Mahmoud Khalil

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 124
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
I swear to God, if those motherfuckers on the Supreme Court decide that the AEA overrides the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment . . .

And the courts have to be able to pierce the "reasonable grounds" and "compelling interests" bullshit. Those terms are construable. Courts all the time address those concepts. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that this Supreme Court would just roll over. Separation of powers above all; checks and balances matters none.
 
Zoo_View said:
That has to be a record for New York in terms of cleaning off graffiti.

That whole little wall looks a lot cleaner…….if it is cleaner, kudos to the worker(s) for cleaning more of the wall than just the “Free Mahmoud” part.

Now the graffiti artist has a cleaner place to rewrite “Free Mahmoud.”
Click to expand...


I’m inclined to believe that it happened too quickly for the city - more likely private citizen. I’ve noticed sidewalk chalk erased as well on occasion - always relatively progressive messages - unless they’re in Spanish - then they are left alone. I’m talking about an approximately 4 square block area (where I walk my dogs).
 
Case will hopefully work its way quickly up the appellate ladder. Then we'll see what the Supremes say.
 
superrific said:
I swear to God, if those motherfuckers on the Supreme Court decide that the AEA overrides the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment . . .

And the courts have to be able to pierce the "reasonable grounds" and "compelling interests" bullshit. Those terms are construable. Courts all the time address those concepts. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that this Supreme Court would just roll over. Separation of powers above all; checks and balances matters none.
Click to expand...
Is that precisely the purpose of the AEA? Isn't that why the power was given to the President?
 
RaiGuy said:
It just shows how much of an influence Israel has over our politicians.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is about Israel at all, any more than the disgraceful "anti-Semitism" hearings were about Israel.

This is about the administration grasping at unpopular figures in order to expand its power.

Courts need to put a stop to it.
 
superrific said:
Isn't what? Overruling the constitution? You might need a refresher course in civics.
Click to expand...
Yes. Isn't that why the AEA and AFA were put into place? It's meant to be a method for removing non-citizens who were viewed a dangerous, right?
 
rodoheel said:
Case will hopefully work its way quickly up the appellate ladder. Then we'll see what the Supremes say.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a shitshow, right? There's still the case in NJ. I don't know if that's supposed to be stayed until after the immigration process is complete. I would assume so, but there are so many different issues being argued it's hard to know what to believe.

If I was the lawyer, I would ask the judge to allow Khalil to be bonded out, given the lack of any real evidence against him. There's a term for that in immigration law (I think it's different from paroled, although maybe not) that I don't remember. It should be given. Release him because of unlawful process.
 
ZenMode said:
Yes. Isn't that why the AEA and AFA were put into place? It's meant to be a method for removing non-citizens who were viewed a dangerous, right?
Click to expand...
Preventing against the AEA was why the Bill of Rights was put into place. No statute can override the Bill of Rights.
 
From a PR perspective, Khalil has been an easy target for the Administration to use — a lot of Americans were upset or appalled by the campus protests against Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza and Khalil was a leader in a lot of media clips.

OTOH, the ideas and behavior the same Administration pardoned was worse, though that seems to have been absorbed and immediately memory-holed.

 
superrific said:
Attacking the law firms, the press, the independent agencies, any dissent are also clear cut cases of fascism.

The Dems aren't going to get back control by going to bat for a Hamas sympathizer. The court will free him. Once again, I have to ask: what do you want? Stronger words?
Click to expand...

RaiGuy said:
Are you calling him a Hamas sympathizer or are you saying that's what the republicans see him as?
Click to expand...

superrific said:
I have no idea whether he is or not. He's going to be viewed that way by the public.
Click to expand...
Well..... Guess that clears it up.

Don't let the door hit ya, buddy.

Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refuses to condemn Hamas in tense CNN interview: ‘Disingenuous to ask’​


Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas during a tense CNN interview — insisting it was “disingenuous” for the anchors to demand his position on the terror group.

The outspoken Palestinian activist, who was detained for over three months by the Trump administration for his prominent role in often violent Columbia University protests, dismissed co-anchor Pamela Brown’s repeated grilling over his views on Hamas as both “absurd” and hypocritical.

“Do you specifically condemn Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, not just for their actions on October 7?” Brown pressed the 30-year-old, who appeared on “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” Tuesday morning.

nypost.com

Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refuses to condemn Hamas in tense CNN interview: ‘Disingenuous to ask’

A tongue-tied Khalil replied that he condemns the killing of “all civilians, full stop,” but not Hamas.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
ZenMode said:
Well..... Guess that clears it up.

Don't let the door hit ya, buddy.

Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refuses to condemn Hamas in tense CNN interview: ‘Disingenuous to ask’​


Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas during a tense CNN interview — insisting it was “disingenuous” for the anchors to demand his position on the terror group.

The outspoken Palestinian activist, who was detained for over three months by the Trump administration for his prominent role in often violent Columbia University protests, dismissed co-anchor Pamela Brown’s repeated grilling over his views on Hamas as both “absurd” and hypocritical.

“Do you specifically condemn Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, not just for their actions on October 7?” Brown pressed the 30-year-old, who appeared on “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” Tuesday morning.

nypost.com

Anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil repeatedly refuses to condemn Hamas in tense CNN interview: ‘Disingenuous to ask’

A tongue-tied Khalil replied that he condemns the killing of “all civilians, full stop,” but not Hamas.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean anything. It’s a tactic used by the media to deflect from the point, so people being interviewed have decided to ignore that question. It was a favorite odd Piers Morgan. Hell, it’s a tactic that you’ve used on me many times that I’ve chosen to ignore it.
 
RaiGuy said:
That doesn’t mean anything. It’s a tactic used by the media to deflect from the point, so people being interviewed have decided to ignore that question. It was a favorite odd Piers Morgan. Hell, it’s a tactic that you’ve used on me many times that I’ve chosen to ignore it.
Click to expand...
Asking someone if they condemn terrorism isn't a tactic that would be used by CNN. CNN is about as friendly of a landing spot as Khalil will find other than MSNBC. They're not trying to 'gotcha!'.

Terrorist sympathizers, like Khalil, will say it's a tactic and disingenuous to ask and try to tap dance around it....but that's only because they are Jew-hating, terrorist sympathizers.

All he had to say is "I condemn Hamas and I condemn what Israel is doing in Gaza."

But he couldn't because he supports Hamas and terrorism.

Ice Cube Friday GIF
 
ZenMode said:
Asking someone if they condemn terrorism isn't a tactic that would be used by CNN. CNN is about as friendly of a landing spot as Khalil will find other than MSNBC. They're not trying to 'gotcha!'.

Terrorist sympathizers, like Khalil, will say it's a tactic and disingenuous to ask and try to tap dance around it....but that's only because they are Jew-hating, terrorist sympathizers.

All he had to say is "I condemn Hamas and I condemn what Israel is doing in Gaza."

But he couldn't because he supports Hamas and terrorism.

Ice Cube Friday GIF
Click to expand...
You have yet to condemn Israel for starving a population and committing a genocide. At this point, asking someone to condemn Hamas is just a dumb point.
 
RaiGuy said:
You have yet to condemn Israel for starving a population and committing a genocide. At this point, asking someone to condemn Hamas is just a dumb point.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with me, But I have said multiple times that I don't agree with denying aid. I may not have used the word condemn, but I would have no problem saying that I condemn denying aid.

A person who condemns terrorism and Hamas would have no problem saying they condemned terrorism and Hamas.
 
Last edited:
asking a palestinian, diasporic or not, to condemn hamas is like asking a Black South African during apartheid to condemn Nelson Mandela. or an enslaved American pre-emancipation to condemn John Brown. when somebody is starving and handed food, you don't criticize the way they eat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top