The news today is about the supposedly shocking arrest by ICE officials of the Palestinian immigrant Mahmoud Khalil, a grad student at Columbia University who holds a green card as a permanent legal resident.
Here are excerpts from the Legal Memorandum for the Removal of Mahmoud Khalil sent from the State Dept to the DHS:
INTRO
This memorandum presents the legal and national security basis for the immediate detention and removal of Mahmoud Khalil, a non-citizen whose activities within the United States constitute material support for a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Khalil’s involvement in radicalization efforts, leadership in organizing activities, and public advocacy in alignment with FTO objectives violate 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B) and 1227(a)(4)(B), which render non-citizens removable if they engage in terrorist activity or provide support to an FTO.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL
A. Material Support for a Foreign Terrorist Organization (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B))
•Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.
•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.
Khalil’s activities fall squarely within this legal definition of material support, requiring immediate intervention.
Khalil’s activities extend beyond protected speech and instead constitute material support for a terrorist organization.
B. Due Process Considerations Do Not Prevent National Security Removals
•Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953): Held that due process claims do not override national security-based removals.
•Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003): Affirmed that the government may detain and deport non-citizens without extended hearings when security concerns are at stake.
The process for Khalil’s removal fully aligns with federal law and constitutional due process requirements.
THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
CP, I don't know whether you're aware of the Matt Taibbi/Walter Kirn "America This Week" livestream on the Racket News channel on YouTube.
It's on every Monday evening at 8 PM EST, and is usually a repository of great sense and Kirn's frequently surrealistic humor.
Last night, however, they disappointed me. If you watch the first part of the replay, you'll see that they took the Establishment line about this. It would be great if you would post this material in their comments section.
I watched it for a bit and it made me kind of ill so I turned it off.
I love Walter but I don't think he's been the best influence on Matt, he's often too conspiratorial and always searching for the unseen hand behind every event (like when he claimed the Luigi shooting had been "timed" to take attention away from Trump).
In this case, the arguments were all about political calculations for Trump with zero consideration that this is an urgent safety issue for Jews, who have been menaced and threatened in and around Columbia and who have been intimated on campus and deprived of their right to attend school sans harassment.
The Secy of State has wide latitude to deport foreign nationals who support designated terror orgs, but I think this may be more of a virtual issue for Walter who lives far outside Jewish areas. Every govt on earth has the right to protect its own citizens from threats of violence by foreign terrorist orgs and their supporters.
If there's any comment of mine you want to copy and paste over there, feel free.
If he was a citizen I'd say this is a pretty thin pretense. But as a foreigner on a visa, meh. Pretty sure we don't have "Rabble Rousing & Trouble Making" visas and even if we did, he doesn't have one. Buh bye.
Fight this if/when they use it on a citizen student. *We* have rights here, and they're gonna have to show an actual crime was committed. Visitors on the other hand can and should be removed at the first sign of annoying behavior.
I agree in principle that advocacy of policies that run counter to U.S. government policy are the essence of free speech. But we’re focused on foreign TERRORIST organizations. Would you have been OK with U.S. citizens holding rallies or fundraising for al Qaeda on 9/12/01?
I don't make any special exception for organizations the US Govt. has labeled as "terrorist", no. Any random bureaucrat with some pull can get an org labeled "terrorist", and the president can do it with a stroke of a pen any time he gets a bug up his ass.
I mean, FFS, they labeled the Proud Boys terrorists. A bunch of hipster ex-leftist dorks whose initiation ritual was getting punched until you named three breakfast cereals and whose "terrorist activities" included saying mean things to college students and getting in street brawls with the same.
So no, I don't care who the government calls terrorists. They have zero credibility in that regard. Our citizens are perfectly welcome to advocate on behalf of Al Qaeda, or Antifa, or the breakfast cereal club, or random parents at school board meetings, or the freedom convoy, or anyone else.
As to finance, that's a different area of government. As it stands, under Citizens United, political donations are "free speech" so they can do that too, but I'm not 100% on board with that.
And I would really, really like it if they stopped handing out citizenship to foreigners without checking if they have, you know, financial or personal ties to alleged terrorists. And if they'd immediately jail everyone who participated in crimes associated with alleged terrorist plots, whether or not those plots constituted actual terrorism by some sane definition of the word.
It seems to me that your objection is (or should be) with either (1) the statutory definition of “terrorism,” (2) the seeming lack of critical judicial review of the existence of terrorism in each case, or (3) the lack of coherence in different administrations’ policy as to what constitutes terrorism, rather than with the authority of the government to remove a foreign national for assisting foreign terrorist organizations. Just my take.
Well, they have the ability to remove a foreign national at the drop of a hat, and that's perfectly OK with me.
But in regard to citizens, who have constitutional rights, yes. If there was a clear and narrowly defined statutory definition of "terrorism", such that when you were accused of being involved in terrorism you could argue in court that it wasn't terrorism and so the charges didn't apply, that would be fine.
I don't see any pressing need for this. It's unclear to me why a crime is a double-plus crime if your motive is to scare people for ideological reasons, as opposed to merely injuring or defrauding them or whatever actual harm you have done. But if there was a definition and a case made that this was a special sort of crime that required different treatment, we could at least argue about it. Right now it's a nonsense word that in practice means "people I don't like so they should be punished extra hard". This is not how our law is meant to work.
There may be a misunderstanding. ANY criminal conviction of a felony is grounds for removal of a non-citizen from the U.S. Of course, that requires a criminal trial, and presumably imprisonment, followed by removal.
The relevant statutes permit the expeditious removal of a non-citizen (including temporary detention pre-removal) for specific felonious actions that threaten U.S. national security interests. Khalil is not being CRIMINALLY tried or imprisoned for his conduct. He is being removed from the U.S. and he is free to continue his life elsewhere. He is free to appeal his removal before, during and after his physical removal occurs. If he ultimately prevails, he will presumably be permitted to return.
Plus the fact that the dude only got here 2 years ago! He's not a student and somehow got his green card in under 2 years. HTF does that work, exactly?
If the info on who handled his application is public information, that would be the place to look for connections to the DNC, or more probable to a Soros-funded NGO: that's a large part of how the moslem infiltration has been done in the EU.
Good argument! However, it hinges on Khalil expressly making public statements or distributing literature which supports Hamas. If the Deif accusation is accurate then it's damning, and it's always possible that the government has undisclosed information.
However, let's look at the chants he's led.
“From the river to the sea,” “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” and “Intifada revolution.”
Unfortunately, whilst all of these chants are offensive, there is enough wiggle room for Leftists to argue that they aren't inherently pro-Hamas. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, could refer to a scenario where Palestinians in the occupied territories have voting rights and Israel is no longer a majority Jewish state. Leftist academics have produced entire essays arguing that Intifada isn't inherently a call to violence, even though in the modern context, the assertion is pure bollocks. Zionists don't deserve to live- carefully worded so it's not a call to violence.
I hope the government can prove the Deif accusation, or has more undisclosed arrows in its quiver, because those chants alone aren't enough to be considered pro-Hamas. Don't get me wrong it's enough to convince me he's a raving anti-Semite and probably cheered the Hamas atrocities even before Israel retaliated (which would be great evidence, if the government has it- and, if public, should be sufficient grounds to deport), but my opinion is subjective.
Generally, my view is that we have to tolerate the Just Stop Oil idiots, to make sure the farmers have the right to protest loudly when the government introduces regulations meant to put animal and green revolution farmers out of business.
If I were a government lawyer looking to deport I would be looking at the timeline of his public posts. If he cheered after the Hamas atrocities, but before Israel retaliated, then that alone is grounds for deportation, because it's promoting support for a terrorist organisation. Deleting a tweet doesn't make it disappear completely.
“…hinges on Khalil expressly making public statements or distribution literature which supports Hamas…”
So you think that actively working on behalf of foreign TERRORIST organizations PRIVATELY would be legally permissible? I’m not aware that Khalid Sheik Mohammed conducted his pre-9/11 activities publicly…
No that wasn’t my argument. My argument relates to publicly promoting Hamas. Private speech which agrees with their cause, but doesn’t actively support them in any material or promotional manner is covered by 1A.
Printed or digital materials fall into a special category since 9/11 because they can be deemed as promoting a terrorist cause.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was charged with many crimes. The one applicable to this discussion is providing material support for terrorism. Under the MCA, material support is defined as knowingly providing resources—such as money, personnel, training, or other aid—to a foreign terrorist organization or for the purpose of carrying out a terrorist act. Even my argument on propaganda and promoting support is flimsy- but would probably pass muster with a decent prosecutor.
Most of the allegation against the pro-Hamas protest coordinator relate to speech- my guess is that the DOJ has proof that the speech was sufficient to pass the Brandenburg test- encouraging people to provide material support to Hamas, for example.
I don’t understand the difference between public & private in your context. If an individual’s communications constitute “material support,” what difference does it make whether they do it 1:1 or 1:50,000 in a stadium?
Well, it mostly makes a difference in evidentiary terms. Plus, if two Hamas supporters are messaging privately, doing nothing related to planning, carrying out, funding, or otherwise supporting terrorism, it's difficult to argue that they are materially supporting terrorism, because they are both already converts to the cause. Propagandising others to support terrorism is, per se, an act of material support.
Thanks for the really interesting question though- I was pretty certain, but I checked with Grok just to make sure. The key case is Holder.
'Impact: If the communication merely reaffirms support without directing action (e.g., “Hamas is great” vs. “Attack this target”), it lacks the operational link courts typically require. In Holder, support had to free up FTO resources or enable activity. Here, no new capability is clearly added.'
'Holder emphasized support must be “in coordination with” or “at the direction of” an FTO. A private exchange between individuals, absent Hamas’s involvement or a specific terrorist outcome, doesn’t meet this threshold.'
'Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that providing "expert advice or assistance" to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), like Hamas (listed since 1997), can constitute material support, even if the intent isn’t violent. The case involved training FTOs in peaceful advocacy, ruled as support because it freed up resources or lent legitimacy.'
Producing converts through propaganda sharing would qualify as material support- and would probably add an exception to Holder. In a 1:1 case both people could argue they were already Hamas supporters, effectively negating the material support charge on these grounds- although historical messages showing the process of radicalisation would probably negate the defence.
My guess is they've got something on the Deif accusation. If Deif reached out to him and they communicated, he's toast.
The excerpt “support had to free up FTO resources or enable activity” adds immensely to my clarity in distinguishing hateful wannabes ranting from behavior judicially recognized as criminal.
(BTW, when I’m trying to differentiate the outcome of say, private vs. public, I assume (for logic’s sake) that the exact same language and behaviors occur, and that the private behavior/language is somehow magically known to the reader. I use the same analytic paradigm on most subjects, and after 45 yrs it still drives my wife nuts. My background is international corporate tax, so understanding EXACTLY how the law works is critical.)
ok let me get this straight: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.
advocacy? goals? pretty broad brush there. sounds like a potential 1A minefield
•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.
"ideological support?" orwellian or what?
much as the pro-palestinian protests have been fueled by crisis actors and agents provocateurs, and there's no justification for dumbass misdemeanor activity like this guy seems to have engaged in, doesn't this issue conclude many miles south of any genuine national security concern?
The point being that this isn't some unprecedented power grab but based on precedence and consistent with the law. You can approve or disapprove, but the admin is within its rights here.
agree that the admin is fully within its rights but would be happier if they weren't on such shaky ground constitutionally. i can just smell a soros judge somewhere licking his/her/its chops in anticipation of getting this on appeal
Keep in mind that non-citizens (whether illegals, visa holders or lawful permanent residents) reside here by grace of government dispensation. Those individuals are not “entitled” to residence. The action against Khalil is not criminal, it is a civil removal action. His detention is protective (of U.S. interests), not criminally punitive.
I travelled extensively overseas on business before retirement (>1M FF miles) and I NEVER addressed foreign country political matters. The most I ever did (in the 2003-8 era) was to explain the U.S. invasion of Iraq, without criticizing my host nation’s opposition. I inspected every visa I received, and oddly, not one of them indicated I was there to criticize their policies.😂
The Columbia riots were not “misdemeanors.” Incitement to commit a crime is a felony because it involves “mens rea” (a guilty mind). The definition of “agent provocateur” is not someone with provocative opinions. It is “a person who actively entices another person to commit a crime that would not otherwise have been committed.” When done on behalf of foreign interests, it is a felony, and when done on behalf of an enemy during war, it is a capital offense.
You chose the precisely correct term, but it has far higher gravity than your context suggested.
It was hard to believe that the 2024 Hamilton Hall takeover wasn’t treated more harshly. It was a sort of Democrat January 6.
For me, the final straw was the assault on the custodian, and the fact that he and his coworkers were literally not allowed to leave the premises. When you’re forcibly detained, you are the victim of either false arrest or kidnapping — both of which are criminal offenses (the latter is a federal offense).
Lest anyone have any doubt about whether the US had a two tiered justice system, this would be a tough one to argue against.
I suspect this arrest has more to do with Khalil’s ACTIONS than it does about his opinions. And we may also find out that there is a monetary element to all this (funding of Hamas via NGOs with student involvement).
I also wanted to see mass expulsions. I expect that the disruptions we're seeing now are direct results of the feckless (and predictable) cowardice of the administration. Entitled people react to incentives.
The media will mobilize in support of their ideological allies at CU, but this will only lose them more support and credibility. No one takes these people seriously.
Chris, thank you for showing us the facts of Khalil from less than a year ago that the corporate media has memory holed. As you point out, in lock step, the corporate media and their Dem co-conspirators are shaping the Khalil narrative to go against the Great Orange Xenophobe. Facts are so inconvenient when you have a narrative to shove down people’s throats.
Khalil and other Palestinians are jihadis; that is, they are engaged in a holy religious war to conquer infidels until everyone still alive in the world prays to Allah. In their founding charter, Hamas promises to exterminate Israeli Jews and all Jews around the world. They are devoted to terrorism and conquest as a holy obligation. The do not care about land or a state; they care about Allah. Import Muslims to North America, and you will duplicate conditions in Europe, where soon, as a result of the "immigration jihad," there will be "the Islamic Caliphate of What Once Was France" ...England, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, etc.
With respect, Christian Palestinians, who are being annihilated alongside everyone else in Gaza (and the West Bank, which the press conveniently leaves out) are not jihadists. Just as the Christians currently being executed in Syria are not jihadists. I do agree that the press are completely disingenuous in castigating Trump for actions consistent with those actions ordered by whoever was running the White House in Biden's stead for the past four years.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population has grown. The Palestinian Authority controls Bethlehem, which used to be Christian majority. Your use of the word annihilated does apply to the Christians being beheaded in the Congo and other African countries, and murdered over the past few days in Syria. Israel is not “annihilating” Christians.
What does that has to do with how moslems behave in and towards the nations and peoples who have given tens of millions of them asylum and are letting them live all-inclusive and for free among them, not even deporting them when they commit violent crimes?
Israel is trying to defend itself and keep its citizens from being murdered (in the most atrocious fashions). Israel would like peace, whereas the Arabs want conquest and dominance, as they have throughout history.
Seeing all that leftist chatter on Substack as well. Orange man is killing the 1st Amendment, said the team that killed the 1st Amendment.
Legacy media only gives a 30k view on that dudes activities never mentioning who he supports (HAMAS), his own word threatening violence, and his celebration of October 7th. And of course his actions - being directly involved in breaking and entering and trespassing (while telling everyone that would listen they will resist by any means).
So ya, I don’t think it’s a 1A case.
I would bet he gets deported because he failed to state he supported a terror group in his application for a green card.
Agreed. I find the independent voter interesting. Historically they vote in line with the party they left. Under duress I think they move around a wee bit like some did with Trump - like your blue collar guy.
We’re definitely in a time and space that we probably should have been at the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, we didn’t have inspired minds then either.
I’m an independent who despises Dimmercranks even more than I despise Repugnacogs, but in my book, Trump is too real to be either one. He just used the Repuggers as a vehicle.
I am convinced the President is killing his vibe with the retarded double standard on Israel. He apparently has no idea how much of his base view the IDF as the evil fiends in this conflict. Unless your Congressman is named Thomas Massie, they have a minder assigned by AIPAC to tell them how to vote. Either Trump fixes that shit, or he fumbles the game away.
I don’t know. I don’t think his base sees the IDF as evil so much as his base is genuinely pushing hard against our involvement in ANY significant foreign military complication.
No doubt his new additions that bolstered his win popped in because of their dissatisfaction with Biden’s “inaction” regarding Israel/Gaza. But that audience isn’t his base. He knows those cats are gone no matter what course he takes. He’s also a lame duck which informs a great many of his FAFO replies.
From my position, I do see a nuanced difference between the Middle East and Ukraine. Western (post Soviet Collapse) meddling arguably is why Russia finally zipped in. With Israel western meddling has been a long term negative for Israel in the years after Yasser Arafat refused the two state deal (he should never have refused).
After that, with nowhere to go, the west began to coddle the Arabs until we’re in a situation we find ourselves now - westerners see HAMAS as a freedom fighting organization. Preposterousness.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. There are millions of us in the independent column who are as anti-Hamas as we are anti-Zionist. This is a position that requires no nuance, just an active bs detector.
The Repugnacogs cannot win without the independent vote, anymore than the Dimmercranks can win without fake ballots. Political fact of life. If the president wants his legacy to be a flash of fool’s gold in the pan, he’s picked the right issue to be wrong about.
America First? Not while he’s collared and leashed to Israel.
Crusading against corruption? That bell sounds rather a dull thud when AIPAC’s donations buy so much from so many.
Free speech champion? At a minimum that would require not criminalizing dissent, dontcha think?
I know he’s in a hard bind over this; doubling down on covering for Israel’s genocidal maniacs is not the way out.
Has Khalid been charged with an actual crime? Did the campus press charges against him for anything? That's what I want to know. There was no mention of it in the DHS statement on Twitter, just that he was engaged in "activities that aligned with Hamas," whatever the hell that means. I mean, any of us that have complained about sending money to Ukraine have been accused of "aligning with Putin," so . . . I take that wording with a grain of salt.
Walter Kirn made an excellent point tonight on his live stream with Matt Taibbi. There is no point to this. Public opinion turned against the protests. So the "right" sacrificed the moral high ground and repulsed those of us free speech absolutists for what purpose exactly? And you can "explain" all you like, but unless he's been charged with something serious enough to, by precedent, warrant the revocation of a green card and deportation away from his American wife and child, then it's inescapably a question of free speech and free thought. That's not a standard any of us wants, not after we've seen it weaponized already, during COVID and January 6th, a riot that in any other case would have resulted in misdemeanors, but because they rioted about the "wrong" thing some of them have spent years in jail.
Do you understand the immigration process? One does not have to just commit a crime to run afoul of it. Taking, as an example, public assistance is something that can close your case. Why should supporting foreign terrorist organizations be treated any differently? This is far more egregious than the reason my wife got her Green Card pulled.
He's not supporting foreign terrorists, though unless he's doing it financially, that's not a crime either. (BTW, the US supports designated terrorist groups financially when it suits our government, so I find even that idea to be laughable.) That's where this goes wrong. He's supporting Palestinians. And, yes, I understand the immigration process just fine. He has a green card, which means he went through the process and now basically enjoys the same rights you do, including the right to organize protests and express himself.
In 1845, Karl Marx was forced to give up his Prussian citizenship because of his radical politics. I am not familiar with extradition policies or the prosecution of terrorists within the USA. I suspect we will all be familiar with this issue within a year.
You are an incredibly intelligent man, and I say that without a shred of sarcasm. If you have to go back to Prussia, hardly an example of freedom and populism, to make your argument work, it might be time to rethink your argument.
You can take public assistance if you are a permanent resident - but I agree with you on the rest. I've been through this for 9 years with my husband and we want to apply now for citizenship as he's been a permanent resident for almost 4 years.
I agree with what Walter said tonight. I admit I have a huge bias with this, and it's not even about Jewish vs Palestine, it's that my husband has been going through the process of citizenship since we married 10 years ago this June. Anyone who has gone through that process knows it's insanely expensive and time consuming, which is why I can't imagine any normal person putting himself in the middle of these protests. In fact, I have to say, it pisses me off. We had one small problem with my husband and the law (not major) and it set us back 5K in lawyer fees and an extra 2 years (plus the pandemic) to get permanent resident status. People are screaming that this status makes you a full citizen with the right to flip off the government and not expect a problem - I can assure you it doesn't even if "permanent" is in the title.
With what I've been through over the last 9 years I can't IMAGINE being a wife who loves her husband saying- yeah, go rile up protesters today. It just doesn't make sense from my point of view. It seems there is a lot of brainwashing happening at campuses. The problem is that Trump using a "because I said so" tactic will probably make those people dig in deeper, which is probably the "suppression" Matt and Walter were referring to. I have empathy for Palestine (not HAMAS) and I know the leader of Israel is no saint. I honestly don't even want to weigh in on that - but the anti-American sentiment is a huge problem, though I am not sure banning "woke" will make it better. I do think we must have better government classes and history classes that aren't all "America is terrible."
I don't judge people. We all make our decisions and live with the consequences. But if we're fine with Jewish people in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship, then I have to understand an Arab Muslim seeing the destruction over there, paid for with our tax dollars and funded by investing in Israeli businesses, wanting to make a stink about it. This is what happens when you encourage/allow groups of people (both Israeli and Israeli sympathetic Jews and Arab Muslims in America) to hang on to their ties overseas. You can't expect one group of people to give up their ties and old animosities and not the other. It's unreasonable. That's, to me, the root cause of this whole thing. In a multicultural society, the country has to remain neutral, and we've not. We've bombed the hell out of one and funded the other. So I understand him. Was it wise? No. But I understand.
" . . . if we're fine with Jewish people in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship . . . "
Whether we're "fine with" that or not, surely you must mean "Israelis in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship," since "Jewish people in America" do not have automatic "Israeli citizenship."
Is it possible that you hold some mistaken beliefs about "Jewish people in America"? And elsewhere?
Earlier I worded it more specifically, something along the lines of “Jewish people with dual citizenship or Israeli-sympathetic Jews.” Out of the 7.5 million Jews in American, 200,000 have dual Israeli-American citizenship, so not an insignificant number. To get dual citizenship, all a Jewish person has to do is to prove they are Jewish and “repatriate” to Israel, under the right of return. They can maintain both citizenships and they don’t have to remain in Israel.
But you’re trying to distract from the conflict of interest, which is clear. What other group of US citizens are we completely fine with them putting the welfare of another country above this one? The answer: none. And most especially not Arab Muslim Americans. We expect them to “make a clean break.” It’s a hypocritical and untenable situation.
You were dying to use that word, weren't you? Couldn't pull off an argument without it. But news flash, because of the antics of a certain group, that word is now as meaningless as "racist" or "fascist" or Nazi."
The ability to rewrite history has always been the prerogative of those who opt for military victories instead of State Department compromises. "What other group of US citizens are completely fine with ... putting the welfare of another country above (our) own?"
Surely, you have heard of Ukraine and the billions of dollars we gave them for fight Russia for us.
I have heard of that, and I remember widespread condemnation on the right that partially got Trump elected because when they said America First, they meant America First, or so I was told. That doesn't seem to hold for Israel.
What were the sit-ins of the civil rights movement other than "taking over a building"? What is going and singing at an abortion clinic other than "taking over a building"? It's Columbia University, a private college. If they really wanted these people removed, they could have done it. But they refused to call in any sizable force and he was still a student on campus living in campus housing when ICE came for him, so obviously Columbia University wasn't that upset by his antics as he wasn't even thrown out of the graduate program. So if they're not worried about it . . . why is Trump getting ICE involved?
Civil disobedience is not a free pass: the whole point is that you're willing to accept the consequences to demonstrate the unfairness of the system.
If protestors actually enter an abortion clinic and disturb its operation, that's taking over a building and holds the possibility of legal consequences.
And I remember the "right" complaining that the consequences were to severe for simple trespassing and making it a free speech issue. Like the left, the right now thinks we can only remember a few days back.
Ah, the new compassionate "right" enters the chat. She's an American citizen, and now you're suggesting she self deport because her husband holds an opinion you don't like. So tell me again, how is the "right" better than the "left"?
How many times must these tired old arguments be voiced? If any other American besides the holy Khalil committed his crimes, he would be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. If, for some lawyerly reason, this criminal cannot be deported, I am sure there is still room for him at Gitmo. He could be the ball boy during their tennis tournaments.
So tell me what crime he committed? It is not illegal to organize protests, even those that go wrong. That's what the Democrats tried to hang around Trump's neck. Did you agree with them, that Trump was responsible for what happened on J6?
I think the idea is to use him as a goat to make protesters, especially non-citizens, more careful of staying within legal boundaries. Had Columbia's regents (or whomever) had the sand to press charges for the criminal activity, it might have had the same effect. Since they didn't, the obvious conclusion that others will draw is that they can flaunt it.
Funny. I took it as a warning to everyone to shut up about Israel. And if his activities were bad enough, local DAs would not have needed to ask Columbia's permission.
Can DAs prosecute without someone being booked? If Columbia didn't want them arrested, that's the end of it as far as legal prosecution.
For deportation, an immigration court only needs to find that that the visa holder is a threat to public safety.
I agree that it may also be intended as a way of chilling anti-Israel comments in general, but there's pretty broad public support for disciplining those who are easily painted as "ungrateful and entitled brats."
If my neighbor breaks into my house, I can choose whether or not to have him prosecuted. If my neighbor kills my child, I cannot chose whether or not to have him prosecuted. It is the severity of the crime.
If Columbia university for whatever reason decided not to have these people prosecuted, then that is their business. Only their campus was hurt. If their students are tired of the antics of the other students and Columbia putting up with it, then those students go elsewhere. That is how this problem is solved.
And being "ungrateful and entitled brats" is not illegal.
And if you admit it was intended as a way of chilling this particular speech, then if you learned anything from the least four years, you should be fighting to keep this kid from being deported. If he is deported and if Trump is allowed to deny schools federal funding for letting students protest against Israel, then what do you think happens when the "other side" gets back in? And trust me, this little stunt is virtually handing the Democrats power again. This was the one basic thing that many of us voted for Trump over, and he's blowing it.
And he caused a lot of his own problems due to his reaction to COVID. I know hindsight is 20/20, but between the vaccine he pushed and the lockdowns, it was a mess on so many levels, and people were even in 2020 saying there are better ways.
I voted for him, but mostly because of JD Vance, RFK, and Tulsi Gabbard, and only because I had hope with them, he would be different. Jury is still out. But I totally get your position and had he picked the wrong running mate (in my eyes), I would have written in Mickey Mouse.
I just don't/can't give two fbombs about this guy, the leftists whose panties are wadded up in their glory holes about it, or really any criticism of this administration. I have no fbombs left.
Remember 'take a knee, drink water'? Solves most problems. That and a sandwich.
Tucker interviewed Mark Halperin (sp?) this fall, and Mark predicted 'the greatest mental health crisis' this nation has ever seen. Another prophet.
Part of me wants to believe this will burn out, this level of vitriol cannot continue (especially without USAID and ActBlue, the pallets of bricks won't magically appear), but we are headed into 'riot season', or for normal Americans, the summer.
The other part of me is wondering what 'greatest mental health crisis' will actually manifest this summer. The violence we see pointed towards Elon and Tesla vehicles is frightening. When did the citizens of the US actually recognize they were in a Civil War?
Didn't people have picnics at the first Battle of Bull Run? It was a holiday. Where are we on this continuum of peace-war?
setting teslas on fire is idiotic because you can't put out those mini-east-palestines
but it's understandable how there would be major pushback against and contempt for a deep state creation who wants to put his chip in everybody's brain
My legal-immigrant wife had her Green Card pulled and her case shut down because we asked USCIS a question. That's it. A question. Legal immigrants have to follow strict rules; they are not simply allowed to run around to do whatever they want--including supporting foreign terrorist organizations.
many grad student teach too. i wonder if he’s been teaching his antisemitic hate to students. I think the courts are just giving him due process. My son graduated from the Ivys and i am totally disgusted. i worry that they will destroy the value of his work there.
If he is in fact connected to a terrorist organization then his"permanent resident" card should be revoked and at very least he should be deported. He is a guest in this country and has incited violence. Buh bye. We need to stop financing and supporting enemies to this country. It is suicidal
I usually agree with your takes, but you're off on this. We all know this guy isn't being prosecuted for breaking windows at Columbia University. Unless you want to put your head deeeeep into the sand, it's clear that the President is persecuting the anti-Zionist protests and chose Mahmoud Khalil as the one to be the figurehead. This most definitely is a free speech issue. Look at the statements Trump has made himself. Look at Stefanik's statements. Look at all the efforts lawmakers from both parties have undergone to stop BDS movements over the past few years.
He's not a citizen. He doesn't have first amendment rights, and he's not permitted to act as a foreign agent on a residency visa. Save it for when/if they go after someone with citizenship with these sorts of charges. If they do, I'm right there with you. But this guy needs to go home. So do a lot of Israelis frankly, though fat chance that's going to happen.
I would like to see all of the students involved in occupation of campus buildings expelled (and activists involved in assault and property damage prosecuted)-not because in a Zionist shill or against free SPEECH.
These acts are plainly not speech and these children (for that is what they seem to be, in my conversations with them) have been long playing out exciting Marxists fantasies before they begin their jobs at law firms and hedge funds. We need to introduce stakes because that’s the nature of reality and frankly I don’t think most of these kids have learned that yet. In 5 years they’ll thank you. Punish wrongdoing. Protect speech. Apply consistently. Easy..
Once again, the Trump administration, by taking a reasonable action, forces the left into a highly unreasonable position. The merits of the 1A claim may be up in the air, but don't forget that pro-life demonstrators got lengthy felony sentences for non-violent activity. The left wrapping themselves in the bill of rights for this kid is laughable as they have proven they only care about free speech for their interests.
Here are excerpts from the Legal Memorandum for the Removal of Mahmoud Khalil sent from the State Dept to the DHS:
INTRO
This memorandum presents the legal and national security basis for the immediate detention and removal of Mahmoud Khalil, a non-citizen whose activities within the United States constitute material support for a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Khalil’s involvement in radicalization efforts, leadership in organizing activities, and public advocacy in alignment with FTO objectives violate 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B) and 1227(a)(4)(B), which render non-citizens removable if they engage in terrorist activity or provide support to an FTO.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL
A. Material Support for a Foreign Terrorist Organization (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B))
•Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.
•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.
Khalil’s activities fall squarely within this legal definition of material support, requiring immediate intervention.
Khalil’s activities extend beyond protected speech and instead constitute material support for a terrorist organization.
B. Due Process Considerations Do Not Prevent National Security Removals
•Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953): Held that due process claims do not override national security-based removals.
•Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003): Affirmed that the government may detain and deport non-citizens without extended hearings when security concerns are at stake.
The process for Khalil’s removal fully aligns with federal law and constitutional due process requirements.
THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
OH GREAT NOW YOU'RE USING FACTS
lol
i'll never make it as a journalist!
But you’ll make it as a great American.
ha thanks!
CP, I don't know whether you're aware of the Matt Taibbi/Walter Kirn "America This Week" livestream on the Racket News channel on YouTube.
It's on every Monday evening at 8 PM EST, and is usually a repository of great sense and Kirn's frequently surrealistic humor.
Last night, however, they disappointed me. If you watch the first part of the replay, you'll see that they took the Establishment line about this. It would be great if you would post this material in their comments section.
I watched it for a bit and it made me kind of ill so I turned it off.
I love Walter but I don't think he's been the best influence on Matt, he's often too conspiratorial and always searching for the unseen hand behind every event (like when he claimed the Luigi shooting had been "timed" to take attention away from Trump).
In this case, the arguments were all about political calculations for Trump with zero consideration that this is an urgent safety issue for Jews, who have been menaced and threatened in and around Columbia and who have been intimated on campus and deprived of their right to attend school sans harassment.
The Secy of State has wide latitude to deport foreign nationals who support designated terror orgs, but I think this may be more of a virtual issue for Walter who lives far outside Jewish areas. Every govt on earth has the right to protect its own citizens from threats of violence by foreign terrorist orgs and their supporters.
If there's any comment of mine you want to copy and paste over there, feel free.
It was horrible we turned it off after 5 minutes
No, not a journalist, but have you considered becoming a Chippendale dancer? Variety is the spice of life. Nothing like a mans’ man.
“I’ve seen a fact! It burns! It burns!” aka Homer.
Come on, man. The poor writing and inaccurate summaries of 1A-related court cases should have made it clear that this is not a government memo.
Please show your proof that the summaries are inaccurate.
Clearly is it a DEI employee's version of a government memo.
If he was a citizen I'd say this is a pretty thin pretense. But as a foreigner on a visa, meh. Pretty sure we don't have "Rabble Rousing & Trouble Making" visas and even if we did, he doesn't have one. Buh bye.
Fight this if/when they use it on a citizen student. *We* have rights here, and they're gonna have to show an actual crime was committed. Visitors on the other hand can and should be removed at the first sign of annoying behavior.
I agree in principle that advocacy of policies that run counter to U.S. government policy are the essence of free speech. But we’re focused on foreign TERRORIST organizations. Would you have been OK with U.S. citizens holding rallies or fundraising for al Qaeda on 9/12/01?
I don't make any special exception for organizations the US Govt. has labeled as "terrorist", no. Any random bureaucrat with some pull can get an org labeled "terrorist", and the president can do it with a stroke of a pen any time he gets a bug up his ass.
I mean, FFS, they labeled the Proud Boys terrorists. A bunch of hipster ex-leftist dorks whose initiation ritual was getting punched until you named three breakfast cereals and whose "terrorist activities" included saying mean things to college students and getting in street brawls with the same.
So no, I don't care who the government calls terrorists. They have zero credibility in that regard. Our citizens are perfectly welcome to advocate on behalf of Al Qaeda, or Antifa, or the breakfast cereal club, or random parents at school board meetings, or the freedom convoy, or anyone else.
As to finance, that's a different area of government. As it stands, under Citizens United, political donations are "free speech" so they can do that too, but I'm not 100% on board with that.
And I would really, really like it if they stopped handing out citizenship to foreigners without checking if they have, you know, financial or personal ties to alleged terrorists. And if they'd immediately jail everyone who participated in crimes associated with alleged terrorist plots, whether or not those plots constituted actual terrorism by some sane definition of the word.
It seems to me that your objection is (or should be) with either (1) the statutory definition of “terrorism,” (2) the seeming lack of critical judicial review of the existence of terrorism in each case, or (3) the lack of coherence in different administrations’ policy as to what constitutes terrorism, rather than with the authority of the government to remove a foreign national for assisting foreign terrorist organizations. Just my take.
Well, they have the ability to remove a foreign national at the drop of a hat, and that's perfectly OK with me.
But in regard to citizens, who have constitutional rights, yes. If there was a clear and narrowly defined statutory definition of "terrorism", such that when you were accused of being involved in terrorism you could argue in court that it wasn't terrorism and so the charges didn't apply, that would be fine.
I don't see any pressing need for this. It's unclear to me why a crime is a double-plus crime if your motive is to scare people for ideological reasons, as opposed to merely injuring or defrauding them or whatever actual harm you have done. But if there was a definition and a case made that this was a special sort of crime that required different treatment, we could at least argue about it. Right now it's a nonsense word that in practice means "people I don't like so they should be punished extra hard". This is not how our law is meant to work.
There may be a misunderstanding. ANY criminal conviction of a felony is grounds for removal of a non-citizen from the U.S. Of course, that requires a criminal trial, and presumably imprisonment, followed by removal.
The relevant statutes permit the expeditious removal of a non-citizen (including temporary detention pre-removal) for specific felonious actions that threaten U.S. national security interests. Khalil is not being CRIMINALLY tried or imprisoned for his conduct. He is being removed from the U.S. and he is free to continue his life elsewhere. He is free to appeal his removal before, during and after his physical removal occurs. If he ultimately prevails, he will presumably be permitted to return.
Which is also illegal and has been prosecuted…
nailed it
Standing ovation for digging up the facts of the matter!
Plus the fact that the dude only got here 2 years ago! He's not a student and somehow got his green card in under 2 years. HTF does that work, exactly?
Normal time is about 10 years.
If the info on who handled his application is public information, that would be the place to look for connections to the DNC, or more probable to a Soros-funded NGO: that's a large part of how the moslem infiltration has been done in the EU.
I think he is married to an American.
thanks!
Good argument! However, it hinges on Khalil expressly making public statements or distributing literature which supports Hamas. If the Deif accusation is accurate then it's damning, and it's always possible that the government has undisclosed information.
However, let's look at the chants he's led.
“From the river to the sea,” “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” and “Intifada revolution.”
Unfortunately, whilst all of these chants are offensive, there is enough wiggle room for Leftists to argue that they aren't inherently pro-Hamas. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, could refer to a scenario where Palestinians in the occupied territories have voting rights and Israel is no longer a majority Jewish state. Leftist academics have produced entire essays arguing that Intifada isn't inherently a call to violence, even though in the modern context, the assertion is pure bollocks. Zionists don't deserve to live- carefully worded so it's not a call to violence.
I hope the government can prove the Deif accusation, or has more undisclosed arrows in its quiver, because those chants alone aren't enough to be considered pro-Hamas. Don't get me wrong it's enough to convince me he's a raving anti-Semite and probably cheered the Hamas atrocities even before Israel retaliated (which would be great evidence, if the government has it- and, if public, should be sufficient grounds to deport), but my opinion is subjective.
Generally, my view is that we have to tolerate the Just Stop Oil idiots, to make sure the farmers have the right to protest loudly when the government introduces regulations meant to put animal and green revolution farmers out of business.
If I were a government lawyer looking to deport I would be looking at the timeline of his public posts. If he cheered after the Hamas atrocities, but before Israel retaliated, then that alone is grounds for deportation, because it's promoting support for a terrorist organisation. Deleting a tweet doesn't make it disappear completely.
“…hinges on Khalil expressly making public statements or distribution literature which supports Hamas…”
So you think that actively working on behalf of foreign TERRORIST organizations PRIVATELY would be legally permissible? I’m not aware that Khalid Sheik Mohammed conducted his pre-9/11 activities publicly…
No that wasn’t my argument. My argument relates to publicly promoting Hamas. Private speech which agrees with their cause, but doesn’t actively support them in any material or promotional manner is covered by 1A.
Printed or digital materials fall into a special category since 9/11 because they can be deemed as promoting a terrorist cause.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was charged with many crimes. The one applicable to this discussion is providing material support for terrorism. Under the MCA, material support is defined as knowingly providing resources—such as money, personnel, training, or other aid—to a foreign terrorist organization or for the purpose of carrying out a terrorist act. Even my argument on propaganda and promoting support is flimsy- but would probably pass muster with a decent prosecutor.
Most of the allegation against the pro-Hamas protest coordinator relate to speech- my guess is that the DOJ has proof that the speech was sufficient to pass the Brandenburg test- encouraging people to provide material support to Hamas, for example.
I don’t understand the difference between public & private in your context. If an individual’s communications constitute “material support,” what difference does it make whether they do it 1:1 or 1:50,000 in a stadium?
Well, it mostly makes a difference in evidentiary terms. Plus, if two Hamas supporters are messaging privately, doing nothing related to planning, carrying out, funding, or otherwise supporting terrorism, it's difficult to argue that they are materially supporting terrorism, because they are both already converts to the cause. Propagandising others to support terrorism is, per se, an act of material support.
Thanks for the really interesting question though- I was pretty certain, but I checked with Grok just to make sure. The key case is Holder.
'Impact: If the communication merely reaffirms support without directing action (e.g., “Hamas is great” vs. “Attack this target”), it lacks the operational link courts typically require. In Holder, support had to free up FTO resources or enable activity. Here, no new capability is clearly added.'
'Holder emphasized support must be “in coordination with” or “at the direction of” an FTO. A private exchange between individuals, absent Hamas’s involvement or a specific terrorist outcome, doesn’t meet this threshold.'
'Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that providing "expert advice or assistance" to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), like Hamas (listed since 1997), can constitute material support, even if the intent isn’t violent. The case involved training FTOs in peaceful advocacy, ruled as support because it freed up resources or lent legitimacy.'
Producing converts through propaganda sharing would qualify as material support- and would probably add an exception to Holder. In a 1:1 case both people could argue they were already Hamas supporters, effectively negating the material support charge on these grounds- although historical messages showing the process of radicalisation would probably negate the defence.
My guess is they've got something on the Deif accusation. If Deif reached out to him and they communicated, he's toast.
Thank you for the additional explanation!
The excerpt “support had to free up FTO resources or enable activity” adds immensely to my clarity in distinguishing hateful wannabes ranting from behavior judicially recognized as criminal.
(BTW, when I’m trying to differentiate the outcome of say, private vs. public, I assume (for logic’s sake) that the exact same language and behaviors occur, and that the private behavior/language is somehow magically known to the reader. I use the same analytic paradigm on most subjects, and after 45 yrs it still drives my wife nuts. My background is international corporate tax, so understanding EXACTLY how the law works is critical.)
ok let me get this straight: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.
advocacy? goals? pretty broad brush there. sounds like a potential 1A minefield
•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.
"ideological support?" orwellian or what?
much as the pro-palestinian protests have been fueled by crisis actors and agents provocateurs, and there's no justification for dumbass misdemeanor activity like this guy seems to have engaged in, doesn't this issue conclude many miles south of any genuine national security concern?
I personally don't need to argue these points, they are established law, settled currently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-mehanna
The point being that this isn't some unprecedented power grab but based on precedence and consistent with the law. You can approve or disapprove, but the admin is within its rights here.
agree that the admin is fully within its rights but would be happier if they weren't on such shaky ground constitutionally. i can just smell a soros judge somewhere licking his/her/its chops in anticipation of getting this on appeal
Guests aren't citizens.
Keep in mind that non-citizens (whether illegals, visa holders or lawful permanent residents) reside here by grace of government dispensation. Those individuals are not “entitled” to residence. The action against Khalil is not criminal, it is a civil removal action. His detention is protective (of U.S. interests), not criminally punitive.
that dude does not understand "when in rome" !
I travelled extensively overseas on business before retirement (>1M FF miles) and I NEVER addressed foreign country political matters. The most I ever did (in the 2003-8 era) was to explain the U.S. invasion of Iraq, without criticizing my host nation’s opposition. I inspected every visa I received, and oddly, not one of them indicated I was there to criticize their policies.😂
The Columbia riots were not “misdemeanors.” Incitement to commit a crime is a felony because it involves “mens rea” (a guilty mind). The definition of “agent provocateur” is not someone with provocative opinions. It is “a person who actively entices another person to commit a crime that would not otherwise have been committed.” When done on behalf of foreign interests, it is a felony, and when done on behalf of an enemy during war, it is a capital offense.
You chose the precisely correct term, but it has far higher gravity than your context suggested.
I ❤️ national security.
It was hard to believe that the 2024 Hamilton Hall takeover wasn’t treated more harshly. It was a sort of Democrat January 6.
For me, the final straw was the assault on the custodian, and the fact that he and his coworkers were literally not allowed to leave the premises. When you’re forcibly detained, you are the victim of either false arrest or kidnapping — both of which are criminal offenses (the latter is a federal offense).
Lest anyone have any doubt about whether the US had a two tiered justice system, this would be a tough one to argue against.
I suspect this arrest has more to do with Khalil’s ACTIONS than it does about his opinions. And we may also find out that there is a monetary element to all this (funding of Hamas via NGOs with student involvement).
I also wanted to see mass expulsions. I expect that the disruptions we're seeing now are direct results of the feckless (and predictable) cowardice of the administration. Entitled people react to incentives.
The media will mobilize in support of their ideological allies at CU, but this will only lose them more support and credibility. No one takes these people seriously.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/pretend-revolutionaries
Democrat insurrections are different.
The press is the enemy of the people
The people are the enemy of the people. Unfortunately, Truth is at a minimum these days.
Chris, thank you for showing us the facts of Khalil from less than a year ago that the corporate media has memory holed. As you point out, in lock step, the corporate media and their Dem co-conspirators are shaping the Khalil narrative to go against the Great Orange Xenophobe. Facts are so inconvenient when you have a narrative to shove down people’s throats.
Khalil and other Palestinians are jihadis; that is, they are engaged in a holy religious war to conquer infidels until everyone still alive in the world prays to Allah. In their founding charter, Hamas promises to exterminate Israeli Jews and all Jews around the world. They are devoted to terrorism and conquest as a holy obligation. The do not care about land or a state; they care about Allah. Import Muslims to North America, and you will duplicate conditions in Europe, where soon, as a result of the "immigration jihad," there will be "the Islamic Caliphate of What Once Was France" ...England, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, etc.
With respect, Christian Palestinians, who are being annihilated alongside everyone else in Gaza (and the West Bank, which the press conveniently leaves out) are not jihadists. Just as the Christians currently being executed in Syria are not jihadists. I do agree that the press are completely disingenuous in castigating Trump for actions consistent with those actions ordered by whoever was running the White House in Biden's stead for the past four years.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population has grown. The Palestinian Authority controls Bethlehem, which used to be Christian majority. Your use of the word annihilated does apply to the Christians being beheaded in the Congo and other African countries, and murdered over the past few days in Syria. Israel is not “annihilating” Christians.
So what’s Israel doing?
What does that has to do with how moslems behave in and towards the nations and peoples who have given tens of millions of them asylum and are letting them live all-inclusive and for free among them, not even deporting them when they commit violent crimes?
Israel is trying to defend itself and keep its citizens from being murdered (in the most atrocious fashions). Israel would like peace, whereas the Arabs want conquest and dominance, as they have throughout history.
Bullshit…
And I think you probably know that Phillip.
Look, if you support Islamic supremacists and jihadi terrorists, just say so.
Is that your “go to line” Phillip?
Seeing all that leftist chatter on Substack as well. Orange man is killing the 1st Amendment, said the team that killed the 1st Amendment.
Legacy media only gives a 30k view on that dudes activities never mentioning who he supports (HAMAS), his own word threatening violence, and his celebration of October 7th. And of course his actions - being directly involved in breaking and entering and trespassing (while telling everyone that would listen they will resist by any means).
So ya, I don’t think it’s a 1A case.
I would bet he gets deported because he failed to state he supported a terror group in his application for a green card.
Agreed. I find the independent voter interesting. Historically they vote in line with the party they left. Under duress I think they move around a wee bit like some did with Trump - like your blue collar guy.
We’re definitely in a time and space that we probably should have been at the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, we didn’t have inspired minds then either.
I’m an independent who despises Dimmercranks even more than I despise Repugnacogs, but in my book, Trump is too real to be either one. He just used the Repuggers as a vehicle.
I am convinced the President is killing his vibe with the retarded double standard on Israel. He apparently has no idea how much of his base view the IDF as the evil fiends in this conflict. Unless your Congressman is named Thomas Massie, they have a minder assigned by AIPAC to tell them how to vote. Either Trump fixes that shit, or he fumbles the game away.
I don’t know. I don’t think his base sees the IDF as evil so much as his base is genuinely pushing hard against our involvement in ANY significant foreign military complication.
No doubt his new additions that bolstered his win popped in because of their dissatisfaction with Biden’s “inaction” regarding Israel/Gaza. But that audience isn’t his base. He knows those cats are gone no matter what course he takes. He’s also a lame duck which informs a great many of his FAFO replies.
From my position, I do see a nuanced difference between the Middle East and Ukraine. Western (post Soviet Collapse) meddling arguably is why Russia finally zipped in. With Israel western meddling has been a long term negative for Israel in the years after Yasser Arafat refused the two state deal (he should never have refused).
After that, with nowhere to go, the west began to coddle the Arabs until we’re in a situation we find ourselves now - westerners see HAMAS as a freedom fighting organization. Preposterousness.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. There are millions of us in the independent column who are as anti-Hamas as we are anti-Zionist. This is a position that requires no nuance, just an active bs detector.
The Repugnacogs cannot win without the independent vote, anymore than the Dimmercranks can win without fake ballots. Political fact of life. If the president wants his legacy to be a flash of fool’s gold in the pan, he’s picked the right issue to be wrong about.
America First? Not while he’s collared and leashed to Israel.
Crusading against corruption? That bell sounds rather a dull thud when AIPAC’s donations buy so much from so many.
Free speech champion? At a minimum that would require not criminalizing dissent, dontcha think?
I know he’s in a hard bind over this; doubling down on covering for Israel’s genocidal maniacs is not the way out.
Has Khalid been charged with an actual crime? Did the campus press charges against him for anything? That's what I want to know. There was no mention of it in the DHS statement on Twitter, just that he was engaged in "activities that aligned with Hamas," whatever the hell that means. I mean, any of us that have complained about sending money to Ukraine have been accused of "aligning with Putin," so . . . I take that wording with a grain of salt.
Walter Kirn made an excellent point tonight on his live stream with Matt Taibbi. There is no point to this. Public opinion turned against the protests. So the "right" sacrificed the moral high ground and repulsed those of us free speech absolutists for what purpose exactly? And you can "explain" all you like, but unless he's been charged with something serious enough to, by precedent, warrant the revocation of a green card and deportation away from his American wife and child, then it's inescapably a question of free speech and free thought. That's not a standard any of us wants, not after we've seen it weaponized already, during COVID and January 6th, a riot that in any other case would have resulted in misdemeanors, but because they rioted about the "wrong" thing some of them have spent years in jail.
Do you understand the immigration process? One does not have to just commit a crime to run afoul of it. Taking, as an example, public assistance is something that can close your case. Why should supporting foreign terrorist organizations be treated any differently? This is far more egregious than the reason my wife got her Green Card pulled.
He's not supporting foreign terrorists, though unless he's doing it financially, that's not a crime either. (BTW, the US supports designated terrorist groups financially when it suits our government, so I find even that idea to be laughable.) That's where this goes wrong. He's supporting Palestinians. And, yes, I understand the immigration process just fine. He has a green card, which means he went through the process and now basically enjoys the same rights you do, including the right to organize protests and express himself.
In 1845, Karl Marx was forced to give up his Prussian citizenship because of his radical politics. I am not familiar with extradition policies or the prosecution of terrorists within the USA. I suspect we will all be familiar with this issue within a year.
You are an incredibly intelligent man, and I say that without a shred of sarcasm. If you have to go back to Prussia, hardly an example of freedom and populism, to make your argument work, it might be time to rethink your argument.
You can take public assistance if you are a permanent resident - but I agree with you on the rest. I've been through this for 9 years with my husband and we want to apply now for citizenship as he's been a permanent resident for almost 4 years.
I agree with what Walter said tonight. I admit I have a huge bias with this, and it's not even about Jewish vs Palestine, it's that my husband has been going through the process of citizenship since we married 10 years ago this June. Anyone who has gone through that process knows it's insanely expensive and time consuming, which is why I can't imagine any normal person putting himself in the middle of these protests. In fact, I have to say, it pisses me off. We had one small problem with my husband and the law (not major) and it set us back 5K in lawyer fees and an extra 2 years (plus the pandemic) to get permanent resident status. People are screaming that this status makes you a full citizen with the right to flip off the government and not expect a problem - I can assure you it doesn't even if "permanent" is in the title.
With what I've been through over the last 9 years I can't IMAGINE being a wife who loves her husband saying- yeah, go rile up protesters today. It just doesn't make sense from my point of view. It seems there is a lot of brainwashing happening at campuses. The problem is that Trump using a "because I said so" tactic will probably make those people dig in deeper, which is probably the "suppression" Matt and Walter were referring to. I have empathy for Palestine (not HAMAS) and I know the leader of Israel is no saint. I honestly don't even want to weigh in on that - but the anti-American sentiment is a huge problem, though I am not sure banning "woke" will make it better. I do think we must have better government classes and history classes that aren't all "America is terrible."
I don't judge people. We all make our decisions and live with the consequences. But if we're fine with Jewish people in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship, then I have to understand an Arab Muslim seeing the destruction over there, paid for with our tax dollars and funded by investing in Israeli businesses, wanting to make a stink about it. This is what happens when you encourage/allow groups of people (both Israeli and Israeli sympathetic Jews and Arab Muslims in America) to hang on to their ties overseas. You can't expect one group of people to give up their ties and old animosities and not the other. It's unreasonable. That's, to me, the root cause of this whole thing. In a multicultural society, the country has to remain neutral, and we've not. We've bombed the hell out of one and funded the other. So I understand him. Was it wise? No. But I understand.
" . . . if we're fine with Jewish people in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship . . . "
Whether we're "fine with" that or not, surely you must mean "Israelis in America putting their Israeli citizenship above their American citizenship," since "Jewish people in America" do not have automatic "Israeli citizenship."
Is it possible that you hold some mistaken beliefs about "Jewish people in America"? And elsewhere?
Earlier I worded it more specifically, something along the lines of “Jewish people with dual citizenship or Israeli-sympathetic Jews.” Out of the 7.5 million Jews in American, 200,000 have dual Israeli-American citizenship, so not an insignificant number. To get dual citizenship, all a Jewish person has to do is to prove they are Jewish and “repatriate” to Israel, under the right of return. They can maintain both citizenships and they don’t have to remain in Israel.
But you’re trying to distract from the conflict of interest, which is clear. What other group of US citizens are we completely fine with them putting the welfare of another country above this one? The answer: none. And most especially not Arab Muslim Americans. We expect them to “make a clean break.” It’s a hypocritical and untenable situation.
You are repeating a classic antisemitic trope and don't even seem to know it.
You were dying to use that word, weren't you? Couldn't pull off an argument without it. But news flash, because of the antics of a certain group, that word is now as meaningless as "racist" or "fascist" or Nazi."
The ability to rewrite history has always been the prerogative of those who opt for military victories instead of State Department compromises. "What other group of US citizens are completely fine with ... putting the welfare of another country above (our) own?"
Surely, you have heard of Ukraine and the billions of dollars we gave them for fight Russia for us.
I have heard of that, and I remember widespread condemnation on the right that partially got Trump elected because when they said America First, they meant America First, or so I was told. That doesn't seem to hold for Israel.
Ok. Thoughtful. But is taking over a building etc “making a stink”? Or something more?
What were the sit-ins of the civil rights movement other than "taking over a building"? What is going and singing at an abortion clinic other than "taking over a building"? It's Columbia University, a private college. If they really wanted these people removed, they could have done it. But they refused to call in any sizable force and he was still a student on campus living in campus housing when ICE came for him, so obviously Columbia University wasn't that upset by his antics as he wasn't even thrown out of the graduate program. So if they're not worried about it . . . why is Trump getting ICE involved?
Civil disobedience is not a free pass: the whole point is that you're willing to accept the consequences to demonstrate the unfairness of the system.
If protestors actually enter an abortion clinic and disturb its operation, that's taking over a building and holds the possibility of legal consequences.
And I remember the "right" complaining that the consequences were to severe for simple trespassing and making it a free speech issue. Like the left, the right now thinks we can only remember a few days back.
Trump is getting ICE involved because he can. He has no authority over local LEO.
His wife and kid should go with him to keep the family together.
Ah, the new compassionate "right" enters the chat. She's an American citizen, and now you're suggesting she self deport because her husband holds an opinion you don't like. So tell me again, how is the "right" better than the "left"?
How many times must these tired old arguments be voiced? If any other American besides the holy Khalil committed his crimes, he would be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. If, for some lawyerly reason, this criminal cannot be deported, I am sure there is still room for him at Gitmo. He could be the ball boy during their tennis tournaments.
So tell me what crime he committed? It is not illegal to organize protests, even those that go wrong. That's what the Democrats tried to hang around Trump's neck. Did you agree with them, that Trump was responsible for what happened on J6?
And every American thinks free exists…until it doesn’t.
I concur Lillia!
I think the idea is to use him as a goat to make protesters, especially non-citizens, more careful of staying within legal boundaries. Had Columbia's regents (or whomever) had the sand to press charges for the criminal activity, it might have had the same effect. Since they didn't, the obvious conclusion that others will draw is that they can flaunt it.
That's my theory, at any rate.
Funny. I took it as a warning to everyone to shut up about Israel. And if his activities were bad enough, local DAs would not have needed to ask Columbia's permission.
Their actions are making it clear that nothing should be said about “the chosen people”.
Can DAs prosecute without someone being booked? If Columbia didn't want them arrested, that's the end of it as far as legal prosecution.
For deportation, an immigration court only needs to find that that the visa holder is a threat to public safety.
I agree that it may also be intended as a way of chilling anti-Israel comments in general, but there's pretty broad public support for disciplining those who are easily painted as "ungrateful and entitled brats."
If my neighbor breaks into my house, I can choose whether or not to have him prosecuted. If my neighbor kills my child, I cannot chose whether or not to have him prosecuted. It is the severity of the crime.
If Columbia university for whatever reason decided not to have these people prosecuted, then that is their business. Only their campus was hurt. If their students are tired of the antics of the other students and Columbia putting up with it, then those students go elsewhere. That is how this problem is solved.
And being "ungrateful and entitled brats" is not illegal.
And if you admit it was intended as a way of chilling this particular speech, then if you learned anything from the least four years, you should be fighting to keep this kid from being deported. If he is deported and if Trump is allowed to deny schools federal funding for letting students protest against Israel, then what do you think happens when the "other side" gets back in? And trust me, this little stunt is virtually handing the Democrats power again. This was the one basic thing that many of us voted for Trump over, and he's blowing it.
Trump is bought and paid for.
I voted for Trump in 2016, and in 2020. I didn’t have the information then, that I have today.
I didn’t vote for Trump a third time because of Operation Warp Speed, and his stance on Gaza.
And this is the “tip of the iceberg”, for me.
And he caused a lot of his own problems due to his reaction to COVID. I know hindsight is 20/20, but between the vaccine he pushed and the lockdowns, it was a mess on so many levels, and people were even in 2020 saying there are better ways.
I voted for him, but mostly because of JD Vance, RFK, and Tulsi Gabbard, and only because I had hope with them, he would be different. Jury is still out. But I totally get your position and had he picked the wrong running mate (in my eyes), I would have written in Mickey Mouse.
Chris,
I just don't/can't give two fbombs about this guy, the leftists whose panties are wadded up in their glory holes about it, or really any criticism of this administration. I have no fbombs left.
Remember 'take a knee, drink water'? Solves most problems. That and a sandwich.
Tucker interviewed Mark Halperin (sp?) this fall, and Mark predicted 'the greatest mental health crisis' this nation has ever seen. Another prophet.
Part of me wants to believe this will burn out, this level of vitriol cannot continue (especially without USAID and ActBlue, the pallets of bricks won't magically appear), but we are headed into 'riot season', or for normal Americans, the summer.
The other part of me is wondering what 'greatest mental health crisis' will actually manifest this summer. The violence we see pointed towards Elon and Tesla vehicles is frightening. When did the citizens of the US actually recognize they were in a Civil War?
Didn't people have picnics at the first Battle of Bull Run? It was a holiday. Where are we on this continuum of peace-war?
Still, I have no fbombs to give for these clowns.
bsn
Brian, laser-focused, as usual.
setting teslas on fire is idiotic because you can't put out those mini-east-palestines
but it's understandable how there would be major pushback against and contempt for a deep state creation who wants to put his chip in everybody's brain
My legal-immigrant wife had her Green Card pulled and her case shut down because we asked USCIS a question. That's it. A question. Legal immigrants have to follow strict rules; they are not simply allowed to run around to do whatever they want--including supporting foreign terrorist organizations.
I have no sympathy for this clown.
many grad student teach too. i wonder if he’s been teaching his antisemitic hate to students. I think the courts are just giving him due process. My son graduated from the Ivys and i am totally disgusted. i worry that they will destroy the value of his work there.
The Ivys have gone down the tubes, a disgrace & 🤡 show.
I am now embarrassed to say I went to one 😔
If he is in fact connected to a terrorist organization then his"permanent resident" card should be revoked and at very least he should be deported. He is a guest in this country and has incited violence. Buh bye. We need to stop financing and supporting enemies to this country. It is suicidal
I usually agree with your takes, but you're off on this. We all know this guy isn't being prosecuted for breaking windows at Columbia University. Unless you want to put your head deeeeep into the sand, it's clear that the President is persecuting the anti-Zionist protests and chose Mahmoud Khalil as the one to be the figurehead. This most definitely is a free speech issue. Look at the statements Trump has made himself. Look at Stefanik's statements. Look at all the efforts lawmakers from both parties have undergone to stop BDS movements over the past few years.
You really have to try hard to miss this one.
He's not a citizen. He doesn't have first amendment rights, and he's not permitted to act as a foreign agent on a residency visa. Save it for when/if they go after someone with citizenship with these sorts of charges. If they do, I'm right there with you. But this guy needs to go home. So do a lot of Israelis frankly, though fat chance that's going to happen.
How about CONgress registration with FARA?
https://www.trackaipac.com/trump
We can dream.
You are 💯
I would like to see all of the students involved in occupation of campus buildings expelled (and activists involved in assault and property damage prosecuted)-not because in a Zionist shill or against free SPEECH.
These acts are plainly not speech and these children (for that is what they seem to be, in my conversations with them) have been long playing out exciting Marxists fantasies before they begin their jobs at law firms and hedge funds. We need to introduce stakes because that’s the nature of reality and frankly I don’t think most of these kids have learned that yet. In 5 years they’ll thank you. Punish wrongdoing. Protect speech. Apply consistently. Easy..
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/pretend-revolutionaries
Thank God for independent journalists!
Once again, the Trump administration, by taking a reasonable action, forces the left into a highly unreasonable position. The merits of the 1A claim may be up in the air, but don't forget that pro-life demonstrators got lengthy felony sentences for non-violent activity. The left wrapping themselves in the bill of rights for this kid is laughable as they have proven they only care about free speech for their interests.
And they are citizens, not guests