Tag: 5th amendment

The Death of Due Process: Mahmoud Khalil

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

What in the world? This is America, after all, The Land of the Free and the Home of Constitutionally Protected Freedoms as delineated in the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Chances are pretty good that if you were to ask any average American about Mahmoud Khalil, he or she would respond with one word. “Who?” If this person derived their politics from the right side of the ledger who vigorously supports Donald Trump, then the odds go up that, on learning about the status of Mahmoud Khalil, the answer would immediately come back with double the quantity of words and heightened intensity. “Good riddance!” In this, they will echo the words of Kristi Noem, who could not let a good opportunity go to waste.

A week ago, I posted an article in which I explored the issue of Tren de Aragua, a notorious, violent, criminal gang from Venezuela which operates internationally (including the United States), and was designated by Donald Trump as a Foreign Terrorist Organization via an Executive Order on his very first day in office, second term. Since then, the administration has been active in rounding up and deporting alleged gang members back to Venezuela or shipping them off to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, whichever is easier, more effective, and less costly.

Let’s get one thing perfectly clear right now. I do not support the importation and keeping of violent criminals into this country. Undoubtedly, there are people here who ought to be removed from American society–violently, if necessary. Nevertheless, there are rules to follow in the process, the foremost among them being the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” .

Now, of course, this brings up the question of whether or not the government is operating according to the 5th Amendment. I cannot say. I don’t know. If it is, well and good. If not, then we have a problem which will only get worse as social, economic, and political circumstances worsen and degrade. In order to maintain the trust of the American people, it is incumbent on the administration to make sure it works within the law whether it advances the political agenda or not.

Which brings us to Mahmoud Khalil. Born in Syria of Palestinian origin and a citizen of Algeria, legally admitted to the US with Green Card and permanent resident status, Columbia University student, married to an American woman, soon to be a father. He was arrested in the lobby of his apartment complex in New York City, on March 08, then shipped without notice to Jena, LA, where he was held incommunicado without notice to his attorney or pregnant wife. He was the first person arrested after Trump had promised to crack down on university student protests over the conflict in Gaza.

Obviously, Khalil had broken some law or committed a crime, right? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. Right? Why else would the government go after him if he was innocent? As it turns out, he had been involved in the protests at Columbia, acting as an intermediary between the university and the main body of participants. He had been open and cooperative with the university and the media and refused to mask his face, becoming widely known to the public and giving the administration a clear target to aim at in the battle against “anti-semitism”, a term no one can define well but which is politically useful. Sort of like “freedom-fighters” and “democracy”.

Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State has alleged that Khalil engaged in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States”, but he produced no evidence to this effect and did not accuse Khalil of committing any crime whatsoever. In a court case before Jamee Conans, an immigration judge in Louisiana, Rubio brought out an arcane law as precedent to prove that he could legally deport Khalil, whether he was guilty of any wrong-doing or not. CNN described it this way.

“The administration previously said it based its deportation order for Khalil on an obscure provision from the Immigration and Nationality Act – which provides broad authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a person’s immigration status if their “activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” to the country.”

““For cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien’s presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest,” the memo from the secretary reads.”

OK, let’s get this straight. Marco Rubio has applied an obscure regulation from 1952 to justify his action against Khalil, who has not had any criminal charges filed against him. According to the memo seen above, Khalil’s “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful” are sufficient to require his deportation. His beliefs? His words? The company he keeps? Not only in the past and currently, but also those to happen at some time in the future?

What is this if not a full-throated assault on free speech in America, a guaranteed right covered by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? If any Secretary of State (there are many, they change all the time) can determine arbitrarily that a person is a “threat to national security” at any time and for any reason, and use the overwhelming power of the federal government against them, does this not rip the guts out of the 1st Amendment? Since the powers-that-be today will not be those in charge tomorrow, how can anyone be certain that what he says or believes today will not be held against him tomorrow when the politics have shifted? The fact is that he cannot and this type of action by Rubio and Trump will only have a chilling effect on what is said and done in this country.

The 5th Amendment is toast. The 1st Amendment is almost gone. With those out of the way, who can guarantee that the 2nd Amendment, the so-called Right to bear Arms, will not be targeted next? When the Goon Squad breaks down your front door to confiscate your guns, what authority can you appeal to for deliverance, especially if you have refused to stand up for those who were taken out and beaten in the War against Free Speech, Beliefs, and Friendships?

Where is Martin Niemoeller when you need him?

The Trump administration has been given the green light to deport Khalil by Jamee Comans, an immigration law judge in Louisiana, who justified her ruling based on Rubio’s statement. Khalil’s lawyers have until April 23 to appeal the decision and it is quite possible that this case will be heard all the way to the Supreme Court.

An ironic twist to this saga is that the Leftists who were so keen to cancel, censor, and silence their critics a few years ago are now howling loudly on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil, while the Rightists who complained loudly and bitterly about being told to sit down and shut up are now advocating that Khalil be treated in exactly the same way. Or worse.

Fairness, integrity, and consistency. I guess it all depends on which version of justice you subscribe to. Go figure.

Weep, Our Beloved Country

Roger Mitchell5 Comments

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/03/no_author/international-law-is-now-suspended-if-not-eliminated/

“A law cannot exist if there are individuals or organizations that fall within its scope but which stand “above the law” — can’t be prosecuted no matter how flagrantly they violate it. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION-STONE OF LAW, and if any exceptions can be allowed, those are ONLY the ones that are stated IN the law as being NOT within its scope — and, thus, the fundamental principle of law is that a law exists ONLY if all individuals or organizations that fall within its scope are subject to investigation and prosecution if they violate it. Otherwise, it’s NOT a “law.” To call it a law is false. The United States Government and its colonies such as Israel can’t be prosecuted for violating international law no matter how flagrantly they violate it. Consequently, international law no longer exists. What DOES exist, then? The traditional ethic does: Might makes right.”

Might makes right. More than anything else, this philosophy is the one which most people subscribe to and practice, regardless of what they privately espouse. It is the order of modern American politics which stands for holding to a particular model of government until power is seized, at which point all the “true” points are discarded in favor of raw power. Because we can, and the foot-soldiers in the trenches cheer and applaud everything which the top command is doing, whether it adheres to the principles espoused or not. Because the “war” must be won. By fair means or foul, and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt in the process. War is painful, after all, and the Dastardly Democrats or the Rascally Republicans must be beaten down, never to rise again, in order to usher in the Golden Age of Utopia for All Humanity. Er, I mean, all persons because it’s forbidden to create a label which includes the letters written as “…man…” Mankind, humanity, humankind, human beings, human rights, etc. All gone. All outlawed. All discarded. Because…discrimination, you know, which simply is nothing more than making a choice between different options and possibilities. There ought to be a law.

But seriously, folks.

I don’t follow Eric Zuesse. I do read his articles from time to time and I am never disappointed, even though I may disagree with him vehemently. In this case, I think he is spot on and his argument can be applied directly to what is happening today in American jurisprudence. Namely, the idea that the Executive Branch of federal government can do anything it wishes and no one will complain. Because…they can. Might makes right, indeed!

A law is not a law IF the people who administer the Law are above the Law and are not held accountable by the Law IF they transgress the Law. Can it be put more plainly than that? In other words, if Donald Trump, and Co., decide to move in a certain direction regardless of the Law, who is going to hold him (them) accountable? After all, they are the Power and, as everyone knows, Might makes Right.

Right? Of course, right.

OK, enough of beating around the bush. Let’s bring this in for a landing.

We hear all the time from “Conservatives” that we must “return” (as if we ever left it) to The Constitution (the highest law which cannot be transcended), yet the Constitution declares these rights (of the individual) to be inviolate. Meaning that they cannot be superseded by any law, whether Congressional, Judicial, or Executive, or regardless as to whether they are popular, conservatively speaking.

  1. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” .

Pretty plain, right? Cut and dried, right? No person, right? Unless, of course, this applies to an “illegal immigrant” who also happens to be a member of a “terrorist” gang (designated by the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) as a threat to the “national interest”. In that case, those who are guilty (whether they are charged or not is irrelevant) of this “crime” (violation of law) are subject to immediate deportation to their country of origin OR removal to a prison system run by the El Salvadoran government, which we pay buku bucks for, generously provided by the US taxpayer.

This does not appear to be any different than the “war” waged on La Cosa Nostra, i.e., Mafia, which has been ongoing for decades and does not appear to have an end point. Except that the action against Tren de Aragua has the support and vociferous backing of half the population of the US, which Donald Trump is counting on to allow him to completely circumvent the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which all his supporters depend on to keep the country safe from the depredations of a tyrannical government. We MUST get back to the Constitution, right? Except when it is convenient to discard it, of course.

Whatever happened to “Innocent, until Proven Guilty”? Does this mean anything, anymore?

I admit that Tren de Aragua probably is criminal. It is probably based on force, violent in nature, to achieve its ends, i.e., the compliance of those it seeks to subjugate. That being said, is there any realistic, theoretical, philosophical, difference between this one specific gang and others which are larger and have much more power, e.g., the United States of America, which can be said to impose its power and influence around the world? As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size and scope.

I could applaud the current administration for its stance and actions, except for one niggling reminder. First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist. Yes, I said nothing when those in power came for Tren de Aragua because I was not a member of the group and, besides, I liked what Trump & Co. was doing. Never mind that the end of this is that when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Should we be concerned? Absolutely, yes, we should, but not necessarily in the manner so prevalent in conservative circles today. If the government can arrest and punish anyone at all based solely on an accusation, then who is safe? Am I safe? Are you? How do you know?

“By their works, you shall know them.”

What is most interesting about the article by Eric Zuesse is that he mentions the Peasant’s Revolt of 1525, which resulted in the deaths of perhaps as many as 100, 000 common, ordinary, everyday, persons who simply wanted an end to the abuses perpetrated on them by those more powerful, and which can be summarized as follows:

“Laws should be made more equitable so that all are equal before it and no one gets harsher or more lenient treatment for the same crime.” — https://www.worldhistory.org/Twelve_Articles/

Imagine that! The Law applied equally and without discrimination! No one, not even Donald Trump, Elon Musk, nor Chuck Schumer above it!

We have a long way to go.