Released Palestinian student to meet with Vermont governor and lawmakers
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Justice is inevitable. We will not fear anyone because our fight is a fight for love, a fight for democracy, a fight for humanity,' Mahdawi told supporters outside the courthouse last week.
Advertisement
He will join Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak, Senate Majority Leader Kesha Ram Hinsdale and community advocates at the Statehouse to announce the Vermont Immigration Legal Defense Fund. The group, which also includes lawyers and philanthropists, says the goal is to improve access to legal advice for immigrants and build long-term infrastructure within the justice system as it pertains to immigration law.
Members of Vermont's congressional delegation have spoken up on Mahdawi's behalf, as have state politicians. Vermont's House and Senate passed resolutions condemning the circumstances of his detention and advocating for his release and due process rights.
Advertisement
Republican Gov. Phil Scott has said there is no justification for the manner in which Mahdawi was arrested, at an immigration office in Colchester.
'Law enforcement officers in this country should not operate in the shadows or hide behind masks,' the governor said the next day. 'The power of the executive branch of the federal government is immense, but it is not infinite, and it is not absolute.'
Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident, was born in a refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and moved to the United States in 2014. At Columbia, he organized campus protests and co-founded the Palestinian Student Union with Mahmoud Khalil, another Palestinian permanent resident of the U.S. and graduate student who was arrested in March.
His release, which is being challenged by the government, allows him to travel outside of his home state of Vermont and attend his graduation from Columbia in New York later this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation. Uribe was shot on Saturday as he addressed a small crowd of people who had gathered in a park in Bogota's Modelia neighborhood. On Sunday hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital where Uribe is being treated to pray for his recovery. Some carried rosaries in their hands, while others chanted slogans against President Gustavo Petro. 'This is terrible' said Walter Jimenez a lawyer who showed up outside the hospital, with a sign calling for Petro's removal. 'It feels like we are going back to the 1990's,' he said, referring to a decade during which drug cartels and rebel groups murdered judges, presidential candidates and journalists with impunity. Petro has condemned the attack and urged his opponents to not use it for political ends. But some Colombians have also asked the president to tone down his rhetoric against opposition leaders. The assassination attempt has stunned the nation, with many politicians describing it as the latest sign of how security has deteriorated in Colombia, where the government is struggling to control violence in rural and urban areas, despite a 2016 peace deal with the nation's largest rebel group. The attack on Uribe comes amid growing animosity between Petro and the Senate over blocked reforms to the nation's labor laws. Petro has organized protests in favor of the reforms, where he has delivered fiery speeches referring to opposition leaders as 'oligarchs' and 'enemies of the people." 'There is no way to argue that the president… who describes his opponents as enemies of the people, paramilitaries and assassins has no responsibility in this' Andres Mejia, a prominent political analyst, wrote on X. The Attorney General's office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene of the attack against Uribe. Videos captured on social media show a suspect shooting at Uribe from close range. The suspect was injured in the leg and was recovering at another clinic, authorities said. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez added that over 100 officers are investigating the attack. On Monday, Colombia's Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said that minors in Colombia face sentences of up to eight years in detention for committing murders. Camargo acknowledged that lenient sentences have encouraged armed groups to recruit minors to commit crimes. However, she said that Colombian law also considers that minors who are recruited by armed groups are victims, and is trying to protect them. 'As a society we need to reflect on why a minor is getting caught up in a network of assassins, and what we can do to stop this from happening in the future' she said.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?
President Trump's sweeping new travel ban went into effect on Monday, barring citizens of 12 countries from visiting the United States and imposing restrictions on those from seven others. In a video message last week announcing the ban, Trump cited national security concerns, claiming that foreigners who were not properly vetted posed a terror risk. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' Trump said. The president also cited the recent attack in Boulder, Colo., by a man who allegedly shouted 'Free Palestine' and threw Molotov cocktails into a crowd of people calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said. 'We don't want them.' The suspect, identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, was arrested and charged with a hate crime. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman is from Egypt and had overstayed a tourist visa. Egypt is not among the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. The ban, which went into effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET, prohibits foreign nationals from the following countries from entering the U.S.: Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar (Burma) Somalia Sudan Yemen It imposes partial restrictions on foreign nationals from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela There are numerous groups of people who are exempt from Trump's new travel ban. They include: Any lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dual citizens, or U.S. citizens who also have citizenship of one of the banned countries. Athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events determined by the U.S. secretary of state. Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked for the U.S. government or its allies during the war in Afghanistan. Children adopted by U.S. citizens. Diplomats and foreign government officials or representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits. Foreign national employees of the U.S. government who have served abroad for at least 15 years, their spouses and children. Individuals with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection to their spouses, children or parents. Iranians belonging to an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution. Refugees who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. before the ban. Those traveling to the United Nations headquarters in New York solely on official business. The announcement angered humanitarian groups working to resettle refugees. 'President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' Amnesty International USA said in a statement posted to X. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' "This policy is not about national security,' Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, said in a statement. 'It is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States." 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace,' Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' The African Union Commission released a statement expressing concern about 'the potential negative impact' of the ban on educational exchange, commerce and engagement and the 'broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' The commission said it 'respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' The new travel ban is similar to the one Trump imposed in January 2017, his first month in office. That ban restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Syria and Iraq are not included on the new list.) It went into effect via an executive order with virtually no notice, causing chaos at airports nationwide and prompting numerous legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a version of it in 2018. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told the New York Times that the new ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Vladeck said. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced.'
