and abuse.View image in fullscreenThe sense of deja vu is unsettling. Tom Homan has referred to those who will be sent to Guantánamo as “the worst of the worst”, the same words used by the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, when he first set up the post-9/11 prison camp. Tellingly, the first troops sent last week to facilitate the new operations were marines from Camp LeJeune, just as they had been after September 11. And the essential policy parallel holds as well: an administration has given up trying to tackle complex policy problems and has instead embraced viral images of shackled prisoners and tough-talking soundbites that energize its political base.Guantánamo makes a mockery of our claim that we are a nation of laws, prudence and common sense. It has become a global symbol of the US inability to address complex challenges, in this case the unprecedented level of mass migration under way worldwide, with an eye towards a realistic, long-term solution. Nor is there a compelling argument that the threat of detention at Guantánamo will deter those seeking asylum from fears of persecution in their home countries and are willing to risk the dangers of the migration routes.In a 1996 after-action manual based on interviews with military personnel who had served at Guantánamo during the detention operation of the 1990s, the authors made a series of recommendations. The manual highlighted the need to clarify the “legal basis for the operation” and “for understanding the nature and scope of the mission at the outset”.Such clarity, Gen Joseph Hoar, the head of USCentcom at the time wrote, was “paramount”.The general’s warning was ignored after September 11. It is absent today as well in the rapid, indiscriminate, legally vague and underprepared operation currently under way.It’s time to finally take a lesson from the past. The throughline of Guantánamo represents one thing and one thing only: it exists outside the law. It is ineffective, exorbitantly expensive, and will not solve complex, insufficiently addressed policy messes. Using it to tackle migration will lead predictably not to solving a problem but to creating new ones.

      Karen J Greenberg is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days

      Mike Lehnert (MajGen USMC ret) served as the joint task group commander of the Cuban and Haitian migrant camps during Operation Sea Signal (1995) and the first joint task force commander of JTF GITMO (2002) More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Vance are courting Europe’s far right to spread their political gospel

      by

      The Trump administration is making a big bet on Europe’s hard right.Speaking at a conference of Europe’s leaders in Munich on Friday, the US vice-president JD Vance stunned the room by delivering what amounted to a campaign speech against Germany’s sitting government just one week before an election in which the anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim AfD is set to take second place.As Vance accused foreign leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters’ true beliefs, a whisper of “Jesus Christ” and the squirming in chairs could be heard in an overflow room.Hours later he met with Alice Weidel, the leader of the AfD, breaking a taboo in German politics called the “firewall against the far-right”, meant to kept the anti-immigrant party with ties to extremists out of the mainstream and of any ruling coalition.“It’s an incredibly controversial thing for him to do,” said Kristine Berzina, the managing director of the German Marshall Fund’s Geostrategy North, who was at the Munich Security Conference.The backing of Vance – or Elon Musk, who recently gave a video address at an AfD party summit – is unlikely to tilt the result of Germany’s elections, said Berzina. And it’s unlikely to browbeat the ruling Christian Democratic Union, which should win next week’s vote, into allowing AfD to enter any coalition.But the US right under Trump does have its eyes set on a broader transformation in Europe: the rise of populist parties that share an anti-immigration and isolationist worldview and will join the US in its assault on globalism and liberal values. They see those leaders in Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, as well as the UK’s Reform party and Marine Le Pen in France.“It is personal and it is political in terms of far-right political alignment,” she said. “It also opens the door to what other unprecedented things are we going to see in terms of the US hand in European politics.”Could the US president even threaten serious policy shifts like tariffs based on an unsatisfactory German coalition? “That would be normally unthinkable,” she said in response to that question. “But in 2025, very little is unthinkable.”Trump has claimed a broad mandate despite winning the popular vote by a smaller margin than any US leader since the early 2000s. And he seeks to remake politics at home and redefine the US relationship with its allies abroad, many of whom attacked him personally in the wake of the January 6 insurrection and his second presidential campaign.Vance also wanted to antagonise Europe’s leaders on Friday. He refused to meet with Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor who should be among the US’ key partners in negotiations with Russia over the future of the war in Ukraine. “We don’t need to see him, he won’t be chancellor long,” one former US official told Politico of the Vance team’s approach.That speaks to a trend in the Trump administration’s thinking: that voters abroad will handle what his negotiations and alliances cannot. As Vance stunned the European elite on Friday, he told them that “if you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you”.“You need democratic mandates to accomplish anything of value in the coming years,” he said.This is something that Vladimir Putin, who waited years for the return of a Trump administration, knows well regarding his war in Ukraine: sometimes you have to bide your time until conditions are right.And it’s something that Trump intimated about Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he riffed on his plan to end the war through negotiations that would cede Ukrainian territory and give up Kyiv’s designs on Nato membership.“He’s going to have to do what he has to do,” Trump said of Zelenskyy agreeing to a deal. “But, you know, his poll numbers aren’t particularly great.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House bans AP journalists from Oval Office amid continued Gulf dispute

      by

      The White House has announced that it is indefinitely blocking Associated Press journalists from accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One amid a growing standoff between Donald Trump’s administration and the news agency over the Gulf of Mexico’s name.White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich made the announcement on X, saying: “The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press’s commitment to misinformation.”Budowich went on to accuse the 175-year-old news wire agency – whose style guidance is used by thousands of journalists and writers globally – of “irresponsible and dishonest reporting”.Budowich said he recognized that the Associated Press’s reporting is covered by the US constitution’s first amendment, which provides for the freedoms of speech and press. But he maintained that “does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One”.He added that Associated Press journalists and photographers would retain their credentials to the White House complex.According to the Hill, an Associated Press journalist was barred from attending an executive order signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon following the White House’s announcement.The outlet reports that a White House official told the Associated Press journalist, “No, sorry,” when the reporter tried to join the event.Friday’s announcement from the White House marks an escalation in the growing feud between the Trump administration and the Associated Press over the organization’s refusal to abide by Trump’s preference for Gulf of America and change its style on that body of water to Gulf of America.On Tuesday, the Associated Press said another one of its journalists was refused entry into an executive order signing ceremony at the Oval Office – a move described by the news agency’s executive editor Julie Pace as an attempt by the White House to “punish” the organization for its independent journalism.“Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the first amendment,” Pace said.After Tuesday’s episode, Pace sent a letter to the White House, calling the White House’s decision an “alarming precedent”.A separate statement from the New York Times said it stood by the Associated Press while “condemning repeated acts of retribution by this administration for editorial decisions it disagrees with”.“Any move to limit access or impede reporters doing their jobs is at odds with the press freedoms enshrined in the constitution,” said the statement, which was reported by chief CNN media analyst Brian Stelter.According to a 23 January style memo, the Associated Press said that it would not be changing its style on the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America after Trump’s decision to change the body of water’s name – a move which holds authority only within the US’s federal government.“The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences,” the Associated Press said.Blocking the Associated Press’s access around Trump could substantially affect news consumption in certain markets.The Associated Press provides reporting to a numerous publications across the US that do not have their own reporters covering the White House.Supporters of Trump could also use the White House’s decision to limit access for Associated Press journalists as evidence for bad-faith arguments that the organization is unpatriotic or untrustworthy. More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on supporting vaccines: humans can work miracles – so why wouldn’t we? | Editorial

      by

      It is easy to become so used to scientific and social advances that we take them for granted. But sometimes we should pause to celebrate – to feel genuine awe – at the wonders that we have seen. Amid all the wars, the disasters and the crimes of the last half century, we have witnessed nothing short of a miracle.Vaccination, in addition to clean water, sanitation and improved nutrition, has been one of the greatest contributors to global health. It is responsible for much of the astounding fall in child mortality, which plummeted by 59% between 1990 and 2022. It has saved more than 150 million lives, mostly of infants, since the Expanded Programme on Immunisation was launched by the World Health Organization in 1974. Initially designed to protect children against diseases including smallpox, tuberculosis, polio and measles, the scheme has since been extended to cover more pathogens. Then, in 2000, came the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi), a public-private organisation that provides financial and technical support for vaccination in poorer countries and negotiates with manufacturers to lower costs.The results have been remarkable. Prevention is better – and cheaper and easier – than cure. Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980. Almost all the world is now polio-free. Cases of many other diseases have been slashed. Much more can be done: an estimated 5 million children have been protected against malaria since routine vaccinations were launched a year ago. And from a scientific perspective, we are entering a golden age of vaccines.Yet this is a dangerous moment in other ways. The climate crisis is spurring disease outbreaks. Conflict has dramatically increased the number of unprotected children. Vaccine scepticism has grown. Now cuts to funding threaten to turn the clock back. The trashing of USAid will hinder delivery and has halted a groundbreaking programme to create new malaria vaccines. Robert F Kennedy Jr – who once claimed that “no vaccine is safe and effective” and who tried to persuade the US government to rescind authorisation for the coronavirus vaccine at the height of the pandemic – was confirmed this week as health secretary.Now the UK, one of Gavi’s founding donors and the country which has given most to its core programme, is considering a significant cut to its support. This would be a grave error. While some aspects of Gavi’s approach have faced sensible scrutiny in the past, it has vaccinated over 1 billion children and done so cost-effectively: 97 pence in every pound it is given goes on vaccine programmes. Its success is also evident in the number of countries which have graduated from being beneficiaries to paying their own way; some, including Indonesia, are becoming donors in turn. And Gavi’s stockpiles help to keep people safe in wealthier countries too, as well as ensuring that poorer nations are healthier and more stable.For all these reasons, Gavi has long enjoyed bipartisan support in the UK, which has given it more than £2bn over the last four years. Now, more than ever, its funding must be sustained. The world is full of apparently intractable conflicts and complex moral dilemmas. Few decisions are truly simple for governments. But this one is a no-brainer. It should astonish us that we can so easily save lives. It should be self-evident that we must continue to seize that opportunity. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We no longer go out alone’: what happens after Trump revokes temporary protected status?

      by

      The Trump administration’s decision to end temporary humanitarian protections for Venezuelans who came to the United States seeking refuge in recent years has plunged hundreds of thousands of people into uncertainty. Many worry they could be deported back to the autocratic regime they tried to flee.“We lived in fear and we are still afraid,” said Jesús, who fled Venezuela with his wife and children, crossing through Colombia, the Darién jungle in Panama and then Mexico, before arriving in Texas in 2021. His wife had worked as a civil servant in Venezuela, and had grown increasingly alarmed by the government’s crackdown on free speech and resisted participating in pro-government demonstrations. That’s when the couple began receiving threats. “They even chased us into our home,” Jesús said.In 2023, his family secured temporary protected status (TPS) – allowing them to legally live and work in the US – and assumed they would be safe for a while.But earlier this month, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, abruptly decided to end TPS for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans in the US, including Jesús. Within 60 days, the administration plans to strip away the designation, saying that the situation in Venezuela has “notably improved”.“You can imagine – this came as a shock,” Jesús said. “We suffered a political persecution in our country and now we are doing it here as well.”Send us a tipIf you have information you’d like to share securely with the Guardian about the impact of the Trump administration’s temporary protected status decision, please use a non-work device to contact us via the Signal messaging app at (929) 418-7175.For the past 35 years, TPS has offered immigration status to people who have fled countries experiencing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster or extraordinary conditions that make it unsafe to return there. What is especially harrowing for many people with temporary protections, now that it’s being taken away, is how easy they will be to find, and deport. In order to secure TPS, they had to submit all their information, their home addresses and histories to the government.Immigrant advocacy groups have been encouraging Venezuelans with temporary protections to find a legal service provider as soon as possible. They have also been providing “know your rights” training. “This is the same information that they’re giving to people who have been long-residing undocumented immigrants – because the same rights will apply to people who have TPS, who may lose their status,” said Laura Vazquez, director of immigrant integration at UnidosUS.View image in fullscreenAs the Trump administration tries to ramp up deportations, people with expired protections who have not managed to apply for asylum or other avenues to remain in the US permanently could be easy targets. Jesús and his family are keenly aware of this.Though they have applied for asylum and are awaiting an appointment with the immigration courts in 2027, and would be protected from deportation while their case is pending, Jesús still worries about being caught up in raids. “I hear a lot about how some people don’t have their papers respected,” he said. “We no longer go out alone – only when it’s necessary for work.”His four kids – ranging from preschool to high school-aged – have been feeling the tension too. Amid news that Ice agents are conducting raids in major cities, and will be authorized to enter schools, they have asked him “Papá, they won’t look for us, will they?”Jesús and his wife have started ordering all their food and supplies online, rather than trying to stop by the grocery store after their shifts. They also started looking into selling their home and their car, so that they will have enough funds to pay legal fees and cover expenses in case they are unable to legally work if their temporary status is taken away.In recent days, they have also started thinking about where else they could go if they are not allowed to remain in the US. More than anything, they want to avoid getting deported to Venezuela. “It’s like they’re trying to throw us into the lions’ cage, as we say in my country,” Jesús said. “Because they would be sending us to persecution and certain death.”Trump had previously tried to terminate protections for people from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua and Sudan during his first term. Back then, however, officials proposed allowing those who were affected to keep their protected status for 12 to 18 months before it ended. But that was challenged in court, and people with temporary status were ultimately able to keep their status when Joe Biden took office and rescinded Trump’s TPS terminations.This time around, the administration has moved to end protections earlier, revoking the outgoing Biden administration’s decision to extend the protections for Venezuelans until October 2026. About 350,000 Venezuelans who received TPS in 2023 will lose their temporary status 60 days from when the administration posted notice this month, and another 250,000 who received the status in 2021 will lose the protections in September. The move is likely to face legal challenges.View image in fullscreen“Once again you have the Trump administration actively trying to strip immigration status of several hundred thousands people who are lawfully present and employed,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who led the lawsuit that blocked Trump from terminating TPS protections during his first term. Doing so will strip away work permits for people who work in industries across the US, and could have a “catastrophic economic impact” in communities across the US.“There’s also the humanitarian impact of telling 300,000 people they should just go back to a country that is, in this case, extremely unsafe. Everybody knows it. I mean, everybody knows Venezuela is a very precarious and dangerous place to live, which is why millions of people have fled,” he added.In Noem’s termination notice, she argued that Venezuelans no longer needed protection, because there had been “notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime”. She also added that it was “contrary to the national interest” to allow TPS holders to stay in the US, claiming that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had come to the US, and that US cities could not bear the financial burden of helping new arrivals settle.Advocates questioned the logic of rescinding immigrants’ ability to work and contribute to the communities. Experts have also questioned how the administration could cite improvements, given the state department’s warnings that Venezuela remains in crisis. In recent months, the government of the authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro, has been rounding up hundreds who protested against fraudulent election results – as well as people who happened to be near protests but seemingly had no involvement in politics. The Biden administration had also issued a $25m bounty for Maduro’s arrest.Immigration advocates are encouraging all Venezuelan TPS holders who might be eligible to apply for asylum in the US as soon as possible – as doing so would allow them their best chance of staying in country. But the process is complex and can be expensive. “It’s not a small thing, especially when the asylum law is so complicated and very difficult to do without an attorney,” said Arulanantham.Mary, a mother of four in Georgia, said she has been having panic attacks and nosebleeds since learning that she and her family could lose their protected status. “I’ve spent six days crying in my bedroom,” she said. “My kids have been crying too. They run into the closet every time they hear a knock on the door.”Her husband was nearly killed in Venezuela, escaping the country with a crack in his skull. Mary, too, was persecuted. As a young law student in Venezuela, she had studied with a prominent opposition leader. “It is impossible to return there,” she said. “If I set foot again in Venezuela I am sure that they will either put my husband in prison or kill him. And they’ll do the same to me.”She had tried to apply for asylum once already, only to discover later that she had been swindled by her immigration lawyer – who had failed to properly file her paperwork, and that she had been issued a deportation order. Her temporary status has been the only thing protecting her. The family now has an appointment with another lawyer at the end of March, but she worries that there won’t be enough time to sort out their affairs before their protected status expires. She worries about where her family could even go, and how she will be able to provide for her youngest son, who is autistic. Even if they do survive returning to Venezuela, she said, how could she possibly find the special education programs her son needs there?“When the secretary of security told us that all of us, all of us who crossed the border were criminals, we were from the Tren de Augua gang, that really affected me,” she said. “After nearly four years here, my husband and I don’t have a single ticket, we don’t have a single fine.”Now, all she can do is wait and hope, she added. “I am clinging to God’s word,” she said. “He’s our only protection.”The names of TPS holders in this piece have been changed to protect their safety and the safety of their families More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A human rights disaster’: immigrants sent into Guantánamo black hole despite no proof of crime

      by

      Handcuffed and shackled, the men appear in government propaganda photos being herded towards military cargo planes that will carry them to an uncertain future in an infamous land.“These individuals are the worst of the worst that we have pulled off of our streets,” Donald Trump’s homeland security chief, Kristi Noem, thundered against the supposedly “criminal alien murderers, rapists, child predators and gangsters” being packed off to Guantánamo Bay.In interviews and on social media, Noem alleged those being sent to the notorious US naval base in Cuba included South American “child pedophiles”, drug traffickers and “vicious gang members” guilty of “heinous crimes”.But 10 days after the Trump administration began sending immigrants to Guantánamo, authorities have yet to provide proof of those claims as mystery continues to surround their identities and doubts grow over whether many have committed any crime at all.“It sounds like this picture the government is painting of them being people who are dangerous and violent is patently false,” said Jessica Vosburgh, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is part of a coalition of rights groups that this week sued the Trump administration for access to the Guantánamo detainees. “It’s clear the folks who we suspect have been sent to Guantánamo are not, on the whole, dangerous people,” Vosburgh added, even if people in immigration detention “may have a mix of criminal backgrounds”.View image in fullscreenJ Wells Dixon, a lawyer with nearly two decades’ experience working with prisoners in a place critics call “America’s gulag”, said: “It is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening at Guantánamo at this moment. I’m not sure the Trump administration really understands what is happening.”The pictures US authorities have released of people they call “highly dangerous criminal aliens” have inadvertently shed some light on the identity of Trump’s Guantánamo internees.According to the website Migrant Insider, relatives identified one member of the first 10-member group flown to Guantánamo on 4 February as Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera. The 23-year-old Venezuelan was detained seeking asylum on the southern border on 19 January, one day before Trump took power vowing to return “millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came”. “He’s innocent,” Castillo’s sister, Yajaira Castillo, told the Spanish news agency EFE, denying her brother was part of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.A second man spotted in the photos is Tilso Ramón Gómez Lugo, 37, a car mechanic from north-west Venezuela who had been sent to an immigration detention facility in Texas after being picked up on the border in April 2024. “I’ve known him since he was a child. He’s an educated boy who has no problems with anyone. He is someone with good parents, a hard worker and a good family – and very well-liked in the town we are from,” a friend, who asked not to be named, told the Guardian.“Trump had and has my support – but I do not agree with these extreme measures, especially against our compatriots,” added the friend, who like many fellow Venezuelans backed Trump believing he would take a hard-line stance on their home country’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro.A third detainee is reportedly 25-year-old Yoiker David Sequera, a Venezuelan barber who was reportedly picked up by border agents last September after making the perilous journey through the Darién jungles between Colombia and Panama to reach the US. “My son is no criminal,” one relative, who suspected Sequera had been targeted because of his tattoos, told Migrant Insider.For the most part, however, the life stories of the immigrants remain an enigma.View image in fullscreen“The US government has shared close to nothing … they’re being completely evasive with sharing names,” said Vosburgh, whose conversations with other detainees and relatives of those suspected to be in Guantánamo led her to believe that Noem’s descriptions of the detainees as “vicious” criminals were “bald-faced lies”.A senior Department of Homeland Security official said all of those sent to Guantánamo had “committed a crime by entering the United States illegally”. “In addition to holding violent gang members and other high-threat illegal aliens, Guantánamo Bay is also holding other illegal aliens with final deportation orders. Every single alien at Guantánamo Bay has a final deportation order,” the official added, without offering evidence that any of the detainees had links to gangs or crime.The official declined to disclose precisely how many detainees were being held at Guantánamo but said it was “less than 100”. “In total, there have been eight flights in eight days,” the official added on Wednesday. On Thursday the New York Times said 98 men had been sent to the island base by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) between 4 and 11 February.“We don’t know who these individuals are yet. In that sense, it is reminiscent of Guantánamo’s past,” said Dixon, recalling the base’s post-9/11 conversion into a prison for “enemy combatants” captured in the “war on terror”.“People may forget [that] after Guantánamo opened in early 2002, it took quite a long time to learn who was detained [there], why they were there and what had happened to them. That information only started to become public when lawyers like me started traveling to Guantánamo to meet these individuals.”Back then, US authorities also called those held at Guantánamo “the worst of the worst”, recalled Dixon.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The reality was something very different. The reality was that you had people like the Uyghurs [Turkic Muslims] who had fled persecution in China and were rounded up in the aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan … and ended up in Guantánamo … The reality was something very different from the propaganda – and I think that’s undoubtedly what you’re going to see here.”Lee Gelernt, a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, said all of the detainees were thought to be Venezuelan men. “But until we’re down there, we can’t be sure. And the government’s … threatening to send thousands [of people, so] I suspect at some point it’ll move beyond Venezuelans,” he added.If the identities of the Guantánamo detainees remain cloaked in secrecy, activists say there is little doubt over the conditions that await them at an isolated island base that has become synonymous with human rights abuses and torture.Fifty-three of the 98 detainees have reportedly been sent to a medium- to high-security military prison called Camp 6. It has previously been used to house “war on terror” prisoners, in some cases for years. The other 45 people are being held in “a lower-security building” on the other side of the base and being guarded by members of the US Coast Guard, according to the New York Times.A 2007 Amnesty International report painted a dire picture of life inside Camp 6, which was originally built to house 178 detainees. The US government claimed the facility combined “humane treatment with security needs” but activists called conditions there “unacceptably harsh”.The cells had no access to natural light or air and were lit by fluorescent lighting 24 hours a day, Amnesty said. Detainees “consistently complained of being too cold in the steel cells” as a result of air conditioning controlled by guards.Five Uyghur prisoners cited in the report told lawyers Camp 6’s strict regime left them feeling “despair, crushing loneliness, and abandonment by the world”. One previously smiley, “gentle and pleasant” man now “appeared to be in despair” and said he was “beginning to hear voices”.Dixon said it was possible detainees could be held in isolation for 22 hours each day.Yael Schacher, the director for the Americas and Europe at Refugees International, said the Guantánamo detainees had fallen into “a legal black hole”.“You can’t call your relatives and you can’t get contact with your lawyers. So it’s really, really isolated. It’s basically just like warehousing away people without recourse … and the inability to contact the outside world is intense,” she said, calling for an end to Trump’s transfers.Schacher believes the Guantánamo transfers were designed to please Trump’s base. “It’s political theater … cruelty theater … harsh-on-immigrants theater,” she added.“All we really know is that the Trump administration is trying to evoke the terrible images of Guantánamo in order to appear tough on illegal immigration in the United States. That’s what this is about,” said Dixon. “This is not about law or policy … It’s a catastrophic human rights disaster.”Additional reporting by Clavel Rangel More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vance to meet Zelenskyy as European leaders call for unity over Ukraine

      by

      The US vice-president, JD Vance, will face calls for greater consultation and coherence when he meets European leaders, including the president of Ukraine, at a security conference in Munich.The timing of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s meeting with US officials, initially scheduled for Friday morning, remained unclear because the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had to change his flight from Washington when the plane experienced a mechanical fault.The expected showdown came after 48 hours in which senior members of the Trump administration, including the president, unleashed a volley of contradictory positions on how and when negotiations with Russia about Ukraine’s future would be conducted.In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Vance tried to quell criticism that Donald Trump had made a series of premature and unilateral concessions in a phone call with Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.He said the US would still be prepared to impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow did not accept a satisfactory deal. “There are any number of formulations, of configurations, but we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence,” he said.Vance added the option of sending US troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table”. He said there were “economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the US could use against Putin.Before being nominated as vice-president, Vance said he did “not really care about Ukraine’s future, one way or the other”.Rubio added that the US had an interest in the long-term independence of Ukraine, remarks intended to imply some form of security guarantee for Ukraine.Trump has also insisted that any deal would be in consultation with Ukraine, but he has been less emphatic about the involvement of Europeans – an omission that has infuriated leaders of the continent, who believe any Ukrainian settlement will have profound consequences for European security.Trump reiterated that it would not be possible for Ukraine to ever join Nato since Putin would not accept it. In his view, Ukraine is aware of this. “I think that’s how it will have to be,” Trump said.Instead, he foresaw Russia rejoining the G7 group of wealthy countries as part of its reintegration into western economies.The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was due to meet his Polish counterpart in Warsaw on Friday, said the US was not making premature concessions.European leaders have long expected Trump would slash US support for Ukraine, but have been shocked by the lack of planning by the administration and the absence of consultation with allies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe French president joined the chorus of politicians demanding the US adopt a more careful and coordinated approach. “A peace that is a capitulation is bad news for everyone,” Emmanuel Macron said.“The only question at this point is whether President Putin is sincerely, sustainably … prepared for a ceasefire on that basis,” he said, adding that Europe would have a “role to play” in regional security discussions.The most angry response from a senior European politician came from Kaja Kallas, the new EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian president.“Why are we giving them [Russia] everything they want even before the negotiations have started? It’s appeasement. It has never worked,” she said, adding that Nato membership for Ukraine was the “strongest” and “cheapest” security guarantee available.She suggested the war would continue with European support if Zelenskyy was cut out of the talks. “If there is agreement made behind our backs, it simply will not work,” Kallas said. “The Ukrainians will resist and we will support them.”Hegseth also downplayed the relevance of European values to security policy: “We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can’t shoot values. You can’t shoot flags and you can’t shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Oh, Canada! Can Trump just take it? – podcast

      by

      Archive: 10 News First, BBC News, CBC News, CTV News, Fox News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News
      Listen to The Audio Long Read on Trump’s tariff plan with China
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/politcspodus More