85 Comments
User's avatar
flyoverdriver's avatar

Matt and Walter - please take the sane/investigative journalist position on Khalil’s case, which is: wait to see the evidence presented in the upcoming deportation hearings.

You can still infuse this discussion with civil libertarian values. I.e., if the evidence presented is only “sympathy” with Hamas, then this is bad from a speech perspective. But, if the evidence presented is that he had some organizing role in the known illegal acts at Columbia, then this isn’t even a speech question.

The progressive left’s mad rush to the barricades to declare this guy a speech martyr without seeing hard evidence reminds me uncomfortably much of the George Floyd 2020 events. The actual facts in that case (explained well in the Fall of Minneapolis documentary everyone should watch) were far different than what was blasted out to the mask wearing protesters at fever pitch in that long hot summer.

Expand full comment
Bently's avatar

Under our jurisprudence, the accused is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Khalil was not charged with any crime, whisked off to a prison in another state which is illegal. If there were any evidence that Khalil had committed a crime you can bet it would have been declared in the documents.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

If the hearings conclude with no evidence of his involvement in violent and illegal activity being presented then I will gladly accept that the deportation attempt was wrong. I have no dog in this fight except seeing the evidence via due process.

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

This is not how it works. The government doesn’t get to arbitrarily pluck someone off the street, call them a “terrorist” “threat to democracy “ or “Hamas sympathizer” (with no evidence) and then hold them in custody. Remember J6? Learned anything?

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

He’s being detained under an immigration statute and immediately subjected to due process required under that statute. See Matt’s timeline. I agree with you (see my other comment replying to you) that I think this is alarming and not to be tolerated if the administration chooses to build their case around his speech and viewpoints. If they build it around verifiable evidence of his contributions to illegal protest actions at Columbia, then I support it. We don’t know what the government lawyers are going to do yet.

Expand full comment
Bently's avatar

Of course he's being detained under an immigration statute. There would be no way to deprive him of his constitutional and legal rights to due process if he were charged in any other way. It's a complete farce.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

So using an immigration statute to which Khalil knew he was subject when receiving a visa to initiate deportation proceedings is a farce? I fail to understand. The coverage in liberal media acts as if he was a victim of an enforced disappearance (ie, kidnapping and spiriting people away to clandestine camps never to be heard from again and probably executed) of the kind we see in dictatorships. I’ve studied enforced disappearances a lot, and this incident looks nothing at all like that. To make such comparisons insults people who have been victims of egregious human rights violations.

Expand full comment
Bently's avatar

But that's the whole point: he was denied due process immediately. Do you want the government, suspecting you of some unspecified crime, to rendition you away to a prison hundreds of miles outside your state, and wait for them to come up with a charge? How long before they come up with a charge? How long before they grant you access to a lawyer? You are very brave when it comes to denying others their liberty.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

He has an ongoing legal/evidentiary process less than a week after his removal to the Louisiana facility (see Matt’s own timeline).

Expand full comment
Bently's avatar

And I'm sure you would be agreeable to the same treatment if you were accused of something but not a crime. As I said, it's easy for you to say it's ok because it's not your liberty that has been deprived. It is not you being spirited away without an answer to your repeated question what am I being charged with. You will not be forced to pay for a lawyer to defend yourself when you have not been charged with any crime. Here are the rights of a person with a green card:

"Green card holders are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including the right to due process, equal protection under the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Right to Live and Work: They have the right to live and work permanently in the United States. "

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

He’s being detained under an immigration statute about which the administration has been amply transparent. If I were subject to the terms of an immigration statute and then detained under that statute I would argue my case and demand due process, as Khalil has done and received (legal representation, speedy proceedings, etc). If I were not subject to that statute and detained under it, or detained under no legal basis, I would of course be outraged.

Again, the issue for me is the case the administration presents in its interpretation of the statute under which it has the authority to initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders. The case may be a bad one, and if it is I will oppose it.

Expand full comment
Kurt's avatar

I have a difficult time respecting people's opinions that claim we should wait for the evidence when they don't appear to have waited themself.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

I am proud to be a paid subscriber to a site such as Matt’s that publishes articles like yesterday which say “How to do your own research.” The idea that an opinion conditioned on seeking out evidence is indicative of wrongthink was a pervasive issue during the height of COVID censoriousness. (At least the NYT finally admitted today re: COVID origins those of us who waited to seek out evidence and were ridiculed for doing so were right all along.) So I stand by what I said and do not care if that position is difficult to respect.

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

I think it is sufficiently troubled that there is such paucity of evidence that he wasn’t even charged or properly arrested. And spirited away to Gitmo. This must not be tolerated.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

He’s not in Gitmo. He is in Louisiana. And it’s a deportation hearing, not a criminal hearing (the relevant statute under which this is occurring does not specify that deportation requires criminal charges).

Overall, I am stating my own personal red line: that if the administration tries to argue that this statute allows deportations for speech, then I am against it. If the administration tries to argue that this statute allows deportations for contributions to illegal and violent protests (and can provide evidence to this effect in Khalil’s case), then I am for it. I guess this is too measured an opinion for people who have already prejudged the case, but I stand by it.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Getting a visa makes you a guest of the government. Why would any government tolerate guests who rally against them? It really is that simple. You choose your guests, you are stuck with family...

Expand full comment
Kate S's avatar

Okay, easier question. How is wanting your college to divest from Israel "rallying against the government of the US"?

Over half of the country doesn't support Israel. Both the GOP/DEM reps, even worse than Ukraine, continue to fund and make excuses for that nation against the interests of the American people.

What does a student demanding things of their college have to do with the federal government and immigration?

Where on the green card application do you have to swear allegiance to the war criminal government of Israel?

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

I would venture that more than half of the country supports Israel, certainly over Hamas. You should get out more. The government gets to decide the other question. Our elected government in the form of the President, made a decision. Pretty much in line with what he said he would do before the election.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

You are right on all points here. Which is why I have been beating the drum that the question should be construed much more narrowly:

Did Khalil coordinate or exert any control over the violent and illegal acts at Columbia in his role as a leader of CUAD? This is a viewpoint-neutral question that could be settled entirely with standard rules of evidence at a hearing. I think if there were Israeli students on visas who did the same thing CUAD did at Columbia, they should also be deported. The issue is that Rubio is mixing in the speech argument with the violent and illegal acts at Columbia argument. They are fundamentally different justifications for deportation.

There should be no action taken against him on the basis of his viewpoints expressed in 1A-protected speech. That’s a dangerous bridge to cross. I get the idea of the related “visa holders are guests” argument but as a practical matter for those making it I’d guess it plays far worse with independents than the argument I laid out.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

If you are in a group that commits a crime, you are often guilty even if you didn't actually do it. Police use this fact to get people to rat out others in the group and then reduce the sentence of the rat. You should be careful who you associate with. Not all crimes are prosecuted. You may recall the Biden administration using "prosecutorial discretion". What comes around, goes around. In his status, he does not enjoy 1A speech. If he had been in the country long enough with a green card, he could apply to be a citizen, then he would have.

Everyone assumes there is equal justice. This is a fantasy as has been quite clearly shown in many cases. See the Governor of NY who said that of course nobody else needs to worry about getting prosecuted like Trump for "inflating" property values. I guess she said that to prevent a panic in NYC, or maybe she just needed some fast campaign cash.

Expand full comment
Katherine Blair's avatar

Kate, if that was all he had done, no problem. Distributing material in support of a group that has been identified by the United States Government as a terrorists organization. Also, why are you not concerned that he received his green card faster than almost everyone before?

Expand full comment
Katherine Blair's avatar

No. You are wrong. The only free speech rights this miscreant has is while he is on campus. It is in the student visa.

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

From what I understand, Mr Khalil was rallying against a FOREIGN Middle Eastern government of a country far far away. Why is it such a problem? Also, due process applies to everyone. A visa holder must be charged with a crime prior to being incarcerated.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

The world is a small place. The President has the authority to expel any non citizen that they deem to be a "problem". It really is that simple. Due process does not apply. He was being deported and in custody for that. It was held up by a judge, and he is being held pending the outcome. Neither you nor I really have any idea of the details of the case and it is unlikely we will know anything for a long time.

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

Extraordinary rendition 2.0

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

He can be free in less than a day. All he has to do is leave.

Expand full comment
mKe hOSTETTLER's avatar

Well he can be MY guest, and I demand my guests rally against the US government.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

I hope you are buying your guests round trip tickets and let them know what you are getting them into.

Expand full comment
Kurt's avatar

You can grant freedom of speech to citizens and not green card holders, that's your choice.

I grant freedom of speech to human beings.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

He is free to say whatever he wants from his own country as far as the USA is concerned.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Change the constitution if you can. There is an amendment process.

Expand full comment
Kurt's avatar

I don't need the constitution for me to grant freedom of speech to who I want. Show some intelligence.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

I guess I misunderstood. Yes, you can let anyone say anything to you, or in your presence. I am good with that.

Expand full comment
Steve Fisher's avatar

Walter you are right, as usual. However, Khalil is clearly a "spook". Even his Wiki page shows his questionable background. My advice? Chose another "hero of free speech". This guy is dirty.

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

Like the kkk in Skokie?

Expand full comment
Kate S's avatar

I can see the comments are going be haywire with rationalizations supporting the elected admin's attempted use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deport someone for anti-Israel speech. Khalil wasn't even protesting Biden or the US government at an "anti-war" protest- he was attempting to get the college that he had paid tuition to, to divest financially from a FOREIGN country that is actively committing human rights crimes.

If someone shows me ANY proof that Khalil was *actually* a terrorist or could do jack shit to "hurt US foreign policy" (which I'm sorry, he's not a business owner, a spy, or ANYTHING besides an ivy league student organizing on a NYC campus....) we can START to have that conversation.

Otherwise, this is nothing more than Trump/Rubio labeling perfectly legit speech as "pro hamas". Then, they are using it to target people for political and not "national security" reasons. They can't deport him through the normal process (of him actually committing a crime and an immigration judge revoking status), so they are seriously claiming a college kid in a white/black scarf is "materially supporting terrorists?". Fuck right off.

Neither our citizens nor our "guests" are required to support the terrorist nation of Israel... if you wanna be a real patriot, you WOULD be against Israel in every way- since they are not part of America and currently our #1 foreign policy baggage. Our leadership is actively destroying the reputation of the US on the world stage, simply by being complicit in their crimes and ignoring arrest warrants in international court. They are a bigoted, genocidal, apartheid, war criminal, terrorist nation. In my opinion, we should all hope that every immigrant coming here is allowed to voice opposition to foreign nation of Israel, because supporting Israel is the worst thing you can do for our country, as a flag-loving American.

Expand full comment
Katherine Blair's avatar

It is not about free speech. Although you don't want to hear this, he was distributing material in support of a group that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States.

This guy does not deserve your outrage. Obviously, you are primed to be outraged, but this miscreant is beneath your wasting it on him.

Expand full comment
GB HeBe's avatar

After years of encouraging anti-American speech the pendulum was bound to swing far in the other direction. This is a far cry from rounding people up for, say, protesting at abortion clinics or voicing opinions at school board meetings.

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

I believe he spoke against a foreign Middle Eastern government…

Expand full comment
Dierk Groeneman's avatar

Selfish me just wants to know if Trump's speech crackdown applies to citizens and immigrants alike

Prognosis is not good: if 1A applies to anyone on American soil then citizens are no different from immigrants.

Expand full comment
Dean's avatar

Well, they/we have always said "we are all (at least of) immigrants.". I suppose we should have considered what that really meant taken literally, and legally.

Expand full comment
Billy Masterson's avatar

EVERYONE in USA has first amendment rights, US citizenship is not required.

The First Amendment protects the rights of marginalized people to have a voice and does not allow the government to prefer some speakers over others based on their identity.

Fuck the Trump administration's BS intimidation move carried out to harrass and try to silence similar voices his Zionist owners find inconvenient over constitutionally protected, non violent activity.

https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20specify,Unauthorized%20immigrant

Expand full comment
Miss.Moto.Mama's avatar

As a scientist, I need to tell you that we say, “science progresses one funeral at a time”. Please Bhattacharia clean house.

Expand full comment
Miss.Moto.Mama's avatar

Note that Europe and Canada are now all run by bankers/BlackRock. Except Starmer who might as well be.

Expand full comment
Miss.Moto.Mama's avatar

My guess is that the bankers are moving to take control out of fear of what Trump can do controlling the world’s reserve currency. My bet is that Trump is up against the meta-state because they came after the king, but didn’t kill him. Can he survive? I’m rooting for a stalemate in which we get to learn what is really going on. What if neither of the evils is the least bit lesser?

Expand full comment
S Padival's avatar

Matt, Jeff Zients, not Ron Klain was Biden’s chief of staff during the dementia half of the Biden term. He has an interesting background, including acid washing his emails while at Facebook, Medicare fraud allegations and fixing healthcare.gov for Obama.. he sounds like Obama’s boy wonder and a ghost who nobody, including you, may have heard of 🤣..

Expand full comment
CA's avatar

Serbia is pro-Russia. That’s where Russian elites send their sons to work if they are military age lol. This uprising is university students and springtime. See South Korea. I was an International HS teacher there for a year and had my first contact with pepper spray commuting to my apartment. It stings! No big deal. I was also in Germany around the time of Bader-Meinhof. Europe was interesting then. Now a collection of tiny Walt Disney tourist worlds without the fun rides. The biggest bore ever. Just returned from Florence and actually lost weight it’s so homogenized. I agree with the listeners - fk the EU.

Expand full comment
Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

Perkins Coie had a SCIF in their DC office. It was uncovered during Special counsel John Durham investigation of Russia collusion

Expand full comment
BAILEY BUILDING AND LOAN's avatar

Matt and Walter I worked for a defense contractor. When you leave the job you lose the security clearance. Granted I was a peon. However can't really understand why it would be any different for upper echelon folks.

Expand full comment
PL's avatar

The purpose of the NY Times is to manufacture consensus.

Expand full comment
Miss.Moto.Mama's avatar

I’d love to hear Steven Donziger’s views.

Expand full comment
Paul West's avatar

ATW Livestream Tonight at 8 PM ET/7 PM CT

Yes, I know what time to tune in on the west coast.

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

It’s funny that Central Time is listed if Pacific and Mountain are not. Just Eastern is all that’s needed. It’s not calculus…

Expand full comment