Mahmoud Khalil

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 119
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
He CAN do whatever he wants. When the government is trying to report you for being pro-terrorist/anti-Semitism.... maybe you tone it down for awhile?
Click to expand...
wasting your time Zen. The cable ignores reason, and reverts to its recipe.
 
ZenMode said:
He CAN do whatever he wants. When the government is trying to report you for being pro-terrorist/anti-Semitism.... maybe you tone it down for awhile?
Click to expand...
Maybe MLK shouldn’t have written that letter when he was incarcerated in Birmingham, either.

Counterpoint: dictating that speech to his lawyer is exactly the type of thing that creates change, in part because of the personal risk.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't. I fully support Kanye's right to his ridiculous beliefs. I just don't think we're obligated to import Jew-hating terrorist supporters.
Click to expand...
We are obligated, by our constitution, not to retaliate against people for their political expression. It has nothing to do with Jew-hating or importing or anything. It's "can a person who is in the country legally be punished for political activity" and the answer to that question is a resounding no.

And if you can't see why that's the answer, then yes, you do not believe in free speech. You might think you do, but the measure of free speech isn't whether you can say The Office sucks or that Dukies flop. The measure of free speech is whether you can express controversial political views without being punished.
 
Batt Boy said:
wasting your time Zen. The cable ignores reason, and reverts to its recipe.
Click to expand...
Assuming you meant cabal, what cabal? I don’t happen to like Khalil’s speech much. I also hate the speech from pretty much every member of today’s GOP. But none of them should be imprisoned or deported for it, and if any were imprisoned, I would consider that to be a terrible political (not to mention moral) mistake by the people doing the imprisoning.
 
Hypocrisy is a feature. Bosiding and obfuscation to cover for bigotry is a feature. Special carve outs to repress less dead classes are features. Hiding behind patriotism while hating freedom is a feature.
 
superrific said:
We are obligated, by our constitution, not to retaliate against people for their political expression. It has nothing to do with Jew-hating or importing or anything. It's "can a person who is in the country legally be punished for political activity" and the answer to that question is a resounding no.

And if you can't see why that's the answer, then yes, you do not believe in free speech. You might think you do, but the measure of free speech isn't whether you can say The Office sucks or that Dukies flop. The measure of free speech is whether you can express controversial political views without being punished.
Click to expand...
"It's "can a person who is in the country legally be punished for political activity" and the answer to that question is a resounding no."

Unless the political activity violates the law, right?
 
ZenMode said:
"It's "can a person who is in the country legally be punished for political activity" and the answer to that question is a resounding no."

Unless the political activity violates the law, right?
Click to expand...
If only there was some mechanism by which it could be determined if he violated the law... Some kind of due process ... You fucking spoon.
 
lawtig02 said:
Assuming you meant cabal, what cabal? I don’t happen to like Khalil’s speech much. I also hate the speech from pretty much every member of today’s GOP. But none of them should be imprisoned or deported for it, and if any were imprisoned, I would consider that to be a terrible political (not to mention moral) mistake by the people doing the imprisoning.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I absolutely support free speech for citizens - naturalized included. If you aren't a citizen, and you are supporting terrorism or other illegal activity, I see no reason to allow you to stay here.

Other than citizens, there is no right to be here. We can't deport Kanye or the idiot who invited Kanye to Mar-a-Lago.... because they're citizens.

We shouldn't be importing criminals bigots, etc.
 
ZenMode said:
"It's "can a person who is in the country legally be punished for political activity" and the answer to that question is a resounding no."

Unless the political activity violates the law, right?
Click to expand...
1. He hasn’t been charged with a crime.
2. No administration official has identified a crime he committed or a law he broke.
3. Speaking out in favor of Hamas is ugly speech, but it’s still protected for citizens and non-citizens alike.

I know you’re just JCDing this, like everything else you do here these days, but you could at least try to make a relevant point.
 
ZenMode said:
I disagree. I absolutely support free speech for citizens - naturalized included. If you aren't a citizen, and you are supporting terrorism or other illegal activity, I see no reason to allow you to stay here.

Other than citizens, there is no right to be here.
Click to expand...
You, perhaps inadvertently, just proved super’s point with this post.
 
ZenMode said:
I disagree. I absolutely support free speech for citizens - naturalized included. If you aren't a citizen, and you are supporting terrorism or other illegal activity, I see no reason to allow you to stay here.

Other than citizens, there is no right to be here.
Click to expand...
It's not about who's allowed to stay here. It's about what the government can do.

Look, it's a well-accepted principle of law that the government cannot discriminate on viewpoint even if a person has no right to it. The government cannot choose to give a new car to everyone except Democrats. A Dem would not have a right to the car, but the government does not have the power to discriminate like that.

Or, to use an example perhaps dearer to your heart, no person has the right to a government job. However, once the government has decided to hire, it can't refuse to hire a person based on the color of their skin. Get it?
 
ZenMode said:
Unless the political activity violates the law, right?
Click to expand...
Within the contours of constitutional validity, yes. For instance, if the government passed a law saying that it is a crime for Muslims to engage in political activity, then Mahmoud's advocacy would surely violate it but that law would be clearly invalid.

The immigrant bashing has just gotten to such a wild fever pitch. Actually, immigrants do have rights, no matter what Trump tells you. For instance, Rubio cannot actually cancel green cards, to name one. The idea that we can do anything to people who are "guests in the country" is ridiculous; it's obviously contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment; there's no basis for that idea in law anywhere, and it's a sad, sad return to one of the more shameful periods in our history. Ever heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?
 
superrific said:
Within the contours of constitutional validity, yes. For instance, if the government passed a law saying that it is a crime for Muslims to engage in political activity, then Mahmoud's advocacy would surely violate it but that law would be clearly invalid.

The immigrant bashing has just gotten to such a wild fever pitch. Actually, immigrants do have rights, no matter what Trump tells you. For instance, Rubio cannot actually cancel green cards, to name one. The idea that we can do anything to people who are "guests in the country" is ridiculous; it's obviously contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment; there's no basis for that idea in law anywhere, and it's a sad, sad return to one of the more shameful periods in our history. Ever heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?
Click to expand...
You obviously have an opinion of what is "Constitutional fact", which is fine, but interpretation of the Constitution is very subjective....hence SCOTUS, which is made up of equally subjective people
 
What part of "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is unclear and requiring subjective interpretation?

Or this one: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."?

As Justice Robert Jackson said, SCOTUS isn't final because it's infallible; it's "infallible" because it's final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top