JVL, my man, in the effort to be scrupulously fair (which I agree with) I fear you have inadvertently set up a straw man that many Bulwarkers will seize upon. Mark Kelly (like you and me) is a US citizen, and we can say things 100% at odds to the current foreign policy and nat'l security interests of the US under the 1st Amendment. Khali…
JVL, my man, in the effort to be scrupulously fair (which I agree with) I fear you have inadvertently set up a straw man that many Bulwarkers will seize upon. Mark Kelly (like you and me) is a US citizen, and we can say things 100% at odds to the current foreign policy and nat'l security interests of the US under the 1st Amendment. Khalil is a green card holder, not a US citizen, and therefore has slightly more limited free speech protections. Many Bulwarkers seem unwilling to recognize this. Based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his alleged distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. That seems thin to me as a lawyer, but I'm not an immigration or 1st Amendment expert. I suspect this case may very well wind up at SCOTUS, but that's years away.
"Based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his alleged distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week."
There's no evidence for that claim. None.
I sincerely hope that your US citizenship protects you from similar false claims.
"There's no evidence for that claim. None." Evidence is determined by courts, not commenters. That's how the legal system works. I'm waiting for the actual evidence to be adduced and made public. Apparently you have some omniscient knowledge of all the actual evidence the rest of us lack. Or maybe you've just decided it doesn't matter.
Agsin, as it seems you are unfamiliar with how the legal system actually functions, evidence is determined by courts, not by commenters like you. Sorry the workings of the legal system interfere with your preconceived notions.
You said “based on reporting”, not “Court accepted evidence”.
Show this reporting or retract.
You know someone is bad faith when they make extraordinary claims, such as material sponsorship of terrorism, but can’t back it up with extraordinary evidence, or in this case, literally any evidence at all.
The one rule of authoritarianism is that the autocrat comes for everyone eventually, green card holders and citizens alike.
When the autocrat comes for you - and he will come for you - I hope that you will demand more than “let’s wait and see what super secret evidence the government says it has on me, till then I am happy to stay in jail”.
I've shown the reporting. It was reported in the NY Post, and I provided the link. That's what reporting means. I also said I'm waiting to see if there is actual evidence as determined by a court. Enjoy your rhetorical word games. I'm out.
Do you have any substantiation that Khalil was distributing materials advocating for Hamas? Because all I've seen from him is opposition to Hamas, as well as the Netenyahu regime, but not Israel itself. In fact, he supports the Israeli opposition to Netenyahu, Likud, and the far-Right coalition currently in power. And, as a Palestinian, he obviously opposes Israel's genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as do I, but that's very different from supporting Hamas. I can't comment on his position regarding Hezbollah. I simply don't know.
As I previously said, based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. I'm guessing more will come out in the SDNY hearing today in terms of what the Trump administration is relying upon, which remains somewhat unclear at the moment. I've tried to be careful to stick to what has been reported, and not speculate, while reminding people that his free speech rights are less than those of a US citizen.
Here's good run-down of the actual situation, what has actually happened, and what Khalil has, in fact, participated in. Notably absent is the distribution of pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. It was that assertion that concerned me. There may well be erroneous accusations or reports, particularly from right-wing outlets or the Trump admin itself.
Hard to know what the facts actually are at this point. As you note, Intelligencer is silent on the assertion he distributed pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. On the other hand, the NY Post is reporting that the White House is claiming he "organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas." The NY Post piece also shows a particular flyer with Sinwar's image and an automatic weapon and the words "Sometimes-history needs a . . . flood" which seems an unambiguous reference to the Hamas attack of October 7 (the "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"), and the claim it was "allegedly distributed by Khalil." I'm skeptical of both the Trump administration and the Murdoch owned NY Post. On the other hand. Intelligencer is a left of center publication IMHO and may be minimizing some of his conduct. It also begs the question as to what Khalil's knowledge was about the dissemination of that flyer (which to me seems clearly supportive of Hamas's Oct. 7 attack). Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to that flyer, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen. See https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/ (again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate).
This is no "left media", there is no "right media".
There is simply media that is willing to lie, exaggerate, credulously run IDF talking points, minimize, justify, and euphemise for Zionism, and media that will not.
For example: the "left" MSNBC is just as willing as the "right" NYP to do all these things for Zionism.
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.
As a former green card holder who is now a citizen, yes, you have slightly lesser free-speech rights. The government (quite reasonably) can deport you if your speech is a threat to national security or "materially supports terrorism." And they can deport you in a moment if you are convicted of a crime (details
vary by state.) Khalil didn't do either, but they're leveling these accusations so they can kick him out. (For background, I have spent many years in the Middle East, had a team in Israel, visited the West Bank, have friends in the Arab world who've given a lot to fight for democracy, and many Jewish friends in MA who hate Israel, too. So, I am sympathetic to his campaign, and I hate that Israel consistently equates being anti-Israeli-government with anti-Semitism, which is utterly false, and that so many Americans buy it. But that's a different issue.)
As I've said elsewhere in the comments, the facts thus far as to what exactly is the basis for the government's case against Khalil are unclear. It seems to involve the dissemination of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah flyers during the Barnard sit-in/protests last week. Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to such flyers, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen.
You're on a website that hates Trump and wants to stop him Making America Great Again. I designate The Bulwark a terrorist organization and you are a terrorist advocate.
You’re an idiot. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you’ll find yourself less ostracized by the rest of humanity. Gradually, over time, you might find yourself reintegrated into society. Until then, I wish you well.
Things will not go well for you. Outside of your very narrow social circle, people will not want to associate with you. Though I do suggest you educate yourself. Read. Do it a lot. (Alot is not a word, BTW. Many people like you don’t know that).
Here’s a start. Look up Curtis Yarvin. I know, it requires at least some effort. But you will learn some things about the people you support.
No, I just didn’t look at it in the interim days. Not that it’s any of your business. I expect something more than small mindedness from participants in the Bulwark formums. For the most part, that’s what I find, but there are, of course, exceptions.
I've followed trump for 30 years as OPPO for the Party (yes, GOP) and know him well.
There is NOTHING about trump that is fit for the job or POTUS or leader of ANY large, complex orgaization. He has no idea how to do the job. He showed us in trump 1.0 and is again in trump 2.0. Nothing but a cluster F.
Merely being on the website would undoubtedly be legally insufficient to revoke a green card for a green card holder (again-this is all inapplicable to a US citizen who has full blown 1st Amendment protection).
I gather you - according to your statements - are a lawyer. Surely you should know that a Green Card holder is entitled to the same rights under law as an American citizen, except for the right to vote, or engage in terrorist activities (that last one is prohibited for Americans too). I'm a Scots/Canadian, and even I know that.
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.
JVL, my man, in the effort to be scrupulously fair (which I agree with) I fear you have inadvertently set up a straw man that many Bulwarkers will seize upon. Mark Kelly (like you and me) is a US citizen, and we can say things 100% at odds to the current foreign policy and nat'l security interests of the US under the 1st Amendment. Khalil is a green card holder, not a US citizen, and therefore has slightly more limited free speech protections. Many Bulwarkers seem unwilling to recognize this. Based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his alleged distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. That seems thin to me as a lawyer, but I'm not an immigration or 1st Amendment expert. I suspect this case may very well wind up at SCOTUS, but that's years away.
"Based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his alleged distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week."
There's no evidence for that claim. None.
I sincerely hope that your US citizenship protects you from similar false claims.
PS: It won't.
"There's no evidence for that claim. None." Evidence is determined by courts, not commenters. That's how the legal system works. I'm waiting for the actual evidence to be adduced and made public. Apparently you have some omniscient knowledge of all the actual evidence the rest of us lack. Or maybe you've just decided it doesn't matter.
“Evidence is determined by courts”
That’s a very convenient semantic argument! There MIGHT be evidence, but we can’t know for SURE till it’s proven in Court?
Tell you what: I’ll accept video, photographs, admissions by Khalil, anything. Anything at all.
You got literally anything? Or just “the NYP says”?
Agsin, as it seems you are unfamiliar with how the legal system actually functions, evidence is determined by courts, not by commenters like you. Sorry the workings of the legal system interfere with your preconceived notions.
You said “based on reporting”, not “Court accepted evidence”.
Show this reporting or retract.
You know someone is bad faith when they make extraordinary claims, such as material sponsorship of terrorism, but can’t back it up with extraordinary evidence, or in this case, literally any evidence at all.
The one rule of authoritarianism is that the autocrat comes for everyone eventually, green card holders and citizens alike.
When the autocrat comes for you - and he will come for you - I hope that you will demand more than “let’s wait and see what super secret evidence the government says it has on me, till then I am happy to stay in jail”.
I've shown the reporting. It was reported in the NY Post, and I provided the link. That's what reporting means. I also said I'm waiting to see if there is actual evidence as determined by a court. Enjoy your rhetorical word games. I'm out.
That's your "reporting"? The NYP article???
The NYP article was not "reporting". It was a White House press statement, transcribed under the NYP banner.
If you take that at all seriously, then you're not to be taken seriously.
Do you have any substantiation that Khalil was distributing materials advocating for Hamas? Because all I've seen from him is opposition to Hamas, as well as the Netenyahu regime, but not Israel itself. In fact, he supports the Israeli opposition to Netenyahu, Likud, and the far-Right coalition currently in power. And, as a Palestinian, he obviously opposes Israel's genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as do I, but that's very different from supporting Hamas. I can't comment on his position regarding Hezbollah. I simply don't know.
As I previously said, based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. I'm guessing more will come out in the SDNY hearing today in terms of what the Trump administration is relying upon, which remains somewhat unclear at the moment. I've tried to be careful to stick to what has been reported, and not speculate, while reminding people that his free speech rights are less than those of a US citizen.
Here's good run-down of the actual situation, what has actually happened, and what Khalil has, in fact, participated in. Notably absent is the distribution of pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. It was that assertion that concerned me. There may well be erroneous accusations or reports, particularly from right-wing outlets or the Trump admin itself.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-student-pro-palestine-activist-what-we-know.html
Hard to know what the facts actually are at this point. As you note, Intelligencer is silent on the assertion he distributed pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. On the other hand, the NY Post is reporting that the White House is claiming he "organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas." The NY Post piece also shows a particular flyer with Sinwar's image and an automatic weapon and the words "Sometimes-history needs a . . . flood" which seems an unambiguous reference to the Hamas attack of October 7 (the "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"), and the claim it was "allegedly distributed by Khalil." I'm skeptical of both the Trump administration and the Murdoch owned NY Post. On the other hand. Intelligencer is a left of center publication IMHO and may be minimizing some of his conduct. It also begs the question as to what Khalil's knowledge was about the dissemination of that flyer (which to me seems clearly supportive of Hamas's Oct. 7 attack). Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to that flyer, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen. See https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/ (again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate).
This is no "left media", there is no "right media".
There is simply media that is willing to lie, exaggerate, credulously run IDF talking points, minimize, justify, and euphemise for Zionism, and media that will not.
For example: the "left" MSNBC is just as willing as the "right" NYP to do all these things for Zionism.
The NYP? Seriously? Did you say you're a lawyer?
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.
Even if he was distributing pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature, which I haven't seen, isn't that protected by the First Amendment?
Not necessarily. Again, he is not a US citizen and as a green card holder he has more limited free speech rights.
As a former green card holder who is now a citizen, yes, you have slightly lesser free-speech rights. The government (quite reasonably) can deport you if your speech is a threat to national security or "materially supports terrorism." And they can deport you in a moment if you are convicted of a crime (details
vary by state.) Khalil didn't do either, but they're leveling these accusations so they can kick him out. (For background, I have spent many years in the Middle East, had a team in Israel, visited the West Bank, have friends in the Arab world who've given a lot to fight for democracy, and many Jewish friends in MA who hate Israel, too. So, I am sympathetic to his campaign, and I hate that Israel consistently equates being anti-Israeli-government with anti-Semitism, which is utterly false, and that so many Americans buy it. But that's a different issue.)
As I've said elsewhere in the comments, the facts thus far as to what exactly is the basis for the government's case against Khalil are unclear. It seems to involve the dissemination of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah flyers during the Barnard sit-in/protests last week. Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to such flyers, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen.
Not if the materials advocate for a designated terrorist organization. At least, as far as I can tell.
You're on a website that hates Trump and wants to stop him Making America Great Again. I designate The Bulwark a terrorist organization and you are a terrorist advocate.
You’re an idiot. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you’ll find yourself less ostracized by the rest of humanity. Gradually, over time, you might find yourself reintegrated into society. Until then, I wish you well.
Things will not go well for you. Outside of your very narrow social circle, people will not want to associate with you. Though I do suggest you educate yourself. Read. Do it a lot. (Alot is not a word, BTW. Many people like you don’t know that).
Here’s a start. Look up Curtis Yarvin. I know, it requires at least some effort. But you will learn some things about the people you support.
Did you just seriously stew on some random comment for an entire week?
No, I just didn’t look at it in the interim days. Not that it’s any of your business. I expect something more than small mindedness from participants in the Bulwark formums. For the most part, that’s what I find, but there are, of course, exceptions.
LOL! Don't you have some nuts to fasten to some bolts somewhere?
Exactly WHEN did America stop being great?
I've followed trump for 30 years as OPPO for the Party (yes, GOP) and know him well.
There is NOTHING about trump that is fit for the job or POTUS or leader of ANY large, complex orgaization. He has no idea how to do the job. He showed us in trump 1.0 and is again in trump 2.0. Nothing but a cluster F.
Merely being on the website would undoubtedly be legally insufficient to revoke a green card for a green card holder (again-this is all inapplicable to a US citizen who has full blown 1st Amendment protection).
I gather you - according to your statements - are a lawyer. Surely you should know that a Green Card holder is entitled to the same rights under law as an American citizen, except for the right to vote, or engage in terrorist activities (that last one is prohibited for Americans too). I'm a Scots/Canadian, and even I know that.
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.