Conspiracy Theories

[rainbow]

maybe this should have its own thread, but...

Does anyone have a 'non-conspiracy' theory for why a number of Biden pardons were dated back to 2014?

Nope. Nobody cares.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I don't see the 'free speech' angle. Maybe he isn't allowed to stay in the country because they want him out, but they aren't really silencing him.

Is there something he said that isn't being allowed? I mean, someone wiped some of his social media history, but it could have been him.

As to 'peaceful demonstrating', that seems quite open to interpretation. There are lots of people who would still say insurrectors tried to take over the US government, at Trumps order. Never mind that years later, Trump remains unconvicted, and all the voters got to think about 'peaceful demonstrations' and 'insurrections' before choosing this time.

So maybe he was peaceful and maybe he was calling for a 'one-state' solution.

Reminds me of how the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard was seen by people with different perspectives. Some probably still think she got the short end of the stick, and should have been defended more strongly...

They 'aren't really silencing him' eh? Maybe you could point me to his latest statement to the press? Anything he's been allowed to say publicly since he was imprisoned?

The whataboutism regarding those convicted of crimes for their attack on the US Capitol and then pardoned by the piece of shit who inspired and encouraged that attack is the usual weak and lazy bullshit so common in your posts. In any case they've been spouting their views even while imprisoned. There is no legitimate comparison given that Khalil has not even been accused of a crime.

Whether you were brave enough to state it clearly or not, your reply did answer my question. You don't actually care about the principle of free speech. Instead you use it as a rhetorical device to promote your particular view of political issues. If you think you can claim that some asshat fascist wannabe's speech is being suppressed you'll make loud noises about it, otherwise you don't actually care in the slightest.

'I Was a Columbia Student Journalist. Here’s What to Know About Mahmoud Khalil.'

You will likely ignore that information since it comes from a journalist. By all means use your own sources and maybe you could clear something up for me. Khalil was the lead negotiator with the university power structure. Why should that result in his arrest, silencing, and deportation?

[Cunt]

I don't see the 'free speech' angle. Maybe he isn't allowed to stay in the country because they want him out, but they aren't really silencing him.

Is there something he said that isn't being allowed? I mean, someone wiped some of his social media history, but it could have been him.

As to 'peaceful demonstrating', that seems quite open to interpretation. There are lots of people who would still say insurrectors tried to take over the US government, at Trumps order. Never mind that years later, Trump remains unconvicted, and all the voters got to think about 'peaceful demonstrations' and 'insurrections' before choosing this time.

So maybe he was peaceful and maybe he was calling for a 'one-state' solution.

Reminds me of how the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard was seen by people with different perspectives. Some probably still think she got the short end of the stick, and should have been defended more strongly...

They 'aren't really silencing him' eh? Maybe you could point me to his latest statement to the press? Anything he's been allowed to say publicly since he was imprisoned?

His lawyers said stuff. His wife (hiding her name to obscure how he treats his spouse(s) ) and I listened to Andrew Barca interviewed.

It doesn't sound like his subject was silenced. In fact, the noisiness of it on a campus might be part of what got his privilege revoked.

The whataboutism regarding those convicted of crimes for their attack on the US Capitol and then pardoned by the piece of shit who inspired and encouraged that attack is the usual weak and lazy bullshit so common in your posts. In any case they've been spouting their views even while imprisoned. There is no legitimate comparison given that Khalil has not even been accused of a crime.

The capitol events were not an 'insurrection'. You can tell, becasue with 4 years of lawfare, they didn't prove Trump did a insurrection. In fact, all they got him on was 34 misdemeanors elevated enough so that the gullible can fall for '34 felonies'. (again, just check 'Trump rule 34' for the facts of the matter)

Whether you were brave enough to state it clearly or not, your reply did answer my question. You don't actually care about the principle of free speech. Instead you use it as a rhetorical device to promote your particular view of political issues. If you think you can claim that some asshat fascist wannabe's speech is being suppressed you'll make loud noises about it, otherwise you don't actually care in the slightest.

'I Was a Columbia Student Journalist. Here’s What to Know About Mahmoud Khalil.'

You will likely ignore that information since it comes from a journalist. By all means use your own sources and maybe you could clear something up for me. Khalil was the lead negotiator with the university power structure. Why should that result in his arrest, silencing, and deportation?

I won't read politico at the moment. I wonder if you can say what the message is that he was silenced over. Or are you in a country that also supresses speech about the subject?

Or should I simply take what his team of lawyers say?

[aufbahrung]

Looks like a perfect storm civilization killer scenario is on the brew for the global village. Maybe time to go natural law party and bail out of our artifice driven society that like the sinking ship is gonna drag the fearful down?

[rainbow]

Looks like a perfect storm civilization killer scenario is on the brew for the global village. Maybe time to go natural law party and bail out of our artifice driven society that like the sinking ship is gonna drag the fearful down?

Everything will be fine for us in Africa

[L'Emmerdeur]

I won't read politico at the moment.

Quite right. Must preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids.

I wonder if you can say what the message is that he was silenced over. Or are you in a country that also supresses speech about the subject?

Khalil has been accused by the Trumpists of 'leading "activities aligned to Hamas"' rather than an actual crime. Clearly the Trumpist enforcers would accuse him of a crime if there were any evidence he had committed one. So those 'activities' were not crimes. He worked as a negotiator in peaceful protests against the mass slaughter of his relatives and countrymen. This was an expression of his opinion on the matter. Such peaceful non-criminal expression is supposedly protected as a right foundational to the United States. Commonly known as the 'right to free speech' under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

You may adopt a pose of myopia, unable to perceive the suppression of Khalil's free speech, while in fact they are punishing him for expressing an opinion. It's a transparent dodge: nobody is taken in by it, but it is your pose and I'll respect that.

Is it possible from that pose for you to see that this arrest is intended to send a clear message to others who might express an opinion that the current government doesn't like? That it is a means to intimidate, and demonstrates contempt for the principle of free speech?

[Cunt]

Yes, and they accused trump of lots of crazy bullshit that wasn't actual crimes, too. It's the lawyers eating each other, or oborous is the legal term, I think.

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly. He can still talk after he goes home, so I don't know why it's a free speech issue.

How many lawyers do you think he has? When you say 'peaceful protests', why did they need a negotiator? Were they peacefully blocking traffic, or interfering with some students?

But still, I don't know what he's been silenced about...is it like the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard? Too embarrassing to talk about?

[pErvinalia]

Yes, and they accused trump of lots of crazy bullshit that wasn't actual crimes, too. It's the lawyers eating each other, or oborous is the legal term, I think.

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly. He can still talk after he goes home, so I don't know why it's a free speech issue.

The first amendment applies to America, not 'back home'.

[Brian Peacock]

I won't read politico at the moment.

Quite right. Must preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids.

[Cunt]

I don't get it...

Is there a non-conspiracy theory for that Crooks murder and attempted assassination at Butler?

[JimC]

In the North Sea, a container ship with a Russian captain plowed into a tanker carrying US military fuel, all in conditions of perfect visibility...

Makes you think...

[Cunt]

In the North Sea, a container ship with a Russian captain plowed into a tanker carrying US military fuel, all in conditions of perfect visibility...

Makes you think...

that sounds as clear an attack as that pipeline attack. The one that Russia was accused of, I mean, not the chinese trawler one (or was that a comm cable?)

Or that barge taking out a major bridge in the US...

That North Sea story sounds simple, by comparison. Drunken Russain Captain decided to do what he felt he must. At least that's my bet. This would have the advantage of not having to suspect anyone further up the chain of command.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I won't read politico at the moment.

Quite right. Must preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids.

Bingo.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly. He can still talk after he goes home, so I don't know why it's a free speech issue.

How many lawyers do you think he has? When you say 'peaceful protests', why did they need a negotiator? Were they peacefully blocking traffic, or interfering with some students?

But still, I don't know what he's been silenced about...is it like the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard? Too embarrassing to talk about?

The violation of Khalil's rights has been laid out in my posts. Given your apparently skittish relation with information, I suggested you check sources you trust rather than mainstream news media. Either you don't care enough about free speech to check the facts, or the sources you trust have been silent on the issue. If the latter, doesn't that raise just a little suspicion that they're steering clear of it for a reason?

From what you've written it seems you really don't grasp the concept of free speech as protected by the US Constitution. For one thing it is a right held not only by citizens. The Constitution protects the rights of people within the borders of the United States, not just citizens.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

...

The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens’ speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens’ property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

...

In reality, the vast majority of rights outlined in the Constitution are phrased as general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people — be they citizens or some other group.

[source]

With every evasive reply you demonstrate that you're unwilling to consider even the possibility that Khalil's free speech is being suppressed. It happens that this suppression is blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't expect you to care about that. Something you've said that you do care about is free speech. You've been demonstrating that your repeated claims to hold free speech as an important principle have been nothing but empty blather. Well done, you.

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder to what extent the trusted media outlets of so-called free speech absolutist are complaining about the 22 Columbia students who've been expelled, suspended or had their degrees revoked at the behest of the Trump administration for protesting against Israel's war in Gaza? Surely they must apoplectic with rage, eh?