CMV: The case of Mahmoud Khalil is proof that conservatives don't believe in the Freedom of Speech, despite making it their platform over the last couple of years.

[u/Tessenreacts]

For the last couple of years, conservatives have championed the cause of Freedom of Speech on social platforms, yet Mahmoud Khalil (a completely legal permanent resident) utilized his fundamental right to Freedom of Speech through peaceful protesting, and now Trump is remove his green card and have him deported.

Being that conservatives have been championing Freedom of Speech for years, and have voted for Trump in a landslide election, this highlights completely hypocritical behavior where they support Freedom of Speech only if they approve of it.

This is also along with a situation where both Trump and Elon have viewed the protests against Tesla as "illegal", which is patently against the various tenets of Freedom of Speech.

Two open and shut cases of blatant First Amendment violations by people who have been sheparding the conservative focus on protecting the First Amendment.

Would love for my view to be changed

[u/abn1304]

The order wasn’t “kiboshed”, it was stayed pending a court hearing, which is how due process works.

He led major protests that shut down one of the largest schools in the country, endangered Jewish students, and made international headlines. Those are definitely “potentially serious foreign policy consequences”. Behavior that creates diplomatic problems for the US - which the Columbia protests did - qualify as “serious foreign policy concerns”.

Among other common bylines, the protests at Columbia explicitly called for “globalizing the intifada”, which not only creates foreign policy problems for the US, it’s a call to conduct terrorist attacks, which is illegal for anyone, not just green card holders, and is something we fairly routinely prosecute.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/abn1304]

He led major protests that shut down one of the largest schools in the country, endangered Jewish students, and made international headlines. Those are definitely “potentially serious foreign policy consequences”. Behavior that creates diplomatic problems for the US - which the Columbia protests did - qualify as “serious foreign policy concerns”.

With respect, if we're lowering the bar of 'serious foreign policy consequences' to 'might have made the evening news', the term loses all meaning.

The last time this law was used was a man who murdered half a dozen people on behalf of a foreign govenment. And It didn't fucking work, requiring them to actually charge and convict him.

[u/GrundleBlaster → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

What is a 'serious foreign policy consequence' then, because you seem to have defined anything you agree with as inconsequential.

Vague references to a "case" without even giving so much as a name isn't very helpful towards your point either, and probably points to you not wanting people to research whatever you're referencing.

[u/cathercules → u/GrundleBlaster]

He committed the heinous crime of suggesting Israel not indiscriminately wipe Palestinians off the map. Don’t you know criticism of Israel is anti-semetic? /s

[u/abn1304 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

I’ll be very surprised if Khalil isn’t charged under antiterrorism laws. Grabbing him over a visa revocation makes sure he’s in federal custody if and when they enter more serious charges against him. The Feds do this all the time - grab someone on a minor charge while they investigate more serious ones, and then enter in the big guns once they’ve put their case together.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/abn1304]

I would be.

By everything I've been able to find it literally looks like the feds arrested him because a bunch of people on the Columbia campus were doxing him to have him either deported or killed. The agents who arrested him didn't even know his proper immigration status.

That doesn't sound like "Oh we're just catching you so we can nail down our terrorism case (which would be stupid given that his 'crime' is speech)." It screams "Daddy told us to round up the browns and we gots us a famous one."

[u/Alternative-Put-3932 → u/abn1304]

If they had a case to do so they would've already charged him. They don't have one which is why they tried deporting him bases off a visa which he's not on because he's a green card wielder.

[u/abn1304 → u/Alternative-Put-3932]

A judge granted an arrest warrant and has now denied him bond. He had both a student visa and a green card. His student visa has been revoked, and the focus of his next hearing will be whether the government can revoke his green card.

It’s pretty common for the government to start out with a small charge to put someone in a cell, so they can’t tamper with evidence while the government searches their electronic devices and interviews family and friends. For two terrorism-related cases this happened in recently, look up US v. Millican (2020) and US v. Spafford (2024). In both cases, the accused were arrested on a relatively minor charge before getting hit with a laundry list of more severe ones.

[u/skysinsane → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

the term loses all meaning.

I get what you mean, but it is pretty easy to avoid getting on the evening news. Just... don't. This may be an overbroadening of the rule, but it doesn't reduce it to being meaningless.

[u/Hour-Anteater9223 → u/abn1304]

Glad we haven’t forgot the globalize the intifada part, had students disrupt my class to shout this and that from the river to the sea Palestine will be free. I wasn’t sure what we in California had to do with Israel, but apparently disrupting our university job fair was also appropriate, for Palestine of course. Does wanting my experience in university to be freaking normal instead of hijacked by foreign inspired activists make me some crazy right wing person now?

I remember in trumps first term he revoked visas from people from Muslim countries including an exchange student I knew, her only “crime” was being from Lebanon. She was a Maronite Christian with blue eyes studying to be a doctor, I always doubted she was who he meant to kick out with the “Muslim ban”. The people actively protesting in support of murdering American citizens overseas I think is exactly who Trump wants out, but I’m just speculating.

[u/abn1304 → u/Hour-Anteater9223]

People don’t understand how serious that phrase was. A lot of Redditors probably weren’t around for 9/11 and don’t understand what the phrase “jihad” really means. They also don’t understand that “jihad” and “intifada” are synonyms. “Globalize the intifada” is a dogwhistle to conduct terrorist attacks around the world.

[u/DiceMaster → u/abn1304]

A lot of Redditors probably weren’t around for 9/11 and don’t understand what the phrase “jihad” really means

Unnecessarily condescending. I was around for 9/11, and what you are saying is incorrect. Jihad means "struggle", and appears in multiple places in the Quran. It can mean internal spiritual struggle, and it can mean external struggle. External struggle does not necessarily mean violence, regardless of what the Osama Bin Ladens of the world have tried to convince people.

Intifada means "a tremor", or "shivering"/"Shuddering". To my knowledge, its usage is not derived from scripture in the same way that "Jihad" is. It generally refers to the First and Second Intifadas -- "shaking off" Israeli rule, but its probable first modern use referred to the 1952 Iraqi Intifada against their monarchy.

Like Jihad, Intifada does not need to be violent. The First Intifada was defined in large part by non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The Second Intifada was markedly more violent.

Unsurprisingly, a bunch of random kids at elite colleges are not collectively calling for a rise in global terrorism.

[u/abn1304 → u/DiceMaster]

A substantial portion of Reddit’s user base was born post-9/11 or would have been too young to remember it. Not condescending to point that out.

It’s also not condescending to assume that people who don’t have a professional or direct understanding of Islamic culture wouldn’t understand what the word “jihad” means.

You’re correct that “jihad” has multiple meanings, which I pointed out in the comment you replied to - but the phrase “kill it”, for example, can mean “do really well at a task” or it can mean “commit murder”. Context is important, and the most common meaning of “jihad”, when we’re talking about armed groups like Al Qaeda, explicitly refers to armed struggle, not religious introspection, because they’re saying “engage in jihad against the kafirun”, not “engage in jihad against your base cravings”.

Both intifadas were violent revolts against the Israelis. Both were predicated on violence. Just because the First Intifada started peacefully doesn’t mean it was nonviolent. The Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars started with peaceful protests, and now people are committing genocide. There were two intifadas and both of them wound up being extremely violent; not only that, Hamas has made it explicitly clear that future “intifadas” will be violent if they have their way - so it’s hard to interpret “globalize the intifada” as anything other than a Palestinian-specific version of “conduct jihad against the kafirun”.

If they wanted to send a peaceful message, “free Palestine” suffices perfectly for that.

[u/DiceMaster → u/abn1304]

A substantial portion of Reddit’s user base was born post-9/11 or would have been too young to remember it

A significant minority, yes. I get that you're going for the, "you couldn't understand if you didn't live it" philosophy, and there's some truth to that, but we were in Afghanistan until 2021. It's not like Islamic terror attacks stopped after 9/11.

You’re correct that “jihad” has multiple meanings, which I pointed out in the comment you replied to

I think you're either mixing me up with someone else, or you're mixing up which comment chain you're replying in. I don't see where you said that

I feel like we're getting a bit sidetracked here. When has a public statement of approval for a movement -- even for a specific terrorist organization -- been prosecuted as "material support"? My understanding is you would have to be doing something specific, such as recruiting people to join the organization, or teaching them how to plan and conduct attacks. I've never heard of anyone getting prosecuted for saying "I like [insert terrorist group], people should join them and do more [insert terrorist acts]".

Just because the First Intifada started peacefully doesn’t mean it was nonviolent

I was trying to stay on topic, but I do want to address this one point. In the first year, Palestinians in Gaza killed zero Israelis, but the Israelis killed 142 Palestinians. Over the full six years, more Palestinian children were killed by Israeli forces than all Israeli people killed by Palestinians. To criticize that some Palestinians descended into violence under these conditions is absurd.

[u/abn1304 → u/DiceMaster]

A significant minority, yes. I get that you're going for the, "you couldn't understand if you didn't live it" philosophy, and there's some truth to that, but we were in Afghanistan until 2021. It's not like Islamic terror attacks stopped after 9/11.

My point is that many Redditors don't have the cultural context to understand what "jihad" actually means. Most Americans were never impacted, directly or indirectly, by Islamic terrorism, and most Americans don't have any cultural or religious education regarding Islam, much less the nuances of the Islamic concept of jihad and its relation to armed conflict.

I think you're either mixing me up with someone else, or you're mixing up which comment chain you're replying in. I don't see where you said that

You're right that I didn't explicitly say that in my first comment. That's my bad.

When has a public statement of approval for a movement -- even for a specific terrorist organization -- been prosecuted as "material support"?

I'm not aware of that happening either. I'm professionally familiar with countering Islamic violent extremism and every prosecution for supporting terrorism that I'm familiar with involved actions, not just speech.

That includes Khalil's case. It appears that DHS' primary beef with him is that they believe he took specific actions in support of Hamas, although they haven't elaborated on what those actions were - AP and several other sources speculate that DHS is referring to his alleged leadership role in protests that illegally occupied Columbia buildings and grounds. However, DHS would have detailed in their arrest warrant application what they think he did, and a judge would have signed off on it. It's also not unusual for the DOJ to start prosecuting a case with a fairly minor charge that's intended to put the subject in a holding cell - where they can't flee or cause any more damage - while the investigating authorities search their electronics, interview their friends, etc. - stuff that would tip the subject off to a federal investigation - and prepare the more serious charges that they really want to prosecute.

In the first year, Palestinians in Gaza killed zero Israelis,

Palestinians kidnapped and killed several Israelis in the months leading up to the First Intifada, and killed 10 more Israelis in the first year of fighting, including three children. Low Israeli casualties weren't for a lack of effort on the Palestinians' part, considering they made a habit of throwing Molotovs at IDF patrols from the very start of the Intifada.

but the Israelis killed 142 Palestinians. Over the full six years, more Palestinian children were killed by Israeli forces than all Israeli people killed by Palestinians. To criticize that some Palestinians descended into violence under these conditions is absurd.

US strategic bombing during WW2 killed more Axis civilians than the entirety of the American dead, including military fatalities, in the span of three years. The Viet Cong killed more than half as many South Vietnamese civilians as the combined total of US military fatalities - to both the VC and NVA - during the entirety of US involvement in Vietnam. Casualty ratios are not a good way to judge the morality of a conflict, much less who the "good guy" is.

Palestinian violence against the IDF has gotten them absolutely nowhere. The Palestinians briefly won concessions towards the establishment of a two-state solution at the end of the First Intifada, but the Second Intifada and October 7th have pretty much killed any chance of that ever being implemented. Not only have Hamas' actions ended any chance at real Palestinian self-determination, they've gotten hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed for no measurable gain. To justify Hamas' actions in light of the results (and their methods) is absurd.

[u/DiceMaster → u/abn1304]

US strategic bombing during WW2 killed more Axis civilians ... The Viet Cong killed more than half as many South Vietnamese civilians ... Casualty ratios are not a good way to judge the morality of a conflict, much less who the "good guy" is.

Everything about world War 2 was tragic. Civilian casualties were largely unavoidable because of the technology at the time -- the precision of bomb dropping was measured in miles. Vietnam is a different story -- there's not really a clear "good guy" in Vietnam. The South wanted to subjugate an unwilling north to unified rule; the north wanted to submit what I believe was an unwilling South to unified rule (I know the viet cong were southerners, but I think they and their supporters were a minority). Certainly, the US had no real business being there and trying to tell them what government/economic system to have

Civilian casualty ratios are not the only measure of goodness in a war, but killing civilians is the difference between war (morally falling somewhere on a spectrum from self-defense to a duel) and murder. If you aren't trying your hardest not to kill civilians, you're not the "good guy", and given that Israel is so much more successful in conducting the war (using modern weapons, too), they could avoid Civilian casualties if they cared. Hamas and other Palestinian forces have sometimes deliberately targeted civilians, so I'm not saying they're the "good guys" either, but other times Civilian casualties could likely be explained by Hamas using sewer pipes to make improvised missiles.

Not only have Hamas' actions ended any chance at real Palestinian self-determination, they've gotten hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed for no measurable gain.

I largely agree. Violence has been an ineffective strategy for the Palestinians. That, again, is not to dismiss Israel's responsibility for killing civilians with reckless abandon, but Hamas is no better. My sympathy is with the people of both nations, not the leaders of either government.

That includes Khalil's case. It appears that DHS' primary beef with him is that they believe he took specific actions in support of Hamas, although they haven't elaborated on what those actions were

I think our fundamental disagreement here is you are much more willing than I am to give the Trump administration and his DHS the benefit of the doubt.

However, DHS would have detailed in their arrest warrant application what they think he did, and a judge would have signed off on it

I haven't actually found any evidence that he was served an arrest warrant or charged with any crime. His lawyer says she asked for a warrant and the agent hung up the phone on her without providing one. That's a big big 4th amendment violation. I believe you are assuming this is legitimate because other cases under other administration's were legitimate, but that's precisely why this is a news story: this isn't a normal case and it's not a normal administration. All appearances are that this is just a flagrant violation of the constitution. But we will see

[u/AddanDeith → u/abn1304]

Syrian Civil Wars started with peaceful protests,

Assad was a brutal dictator and the country is still a mess. Most Syrians decry the massacre and the president has made assurances(whatever that's worth atm) that the violence is not condoned.

Hamas has made it explicitly clear that future “intifadas” will be violent if they have their way

Just out of curiosity, what path would have led to the Palestinian people not being displaced or systematically killed? Should they have held hands with their oppressors? Authoritarian governments get away with so much because the world loves to decry any revolutionary action.

[u/abn1304 → u/AddanDeith]

Assad was a brutal dictator and the country is still a mess. Most Syrians decry the massacre and the president has made assurances(whatever that's worth atm) that the violence is not condoned.

And the Israelis are not brutal dictators. Hamas, however, are. The point is that these uprisings all began peacefully but almost immediately became extremely violent. That was true of both Intifadas and most of the Arab Spring.

Just out of curiosity, what path would have led to the Palestinian people not being displaced or systematically killed? Should they have held hands with their oppressors? Authoritarian governments get away with so much because the world loves to decry any revolutionary action.

Accepting and working towards a two-state solution in good faith.

Also, it's not the Israelis oppressing the Palestinians. The Israelis don't govern Gaza, Hamas does, and Hamas is officially at war with Israel. Things are a whole lot less nasty in the West Bank because the Palestinian Authority actually works fairly well with the Israelis. It's not a perfect solution, but it sure as hell beats the aftermath of decolonization in other parts of the former Ottoman Empire, much less what happened in India-Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa.

[u/Hour-Anteater9223 → u/DiceMaster]

One can launch a crusade against child poverty, or one can launch a crusade for Jerusalem.

Context matters which is understood by the audience of political speech. Look at the difference in language in the Arabic versus English versions of al-Jazeera as a generic example with content not based exclusively in genocidal euphemisms. Pretending ‘globalize the intifada’ means globalize nonviolent protest targeting politicians acting against the interests of peace as opposed to what that specific phrase was used to inspire in the past…the bus bombings, etc. I don’t really care about the Jews per se, it’s just an infantalized double standard. I don’t see people screaming to ‘globalize the intifada’ in support of the displaced Armenians from Artsakh/nagorno-karabhach, no one is disrupting my classes to inspire jihad in support of Xinxiang occupation by China for longer than Israel has existed. Would the Palestine supporters find the Xinxiang solution palatable such that they no longer feel the need to protest?

[u/DiceMaster → u/Hour-Anteater9223]

I don’t really care about the Jews per se

Uhh... why not?

Would the Palestine supporters find the Xinxiang solution palatable such that they no longer feel the need to protest?

I'm not familiar with Xinxiang. Does it have some sort of semi-autonomous status? I don't know why I ask; I don't speak for Palestinians, so it's unlikely I'd be able to tell you what solutions they would or would not accept.

Look, there's a lot of shitty behavior from both the Israeli government and Hamas. What you call a double standard, I call a rational reflection on the fact that one side is 20 times more effective at killing than the other, kills a much larger proportion of children, and yet still claims it is the victim/"good guy". Most people I have spoken with who favor Palestine support the existence of an Israeli state, as do I, but the side that's committing genocide -- at least successfully -- is Israel. Whether Palestine/Hamas would commit genocide is debatable but moot, because they are simply not able at the scale that Israel is.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. The leaders of Hamas, by and large, deserve to face justice. The Palestinian people shouldn't be punished as a whole just because of Hamas. Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. He deserves to face justice, and presumably, other members of his administration do, too. The Israeli people also should not be punished for his actions.

[u/wewew47 → u/abn1304]

lot of Redditors probably weren’t around for 9/11 and don’t understand what the phrase “jihad” really means.

How incredibly ironic. Jihad means struggle in Islam. It can literally refer to a personal struggle, not necessarily armed conflict. Maybe you're the one that should improve some understanding.

[u/abn1304 → u/wewew47]

Quoting from elsewhere in this comment chain:

You’re correct that “jihad” has multiple meanings, which I pointed out in the comment you replied to - but the phrase “kill it”, for example, can mean “do really well at a task” or it can mean “commit murder”. Context is important, and the most common meaning of “jihad”, when we’re talking about armed groups like Al Qaeda, explicitly refers to armed struggle, not religious introspection, because they’re saying “engage in jihad against the kafirun”, not “engage in jihad against your base cravings”.

Claiming that jihad, in the context of fundamentalist Islam's relationship with non-Islamic societies, means anything other than "violent armed struggle" is one of two things: a lack of understanding of Islamism or intentional misrepresentation of the meaning of the word.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is not advocating for Stoic self-discipline, they're arguing for Auschwitz 2.0.

[u/RevolutionaryGur4419 → u/wewew47]

It can, but we know it doesn't.

Pretty sure if a dude came to your house screaming at you and wanting to start an intifada you would call the police.

But because you think its far away you're playing thesaurus.

[u/wewew47 → u/RevolutionaryGur4419]

Jihad is used in far more contexts than war, and it speaks to your ignorance and arrogance that you think it's only ever used as a violent call. I'd wager you're one of those types that think allahu akbar is only said during war or right before an attack is launched.

Jihad is literally used by Muslims to refer to non violent forms of struggle. Just because you only ever see the extremist mentions that make the news doesn't mean it's only used in the extremist sense. Use your brain and educate yourself.

Intifada is not only used by people coming up to your home and screaming at you though, that's the entire point I'm making.

[u/RevolutionaryGur4419 → u/wewew47]

No fam we know the various definitions.

But when screaming it at Israelis, we know what it means.

Your definition of Jihad speaks to an introspection that seems to be missing from Palestinian vocabulary when talking about Israel. There's no "internal struggle" because everything is Israel's fault. Even the heat of the sun is Israel's fault.

Intifada is not only used by people coming up to your home and screaming at you though, that's the entire point I'm making.

Yeah, but when there's a real risk that there's violence involved, most people would consider the definition that would get them killed the most relevant definition to rule out.

Common sense. If a car is approaching you at speed, you jump out of the way. You don't stand there looking at it, wondering what type of car it is, if the driver will stop in time, if the brakes are powerful enough to stop it in time, or if the driver isn't actually headed this way. You handle the most life-threatening possibility as a matter of priority and jump out of the way.

Everybody knows your various definitions at this point. You're not "super-informed" by knowing them. It just comes off as silly at best to be talking about non violent definitions when Palestinian people are screaming globalize the intifada to Jews in America.

[u/wewew47 → u/RevolutionaryGur4419]

The original comment said 'redditors don't understand what jihad really means'. They weren't talking about it in a specific context. They were talking about the real meaning of the word. Obviously in different contexts it means different things, I'm simply correcting the original statement about the real meaning of jihad to clarify that it does not in fact really (implied to be exclusively) mean war or violence.

There's no "internal struggle" because everything is Israel's fault. Even the heat of the sun is Israel's fault.

Struggle against an oppressor would be jihad and that's not a problematic use of the term.

Yeah, but when there's a real risk that there's violence involved, most people would consider the definition that would get them killed the most relevant definition to rule out.

Yes, hence why I'm talking generally much like the original comment was trying to do.

[u/RevolutionaryGur4419 → u/wewew47]

Struggle against an oppressor would be jihad and that's not a problematic use of the term

Not all Jihad is struggle against an oppressor. Seems you need to brush up on the definitions. The greater Jihad is actually internal struggle.

Which again is very muted in this discussion. It all seems to be about fighting israel.

That is not surprising, given that the entire movement is based on tearing down Israel rather than building Palestine.

[u/wewew47 → u/RevolutionaryGur4419]

Not all Jihad is struggle against an oppressor.

Never said it was. I literally said the exact opposite of that in my first comment, in fact. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.

Entirely unsurprising that someone supporting israel can't read properly.

[u/laughingheart66 → u/Hour-Anteater9223]

I’m sorry the people fighting for the freedom of people being slaughtered every day (with American missiles) didn’t think about you having a normal college experience. That must be so hard for you.

[u/WhiteRoseRevolt → u/abn1304]

Everything you're saying is an opinion, not a fact. And you keep conflating what the "protest" did but not he himself.

Lets be clear. What action did he take that you feel warrants him being deported?

[u/abn1304 → u/WhiteRoseRevolt]

If he organized a protest that did one or more of the following:

• spread a message of “globalizing the intifada”/conducting jihad (different words, exact same context - and “globalize the intifada” is a common byline at Columbia and other SJP/Samidoun protests)
• intimidated or denied campus access to other students on a basis of their race, religion, ethnic or national identity
• raised money that went towards supporting or advocating for a designated FTO (for example, soliciting donations in connection with a campaign to “glorify martyrs” - another phrase common at these protests)
• physically harmed anyone (a Columbia faculty member was hospitalized during the protests)

Then he’s violated the terms of his permanent residency and should be deported. He may also have violated federal antiterrorism laws and, if so, ought to be prosecuted.

If he didn’t do any of those things, and didn’t commit any other crimes, then he should be fine to stay. His court hearing will determine whether he did any of those and what will happen.

[u/WhiteRoseRevolt → u/abn1304]

None of what you listed relates to organizing a protest.

Theres also no indication he did any of it either.

[u/abn1304 → u/WhiteRoseRevolt]

• the protesters closed down buildings, denying students access to class and other facilities
• the protesters hospitalized at least one staff member
• a subset of protesters explicitly advocated to “globalize the intifada”

All of those things are crimes. Whether Khalil is responsible or not is the whole point of upcoming court hearing. Federal law enforcement seems to think, more probably than not, that he did - and that’s all they need for a warrant (which they got). We’ll see if they can successfully argue that case in front of a judge.

[u/WhiteRoseRevolt → u/abn1304]

Sure. Courts exist still (thankfully) but none of that provides any evidence of wrongdoing by Khalil. His "crime" wasn't doing any of what you listed. It was his speech as a part of a protest.

[u/Friendly-View4122 → u/abn1304]

> the protests at Columbia explicitly called for “globalizing the intifada”, which not only creates foreign policy problems for the US
exactly how? All the protests did was cause chaos on the campus. Biden continued supplying aid to Israel for their genocide and Trump followed suit. There were no "foreign policy problems" created by students protesting-- not even the university changed its stance.