If Khalil was an American citizen, this is a non-starter. But he isn't. He's a guest who wishes to become a citizen. He fronts CUAD, which celebrates Al-Aqsa Flood as Yahya Sinwar's 'crowning achievement'. CUAD also calls for the end of western civilization. No thanks
Another instance of the enemy using constitutional “alleged “ rights to conquer America. Liberal views like greenwald’s are not in America’s best interests, as they delude themselves into thinking they are saving democracy, and they might be, but not for Americans .
Hello Michael Bell. Your comment is well received, thank you.
Do you honestly believe the constitutional republic of the United States is standing? I don't. It is my humble opinion we the people are currently living in a banana republic. The constitutional republic fell in 2016 when the legal/justice system exonerated Hillary Clinton and began its desecration of the constitutional rights of Donald J. Trump. Until the rule of law is restored and Hillary goes to jail for her illegal server and her subsequent obstruction of justice, we the people are living in a banana republic.
The EO only requires to report and investigate "alien students and stuff", it wouldn't apply to green card holders like Khalil. The ICE agents showed up at his place thinking he had a student visa. He probably didn't bother to update his immigration status with the university (not taking advantages given by a green card, like availability of jobs, lower tuition etc... ).
There are more questions than answers in this story, like who was paying for his tuition and living expenses, who's paying for his attorneys, who is his wife? How was he planning to provide for his baby? Still living on campus and no full time job (is it correct?), but volunteering his time to spoiled children. Who is this man?
I need to watch this before commenting further. But last clip I saw of Megyn, the only crime she brought up was the ‘extortion’ Khalil was spokesperson for, which was that the barricaded sit in would continue until Columbia divests from Israel. If this is it, then in my current thinking the government has a weak case. Because when this same type student activity occurred in 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and the target was divestment from then apartheid South Africa, the government didn’t arrest. The government needs to ‘show more’ crime associated to this individual, IMO, and I hope they do. Otherwise they are picking and choosing which political speech to prosecute, and that can be dangerous depending on who holds the levers of Federal power in future.
I get your point, and that's part of what Glenn was inferring. This is different. Green card holders have 1A rights but are subject to immigration infractions, which include engaging in speech or activities that could be interpreted as supporting terrorism. That's the gray area around this guy. US 'naturalized' citizens are not subject to the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). Khalil is. This is more about immigration than speech. The protesters in the 60's were American citizens. Also, CUAD is Hamas adjacent, a designated terrorist group. All of this adds up to the SOS, Rubio, exercising his authority to deport based on a statute in the INA.
I think it's the 'interpretation' part that is problematic to 1A:
'... engaging in speech or activities that could be interpreted as supporting terrorism'
Khalil will/could state he's not supporting terrorism at all, but his speech and actions were in support of Palestinians rights, and against Israel's war against ‘innocent’ Gazan's. You and I may not agree with that interpretation (and I don’t). But it's not unreasonable to large sections of the world. Given this, how does the court decide which interpretation is the correct one without abridging 1A?
What if a future administration gains power and views IDF activities as 'terrorist' .
A host of UN countries have found Israel's actions are illegal, and there's an ICC arrest warrant out for Bibi that could be enforced, should he step foot in those countries. What if we have an Israeli in USA on green card, that person served in the IDF and Feds are 180 from now -- would that Israeli then find themselves in same situation at Khalil? I know it's a hypothetical, but that is what courts consider, I would think/hope.
Who or what organization is deemed 'terrorist' can change over time, in my current thinking...
You make some great points, but Khalil was the negotiater for a group that celebrated 10/7, who referred to 10/7 as 'armed resistance, and wants to 'destroy western civilization'. Those statements, combined with the illegal occupation of school property, the destruction of school property, and the blocking of others students right of access of school property is enough of an infraction to deport based on the Immigration and Nationality Act.
I believe Quint has it 100% right. My years of teaching constitutional law tell me this is a question of statutory interpretation and executive discretionary decision making.The First Amendment is barely adjacent to the real question here, which is whether the Executive (Rubio, Trump) is free to decide that Khalil is dangerous enough to the foreign policy interests of the United States to require deportation. The Supreme Court will give the Executive discretion to make those kinds of decisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act. What is the alternative? Have a powerless Executive Branch that caves to wishes of protestors, America-haters, and confused folks who think this is about the First Amendment. Yes, national security concerns can swallow individual rights, if we are not careful. But this isn’t even a hard case. Khalil didn’t have to personally destroy one of the University’s buildings to be considered a danger and deportable. Rubio knows what Khalil did, and Rubio is just doing his job.
I'm inclined to listen to a constitutional law professor (my brother is also one) over just about anyone else. I think that's the angle Megyn was arguing where Glen could only see it as a speech issue. For example, Glen suggested that because Kahlil was not in the building when it was barricaded endangering the maintenance man, etc, that he can't be culpable. Megyn argues that one doesn't have to physically be involved to incite. AND he's not a legal citizen and not afforded the same rights. That's what it boils down to and I struggle to understand why Greenwald cannot see that.
Thanks! Megyn was on target with the approach I think the Supreme Court will take, should the matter reach that Court. Sometimes lawyers are so wed to their political preferences that they twist the law to accommodate those preferences, and they don’t even realize it’s a stretch. I think that’s Greenwald’s stance. Deporting this guy is a fairly ordinary exercise of federal executive authority, but not to someone who wants to advance an anti-Israel platform, even at the possible expense of this country’s safety.
I’m guessing, but Glenn may see this case as opening door for Trump to take things further w/ online AI scouring socials if those on student visas posted what the government considers antisemitic speech (but which student might argue is anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian). Trump has said this case is first of many to target students on visas and non-citizens. So, fight the first one - to prevent it occurring in the thousands?
Christine, I don’t see Khalil as material danger to USA. I don’t like his speech, but in that he has plenty of company. I’m no immigration lawyer (and perhaps not you either), but couldn’t the government simply refuse to renew his green card rather than revoke and deport? Maybe that is ‘too long’ to wait because I think green cards are good for 10 years. My take is he is being made an example. It’s already having the intended impact of students and others self censoring. The same impact was seen in the U.K. when they implemented the so called ‘Online Security Act’ there, which criminalizes ‘Islamic/muslim’ wrong-speak.
Hello, Matt. It doesn’t matter whether you or I see Khalil as a “material danger.” My point is that it’s the executive’s decision how to apply the immigration laws to individuals like Khalil. Who should be allowed to second-guess their discretionary decisions about how to apply those laws? Only Khalil has standing to challenge their decisions in court, and he has done that. But I am well-honed in the law as it relates to the separation of powers, including the contours of executive branch power; and I know for a fact that the Supreme Court routinely gives WIDE deference to executive decision making in the realms of foreign policy and national security. They simply do not engage in much second-guessing of the executive’s discretionary (prosecutorial)decisions as those decisions affect protecting the country. Why not? Separation of powers. Trump and Rubio are operating fully within their lane, even if they are making a prosecutorial decision to make an “example” out of Khalil. That’s their prerogative. Period.
Yes, future administrations could designate other groups as terrorist organizations. But where does that lead? Anybody could be called a terrorist so nobody is a terrorist? Sounds like an indirect path to anything goes.
Great point, HeyJude. So much so that I come down on side of not prosecuting for this case, unless there is clear evidence of crime. Because we set a precedent in the minds of many that political speech has been targeted. And once you do that, we are then side stepping banana peels into the future if political winds should change.
Sorry, I mean ‘who is a terrorist’ can be stretched and reinterpreted by eye of any future administration for wrong speak, and people prosecuted for pro/con of that Feds position. And that leads to bad places, if a despot or other radical is elected/installed. So, to avoid, don’t prosecute wrong speak, no matter how vile it is. This to avoid your speech (or any others) always protected. 10/7 was terrible. But it’s also not something that happened to America. It’s Israel’s problem. So, we don’t need our Federal government prosecuting speech for pro/against speech of that 10/7 event, and its aftermath. I lean right, but this, combined with neocon and Bibi ‘Clean Break’ strategy any the destabilization left in its wake- is the kind of thing that makes me question US military support for Israel.
I’m an American, not an Israeli. I’m also a US Army vet, served in Gulf area deployments not a big fan of the shitton of $$ the US plows into Israel to destabilize every neighbor it has who might support Palestinians, like has been done the past 25 years. If Israel wants to make war it can. But the US doesn’t need to be so close to the hip when it does so. I find too often on Substack non Americans (like English and Israeli’s) who are the biggest saber rattlers. Sort of like those EU leaders who underpay their NATO dues but want to keep on w/ the US holding the biggest $ bag for continuing the Ukraine meat grinder. Am I describing you perhaps?
The Dept of State and its Secretary has wide latitude on whether to grant or revoke a visa or green card. And--they may have intel on the guy, that we are not privy to, that shows he is without a doubt a threat to national security. I seriously doubt that someone with the gravitas of Marco Rubio would do this capriciously...
Would you be comfortable granting Antony Blinken the same authority? You would just assume that there "may" be some "intel on the guy" that you're not allowed to see?
No. But we know that there were maybe thousands of people here on visas who participated in the protests, and many were violent. Yet they chose to detain someone with a green card and a wife who is an American citizen. Surely there were easier targets if the goal was just indiscriminate harassment. That makes me wonder if there isn’t more than we know about in this case.
They met in 2016 when she went to Syria to volunteer in a program Kahlil was overseeing. So they were connected long distance until he arrived on the student visa. That said, he should well know that getting involved in this, and in particular standing as the representative leader, might get him into some hot water in a country that permitted him to stay for a master's degree.
Evidently, he underestimated the differences in approaches the previous POTUS took vs the new guy. He was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria which kind of makes me think he may have some issues with the Palestine/Israel conflict. One approach he could have taken was to literally just get his degree which was his purpose for being here in the US.
Turn the tables for a moment. If you went to any other country for a master's degree, then chose to be the leader of a group making demands of said university, which then incites riotous behavior, do you think for a single second they wouldn't throw you out of their country?
Or perhaps he was an effective communicator and was singled out by AIPAC for this reason. If MLK Jr had been a permanent resident, you could have used an "if there's smoke, there's fire" argument to deport him as a "domestic terrorist", too. You could just say, "well, the government singled him out, so he must be bad".
These are exactly the same arguments used by the Democrats to violate free speech. Unless the government provides evidence of crimes, people who believe in free speech and the right to protest should lean in favor of the First Amendment.
"Well, the government singled him out, so he must be bad", that's your argument? Again, this same argument can be used against people you like. You should demand evidence from your government.
If you trust Trump to make all the right decisions on these matters, then don't get mad when the next Biden does it.
And yes, it's quite possible that AIPAC or some other organization singles out specific effective individuals for punishment/silencing. There is a long ongoing history of the US government targeting and harassing effective leaders, journalist and protestors.
I did not say that he must be bad because the government singled him out. I said that the government might know more than they are telling us, since they could have picked an easier target. That may not be true, but I think it’s a possibility. It wouldn’t be the first time the government isn’t telling us everything, would it?
Henry, I agree with you. I think this case (due to the antisemitism and visceral reaction it evokes, holocaust, 10/7 pogram) is causing cognitive dissonance in my right leaning, fellow citizens. I opposed this kind of government behavior when it was directed at the right, and remain consistent in opposition when it’s directed at the left.
Yes, he managed to marry an American citizen almost immediately on his arrival. Interesting at least. I wonder how many immigrants manage to marry an American only a year after entering the country.
He had a 'distance' relationship for years with his now wife, who was from the Middle East. This looks like a set-up, with KM a visible and supposedly sympathetic target. Greenwald is smart, but an Israel hater and not too happy about the USA either. Lives in South America.
I mean, she claimed without evidence that both UNRWA and Jewish Voices for Peace are both affiliated with Hamas. Glenn repeatedly asked her for evidence for her other statements and she did not provide it. So I don't think she "won".
The report you cite says that the UN Office of Oversight Services (OIOS) fired nine UNRWA employees (UNRWA employs 30,000 people, of whom 230 have been killed by Israel in Gaza).
Here are some countervailing quotes from your link:
1. "Asked about the extent of the staff members' alleged involvement, Mr. Haq responded that he did not have specific information about the allegations."
2. "Since information used by Israeli officials to support the allegations have remained in Israeli custody, OIOS was not able to independently authenticate most of the information provided to it"
3. "I reiterate UNRWA's condemnation of the 7 October attack in the strongest possible terms."
In conclusion, nine UNRWA employees out of 30,000 were fired over evidence that is not available even to the investigating authority. And this shows that UNRWA, a relief agency which has consistently condemned the Oct 7th attacks, is "affiliated with Hamas" (Megyn even said UNRWA "works for Hamas")?
Can anyone please show me evidence that Jewish Voices for Peace is also affiliated with Hamas?
Gosh, terror tunnels leading to UNRWA facilities? UNRWA schools teaching terror to tots, while also being storage for Hamas' weapons? They only fired a few, but many are undermining peace.
So the dominant IDF, which has repeatedly lied about "beheaded" and/or "baked" babies, mass rapes, etc., and has destroyed every church, mosque, university and hospital in Gaza, is to be completely trusted when they refer to a UN relief organization that has delivered 2/3rds of food aid to Gazan civilians?
Speaking of "terror tunnels", did you know that residents of the Warsaw Ghetto who participated in the violent "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" against the Nazis also built tunnels in which they hid and armed themselves (I'm sure the Nazis would've been pleased to have Americans refer to them as "terror tunnels")?
Here are a couple quotes from the article, for quick reference:
“It has turned out that the Jews hid themselves in the sewers and in specially furnished bunkers. Initially, we assumed that there were only individual bunkers, however in the course of the action it transpired that there was an organized system of cellars, bunkers and passageways throughout the ghetto. Each passage and bunker had access to the sewage network. This allowed the Jews to move freely underground”.
"The January Self-Defense resulted in the implementation of military training for youths (conspirators of the Jewish Combat Organization and the Jewish Military Union) and the establishment of shelters, hideouts, and so-called bunkers; the latter proved their worth only a few months later, during the uprising."
You are defending Megyn's argument that "UNRWA is working for Hamas" and "Jewish Voices for Peace is affiliated with Hamas".
The burden of proof is on you to show that these organizations are these things. Who cares what I find acceptable? I am asking for evidence for your statements.
Thus far, here is a summary of evidence you have provided (and I appreciate that you have at least tried to provide some):
1. "UNRWA is working for Hamas": UNRWA fired 9 employees based on evidence that we and even the investigating agency apparently aren't allowed to see. All of this evidence remains with Israel, the adversary of Hamas, and we are to meekly take their word.
Meanwhile, some countervailing evidence is that UNRWA's leaders, representing the organization, have repeatedly and consistently condemned the attacks on October 7th, 2023. No one disputes that UNRWA has provided 2/3rds of the food aid that Gazan civilians have received, and that Israel regularly blocks such aid to starve the population. This establishes a motive (ethnic cleansing) for Israel to spread propaganda about UNRWA.
Is this enough to say "UNRWA is working for Hamas" or "UNRWA is affiliated with Hamas"?
2. "Jewish Voices for Peace is affiliated with Hamas": you and everyone else here has provided zero evidence for this.
My thoughts exactly! Glenn Greenwald hates Israel and kept bringing Israel into the conversation. This to me is a Green Card holder(Khalil) and Hamas. Not First Amendment, just a terrorist loving person.
Agree Brian. Some years ago when the Boycott- Divest-Sanctions movement was in high gear with the "Squad", and in particular Ilhan Omar, Glen consistently applauded her efforts. Since then, I lost respect because he has zero objectivity on anything having to do with Israel -- which is particularly offensive as a Jew himself.
Megyn nailed the argument for Khalil’s deportation. Glenn’s attempted analogies (to the J-6 defendants and South Africa divestment, e.g.) all failed, because no one in those situations had terrorist ties. This guy is being sent home for being a *terrorism spokesperson,* not simply because he believes in the “Palestinian position.” It’s Khalil’s level of commitment and loyalty to terror-sympathizing groups. Radical Jewish students love him. Big deal! That’s not the legal standard. The First Amendment is still there to protect U.S. green card recipients who don’t promote terrorism.
Sorry Glen comparing Skokie with the violence perpetrated by this guy is nonsense. How about the free speech of the students who are paying 94,000$ trying to get an education.
Yeah, I think he made a massive mistake there. The Skokie example is 1A at its most prolific. As Megyn said, that is an apples-oranges with the Kahlil case.
Neither of them mention his British security clearance and “soft power” resume. I would agree with Glenn but for that. Khalil can be deported for being a spy, and that’s probably the real reason it is happening. Everyone is talking around that fact because Britain is supposed to be an ally.
Free speech does not include inducing mob rule so as to suppress others right to free speech. If citizens and don’t agree with foreign policies (the US is not at war with any country involved in the agendas), and if they satisfy the constitutional necessary conditions, then they are welcome to run for Congress with that agenda as part of their political platform, and if elected, then vote in Congress as the majority of their constituents prefer.
This was not redressing grievances against the US government, nor was it following any dictates provided by the Constitution. It was not like the ‘60s, when young US men were drafted to possibly die in Vietnam, in a conflict and not a formally declared war, and they protested and took over university offices (short-term), etc. These people are not being drafted by the US (not citizens) and not being forced to fight for Israel, so everything they did was wrong and should have been expelled, and likely deported.
I’m Jewish and a Trump supporter. I love and respect both MK and GG.
I’m with GG on this one.
I am a free speech absolutist in the truest sense of the phrase. If it is even a hint of a free speech issue, I side with free speech. Even if the speaker’s views make my blood boil! This is America 🇺🇸
Glen puts the shoe on the other foot scenario very well with a “what if Biden had wanted to deport Jordan Peterson (or fill in the blank with conservative)…”
Side with free speech every time and we stay out of trouble… We can handle dissent here. By deporting this guy, it shows we don’t have courage of our own convictions 😊
Has Jordan Peterson led a group of people making demands of a university he is the guest of and that group incites riots and terrorizes fellow Jewish American and other students? How is that an equivalent argument?
Making demands and grumbling about inequality is our hard won right as Americans. As long as you do not physically act and interfere in another American’s equal right to speech, it’s OK. We can handle it.
Well, it’s not meant to be an equivalent in terms of the exact scenarios.
In broad brush terms there is equivalence. They both have platforms and an audience. Neither should be condemned for the actions of another. Wasn’t this the very same argument used by the one-sided J6 commission to try and dispose of Trump himself?
They are both allowed freedom of speech. To speak their mind. To say things that go against the grain and are politically incorrect. We have the right to listen or ignore, to act or not act, to pressure our representatives for legislation or to simply say “meh, this does not concern me…but they should have every right to say it”
Personally, I think Israel can not coexist peacefully with neighboring populations hellbent on their annihilation. No more than a 19th Century American frontier family could coexist nextdoor to a hostile Indian tribe or a pack of starving rabid wolves. One or the other must prevail in the end. It is not a matter of morality, right vs wrong. It is simple kill or be killed. This is the path that the so called “Palestinians” have chosen. It didn’t have to be this way, but once the path is chosen, it is survival of the fittest.
But speech in America should be free. As long as you do not go beyond speech. If you do, and you act in a way that prevents or inhibits someone else’s equal right to free speech, then your rights here are forfeit.
I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything you’ve said, but I don’t agree (if that’s what you’re arguing) that Khalil was only using free speech. Free speech ends when that speech is intended to incite violence rather than peaceful protest. I never saw/heard him insist the protesters do so peacefully. Ray Epps (J6) who I believe was a plant also incited violence. Free speech comes with a cost. If it is used with intent to incite violence, we have a different issue? Epps was a plant, I believe, he’ll never be brought to justice. Khalil has incited these rabid protesters who don’t believe Israel has a right to exist. He’s also not an American whereas Epps is
I don’t know much about the Epps case other than what I have seen reported mostly on Tucker Carlson. He has chosen not to explain his actions that day, which is his right as an American, but the consequences of that are that people are free to conjecture and think the worst of him. Perhaps it’s all true and that’s why he doesn’t speak in his own defense? Perhaps it is something else we we haven’t thought of and he wishes it to remain a secret for reasons unknown to us (like his life or family are threatened if he testified) we may never know.
Incitement is a thorny issue. Who gets to decide?
If I say “That guy over there is a monster! Someone should remove him from our polite society!” …and then you take that to mean kill him and you act on it; am I to blame for incitement?
What if I just meant he should be shunned, cancelled, cast out? Isn’t the onus on those who act illegally not my legal right to free speech?
Incitement is a loophole that can be exploited legally to impose authoritarian tyrannical control over others. It has been used throughout history to put down growing discontent among populations from the Bible through the French Revolution to Soviet Union to now I just read that our DHS has sent a letter to Columbia University telling them they MUST submit to Trump administration oversight of what they teach.
This is a well worn path to tyranny and should be avoided.
The opposite of hatred is not love. It is indifference. Hatred and love are passions that must be fed. Starve them and they wither and die.
You want the antisemitic views at college campuses to wither and die? Stop feeding them.
(To be clear, that does not mean to starve children of food, that means to stop paying attention to the activists and trying to legally arrest or deport them. Like any parent knows, sometimes it is best to let the child cry and learn that is not the way to get what it wants. If you give in, you are spoiling the child
I hear you and agree with much (again). Our government is required to show illegal behavior beyond free speech as it pertains to American citizens. They do not, however, need to provide evidence for foreigners with green cards. They are guests in our country. For me, that's what it boils down to.
If Khalil was an American citizen, this is a non-starter. But he isn't. He's a guest who wishes to become a citizen. He fronts CUAD, which celebrates Al-Aqsa Flood as Yahya Sinwar's 'crowning achievement'. CUAD also calls for the end of western civilization. No thanks
Another instance of the enemy using constitutional “alleged “ rights to conquer America. Liberal views like greenwald’s are not in America’s best interests, as they delude themselves into thinking they are saving democracy, and they might be, but not for Americans .
Hello Michael Bell. Your comment is well received, thank you.
Do you honestly believe the constitutional republic of the United States is standing? I don't. It is my humble opinion we the people are currently living in a banana republic. The constitutional republic fell in 2016 when the legal/justice system exonerated Hillary Clinton and began its desecration of the constitutional rights of Donald J. Trump. Until the rule of law is restored and Hillary goes to jail for her illegal server and her subsequent obstruction of justice, we the people are living in a banana republic.
Hmm, interesting.
The EO only requires to report and investigate "alien students and stuff", it wouldn't apply to green card holders like Khalil. The ICE agents showed up at his place thinking he had a student visa. He probably didn't bother to update his immigration status with the university (not taking advantages given by a green card, like availability of jobs, lower tuition etc... ).
There are more questions than answers in this story, like who was paying for his tuition and living expenses, who's paying for his attorneys, who is his wife? How was he planning to provide for his baby? Still living on campus and no full time job (is it correct?), but volunteering his time to spoiled children. Who is this man?
I need to watch this before commenting further. But last clip I saw of Megyn, the only crime she brought up was the ‘extortion’ Khalil was spokesperson for, which was that the barricaded sit in would continue until Columbia divests from Israel. If this is it, then in my current thinking the government has a weak case. Because when this same type student activity occurred in 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and the target was divestment from then apartheid South Africa, the government didn’t arrest. The government needs to ‘show more’ crime associated to this individual, IMO, and I hope they do. Otherwise they are picking and choosing which political speech to prosecute, and that can be dangerous depending on who holds the levers of Federal power in future.
I get your point, and that's part of what Glenn was inferring. This is different. Green card holders have 1A rights but are subject to immigration infractions, which include engaging in speech or activities that could be interpreted as supporting terrorism. That's the gray area around this guy. US 'naturalized' citizens are not subject to the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). Khalil is. This is more about immigration than speech. The protesters in the 60's were American citizens. Also, CUAD is Hamas adjacent, a designated terrorist group. All of this adds up to the SOS, Rubio, exercising his authority to deport based on a statute in the INA.
I think it's the 'interpretation' part that is problematic to 1A:
'... engaging in speech or activities that could be interpreted as supporting terrorism'
Khalil will/could state he's not supporting terrorism at all, but his speech and actions were in support of Palestinians rights, and against Israel's war against ‘innocent’ Gazan's. You and I may not agree with that interpretation (and I don’t). But it's not unreasonable to large sections of the world. Given this, how does the court decide which interpretation is the correct one without abridging 1A?
What if a future administration gains power and views IDF activities as 'terrorist' .
A host of UN countries have found Israel's actions are illegal, and there's an ICC arrest warrant out for Bibi that could be enforced, should he step foot in those countries. What if we have an Israeli in USA on green card, that person served in the IDF and Feds are 180 from now -- would that Israeli then find themselves in same situation at Khalil? I know it's a hypothetical, but that is what courts consider, I would think/hope.
Who or what organization is deemed 'terrorist' can change over time, in my current thinking...
You make some great points, but Khalil was the negotiater for a group that celebrated 10/7, who referred to 10/7 as 'armed resistance, and wants to 'destroy western civilization'. Those statements, combined with the illegal occupation of school property, the destruction of school property, and the blocking of others students right of access of school property is enough of an infraction to deport based on the Immigration and Nationality Act.
I believe Quint has it 100% right. My years of teaching constitutional law tell me this is a question of statutory interpretation and executive discretionary decision making.The First Amendment is barely adjacent to the real question here, which is whether the Executive (Rubio, Trump) is free to decide that Khalil is dangerous enough to the foreign policy interests of the United States to require deportation. The Supreme Court will give the Executive discretion to make those kinds of decisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act. What is the alternative? Have a powerless Executive Branch that caves to wishes of protestors, America-haters, and confused folks who think this is about the First Amendment. Yes, national security concerns can swallow individual rights, if we are not careful. But this isn’t even a hard case. Khalil didn’t have to personally destroy one of the University’s buildings to be considered a danger and deportable. Rubio knows what Khalil did, and Rubio is just doing his job.
I'm inclined to listen to a constitutional law professor (my brother is also one) over just about anyone else. I think that's the angle Megyn was arguing where Glen could only see it as a speech issue. For example, Glen suggested that because Kahlil was not in the building when it was barricaded endangering the maintenance man, etc, that he can't be culpable. Megyn argues that one doesn't have to physically be involved to incite. AND he's not a legal citizen and not afforded the same rights. That's what it boils down to and I struggle to understand why Greenwald cannot see that.
Thanks! Megyn was on target with the approach I think the Supreme Court will take, should the matter reach that Court. Sometimes lawyers are so wed to their political preferences that they twist the law to accommodate those preferences, and they don’t even realize it’s a stretch. I think that’s Greenwald’s stance. Deporting this guy is a fairly ordinary exercise of federal executive authority, but not to someone who wants to advance an anti-Israel platform, even at the possible expense of this country’s safety.
I’m guessing, but Glenn may see this case as opening door for Trump to take things further w/ online AI scouring socials if those on student visas posted what the government considers antisemitic speech (but which student might argue is anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian). Trump has said this case is first of many to target students on visas and non-citizens. So, fight the first one - to prevent it occurring in the thousands?
Thank you and very well said!
Thank you, too!
Christine, I don’t see Khalil as material danger to USA. I don’t like his speech, but in that he has plenty of company. I’m no immigration lawyer (and perhaps not you either), but couldn’t the government simply refuse to renew his green card rather than revoke and deport? Maybe that is ‘too long’ to wait because I think green cards are good for 10 years. My take is he is being made an example. It’s already having the intended impact of students and others self censoring. The same impact was seen in the U.K. when they implemented the so called ‘Online Security Act’ there, which criminalizes ‘Islamic/muslim’ wrong-speak.
Hello, Matt. It doesn’t matter whether you or I see Khalil as a “material danger.” My point is that it’s the executive’s decision how to apply the immigration laws to individuals like Khalil. Who should be allowed to second-guess their discretionary decisions about how to apply those laws? Only Khalil has standing to challenge their decisions in court, and he has done that. But I am well-honed in the law as it relates to the separation of powers, including the contours of executive branch power; and I know for a fact that the Supreme Court routinely gives WIDE deference to executive decision making in the realms of foreign policy and national security. They simply do not engage in much second-guessing of the executive’s discretionary (prosecutorial)decisions as those decisions affect protecting the country. Why not? Separation of powers. Trump and Rubio are operating fully within their lane, even if they are making a prosecutorial decision to make an “example” out of Khalil. That’s their prerogative. Period.
Yes, future administrations could designate other groups as terrorist organizations. But where does that lead? Anybody could be called a terrorist so nobody is a terrorist? Sounds like an indirect path to anything goes.
Great point, HeyJude. So much so that I come down on side of not prosecuting for this case, unless there is clear evidence of crime. Because we set a precedent in the minds of many that political speech has been targeted. And once you do that, we are then side stepping banana peels into the future if political winds should change.
Sorry, I mean ‘who is a terrorist’ can be stretched and reinterpreted by eye of any future administration for wrong speak, and people prosecuted for pro/con of that Feds position. And that leads to bad places, if a despot or other radical is elected/installed. So, to avoid, don’t prosecute wrong speak, no matter how vile it is. This to avoid your speech (or any others) always protected. 10/7 was terrible. But it’s also not something that happened to America. It’s Israel’s problem. So, we don’t need our Federal government prosecuting speech for pro/against speech of that 10/7 event, and its aftermath. I lean right, but this, combined with neocon and Bibi ‘Clean Break’ strategy any the destabilization left in its wake- is the kind of thing that makes me question US military support for Israel.
I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic here. Sorry, but could you clarify?
I’m an American, not an Israeli. I’m also a US Army vet, served in Gulf area deployments not a big fan of the shitton of $$ the US plows into Israel to destabilize every neighbor it has who might support Palestinians, like has been done the past 25 years. If Israel wants to make war it can. But the US doesn’t need to be so close to the hip when it does so. I find too often on Substack non Americans (like English and Israeli’s) who are the biggest saber rattlers. Sort of like those EU leaders who underpay their NATO dues but want to keep on w/ the US holding the biggest $ bag for continuing the Ukraine meat grinder. Am I describing you perhaps?
of course, she is right. Just get him the hell out of our country.
Megyn Kelly beat Glenn Greenwald like a rug. She knows the laws involved, he doesn't. He uses bad analogies, she argues the law.
Fun to watch.
The Dept of State and its Secretary has wide latitude on whether to grant or revoke a visa or green card. And--they may have intel on the guy, that we are not privy to, that shows he is without a doubt a threat to national security. I seriously doubt that someone with the gravitas of Marco Rubio would do this capriciously...
Would you be comfortable granting Antony Blinken the same authority? You would just assume that there "may" be some "intel on the guy" that you're not allowed to see?
No. But we know that there were maybe thousands of people here on visas who participated in the protests, and many were violent. Yet they chose to detain someone with a green card and a wife who is an American citizen. Surely there were easier targets if the goal was just indiscriminate harassment. That makes me wonder if there isn’t more than we know about in this case.
They met in 2016 when she went to Syria to volunteer in a program Kahlil was overseeing. So they were connected long distance until he arrived on the student visa. That said, he should well know that getting involved in this, and in particular standing as the representative leader, might get him into some hot water in a country that permitted him to stay for a master's degree.
Evidently, he underestimated the differences in approaches the previous POTUS took vs the new guy. He was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria which kind of makes me think he may have some issues with the Palestine/Israel conflict. One approach he could have taken was to literally just get his degree which was his purpose for being here in the US.
Turn the tables for a moment. If you went to any other country for a master's degree, then chose to be the leader of a group making demands of said university, which then incites riotous behavior, do you think for a single second they wouldn't throw you out of their country?
Or perhaps he was an effective communicator and was singled out by AIPAC for this reason. If MLK Jr had been a permanent resident, you could have used an "if there's smoke, there's fire" argument to deport him as a "domestic terrorist", too. You could just say, "well, the government singled him out, so he must be bad".
These are exactly the same arguments used by the Democrats to violate free speech. Unless the government provides evidence of crimes, people who believe in free speech and the right to protest should lean in favor of the First Amendment.
He’s so effective they just had to shut him up, that’s your argument?
"Well, the government singled him out, so he must be bad", that's your argument? Again, this same argument can be used against people you like. You should demand evidence from your government.
If you trust Trump to make all the right decisions on these matters, then don't get mad when the next Biden does it.
And yes, it's quite possible that AIPAC or some other organization singles out specific effective individuals for punishment/silencing. There is a long ongoing history of the US government targeting and harassing effective leaders, journalist and protestors.
I did not say that he must be bad because the government singled him out. I said that the government might know more than they are telling us, since they could have picked an easier target. That may not be true, but I think it’s a possibility. It wouldn’t be the first time the government isn’t telling us everything, would it?
Henry, I agree with you. I think this case (due to the antisemitism and visceral reaction it evokes, holocaust, 10/7 pogram) is causing cognitive dissonance in my right leaning, fellow citizens. I opposed this kind of government behavior when it was directed at the right, and remain consistent in opposition when it’s directed at the left.
....he's only been in the US some 2+ years, right.
Yes, he managed to marry an American citizen almost immediately on his arrival. Interesting at least. I wonder how many immigrants manage to marry an American only a year after entering the country.
There is a network to set up such.
No doubt, but I’m guessing ordinary people just here to study don’t participate.
He had a 'distance' relationship for years with his now wife, who was from the Middle East. This looks like a set-up, with KM a visible and supposedly sympathetic target. Greenwald is smart, but an Israel hater and not too happy about the USA either. Lives in South America.
And his US citizen wife is 8 months pregnant. Very "suspicious"...
Definitely. No disrespect… but as soon as I saw her I said to my husband “something is up!”
Exactly. HM managed to do a strawman and ad hominem in a two line post. Pretty neat trick...
What strawman and ad hominem? Please describe.
No thanks
Megyn Kelly for the win. She knows her stuff! Glenn Greenwald was on his heels the entire time.
Megyn is a rock star when it comes to advocating for her legal position.
She crushed it with all of the Lawfare against Trump over the past two years.
Alvin Bragg, Fanny Willis, Latisha James, Jack Smith - all toast.
I mean, she claimed without evidence that both UNRWA and Jewish Voices for Peace are both affiliated with Hamas. Glenn repeatedly asked her for evidence for her other statements and she did not provide it. So I don't think she "won".
The UN investigated UNRWA for ties to Hamas. Several workers were fired. It was a very big story, hard to believe you claim there is no evidence.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841
The report you cite says that the UN Office of Oversight Services (OIOS) fired nine UNRWA employees (UNRWA employs 30,000 people, of whom 230 have been killed by Israel in Gaza).
Here are some countervailing quotes from your link:
1. "Asked about the extent of the staff members' alleged involvement, Mr. Haq responded that he did not have specific information about the allegations."
2. "Since information used by Israeli officials to support the allegations have remained in Israeli custody, OIOS was not able to independently authenticate most of the information provided to it"
3. "I reiterate UNRWA's condemnation of the 7 October attack in the strongest possible terms."
In conclusion, nine UNRWA employees out of 30,000 were fired over evidence that is not available even to the investigating authority. And this shows that UNRWA, a relief agency which has consistently condemned the Oct 7th attacks, is "affiliated with Hamas" (Megyn even said UNRWA "works for Hamas")?
Can anyone please show me evidence that Jewish Voices for Peace is also affiliated with Hamas?
Gosh, terror tunnels leading to UNRWA facilities? UNRWA schools teaching terror to tots, while also being storage for Hamas' weapons? They only fired a few, but many are undermining peace.
So the dominant IDF, which has repeatedly lied about "beheaded" and/or "baked" babies, mass rapes, etc., and has destroyed every church, mosque, university and hospital in Gaza, is to be completely trusted when they refer to a UN relief organization that has delivered 2/3rds of food aid to Gazan civilians?
Speaking of "terror tunnels", did you know that residents of the Warsaw Ghetto who participated in the violent "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" against the Nazis also built tunnels in which they hid and armed themselves (I'm sure the Nazis would've been pleased to have Americans refer to them as "terror tunnels")?
"Shelters, Bunkers, Hideouts" - Warsaw Ghetto Museum: https://1943.pl/en/artykul/shelters-bunkers-hideouts/
Here are a couple quotes from the article, for quick reference:
“It has turned out that the Jews hid themselves in the sewers and in specially furnished bunkers. Initially, we assumed that there were only individual bunkers, however in the course of the action it transpired that there was an organized system of cellars, bunkers and passageways throughout the ghetto. Each passage and bunker had access to the sewage network. This allowed the Jews to move freely underground”.
"The January Self-Defense resulted in the implementation of military training for youths (conspirators of the Jewish Combat Organization and the Jewish Military Union) and the establishment of shelters, hideouts, and so-called bunkers; the latter proved their worth only a few months later, during the uprising."
How many employees affiliated with Hamas would you find acceptable? Is there a number of Hamas sympathizers that is OK? What is the line?
You are defending Megyn's argument that "UNRWA is working for Hamas" and "Jewish Voices for Peace is affiliated with Hamas".
The burden of proof is on you to show that these organizations are these things. Who cares what I find acceptable? I am asking for evidence for your statements.
Thus far, here is a summary of evidence you have provided (and I appreciate that you have at least tried to provide some):
1. "UNRWA is working for Hamas": UNRWA fired 9 employees based on evidence that we and even the investigating agency apparently aren't allowed to see. All of this evidence remains with Israel, the adversary of Hamas, and we are to meekly take their word.
Meanwhile, some countervailing evidence is that UNRWA's leaders, representing the organization, have repeatedly and consistently condemned the attacks on October 7th, 2023. No one disputes that UNRWA has provided 2/3rds of the food aid that Gazan civilians have received, and that Israel regularly blocks such aid to starve the population. This establishes a motive (ethnic cleansing) for Israel to spread propaganda about UNRWA.
Is this enough to say "UNRWA is working for Hamas" or "UNRWA is affiliated with Hamas"?
2. "Jewish Voices for Peace is affiliated with Hamas": you and everyone else here has provided zero evidence for this.
I agree, 💯
Watched...He is Wrong.
Greenwald makes some good points worth considering— but his conclusions are still wrong!
Glenn Greenwald is an ass.
In the past 10 years I’ve listened to him, he always takes the position against Jews and Israel.
He is Jewish, but never practiced.
An excellent lawyer.
Did some great work on the Patriot Act excesses, the David Snowden matter and much more.
I value his opinion, except when it relates to Jews and Israel.
On Khalil, a green card holder, the case is open and shut.
That scumbag will be deported under immigration law.
He does not need to commit a crime or be accused of one.
The first amendment cannot protect his actions / activities.
Only speech.
We need for the government to release its evidence from Columbia students as well as from Israeli Mossad from before he arrived in the US.
Lots of nuggets in there.
Khalil worked for UNRWA, the UN agency that exists solely for Palestinian propaganda.
The schools it runs teach Palestinian children to kill Jews.
Finding a “national security threat” or a “conflict with US foreign policy” with Khalil’s actions / activities will be a slam dunk.
Enjoy Syria Khalil.
My thoughts exactly! Glenn Greenwald hates Israel and kept bringing Israel into the conversation. This to me is a Green Card holder(Khalil) and Hamas. Not First Amendment, just a terrorist loving person.
Yes.
Agree Brian. Some years ago when the Boycott- Divest-Sanctions movement was in high gear with the "Squad", and in particular Ilhan Omar, Glen consistently applauded her efforts. Since then, I lost respect because he has zero objectivity on anything having to do with Israel -- which is particularly offensive as a Jew himself.
(Edward Snowden)
👍👍
Your comments about Glen are correct.
Thank you.
Megyn nailed the argument for Khalil’s deportation. Glenn’s attempted analogies (to the J-6 defendants and South Africa divestment, e.g.) all failed, because no one in those situations had terrorist ties. This guy is being sent home for being a *terrorism spokesperson,* not simply because he believes in the “Palestinian position.” It’s Khalil’s level of commitment and loyalty to terror-sympathizing groups. Radical Jewish students love him. Big deal! That’s not the legal standard. The First Amendment is still there to protect U.S. green card recipients who don’t promote terrorism.
Sorry Glen comparing Skokie with the violence perpetrated by this guy is nonsense. How about the free speech of the students who are paying 94,000$ trying to get an education.
Yeah, I think he made a massive mistake there. The Skokie example is 1A at its most prolific. As Megyn said, that is an apples-oranges with the Kahlil case.
Neither of them mention his British security clearance and “soft power” resume. I would agree with Glenn but for that. Khalil can be deported for being a spy, and that’s probably the real reason it is happening. Everyone is talking around that fact because Britain is supposed to be an ally.
I lean more toward Megyn's view on this issue but what was nice at the conclusion of the show was that they thanked each other for the healthy debate.
Not a citizen! Throw him out!
Looking forward to Megyn’s podcast that comes out mid afternoon.
Free speech does not include inducing mob rule so as to suppress others right to free speech. If citizens and don’t agree with foreign policies (the US is not at war with any country involved in the agendas), and if they satisfy the constitutional necessary conditions, then they are welcome to run for Congress with that agenda as part of their political platform, and if elected, then vote in Congress as the majority of their constituents prefer.
This was not redressing grievances against the US government, nor was it following any dictates provided by the Constitution. It was not like the ‘60s, when young US men were drafted to possibly die in Vietnam, in a conflict and not a formally declared war, and they protested and took over university offices (short-term), etc. These people are not being drafted by the US (not citizens) and not being forced to fight for Israel, so everything they did was wrong and should have been expelled, and likely deported.
I’m Jewish and a Trump supporter. I love and respect both MK and GG.
I’m with GG on this one.
I am a free speech absolutist in the truest sense of the phrase. If it is even a hint of a free speech issue, I side with free speech. Even if the speaker’s views make my blood boil! This is America 🇺🇸
Glen puts the shoe on the other foot scenario very well with a “what if Biden had wanted to deport Jordan Peterson (or fill in the blank with conservative)…”
Side with free speech every time and we stay out of trouble… We can handle dissent here. By deporting this guy, it shows we don’t have courage of our own convictions 😊
Has Jordan Peterson led a group of people making demands of a university he is the guest of and that group incites riots and terrorizes fellow Jewish American and other students? How is that an equivalent argument?
Making demands and grumbling about inequality is our hard won right as Americans. As long as you do not physically act and interfere in another American’s equal right to speech, it’s OK. We can handle it.
Well, it’s not meant to be an equivalent in terms of the exact scenarios.
In broad brush terms there is equivalence. They both have platforms and an audience. Neither should be condemned for the actions of another. Wasn’t this the very same argument used by the one-sided J6 commission to try and dispose of Trump himself?
They are both allowed freedom of speech. To speak their mind. To say things that go against the grain and are politically incorrect. We have the right to listen or ignore, to act or not act, to pressure our representatives for legislation or to simply say “meh, this does not concern me…but they should have every right to say it”
Personally, I think Israel can not coexist peacefully with neighboring populations hellbent on their annihilation. No more than a 19th Century American frontier family could coexist nextdoor to a hostile Indian tribe or a pack of starving rabid wolves. One or the other must prevail in the end. It is not a matter of morality, right vs wrong. It is simple kill or be killed. This is the path that the so called “Palestinians” have chosen. It didn’t have to be this way, but once the path is chosen, it is survival of the fittest.
But speech in America should be free. As long as you do not go beyond speech. If you do, and you act in a way that prevents or inhibits someone else’s equal right to free speech, then your rights here are forfeit.
I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything you’ve said, but I don’t agree (if that’s what you’re arguing) that Khalil was only using free speech. Free speech ends when that speech is intended to incite violence rather than peaceful protest. I never saw/heard him insist the protesters do so peacefully. Ray Epps (J6) who I believe was a plant also incited violence. Free speech comes with a cost. If it is used with intent to incite violence, we have a different issue? Epps was a plant, I believe, he’ll never be brought to justice. Khalil has incited these rabid protesters who don’t believe Israel has a right to exist. He’s also not an American whereas Epps is
I don’t know much about the Epps case other than what I have seen reported mostly on Tucker Carlson. He has chosen not to explain his actions that day, which is his right as an American, but the consequences of that are that people are free to conjecture and think the worst of him. Perhaps it’s all true and that’s why he doesn’t speak in his own defense? Perhaps it is something else we we haven’t thought of and he wishes it to remain a secret for reasons unknown to us (like his life or family are threatened if he testified) we may never know.
Incitement is a thorny issue. Who gets to decide?
If I say “That guy over there is a monster! Someone should remove him from our polite society!” …and then you take that to mean kill him and you act on it; am I to blame for incitement?
What if I just meant he should be shunned, cancelled, cast out? Isn’t the onus on those who act illegally not my legal right to free speech?
Incitement is a loophole that can be exploited legally to impose authoritarian tyrannical control over others. It has been used throughout history to put down growing discontent among populations from the Bible through the French Revolution to Soviet Union to now I just read that our DHS has sent a letter to Columbia University telling them they MUST submit to Trump administration oversight of what they teach.
This is a well worn path to tyranny and should be avoided.
The opposite of hatred is not love. It is indifference. Hatred and love are passions that must be fed. Starve them and they wither and die.
You want the antisemitic views at college campuses to wither and die? Stop feeding them.
(To be clear, that does not mean to starve children of food, that means to stop paying attention to the activists and trying to legally arrest or deport them. Like any parent knows, sometimes it is best to let the child cry and learn that is not the way to get what it wants. If you give in, you are spoiling the child
I hear you and agree with much (again). Our government is required to show illegal behavior beyond free speech as it pertains to American citizens. They do not, however, need to provide evidence for foreigners with green cards. They are guests in our country. For me, that's what it boils down to.
Megyn won.