Judge says he will order Columbia University protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from detention
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
Mahmoud Khalil, pro-Palestinian activist, released after 104 days
Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian activist detained by the Trump administration over his ties to student protests, has been released from immigration detention after 104 days. The former Columbia University student became a symbol of the president's clampdown on campus demonstrations when he was arrested and threatened with deportation. On Friday a federal judge ruled Khalil, a green card holder married to an American, must be released on bail. He walked free from a detention centre in Louisiana and said he wanted to hug his wife and newborn son. 'Justice prevailed, but it's very long overdue,' Khalil said while wearing a keffiyeh, a black and white headscarf which has become a symbol of solidarity with Palestine. 'This shouldn't have taken three months.' He is expected to travel to New York to reunite with his family. Khalil was detained outside his apartment in New York in March over his ties to the student protests and encampments at Columbia that later spread to colleges across the nation. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, claimed that he should be deported and that his participation in 'antisemitic protests' posed a national security threat. Khalil and his supporters maintain he is innocent and that he took part in legitimate protests. He missed the birth of his son while detained. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal US resident who was not a flight risk and who had not been accused of violence. 'Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' After leaving detention Khalil condemned the White House's immigration policies. 'The Trump administration are doing their best to dehumanise everyone here,' he said of the immigrants still behind bars. 'Whether you are a US citizen, an immigrant or just a person on this land, doesn't mean that you are less of a human.' Under the terms of his release Khalil had to surrender his passport and cannot travel internationally. He can however travel within the country including to New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why is China rushing to grow its nuclear arsenal?
China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than any other country on the planet, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It estimates that Beijing now has more than 600 nuclear warheads and is adding about 100 per year to its stockpile. That means that by 2035, it will have more than 1,500 warheads, still only a third of the arsenal of each of Russia and the US, but nevertheless an enormous increase and a marked shift away from its proclaimed policy of 'minimum deterrence'. To facilitate this expanding arsenal, China is building fields of new missile silos in its western desert regions. The Federation of American Scientists, which identified the silos via satellite imagery, has described them as 'the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.' China is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime The Pentagon believes China is planning to quadruple its nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030, and its fears have been further heightened by People's Liberation Army (PLA) tests of nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons designed to evade America's nuclear defences. One test involved the launch of a rocket into space, which circled the globe before releasing into orbit a highly manoeuvrable hypersonic glider. The nuclear-capable glider – which has been likened to a weaponised space shuttle – had the ability to surf along the earth's atmosphere before powering down to its target at up to five times the speed of sound (hence the hypersonic). Hypersonic weapons are far more difficult to detect and destroy than traditional ballistic missiles. This week, China's foreign ministry spokesperson insisted: 'China has always adhered to the nuclear strategy of self-defence, always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security, and has not participated in the arms race.' This claim is almost as hackneyed as that of China's 'peaceful rise', but understanding China's evolving military doctrine is especially challenging because Beijing 'is refusing to take part in nuclear arms control talks. China last year suspended talks over arms control and nuclear proliferation with the US ostensibly because of American arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing has always been a reluctant participant. It is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime, yet there are none of the protocols and little of the depth of mutual knowledge about capabilities and intentions that existed and provided a level of stability during the last Cold War with the Soviet Union. Western strategists believe that one aim of the rapid nuclear build-up is to deter America from coming to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, and which it has repeatedly threatened to invade. The thinly disguised message to Washington is that America is deluding itself if it thinks a conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the immediate area and not endanger the American homeland. Trying to make sense of China's military doctrine is made all the more challenging by an ongoing purge at the top of the PLA and a heightened level of intrigue surrounding both the army and the Chinese Communist party (CCP). Earlier this year, General He Weidong, the number-two officer in the PLA and a member of the CCP's 24-strong politburo, was removed from his post. This followed the disappearance of Miao Hua, a navy admiral and one of six members (along with He) of the party's powerful central military commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinping. Miao was also head of the PLA's political works department – charged with ensuring CCP control over the military. The PLA is a party organisation, and in the military pecking order, Miao was regarded as more powerful even than defence minister Dong Jun. Rumours have also swirled that Dong himself has been under investigation. He appears to have survived, at least for now, but if deposed, he would be the third successive defence minister to face corruption charges. China's rocket force, the most secretive and sensitive branch of China's military responsible for overseeing in part all those shiny new nukes, has also been the target of an extensive purge. Those targeted included the two heads of the force. Among others purged have been a navy commander responsible for the South China Sea and several others responsible for procuring equipment – long a notoriously corrupt part of the military. When Xi came to power in 2012, he pledged to clean up the PLA, which ran a business empire so big that preparing for war often appeared to be a secondary concern. In spite (or possibly because of) Xi's efforts, the graft only seems to have got worse – though it should be noted that 'corruption' is frequently used as a catch-all and a pretext for the removal of those considered insufficiently loyal to the leader. Because many of those now being targeted include Xi's hand-picked officials, it will inevitably be seen as an indictment of his abilities and judgement. This week's figures from SIPRI certainly confirm the worrying extent of China's nuclear ambitions. For the country's top brass charged with wielding these fearsome weapons, however, navigating the corridors of power at the pinnacle of Xi Jinping's capricious CCP is proving considerably more dangerous than the battlefield.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Why allegations of BBC bias on Israel are becoming hard to reconcile
In April 2006 I was visited in my office by Gerald Ronson, a businessman perhaps best known at the time for spending a stretch in jail on assorted charges of conspiracy, false accounting and theft. He did not pause to take his overcoat off before launching into a diatribe: 'I've always said opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one,' he pronounced, before adding: 'I am in favour of free speech but there is a line which can't be crossed and, as far as I am concerned, you've crossed it, and you must stop this!' Ronson was not protesting about our analysis of his chequered business career, but about our coverage of Israel. With him was the then-president of the Board of Deputies, which is sometimes presented as representing the view of British Jews. It is not clear why anyone thought that Ronson would be a persuasive advocate. Over time attempts to influence British media became more sophisticated. A number of 'media monitoring groups' with bland-sounding names were established with the explicit purpose of microscopically examining every word, every picture, every inch of footage – and duly pronouncing much coverage to be biased against Israel. In parallel, selected journalists would be invited on all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to be 'briefed.' Not so long ago I myself was asked by a popular columnist if I'd like to go on such a trip – and gradually became aware that a number of distinguished journalists appeared to have seized a similar opportunity without declaring the source of funding or acknowledging the arrangements behind the briefings. The BBC has been a particular target. It is close to an article of faith for some – maybe even many – that the BBC is biased. Biased against the right, biased against Brexit, biased against ordinary working people. And biased against Israel. But not only the BBC. Sky TV is, according to one David Collier, 'a pro-terrorist propaganda channel.' But then Mr Collier has a dystopian view of the future of British Jews, tweeting recently: 'Relax. We will all be gone soon. British Jews, Israeli business. chased out by an increasingly hostile UK. And when you all sit here in a 3rd world country with an Islamic flag over Downing St. you can let us know whether it was a good idea or not.' Now Mr Collier is a dogged researcher, recently shedding light on serious flaws in a BBC documentary on Gaza. For many years he worked in hospitality and tourism, but is now an investigative journalist. He told the Times of Israel recently: 'What [The BBC] have is an engine room full of activist journalists all desperately falling over each other trying to outdo each other in finding new ways to demonise Israel.' Another prominent critic of the BBC is an English / Israeli lawyer called Trevor Asserson, who recently garnered headlines in the UK press after commissioning a report, compiled by Israeli lawyers which claimed to identify a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines in its coverage of Israel. The report was seized on by former BBC executive Danny Cohen, as demonstrating an 'institutional crisis' at the corporation. Cohen himself has founded, and chairs, the blandly-titled UK Media Research Counc il [UKMRC}, which employs a number of former Mail on Sunday and Telegraph journalists. According to Private Eye, which has been unable to establish who funds the body, it admits to 'focusing particularly on antisemitism and what they consider to be an anti-Israel narrative in the media.' Cohen himself collaborated with yet another blandly-named media monitoring outfit, Camera UK, to produce yet one more report highlighting alleged BBC bias against Israel. All this stuff is lapped up by those news organisations which instinctively rally to the Israeli cause or (an overlapping group) despise the BBC. So it was a little uncomfortable for some journalists this week when a 188-page report was published claiming to show that, far from being biased against Israel, the BBC was, in fact, biased towards Israel. The report, published on Monday, was endorsed by a number of prominent figures, including the admirable Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former chair of the Conservative Party and the first Muslim woman to serve in a British Cabinet. She wrote: 'This is no cherry-picked critique. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based indictment that cannot be ignored.' But, of course, it was ignored. The findings included claims that the BBC humanises Israeli casualties and dehumanises Palestinian ones; that Palestinian deaths make fewer headlines; that there is an extreme imbalance in reporting fatalities; that the BBC doesn't treat Palestinian sympathisers fairly; and that the context and history of the conflict is underplayed. It argues that the BBC suppresses or minimises allegations of genocide and underreports attacks on press freedom. And so on. You may agree, or disagree, with any of the above. But it's unlikely you will be aware of it. As far as I can tell no mainstream news organisation thought it was worth so much as an inch of coverage. It sank without trace. The report was praised by the former Mail and Telegraph political columnist and now award-winning blogger, Peter Oborne, as 'an outstanding and thorough examination off BBC coverage.' This cut no ice with David Collier, who tweeted: 'It is, at best, a piece of risible, inaccurate junk.' In another post, he noted that the bland-sounding organisation which had published it , The Centre for Media Monitoring, was funded by the Muslim Council for Britain (MCB). 'What a pile of absolute garbage,' he scoffed. Some critiqued that the authors had used large language models [LLMs] to help their research. They were less bothered by Trevor Asserson's use of ChatGPT to help produce his own report. Now, it would be surprising if the MCB were to sponsor a report showing the BBC was anti-Israel. Equally, hell might have to freeze over before Messrs Collier, Asserson or Cohen would come to the conclusion that the BBC was institutionally biased towards Israel. But there is some worrying asymmetry involved here. The bland-sounding pro-Israel groups are simply more numerous and better-resourced than any bland-sounding pro-Palestinian group. They have more willing amplifiers in the mainstream media. Over the years narratives are constructed and take root. And when someone comes along with a counter-narrative they are ignored. It would be unkind to call it GroupThink but there is, at the very least, a lack of balance. Which, of course, is the accusation thrown at the BBC. It all makes one rather nostalgic for Gerald Ronson and his homilies about arseholes. You knew where you were.
