Mahmoud Khalil vows to continue protesting Israel and the war in Gaza after release from detention
Advertisement
Joining Khalil at the airport, Ocasio-Cortez said his detention violated the First Amendment and was 'an affront to every American.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'He has been accused, baselessly, of horrific allegations simply because the Trump administration and our overall establishment disagrees with his political speech,' she said.
'The Trump administration knows that they are waging a losing legal battle,' Ocasio-Cortez added. 'They are violating the law, and they know that they are violating the law.'
Khalil, a 30-year-old legal resident whose wife gave birth during his 104 days of detention, said he also will speak up for the immigrants he left behind in the detention center.
'Whether you are a citizen, an immigrant, anyone in this land, you're not illegal. That doesn't make you less of a human,' he said.
Advertisement
Khalil was not accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However the administration has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country for expressing views it considers to be antisemitic and 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal resident who was unlikely to flee and had not been accused of any violence. The government filed notice Friday evening that it was appealing Khalil's release.
Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
23 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why markets are weirdly calm after the US bombed Iran
The US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. Traders expected volatility on Monday, but markets have been unexpectedly calm. That likely reflects uncertainty, the timing of the bombings, and Iran's limited retaliation options. Investors were bracing for a wild day of trading on Monday after the US bombed Iran on Sunday, but world markets are surprisingly calm. As of 5:30 a.m. ET, US stock futures, Treasury yields, and gold have barely budged, crude oil prices are up only 0.3%, the US Dollar Index is 0.7% higher, and bitcoin has erased its dip to below $99,000 to trade at about $101,500. The US used "bunker busters" to strike Iran's underground nuclear infrastructure. President Donald Trump hailed the damage as "monumental" and warned of further strikes if Iran retaliates. The Iranian parliament has voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes about a fifth of the world's oil and gas. Government officials have said "all options" are on the table, yet financial markets appear largely unperturbed. One reason is uncertainty over what comes next. Iran is yet to retaliate, meaning the possibility of a one-off US military engagement instead of a prolonged conflict hasn't been ruled out. Iran seems to have limited options, given it relies on oil revenue from the Strait and may not want to anger its oil-exporting neighbors, and has fewer proxies and allies willing or able to help than in the past. The US has also emphasized it targeted nuclear sites, meaning Iran might retaliate against military targets if it does take action, preventing a full-blown war from breaking out. The fact the strikes occurred over the weekend has given traders time to process the potential fallout. If they happened during market hours, they might have taken knee-jerk actions with a "better safe than sorry" mindset, given the risk of being exposed and suffering big losses. Investors have also been pricing in geopolitical risks for months, especially given the Israel-Hamas conflict and Israel's recent attacks on Iranian military leaders and Tehran's proxies such as Hezbollah. However, Trump has raised the prospect of "regime change" and suggested further strikes aren't off the table, meaning the possibility of escalation remains. The president's tariffs have already muddied the outlook for global growth, and the renewed possibility of America getting roped into a military campaign in the Middle East once again gives investors plenty to chew over. It's clear a market panic hasn't taken hold as yet, but the US strikes have created a dust cloud of uncertainty and raised additional risks to market watchers.
Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump's Iran gamble could end in war — or a Nobel Prize
While many are applauding President Donald Trump's bold conduct in striking Iran's nuclear arsenal, one wonders if there can really be a shortcut between the present situation and the desired political end: peace in the Middle East., The past gives us pause and reminds us to consider what the end game is for Trump and the U.S., and to try to avoid the unfortunate necessity of a bloody attempt by each side to make its point. It reminds me of June 1967, when we destroyed the Arab air forces in one swift blow. When I and my Israeli Air Force comrades were able to get out of our airbase on our first leave, we were pulled out of our vehicle and carried on the shoulders of a jubilant crowd. Except that our Arab enemies didn't surrender. Recuperating from their defeat, they launched the War of Attrition against us, and subsequently the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which, eventually, led to the 1978-1979 Camp David Accords and the peace between Israel and Egypt. It seems, then, that enemies have to go through a difficult process of fiercely trying to pursue their goals until the bitter reality forces them to compromise. Unfortunately, reason prevails only after a lot of blood has been shed. The horrific Hamas attacks on Israel in Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel's retaliation in Gaza are examples of that truth. Every war has to serve a political end, and that end is a peace which is better than the one which had existed before the war. In the current conflict with Iran, Israel, while aiming at destroying as much as possible of Iran's nuclear project and missile launching capabilities, wasn't entirely clear about the kind of political goals it had been pursuing, which led it to waver and even muse about a regime change in Iran. The U.S., on the contrary, was clear: Surrender unconditionally, President Trump said to the Iranians. Come back to the table to negotiate a deal by which you won't have any nuclear program. In case you don't understand, we are sending bombs, with more to come if you dare to retaliate. It seems unlikely that the proud Iranians, after insisting they wouldn't negotiate under threat and vowing to retaliate if attacked by the U.S., would simply do nothing and come back subdued to the negotiating table. America, on the other hand, given Trump's bravado, would find it hard not to hit back if Iran attacks its assets. So are we doomed to see this tragic scenario materialize? Not if both sides think outside the box. Here's an idea: The Iranians, knowing perfectly well that an all-out attack on American assets might cause the fall of their regime, could consider carrying out a symbolic attack, declaring victory and coming back to the table, while saving face. Then Trump should swallow his pride and ego, strike back moderately and declare himself the greatest peacemaker ever. This might lead to a better nuclear deal with Iran, the end of war in Gaza and the possibility of the greater deal Trump envisions: Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the Nobel Peace Prize. Uri Dromi was the spokesman for the Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres governments from 1992-1996.
Chicago Tribune
32 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dan Tully: I trust my fellow service members will abide by the Constitution
Having served as a captain and judge advocate in the Army Reserve, graduated from Stanford Law School and deployed overseas in Iraq, I have thought deeply about military command and the obligations incurred by swearing an oath to the Constitution. These concerns weigh especially heavily as President Donald Trump deploys active-duty military members as a show of force against peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles and potentially here in Chicago. I want my fellow citizens to know something important. I trust the common sense and decency of my fellow American service members. I have served alongside them, some who consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans. I know they understand how grave and serious it would be to use force against their countrymen and countrywomen. Let me explain why. All service members swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Enlisted service members continue swearing to 'obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,' expressly conditioned by, 'according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).' With that condition, the enlisted oath is not absolute; if an order is unlawful, an enlisted service member is responsible not to obey. The obedience language is absent from the officer oath. Instead, officers swear to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.' In short, while all members of the military must act in accordance with the UCMJ, each officer must exercise an even higher level of responsibility, remaining loyal not to a president but to the Constitution. No service member should ever follow a clearly unlawful command, especially when that command is to harm unarmed, peaceful citizens of their own country. It is infuriating that we are even in this situation. Trump doesn't care about members of the military, referring to fallen soldiers as 'suckers' and 'losers' for not escaping their obligations as he did during the Vietnam War. He denigrates the records of patriots such as the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, degrading his war hero status. He has saddled them with an incompetent secretary of defense in Pete Hegseth. Most dangerously, Trump intentionally disregards centuries of the military's most essential tradition of nonpartisanship, eroding American faith in our most trusted institution. What troubles many of us in the military — something I would advise my fellow soldiers and commanders to consider — is the terrifying prospect of an unlawful order coming down from this reckless president. Trump has openly mused about service members using lethal force to control protesters, portraying them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. In fact, it's the opposite: The protesters are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly in support of the 14th Amendment rights of people being kidnapped and deported without due process. To the extent that there have been acts of violence and vandalism in the vicinity of the protests, those acts are unlawful. Police in our cities are fully capable of addressing the situation. Protests — even ones that include civil disobedience — should not be met with violence unless there is no other option available. But this president believes violence against our citizens is an acceptable first choice because he doesn't value the rule of law or, by his own admission, his duty to uphold our Constitution. American military members are trained and proficient at understanding the conditions under which it is lawful to use force in the heat and exercise of war. They are taught to obey the chain of command, especially on a battlefield. Unit cohesion and effectiveness depend on the obedience of orders. But a service member is not a robot, blindly obligated to fulfill a command received from a superior with no application of context or thought. Especially if that command is given outside the theater of war, with no imminent danger to personnel, and even more so when present on the streets of an American city where the people those soldiers swore to defend are petitioning the actions of their government. American soldiers have misused lethal force in the past, and they have faced consequences. Second Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was convicted by court martial of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese in the famous My Lai massacre. He was convicted because the threshold for disobeying an order is, according to the Manual for Military Courts-Martial and case law, 'a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.' With a president so intent on sowing chaos every day, it must be a difficult position for the American troops who have deployed to Los Angeles and are rumored to be on their way to other cities. But Americans stand up to do what's right in difficult moments all the time. We must not forget that there are numerous institutions available to us all to safeguard our rights. Our military, state and federal criminal justice systems are populated with true patriots who believe in the rule of law. This is, ultimately, why I trust that our service members will do the right thing when the time comes. They have been trained well, and they know their obligations to their country. I have sworn an oath to the Constitution three times — as a lawyer, an Army officer and a federal civil servant. The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law of the land. Even if our president won't abide by it, I trust my fellow service members will.
