Lawyers sue to block Trump administration from sending 10 migrants to Guantanamo Bay
Civil rights attorneys sued the Trump administration Saturday to prevent it from transferring 10 migrants detained in the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, their second legal challenge in less than a month over plans for holding up to 30,000 immigrants there for deportation.
The latest federal lawsuit so far applies only to 10 men facing transfer to the naval base in Cuba, and their attorneys said the administration will not notify them of who will be transferred or when. Like a lawsuit the same attorneys filed earlier this month for access to migrants already detained there, the latest case was filed in Washington and is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
At least 50 migrants have been transferred already to Guantanamo Bay, and the civil rights attorneys believe the number now may be about 200. They have said it is the first time in U.S. history that the government has detained non-citizens on civil immigration charges there. For decades, the naval base was primarily used to detain foreigners associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Trump has said Guantanamo Bay, also known as 'Gitmo,' has space for up to 30,000 immigrants living in the U.S. and that he plans to send 'the worst" or high-risk 'criminal aliens' there. The administration has not released specific information on who is being transferred, so it is not clear what crimes they are accused of committing in the U.S. and whether they have been convicted in court, or merely charged or arrested.
'The purpose of this second Guantanamo lawsuit is to prevent more people from being illegally sent to this notorious prison, where the conditions have now been revealed to be inhumane," said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney and lead counsel on the case. "The lawsuit is not claiming they cannot be detained in U.S. facilities, but only that they cannot be sent to Guantanamo.'
The 10 men are from nations including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Venezuela, and their attorneys say they are neither high-risk criminals nor gang members. In a Jan. 29 executive order expanding operations at Guantanamo Bay, Trump said that one of his goals is to 'dismantle criminal cartels.'
Their attorneys described their latest lawsuit as an emergency filing to halt imminent transfers and challenge the Trump administration's plans. They contend that the transfers violate the men's right to due legal process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The latest lawsuit also argues that federal immigration law bars the transfer of non-Cuban migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay and that the U.S. government has no authority to hold people outside its territory, and the naval base remains part of Cuba legally. The transfers are also described as arbitrary.
The men's attorneys allege that many of the people who have been sent to Guantanamo Bay do not have serious criminal records or even any criminal history. Their first lawsuit, filed Feb. 12, said migrants sent to the naval base had 'effectively disappeared into a black box' and couldn't contact attorneys or family. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, one of the agencies sued, said they could reach attorneys by phone.
In another, separate federal lawsuit filed in New Mexico, a federal judge on Feb. 9 blocked the transfer of three immigrants from Venezuela being held in that state to Guantanamo Bay. Their attorneys said they had been falsely accused of being gang members.
The migrant detention center at Guantanamo operates separately from the U.S. military's detention center and courtrooms for foreigners detained under President George W. Bush during what Bush called its war on terror. It once held nearly 800 people, but the number has dwindled to 15, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was assigned to Guantanamo when he was on active duty, has called it a 'perfect place' to house migrants, and Trump has described the naval base as 'a tough place to get out of.'
A United Nations investigator who visited the military detention center in 2023 said conditions had improved, but military detainees still faced near constant surveillance, forced removal from their cells and unjust use of restraints, resulting in "ongoing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law.' The U.S. said it disagreed 'in significant respects' with her report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
If I were Rachel Reeves: Hunt, Zahawi and Mel Stride give their advice
Sir Lots of people think being chancellor is like being Santa Claus with lots of goodies to dole out. The reality is rather different as both Rachel Reeves and I have found out. As I explain in my new book Can We Be Great Again? the biggest difference between good and bad governments is the extent to which you manage to carve out space for long-term decisions as opposed to daily firefighting. Here are the three crucial things I will be looking out for when it comes to the long term. First, given the austerity cuts about to be imposed on the police and criminal justice system, are we going to invest in modernising them so they really can deliver better outcomes with less money? Police officers spend up to eight hours a week on unnecessary admin tasks. They are crying out for modern IT systems which are normally the first casualty of any spending negotiations. If we want services to improve, things that unlock greater efficiency should be top and not bottom of a government's list. Second, when Europe is at war, you cannot commit to a programme that costs 3 per cent of GDP and only provide 2.5 per cent in funding — as the government appears to have done. That is a scandalous and dangerous black hole if ever there was one — not least a fortnight before the Nato summit. I was at the table when Trump nearly pulled the US out of Nato in 2018 so we are taking a big risk. But if we plug the gap, France and Germany are likely to as well. If we don't, and the US pulls out of Nato, it will not be 3 per cent we are arguing over but double that. Keir Starmer has shown he can be an international statesman — now really is the moment we need him to do the right thing. Finally, we have to avoid the doom loop of ever higher taxes creating ever lower growth. That means longer term supply-side policies to boost our growth rate. But in the short-term the only game in town is welfare reform as I explain in my new book. Getting the working age benefit bill to 2019 levels saves £49 billion — more than enough for 3 per cent of GDP on defence and to avoid tax rises. It would also be far better for people on benefits to be in work. Welfare reform isn't easy for Labour but with a large majority and four years in the mandate, if not now when? Nadhim Zahawi Rachel Reeves is in a difficult position. As the only cabinet member with real private sector experience, she should by now understand the difficulties businesses are facing because of the government's actions, not to mention families. Crucial to fixing this is to be able to reduce the tax burden, and that requires getting serious about growth. That will come from getting out of the way, deregulating and allowing supply-side reforms, but it also means attracting investment rather than driving it away. The closure of the non-doms regime has been a catastrophe for this, signalling that Britain isn't interested in prosperity. A flat-rate charge for wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs, as they do in Italy, would be a smart move, and worth eating humble pie over. Rome has had 2,200 multimillionaires settle there — raising hundreds of millions in tax and investment for the Italian people. If the chancellor can tempt them to the UK through a mix of a more welcoming tax regime, and a pledge to tackle law and order concerns, we could be back in business. Even before counting their ingenuity and investment, if we attracted just 3,000 new wealthy residents to Britain, charging them £400,000 per year to have an equivalent of non-dom tax status, she would be able to reverse the winter fuel allowance cut. Taking this further, and aiming for the sort of numbers America is hoping to attract with their Golden Visa programme, and she could do anything from abolishing the hated inheritance tax, which does so much to destroy family businesses and long-term investment in Britain, to an immediate increase in defence to 3 per cent of GDP or more. These are popular, easy fiscal policies which would unlock so much investment and revenue for the government. All Reeves needs to do is convince Labour not to hate wealth creators, which I grant may be a steep political challenge. Nadim Zahawi was Conservative chancellor between July and September 2022 Sir Mel Stride If I were in Rachel Reeves's shoes next week, I would do things very differently. First, I'd level with the public. Our country faces serious economic constraints and Labour's reckless policies are only deepening those problems — high debt, sluggish growth, rising cost of living. LEON NEAL/GETTY IMAGES The chancellor will no doubt tell us she is exercising judicious fiscal discipline, without mentioning that most of the new projects and programmes she is announcing are paid for with hundreds of billions in extra borrowing. I'd focus on what actually moves the dial. Productivity, public service reform and fiscal responsibility. That means rooting out waste, and being clear-eyed about what government can and cannot afford. And I wouldn't be afraid to say 'no'. Sometimes leadership means doing the difficult thing, not the easy or popular one. The scale of the spending being set out next week was confirmed in March, before the chancellor began being forced into embarrassing U-turns on welfare. We've seen what happens when fiscal credibility is lost — I would never let that happen again. So if I were the chancellor, I'd offer a serious plan. Rebuild stability, drive growth and restore trust. No gimmicks. Just hard truths and a credible path forward for our country.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump warns of 'consequences' for Elon after he 'disrespected the office of president'
President Donald Trump warned that Elon Musk would face 'very serious consequences' if he was to start bankrolling Democratic candidates. Their relationship disintegrated earlier this week as the former allies battled it out on social media after disagreeing on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Speaking with NBC News' Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump was asked what he would do if Musk crossed the political aisle and donated to Democrats. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that. He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that', he told out the outlet. Musk, who is worth $330 billion, was a major contributor to Trump's presidential campaign - spending at least $250 million in supporting his race for the White House last year. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is over, Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things. I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened,' he said. 'I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him', Trump added. Musk already said that he would be cutting back on spending on political campaigns ahead of next year's midterm elections. The president also accused Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the president.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful,' Trump said. 'You could not disrespect the office of the president.' During their spat, Musk even suggested in a since-deleted post that Trump had been named in the government files involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Responding to that remark, Trump said: 'That's called "old news," that's been old news, that has been talked about for years. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' The two dialed back their barbs at each other by Friday night, with both saying that they wished each other well. But by that point, the damage to their relationship looked to be done. Following the outbreak of their feud, Trump and his allies have said Musk turned on the bill because it cuts subsidies for electric vehicles. Musk has said he doesn't need them anyway. The bill is estimated to add another $3.8 trillion to the national debt, which currently stands at a whopping $36 trillion. Musk went public with his criticism in a series of posts on X, arguing that the spending would wipe out the efforts of his DOGE team. Then, on Thursday, when Trump was supposed to be hosting the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, he was asked about Musk's recent criticism. From there the dam broke. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more, I was surprised,' Trump told reporters. The president suggested that Musk was angry - not over the bill ballooning the deficit - but because the Trump administration has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates, which negatively impacted Tesla, and replaced a Musk-approved nominee to lead NASA, which could hinder SpaceX's government contracts. 'And you know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles, and they're having a hard time the electric vehicles and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said. 'I know that disturbed him.' Over the weekend, Trump pulled the nomination of Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Isaacman worked alongside Musk at SpaceX. Reports have since emerged that the nomination of Isaacman being rescinded was in part because of the interference of Sergio Gor, the director of the Presidential Personnel Office. The New York Times had first reported that both Musk and some of those inside the White House had pinned the blame for the dust-up on Gor. Musk and Gor have had a sour relationship for months, stemming from what Axios described as Gor's 'resentment' of Musk's involvement in personnel issues. The Washington Post also reported that Gor had made it clear that he would find a way to get back at Musk, which turned out to be Isaacman's nomination. Trump had said he rescinded the nomination due to donations he had made to the Democrats over the years. Vice President JD Vance said in an interview tried to downplay the feud. He said Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' getting frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that´s not possible now because he´s gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Vance said that Musk´s DOGE, which sought to cut government spending and laid off thousands of workers, was 'really good.' He had made the comments as he spoke with comedian Theo Von, which was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X. Von showed the veep Musk´s claim that Trump´s administration hasn´t released all the records related to Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn´t do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It´s totally insane. The president is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term.
Belfast Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
Mr Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with tech entrepreneur Mr Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX was over, Mr Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Mr Trump continued. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review your details and accept them to load the content 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him (Mr Musk) a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The US President also issued a warning amid speculation that Mr Musk could back Democratic legislators and candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Mr Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Mr Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The US President's latest comments suggest Mr Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Mr Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Mr Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Mr Trump has already threatened to cut Mr Musk's contracts, calling it an easy way to save money. The dramatic rupture between the President and the world's richest man began this week with Mr Musk's public criticism of Mr Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Mr Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination'. Mr Trump criticised Mr Musk in the Oval Office, and before long, he and Mr Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and Republican congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. As the back-and-forth intensified, Mr Musk suggested Mr Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the President's association with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. In an interview, US vice president JD Vance tried to downplay the feud. He said Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' who was becoming frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Mr Vance said. Mr Vance called Mr Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Mr Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to cut US government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good'. Mr Vance made the comments in an interview with 'manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the US Navy when he opened for Mr Trump at a military base in Qatar. The Vance interview was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Mr Von showed the vice president Mr Musk's claim that Mr Trump's administration has not released all the records related to Epstein because Mr Trump is mentioned in them. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Mr Vance responded to that, saying: 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Mr Vance said in response to another post shared by Mr Musk calling for Mr Trump to be impeached and replaced with Mr Vance. 'It's totally insane. The President is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Mr Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Mr Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending and taxes but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by 2.4 trillion dollars (£1.77 trillion) over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Mr Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.'
