Was I Right, or What?
Prosecuting your enemies on speech grounds really does give them more celebrity.
The other week, I wrote about how attempts to silence people on speech-centered grounds just makes their positions more popular.
Then the Trump administration went after Mahmoud Khalil, a relatively unknown anti-Israel protester whose face is now plastered all over the internet and every news outlet.
Nicely done, guys.
Who is Mahmoud Khalil? Exactly.
Depending on who you ask, Khalil is either an arch-terrorist responsible for masterminding harassment campaigns of Jewish students or a pacifist scapegoat censored by hypocritical “free speech” Republicans (who may or may not be taking orders from AIPAC/Mossad/Your Local Jewish Deli Owner/Etc.) It doesn’t really matter for the purpose of my argument about censorship’s futility. It holds whether Khalil is an asshole or not.
The point is, you probably never heard of Khalil until a couple weeks ago.
The war in Gaza has been raging for almost a year-and-a-half now, with protests against Israel starting mere moments after the events of October 7. Since then, there’s been some celebrity endorsement of the anti-Israel cause and some support from expected Democrats like AOC and Rashid Tlaib, but for the most part, the identities of the actual protestors have gone without names or faces — often literally, since so many of them wear masks. This has made it easier to characterize them as an ominous mob of ruffians, and thus easier to dismiss.
Now, we can put a name and a face to their cause.
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
Mark Twain is supposed to have said that, and it’s hard to argue here.
Trump’s team blundered Khalil’s case from the outset by framing his arrest in terms of “anti-semitism” and “national security,” which should sound familiar if you read my recent piece on Hitler. The administration then quickly tried to reframe the issue in terms of immigration law, terrorism, and whether or not the United States is obligated to offer residence to non-citizens who espouse certain viewpoints. Perhaps they have a case somewhere in there, but it doesn’t negate the weakness of their opening argument.
By starting with vague offenses that could easily be construed as protected speech, Trump’s team gave critics a perfect opportunity to make a martyr of Khalil.
Now, the administration is forced to fight a two front battle on both legal and public relation grounds, and it’s difficult to see any conditions for a satisfying victory in either arena.
Stupid Mistake or 4D Chess?
Trump’s supporters love to interpret his actions as part of an elaborate web of galaxy-brained scheming in which every move, no matter how stupid seeming, is actually a calculated outmaneuver.
Such an interpretation is being attempted right now.
The theory goes that Khalil was chosen specifically to bait Democrats into defending unpopular territory. Despite what you see on social media, the general public is fairly sympathetic to Israel, and they’re definitely not impressed by some of the antics employed by anti-Israel protestors on campus. It’s unclear to what degree Khalil was truly involved with the worst elements of this, and as of this writing, he’s yet to be charged with an actual crime, but his association with the movement is enough for some people to assume guilt.
It’s also an easy assumption that whatever Trump is for, the left will be reflexively against, so if Trump comes out against an “America-hating terrorist sympathizer,” the Democrats will make supporting him their cause célèbre.
If that was the plan, then bravo, I guess. But I suspect not.
It’s much likelier Trump’s team ran afoul of the same hubristic trap that so many other leaders have fallen into throughout history — the idea that it’s both easy and wise to shut up inconvenient people. It’s not and never will be, no matter what level of tyranny the ruling class is willing to exert in the effort.
Again I ask how many times we have to learn this lesson.
If Khalil is guilty of actual crimes, then he should be charged with them and punished. That should’ve been the plan all along. Sure, his defenders would probably still attempt to claim persecution on grounds of free expression, but they’d have less ammunition to work with and fewer allies. And Trump wouldn’t have sullied his reputation with people who would otherwise have been on his side but who fear the precedent that could be set by these actions.
So even if this is 4D chess, it’s still a weak move.
Well said but…. I can see you have the ability to write critically, now let us see your witty humor around the subject you are ranting about, like Twain or Carlin. I think that is lurking somewhere in your fertile mind!