Saudi businesses eye opportunities with $2 billion in deals amid Pakistan’s economic upturn

Civil rights attorneys sued the Trump administration Saturday to prevent it from transferring 10 migrants detained in the US to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and filed statements from men held there who said they were mistreated there in conditions that of one of them called “a living hell.”

The federal lawsuit came less than a month after the same attorneys sued for access to migrants who were already detained at the naval base in Cuba after living in the US illegally. Both cases are backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and filed in Washington.

The attorneys also filed statements translated from Spanish into English from two men still held at Guantanamo Bay, four men held there in February and sent back to Venezuela, and a Venezuelan migrant sent back to Texas. 

The men said they were kept in small, windowless cells, with lights on around the clock, hindering sleep, and had inadequate food and medical care. One man reported attempting suicide there, and two said they knew of others’ attempts. The men said migrants were verbally and physically abused by staffers.

“It was easy to lose the will to live,” said Raul David Garcia, a former Guantanamo detainee sent back to Venezuela. “I had been kidnapped in Mexico before, and at least my captors there told me their names.”

Another former detainee sent back to Venezuela, Jonathan Alejandro Alviares Armas, reported that fellow detainees were sometimes denied water or “tied up in a chair outside our cells for up to several hours” as punishment, including for protesting conditions.

“Guantanamo is a living hell,” he said.

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.
Trump says Guantanamo Bay can hold thousands of ‘the worst’.

The White House and the Defense and Homeland Security departments did not immediately respond to emails Saturday seeking comment about the latest lawsuit. The two agencies are among the defendants.

Trump has promised mass deportations of immigrants living in the US illegally and has said Guantanamo Bay, also known as “Gitmo,” has space for up to 30,000 of them.

He also has said he plans to send “the worst” or high-risk “criminal aliens” to the base in Cuba. 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 US and whether they have been convicted in court, or merely been charged or arrested.

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 US history that the government has detained noncitizens on civil immigration charges there. For decades, the naval base was primarily used to detain foreigners associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

A separate military detention center once held 800 people, but that number has dwindled to 15, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Critics have said for years that the center is notorious for poor conditions for detainees. A 2023 report from a United Nations inspector said detainees faced “ongoing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” though the US rejected much of her criticism.

Migrants say they were tortured or threatened before coming to the US

The 10 men involved in the latest lawsuit came to the US in 2023 or 2024, seven from Venezuela, and the others from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The lawsuit said the Afghan and Pakistani migrants were fleeing threats from the Taliban, and two of the Venezuelans had been tortured by the government there for their political views. One of the Venezuelans, Walter Estiver Salazar, said government officials kidnapped him after he refused to follow an order to cut off his town’s electricity.

“The officials beat me, suffocated me, and eventually shot me,” he said. “I barely survived.”

Salazar said he had been convicted in the US of driving under the influence, “which I deeply regret,” while another of the Venezuelans said charges against him tied to a domestic dispute had been dropped. 

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.

Four Venezuelans said they had been falsely accused of being gang members based on their tattoos, including one who said his tattoo was of a Catholic rosary.

Transfer to Guantanamo violates constitutional right, attorneys say.

The latest lawsuit contends that the transfers violate the men’s right to due legal process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The lawsuit also argues that federal immigration law bars the transfer of non-Cuban migrants from the US to Guantanamo Bay; that the US 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.

Their first lawsuit, filed Feb. 12, said Guantanamo Bay detainees had “effectively disappeared into a black box” and couldn’t contact attorneys or family. The Department of Homeland Security said they could reach attorneys by phone.

One of the formerly detained Venezuelans, Yoiker David Sequera, said he was permitted to make one phone call to the ACLU, but when he asked to speak with his family, he was told “it was not possible.”

 A current detainee, Tilso Ramon Gomez Lugo, said that for two weeks he was not able to communicate “with anyone in the outside world” until he was allowed to make a single call to attorneys.

The lawsuit also argues that Guantanamo Bay “does not have the infrastructure” to hold even the 10 men. Garcia said a part of the base for migrants like him known as Camp 6, where he was confined, seemed “prepared at the last minute” and was “not even finished.”

“It was freezing, and I felt like chicken trapped in an incubator,” he said.

KARACHI: A senior Pakistani politician from a party supporting Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ruling coalition on Saturday condemned the recent amendments to the country’s cyber laws, warning they would jeopardize freedom of speech and weaken the state.
Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) was originally enacted in 2016, but an amendment bill passed in January 2025 expanded its scope by broadening the definition of “fake news” and criminalizing defamation against government officials.
The law also established a new social media regulatory authority to oversee digital content and a cybercrime agency with the power to prosecute violations.
Speaking at a convention related to the issue, Raza Rabbani of the Pakistan Peoples Party denounced the PECA amendments as a “black law,” asserting they would further restrict an already regulated digital space, especially for journalists.
“Trying to stop or restrict freedom of the press actually weakens the state. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right,” Rabbani said, highlighting the law’s “vague provisions on fake news” and other reforms that he warned could be easily manipulated.
He criticized the government for failing to consult stakeholders before enacting the amendments and urged an immediate suspension of the law’s implementation. Rabbani called for dialogue with journalists, civil society and other relevant groups to revise the legislation.
Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, a legal expert, told the gathering the amendments undermined democratic principles by granting the government disproportionate power.
He also warned against the new authority mandated to take swift action against social media platforms during his speech.
“This authority is empowered to block platforms and remove content within 24 hours of a complaint being filed,” Ahmed said. “This gives an alarming level of unchecked power to a single body, which could easily be misused to stifle dissent.”
Sohail Afzal Khan, secretary of the Karachi Press Club, where the convention was held, echoed these concerns, arguing PECA was designed to suppress journalists rather than combat disinformation.
“If the government had been sincere in combating fake news, it would have enacted legislation in consultation with journalist leadership and other stakeholders. Instead, it seeks to suppress the voice of journalists,” Khan said.
The event was attended by representatives from major political parties, lawyers, rights activists and media workers, culminating in a resolution rejecting PECA 2025.
The resolution called for the removal of restrictions on free speech and an end to legal actions against journalists under the pretext of combating misinformation.
“The meeting resolves to continue its struggle against PECA and similar laws, within democratic frameworks, by collaborating with civil society and democratic forces,” it said.