The American Gestapo (ICE) cracking down on political dissent

Get the Point!

“If the federal government can do it to ‘them,’ they can do it to ‘you’...” Chuck Hobbs, Facebook post regarding the arrest of Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil, March 2025

When it comes to suppressing the right to speak freely per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Trump administration is consistently employing Gestapo-like tactics to crack down on those offering dissenting views about the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilian men, women, and children in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.

As if the detention and legal odyssey of Palestinian activist (and Columbia University graduate) Mahmoud Khalil on March 9th wasn’t enough to press pause, yesterday, Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University in Massachusetts who co-authored an op/ed last year calling for the University's divestment from Israel as a method to stop the bombings of civilian residences, hospitals, and schools in Gaza, was snatched in broad daylight as she was heading to break her Ramadan fast.

Rumeysa Ozturk

Increasingly, these ICE crack downs are focusing on visa holders—not illegal immigrants—men and women endowed with due process rights who are finding themselves detained and "disappeared," for lack of a better term.

On script, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for Trump's Department of Homeland Security, said that the agency “found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. A visa is a privilege, not a right.”

Per usual, there was NO evidence offered by the Trump administration to prove that Ms. Ozturk supports Hamas; I have taken the liberty to cut and paste the entire op/ed that she helped write so that you can judge for yourself whether she is a Hamas supporter or merely a vocal opponent of the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza. But before you read and discern, I must strongly reiterate that if visa holders endowed with due process rights are snatched up by plain clothes ICE officers simply for disagreeing with U.S. and Israeli policies, how long will it be before full-fledged citizens are “disappeared” for voicing dissent against the Trump administration and/or its cronies within the Netanyahu regime in Israel?

Not long...

Ms. Ozturk's essay:

On March 4, the Tufts Community Union Senate passed 3 out of 4 resolutions demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel. These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

Unfortunately, the University’s response to the Senate resolutions has been wholly inadequate and dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Graduate Students for Palestine joins Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine to reject the University’s response. Although graduate students were not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting, which lasted for almost eight hours, our presence on campus and financial entanglement with the University via tuition payments and the graduate work that we do on grants and research makes us direct stakeholders in the University’s stance.

While an argument may be made that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange, the automatic rejection, dismissive nature and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression. According to the Student Code of Conduct, “[a]ctive citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protests, gatherings, and demonstrations, is a vital part of the Tufts community.” In addition, the Dean of Students Office has written, “[w]hile at times the exchange of controversial ideas and opinions may cause discomfort or even distress, our mission as a university is to promote critical thinking, the rigorous examination and discussion of facts and theories, and diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Why then is the University discrediting and disregarding its students who practice the very ideals of critical thinking, intellectual exchange and civic engagement that Tufts claims to represent?

The role of the TCU Senate resolutions is abundantly clear. The Senate’s resolutions serve as a “strong lobbying tool that expresses to the Tufts administration the wants and needs of the student body. They speak as a collective voice and are instrumental in enacting systemic changes.” In this case, the “systemic changes” that the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right that is guaranteed by international law. These strong lobbying tools are all the more urgent now given the order by the International Court of Justice confirming that the Palestinian people of Gaza’s rights under the Genocide Convention are under a “plausible” risk of being breached.

This collective student voice is not without precedent. Today, the University may remember with pride its decision in February 1989 to divest from South Africa under apartheid and end its complicity with the then-racist regime. However, we must remember that the University divested up to 11 years after some of its peers. For instance, the Michigan State University Board of Regents passed resolutions to end its complicity with Apartheid South Africa as early as 1978. Had Tufts heeded the call of the student movement in the late 1970s, the University could have been on the right side of history sooner.

We reject any attempt by the University or the Office of the President to summarily dismiss the role of the Senate and mischaracterize its resolution as divisive. The open and free debate demonstrated by the Senate process (exemplified by the length, open notice and substantive exchange in the proceedings and the non-passing of one of the proposed resolutions), together with the serious organizing efforts of students, warrant credible self-reflection by the Office of the President and the University. We, as graduate students, affirm the equal dignity and humanity of all people and reject the University’s mischaracterization of the Senate’s efforts.

The great author and civil rights champion James Baldwin once wrote: “The paradox of education is precisely this: that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which [they are] being educated.” As an educator, President Kumar should embrace efforts by students to evaluate “diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Furthermore, the president should trust in the Senate’s rigorous and democratic process and the resolutions that it has achieved.

We urge President Kumar and the Tufts administration to meaningfully engage with and actualize the resolutions passed by the Senate.

This op-ed was written by Nick Ambeliotis (CEE, ‘25), Fatima Rahman (STEM Education, ‘27), Genesis Perez (English, ‘27) and Rumeysa Ozturk (CSHD, ‘25) and is endorsed by 32 other Tufts School of Engineering and Arts and Sciences Graduate Students.

Lest we forget to raise our voices in support of the First Amendment, and all who are wasting away in federal detention cells simply for voicing their opinions on political and social events!