Khalil's 'horrendous' 104 days in custody
Mahmoud Khalil, one of the most prominent leaders of pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses, recounted his experience surviving 104 days in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention after being targeted for deportation by the Trump administration.
"I shared a dorm with over 70 men, absolutely no privacy, lights on all the time," the 30-year-old said Sunday on the steps of Columbia University, where he was a graduate student.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the United States who is married to an American citizen and has a US-born son, had been in custody since March facing potential removal proceedings.
He was freed from a federal immigration detention centre in Jena, Louisiana on Friday, hours after a judge ordered his release on bail.
The activist was a figurehead of student protests at Columbia University against US ally Israel's war in Gaza, and the administration of Donald Trump labelled him a national security threat.
"It's so normal in detention to see men cry," Khalil recalled, deeming the situation "horrendous" and "a stain on the US Constitution."
"I spent my days listening to one tragic story after another: listening to a father of four whose wife is battling cancer, and he's in detention," Khalil detailed in his first protest appearance since regaining his freedom.
"I listened to a story of an individual who has been in the United States for over 20 years, all his children are American, yet he's deported."
The circumstances of the detention were tough, Khalil described, and he took solace where he could find it to gain the strength to carry on.
"It is often hard to find patience in ICE detention," Khalil said.
"The centre is crowded with hundreds of people who are told that their existence is illegal, and not one of us knows when we can go free.
"At those moments, it was remembering a specific chant that gave me strength : 'I believe that we will win,'" he continued, to cheers from the audience.
Khalil said he even scratched the phrase into his detention center bunk bed as a reminder, being the last thing he saw when he went to sleep and the first thing he read waking up in the morning.
He repeats it even now, "knowing that I have won in a small way by being free today."
Khalil took specific aim at the site of his speech, Columbia University, chastising the institution for saying "that they want to protect their international students, while over 100 (days) later, I haven't received a single call from this university."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Judicial credibility hangs in balance
Listen to article As the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench (CB) gears up to resume hearing on review petitions against the majority verdict in the reserved seats case on Thursday, speculation is swirling about the direction of the decision and the political tremors it may unleash. Experts believe the ruling will rest on how the court chooses to read the Constitution: either with a microscope or a magnifying glass. Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana notes that the fate of the case hinges on two distinct interpretative approaches to the Constitution: a literal and pedantic reading, treating the Constitution as an ordinary statute or a liberal and organic interpretation that upholds foundational constitutional values. "It is a test of the judiciary when judging the state (Paula Newberg) whether it follows and upholds the Constitution by approaching it with the latter rules of interpretation or it follows the former rules," Rana stated. He added that from a historical perspective, the judiciary has been split into two camps: one aligned with the tradition of Justice Cornelius and the other with that of Justice Munir. "Choices are simple. The Court either follows constitutional faith or continues with idolatry of necessity. In the ultimate analysis, the faith of people in the judicial system as an independent arbiter of justice and the rule of law is at stake." The reserved seats case is pivotal in determining whether Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) secures 23 additional National Assembly seats, which would significantly affect the power balance in the lower house and determine whether the ruling coalition secures a two-thirds majority. To date, the judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah – and endorsed by seven other judges – has not been implemented by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), despite being nearly a year old. Observers note that four judicial opinions were rendered in the case. Among them is the second opinion, authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and supported by then chief justice Qazi Faez Isa. This view, widely referred to as the "Mandokhail Formula," allows PTI some representation in the National Assembly. Should this view be endorsed by a new majority, the ruling coalition could achieve a two-thirds majority, while PTI reclaims a parliamentary presence. A senior lawyer commented that endorsement of Justice Mandokhail's view could offer a "win-win situation" for both the government and PTI: the ruling alliance gets its supermajority, and PTI regains entry into Parliament. The third opinion was penned by Justice Aminuddin Khan, head of the CB, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. They dismissed the Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) petition, upholding both the Peshawar High Court and ECP decisions, which held that reserved seats could not be allocated to SIC. Their opinion called for the redistribution of the 78 unallocated seats among all qualifying parties, especially the PML-N and PPP. Justice Amin's role as the CB's presiding judge gives his position added weight, and notably, six new judges have joined the current bench. However, none of the six judges who were part of the original bench are included in the review proceedings. Even two judges who had earlier endorsed the majority order are not publicly supporting the July 12 judgement in court. One judge, during recent hearings, even used the term "biased" to describe the original majority decisionan unprecedented move that has added further uncertainty to the case's outcome. Meanwhile, debate is growing over whether the new majority will side with Justice Amin's stance or adopt the Mandokhail formula. Legal insiders note that although two judges – Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi – have already dismissed the review petitions and their votes will count in the final decision, many believe the July 12 majority judgement may not survive the ongoing review. Some pro-government legal voices claim that the 27th Constitutional Amendment is under discussion, allegedly aiming to restructure judicial authority over the long term. This has reignited debate on whether judicial independence, a core feature of the Constitution, is being preserved or compromised. Notably, petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment have yet to be scheduled by the CB, despite repeated calls from senior SC judges. Observers argue that the judges who benefited from the 26th Amendment appear less concerned about judicial independence than those who were sidelined by it. Though the government appears confident about the outcome, the bench is reportedly eager to conclude the review proceedings swiftly. PTI's counsel, Hamid Khan, has requested adjournment until August 5, citing his general adjournment, but sources suggest the court is unlikely to delay proceedings, especially with judges' summer vacations already in effect.
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
News stories for Nasim Zehra
The Israeli aggression against Iran launched only two days prior to the resumption of Iran-US talks on Iran's...
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Anatomy of the war and a steadfast Pakistan
The Israeli aggression against Iran launched only two days prior to the resumption of Iran-US talks on Iran's nuclear programme was intended to sabotage the talks and clear the way for an Israeli attack on Iran. Six factors regarding Israel's aggression are significant. First, it had the full backing of the Donald Trump's administration. Key Washington insiders plus Donald Trump himself publicly said they were told about the Israeli attack before it was launched. By all CNN and BBC accounts, the US President chaired a meeting two days prior to the Israeli attack at Camp David to clear the Tel Aviv attack plan with all his top advisors. Clearly, without the US clearance Israel could not have launched the attack since it was, as always, going to bank upon US military support. Second, the US-Iran talks were going well. In March, the head of US Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had testified in a Congressional hearing that Iran was honoring its commitments made to the US and Ayatullah Ali Khamenai's 2003 public edict that Iran will not make a nuclear bomb was being followed by the Iranian government. She had said Iran is at least three years away from making a nuclear bomb. It was clear that Donald Trump with his key political and strategic partner, Israel, wanted to use force to attempt the impossible, i.e., complete destruction of Iran's nuclear programme. In his last Administration Trump had torn apart the JCPOA agreement in 2018 that the Obama administration in a 5 plus 1 framework had negotiated with Iran. Hence Trump was determined, irrespective of US's own intel conclusion that Iran must not have a nuclear programme. Evidently naïve in his understanding of Iran's determination regarding retaining a programme, he wanted Iran to give up its nuclear programme the way Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, and South Africa did. Third, the US and Israeli calculation was that with all their war machine, the unquestioned support of majority of western countries and their strategic partner India, Iran located in a stranglehold context with majority of the Gulf states not only offering tacit support to Israel and the US but also with 40,000 plus US troops and its multiple warships loaded with fourth and fifth generation fighter jets, etc., the Islamic republic would be an easy prey. Additionally, they were banking on Iranians to rise up against the current Iranian regime. Mossad and the CIA had been preparing the deposed Shah of Iran's son to come and take over after the regime collapse. He was regularly trying to beam messages to the Iranians, saying Israel is not against people, but against the 'horrible' government. A fanciful plan in which two days ago US administration reportedly had asked Elon Musk to manage digital penetration into Iran so the 'new' CIA-Mossad-Shah's message to 'his' people could be freely beamed throughout Iran. Fourth, the Iranian security and intelligence network had been penetrated for a while. In fact, the first was the top IGRC Commander in 2000. This time hence the beginning of the Iranian attack was synchronized with assassinating about ten top level nuclear scientists, several top commanders and Khamenei's top advisor. Such an across-the-board deadly massacre was calculated to have destroyed the will and the morale along with almost obliterating Iran's nuclear brains and the expertise. Fifth, the Trump administration along with Israelis had long planned to destroy current Iranian regime, not just the nuclear programme. The plan was to follow their earlier model of regime change and installation of pro-US-Israel regimes. Or, at least, non-confrontational regimes. As General Wellesely Clark pointed out that twenty plus years ago the plan was removal of 7 regimes. Iran was the last among those that had to be ambushed and destroyed. Sixth, the Israel-US joint plan was to use B2 bombers with bunker busting bombs to completely destroy or obliterate the nuclear sites. But this has not been achieved, according to even many noted American nuclear experts. After all what began during Trump's last administration as the Abraham Accords could not be implemented without destruction of this Iranian regime. A friendly and peaceful region that is conceived with Palestinians getting the statehood that multiple UNSC resolutions have committed to them would be viable but one that envisages genocide of the Palestinians that we are witnessing cannot be viable. Israel-US plan masterminded by the US strategic guru, a brilliant mind and a pro-Zionist ideologically, had conceived through salami tactics to divide and conquer politically, economically and strategically the Arab world where the Greater Israel plan could be comfortably planted. Iran fought back, did not buckle under pressure, wasn't defeated through surprise, deception, war machine, destruction within, deaths of its civilians and much more. The war has left Iran in a very difficult position, economically especially. However, Iran's very costly but heroic survival despite the multiple force and multiple nation' onslaught means, for now at least, the last bastion against US and Israel domination is still in place. For Iran diplomacy was never on offer. All the talk by the Trump administration for diplomacy, peace and negotiations was meant to deflect from the harsh reality that Iran was being bombed to surrender. The occasionally candid Trump even messaged on X unconditional surrender! Israel has been defeated in a war that it arrogantly and confidently began with the total military, diplomatic and political support of the United States, India and almost all the western countries. Iran has won the war! This is the most significant victory in the last half a century of any country against Israel and the bunch of it backers. And, the victor happens to be a non-Arab Islamic country, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israel's genocide in Gaza now needs to be stopped through action, not words alone. Meanwhile, Pakistan has again demonstrated that we follow the legacy of the founder of the nation. In the true spirit of our Quaid, who valiantly stood up for Palestinian rights when Pakistan was not even 6-month-old, each and every government of Pakistan has largely stood for the rights of Islamic countries. And so did this government. Pakistan without reference to Iran's track on supporting Pakistan when Pakistan's genuine friends should have, Pakistan led from the front in rallying diplomatic support for Iran. Pakistan took a bold and principled stance against Israeli aggression from the moment Israel, backed by the US, India and most western capitals, consistently aggressed against Iran. Whether in Pakistan, New York or DC, all of Pakistan's top office holders and military commanders condemned Israeli attacks on Iran in violation of all rules and norms of international law. Pakistan condemned US by name in its official statement for attacking Iran's nuclear sites in violation of international law. Iran's realpolitik manual would do well to include the principle that only real friends show up in crisis! And meanwhile Pakistan must be more mindful of handing out Nobel Prize nominations! Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
