Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil and his supporters rally in NYC after release
Freed from Ice detention days earlier, Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil stood just outside the gates of Columbia University to renew his commitment to the cause of Palestinian freedom and opposition to both the university and the Trump administration. During a speech to the crowd, Khalil took aim at the 'shameful board of trustees at Colombia University', adding that they were 'attempting to expel 15 more students and to suspend tens of others, basically stealing their future, their degrees, their labor, merely because these students are not afraid'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
An international law expert says US strikes on Iran were illegal. Here's why
After the United States bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a 'stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror'. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying: 'The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.' Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another? I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not. Was it self-defence? Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state: the UN Security Council authorises force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7 the right of self-defence when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51. On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council has long been concerned about Iran's nuclear program and has adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force. With regard to self-defence, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there's no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US. There have been incidents involving attacks on US assets by Iranian-backed proxy groups in the region, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump made reference to historical incidents the US believes the Iranians were responsible for over the years. However, none of these actions is directly related to the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. What about a preemptive strike? Another possible ground the US can use to mount a case for its bombardments is anticipatory or preemptive self-defence. Both of these aspects of self-defence are controversial. They have never been clearly endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice. The US has sought to assert a fairly wide-ranging, robust interpretation of the right of self-defence over many years, including both anticipatory self-defence and preemptive self-defence (which is particularly relevant in the Iran strikes). The major point of distinction between the two is whether a potential attack is imminent. Anticipatory self-defence is in response to an attack on the brink of happening, such as when armed forces are massing on a border. Preemptive self-defence is a step further removed, before a genuine threat materialises. Famously, in 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush adopted what is known as the 'Bush doctrine' following the September 11 terrorist attacks. This doctrine was framed around the notion of preemptive self-defence, justifying a strike on another nation. This was one of the grounds the US used to justify its military intervention in Iraq in 2003 – that Iraq's alleged program of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the US. However, this justification was widely discredited when no evidence of these weapons was found. Did Iran pose an imminent threat? With regard to Iran's nuclear program, an imminent threat would require two things: Iran having nuclear weapons capability, and an intent to use them. On capability, there have been debates about Iran's transparency with respect to its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But, importantly, the IAEA is the body that has the authorisation and capability to make judgements about a nation's nuclear program. And it said, at this point in time, Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons capability. As Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, told the BBC: '...whereas until the early 2000s there used to be […] a structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now.' Trump's statement in which he referred to the US military operation against Iran's 'nuclear enrichment facilities' was particularly striking. There was no reference to weapons. So, even the language coming out of the White House does not make reference to Iran possessing weapons at this point in time. Further, many states have nuclear weapons capability, but they're not necessarily showing intent to use them. Iran has a long track record of aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the US. But the critical question here is whether this equates to an intent to strike. What about collective defence? Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, also arguing for the need for anticipatory or preemptive self-defence to counter the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. If Israel is exercising its right to self-defence consistently with the UN Charter, as it claims, it can legitimately call on the assistance of its allies to mount what is known as 'collective self-defence' against an attack. On all the available evidence, there's no doubt the Israelis and Americans coordinated with respect to the US strikes on June 22. At face value, this is a case of collective self-defence. But, importantly, this right is only valid under international law if the original Israeli right to self-defence is legitimate. And here, we encounter the same legal difficulties as we do with the US claim of self-defence. Israel's claim of an imminent attack from Iran is very dubious and contentious on the facts. A concerning precedent The overarching concern is that these strikes can set a precedent. Other states can use this interpretation of the right of self-defence to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations at any time they want. If this practice is allowed to go unchecked and is not subject to widespread condemnation, it can be seen by the international community as an endorsement – that this type of conduct is legitimate. There are many states acquiring conventional weapons that could be seen to pose a potential threat to their neighbours or other states. And there are several states considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons. One example is Japan, where there has been some debate about nuclear weapons as a deterrent to future possible threats from China. So, how might Japan's actions be seen by its neighbours, namely China and North Korea? And how might these countries respond in light of the precedent that's been set by the US and Israel? Should Australia condemn the US strikes? Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support of the US action, saying 'we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon'. She hasn't, however, addressed the legality of the US strikes. The Albanese government should be discussing this. There's an expectation, in particular, on the part of Labor governments, given former leader Doc Evatt's role in the creation of the UN Charter, that they show strong support for the rules-based international order. Labor governments were very critical of the way in which the Howard government engaged in the US-led invasion of Iraq, asserting there was no basis for it under international law. Accordingly, there's an expectation that Labor governments should be holding all states accountable for egregious breaches of international law. And, when viewed through the lens of international law, there's no other way you can characterise the US strikes on Iran.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Student loan caps could hit minorities, low-ranked law schools the hardest
June 23 (Reuters) - Aspiring attorneys who can't afford full law school tuition could end up paying more for their degrees while some might get shut out of law school altogether under a pending Republican proposal to cap student loan borrowing, according to three legal education finance experts and three law deans. The budget reconciliation bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May and is currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate, with proposed annual caps ranging from $50,000 to about $77,000 and aggregate borrowing caps of $150,000 to $200,000 for professional degrees. The House and Senate proposals differ slightly. The current federal loan system allows students to borrow the total amount of their tuition and living expenses at fixed interest rates. An earlier federal cap on graduate loans was eliminated in 2006 under George W. Bush's presidency. The proposed cap would require students who hit the limit to secure private loans if they need more money, which could mean higher interest rates for borrowers. It would apply to all professional degree programs, but students pursuing high-cost programs including law and medical degrees would feel its impact most heavily, education experts said. Law students on average borrowed $146,800 in 2020, the most recent data from AccessLex Institute shows — the highest outside of medical degree programs. The percentage of law students who took out loans for law schools was 76%, up from 71% four years earlier, according to AccessLex. The average annual tuition at private law schools was $57,860 in 2024, while public school tuition was an average $31,431, the AccessLex data shows, though financial aid brings those totals down for many students. Proponents of capping loans say the current system has incentivized colleges and universities to increase tuition and has made it too easy for students to enroll in programs with low employment outcomes at taxpayers' expense. Graduates are then saddled with decades of student loan payments. "By capping inflationary graduate loan programs, we prevent students from overborrowing and put downward pressure on rising college costs," said U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and a Republican, in an email to Reuters last week. The cap would be felt most deeply at low-ranked and unranked law schools because some students will struggle to secure private loans, said AccessLex President Chris Chapman, whose organization previously issued private graduate loans but is now a nonprofit advocate for law school access and affordability. Those law schools tend to have lower employment rates and higher borrowing — red flags for lenders. Lenders are likely to examine applicants' grades and scholarships in addition to their job prospects and finances, Chapman said, and those deemed too risky could be denied. Particularly vulnerable are less-affluent students who may have trouble securing loan co-signers, said University of California, Irvine School of Law Dean Austen Parrish. A 2023 analysis, opens new tab of law school debt-to-income ratios by Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller had found that at more than a quarter of American Bar Association-accredited law schools, graduates had a median cumulative debt that was more than twice their annual income one year after graduation. For example, the median debt of graduates of unranked Cooley Law School, which has campuses in Lansing, Michigan, and Tampa, Florida, was $202,668, while their median earnings were $40,967, the study showed. Cooley did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment. Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, also unranked, had a median debt of $193,041 and median $48,790 in annual earnings, the study found. The school declined to comment. Lower-ranked and unranked law schools in general have higher minority and first-generation enrollment. A study, opens new tab by the Law School Admission Council found that minority students made up 42% of 2024's first-year class among the top quarter of schools when grouped by their selectivity, but 51% at the bottom quarter of schools. Cooley's most recent first-year class was 36% students of color — just below the national average of 37% — while Atlanta's John Marshall was much higher at nearly 76%, American Bar Association data shows. If students at lower-ranked and unranked law schools hit the cap but can't secure private loans or enough financial aid, it could mean a decline in law student racial and socioeconomic diversity, said Ronald Weich, dean of Seton Hall University School of Law — a private law school with $67,300 in annual tuition and a first-year class that was nearly 38% students of color in 2024. 'This will make the profession less inclusive,' Weich said. Read more: US Education Department closure imperils law school finances, deans say Stanford Law to fund student loan alternative based on grads' future earnings
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Wyoming man arrested after causing 1,000-person chaos at school debate
A Wyoming man triggered a thousand-person stampede at a national high school debate tournament after storming the stage. Jayden Roccaforte, 22, a four-time national champion in speech and debate, was arrested on Thursday, June 19 at the 2025 National Speech and Debate Tournament in Des Moines, Iowa. A video shows Roccaforte swaying on stage with a backpack, making unsettling gestures and launching into a bizarre 'knock knock' joke that quickly spiraled into panic. 'You wanna hear a joke?' he asked the crowd, before shouting 'Knock knock!' and crouching over his bag as if to pull something out - prompting someone to ask, 'Run away?' Moments later, thousands began to flee the venue. According to Des Moines police, Roccaforte now faces a charge of disorderly conduct and two counts of drug possession. On Friday, June 20, district spokesperson Mary Quast told Cowboy State Daily that Roccaforte was neither an employee nor a volunteer and had no affiliation with the school's speech and debate program. But conflicting accounts and screenshots tell a different story. Screenshots reviewed by Cowboy State Daily show that Roccaforte was added to a group chat with East High students and coaches on June 11, and remained in the chat until being removed after Thursday's incident. An August 2024 blog post by One Clap Speech and Debate had previously described Roccaforte as someone who coached East High students after graduating. Now a student at West Kentucky University, Roccaforte reportedly traveled to the tournament independently - but he was seen wearing an orange 'attendee' ribbon, which according to tournament rules, means a school approved his presence on-site. Both a parent and a student told Cowboy State Daily that Roccaforte was with the East High team throughout the day on Thursday - traveling in a school district vehicle and even joining students and coaches for meals. 'He was kind of just hanging out with people,' one student said. 'There wasn't really anyone to coach at that point; we were just going there to (perform).' Later that night, at 9.45pm, East High head coach Marcus Viney sent an email to tournament attendees confirming that Roccaforte was a former student of the program but had traveled to the event 'independently… with the intent to celebrate an important team award.' On Friday afternoon, assistant coach Ashley Schulz sent a group message to students warning them not to speak with reporters: 'If anyone gets contacted by the news, we are not allowed to speak with them at all. The district will comment. NOT us.'
