So BS your biases and prejudices are on full display. And like BK make a vast oversimplification. First, 1st A rights are civil rights and as such relate to a particular field of law. Civil rights issues can be raised in civil actions such as suing an entity for violation of civil rights. But they are more often raised as defense to crim…
So BS your biases and prejudices are on full display. And like BK make a vast oversimplification. First, 1st A rights are civil rights and as such relate to a particular field of law. Civil rights issues can be raised in civil actions such as suing an entity for violation of civil rights. But they are more often raised as defense to criminal prosecution or as justification for criminal conduct. Significantly to do either the accused has to admit the offense, and your whole argument is Khalid did nothing wrong. Criminal conduct is not excused by labeling it free speech. Speech is protected. Some acts, such as peaceful protest, are protected. (At least here for now.) But vandalism and trespass are not excused (just ask the J6 protesters). False imprisonment (of the maintenance workers) is not excused. Threats, intimidation, and harassment of a group of students based on their religion or ethnicity is not excused. But Khalid is not charged with a crime nor is he required to be to be subject to deportation. As others have already told you if he is relying on a student visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he is relying on a green card visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he lied on the student or green card visa applications he is subject to deportation. But my understanding is that the basis of his deportation is a rarely used (til now anyway) method and is based on a State Department determination that he has engaged in conduct contrary to America's national interests. You know and I know the United States of America is a close ally of Israel. Since the inception of the modern nation of Israel. More importantly Khalid knew it. The entire purpose of the protests was to force divestment of investment in and aid to Israel, to turn the tide against Israel and weaken Israel. Nor was he a mere participant, rather he was an organizer and a negotiator. His conduct as an organizer raises the inference of conspiracy to commit [crimes] and engaging in organized criminal activity, both of which increase the classification of the underlying crime(s). As the negotiator he was the very public face of the organized protests. Protests In which others BTW were very careful not to disclose their identities. Which sort of refutes the notion that all was above board as hiding behind masks and hoods generally indicates nefariousness and a desire not to get caught so engaging. Additionally according to his wife's recent statements he was aware of the risk of being detained and deported as he had advised her what to do in the event thereof and had tapered his public appearances at the new protests. Additionally neither you nor I have any idea what his actions entailed. But he does. And various federal entities likely have a decent idea for him to have been summarily detained as he was. My guess is that they have digital records, surveillance footage, witness statements, and maybe transcripts if bugged conversations, etc.. Reportedly he may be an intelligence asset of a foreign entity or entities. If so most likely he will agree to deportation to avoid criminal prosecution. It sounds to me like he may have been trying to prepare his wife for his absence. Lastly it is disingenuous, to say the least, to argue that Gaza and Hamas are not synonymous with the Free Palestine movement. That is their entire point - from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. You really need to try to see the big picture to have any possibility of intelligently assessing this matter.
Khalil is not charged with a crime because he committed no crime. He's an innocent man who did nothing wrong. I will believe that until the day he's convicted of a crime in a court of law because all humans subjected to American jurisdiction are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He used his free speech to advocate for a cause that he cares about. You think he's wrong, great, say so. That's your right. It was his right to speak his mind. It's your right to speak your mind. This is how America works. Detaining him without charge and deporting him based on unproven allegations of wrongdoing undermines the bill of rights, both the first and sixth amendments. He's a legal permanent resident. That means that if he violates no law then he gets to live here forever.
You pro-Israel types want to make him a free speech martyr? What a terrible idea. This will backfire. Two days ago Bernie Sanders said that we need to end arms shipments to Israel on the Senate floor. Today he held the largest rally of his entire political career. The man is 83 years old. The spell may eventually break on the Israel issue in America, and stunts like deporting a peaceful man who broke no law will contribute to that sea-change. Just ask Bill Maher or Andrew Sullivan, who are quite pro-Israel but oppose deporting Khalil without charge. You people are completely in the wrong on this issue, and it's very much to the detriment of your own movement.
He is subject to deportation without having been charged with or convicted of a crime. I do not think it was merely speaking his mind that caused his deportation.
State Dept and DHS are claiming it's because he's a "threat to national security." Hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh right, any time the government (led by EITHER party) seeks to silence its detractors. Look at what the Biden Admin did to the J6ers.
Because there have been abuses in the past does not mean it is being wrongfully applied to Khalil. That is the way everybody gets eaten by the wolf after the little boy cried wold too many times. But I think you have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why so many people are troubled by this - because of the potential for abuse. I do not pretend to know the answer. Unlike most others commenting on the thread. The only thing I do know is the Khalil matter involves many areas of law and it is not a simple matter. Which was the gist of my original comment.
Nothing you are arguing makes legal sense. The issue is this is an arrest of someone who has not been charged with a crime by government entities acting outside their powers, using a wartime law outside wartime against a person who is a permanent legal resident of this country, based, apparently, on the content of his speech. If he is accused of specific crimes he could be charged with those crimes. Saying a civil rights issue can be raised in a lawsuit but not as a criminal defense is a nonsensical argument. If the very basis of a criminal case constitutes violating the defendant’s civil rights, the answer is not that the case goes on but the defendant can sue someone in civil court, the answer is the criminal case is invalidated. Most Americans would know that.
Re “intelligence asset”: he was a Chevenning scholar, meaning he was sponsored by the British, our ally, and would have been through a vetting process, making him less likely to have any kind of terrorist affiliation.
Re “national interests”: The allyship with Israel is what seems to be contrary to US interests at this point, and many Americans are realizing it, especially now with the attack on our first amendment, which Israelis may not understand is central to our concept of freedom and what it means to be American. The ways that Israel supposedly benefits us are all illusory. The terrorist threat we work together to combat is generated largely because of Israel. The military and spy tech is funded by us and they spy on us. Trump may be bought by Israel, but who’s to say we don’t elect a true America first leader next time, who campaigns on cutting Israel loose? We can only hope.
Sadly, hope is all we've got. Problem is, no one will even be considered for POTUS unless they pledge their undying fealty to Israel; a foreign country, no less. So much for "America First."
So BS your biases and prejudices are on full display. And like BK make a vast oversimplification. First, 1st A rights are civil rights and as such relate to a particular field of law. Civil rights issues can be raised in civil actions such as suing an entity for violation of civil rights. But they are more often raised as defense to criminal prosecution or as justification for criminal conduct. Significantly to do either the accused has to admit the offense, and your whole argument is Khalid did nothing wrong. Criminal conduct is not excused by labeling it free speech. Speech is protected. Some acts, such as peaceful protest, are protected. (At least here for now.) But vandalism and trespass are not excused (just ask the J6 protesters). False imprisonment (of the maintenance workers) is not excused. Threats, intimidation, and harassment of a group of students based on their religion or ethnicity is not excused. But Khalid is not charged with a crime nor is he required to be to be subject to deportation. As others have already told you if he is relying on a student visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he is relying on a green card visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he lied on the student or green card visa applications he is subject to deportation. But my understanding is that the basis of his deportation is a rarely used (til now anyway) method and is based on a State Department determination that he has engaged in conduct contrary to America's national interests. You know and I know the United States of America is a close ally of Israel. Since the inception of the modern nation of Israel. More importantly Khalid knew it. The entire purpose of the protests was to force divestment of investment in and aid to Israel, to turn the tide against Israel and weaken Israel. Nor was he a mere participant, rather he was an organizer and a negotiator. His conduct as an organizer raises the inference of conspiracy to commit [crimes] and engaging in organized criminal activity, both of which increase the classification of the underlying crime(s). As the negotiator he was the very public face of the organized protests. Protests In which others BTW were very careful not to disclose their identities. Which sort of refutes the notion that all was above board as hiding behind masks and hoods generally indicates nefariousness and a desire not to get caught so engaging. Additionally according to his wife's recent statements he was aware of the risk of being detained and deported as he had advised her what to do in the event thereof and had tapered his public appearances at the new protests. Additionally neither you nor I have any idea what his actions entailed. But he does. And various federal entities likely have a decent idea for him to have been summarily detained as he was. My guess is that they have digital records, surveillance footage, witness statements, and maybe transcripts if bugged conversations, etc.. Reportedly he may be an intelligence asset of a foreign entity or entities. If so most likely he will agree to deportation to avoid criminal prosecution. It sounds to me like he may have been trying to prepare his wife for his absence. Lastly it is disingenuous, to say the least, to argue that Gaza and Hamas are not synonymous with the Free Palestine movement. That is their entire point - from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. You really need to try to see the big picture to have any possibility of intelligently assessing this matter.
Khalil is not charged with a crime because he committed no crime. He's an innocent man who did nothing wrong. I will believe that until the day he's convicted of a crime in a court of law because all humans subjected to American jurisdiction are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He used his free speech to advocate for a cause that he cares about. You think he's wrong, great, say so. That's your right. It was his right to speak his mind. It's your right to speak your mind. This is how America works. Detaining him without charge and deporting him based on unproven allegations of wrongdoing undermines the bill of rights, both the first and sixth amendments. He's a legal permanent resident. That means that if he violates no law then he gets to live here forever.
You pro-Israel types want to make him a free speech martyr? What a terrible idea. This will backfire. Two days ago Bernie Sanders said that we need to end arms shipments to Israel on the Senate floor. Today he held the largest rally of his entire political career. The man is 83 years old. The spell may eventually break on the Israel issue in America, and stunts like deporting a peaceful man who broke no law will contribute to that sea-change. Just ask Bill Maher or Andrew Sullivan, who are quite pro-Israel but oppose deporting Khalil without charge. You people are completely in the wrong on this issue, and it's very much to the detriment of your own movement.
Amen!
He is subject to deportation without having been charged with or convicted of a crime. I do not think it was merely speaking his mind that caused his deportation.
State Dept and DHS are claiming it's because he's a "threat to national security." Hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh right, any time the government (led by EITHER party) seeks to silence its detractors. Look at what the Biden Admin did to the J6ers.
Because there have been abuses in the past does not mean it is being wrongfully applied to Khalil. That is the way everybody gets eaten by the wolf after the little boy cried wold too many times. But I think you have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why so many people are troubled by this - because of the potential for abuse. I do not pretend to know the answer. Unlike most others commenting on the thread. The only thing I do know is the Khalil matter involves many areas of law and it is not a simple matter. Which was the gist of my original comment.
Nothing you are arguing makes legal sense. The issue is this is an arrest of someone who has not been charged with a crime by government entities acting outside their powers, using a wartime law outside wartime against a person who is a permanent legal resident of this country, based, apparently, on the content of his speech. If he is accused of specific crimes he could be charged with those crimes. Saying a civil rights issue can be raised in a lawsuit but not as a criminal defense is a nonsensical argument. If the very basis of a criminal case constitutes violating the defendant’s civil rights, the answer is not that the case goes on but the defendant can sue someone in civil court, the answer is the criminal case is invalidated. Most Americans would know that.
Re “intelligence asset”: he was a Chevenning scholar, meaning he was sponsored by the British, our ally, and would have been through a vetting process, making him less likely to have any kind of terrorist affiliation.
Re “national interests”: The allyship with Israel is what seems to be contrary to US interests at this point, and many Americans are realizing it, especially now with the attack on our first amendment, which Israelis may not understand is central to our concept of freedom and what it means to be American. The ways that Israel supposedly benefits us are all illusory. The terrorist threat we work together to combat is generated largely because of Israel. The military and spy tech is funded by us and they spy on us. Trump may be bought by Israel, but who’s to say we don’t elect a true America first leader next time, who campaigns on cutting Israel loose? We can only hope.
Sadly, hope is all we've got. Problem is, no one will even be considered for POTUS unless they pledge their undying fealty to Israel; a foreign country, no less. So much for "America First."