(I wasn't sure which of my already-existing tags would work for this post, but then I remembered oath-botching. The original error occurred at "faithfully.")
September 17, 2012
"Happy Constitution Day."
Says Instapundit... with this:
(I wasn't sure which of my already-existing tags would work for this post, but then I remembered oath-botching. The original error occurred at "faithfully.")
(I wasn't sure which of my already-existing tags would work for this post, but then I remembered oath-botching. The original error occurred at "faithfully.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
271 comments:
1 – 200 of 271 Newer› Newest»Prof. Althouse--
I'm curious. On the first day of law school do they ask for a show of hands of those who have read the Constitution? Do they then say, "Well, forget that. You're here to learn how to make the law BETTER."?
I don't get the point of this. Dude wasn't arrested, wasn't handcuffed, and didn't have his probation revoked though he clearly violated the terms of probation. He covered his face voluntarily because he didn't want to get killed by Muslims on a fatwa. And this is supposed to get us upset at Obama because why? Because if someone becomes a YouTube sensation while on probation the terms of which bars using the Internet, they somehow have a First Amendment right not to be questioned by their probation officer?
@ Rumple
Professor's online personality and Professor's...well..Professor personality are completely different.
She is an excellent academic and very professional in the classroom.
@ Althouse -
This post is based on the assumption that the guy is being brought in as punishment for his free speech? I was under the impression he violated his parole in a very public manner. Did I miss something?
Also, the guy is on probation for fraud and the terms of probation bar the use of false identities. And then someone named "Sam Bacile," which is a pseudonym he's used in the past, gives an interview to the Associated Press from his cellphone.
"I am not an animal! I am... a human being."
(Not even a corporation, for all you liberals in Rio Linda.)
More men sent to pick him than to protect an embassy. Or maybe that's what they are trying to do there.
I think it's interesting Ann Althouse and Instapundit haven't mentioned the Value Voters Summit once. When the single largest constinuency of the Republican party has their biggest meeting of the year and both the R Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates address the conference...
On this Constitution Day I wonder how Ann Althouse squares her (I guess) tepid support for gay rights with a party and platform that want to ammend the Constitution to limit contracts between same sex couples (the proposed ammendment won't just "protect marriage"). I guess in the Althouse world support for gays is okay but not nearly as important as the tax rate?
@ Bagoh
"More men sent to pick him than to protect an embassy. Or maybe that's what they are trying to do there."
You do know you can't just send in armed forcecs to "protect your embassies", right?
The New and Improved Living Constitution, in summary:
It isn't a penalty, it's a tax.
So Obama's oath was a Living Oath.
Since the Constitution means whatever the hell they think it means on that particular day, he is fulfilling his oath.
On Monday, it's the blasphemy is illegal and that's consistent with the First amendment new interpreation.
Has anyone seen a copy of his probation papers? No. Nobody has. So far all there is, is rumor on why he was brought in. And, if he was in violation of his parole, why was he allowed to go free? I want some concrete answers to these questions.
Five sheriff deputies? Why that many?
Well worth going out in the middle of the night and alerting the press. Damn parole/probation violators.
I am so glad I don't go to Tenn or Wisconsin and have to pretend to respect the insane opinions of wacko law profs. The conservative con law profs at my school live on planet earth
Insta is doing a great service hitting this issue again and again. This really is a crossing of the Rubicon.
AF said...
I don't get the point of this. Dude wasn't arrested, wasn't handcuffed, and didn't have his probation revoked though he clearly violated the terms of probation.
The word "roust" ring any bells?
DoS:
I feel that it is another example of Obama's disrespect of Consitutional rights.
His administration is causing grave expense to persons and businesses, and injury to religious liberty, with orders to religious institutions to either pay for things they judge to be immoral, or to go out of business.
The White House called Google/YouTube and asked them to take down the offending video, which is government harassment of free speech.
Since when does it take FBI agents to assist in bringing in some guy for an alleged parole violation? In the middle of the night? With the groveling press all about?
It's pretty disgusting.
He went in voluntarily? Right? And it wasn't even to the Sheriff's office - they just offered protection?
Yeesh.
"Happy Constitution Day."
In which the Constitution is like the dead guy in Weekend at Bernie's, propped up at the party in quiet putrefaction.
Happy, happy, joy, joy.
@ Gerry
I'd agree with you if they MADE google take down the video. They asked, persumably to help defend American's abroad. I agree that Google made the right decision in not removing it.
As for the rest, see my comment above.
I was under the impression he violated his parole in a very public manner. Did I miss something?
Yeah, that's the ticket. He was brought in for...a voluntary interview. At midnight. With at least 5 cops, and two others who may be cops, but it's not immediately apparent from the photo. voluntary.
Really, it's cute how the left just swallows this whole.
I wonder how Ann Althouse squares her (I guess) tepid support for gay rights with a party and platform that want to ammend the Constitution to limit contracts between same sex couples (the proposed ammendment won't just "protect marriage"). I guess in the Althouse world support for gays is okay but not nearly as important as the tax rate?
I wasn't aware Althouse became a spokeperson for the Republican party when I wasn't looking. Congrats Ann!
Operative phrase: "to the best of my ability."
But torturing people, meh that's cool.
for his own protection
Because the government let slip where the guy lives. Oopsie!
"Because the government let slip where the guy lives. Oopsie!"
Except that didn't happen. It was an AP reporter that found the guy.
Remember when rounding up civilians on trumped up charges because they were inconvenient for the government was a bad thing? Remember when chilling free speech was terrible?
@ Patrick:
"
Yeah, that's the ticket. He was brought in for...a voluntary interview. At midnight. With at least 5 cops, and two others who may be cops, but it's not immediately apparent from the photo. voluntary.
Really, it's cute how the left just swallows this whole."
I have to say, but if I was in the director's shoes - that's when I'd go in. Middle of the night, with as many law enforcement officials as I could convince to come in.
This is exactly right.
Inspirational Posters for Barry Soetoro's New America
Thank You, Obama Voters!
Making an anti-Obama photo caption = being a GOP operative.
The constitution ended with the Chrysler and GM bondholders.
They didn't count because of fairness, and they were just speculators trying to make money, the original owners having taken a loss selling to them.
The speculators were betting on the constitution.
The original owners were betting against it.
AF said...
"I don't get the point of this. Dude wasn't arrested, wasn't handcuffed, and didn't have his probation revoked though he clearly violated the terms of probation."
AF is cleary unclear on the concept of "chilling effect."
AF must be a public school graduate, AND an Obama Voter.
AF, you're rockin' the stupid, Gangnam Style!
See, we've acknowledged that this guy's life is ruined, he's going to have to go into hiding, etc., because the press revealed so much about his private life.
... So, uh, since that is risking backlash and murderous rage, why is no one in the administration trying to silence the press? Or do we only step on people AFTER people are dead?
"Mathhew Sablan: . . . So, uh, since that is risking backlash and murderous rage, why is no one in the administration trying to silence the press? Or do we only step on people AFTER people are dead?"
I'm worried that Matthew Sablan might actually be serious and not see the, er, irony in calling for silencing the press in the name of the First Amendment. But I'm probably just being paranoid.
I have to say, but if I was in the director's shoes - that's when I'd go in. Middle of the night, with as many law enforcement officials as I could convince to come in.
Or, you could just donate $1 million to the President's campaign, and be free of all of this, like Bill Maher.
I think it's funny to think of Jihadis and wanna-be's looking for this video on Google for the purpose of getting outraged so they can go down to the demonstration to get their fair share of abuse.
"We is outrageous! Death to us!!!!!"
So many Islamic film critics, so few Molotov cocktails.
If only Mick was here to tell them that they can't always git what they want. But they could find that on You Tube too.
Maybe if they found You Porn they would all stay home.
AF, you may want to consider whether it is you who is missing something like irony or sarcasm.
Ben Stein is dead on.
"Really, it's cute how the left just swallows this whole."
Swallow it? As if they're being duped?
No.
That's not what's happening here.
Their affirmative action president, dismal failure he is, on the verge of losing the one real job he's ever had, who's situation has been made worse by his foreign interpretation of a basic, foundational American right AND growing failure of his appeasement policy in the Muslim Middle-East, MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.
They're circling the wagons, as their turd of a president is circling the toilet.
Flush twice, America. Make sure you get it all.
"AF, you may want to consider whether it is you who is missing something like irony or sarcasm."
I did consider that, that's why I said I was worried he was being serious but was probably just being paranoid (ie, paranoid that he was being serious).
I mean, I understand why the government had to silence Citizens United. That was just unhelpful political speech. So, I guess, I get why we had to silence this movie maker guy too.
But, I mean, they're contributing to Zero Dark Whatever... that can't be good for our overseas relations, can it? Or do people rioting at our embassies LIKE documentaries on the killing of bin Laden?
It's all so confusing! What political speech is OK and which isn't? AF: Please, help me figure out who should be silenced and who should speak.
"AF: Please, help me figure out who should be silenced and who should speak."
Well, to begin with, maybe you should be silent for a minute, gather your thoughts, and try to write something that makes sense.
AF: Here is why. Under no circumstance on the planet would this guy have been hauled in for violation of his parole had he not embarrassed the government. If he had, for example, created a hilarious video of bums fighting or cars wrecking or fat people eating, a video that had fifty million views in a few days he would not be hauled in for a parole violation. You don't get this? Seriously?
Nice catch..
It makes sense. We've seen, over the last few years, a string of examples where the left has tried to strangle political speech (and speech which has turned out to be unhelpful.) The question is now painful: If the government is allowed, without electoral consequence, to lean on Google and other content providers to take down speech they don't like, what precedent have we set? Could they increase audits of movie theaters showing unflattering documentaries?
Look, I get that this is an unhelpful situation for Obama. But, the question really is on free speech here. How much government coercion do we allow to go without checking the government? Sure, they're technically only using soft power to coerce people at the moment, but you know what, power is power.
And this is supposed to get us upset at Obama because why?
Two obvious reasons not directly related to the photo:
1. They publicly announced the guy's identity to the world.
2. They tried to get Google to take down the video.
From Daiy Kos, this should send a chill down your spine:
Deport him back to Egypt. (0+ / 0-)
Maybe we could send him back to Egypt in one of those cattle cars the Republicans said they wanted to use to deport Mexicans. Logistical problems aside.
It was reported for a while that he was an Israeli citizen, but that turns out to be a false claim. He was picked up for a probation failure. Sounds like a good enough reason to me.
And it sends a signal to the rest of the Muslim community that it wasn't an American who did it. And it might shut up the people on Fox, like the ones I heard this morning, defending the right of Americans to make films like his. He's not American.
by Dumbo on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 01:32:27 PM PDT
In which the Constitution is like the dead guy in Weekend at Bernie's..
Pogo is dead on... as usual.
Reminds me of Orwell's "doublethink" -- the government says one thing and does another, convincing citizens that reality is not what they witness with their own eyes but what the government tells them is true
"AF: Here is why. Under no circumstance on the planet would this guy have been hauled in for violation of his parole had he not embarrassed the government. If he had, for example, created a hilarious video of bums fighting or cars wrecking or fat people eating, a video that had fifty million views in a few days he would not be hauled in for a parole violation. You don't get this? Seriously?"
No, I don't. First, he wasn't hauled in for violation of his terms of probation (not parole, there's no such thing as federal parole). He was questioned about possible violations and released. Second, most people whose violations of their terms of probation are reported on national TV are going to be asked about it.
If anything, I would assume that someone else in his position would have been detained (for using a false identity if not for using the Internet).
I don't get the point of this.
the point was to chill free speech in others. the message was this is what happens to you if you cross the Obama administration.
Instapundit, as an advocate of genocide and torture, and you, a defender of torture, have no standing to celebrate Constitution Day.
"the message was this is what happens to you if you cross the Obama administration."
Message: If you are on probation and you violate the terms of probation, you might be questioned about it -- and released. Chilling!
Oh.. btw..
Allie says we are screaming...
Maybe we ought to simmer down.. pipe up.. shut it...
It is constitution day after all.
AF - yeah the timing of this "parole violation" didn't raise your suspicion meter at all.
Alex,
That's interesting. I never ruled out this was a false flag operation, or very easily could be. Not that it is here, but why not? Radicals plant the video and time the outrage to their advantage.
That's the problem with being so utterly malleable and predictable -- the radicals can do this over and over whenever they need a pretext to burn, destroy, and kill. The Islamic "street" has access to the web, and nobody, not even Muhhamed himself (PBUH) can control that, so the radicals use the web to foment unrest by piping propoganda directly to the masses, while blaming the Joos and the West. Very easy since it fits the narrative. Then bring out the big stuff and hit the soft targets.
Lem - don't you know that shutting up is for our own good? I can already imagine Allie all decked out in SS gear.
"yeah the timing of this "parole violation" didn't raise your suspicion meter at all."
Well the violation of terms of probation consisted in putting this film out under a false identity. So it's not like it's some strange coincidence.
AF: Actually, no. Widely reporting a crime doesn't mean that the person will suffer any consequences. See, Act, Hatch... err, The Hatch Act.
In fact, simply reporting on someone potentially committing a crime isn't enough to cause the police to exert pressure to make someone come in. That's the part you are missing. The political muscling being used to get this man to do something he would not have had to do.
The only reason he had to make a statement or get whisked away at midnight is that his speech was harmful to the president.
yeah the timing of this "parole violation" didn't raise your suspicion meter at all.
Consider he had a restriction on using a computer, and false identities...well...no, the timing seems entirely appropriate?
Or, conversely I suppose we could adovcate allowing people to break their paroles in the name of free speech, but only if you put americans at risk and somehow create a partisan issue. Then, in the name of free speech, you can break the law.
That makes sense.
Allie - you might also want to practice your "L'Internationale" singing voice.
DOS - drink deep, comrade.
AF: I see. They would have come for the guy making the movie about bums if making a movie was a possible violation of the terms of his probation. Got it. I can see why we need more law enforcement. And better schools assuming you claim to have attended one.
Freder Frederson said...
Instapundit, as an advocate of genocide and torture, and you, a defender of torture, have no standing to celebrate Constitution Day.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
How do we know that the Obama Administration is engaging in the indefensible?
The ignorants come out with such hyperbole
So, Dose, you agree that Sebelius should be stripped of her position for breaking the Hatch Act? All laws should be rigidly enforced, especially when they are in the news. Hell, she even admitted to having broken it!
If you honestly, truly believe that this guy deserved to have his life ruined and be probably forced into hiding to prevent being murdered because he violated parole, well, I hope you are planning to not vote for Obama for being unwilling to enforce a much more serious law than parole violation.
AF said...
I don't get the point of this.
Of course you don't.
You have zero interest in "getting the point"
That would be like, hard and stuff.
@ Alex -
If I were to truly believe our government was pulling citizens out of their beds, covering their faces, and whisking them away to exert some dubious pressures BUT was also dumb enough to let the media tape it, and then release those tapes...
...well, I'd probably want some kool-aid anyway.
So, Dose, you agree that Sebelius should be stripped of her position for breaking the Hatch Act?
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to her, she is not a civil service employee.
"You do know you can't just send in armed forcecs to "protect your embassies", right?"
Do tell. What are the Marines routinely assigned to the embassy for, exactly? Decoration?
First they came for people who blasphemed against Islam, and I said nothing because I...
Freder Frederson said...
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to her,
Um, that would be new to like the Office of General Counsel
There is no dispute the Hatch Act applies to the HHS Secretary. None what so ever.
So again, you're fucking retarded.
Why are you commenting here?
DOS - it always starts like this. The government sends it's goon squad to intimidate an unpopular figure, in this case Nikoula. Then it goes on to the next unpopular until it's YOU.
"The Hatch Act doesn't apply to her, she is not a civil service employee."
... Wrong. Which is why they had to reclassify her trip.
That's... wow. I expected to catch someone tripping over trying to say how they were different. Not... being wrong about the Hatch Act.
Freder Frederson said...
Instapundit, as an advocate of genocide and torture, and you, a defender of torture, have no standing to celebrate Constitution Day.
You, as a supporter of a President who claims that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch in order to order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial have no standing to comment on "torture"
Idiot.
Freder Frederson said...
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to her, she is not a civil service employee
The Hatch Act isn't limited in application to "civil service employees"
Given you level of ignorance, why do you feel the need to say anything at all?
Well the violation of terms of probation consisted in putting this film out under a false identity. So it's not like it's some strange coincidence.
The film was out there since July. And it's not clear to me how you know that he violated the terms of his probation. Given that we have no idea what those terms are, exactly.
Clinton's statement last week did a fine job of emphasizing that the US Government cannot control or censor the speech of its citizens. And then, we see this man very publicly identified and perp-walked by the government. If the government did not want it to appear that they were punishing him for his speech, why did they go out of their way to make it appear that way for the cameras?
The message I'm getting today from the left is loud & clear -
assholes, criminals or other malcontents do not deserve 1A protections.
Allie is no where to be found on this tread..
At least she knows when to quit.
"BUT was also dumb enough to let the media tape it, and then release those tapes..."
Dose can't define tyranny or chilling effects, but he knows 'em when he sees 'em.
Lem - defending the indefensible is exhausting.
Allie is no where to be found on this tread.
I assume she's using one of her other identities, like shiloh or such.
Hey, Jumping out of this thread for a second.
I keep seeing you guys respond to comments from Allie and Fred - yet...I don't see their posts?
What's going on? Anyone know?
A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.
Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear.
- Tim Robbins, 2003
I keep seeing you guys respond to comments from Allie and Fred - yet...I don't see their posts?
What's going on? Anyone know?
Google's IdiotBlock app, probably...
The film was out there since July. And it's not clear to me how you know that he violated the terms of his probation. Given that we have no idea what those terms are, exactly.
Well, I'm sure they don't scour youtube looking for videos on the off chance someone violated his probation.
As to the terms, I'm going off of what the AP reported. You are correct that I haven't seen the terms. I think it's safe to assume that one of them was not to use any aliases, given the nature of his crimes.
Good grief, I'm reading, just not commenting, why waste my breath on chronic group thinkers, aka sheep.
Revenant, Shiloh does not live in my underwear.
The famous film maker had conditions of probation that prohibited using the internet and false names. The guys filing out of police cars in groups of five, across the land, are out for these kinds of desperadoes.
Dose of sanity: "If I were to truly believe our government was pulling citizens out of their beds, covering their faces, and whisking them away to exert some dubious pressures BUT was also dumb enough to let the media tape it, and then release those tapes..."
Which part do you not believe? Because it's all pretty much on tape.
Of course they had it taped, and released the tapes. The entire point of the exercise was to mollify the ignorant savages by enforcing sharia law.
I thought you might have been one of the principled liberals, Dose. I'm not sure how I reached that opinion; I guess I was wrong. Apparently you're one of the progressives: Left-wing fascists.
Oh.. there she is, I guess she decided the constitution is worth celebrating.
Lemmy honey, that was sweet of you to miss me.
Aw, thanks Roger and Allen, I love you two guys, despite our political differences.
Allie Opp: And what is your independent thinking on the topic of free speech? We have certainly seen a variety of posts that are not always in synch with each other. Can you elaborate on your independent thinking here perhaps by answering a few easy questions?
1. Do you think the film maker is guilty of something?
2. Do you think the govt. is right to suggest that Google take down the offending film?
3. Do you think the film maker was questioned because of his film or because of his possible probation violation?
Yes or no questions.
So Joe Biden (Osama is dead, GM is alive) should dread the midnight knock on the door as well?
Or does "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama" mean "I hate that movie"?
@ AF:
Stop being so damned obtuse about "probation violations." When a probation officer gets information that one of his charges might have violated probation, he calls him up and tells him to come down to the office (during office hours) to discuss it. Maybe in unusual cases he will go to the charge's house (at some reasonable time) to discuss it. What the officer doesn't do is send out five cops in the middle of the night to bring him in for a "voluntary interview," also in the middle of the night.
Also, the officer doesn't drag his charge out of the house in the presence of large numbers of TV cameras and reporters. Even if he's not responsible for the press being there, he works around their presence.
This is not to say you're a fool, only that you're stupidly disingenuous.
People dont ask me to be quiet everyday.
Now, dont go saying you didn't say that.. because you did.. when you say we are "screaming".. it was an attempt to get us to shut up.
Chilling free speech.
@ Pasta
I'd like to believe I'm principled! But, I hope that disagreeing with you on the facts doesn't make me a facist. Now THERE is a chilling effect on free speech.
It's quite possible I'm wrong, but my gut says otherwise.
Also, I don't understand how this is Sharia law, at all. How did that reference pop up?
Now I have to go..
But I shall return.
Dose, just how badly would Obama have to abuse his office for you to decide that maybe it would be okay to criticize him?
No, the government didn't force a takedown of the video because THAT case would make it to the Supreme Court in record time, and would be impossible for the media to ignore.
And parole "interviews" are always preceded by at least six uniformed officers banging on your door after midnight.
Not posed to me, but I'll answer:
1. Do you think the film maker is guilty of something?
2. Do you think the govt. is right to suggest that Google take down the offending film?
3. Do you think the film maker was questioned because of his film or because of his possible probation violation?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. This isn't a yes or no...but probation violation.
How is this Obama? Also - I'm happy to criticize him, but I do happen to agree with him strongly. He thinks like I think. I know a lot of fan boy-type people make that comment, but it's how it honestly feels.
I'm one of his first 1,000 campagin contributors.
I really do try and keep a fair mind. I thought I'd tip you to my bias ahead of time.
whores,
Calling people names really says more about you than the people you try to insult. go away
Dose -
Do you agree that this film was an "abuse" of free speech rights?
"whoresoftheinternet" is a Moby, ignore it and it will go away.
Michael, Ok since the questions are "easy", thanks Mikey, that was sweet of you to make the questions easy for little ol' Allie.
1. Possibly yes.
2.No
3.Yes and No to both parts of this question. An investigation is in progress , we will have to wait to see why he was questioned.
Michael you don't get to dictate the terms of how I answer a question, I could just ignore you instead.
1. Do you think the film maker is guilty of something?
2. Do you think the govt. is right to suggest that Google take down the offending film?
3. Do you think the film maker was questioned because of his film or because of his possible probation violation?
Yes or no questions.
I'll take a stab at these. Although I note that #3 is not a yes or no question.
1. Yes. I think he probably violated the terms of his probation by, among other things, using an alias. If he agreed not to use an alias and turned around and used one, which appears to be the case, the circumstances surrounding the use of the alias are not relevant. All that matters is that he agreed not to do it as a condition of his release, and turned around and did it anyway.
2. No.
3. I think he was questioned because the publicity surrounding his film flagged a probation violation that otherwise would likely have gone unnoticed. I can't imagine why people expect police to ignore that. I for one want people who violate their probation to be punished.
Please do not try to make this idiot a free speech martyr.
Do you agree that this film was an "abuse" of free speech rights?
Hell no. In fact, I think free speech is meant to criticize.
Do I like this film? No - of course not, I can't imagine a more disgusting, crap film.
Do you agree that this film was an "abuse" of free speech rights?
No. But it is a real piece of shit, is it not? The bits I was able to find and watch the other day were monumentally stupid.
I am still not clear what charge applies to the film maker other than parole violation. Can any one tell me? I dont believe he has been charged with anything at this point.
Every piece of shit crap film has to be banned in the interests of good taste!
Alex: that puts all of Michael Moore's stuff in jeopardy :)
But that would mean banning Clerks and Idiocracy which would be unacceptable!
Dose of Sanity (sic),
What do you believe the filmmaker is guilty of?
Allie, you are arguing endlessly for appeasing the jihadis.
I understand your motivation.
You are wrong. It won't work.
Allie should at least be honest about her motivations.
Would "Conan the Barbarian" be banned?
So, to sum up:
A guy who make a video that embarrassed the Obama administration was taken away by the police. But that's ok, because anonymous government insiders have leaked information that the guy's guilty of parole violations.
So there's no reason to worry.
Allie's worried about her daughter.
God bless and protect your daughter, Allie.
Still, appeasing the jihadis is not gonna work, Allie.
Not even to make your daughter safe.
Yes, Allie, and they frog marched the guy in front of cameras to send a message to the jihadis.
You are defending the indefensible.
Allie, I really mean it.
You are defending something that cannot be defended.
Allie--time will tell. I have to crystal ball on this one. AQ seems to be fairly sophisticated in their thinning leadership, so anything is possible.
What do you believe the filmmaker is guilty of?
Well, he was convicted of a check kiting scheme in which he used multiple aliases. I imagine that his use of another alias would be a violation.
Allie, even if every one of the explanations you've put forward is true, it doesn't matter.
They frog marched the guy in front of cameras in an attempt to appease the jihadis.
They sent the message to the jihadis that they are willing to punish speech... to appease the jihadis.
God bless and protect your daughter, Allie.
I read this as a creepy veiled threat. Over the line, no?
Well, he was convicted of a check kiting scheme in which he used multiple aliases. I imagine that his use of another alias would be a violation.
So, he's a questionable character.
So's Larry Flynt.
Alex,
From Daiy Kos, this should send a chill down your spine:
"Deport him back to Egypt. (0+ / 0-)
Maybe we could send him back to Egypt in one of those cattle cars the Republicans said they wanted to use to deport Mexicans. Logistical problems aside."
What logistical problems? Didn't Obama laud the "Intercontinental Railroad" not too long ago? A miracle of American ingenuity and knowhow!
Sorry. This is not a funny situation. How long does anyone think this guy would survive if deported? He'd have as good a case for asylum as anyone on earth, and I think we'd honor it. Though the administration would be gritting its collective teeth.
I read this as a creepy veiled threat. Over the line, no?
There is no veiled threat. Allie's daughter is in the military.
So, he's a questionable character.
So's Larry Flynt.
Rather, I think he's a character worth questioning.
is it me or is blogger not entering comments in chronological order? I would hate to offend the blogger gods though.
Dose of Sanity said...
Not posed to me, but I'll answer:
1. Do you think the film maker is guilty of something?
2. Do you think the govt. is right to suggest that Google take down the offending film?
3. Do you think the film maker was questioned because of his film or because of his possible probation violation?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. This isn't a yes or no...but probation violation.
Really? It takes 5 sheriffs deputies to pull someone in(not arrested) for a parole violatiion? The parole violation being he posted something on the internet which he was not supposed to do. A very dangerous criminal. 5 deputies
Why do we have parole officers? Unless the violator is dangerous the parole officer usually does the picking up of the violator.Not to mention the timing.
Sort of gives a lie to this:
Dose of Sanity said...
How is this Obama? Also - I'm happy to criticize him, but I do happen to agree with him strongly. He thinks like I think. I know a lot of fan boy-type people make that comment, but it's how it honestly feels.
I'm one of his first 1,000 campagin contributors.
I really do try and keep a fair mind. I thought I'd tip you to my bias ahead of time.
Or you're simply incurious to the goings on tht run counter to your.......uh, principals.
It's Ok. You're only short changing yourself.
Allie's daughter is in the military.
She's worried that this video is inciting violence that will affect her daughter.
Rather, I think he's a character worth questioning.
Generally speaking, parole violators are not frog marched at midnight in front of reporters and photographers for the sake of appeasing the jihadis.
Cease this nonsense.
Really, it's cute how the left just swallows this whole.
They don't, really. But what else can they say?
Shouting Thomas, it's not just my daughter I'm worried about.
If the video maker had been contacted and questioned in private, without the PR drama, I could buy the arguments you are trying to sell, Dose.
Or you're simply incurious to the goings on tht run counter to your.......uh, principals.
haha, nice turn of phrase.
As to your point re: the number of sheriff deputies, as I noted before, specifically stated they were there for protection only. I'd be a lot more concerned if this guy had no protection...wouldn't you?
but I have NO DOUBT that a thorough investigation is underway.
I think everyone can agree that the Obama administration is thoroughly investigating this guy.
That's the problem, isn't it. :)
He'd have as good a case for asylum as anyone on earth, and I think we'd honor it.
Not if he has a prior conviction for a check kiting scheme. That's something immigration law terms a "crime of moral turpitude" and would likely bar him from getting asylum.
That said, I do not think this administration is going to try to have this guy deported.
Shouting Thomas, it's not just my daughter I'm worried about.
I get that this whole video thing may have been a setup to justify the jihadi attacks. Could be.
Sending that message to the jihadis... frog marching the guy in front of the cameras as if to appease them... is still wrong and an affront to the First Amendment.
If the video maker had been contacted and questioned in private, without the PR drama, I could buy the arguments you are trying to sell, Dose.
Interesting point - you think the source is the government and not the media's own research?
Dose,
Impossible to deal with the degree of obtuseness you're demonstrating.
Look at the picture.
The message it was meant to convey is clear.
It was meant to appease the jihadis.
She's worried that this video is inciting violence that will affect her daughter.
Certainly understandble. Doesn't really change the free speech argument. Indeed, without speaking out of turn, I'd wager one of the things her daughter is proud of is willing to risk her life to protect that freedom.
I'm thankful for that.
As to your point re: the number of sheriff deputies, as I noted before, specifically stated they were there for protection only. I'd be a lot more concerned if this guy had no protection...wouldn't you?
The government were the ones who leaked the guy's identity in the first place.
So that was mighty nice of them to protect the guy from mob violence after directing the mob to his house.
Interesting point - you think the source is the government and not the media's own research?
At this point, it's a hall of mirrors, isn't it?
but I have NO DOUBT that a thorough investigation is underway...
...I can't wait to hear how much money the President raised, and from whom, and what Michelle wore, in Vegas while our embassies burned.
The message it was meant to convey is clear.
It was meant to appease the jihadis.
Interesting argument. I don't really believe the riots are about the films at all. At least, that's what my "sources on the ground" are telling me. (in cairo and in libya). I suppose if the government believed the film was a problem, then this might be an attempt to appease.
That would be massively shortsighted on their part though - considering that the government should be trying to show that they DONT control speech, rather than showing they DO try and control. Prove you don't control it, and the responisibility goes to the speaker, of course.
Just a thought.
At this point, it's a hall of mirrors, isn't it?
Always has been, hasn't it? It's left for us to argue about until we get somewhere close to the truth, I suppose.
the number of sheriff deputies, as I noted before, specifically stated they were there for protection only. I'd be a lot more concerned if this guy had no protection...wouldn't you?
What happened to the parole officer picking up the phone and calling in the guy for a meeting during office hourse? No appeasement photo op?
I'm inclined to agree with Krauthammer that the administration's policy has gone up in flames, that they haven't got a clue what to do now, and that they are seizing blindly on just about any strategy in the hopes of finding something that will work.
That said, I do not think this administration is going to try to have this guy deported.
I agree. They want this whole thing to go away, and the worst thing that could happen politically is to have a long, drawn out deportation proceeding culminating with his execution for blasphemy.
Personally, I think they brought him in to tell him they won't do anything to him if he disappears from the public eye until after the election. They may even find him a new home and identity far away from the public eye.
The cable guy understood immediately what some commenters here claim to not understand. A simple exercise fixes that BANG! just think of this happening under Bush II.
I find people in the age group of the cable guy to be the best people, the most fun people to talk to, most open and flexible. About 20 to 30 years old. That's my guess, and my bias.
"Dude, someone scribbled all over your arm."
"Yep."
"Ah, Dude, they scribbled all over the other arm too."
"Yep."
"What, did you pass out at a party or something?"
By way of icebreaker, then this picture comes on both the TV screen and the laptop screen, which apparently cannot be spelled screne.
Tattoo arm guy, some kind of linear writing, and I'm rather good at making sense of writing if not spelling, but nothing on those arms makes sense, true scribbles, understands the affront that photograph represents, the cable guy does. That photograph will be on iconicphotos.wordpress.
Futile explaining it here, if it must be explained on a constitutional law professor's blog, attracts all types, epistemological closure and all that if it must be explained at this point, probably over 30. I see this bias I harbor is making me dismissive.
Personally, I think they brought him in to tell him they won't do anything to him if he disappears from the public eye until after the election.
One possible interpretation.
Another is that they hoped privately to persuade him to take down the video, in return for a reduction or dismissal of the charges against him.
Dose of Sanity said...
As to your point re: the number of sheriff deputies, as I noted before, specifically stated they were there for protection only. I'd be a lot more concerned if this guy had no protection...wouldn't you?
Why? It's only a parole violation.
So, now they've attacked the US Embassyin Obama's childhood home, Indonesia.
"This morning, a mob of about a thousand people attacked the US Embassy in Jakarta with sticks, stones and Molotov cocktails, including members of the Islamic Defender Front (FPI)."
But it's totally the Youtube movie guy's fault.
Clearly, post after post shows AF to be deeply in denial about the man he voted for.
I hope that disagreeing with you on the facts doesn't make me a facist. Now THERE is a chilling effect on free speech.
Speech can't be chilled by armed agents of the government, just by blog commenters.
I was under the impression he violated his parole in a very public manner.
Sure. Same thing happened with the woman who gave a nationally broadcast speech about her illegal immigrant status, except her very public discussion of lawbreaking had no adverse consequences whatsoever.
Here's my last word on this. They said they want to kill American. I believe them.
Has the ACLU issued any comment about this matter? The First Amendment is particularly dear to them. They must have an official position!?
Things are worse than I thought, even for the Obama DOJ. Definitely check out the YouTube in this article:
Obama’s DOJ Can’t Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal
The exchange below, between Representative Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, occurred in late July, but is particularly relevant today. Representatvie Franks tries to extract an assurance from Perez that the Obama administration will not push a proposal to criminalize speech "against any religion." He has a tough time doing so.
AF said...
I don't get the point of this. Dude wasn't arrested, wasn't handcuffed, and didn't have his probation revoked though he clearly violated the terms of probation. He covered his face voluntarily because he didn't want to get killed by Muslims on a fatwa. And this is supposed to get us upset at Obama because why? Because if someone becomes a YouTube sensation while on probation the terms of which bars using the Internet, they somehow have a First Amendment right not to be questioned by their probation officer?
AF said...
Also, the guy is on probation for fraud and the terms of probation bar the use of false identities. And then someone named "Sam Bacile," which is a pseudonym he's used in the past, gives an interview to the Associated Press from his cellphone.
Dose of Sanity said...
This post is based on the assumption that the guy is being brought in as punishment for his free speech? I was under the impression he violated his parole in a very public manner. Did I miss something?
This thread starts off with several very reasonable and thoughtful posts followed by a bunch of republican trolls with increasingly irrational justifications for their irrational assumptions.
Not every event needs to be explained by a paranoid fantasy of Obama's omnipotence. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even with a Democrat president.
tit postings are funner.
tits.
bouncing
hard yet supple.
sucky sucky.
This man was not a violent offender, nor was his violation an immediate danger to the public, so why the urgency to get him to submit to an interview? Okay, so he violated the terms of his probation. But a midnight rousting by law enforcement agents because he used a computer? Under normal circumstances, this does not involve the use of law enforcement officers and it doesn't draw full blown media coverage. His probation officer would have simply called him to come into his office for an interview. He could have come in during normal daylight hours, on his own.
"I assume she's using one of her other identities, like shiloh or such."
Revenant seemed like one of the more astute/perceptive/rational of the Althouse flock. Obviously I was mistaken.
edutcher sayin' I was p,b&j was a mildly amusing distraction considering edutcher is dumber than a rock. But Revenant's obsession w/me is disappointing.
Apologies to rocks!
We now return you to one of many Althouse obsession/addictions ie Instapundit nonsense.
Eagerly awaiting another Limbaugh/Drudge thread ...
Well Allie, If it's not your daughter you're worried about, then you just lost most of whatever support you had.
If there is a First Amendment right protecting Americans or foreigners that incite violence against Americans, as some right-wingers are yelling about their newly beloved 1st Amendment martyr Sam Bacile...we need to act quick!!
Rescind the kill order that is out on Adam Gadan for inciting violence against us..and expunge the treason charges against that gallant young lad who is just exercising his 1st Amendment Rights as a spokesman for Al Qaeda.
Apologize to the families of the two other 1st Amendment martyrs - Al-Awlaki and his US citizen website publisher.
Sam Bacile admitted in a very ill-advised interveiw his whole purpose was to defame America and het our enemies to strike us. And those motives were also those of his "100 wealthy Jewish donors that funded the 5 million" (he said that at the time, very possibly the donors were not Jews as he was lying about being Israeli in the same interview)
Besides Al Qaeda as a possiblity of financing the movie, or Zionists that want us to react to embassy burnings and dead Americans... what if, as a hypothetical, it was learned Chinese intelligence services funneled money to the Copt con artist and crook in a ploy to harm American interests in the Muslim world? To get us out of influence in Central Asia, Malaysia, as well as the Middle East? Purge America from lands with resources China wants to control?
What if it was Iran funding it to hopefully kill Americans and set the Arabs and America up in a conflict Iran strategicaly benefitted from??
You all can take your absolutist "1st Amendment rights even Al Qaeda can access in America and exploit to use against us"...and shove it up your asses.
Spinelli, I said its not JUST my daughter I was worried about. What about the Coptic Christians, how does this help them, aren't they in enough danger already?
"If it's not your daughter you're worried about, then you just lost most of whatever support you had.
9/17/12 5:46 PM"
Allie said:
"it's not just my daughter I'm worried about."
Indicating as well as her daughter she's also worried about her compatriots.
Seriously nd, is English your second language?
And yet, I cannot but help to think of none other than Mr. Bob Dylan.
A man's man if there ever were a man's man, and Dylan would hate that label, which indeed makes it more apt.
Everybody must get stoned.
Own it.
Babies must get stonied.
Moms.
Dads.
Fetus.
Daughters.
Brothers.
Toddlers.
Everybody!
Or did Bob miswrite/speak/"sing" un-beknownst?
Thanks Shiloh, yes that is true. The attack on Camp Leatherneck was a nightmare for the families before the names of the dead and injured were released and we were able to hear from our loved ones.
I belong to a Navy Mms support group with Moms of Seabees and Corpsman on that base, who were five minutes down the road from the attacks. You have no idea what anguish and fear were expressed in the many emails we exchanged with each other that nigh until we had heard from our kids.
Lot of law and order lefties here. Good to see they are fucking on it with probation violators.
So if I go out and gun down an artist who offended me, am I a criminal? Why - yes!
In leftwing appeasement land - If Islam kills, it's the fault of the person who did the offending. Got it.
Let's let the bullies win.
Also, Obama can thump his chest and piss these people off, but some no-name dude with a crappy u-tube vid cannot. Got it.
Allie: So where do you stand on the First Amendment?
We have free speech but if people on the other side of the world can be manipulated into rioting and killing, we will back off saying whatever they say upsets them?
April, why are you so silly? Of course it's the fault of the perpetrators, there is also a responsibility of the person engaging in free speech too, or can anybody even an Al Qaeda operative engage in free speech, even if it kills Americans?
Some here forget we are still at war.
Well I'm as pro free speech as the next guy and I certainly wouldn't go along with efforts to stop this guy from making his movies, whatever they are.
But if doing so brings him to the attention of people who are interested in his past convictions of identity theft and bank fraud, and possible parole violations thereof, well that's his problem.
I believe you have to accept the responsibility for your actions. I also believe people who continue to break the law after they've been convicted are asking for it. Maybe I'm more conservative than some of you folks are.
Cedarford drawled: You all can take your absolutist '1st Amendment rights even Al Qaeda can access in America and exploit to use against us'...and shove it up your asses. [emphasis added]
Your words have already been up your beloved incumbent's Party ass. Democrats are asses.
Since you seem so bent on foisting conspiracy theories, how about this one: you and your ilk are so worried about "martyr-loving Christian fundies" that you thought this time you could pull it off--you thought that by attacking blasphemy you could somehow realign those malevolent fundies against the "Progressive Jew" allies just like others thought that the "martyr-loving Christian fundies" would never accept a Mormon. Now you're mad because you'll have to rethink things yet again. Really, I'm surprised that you're not leading the charge against Romney, tarring him as a neocon reincarnation of "war-loving" John McCain.
I don't believe in the free speech of our enemies to be used against American civilians and troops in a time of war, Creely.
If this guy turns out to be just a Coptic Christian who did something stupid, then he deserves no punishment, but if he is found to be involved somehow with AlQaeda, then he needs to be prosecuted.
And we won't know what his motives were unless and he is investigated. Those who called the sheriffs brownshirts for bringing him in for questioning were engaging in knee jerk groupthink.
It's like the knucklehead pastor in Florida. These are people who like to throw fuel on the fire, or at least can't even recognize when they're doing. That's fine, I don't think we should stop them. They have the same rights as everybody.
But how closely do you have to look at these people to realize they don't have the values of someone you want to be allied with? Get the sleep out of your eyes. You should have known as far back as high school or before, these are guys who are going to get you in trouble if you aren't careful.
BTW, what does the ACLU (those bastions of free expression) have to say about this?
phx - it's a great thing you've finally recognized that douchebags have 1A rights. Now it's time for you to get on the right side of things and denounce the "rage" industry.
And sure as shit, they find themselves in a load of trouble, dragging a whole bunch of innocent people into the cynosure of their personal wreckage.
Wha??
phx - whichever innocent people got hurt are the result of the Islamist rampagers. They are the sole ones at fault here, don't you forget that for a second. What is this knee-jerk need you have to try to shift blame?
phx: But how closely do you have to look at these people to realize they don't have the values of someone you want to be allied with? Get the sleep out of your eyes. You should have known as far back as high school or before, these are guys who are going to get you in trouble if you aren't careful.
Like everybody was cheering on the neo-Nazi's in Skokie, Il a generation ago. Most thought it was disgusting (I wonder what Cedarford thought?). In hindsight, those neo-Nazi were downright Achmadinijahd. Did the Skokies stoke Iran?
Alex I don't know what this "about time" thing of yours is, some inability to read other people probably, but bro I can only argue one issue at a time.
But if it's about "rage" - I'm not a backer.
Alex: What is this knee-jerk need you have to constantly use the word "knee-jerk"?
Some here forget we are still at war.
No, Ally, there is no declared war, and the Obama admin keeps insisting that no war exists.
And, yes, even a suspected Al Qaeda operative has the right to free speech if he's an American citizen.
I love the confusion you conservatives thinkers have about responsibility. Like because the Islamists murderers are responsible for their actions, nobody else is responsible for theirs.
The fact remains the film-maker's responsible for HIS actions, too. Just like I am for mine, and you are for yours.
I don't believe in the free speech of our enemies to be used against American civilians and troops in a time of war, Creely.
You keep dodging the question.
It doesn't matter who Nasouli is or why he made that video. The Muslims aren't rioting because of his motives, they are rioting because the video is offensive.
In Muslim terms it is offensive and if not that video, any number of other straightforward Western free speech acts will drive them to murderous fury, e.g. the Danish cartoons in 2005.
Again, where do you stand on the First Amendment?
Seems like you guys just like to give a pass to people you agree with or who agree with you. And you call that "personal responsibility." Ha.
Well Shouting Thomas, tell that to the insurgents that keep trying to kill our troops, maybe they haven't heard we aren't at war.
The fact remains the film-maker's responsible for HIS actions, too. Just like I am for mine, and you are for yours.
Of course, but what crime did he commit with that video?
creeley23 I didn't say he committed a "crime" with that video - unless you want to call spewing your thoughts when you're this much of a moron a crime. But as far as I think I don't think that stuff should be censored.
I'm just saying some of you dogs are lying down with fleas if you ask me.
I can almost guess what Allie thought about Jane Fonda consorting with the enemy at the time. I wonder what she would have thought about Fonda had she had a son or daughter in Vietnam at the time.
Creely, I am dodging nothing, perhaps I am not giving you the answer you want me to give you. I am not interested in getting into a free speech debate with you or anyone else here.
We have free speech in this country, terrorists don't give a damn about our free speech and they probably love it when fools abuse this precious right so they use it against us and kill American innocents and troops.
We need to be responsible when we engage in our rights, not abuse them foolishly.
Post a Comment