Judge Orders Trump to Release Georgetown Student Who Allegedly Praised Hamas
Also, Badar Khan Suri is married to Mapheze Saleh, an American citizen, the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas official.
Ah, I see the media is up to its tricks regarding Georgetown doctoral student Badar Khan Suri, an Indian national.
Judge Patricia Giles of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to release Suri after two months of detention in Texas for allegedly violating his student visa.
Giles released Suri “without bond and imposed minimal conditions beyond requiring him to continue attending court proceedings.”
The media glosses over the root of the problem regarding Suri. They’ve done the bare minimum while burying the lede: DHS accused Suri of spreading Hamas propaganda and antisemitism on social media and has links to Hamas.
Suri is married to Mapheze Saleh, an American citizen, the daughter of Ahmed Yousef.
Yousef served as an advisor to Ismail Haniyeh…a top Hamas leader taken out by Israel in Tehran in July 2024. Also:
Ahmed Yousef was a senior Hamas figure in Gaza and an adviser to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. He also founded the United Association for Studies and Research, which had ties to officials at Georgetown and its Alwaleed Center where his son-in-law, Suri, now works. The United Association for Studies and Research was a Hamas-affiliated think tank that operated in the United States from 1989 to 2004. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, it was established by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and served as a front for Hamas activities in the United States, including propaganda and fundraising.
In February, Anna Staley of the Middle East Forum, documented Suri’s praise and support of Hamas. Some posts even tried to legitimize Hamas’s brutality.
Suri denied the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The post is deleted, but Staley said Suri wrote: “Three lies by Israeli occupation, no proof whatsoever of babies beheaded, rapes or mass killings at carnival.”
A few years ago, Suri showed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a now-deleted post: “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen.”
Then there was a video:
Perhaps most disturbingly, Suri posted a video showing Hamas terrorists holding Israeli child hostages and wrote, “This is how Hamas men dealt with kids on Oct. 7.” Rather than condemn the horrifying abduction of Israeli children, Suri appeared to defend and even praise how Hamas militants “dealt” with the children.
[Featured image via YouTube]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
the question is what do non citizens have as rights when in the usa?
they do have the first amendment but can also legally purchase a weapon
etc etc
so then the answer is
stop giving them the right to be here
the have no right, only permission to be here
If they have first amendment rights then they should have second amendment rights. I certainly don’t want them to have second amendment rights, but it is a line of argument to show they don’t have full first amendment rights.
Do they, really?
I volunteered for many years as an NRA firearms safety instructor. My chief instructor was a jovial Scottish senior who was a permanent legal resident but never got naturalized. In his prime he was a nationally ranked silhouette competitor. He had a fine collection of guns… but none of them were his. They were all in his (citizen) wife’s name, as he was unable to purchase or own any firearms. It as perfectly legal for him to access and use them, but not to buy or own them. And I’m pretty sure it was NOT just a Massachusetts thing.
There are ways for legal permanent residents to purchase firearms. Usually it involves getting a hunter safety certificate but I’m not familiar with the exact process.
Green Card holders have been allowed to purchase firearms for as long as I can remember, subject to the same restrictions any US citizen may be subject to depending on the state they live in.
Everyone in the USA, citizen or alien, resident or tourist, legal or illegal, has the same protection. The constitution itself says so.
And yes, that does mean the second amendment too, but the courts have so far ignored that. For that matter, until just recently they’ve been ignoring the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms in states where they don’t live. It’s only recently that the states have been ordered to create a process for nonresidents to be able to get a gun permit, and some of these processes have been made as arduous as possible in the hope that few people will go through with them. In practice the RKBA is still treated as a second-class right, and it will take at least another decade to correct that, if not longer.
An argument has been made that since the second amendment refers to the RKBA as a “right of the people”, it doesn’t protect aliens, since they are not of “the people”. The problem with that argument is that it must also apply to the fourth amendment, and to the rights of assembly and petition in the first amendment, and to the retained rights in the ninth and tenth. And no one would suggest that aliens can be searched and arrested at will, or that they can be banned from rallying.
any allowance to the country to go to school CAN AND SHOULD BE given limitations …cant be involved in protests etc
if that is ruled unconstitutional then ,,,again,,dont give them the right to legally go to school etc in the usa
Sure, release him … back into his own country.
The judge is a POC nominated by Pedo Joe, so of course she’s going to engage in a little judicial activism.
Sick of these “judges” making up shit from the bench. Non-citizens do not enjoy the same rights as citizens, period, end of story.
The constitution disagrees with you.
Find that hard to believe. Of what value is citizenship then? It would have only duties and no benefits.
The fundamental human rights are not a benefit of citizenship. They are the common heritage of all human beings, everywhere. And the US constitution says explicitly that it protects those rights for every single person who is under its jurisdiction, which means everyone who is physically present within US borders, plus US citizens and US residents wherever in the world they may be.
Voting is an example of a privilege of citizenship. Voting is not a constitutionally protected right. It’s a privilege granted by state law, and it’s mostly up to the states who is granted it, except that the constitution places several limits on how the states can restrict the franchise. States can restrict it on any grounds except those specifically prohibited by the constitution.
^ “for every single person who is under its jurisdiction”
Does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allow drafting illegals into our military and subsequently ordering them to attack their native country?
Response: “Judge, pound sand.”
If only Trump had the balls!
Oh, Trump’s got the balls. He has t felt compelled to pull them out for a measurement contest.
But his talk of suspending HC makes me think he’s getting close.
I would support him 100%.
Deport them all, tell the lower courts to stay in their lane, and let the criminals fight their deportation on their own soil.
Judges see themselves as dictators. They always have been in their courtrooms but so many think it applies to the real world.
I assume that Khan is a Muslim. from his name. His allegiance is to the ideology of “Submission,” and not India. India and Israel face the same threat from genocidal, goose-stepping Islamofascism and Muslim supremacism/terrorism.
The pic of this fool screams that he had a wet dream of being detained by ICE so he could brag about it on social media.
Presumably this guy’s US visa was cancelled. Why is he still here? Can expedited hearings be arranged for these people the judges release, so they can get final orders of deportation due to being in the country illegally, and so we can put them on a plane and remove them?
Why is a hearing protocol? If the visa is cancelled, then you go home, simple as that!! These judges seem to be under the impression that one with a visa has an inalienable right to stay in this country
If the visa was canceled illegally then it’s not really cancelled and he has a right to remain.
It is illegal for the government to take any action against someone, no matter what, in retaliation for their exercising their constitutional rights. Even something that it would be able to do for any other reason, it cannot do for that reason.
Nothing illegal about canceling the visa of someone who supports terrorism. He had to lie about not supporting terrorism to get the visa.
No he didn’t. Not unless he was asked about his opinions when he applied, and even then not unless he would have been denied a visa had he told the truth. As far as I know the visa application doesn’t ask for the applicant’s political opinions, and in any case the Biden administration would have granted a visa to such people even if it knew their opinions, so lying about it would not be material and can’t be grounds for revocation.
So sorry, we put him on a plane
He’s home now
Understand this is how the enemies of civilization conduct warfare – they use our system against us. Lawfare and trying to walk a fine line between “free speech” and “incitement” or “supporting a terrorist organization” is their strongest weapon here.
But, you can pitch them out on their ear. Every port of entry should have a big sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone not a citizen, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
They do have the right to refuse entry. But once someone is already here the constitution protects them exactly as it protects everyone else.
Unless one are a conservative. Then they get locked into a Gulag and denied rights.
But you fully support that. It’s just a problem when your beloved illegal invaders are handled the same way.
What is wrong with these judges, Is there anyone they will allow deported? Why do they hate the people of this country so much?
This judge is a black biden judge. A woman. Ok, I can now answer my own questions.
This judge will only allow white males to be deported, say from South Africa.
This judge hates this country because its white majority and patriarchal.
She probably hates it not because it’s white majority, but because it is non-black majority. Asians and Hispanics are not exactly great fans of the black community either. Or their behavior.
Every person in America has 1stA rights, but they must face the consequences that come with it.
Is ‘person’ the singular usage for an individual member of the group ‘the people’? The 4A secures the right of ‘the people’ to be free from…’ while the 5A secures the rights of individuals ‘No person shall…’.. So if ‘person’ IS NOT a singular usage of ‘the people’ then there’s a host of Constitutional rights that accrue only to ‘the people’ aka US Citizens. If it IS a singular usage of ‘the people’ then illegal aliens may also exercise the 2A right of ‘the people’ to ‘keep and bear arms’.
They can, but it will take at least another decade for the courts and the various governments to accept that the RKBA is not a second-class right. Longer if SCOTUS keeps kicking the can down the road and refusing to hear challenges to brazen, obvious violations.
Might come quicker with the ‘birthright citizenship’ case(s) doing some of.the lifting. The 14A also uses ‘person’ as the scope of application.
Yes, but the meaning of “person” is not in dispute. Everyone knows what a person is. Every human being is by definition a person. The only term that needs defining is “the right of the people”. Does it mean only the USAn people, or does it mean people in general. Saying it means only USAns, and aliens can be searched and arrested on a whim, and may not attend public assemblies, would be a very radical step, but it’s possible. Saying that it doesn’t mean that would automatically mean that yes, they have 2A rights, just like anyone else. The problem is that the 2A itself has not yet got the respect it needs.
I noticed you didn’t supply the definition of what a ‘person’ is within this context which seems odd given your assertion that ‘everyone knows what a person is’.
If you want to say that we only need clarity on the application of ‘the people’ I’m fine with that but it would still be a distinct group not comprehensively including every human being, which is what you seem to imply.
The point I am making is that the usual or traditional understandings to include context are not exactly remaining constant. If person means everyone,as you seem to suggest, then does the 14A in sec 3 redefine and broaden eligibility to run for federal office by amendment to exclude ONLY those ‘persons’ who participated in an insurrection (aka Confederates)?
1A has a right of ‘the people’ to peaceably assemble
2A is reserved to ‘the people’
3A protects the ‘owner’ of the property
4A likewise secured rights of ‘the people’
5A protects ‘persons’
6A protects ‘the accused’
7A doesn’t specify any limiting principle of ‘person’ or ‘the people’
8A Similar to 7A no specific limitation on application
17A says US Senators of each.State are.to be ‘elected by the people thereof’.
If person and ‘the people’ are equivalent then why did we need the 15th and 19th Amendments if we rely upon the 14A and the view that ‘person’ = all human beings?
IMO Person, the People, Inhabitants, Citizens are not interchangeable terms.
Use the AEA and exposure his deportation.
Just appeal it on the basis that it was filed in the wrong district.
Just ignore it on the basis Congress stripped regular courts of their authority over immigration cases.
It can’t strip their authority over habeas cases.
This is the end, since even the president of the supreme court basically (by the fireplace) directly states that the constitution to which he is loyal begins with the words “We the Judges”. It is time to notice that the USA already has two sovereigns. One is the real sovereign, and the other is the formal one. This is nothing new on a global scale, because Europe has had it this way for a long time.