Althouse: "Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge."

September 27, 2012

"Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge."

"Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the 'Innocence of Muslim' production is central to the government's new charge."

213 comments:

1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»

buster said...: This can't have been necessary. It would be much better to demonstrate a commitment to free speech. Why can't the government see that?; 9/27/12, 7:51 PM
Mr. D said...: They might as well do something -- the FBI can't get into Benghazi to investigate there.; 9/27/12, 7:51 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.; 9/27/12, 7:53 PM
Real American said...: this is all just a pretext to shred the First Amendment.; 9/27/12, 7:54 PM
Chip S. said...: The mention of “Mr. Henanin” is likely a reference to Zakaria Botros Henein, a radical Coptic cleric whose followers in southern California include Nakoula and two other men linked to “Innocence of Muslims.”

If I hold my ear to the ground I can hear the pounding hoofbeats of a new meme heading this way.; 9/27/12, 7:56 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."

-Barack Obama; 9/27/12, 7:56 PM
buster said...: I read somewhere that he was convicted of check kiting. It's hard to imagine how that can be a serious crime. If it were, he would not have received probation instead of a prison sentence. So I doubt that the underlying crime can justify the arrest.; 9/27/12, 7:56 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: I blame everyone who voted for Obama.; 9/27/12, 7:58 PM
Synova said...: Brilliant.; 9/27/12, 8:04 PM
Synova said...: Also... Feds have jurisdiction over probation violations?; 9/27/12, 8:05 PM
Carnifex said...: I've got the perfect defense for Mr. Nok...Nouk...for the producer. Just get Zero into the court house and ask him "Did I build that?"

Case dismissed.; 9/27/12, 8:05 PM
edutcher said...: Waiting for him to have an accident in the slammer.

So the Moslems will be satisfied and be nice to us.

/sarc

Hey, it's da Chicago Way.; 9/27/12, 8:06 PM
Carnifex said...: I see a rider comin' on a pale horse.
He's wearin' mom jeans.
And Hell's comin' with him.; 9/27/12, 8:07 PM
Synova said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 8:07 PM
Lawyer Mom said...: Further complicating things, Nikoula might even be a Muslim moby. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat/the-film-innocence-of-muslims-made-by-terrorists/

Make it stop!; 9/27/12, 8:08 PM
Hagar said...: Synova,

The sheriff's dept. does, and the sheriff's dept. said they brought Mr. Nakoula in as a courtesy to the Feds who "wanted to talk to him."; 9/27/12, 8:11 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: How do we know this guy or someone connected to him is not Al Qaeda? Better to sweat him than be sorry later.; 9/27/12, 8:12 PM
Known Unknown said...: How do we know this guy or someone connected to him is not Al Qaeda? Better to sweat him than be sorry later.

Allie/Inga was right!; 9/27/12, 8:12 PM
Lyle said...: Synova... he was prosecuted in Federal court. So, yes, the Feds have jurisdiction.

Can't wait to read the Feds argument that the film violates his probation though. The Constitution probably will beg to differ.; 9/27/12, 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Lawyer Mom, a Muslim Moby? If that is true, you all will hear a huge I TOLD YOU SO from me.; 9/27/12, 8:17 PM
Chip S. said...: Never mind al Quaeda. This can probably be traced back to Romney himself.

If a majority of US Coptic Christians are Republicans, then reasonable people can disagree on whether the movie was made in order to make Obama look bad. Can anybody say for sure they haven't seen any Copts entering or leaving Romney HQ?

See?; 9/27/12, 8:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Get in line, I'm taking apologies.; 9/27/12, 8:18 PM
Known Unknown said...: Get in line, I'm taking apologies.

Um, you might want to wait for confirmation. The author of that story hasn't always been on the up and up.; 9/27/12, 8:21 PM
Known Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: OK, EMD that's fair, I'll wait.; 9/27/12, 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Muslim Moby?; 9/27/12, 8:24 PM
Crimso said...: "This can't have been necessary. It would be much better to demonstrate a commitment to free speech. Why can't the government see that?"

It's not that they can't see it, it's that they lack the commitment.

OT related joke: Know the difference between dedication and commitment? When you have bacon and eggs for breakfast, the chicken was dedicated but the pig was committed.; 9/27/12, 8:24 PM
Chip S. said...: Get in line, I'm taking apologies.

I think you may have read this post, since you commented in the thread, but you seem not to understand why it's you who should be offering apologies--to the Founders.; 9/27/12, 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh Chip, perhaps you should be the first in my line, for a couple of things, one an apology, two to kiss my ass.; 9/27/12, 8:28 PM
Dave said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 8:29 PM
Dave said...: News reports said that he had been convicted of fraud and identity theft. It was also reported that his parole specifically limited his access and use of computers and the internet. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand the connection between the crime(s) for which he had been convicted and the conditions of his parole. Even some of the geniuses on this blog could probably understand it...

So - the video that he created is discovered on You Tube raising the issue that he may have violated the conditions of his parole which he probably did. They bring him in, investigate, and arrest him on parole violation charges. That's it - nada mas!; 9/27/12, 8:31 PM
Michael said...: Wouldn't that be convenient.; 9/27/12, 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, IF it's true that he is a Muslim Moby, the line to the right is the one in which to apologize to Cedarford.; 9/27/12, 8:31 PM
James Pawlak said...: I am waiting for the ACLU to file a civil rights case in this matter.

Should I hold my breath?; 9/27/12, 8:32 PM
Hagar said...: One o'clock in the morning the Feds want to talk to him about a parole violation?

BS!; 9/27/12, 8:35 PM
Chip S. said...: Inga Binga, the only thing you're demonstrating w/ your tiresome requests for attention to be paid to your ass is that you never stopped shrieking long enough to comprehend the argument you have opposed.; 9/27/12, 8:35 PM
chickelit said...: Regarding the Muslim conspiracy theory, these were Inga's words:

AllieOop said...
Do you Althouse commenters not recognize the possibility that this guy was engaging in a much bigger, more sinister plot to incite some sort of holy war? You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead. Oh poor bad movie guy, taken in for questions by the brownshirts.

9/15/12 10:26 PM

I'm not buying Inga's theory based on what I have read in the public domain. If someone knows otherwise, they need to enter that into the record.; 9/27/12, 8:35 PM
chickelit said...: James Pawlak said...
I am waiting for the ACLU to file a civil rights case in this matter.

Their silence is deafening. It's another cicumstantial peiece of evidence that this is not a case of Muslim Mobyism, otherwise they'd be all over it.; 9/27/12, 8:39 PM
Chip S. said...: Inga's "theory" has a slight factual problem, which is that nobody--not even the administration--is still peddling the ridiculous story that the 9/11/12 attacks were caused by the video.

Inga's position is akin to one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2 into the '50s, taking some tour boat captive and demanding that the US surrender to the Empire.; 9/27/12, 8:40 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Also, IF it's true that he is a Muslim Moby, the line to the right is the one in which to apologize to Cedarford.

Eh, I think the whole Moby thing makes Cedarford's position all the more ridiculous. He was blaming the video for inciting riots, but if the same people who whipped up the riots also made the video, isn't it abundantly clear that the video was nothing more than a pretext for actions the organizers wanted to take anyway?

Let's say we do what Cedarford wants and make "slandering the prophet of Islam" illegal. Does that prevent future riots or will they cook up some other excuse? What do you think?; 9/27/12, 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Again Chp, kiss my ass, you get personal, because why? You may be proven wrong? Does that threaten you somehow?; 9/27/12, 8:42 PM
Chip S. said...: Again Chp, kiss my ass, you get personal, because why?

Go ahead and point out where I "get personal" here.

Did I use mind control to induce you to say "kiss my ass"?; 9/27/12, 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not saying I and Cedarford were right that this guy was a Moby all along, but the investigation isn't complete, what would it hurt to make sure he isn't an agent of those we consider our enemy? Why dismiss it out of hand? Because he may fall from the pedestal some of you have put him on, a free speech hero?; 9/27/12, 8:46 PM
ddh said...: "Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to 'use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.'”

If Nakoula used Sam Bacile as an alias or posted The Innocence of Muslims on Youtube, he violated his probation. Still, why did a half-dozen sheriff deputies need to pick him up with a midnight knock on the door? Couldn't a phone call suffice?; 9/27/12, 8:48 PM
yashu said...: Lawyer Mom, a Muslim Moby? If that is true, you all will hear a huge I TOLD YOU SO from me.

Why? I raised that possibility here before you did. And other right-wingers did. Yet it did not affect my position re free speech-- if anything, it strengthened it. Because the purpose of a moby would be (ultimately) to provoke a constraint on the free speech of non-mobys, the free speech of anyone.

It's a flimsy pretext and it's bullshit.; 9/27/12, 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Maguro, Cedarford can defend himself, but he didn't say he wanted to make " slandering the Prophet of Islam illegal" that I recall. If I'm wrong he can feel free to correct me.; 9/27/12, 8:50 PM
jvermeer51 said...: Why would anyone doubt that what happened to Mr Nakoula is what liberals want to do to those who have inconvenient ideas inconveniently expressed. Maybe even some of the profs Anne sits with daily. After all, if you have a poster of a mass murdering thug like Che on your wall, why would you sweat a little jail time for your enemies.; 9/27/12, 8:51 PM
Bob Ellison said...: The POTUS should have started this by asserting America's commitment to freedom of thought, speech, and conscience. He abandoned his post.; 9/27/12, 8:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Yashu, I dont recall you saying any such thing, it may help to refresh my memory if you could find your comment.; 9/27/12, 8:52 PM
PatCA said...: Local newswoman said the judge called him "a danger to society" rather than in danger himself and denied house arrest.

Can we make the Nazi analogy yet?; 9/27/12, 8:59 PM
Synova said...: "Also, IF it's true that he is a Muslim Moby,..."

If he's a Muslim Moby it's no more relevant than if he broke his probation by raising money to make a "fake" film.

It's actually someone's job to think of those possibilities, to think of all the twisty ways that things can work and how those twisty ways relate to foreign and domestic policy, and to act in a way that our country doesn't get stuck in a position that makes us look bad or we can't back down from.

That someone is the President.

If *someone* decided they needed to check this guy out to make sure he wasn't part of the plot, or just to check him out, they needed to have thought... what if we find *this* and what if we find *that*... will a photograph of this fellow being arrested give the impression that we arrest blasphemers in the US, will a photograph of this fellow being arrested send the message that we're giving in so if they up the demonstrations they'll get more from us?

It's someone's JOB to think about all the twisty ways this could go and it's someone's JOB to think of how it looks to the world and to our own citizens.

And really, I think that someone did that JOB and decided, on purpose, to show the Muslim world that if they kill someone we'll arrest who they don't like and we can be pushed and we will surrender.

And meanwhile certain Libyans and an Egyptian or two are trying to say "It's not about this movie, of course not!" and Our President undermines *them* too.

Can our FBI not function without media limelight? Of course they can. So it was a SHOW. They could have found out if he was "in on it" and produced the miscreant with "He was in on it!" instead of now iconic pictures of a citizen being taken in for questioning because an Islamic mob burning things and ripping down flags and being violent *made* *us* do it.

Also, our military is being told now, officially, that the reason that Afghan military shoots us is our own fault because we offend them by blowing our noses or asking to see pictures of the wife and kids. Because that's SO offensive that the poor dears snap and just HAVE to shoot someone.

These aren't MISTAKES, they are POLICY. They aren't oopsies or gaffs or anything. It's deliberate.

Just like the show arresting this "film maker" was a show on purpose. To *show* we will do what the mob wants us to do.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "Prophet of Islam" is the phrase used by Cedarford??!! Jeez it matches what Obama said at the UN yesterday. Could that mean Cford is Obama? Heh.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
Aridog said...: I am somewhat stunned that anyone anywhere thinks that a video *trailer* posted to youtube in July 2012 caused spontaneous protest rioting 2+ months later.

I am further amused by the idea that Egyptians and Libyans don't speak English, so didn't react until a translation was posted. I live among thousands of Arab immigrants and less than 20% of them have a less than adequate command of English. The *idiom* may be puzzling to them at times, but the basic language, for the most part, no. Many speak French as well as English and Arabic. Even old coots right off the boat can communicate in English.

But, oh, yeah, the video didn't get recognized for what it was until a translation was posted. Nonsense. And, as I've said before, I have not heard one single neighbor claim the video caused anything.

I shall inform them that they're falling down on the job, to get all sweaty and run rampant through the streets bug eyed screaming and renting their garments.

When they tell me they are highly amused by our government's chicanery, I have still have no answer.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
Synova said...: "And other right-wingers did."

I also specifically mentioned it.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
yashu said...: Inga, I will try to find my comment (not easy), which I very clearly remember making.

I also remember not being alone in floating that possibility, as Synova points out.; 9/27/12, 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: No, it's Ok Yashu, I believe you.; 9/27/12, 9:07 PM
Chip S. said...: yashu, why waste your time?

As you said, the entire "moby" discussion is a sideshow.; 9/27/12, 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: And Synova.; 9/27/12, 9:09 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Allie, you still don't get it. I don't think you ever will.

You simply do not comprehend the American concept of free speech.

The moby thing is irrelevant.; 9/27/12, 9:14 PM
Bryan C said...: Inga, you should know that Frontpage is not always the most reliable of web sites. The article is a tissue of conjecture and supposition based on the author's purported inside knowledge. You may want to hold off on claiming vindication.

But even if we assume he is some kind of undercover Muslim provocateur, what does that matter? There's no law against being a provocateur. He's a financial con artist who turned Federal informant, and now he's going to prison without bail despite the obvious danger to his life from other Muslim inmates. Why? Because he used a pseudonym while uploading a movie to YouTube.

If he were some kind of terrorist agent involved in a convoluted years-long plot, why is he in prison and not being interrogated?; 9/27/12, 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 9:14 PM
edutcher said...: Carnifex said...

I see a rider comin' on a pale horse.
He's wearin' mom jeans.
And Hell's comin' with him.

I think that's Mr Netanyahu. Governor Romney's close friend.

And I would love to hear his Wyatt impersonation.

Inga said...

Lawyer Mom, a Muslim Moby? If that is true, you all will hear a huge I TOLD YOU SO from me.

In the words of 2 great Americans, "That'll be the day".; 9/27/12, 9:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes Bryan, I do understand that, that is why I have emphasized the word "IF" a few times.; 9/27/12, 9:16 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Allie, your argument is irrelevant.; 9/27/12, 9:16 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: You haven't triumphed, Inga.

You've just demonstrated your ignorance of the First Amendment again, and at an even deeper level.; 9/27/12, 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Aridog, it may have been a planned event down to the making of the movie, the release of clips of the movie on Egytian TV the Saturday before the attack, which occured the following Tuesday. The ENTIRE "event" may very well have been planned months in advance, by our enemies.; 9/27/12, 9:19 PM
Baron Zemo said...: It matters not if he was a moby or not. To arrest someone on trumped up charges because of speech is foreign to us.

That is why those people who are not true americans...not born in america....are dancing in the streets....Cedarford....Inga the She Wolf....Barry Soetero; 9/27/12, 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Get in line ST.; 9/27/12, 9:20 PM
Bryan C said...: "Could that mean Cford is Obama? Heh."

Hey now, C4 may be a little nuts, but that's no reason to insult the man.; 9/27/12, 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Again, some forget we are at war. How easy to forget, how convenient to forget.; 9/27/12, 9:20 PM
Baron Zemo said...: People like them who would trample on the First Amendment to bend over for barbarians are the true danger to our Republic.; 9/27/12, 9:21 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: The ENTIRE "event" may very well have been planned months in advance, by our enemies.

This is irrelevant to the American tradition of free speech, Inga.

You've failed again to understand the concept.; 9/27/12, 9:21 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: No, Inga, we are not in a declared war.

Wrong again.

Do you understand anything about American law and tradition?; 9/27/12, 9:21 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: I am in line to tell you once again that you are wrong.; 9/27/12, 9:22 PM
Baron Zemo said...: There are no so blind as those who think our Constitution is a scap of paper.; 9/27/12, 9:22 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Your ideas are very backward and dangerous to our democracy, Inga.

You are totally ignorant of American law and tradition.

Totally.; 9/27/12, 9:23 PM
sakredkow said...: "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."

"But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied."; 9/27/12, 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, the families of those killed in action do not give a damn if it's a declared war, are you thinking about what you are saying?; 9/27/12, 9:24 PM
Bryan C said...: I see that, Inga. I think you're misguided but you seem to be sincere. I just don't want you overextend your argument. 'Tis all.; 9/27/12, 9:24 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: You're pulling a sentimental stunt on me, Allie.

Cut the bullshit.

The only way that Freedom of Speech can be abridged in the U.S. is within the confines of a declared war.

Under those terms, the President can seize the power to limit speech.

We are not in a declared war. Cut the sentimental crap.

You are dangerously ignorant.; 9/27/12, 9:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Phx, yes that is true.; 9/27/12, 9:26 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Your daughter took an oath the defend that constitution, did she not?; 9/27/12, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, I'm ignoring you, you are talking shit, I thought you were more pragmatic, oh well.; 9/27/12, 9:28 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Surrendering to anti-blasphemy laws so that our troops don't have to defend the constitution is your idea of pragmatism?

Inga, you are dead, stupid wrong.

Stop.; 9/27/12, 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh for pity sake, of course they are sworn to defend he Consitution, but WE ARE AT WAR. Get it? Aiding and abetting the ENEMY?; 9/27/12, 9:32 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Inga, no we are not in a declared war.

Period.

That statement you just repeated is a lie.

Only Congress can declare war, and it has not.; 9/27/12, 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, you are stuck in some ideological never never land, think man, think.; 9/27/12, 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: ST! Tell that to the families, what is your problem, do you no longer have a heart?; 9/27/12, 9:34 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Inga, you simply do not understand the U.S. system.

Only Congress has the constitutional right to declare war.

Technically, we are not at war.

The President does not have the right to enforce anti-sedition laws. He would be breaking the law if he tried.

He is breaking the law.; 9/27/12, 9:34 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: ST! Tell that to the families, what is your problem, do you no longer have a heart?

The law and the constitution must prevail over your sentimental displays, Inga.; 9/27/12, 9:35 PM
William said...: He's a shady character, but his video did not cause the riots and his arrest will not stop them. His arrest might, however, serve to quiet the already muted response to Muslim sponsored horrors in Egypt. I think the Coptics have a right to be peevish and little over the top in their denunciations of Islam. This video has generated more criticism of militant Coptics than the recent slaughter of Coptics by militant Muslims......Nikoula as a triple agent? Do people really think Al Qaeda or whoever is that clever? These are people who blow up children for receiving ice cream from an American sponsored truck in Iraq. Subtlety is not their strong suit.; 9/27/12, 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: SO, ST, this mans free speech trumps a charge o aiding and abetting an enemy because we are not in a DECLARED war?

So tell me, why is Bradley Manning sitting in prison?; 9/27/12, 9:39 PM
Chip S. said...: His arrest might, however, serve to quiet the already muted response to Muslim sponsored horrors in Egypt.

And encourage the next outrage.; 9/27/12, 9:40 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: SO, ST, this mans free speech trumps a charge o aiding and abetting an enemy because we are not in a DECLARED war?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

So tell me, why is Bradley Manning sitting in prison?

Manning is subject to military jurisprudence, not civilian.

That's an entirely different issue.; 9/27/12, 9:40 PM
buster said...: Inga said:

"Because he may fall from the pedestal some of you have put him on, a free speech hero?"

He's not a free speech hero. He's an American citizen exercising his right of free speech.; 9/27/12, 9:41 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: He's not a free speech hero. He's an American citizen exercising his right of free speech.

Correct.; 9/27/12, 9:42 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Why do you think, Inga, that Jane Fonda was never charged with sedition?

The Vietnam War was never a declared war.; 9/27/12, 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: How many were screaming for her head back then? My brother was in Vietnam, it certainly seemed to me that she was giving comfort to the enemy.; 9/27/12, 9:46 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: How many were screaming for her head back then? My brother was in Vietnam, it certainly seemed to me that she was giving comfort to the enemy.

Plenty of people were screaming for her head, but, legally, the U.S. could do nothing.; 9/27/12, 9:47 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: SO, ST, this mans free speech trumps a charge o aiding and abetting an enemy because we are not in a DECLARED war?

So tell me, why is Bradley Manning sitting in prison?

Are you somehow under the impression that military members can only be prosecuted for leaking classified information during wartime?

I thought you were supposed to be knowledgeable about this stuff.; 9/27/12, 9:48 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: American law doesn't operate on public opinion and sentiment, Inga.; 9/27/12, 9:49 PM
edutcher said...: Shout, we've fought more undeclared than declared wars and one of them, the Civil War, saw a number of Constitutional protections ignored.

Whether the war is declared or not is irrelevant.

That said, there are charges that can be pressed if he is found to have been colluding with the crazies, but his free speech is still protected.

Oop is just doing his/her/its usual grandstanding as the little moby he/she/it is.; 9/27/12, 9:50 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: The reason the Civil War was never a declared war was because the Federal government never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy.; 9/27/12, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: No Maguro, I'm not more knowlegeable than you about all the ins and outs of sedition and treason. Perhaps someone who does have a background in military and Constitutional law could jump in.; 9/27/12, 9:54 PM
chickelit said...: How many were screaming for her head back then?

She would have given it too. How many friends did Roger Vadim have? She was into group sex or at least threesomes IIRC.; 9/27/12, 9:55 PM
chickelit said...: BTW, I shot this photo at a local VFW. That's Hanoi Jane in the bullseye: link; 9/27/12, 9:57 PM
sakredkow said...: Phx, yes that is true.

Inga I was just providing the next sentence of Obama's quote for the benefit of people who quote very selectively.; 9/27/12, 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Who has claimed this guy is a "hero?" As I said when this story first broke, the First Amendment gives protection to even unpopular speech uttered by shady characters - something the left agrees with when the shady character is, say, Larry Flynt.; 9/27/12, 9:58 PM
traditionalguy said...: If that little Obamstapo trick doesn't prove to a fair observer that Obama is a closet Muslim, then nothing will.; 9/27/12, 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Ah, thanks for doing that Phx.; 9/27/12, 10:00 PM
chickelit said...: The guy is not an American citizen as I understand from the Wiki. He may have a permanant Green Card.

Can somebody here explain the nuts and bolts about 1st Amendment rights of non-US citizens?; 9/27/12, 10:00 PM
Synova said...: "So tell me, why is Bradley Manning sitting in prison?"

I've held a Top Secret clearance. My mind boggles.

Some random person/reporter finds a sheet of paper with "Secret" stamped on it blowing in the wind, that's a different matter.; 9/27/12, 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh wow, he's not a citizen, yet I was called unAmerican for not being born here and questioning his motives.

Unbelievable.; 9/27/12, 10:04 PM
Paul said...: It's Obama appeasing the Muslims again.

He can't help it... it's just his nature.

He a combination Jimmy Carter/ Neville Chamberlain but without the honestly of Carter (would Carter LIE on day one of a terrorist attack?)

Interesting tidbit.. Chamberlain ran a farm for 6 years.. it went bankrupt. THEN he went into politics. At least he tried and failed.. Obama never went into any private enterprise, and he still fails.; 9/27/12, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Theodore Dalrymple, writing in City Journal, nails it:

"Freedom of expression requires not so much the exercise of self-control in what is said as its exercise in reaction to what is said. I can hardly look at a book these days without taking offense at something that it contains, but if I smash a window in annoyance, the blame is only mine—even if the author knows perfectly well that what he wrote will offend many such as I."

and

"This is surely an odd way of looking at the situation, accepting as it does the logic of the blackmailer or the intimidator: either you do as we say, or we will be violent."

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0926td.html; 9/27/12, 10:08 PM
chickelit said...: Inga said...
Oh wow, he's not a citizen, yet I was called unAmerican for not being born here and questioning his motives.

Unbelievable.

Oh, hush. Not unbelievable, Allie. I married into a family of immigrants, some of whom never became citizens even after 40 years and thus still cannot vote. My question was legit.

How much 1st Amendment do immigrants get depending on their status? All, some, none? How about when they cross borders? Most people who were born here or who were naturalized don't think of these things, but in the 1st Amendment has metes and bounds. I'm just asking for clarification.; 9/27/12, 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Chicket, my comment was aimed at a couple of commenters here, who went so far as to call me a Traitor over the last few days, for questioning the motives of this man.

You are correct in asking your question, my ire is not directed at you.; 9/27/12, 10:16 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: What in the hell are you trying to accomplish, Inga?

This is not the place to carry on about your daughter.

You're confused and dealing with your emotional issues over your fears in the wrong place, at the wrong time, over the wrong issue.

Give it a break, Inga.

This issue is not about your daughter's personal safety.; 9/27/12, 10:20 PM
Chip S. said...: Oh, Jesus H. Christ (PBUH).

The Associated Press has described Nakoula as a "US citizen."

Here's what NPR was saying back on Sept. 17:

Another detail that news outlets are reporting is that (as Patch.com puts it) Nakoula is "a naturalized U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent and a Coptic Christian."

And, perhaps more relevantly, this info comes from an immigration lawyer's website:

If you have a criminal record, you should seek legal advice immediately. Even the smaller convictions for crimes like shoplifting, drunk driving, and petty theft could cause you to lose your green card.

Some convictions lead to almost automatic loss of your green card.

Anybody heard anything about Nakoula being sought by INS officials? Don't you think we'd be hearing about that if he were here on a green card?

By the way Inga, Nakoula has a family, too. So how about dropping the "Nakoula-the-dingo stole my baby!" routine?; 9/27/12, 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "By the way Inga, Nakoula has a family, too."

And when Nakoula was hauled off for questioning, a reporter deliberately announced to the world that his family was at home. A description of his house was also given.

"Nice family you've got there, Nakoula. It would be a shame if anything happened to them."; 9/27/12, 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, who is carrying on about my daughter? That isn't my sole motivation by a far shot. I am not the one who brought her up, I believe YOU did.; 9/27/12, 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: And ST, stop talking down to me, it's not attractive.; 9/27/12, 10:32 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Well, Inga, I'm certainly not calling you a traitor.

A fascist, perhaps. But not a traitor.; 9/27/12, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Whatever, get in line Mojo.; 9/27/12, 10:45 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Attractive or not, Inga, you're discussing all the wrong issues in the wrong place.

Give it a break.; 9/27/12, 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, I know what I'm doing and this is the time, this is the place, do I not have free speech rights as Nakoula does, hmmm? At least I'm a citizen.; 9/27/12, 10:51 PM
Chip S. said...: At least I'm a citizen.

You just can't read, is that it?; 9/27/12, 10:52 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Line?

Yes, I guess there is a long line of those of us, who you believe have this seemingly irrational view of a natural right as embodied in the 1st Amendment.

In the '50s and '60s, you would have been on the side of the Republican establishment in regards to your views. They were roundly accused of fascistic tendencies and worse. And justifiably so.

Now, you and your kind have come full circle and are now the fascists.

Own it.; 9/27/12, 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Chip, IF Nakoula has a green card he is NOT a citizen.; 9/27/12, 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Mojo, the line is to kiss my ass.; 9/27/12, 10:54 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Inga, I give up.

This issue has made you hysterical.

Go get some sleep.; 9/27/12, 10:55 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: There is some ass involved, I'll agree with that.

You're making an ass out of yourself.

Good night.; 9/27/12, 10:55 PM
Chip S. said...: OK, that settles it.

Inga's not (necessarily) nuts. She has a reading disability.; 9/27/12, 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I heard he was here on a green card, just last week, is Wiki correct in stating he is a citizen?; 9/27/12, 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Good night, dream about kissing my ass ST.; 9/27/12, 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: OK Chip, I looked it up myself, it does appear he is a citizen, I don't trust Wiki , you conservatives taught me that.; 9/27/12, 11:00 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: That's a sweet offer, I'm sure, Inga, but I've got a girlfriend.

So, you'll have to find another suitor.; 9/27/12, 11:00 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Inga, I'd be happy to kiss it, but:

1) I'm very happily married.

2) I really don't see the reason for doing so, other than some silly assumption of yours.

3) Had I not already listed the first two reasons, then this should suffice: Your goddamned head is in the way.; 9/27/12, 11:00 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: I might be persuaded, however, Inga, if it's a really great ass.

Got any pics?; 9/27/12, 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow when a female argues strongly they are hysterical? You sounded pretty damn hysterical yourself upthread ST. Good night, dream of my ass.; 9/27/12, 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't need anymore suitors, I have a very nice plumber.; 9/27/12, 11:04 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Show me the pics.

How can I dream about an ass if I can't see it?

Certainly, I do often dream of ass, but more often, it's Lucy Thai's.

Look it up.; 9/27/12, 11:05 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: No, the hysterical part can be either male or female.; 9/27/12, 11:06 PM
McTriumph said...: Inga, but can you slow dance?; 9/27/12, 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Why yes, I can!; 9/27/12, 11:09 PM
McTriumph said...: I'm new to this, but what the fuck is a "moby" other than a huge dick or a whale?; 9/27/12, 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is the ACLU on this? Oh wait the next post...because this is Obama all by himself, not a "Bush policy."

And Inga the Lying Obama Whore did a happy dance for oppression.; 9/27/12, 11:14 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: That's not nice, Mr. whore.

She offered to let me kiss her ass.

Are we talking naked or clothed, Inga?

I want to get the full Monty. The face looks pretty good, but that can be deceiving.; 9/27/12, 11:15 PM
Carnifex said...: And I quote--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some people take this as an absolute. By way of disclosure, I am one of those people. Most others are more flexible in their reading of this amendment. Pornographers spring to mind,actually, the people who oppose pornography.

But for Inga, unlike our new improved "hate crime" laws, there is no allowance stated for the mental condition or thinking of the citizen. Since making a bad movie is essentially a victimless crime, why would you punish the offender?

I know the US Government(Zero and the Hildebeast) is pushing this as an excuse to cover their own incompetence, but everyone that was there says it had nothing to do with the video. So why are YOU pushing this agenda Inga?

Let's assume you are right, the guy is a mole for Al Quiada. He makes a movie about Ol' Mo'. AQ uses the video as a excuse to attack US Embassies all over the ME. Now what?

We arrest and punish this guy under a pretext, and the entire world knows it. But it shows the world that you can make the US Government do what ever you want it to just by threatening it.

If the guy is an AQ plant then prove it. Don't phony up so chickenshit charges of parole violation. But making a movie is not a capital crime in America. If it were, Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda (Barbarella was her only good movie) would be in prison now.

But we let people we don't like the freedom to speak. It's easy to let everyone say "Good morning", "Nice day", "The replacement ref's suck", because everyone agrees.

But the Klan member who wants to call Zero a "porch monkey", or the pastor who wants to call NY "hymietown" are given a pass because we don't like to hear what they say, but it's their right to have an opinion, and voice it. Otherwise, the only opinions that will be allowed are those okayed by the government. And then "all speech" would be pro-what ever government is in place. There would be no calling Bush Bushitler, or Al Gore manbearpig, or Obama, Zero.; 9/27/12, 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: McTriumph, it's someone who pretends to be the opposite of what they really are to make that person or group look bad.; 9/27/12, 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, you have a girlfriend, go to bed.; 9/27/12, 11:18 PM
McTriumph said...: Inga, I'm not meaning rocking back and forth. I'm talkin dancin to " Since I Fell For You" and making it an aventure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xrQY_FLM4; 9/27/12, 11:19 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: No, Inga, I absolutely refuse to go to bed until I get the last word or a look at that ass.; 9/27/12, 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga said,

"Aridog, it may have been a planned event down to the making of the movie, the release of clips of the movie on Egytian TV the Saturday before the attack, which occured the following Tuesday. The ENTIRE "event" may very well have been planned months in advance, by our enemies."

9/27/12 9:19 PM

Carnifex, shouldn't we look at all angles and not think we have all the answers ? The investigation is ongoing.; 9/27/12, 11:21 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: McTriumph, sure, but you have to be a good leader.; 9/27/12, 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: ST, down boy, good night.; 9/27/12, 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: You Old Dawg.; 9/27/12, 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Now let's get SERIOUS, sheesh this is a matter of National Security! Stay on topic.; 9/27/12, 11:28 PM
Unknown said...: Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the United States Of America.; 9/27/12, 11:29 PM
McTriumph said...: Inga, good leaders provide fun, not adventures.; 9/27/12, 11:34 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 11:38 PM
McTriumph said...: If they're done right they are, if not? By the way crocs aren't great for dancing, well unless some how 20 lbs. of corn meal finds it's way to the floor.; 9/27/12, 11:55 PM
Palladian said...: Inga, can I convince you to make a video denigrating the Prophet Muhammad so that Obama will send some Feds to lock you away, or some crazy Muslims will snuff you, and you'll finally shut the fuck up?; 9/27/12, 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian, no I won't shut up, you pompous ass.; 9/27/12, 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: And Palladian, I won't let you anywhere near my ass to kiss it, because I don't know where you lips have been.; 9/28/12, 12:05 AM
Cedarford said...: Chip S. said...
Inga Binga, the only thing you're demonstrating w/ your tiresome requests for attention to be paid to your ass is that you never stopped shrieking long enough to comprehend the argument you have opposed.

================
The argument was the scumbag Nakoula was a persecuted 1st Amendment Hero.
To which some like Inga argued that there are still limits to the 1st Amendment like inciting to riot , and that he and his financiers should be looked at to see if there was a conspiracy intended on getting Muslims to attack Americans.
My position was the same, and added the point that someone on probation for bank fraud, use of false ID to con people, identity theft loses a whole bunch of "precious Sacred Parchment rights".
Just as anyone in the probie system does.
And restrictions can vary - no internet or use of any bogus ID for someone that is a con artist using the internet - or weekly drug testing for a doper in on a drug rap...

And additional Sacred Parchment stuff like search warrants and 4th Amendment Rights go away. Probation officer can go right into your place with a drug sniffer dog or check your browser.

And if the probie screws up, and in California 2/3rds of them relapse...it is no trial...but an Administrative hearing by Probation to see if terms were violated and straight back to jail.; 9/28/12, 12:13 AM
Cedarford said...: Chip S. said...
Inga's "theory" has a slight factual problem, which is that nobody--not even the administration--is still peddling the ridiculous story that the 9/11/12 attacks were caused by the video.

==============
Yes they are.
You have one attack/mob protest that was organized by Al Qaeda and Libyan Islamoid militias at Benghazi.

But you have some 20 other protests/embassy attacks (4 embassies attacked, 3 overrun) that appear solely due to enraged mobs whipped up by radicals reacting to the video.

Rightwingers lauding Nakoula are as brain dead as Obama. Because the Benghazi attack was AQ, they reason all the other violent protests must also have nothing to do with the video.; 9/28/12, 12:20 AM
Cedarford said...: Maguro - "Let's say we do what Cedarford wants and make "slandering the prophet of Islam" illegal."

Never said that, Maguro.
What I did say is that someone that deliberately incites others to riot, burn, and kill is outside 1st Amendment Protections.

And someone on probation that violates terms of probation just loses their freedom and goes back to doing their sentenced time for behavior infractions that do not apply to other citizens.
And this Nakoula looks dirty as hell on his probation compliance.

In on false ID, out on probation using another false ID to deceive actors and possibly financiers.
In on identity theft and bank fraud using the internet, out and he went right back online to do his flick and promote it and promulate it to incite Muslims to riot.; 9/28/12, 12:29 AM
yashu said...: Rightwingers lauding Nakoula are as brain dead as Obama.

This is a tiresome strawman that you and Inga keep insisting on, no matter how many times it's been refuted.

No one, not one single person, has "lauded" Nakoula or made him out to be a "hero." That you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting this shows that you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting the case that free speech advocates are making.; 9/28/12, 12:29 AM
Cedarford said...: Yashu - Au contraire, several numbnuts here did call him a hero. Others cheered and said more people needed to be like him and show how Muslims act like animals when provoked and Nakoula "showed America the truth".

Others went into their own pet Prophet smears.; 9/28/12, 12:35 AM
Levi Starks said...: Between making the justice department enforce things that are not in their purview, and making them not enforce things that are their responsibility, I'd say Obama has his hands full; 9/28/12, 12:42 AM
Chip S. said...: Cedarford, the argument that I made in the original thread on the video and the Benghazi attack specifically criticized Obama for using Nakoula as a scapegoat to cover up his administration's security and intel failures. That argument doesn't hold Nakoula up as a hero, but simply as a private citizen. The president's first impulse should not be to endanger a citizen and his family; it should be to stand firmly by the Constitution.

Nothing we've learned since those first couple of days has led me to change my opinion. On the contrary, everything that's come out has reinforced my opinion.

What we have before us in this case is an issue that comes up in almost every public-policy debate: the choice b/w rules and discretion. If you're familiar w/ the basic literature on the Phillips Curve, you'll see that it's usually the case that just a little bit more inflation will fix the economy--and it can seem very sensible to do that. The downside is that as time goes on, a bigger dose of inflation is required to fix the economy. Eventually you wind up in Carterland, and it's very costly to get out of it.

I believe the same thing holds w.r.t. speech that inflames Muslims. Maybe today they're palliated by an arrest of Nakoula, whom not too many people like very much anyway. Easy call, at least for you and Inga. But what happens when the Islamic mob demands the release of the blind sheikh? Or the arrest of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Every step along the way can be rationalized, but in the end you're just feeding the tiger. At least that's how those of us who put the Bill of Rights ahead of the distemper of Islam see it.; 9/28/12, 12:50 AM
chickelit said...: Here's a timeline of the events. Note the other characters not being scapegoated: link

Nakoula is no hero, but he may be a modern day Marinus van der Lubbe.; 9/28/12, 12:51 AM
MayBee said...: I just hope none of the protestors get the idea we will arrest those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Because that will just encourage more outrage.; 9/28/12, 12:52 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Numbnuts. Did I ever tell you about the time my balls swelled up? They got so big I called up my friends and said, "Hey, come over here and look at my balls before the doctor gets here and makes them go down again." So they did. And they're all, "Dude, how do you even get around?" And I'm all, "I don't. I can't even stuff 'em in my pants." That was the main problem. My family came and took me pantsless to the doctor and he marveled at the largest balls he ever saw and then did something to my balls and they reduced to normal. I do not know what went wrong, nor do I recall what the doctor did. It might have been something so simple as pills. But it was a real thrill there for awhile having the biggest balls on Earth and the center of freak show attention like that even for something so awful and even though it was an incapacitating total drag and even though it was scary. But they were not numb. I don't even understand numbnuts, it's a foreign concept.; 9/28/12, 12:56 AM
yashu said...: I don't recall any commenters calling Nakoula a hero.

Though I must say I don't see what's so obviously crazy about thinking more people needed to be like him and show how Muslims act like animals when provoked and Nakoula "showed America the truth".

Doesn't your own realist argument rely on the premise that certain kinds of speech-- like this obscure little youtube video-- are apt to provoke an inevitable reaction in the Muslim world? Is that not, by your own lights, a "truth"? (I actually think that that's not a truth-- IMO the video is a pretext-- and not inevitable and that we ought not conceive Muslims as mere animals provoked to "mindless" violence by a mere youtube video. But if I'm wrong about that, then both you and the person you're mocking is correct. The only difference is that you counsel appeasement and they counsel scoffing.)

Anyway, I did finally find the comment in which I speculate Nakoula might be a moby, here on Sept. 15 @11:08pm. Allie raises the possibility of a "sinister plot" before that; but in previous comments I'd already granted that Nakoula may well be "a real sleazebag" (@9:28), and directly responding to Allie grant that his motivations may well be "sinster" "dark" "inciting bloody violen[ce]" (@10:37pm). And none of that contravened or contravenes my argument. So no matter who or what Nakoula turns out to be, my own position on this remains consistent.

And as I've argued more than once, my own stance is backed up not only by moral/ ethical/ political principles, philosophy, or ideology (a commitment to free speech and what you mock as that "sacred parchment"), but the most realist of considerations. It seems obvious to me that making a show of punishing Nakoula in an effort to appease the Muslim world will lead to more terrorist violence down the line, more demands to squelch free speech and criminalize blasphemy/ insults/ slandering of the prophet of Islam (and what falls in that category is wide open and expanding), not less.; 9/28/12, 1:29 AM
Illuninati said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/28/12, 1:48 AM
Illuninati said...: Inga said:
"The ENTIRE "event" may very well have been planned months in advance, by our enemies"

I'm glad you admit these devout Muslims are our enemies.

To me, it appears that Obama considers them his friends. Besides bowing to the Saudi king, it seems that Obama has done everything possible to promote the Muslim Brotherhood. We may consider them our enemies, but he considers hem his friends, whom he wishes to put in charge of our future.; 9/28/12, 1:50 AM
yashu said...: My own guess is that arresting Nakoula has less to do with appeasement and more to do with covering the O admin's ass. It's meant more for a domestic audience (the voting American public) than an international one. It's a way for the O admin to pretend that they've done something, solved the problem (thereby deflecting any questions about their own responsibility for what happened). They "got" Osama; now they "got" Nakoula.

From the start, the admin/ MSM framed Nakoula as the main culprit, the person to blame for what happened. (Of course this was bullshit.) This is just following through on that set-up: putting the culprit in jail.

So IMO this is mostly driven by crass electoral politics. Unfortunately, even if this is just a cynical move meant mostly for domestic consumption, the international effects and consequences are the same as if it were a sincere effort of appeasement. One way or another, just the same, the consequences will be more terrorism, not less. And of course it sets a pernicious precedent re free speech (the kind of speech that "the future must not belong to").; 9/28/12, 2:41 AM
Sharon said...: As the mother of an active duty Marine who returned from Leatherneck a few days before the attack that took 2 lives and the largest single loss of military equipment since Vietnam, I agree with Yashu. Cedarford and Inga are out of their depths on this one. My son is fighting to protect and defend the United States and our Constitution. Myriad blasphemous videos exist on You Tube. It's an insult to intelligence (personal and governmental) to suggest for a moment that this one resulted in the equivalent of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre". Whatever the motivation of this probation violator, he will be dealt with by the system that time and again shows itself to be the equivalent of a steam roller, crushing and destroying whatever is in its path.....in this case, his family, the actors, and thanks to this administration, the appearance of an assault on the first amendment.; 9/28/12, 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/28/12, 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Sharon, you may not know this but my daughter, a Corpsman is on Leatherneck NOW and was there DURING the attack by the insurgents, five minutes down the road from her and her roomate's can. She usually jogs around the perimeter at 10 PM, about the time the attack begun. Thank God she had a late day at work and skipped jogging that evening. I am WELL aware that two Marines were killed and more injured, as I said my daughter is a Corpsman.

So I would say to you Sharon, thank you for your son's service, thank my daughter for caring for Marines.

Obviously you haven't read the days of commentary regarding this and my and Cedarford's take on it. If you had you would already knw my daughter was THERE at the time.

My daughter took the same Oath, Sharon, and she doesn't see things as you've described, she isn't alone in her opinion either. Do you think they were thrilled when the Korans were accidentally burned? No.

Think for a moment that it was THIS particular video that may have been part of a much larger plot by our enemies. Neither you nor I know the truth yet.; 9/28/12, 5:37 AM
Michael said...: Inga be.ieves that Althouse is a "chat room" She does not, still, understand the concept of free speech .; 9/28/12, 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/28/12, 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael should get in line.; 9/28/12, 5:46 AM
Michael said...: 50 posts by chatty Inga. Five. Oh.; 9/28/12, 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: You know which line Michael, correct?; 9/28/12, 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Now back to bed, keep track Michael, you being so good with numbers and all. Nite.; 9/28/12, 5:51 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Jesus, Inga, you're still here and you're still dead wrong.; 9/28/12, 6:02 AM
Anonymous said...: NO ST, I have been sleeping, just woke up to, you know, and read Sharon's comment, now I can't get back to sleep.

What are YOU still doing here?; 9/28/12, 6:14 AM
Nomennovum said...: "American law doesn't operate on public opinion and sentiment, Inga." - Shouting Thomas

Too often, it does, and so does the judicial system. And that's because so many voting citizens conduct their lives based on emotions and solipsism.

ST meet Inga, femina occidens.; 9/28/12, 6:15 AM
Christopher said...: Inga/Allie is right, clearly the Constitution should only protect speech that can't be used as a pretext for violence.

I mean, it's not like creating such an exception would incentivize violence. Why, that would just be crazy.; 9/28/12, 6:50 AM
Michael said...: No, i dont know which line, Inga. What triumph are you celebrating? Your continuing elaboration on your misunderstanding of free speech or your guess that this was some sort of moby action? Which you seem to think vindicates your hazy understanding of free speech? You really shouldnt trumpet your shallowness.; 9/28/12, 7:02 AM
Christopher said...: ""But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.""

phx,

If this were about their hypocrisy he'd have a point (although then we could ask why he doesn't refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God if he's going with titles), but it is about freedom of speech.

This statement of Obama's is once more intentionally missing the point. He is trying to turn a colossal fuck up in foreign policy/national security into something it isn't, and all this talk about this stupid POS film is merely an attempt to cover his ass.

However in trying to scapegoat this guy he is not only severely damaging the 1st amendment but he is incentivizing violence. Now the rest of the world looks at this situation and thinks "If we attack American embassies/workers, we can get what we want".; 9/28/12, 7:09 AM
Christopher said...: Putting aside the discussion of the 1st Amendment, the reason Obama needs to stop apologizing about a crappy video is because it incentivizes further violence; it's the same reason you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Rewarding bad behavior gets you more of it.; 9/28/12, 7:13 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/28/12, 7:24 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Isn't it kind of ironic? The only reason this guy got in trouble is because terrorists tried to out smart our government by using him as a fall guy, and our government ate it up while thinking it was their idea.; 9/28/12, 7:39 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Think for a moment that it was THIS particular video that may have been part of a much larger plot by our enemies."

-- Even the White House admits that these attacks were pre-planned and that the video was nothing more than a smokescreen used to attempt to create a fog of war to help cover their escape and give them time to hide. While our government has been cooling its heels to watch a movie and condemn it after the Libya attack, terrorists took the opportunity to press the advantage.

Focusing on the movie is playing into their hands. They don't care about the movie; they would have killed the ambassador whether the movie came out or not. Without the focus on the movie, though, we would not have lost about a week of time as more people feared for their lives.

Obama messed up, catastrophically. He just needs to accept that it was a failure and move on.; 9/28/12, 7:42 AM