Mr. Nakoula’s supervised release barred him from using aliases. But he resumed work on his movie under the name Sam Baccil, said Jimmy Israel, who assisted with preproduction. Mr. Israel, who still thought Mr. Nakoula had been away battling cancer, placed casting notices on Backstage.com. One advertised 11 roles that included “George: male, 20-40, a strong leader, romantic, tyrant, a killer with no remorse, accent.” Mr. Israel said Mr. Nakoula told him that “Muhammad would be named George to mislead the actors.”You're supposed to believe he is in prison because of the alias?
November 26, 2012
An interview with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the imprisoned filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims."
The NYT forefronts the fact that Nakoula is angry and without remorse. I think he should be angry, and the NYT should show far more concern about free speech and political persecution, but there's some detailed material, e.g.:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
267 comments:
1 – 200 of 267 Newer› Newest»Angry and without remorse. Hey, he fits right in these days.
The NYT (and others) have sold their sole to protect Barry. The sad part is they don't even realize it. The scales remain over their eyes.
Let's face it, this guy is piece of scum. Hard to be sympathetic.
On the other hand, he's obviously a political prisoner too, arrested on a pretense, because it was convenient for Mr. Wonderful's presidential campaign.
Mr. Wonderful - he's such a nice guy, not like Romney, that meanie.
It is probably technically true that Mr. Nakoula violated the terms of his parole, but that's part of a much bigger problem. When there are a million laws out there that no-one can possibly keep, and the government has the discretion to decide whom to prosecute, then there's no real guarantee of freedom. There's always going to be some misdeed under which political opponents can be sidelined.
When there are a million laws out there that no-one can possibly keep
You mean When there are a million laws out there that no convicted felon can possibly keep.
People are expected to believe a whole lot of silly things.
phx, I think you're missing Pookie Number 2's point. Just a guess. Maybe you're right on it.
Maybe he can be called as a witness during S. Rice's confirmation hearings.
This is the case that will be remembered as the point when Constitutional rights became a contact sport.
phx thinks he's in full compliance, and is proud of that.
Here's all you need to know: This film maker's illegal dealings were found out on a national, public level, and he was punished because, apparently, it was impossible to ignore the technicality of what he did. Seems fair enough in theory, hackish and goofy, but whatever.
So, why is Corzine still walking free?
The United States of Banana Republics.
@phx
I'll steal Sablan's comment "So, why is Corzine still walking free?"
Head scratcher isn't it.
Amusing how the NYT is up with indignation about this "movie". I still think pedophile director Roman Polanski should make a Mohammad movie. It takes one to know one.
Come on now; you know what Polanski did was a victimless crime compared to using an alias when you were told not to do so. I have it on good authority it wasn't even rape-rape.
You mean When there are a million laws out there that no convicted felon can possibly keep.
No. I agree that this guy is a schmo. I'm just trying to point out a related issue, which I think we've seen pretty explicitly in obama's contrasting decision to prosecute this guy, but not the subset of illegal immigrants that won't be prosecuted. It's not a good idea to have lots of laws, and lots of discretion, because that can be abused for political ends. To me, that's how the Nakoula thing looks.
Obama has always been very pro-Muslim. But a Coptic Christian with 1500 years of bondage and random murders in the community's memory likes to tell the truth about Mohammed.
So Obama using his dictator's targeting system for Drone kills arrested the truth teller rather than kill him right away. Obama is a kindly Muslim.
Father of ex-SEAL: Those who denied request for help at consulate 'murderers of my son'
Woods['s father], in interviews earlier this week, also described a series of conversations he had with administration officials at the memorial service held Sept. 14. He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack -- pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.
"Her countenance was not good and she made this statement to me ... she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted," he said on radio host Glenn Beck's online show, adding that she also apologized.
Woods said he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth."
Should Mr. Nakoula ever become an Italian mobster he should be known as Sammy Bacteria.
Not much sympathy for Bacil, but there is an element of show here and a deep concern for speech that Barry is willing to toss overboard. Drones and free speech and good strategy all in the name of the nobel prize winner's vision. He's still going strong in Egypt...and it may not be a total lost cause yet.
As to why the NY Times has such a hard time with free speech: we could shame them into defending more vigorously again.
A theory I like: The rise of the New Left through our culture, especially in the academy through feminist, gender and race studies, as well as excessive relativism and the nihilism inherent in Continental thought that's been so popular...
has pushed the classical liberals, more like libertarians, aside. Economic reality has changed too. The bed's been made for a while, now they're just laying in it.
This combined with a drive in our society to extend freedom to ever more groups of people (to be crude: gay is the new black) has made quite a stew over at the Times, between women promoted b/c they're women, gays, black folks and their interests, breathless humanities people gone awry...hipsters all throughout Brooklyn, greens, reds etc.
The potential bad part: It's kind of like what happened in California, and some of it is still going. Politics follows a lot of culture. They're going to lay in the bed that's been made, and voila...no balanced budget and the country is much further Left in the long run.
...we're a lot more like Europe b/c a good portion of the society is following the same ideas and guarding the culture, becoming more embedded every day.
And if you're conservative, opposed to such ideas, or simply an interested observer...they'll blame you for a lot of it, as they're like teenagers and you can only hope to show them the folly of many of those ideas.
...and shame them back toward freer minds without the groupthink, dangerous Leftism, race theory racism, misandry etc.
edutcher said...
This is the case that will be remembered as the point when Constitutional rights became a contact sport.
Let's pray that doesn't happen.
phx,
I'm going to avoid the strawman of insisting that you speak for all liberals... but...
The felons thing always seems so romantic and dashing when it's attached to liberal heros, like Bill Ayers.
And, of course, felons must vote, because that is a human rights issue.
How, in particularly, is this video guy loathsome for his felon status? How come it doesn't confer on him a sort of folksy jocularity?
Violating your parole is a minor technicality, really. Ask anyone on parole!
"How come it doesn't confer on him a sort of folksy jocularity?"
-- His crime had real victims, unlike Bill Ayers who never really would have bombed anyone who some folks actually count as a person.
"Violating your parole is a minor technicality, really. Ask anyone on parole!"
-- Nope, I'm totally accepting he did something wrong. The disproportionate response and the fact other crimes go unnoticed -- see, Black Panther voter intimidation, John Corzine, illegally firing inspector generals, etc. -- and unremarked on is the problem. The reason he is being punished is that he is a political scape goat who, luckily, actually did something wrong so that the White House didn't have to conjure up phony legal/legalistic reasons to apply pressure like they did with people burning Korans (another stupid thing I wish stupid people did not do, but they do anyway despite my insistence they are being stupid.)
garage, phx,
This bit you're doing it just too funny.
Were Nakoula a liberal martyr, Hollywood would be doing his bio-pic as a tear jerker.
Funny how negotiable free speech can be!
I admire the way the NYT writer uses scare quotes when he says that the film maker described Muslim "atrocities." Awesome, no? Because no matter how you might try you cannot out PC a NYT writer.
And yes, dear Professor, he is in jail because he used an alias and our crack justice dept. got wind of it through the coincidence of this film.
garage mahal, kinda like perjury?
There's no army of folks out to defend this nitwit who did the video. There seems to be agreement that he's a lowlife.
But you can't have it both ways. As Shouting Thomas notes, lefties are selective on calling crimes crimes. The selection instrument is political.
The NYT (and others) have sold their sole to protect Barry.
It's still good for bird cage lining.
"Call Your Parole Officer" would be a great spam email Subject line.
@garage "Violating your parole is a minor technicality, really. Ask anyone on parole!"
Progressives defend pedophiles like Polanski. Racists, cop killers, terrorists, and the like all come under their protection.
So, why not defend this felon?
Someone from a long abused community (Coptic Christians have been hated and murdered by Muslims from the time of Muhammad), who stated some known facts (according to Islam's holy writings Muhammad WAS a pedophile), and is now in prison.
If he was in jail after creating something similar about a conservative, would you defend him then?
But you can't have it both ways
What's the "other" way in both ways?
garage,
You are the most poisonously partisan person I've encountered in some time. Nothing matters to you except for partisan victory.
Well, actually, there are quite a few such people hanging around the internet.
Is the triumph of the Democratic Party really of that much importance? I have trouble seeing how a person snuggles up to that.
"You're supposed to believe he is in prison because of the alias?"
Yes, of course "we" are.
Stupid won. So the stupid get what they want.
So where is Inga to proclaim she's been vindicated?
We must all agree that incarcerating Abu bin Youtube makes the world a much safer place! One must crack a few eggs to make an omelette!
"Is the triumph of the Democratic Party really of that much importance? I have trouble seeing how a person snuggles up to that."
For those with a worldview that the personal is political, yes, "the triumph of the Democratic Party really (is) of that much importance.
These people are Democrats before they are Americans.
Hey Garage, just noticed that the late great boxer Macho Camacho had violated his parole (for drug dealing and attempted murder) a few years back and got all of two weeks in jail for doing so. How does that compare with Bacily Bacily's year in jail of which two months were spent waiting for a hearing? Ever heard of that 72-hour rule? Do you think his habeus corpus rights were respected?
Yeah, of course you do!
"Amusing how the NYT is up with indignation about this "movie". I still think pedophile director Roman Polanski should make a Mohammad movie. It takes one to know one."
Age at marriage was different in the old days. How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus? How old is Juliet in the play "Romeo and Juliet"?
The guy was on federal probation (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/anti-islam-film-producer-764091).
He then proceeded, while waving a big red flag, to violate the terms of the probation.
Had he not made the film -- and thus gone under the radar of observation -- he might have gotten away with it.
But since he became a three-ring circus all by himself, there's no way he could avoid the attention of his probation office.
His acts had consequence, in and of themselves. He doesn't need to be made a piece of some government conspiracy theater.
If he had drawn attention to himself in some other, non-political manner, he'd be back in the slammer as well.
You are the most poisonously partisan person I've encountered in some time. Nothing matters to you except for partisan victory.
That all may be true, but I've yet to see a coherent argument why they should have ignored the violation of the terms of his parole.
"Okay, yes Nakoula violated his parole, but because of Roman Polanski, we'll ignore it".
Fabulous argument there.
I can well believe he's in prison now because of the parole violation. The earlier theatrical arrest and detention without bail would have been for... some other reason.
Is the Professor defending Polanski, Mohammad. or Jehovah?
@Ann "Age at marriage was different in the old days."
She was 6 years old when he proposed to her. 9 when he had sex with her.
That freaked out the people in his culture, but they had to turn a blind eye because of the power he held.
Even by the rules of his culture he was a pedophile. But, he was a powerful pedophile. Like many of the Greek and Roman politicians as well. They were all still pedophiles.
And personally I don't care if your culture turns a blind eye to horrors. Because it was legal to murder the weak and feeble, sterilize the imprisoned, own an person, rape a child ... doesn't change the fact that it is a horror.
That all may be true, but I've yet to see a coherent argument why they should have ignored the violation of the terms of his parole.
The actual argument is... "They wouldn't have bothered to notice his parole violation if they hadn't needed a fall guy for the foreign policy blunder."
I'm kinda ignoring the parole thing, as you would were this a leftist martyr.
The New York Times doesn't care about free speech. This isn't the only indication of this.
"You're supposed to believe he is in prison because of the alias?"
Professor Althouse, have you examined the available evidence and concluded that despite his guilty plea, Nakoula would not have been imprisoned had the video been on a different subject and the facts otherwise had been the same?
If so, I'd like to see your analysis, or, if you've accepted someone else's analysis, a link.
Here's one place to start. Do you disagree with the author's statement that "Nakoula's conduct is absolutely the sort that does, and should, routinely result in revocation of supervised release." If so, why?
How, in particularly, is this video guy loathsome for his felon status? How come it doesn't confer on him a sort of folksy jocularity?
I dunno, it's just for me most felons don't say "jocularity". They more often say, as in the case of this joker, watch your shirt, don't leave him alone with the children.
What I want to know, is this...
Next time a Republican is president, and something like this happens, and the press and the left go into a panicked fit about the suppression of one or another incredibly important human right...
Will it be OK if I just laugh out loud?
Shouting Thomas said...
Is the triumph of the Democratic Party really of that much importance? I have trouble seeing how a person snuggles up to that.
Answer: Yes. The *Party* is inviolate, and requires snuggling in observance, in a monkey see-monkey do functionality. The snugglers feel rewarded by their loyalty in in all...they *belong* and are thus thoughtlessly actualized.
Others mileage may vary on this...of course, depending upon their snuggle factor.
As for parole violators...I have some experience there as a previous sponsor of a paroled felon or two, back in my do-gooder-veteran days of the mid 1980's. Take my word, based upon experience, that sheriff's absconder crews with TV crews do not show up at midnight in 99% of the cases.
As a sponsor of a parolee, you are the first called by the law when a meeting is not kept, or a violation is discovered. You are expected to serve up the offender. In fact, in two cases I had to round up the parole officers and set up the apprehension myself, through friends of mine working booster cars.
Absolutely nothing about the apprehension of this video maker wasn't politically arranged for maximum effect. Not one damn thing.
The problem is the order of events. The fact that he got caught up in the Benghazi mess does not, of course, mean he shouldn't pay a penalty for violating parole. That's on him. The violation is on him. However, it seems obvious as obvious can be to me that he was used as a prop in the staging of political theatre. That is chilling. Had he NOT violated parole, that would not have changed how this situation started out. It alarms me that some people appear to be using the fact of the parole violation--which, again, is on him and for which he must accept consequences--to RETROACTIVELY justify the chain of events that don't have anything to do with the parole violation itself. It's a sad and deeply troubling thing that this should be so.
@garage "Okay, yes Nakoula violated his parole, but because of Roman Polanski, we'll ignore it."
Um. No. We are just pointing out that progressives are hypocrites. In classic Greek sense. You know, putting on masks to play a part.
I personally like to be intellectually consistent. And it is actually possible to be mentally aware enough to see that parole violations and crimes should be punished. AND Presidents should never protect Muhammad from being mocked. AND criminals should be punished for their crimes and not to assuage the indignation of the President.
Will it be OK if I just laugh out loud?
You can do whatever you want. I always advise doing the best you can while maintaining your sense of integrity.
Absolutely nothing about the apprehension of this video maker wasn't politically arranged for maximum effect. Not one damn thing.
Who arranged it?
The fact that you libs cannot see this was politially motivated makes you all "Little Cedarfords" as a famous sorta Native American once said.
It is truly sad to see how far you will descend to defend the Jug Eared Jesus.
If you think this guy is in jail because of a parole violation, I've got beachfront property to sell you in Flagstaff, Arizona.
It is truly sad to see how far you....
And that's why they coined the term "concerned troll."
You can still love the guy and all his works without defending all of the mistakes that he makes. Is there anything you would critizie him about in this whole wide world?
I think not.
It is sad really.
You guys are destined for a big fall.
Sort of like Green Bay Packers fans. Just sayn'
It stinks to high heaven, the way this played out and the the disingenuous reaction by too many truly nauseates.
Oh don't get me wrong. I am not concernef for you guys.
You deserve to get what you voted for. Good and hard.
It is just a shame that the rest of the class has to suffer because 51% of the country are mooching morons.
Who arranged it?
I think the argument is that: SURE he violated his parole, and OF COURSE he should have been apprehended, BUT, liberals need to SHUT UP. Because!
Oh, bullshit, Garage. That is NOT the argument most are making, and you know it. I call bullshit.
phx said...
Who arranged it?
You tell me. Who had an interest in the publicity of the arrest?
For the sheriff to be on scene at midnight, for a "parole absconder" arrest, with a television crew to film the apprehension, requires some arranging by some one or some group with an interest in the publicity of the action.
Otherwise, it just isn't done except in cases where anticipated violent resistance is known to be likely....and then television crews are not usually notified to be on scene timely. WEhad one of those televised raids (for the Cops TV show) here in Detroit...with all the distraction of cameras and lights a little girl was killed by accident.
Only assholes "arrange" these publicized events, risking innocent life and law enforcement life in the process.
But you go ahead thinking not knowing precisely who arranged the affair is justification.
SURE he violated his parole, and OF COURSE he should have been apprehended, BUT, this is all too much of a coincidence?
You tell me. Who had an interest in the publicity of the arrest?
I'm just asking, you say for sure it was arranged, who would have arranged it? Don't ask me to tell you as I'm not making the claim it was arranged.
But if you're going to say for sure it was arranged, a theory as to who and how would be nice.
Progressive America believes criticizing Muslims or Islam is a criminal offense.
Garage...your assumption is nonsense. What I am saying is that the apprehension of the video dude was extraordinary compared to the normal routine absconder apprehension. I am speaking from personal experience.
And you?
PS: No I am not going to publish the names of those cases I have experience with ... they have served their time and have not re-violated.
And then along comes Lyle!
Because dont'cha know Obama is...is....he's an Arab!
"Age at marriage was different in the old days."
Not in some places still. Saudi Arabia is still one of those places.
Let me repeat, garage...
The actual argument is that he never would have been noticed or bothered had the President not needed a scapegoat.
You're being very silly.
Inga,
What are you talking about? Obama what?
Don't you fucking dare to presume you know how I think. You stupid old woman.
Lyle, you stupid Lyle, whatever the hell you are! What is a Lyle?:)
How's that for outrage? :)
Lyle seems to think he can say what Progressive America thinks, he's a mind reader I guess.
Look @phx...you know full well television crews do NOT accompany law enforcement on arrest visits, especially at midnight, routinely. If you don't know that, you need to get out more.
Parole absconder apprehensions are not usually done at midnight either, especially when there is no advance knowledge of likely violence or flight.
Someone has to notify the TV crews for them to be there at a precise time. Thus it is a reasonable presumption that said event was arranged by definition of the term.
The presumption of "arrangement" is valid. Not knowing specifically who made the phone calls or other contacts doesn't change the circumstances of "arrangement."
For me to wild guess a name or group would be an invalid presumption because I have no evidence, circumstantial of otherwise, of who it might have been...only an assumption that whomever it was had an interest in the publicity....national publicity at that.
@Inga
Obama in front of the UN: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
You can argue that it is taken out of context. But the President should have never uttered those words. They are stupid and spit in the face of all the Americans who have fought, bled, and died for the rights of everyone to say that.
And Lyle, I'm old, Althouse is yet older than I. Don't be an ageist/ sexist. Doesn't give you more credibility.
I don't know ST. He had a felony warrant on him, right? (correct me if i'm wrong there).
He goes out and makes a movie that does draw the attention of someone in the Islamic Middle-east, right?
I mean even if we grant that it was convenient for the President that he was busted, it doesn't say to me that it was because it was convenient for the President that he was busted.
I love our First Amendment rights, and I think people should be free to say any non-actionable thing they like about anyone. But if you're just talking shit about biker gangs, known drug felons, or Islamic fundamentalists, there's a good chance it's going to bite you on the ass. And I'm personally not getting in a First Amendment tizzy when it does.
I'm not THAT patriotic. YMMV.
Oh you go me now "what is Inga".
Do you think putting someone in jail because they are critical of Muslims and Islam is right "what is Inga"? Huh?
You'd support Scott Walker jailing someone for criticizing Jesus Christ simply because he violated a state order to not use any aliases while on probation?
@phx
Interesting questions about who planned what and when.
Why aren't you asking those questions of the administration?
We are just pointing out that you are being a hypocrite by not asking those questions. You have in the past with the torture allegations towards the Bush administration. Of Cheney and his business connections.
Why not now? Especially when the administration has admitted to being liars about the video.
Inga,
No, I just insulted you. Nothing more, nothing less.
You presume to know how I think again, and I'll insult you again. Be more careful about what you say to people Inga.
It is very clear that Obama is more concerned with the "feelings" of Muslims than the first amendment of the "sacred parchment."
His take away from Benghazi is not that the United States will do everything in their power to protect our people when they are under attack.
His take away is "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
That is the scandal of Benghazi.
Lyle, you presume to know how Progressive America thinks, that's an amazing feat.
Inga seems to think she can say what Lyle thinks, she's a mind reader I guess.
We are just pointing out that you are being a hypocrite by not asking those questions. You have in the past with the torture allegations towards the Bush administration. Of Cheney and his business connections.
Tell me what you know of MY history of "asking questions" of the Bush Administration? Let's hear it.
Lyle, you are a creep, are you threatening me? Are you trying to squelch my First Amendment rights? What a hypocrite you are.
As usual Inga is very outraged that anyone disagrees with her majesty.
Up to the surface rises the completely unserious commenter Moby Dick.
Inga,
Yeah, I'm warning you. You better be more careful about putting words into other peoples' mouths.
As far as Progressive America goes, if Obama or the New York times doesn't speak for them, who does?
Age at marriage was different in the old days.
Mohammed's youngest wife was 9!
But keep looking away, Althouse, better that than acknowledging the UGLY truth and being labeled a HATER.
Lyle, yes you most certainly ARE a hypocrite, thanks for clarifying!
phx ...with all due respect, you are dissembling. I suspect you actually understand what I am saying but find it uncomfortable.
My sole point is that the apprehension was contrived, and the circumstantial evidence confirms it IMO. I really don't care who did it.
Now I live among 50,000+ Arab Muslims, my immediate neighborhood is about 90% as I speak. So, yes, you bet your ass I dislike the
Terry Jones and Nakoulas of the world...because they are all mouth and no substance. Where I grew up if you had a problem with something local you stepped up and did something local to end it or you lost and shut up.
My neighbors are not even a faint plurality of fundamentalists, in fact the radicals hide mostly. Wolves in sheep's clothing and all that. Truth is the majority of them came here to escape their homelands.
To re-orient their thinking, from the mass-group-think they grew up with, you don't poke them in the eye, you set an example. My neighbors in general are not the enemy, and they suffer most from lunatics like Hassan in Texas because it reflects upon them.
They find it odd that our government cannot call terrorism terrorism instead of workplace violence or whatever PC phrase du jour. This parsing makes them fearful, not reassured. CAIR speaks only for itself and its organizational interest.
Now that I have again defended Muslims I live among, I figure I'll again take some flak, although to this blog's credit, and that of the bulk of commenter population, I don't recall it originating here. It is noteworthy that I can defend Israel among my neighbors and they don't object, hopefully because I listen to them as well.
I have had a very few put up or shut up moments where I had to challenge a newcomer for actual behavior that is unacceptable in any civilized group. So far, no satchel charges have been flung through my front window.
Do YOU understand me yet, @phx?
@phx.
Am I reading to much into your comments about neo-cons?
Typical discussions about neo-cons goes along with what I mentioned before. Torture, money, etc.
This scumbag feels no regret after all the violence and devastation his film has caused. Thank God this menace is behind bars. The future does not belong to him.
Forward.
PHX has the order of operations incorrect:
1. Dude is on probation.
2. Dude makes anti-muslim video.
3. Unknown persons promote video in mid-East countries, and lead protests against video.
4. Shit hits the fan in Benghazi.
5. Current admin. lies about video being the cause and publicly states that they will "get" maker of video and "punish" him.
6. Parole violation is magically discovered.
7. Midnight raid is effected.
Scapegoating complete. Now you can posit the theorty that, absent any Federal involvement this would have been sorted out with the same result. But others can just as plausibly point to the timeline and state the obvious: Obama needed a scapegoat and luckily found one, with a willing LA County Sheriff who would parade the accused around in front of an equally compliant press.
Inga said...And then along comes Lyle!
Because dont'cha know Obama is...is....he's an Arab!
is Inga Oop really this stupid or is someone doing a bit?
Do YOU understand me yet, @phx?
No, I don't. You got way off on a tangent that I wasn't asking or wondering about.
And I'm not dissembling, for what it's worth saying. It's true I may be an asshole or stupid, but I'm not dissembling when I ask for a theory of who arranged this if they did.
Fine, you don't have a theory for that. Really makes no difference to me one way or another.
@phx "But if you're just talking shit about biker gangs, known drug felons, or Islamic fundamentalists, there's a good chance it's going to bite you on the ass. And I'm personally not getting in a First Amendment tizzy when it does. I'm not THAT patriotic."
Appeasement only leads to greater violence. Sure, there will be problems (and death) when you defend your rights.
But, suffering now is better then greater suffering later.
This isn't and never was about Nakoula's dubious and nebulous past. What it is about is that he is an American Citizen, unfortunately, and he has the rights based on that citizenship and there are people here, on this blog, yes, you Inga, who have advocated his prosecution for producing this movie because of their retarded perception that he incited these riots based on that video. Because idiots like her consider making a video, as stupid in terms of it's contents as it was, akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater if it offends Islam and Muslims whether they live in the US or not. Because she is worried about some unintentional consequences of that speech. In effect, she is a fascist that would rather see peoples speech squelched if it inflames people to violence. She cares more about the outcome rather than the actual speech itself. As if Islam and Muslims are incapable of controlling themselves and their emotions and therefore we have to stop making them mad at every possible perceived slight because she is the arbiter of what irresponsible speech is towards them.
Shouting Thomas said...
garage, phx,
This bit you're doing it just too funny.
Were Nakoula a liberal martyr, Hollywood would be doing his bio-pic as a tear jerker.
Funny how negotiable free speech can be!
Free speech malleability and fluidity only applies to the ones who have traditionally felt that they were its champions, the left, and therefore are also the ones who think they should dictate it's proper use and application.
Shouting Thomas said...
garage,
You are the most poisonously partisan person I've encountered in some time. Nothing matters to you except for partisan victory.
Well, actually, there are quite a few such people hanging around the internet.
Is the triumph of the Democratic Party really of that much importance? I have trouble seeing how a person snuggles up to that.
Oh, Garage doesn't have to snuggle or spoon his way into being an utter tool for the DNC. He and his ilk like Inga are on their backs with their legs spread wide open and ready and willing to receive and all affections their leftist zealotry brings to them.
John Burgess said...
The guy was on federal probation (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/anti-islam-film-producer-764091).
He then proceeded, while waving a big red flag, to violate the terms of the probation.
Had he not made the film -- and thus gone under the radar of observation -- he might have gotten away with it.
But since he became a three-ring circus all by himself, there's no way he could avoid the attention of his probation office.
His acts had consequence, in and of themselves. He doesn't need to be made a piece of some government conspiracy theater.
If he had drawn attention to himself in some other, non-political manner, he'd be back in the slammer as well.
Does the probation nullify his ability to speak as an American citizen? So maybe instead of doing a movie, he could have written something that had the same effect. Still different?
rcommal said...
The problem is the order of events. The fact that he got caught up in the Benghazi mess does not, of course, mean he shouldn't pay a penalty for violating parole. That's on him. The violation is on him. However, it seems obvious as obvious can be to me that he was used as a prop in the staging of political theatre. That is chilling. Had he NOT violated parole, that would not have changed how this situation started out. It alarms me that some people appear to be using the fact of the parole violation--which, again, is on him and for which he must accept consequences--to RETROACTIVELY justify the chain of events that don't have anything to do with the parole violation itself. It's a sad and deeply troubling thing that this should be so.
The larger scathing problem is, is that this video was released months prior to the 'riots' as we were told and yet Muslims everywhere became incensed on the same day because of it. The world really does think we are that dumb.
Well I'm all for people standing up to Islamic fundies. But some asshole felon-at-large making a bullshit movie about them, and running to him with the kleenex and a internet defense fund?
I don't think so.
Tell me Chief Keef is a thug and a lowlife and we need to clean that stuff up for the sake of the children, I'll defend your First Amendies all day.
Tell me something about Chief Keef and his maternal relations and I think you asked for it, and I don't care what your 1st Amendment rights are. I'm busy.
Inga said...
Lyle, you presume to know how Progressive America thinks, that's an amazing feat.
It's not that hard, you moron. There are numerous books on that subject alone. Hell, the progressive American playbooks have been around for at least for nearly 150 years. What's new? It's the same old tired derivative bullshit that you ascribe too. You repeat it ad naseum daily in one form or another as if saying it that much has relevance and meaning. Those of us who see right through the sham of a political ideology you ascribe to, just laugh at you for being a life long fool.
phx said...
You tell me. Who had an interest in the publicity of the arrest?
I'm just asking, you say for sure it was arranged, who would have arranged it? Don't ask me to tell you as I'm not making the claim it was arranged.
Why was TV there?
This guy was just some nudge right?
Some low level grifter. Not the violent type.
Why the TV cameras? Why all the sheriffs deputies?
Isn't this something usually handled by a parole officer in his office? How did the TV people know to be there?
Why couldn't it be a news story when the poor dope was being led out of his parole officers office by a sheriffs deputy?
phx said...Tell me Chief Keef is a thug and a lowlife and we need to clean that stuff up for the sake of the children, I'll defend your First Amendies all day.
Tell me something about Chief Keef and his maternal relations and I think you asked for it, and I don't care what your 1st Amendment rights are. I'm busy.
so you defend to the death my right to say something as long as you agree with it. gee, thanks Captain America.
Why was TV there?
This guy was just some nudge right?
Some low level grifter. Not the violent type.
Why the TV cameras? Why all the sheriffs deputies?
Isn't this something usually handled by a parole officer in his office? How did the TV people know to be there?
Why couldn't it be a news story when the poor dope was being led out of his parole officers office by a sheriffs deputy?
I hear this. It seems reasonable to suspect someone tipped the media. Someone from the sheriff's office, perhaps? I can't see blaming Obama if that was the case. Not without some explanation of how that would be reasonable.
so you defend to the death my right to say something as long as you agree with it. gee, thanks Captain America.
I didn't say I would defend to the death anything about YOU. Let's be real.
I think people who still believe in liberty should call up the NY Times to subscribe, only give false names and addresses. Tie up their phone lines. Push them a little closer to the abyss of bankruptcy. They'd do the same for us... what am I talking about, they've been doing that for decades.
Lefties are not normally known as Law-n-Order types, but they seem to be all over jailing and prosecuting this guy. Why is that? I'm not being a wise guy, I'm asking an honest question, and will appreciate an answer from any of the lefties here.
Methadras - Does the probation nullify his ability to speak as an American citizen? So maybe instead of doing a movie, he could have written something that had the same effect. Still different?
Yes, in short.
Probation is an extension of the penal system where you lose various rights like the 4th under the power of the US judicial system.
Out on probation, your probation dept even sponsors can search without warrant. Other conditions can apply - like losing the right to use the Internet if you did fraud, the "right" to legally drink or gamble.
The scumbag violated his probation and did it in a way it was impossible to ignore.
If the Obamites were total dickheads about it, they could have used his multiple felonies on fraud, trying to set up a meth lab, doing ID theft and confidence scams, and his multiple probation violations to start Fed proceedings to strip him of his naturalized status.
The Obama Administration could have him declared an undesirable alien, and deport him back to Egypt.
Of course, the conservative defense of this scumbag requires remarkable amnesia worthy of an Obamite.
That is - my fellow conservatives and the neocon wolves in conservative clothing have to conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies. Two of which were overrun and property vandalized & burned. A third at which an attack was turned back by Yemen police risking their lives in consequence of the video to kill a dozen and a half rioters.
Tens of thousands of Americans serving overseas were in added danger due to radicals using the video as ammunition.
But conservatives want 9/11 amnesia. Only focus on Benghazi! 4 DEAD HEROES! Youssef/Bacile/Nakoula the 1st Amendment Martyr!
Easy brainless talking points.
You mean When there are a million laws out there that no convicted felon can possibly keep.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent [Paperback] Be sure to buy it through Ann's account.
Violating your parole is a minor technicality, really. Ask anyone on parole! Tell me again, phx, how the lefties her add so much to the conversation. Other than the usual "Those who are against us should die or rot in jail" drivel, that is.
I used to work in probation and parole. No one would normally be sent back to prison for this. But, for libs, freedom of speech is a crime.
Of course, the conservative defense of this scumbag requires remarkable amnesia worthy of an Obamite.
That is - my fellow conservatives and the neocon wolves in conservative clothing have to conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies.
but you rest easy that your ideology has never caused any problems. we all have blind spots C4. much of your speech would be considered over the top in other countries.
Cedarford, will you please stop repeating the falsehood?
The video did not cause "riots and security crises at 11 US embassies."
The Obama admin has dumped this explanation, so you might want to do the same.
phx....you say you don't understand what I'm saying? Try harder. It has been very clear.
My "tangent" as you called it was to illuminate my own prejudices against the video guy (which this debate is really only tangentially about) and the punk assed pseudo-redneck asshole Terry Jones, and why I hold them (which means I am somewhat in agreement with you, sort of...even Inga, G-d forbid)....who had nothing to do with the video, until General Martin Dempsey alleged him party to it. Every anti-Islam nut on the Internet gets personal calls from most senior four star generals, right? I mean Petraeus and Dempsey both called Jones. Coincidence? Nakoula is no better in my opinion, but you chose to dismiss that, no matter how clear I am about it.
It is you privilege to be obtuse, but I thought more of you than that, even if we disagree frequently. Sorry.
@Cedar " ... conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies."
My response: So what.
Free speech is ugly, derogatory, nasty, insulting, and can lead to tears. That is what makes it important.
The answer to free speech is more free speech. Don't like Lindsey Stone's "speech"? Let her know. Don't like Christians? Just dip an image of Christ in urine. Make a movie explaining how much you hate them.
If free speech makes you go crazy killing people, then you are screwed up. And that also happens to be why we have police officers and soldiers. It is called the protection of rights.
The crazies of the world don't get to dictate what freedom is. And we have guns to protect that freedom from the crazies.
"Age at marriage was different in the old days. How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus? How old is Juliet in the play "Romeo and Juliet"?"
The things Mohammad said and did, including marrying Ayeshia at 6 and consummating at 9, form the inviolate, eternal basis of islamic law. What should have simply been an ancient bad example has become formalised, codified amd sacralized as part of Shariah. As a consequence, EVERY country governed fully by islamic law permits the paedophelic rape of underage girls in forced marriages. Every. Single. One.
Shouting Thomas said...
Cedarford, will you please stop repeating the falsehood?
But Cedarford voted for Obama...why would he do such a thing?
I didn't say I would defend to the death anything about YOU. Let's be real.
yes, I understood that already. that is why I was mocking your rejection of free speech. you support speech you agree with. were you born in this country and educated by union teachers?
That is - my fellow conservatives and the neocon wolves in conservative clothing have to conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies.
Videos don't cause riots, numbskull. People do.
Seriously -- do the apologists for the current regime not realize how bad they make their side look? There's simply no way that a neutral observer could read through these comments without seeing just how hollow are the "arguments" presented to defend the very high-profile arrest and imprisonment of a parolee.
Do you really expect that ordinary people should disregard the extraordinary media attention lavished on some unknown idiot for a parole violation, just because nobody in the press bothered to investigate the identity of the people who arranged the photo op? It's like you've spent so much time around other True Believers that you forget just how bizarre your worldview looks to those outside your cult.
Get some perspective, guys.
The guy was on parole for a check fraud conviction. He had used up to seventeen aliases in the past. This was not his first conviction either. He agreed to never again use an alias. Here's the thing, if you expressly agree never to again use an alias and you violate that condition, do you expect the feds to ignore it?
He's a convicted felon with a history of fraud. If the feds didn't arrest him you guys would be creating some alternative conspiracy about why Obama let him go. Get a grip people. He's not a Martyr or a political prisoner. He's a con man. Can't you find some other cause celebre to hitch your wagon to? This guy is just going to disappoint you.
@Aridog Okay so I understand that you wanted it known that you weren't prejudiced for Nakoual in this matter - if anything you would don't have a favorable impression of him.
Understandable. If you give me your assurance I'm perfectly willing to accept that you are arguing without fear or favor or prejudice. You don't have to persuade me, your assurance should be enough.
As I said to someone else, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the media got tipped off to the arrest. I couldn't imagine that would be on Obama however.
And sometimes I genuinely AM obtuse. Go figure. No one should go out on a limb for me.
That is - my fellow conservatives and the neocon wolves in conservative clothing have to conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies.
Wrong, as usual.
The video did NOT cause riots, unless a piece of plastic (the videotape) got up, and started burning buildings all by itself. Nope, the savages who burned buildings did it all by themselves.
Why do you not hold these animals to the same standards you hold yourself? Or are you prone to burning buildings down when someone pisses you off?
Tool.
Can't you find some other cause celebre to hitch your wagon to? This guy is just going to disappoint you.
How about the guys who actually launched the grenades and torched the buildings in Benghazi, killing the ambassador? I thought Obama promised to bring them to justice?
What happened to that?
I'd be happy if C4 just held himself to the same standard he holds Nakoula. He is genuinely obtuse. He uses the protections of the sacred parchment more than most of us. Maybe he needs it spelled out:
C4, Nakoula wanted to say something nasty about the muslims the same way you like to say nasty things about jews. The things you have said could get you arrested in certain places. Is that a good thing?
So, let's see what someone who actually knows a little about "parole" revocations ("Ken Popehat") has to say about this.
Note that:
1. White (aka "Ken Popehat")is as great a defender of free speech as just about anybody.
2. This is the sort of thing which gets people jerked off "parole" all the time.
3. Actions in this case were by the judiciary over which the Obama administration exercises no control and the evidence indicating attempted executive interference is very slender, at best. As noted above, just because the result is likely that favored by the administration doesn't mean they engineered this.
4. Nakoula/Youssef plead out without making any first amendment or selective prosecution argument -- probably because everyone knows such an argument would be frivolous.
Nakoula wanted to say something nasty about the muslims the same way you like to say nasty things about jews.
Maybe some Jews ought to burn C4's house down. Wonder if C4 would spew his anti-semitic BS if that happened...
Not threating C4, just trying to make a point. FYI.
Shouting Thomas said...
Cedarford, will you please stop repeating the falsehood?
The video did not cause "riots and security crises at 11 US embassies."
The Obama admin has dumped this explanation, so you might want to do the same
====================
Shouting Thomas is a perfect example of this selective amnesia. He confuses the Administration walking back the Benghazi matter with walking back the video. As if the other 11 Embassy attacks (by mobs incited by the video) never existed.
In truth, the intelligence is that the enemy found the Copt scumbag's video perfect ammunition and used it. Republicans at preliminary Beghazi hearings agreed with the intel assessment that the Tunisian and Cairo embassies were overrun and the Yemeni one almost with heavy loss of life when police fired on the anti-Blasphemy rioters and 10s of thousands of Americans serving overseas were endangered by the whipped up mobs out to defend the honor of the Prophet.
Cedarford - you have got to be the most hypocritical commenter in this board. The Copt is a "scumbag", yet you blame everything that's wrong in this country on the Jews.
At least the liberals are consistent. What is your excuse?
I think it just hit me. Cedarford is a Muslim himself. He even capitalized the "Prophet".
How many people calling for this guy's head were among those pissed off that Ward Churchill got fired from CU?
Chickelit says:
"How about the guys who actually launched the grenades and torched the buildings in Benghazi, killing the ambassador? I thought Obama promised to bring them to justice?
What happened to that?"
I don't understand your question. Do you think maybe somewhere in the pentagon, there's a team of people working on a plan to find those responsible and bring them to justice? I do. If you have some information to share that proves the national security apparatus is NOT pursuing the people who did this, then, please, by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's a pretty good bet that one day we'll hear about a drone strike or a Seal Team Six operation in response to the attack in Benghazi. I don't have access to our assets nor do I have up to the minute intelligence on the movements of Ansar al Sharia. Maybe you do. If so, then obviously you're more qualified to judge when and how long it takes to bring justice to the murderers of Benghazi. If not, then maybe we should assume our guys will act when the time is right.
Where did Nakoula get any money to make this video?
"Age at marriage was different in the old days."
In colonial America, age of consent was typically 10, sometimes 12. In France, at the time, it was probably 11. So, you don't have to look to the 1st or 7th centuries to find laws and customs that we find repugnant.
"How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus?"
The New Testament story of Jesus' birth was created to satisfy the prophecy of Isaiah which said that a "young woman" or "young girl" would conceive and give birth; probably indicating a woman at about the age of puberty. But, at the time, conception at about the age of puberty would likely not have been noteworthy, so perhaps she was expected to be younger.
If you accept the New Testament account, it was the Holy Ghost who had his way with her, and, I guess that would be ok -- even for modern Christians. Joseph didn't "know" her until she was already a mother.
If not, then maybe we should assume our guys will act when the time is right.
Or not. WTF makes you so sure something is happening? What's up with all the convenient assumptions on your part? Did you learn about crime solving watching for Nicole Simpson's killers to be found?
ted nugent is a chickenhawk nancy boy so easily puts him/herself in the shoes of our beleagered POTUS but not in the shoes of the parents of those who died.
And WTF is up with a personal swipe at Ted Nugent? You must be from Michigan.
phx said...
Who arranged it?
But if the House GOP started subpoena-ing White House officials, you suddenly wouldn't want to know that answer anymore, would you?
How about this question:
Who leaked the filmmaker's name and address to the public?
Easy: the Obama Administration Justice Department.
Now, why would the Justice Dept leak his name and address?
At that point, he was merely accused/suspected of violating his parole, not convicted of doing so.
So why release his information?
One apparent answer is so that the press can put him in the public eye. So that he can become the focal point of Islamic anger/hate. So that the cameras are present when he is "brought in for questioning".
Here's another interesting question:
Why was he brought in for questioning at midnight?
Why couldn't it have been noon? Why couldn't it have been during normal business hours, or at a convenient time centered around normal work hours?
It all starts to point fingers at who probably arranged the whole 1st Amendment Farce.
Shouting,
"They wouldn't have bothered to notice his parole violation if they hadn't needed a fall guy for the foreign policy blunder."
How about, "Nobody other than his parole officer and one or two US Marshals and/or local deputies would have noticed..."? All reasonable people can sign on to this, can't they?
To elaborate:
1. Parole officer hears about Nakoula messing around with aliases, etc.
2. Parole officer calls Nakoula from his office, during business hours, and says "Hey, I need you to come on in. This afternoon is fine."
3a. Nakoula comes in, they have a discussion, and based on that maybe the PO says, "Hang on a minute", calls in some sort of LEO to escort Nakoula back to whatever detention facility is appropriate.
3b. Nakoula no-shows, so PO gets a warrant issued, and some deputy cruised by Nakoula's house, knocks on the door, and when Nakoula answers say, "Hey, buddy, I got this warrant here, we need to go visit your PO downtown right now."
That's how parole violations are routinely handled, at least for non-violent offenders. (Heck, the last case I'm personally familiar with--though it was conditions-of-bail rather than parole, here in WA at least it's more or less the same and the same PO's handle both kinds of releasees--the PO gave the person 48 hrs to report back to jail!)
X - C4, Nakoula wanted to say something nasty about the muslims the same way you like to say nasty things about jews.
No, because I am not out to incite Jews to injure and kill Americans.
In an interview the scumbag dumbly gave - he said he was an Israel that had 500 millionaire financiers here in the US and in Israel - and his purpose was to hopefully get Muslims to shed blood to show how barbaric they are.
(Marines whipped up on ammo the Japs stupidly gave us of newreel footage taken by Japs of the Rape of Nanking and the Battaan Death March reacted accordingly when fed that propaganda on troop ships headed for Jap-held Pacific islands.)
Bacile was really doing nothing new. Just proving again in war how effective some enemy ammunition given in media can be for or against a nations interests.
Even in Benghazi, all the Jihadis interviewed said their leaders before the planned attack gave them the "US Marine" treatment. Showing them clips of the video to help boost their fighting spirit.
Calling this guy a filmmaker is an insult to filmmakers.
You what must have really conflicted Cedarford? That video of Daniel Pearlman getting beheaded.
No, because I am not out to incite Jews to injure and kill Americans.
you incite against jews, some of whom are american. we all know that. is that supposed to be better?
Ann Althouse said...
Age at marriage was different in the old days. How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus? How old is Juliet in the play "Romeo and Juliet"?
And how old was Mia Farrow when she married The Chairman of the Board?
shorter C4:
you guys don't get it. the inciting I'm doing against jews (who totally deserve it) is totally different than the inciting that scumbag is doing.
"Or not. WTF makes you so sure something is happening? What's up with all the convenient assumptions on your part? Did you learn about crime solving watching for Nicole Simpson's killers to be found?"
We have some history go to on don't we? Do you honestly believe what you're saying? That the military and the CIA suddenly decided to forget that our Ambassador was killed by an Al Qaeda linked terrorist group? What usually happens when we decide who's responsible for a terror attack? You're not too bright are you?
As for the name. Ted Nugent IS a Chikenhawk. He famously avoided service in Vietnam. Google it for the gory details.
phx said...
If you give me your assurance I'm perfectly willing to accept that you are arguing without fear or favor or prejudice.
You have my assurance. I do not now, or ever, argue with fear, or for favor, or in support of prejudice. I am too stupid to know deep fear, circumstance enable compartmentalization, and too cantankerous to curry favor. "Fear" is for when you are in combat and 82mm mortars are dropping near your hole for the first time. Fear is for when you are on the DMZ and 20 odd armed men in odd uniforms, or civvies, appear out of nowhere and cross your path. Fear is when you working as staff duty NCO (or duty officer) and the shit hits the fan (like in Benghazi) and knowing that some have to die...it is part of the plan, per se...and you have to initiate implementation of said plan. Your gut aches. You later wake up nights reliving it in distorted form...even if you didn't have to implement fully.
Fear is when you face several armed me in the dark, anywhere, and don't know what they seek. Fear is something we all feel...unless we are insane. Some of us are. I like to think I am not one of those. I'd say if you don't feel fear in appropriate circumstances, you are either insane or lying. Or both.
I do not like Nakoula, but I also know, from personal experience, that much ado has been made about his nothingness. Same for Terry Jones, whose ass I would like to thrash with a Lester Maddox implement (ax handle), or at least watch being kicked. Time before last, when he came to my town to stir up trouble, three very black baptist Christian ladies chased him back to police protection inside city hall. He's all swagger, but no ass behind it....yet he gets national attention from both media and government, at very high levels.
Someone please explain that to me. Seriously.
btw C4, I absolutely support your right to give voice to your opinions about jews. nothing good could come from prohibiting it.
@tniacb: Speaking of history, how long was is after 9/11 before we knew there was a manhunt in progress for a named individual?
POTUS instantly ID'd the guy as Nakoula. Are you suggesting there is someone else? Based on what?
Aridog,
Would you mind giving me your take on the following?
One of the huge problems with the overall "Muslim World" is that the moderates in large part simply don't speak up against the Islamists. It's pretty hard to tell, from the outside, whether that's because of sympathy, indifference, or fear of coming under attack themselves. But Muslims living in the US, of all people, should have the greatest immunity to the last of those factors.
So wouldn't it make some sense to say, to your fellow-Dearbornites: "Look, unless you speak longly and loudly against the Islamists, you're going to get tarred with the same brush. Sorry, life's not fair, and all that, this is just the way it is. So the next time non-Muslims start criticizing some Islamist atrocity, how about you all joining in? Don't do the circle-the-wagons how-dare-you-criticise-Muslims thing like that execrable Ibrahim Hooper fellow--let the whole world see that you disagree with this stuff too!"
Cedarford said...
Methadras - Does the probation nullify his ability to speak as an American citizen? So maybe instead of doing a movie, he could have written something that had the same effect. Still different?
Yes, in short.
Probation is an extension of the penal system where you lose various rights like the 4th under the power of the US judicial system.
Out on probation, your probation dept even sponsors can search without warrant. Other conditions can apply - like losing the right to use the Internet if you did fraud, the "right" to legally drink or gamble.
The scumbag violated his probation and did it in a way it was impossible to ignore.
If the Obamites were total dickheads about it, they could have used his multiple felonies on fraud, trying to set up a meth lab, doing ID theft and confidence scams, and his multiple probation violations to start Fed proceedings to strip him of his naturalized status.
The Obama Administration could have him declared an undesirable alien, and deport him back to Egypt.
His 4th amendment right to be sure, not his first and Afroyim v. Rusk disallows any administration to strip a citizen of his rights involuntarily.
I am an equal opportunity criticizer.
If you read me over time - I am far harsher on Muslims, the Chinese, dysfunctional black-ruled regions, inner city black pathologies and crime tolerance, ill-educated Fundies that embarass the Republicans, certain feminist idiots, parasites, lawyers, far left liberals, communists, militant gays and militant war cheerleaders - than I am on Jews.
What amuses the heck out of me is how all that just passes without comment on Althouse until the criticism goes to They-Who-Must-Never-Be-Criticized!!
And why not?
Does past suffering immunize us from criticizing Russians or Chinese?
What if Armenians had a central and disproportionate role in US media and in the high finance that almost wrecked us in 2008? Or in communist ranks? Or in using the legal system to bypass voters and transform America by judicial fiat?
Would all criticism of Armenians be wildly out of place because they "once suffered awfully?"
Cedarford said...
Of course, the conservative defense of this scumbag requires remarkable amnesia worthy of an Obamite.
That is - my fellow conservatives and the neocon wolves in conservative clothing have to conveniently forget that the video caused riots and security crises at 11 US embassies. Two of which were overrun and property vandalized & burned. A third at which an attack was turned back by Yemen police risking their lives in consequence of the video to kill a dozen and a half rioters.
Tens of thousands of Americans serving overseas were in added danger due to radicals using the video as ammunition.
But conservatives want 9/11 amnesia. Only focus on Benghazi! 4 DEAD HEROES! Youssef/Bacile/Nakoula the 1st Amendment Martyr!
Easy brainless talking points.
As undesirable of a person he is, he still has right to maintain his 1st amendment rights. Before and after he made the movie. The fact that SoC Clinton told the grieving families of those four heroes that they would get the guy who made the movie only makes it even more political and thus Nakoula a political martyr. The fact that there was 'rioting' against 11 other embassies months after the video was released and probably never witnessed is dubious. I'm not defending this guy outside the fact that he's an American citizen that was deliberately used as a pawn to forward a meme by the administration that the attacks weren't a terrorist organized plot when in fact it was.
The idea that you ignore those facts or don't is irrelevant. They still remain there to be seen. The administration knew it was a terror attack, they said it was a video by scrubbing the initial report. Rice went out into the media sphere and reiterated that it was a video when it wasn't and they all knew it wasn't. They still haven't answered the question on why the ambassador was even at that location when the embassy is in Tripoli.
DADvocate said...
You mean When there are a million laws out there that no convicted felon can possibly keep.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent [Paperback] Be sure to buy it through Ann's account.
Violating your parole is a minor technicality, really. Ask anyone on parole! Tell me again, phx, how the lefties her add so much to the conversation. Other than the usual "Those who are against us should die or rot in jail" drivel, that is.
I used to work in probation and parole. No one would normally be sent back to prison for this. But, for libs, freedom of speech is a crime.
Have it. Read it. Great book. I've argued here many times that the laws are simply there to extort one thing out of the citizenry. Money. That's it. Every law on the book from murder down to jay-walking is all about extracting money and your liberty on a daily basis. Those in authority use their discretion on when and how to apply it. But in effect every man, woman, and child in this country is an unconvicted felon.
"JON SCOTT (co-host): Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge reported just minutes ago. Several top GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, instead focusing on the White House. Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let's talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now.
Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. -- I'm sorry, secretary of state. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?
RICKS: I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador -- U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don't.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I've covered a lot of firefights. It's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
RICKS: You're welcome."
From the November 26th edition of Fox news Happening Now.
Is this the first president to have a political prisoner of his very own?
It's a severe injustice that Mr. Nakoula is imprisoned for parole violations or even worse for free speech issues, but he should be hanged for BAD ART.
Shorter Inganov: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic, so let's make Benghazi a statistic too, shall we?"
Nakoula is in prison, Corzine is walking the street. "Walking the street" is a euphemism for free, not in jail. Corzine doesn't actually walk much, he mostly rides in a limo, to the WHITE HOUSE.
Youssef/Bacile/Nakoula the 1st Amendment Martyr!
Easy brainless talking points.
I really get tired of reading this lie in all it's variations, all it's iterations, and from all the liars who promote it.
The brainless talking point here is the strawman that conservatives have made Nakoula into a 1st amendment martyr and then burned down by it's proponents maintaining that his obvious flaws make the idea of him being a martyr ridiculous.
No one on this forum has ever written anything that I've read that ever compared Nakoula to or called him a martyr. Victim, yes. Martyr, no.
I see nothing in the Constitution that qualifies the right to free speech based on lifestyle, personality, criminal past, or business practices. No matter what fool on here says differently, the issue has always simply been that Nakoula's and every other American's 1st amendment right to freely criticize Islam was assaulted and to the ears of Muslims around the world proscribed at the UN by the POTUS.
If anyone doesn't like the word assaulted, give me a better one. And if anyone does not understand that Obama's speech was interpreted as a great victory in the effort to make the proscription against criticism of Islam and its prophet international law they've been asleep the last 10 years.
Guest on Fox News to Discuss Benghazi Attack Is Given a Quick Exit, Follow up by NYT
This is a strange and heated thread. Let me try to inject some clarity for the lefty folks here by imagining what conservatives think the George W. Bush administration would have done in the Benghazi incident:
1) His Secretary of State (take your pick) would have ordered increased security upon request from the Ambassador before the event.
2) Bush, his SecState, his SecDef, and others would have ordered military response within minutes of the attacks.
3) Upon knowledge of the death of the four diplomats, Bush would have ordered a military strike, if only to hit a camel in the butt in a tent.
4) Bush would never have concocted this idiotic fable about the video.
5) Bush would not have contrived to have the video-maker to be arrested and jailed just for scape-goating porpoises.
6) If he bothered to speak before the UN, Bush would not have referred to the video at all. He'd have affirmed America's commitment to free expression and called the terrorists "terrorists".
7) Bush would never have ordered his ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, to go and lie on five Sunday morning political shows. If he had ordered Bolton to do so, Bolton would have resigned.
8) The press would be raking Bush over the coals from here to kingdom come for the whole thing.
Just a little perspective there.
Kirk Parker said...
Aridog,
Would you mind giving me your take on the following? ... the moderates in large part simply don't speak up against the Islamists. It's pretty hard to tell, from the outside, whether that's because of sympathy, indifference, or fear of coming under attack themselves
I'm convinced it is primarily the later and our government, with its PC verbiage, which has done nothing to ameliorate that fear. What "sympathy" there is is due to rote indoctrination in their prior schooling, both secondary and religious.
BTW...there are influential Islamic religious leaders here who DO speak out regularly. They receive little or no media coverage. CAIR on the other hand gets every faint flatulence emmission reported hither and yon.
... Muslims living in the US, of all people, should have the greatest immunity to the last of those factors.
True, they have more physical immunity than when living in their homelands, but it takes time to learn new ways of free intellectual thinking, without peer pressure to be like everyone else (of their ethnic group). When they perceive our government molly coddling those they know, with certainty, are terrorists, they remain fearful. Think Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood. Think the video excuse for Benghazi....virtually everyone I have spoken to about it, vis a vis Cairo and Benghazi, says "what video?" They know about it but don't give much of a shit....same as their ambivalence toward Terry Jones.
No one I know here can fathom how Major Hasan was promoted and allowed to get to the point where he went homicidal. Translation: Even the Army is no protection. We had a Hasan wanna be near my home a while back, traipsing around a family park at dusk in camies, black face paint, and carrying a loaded AK-47 semi-auto. Arab Muslim people living around the park called the police, essentially to protect themselves and their children.
The courts declared him a mental case and he is at large as we speak. This does not engender confidence in our system to new comers.
I mentioned earlier I had been active with "Life For Relief and Development" prior to 2003. Trust me, based upon that experience alone I know with out a doubt that not all Arabs think alike, Muslim or secular.
I saw Mr. Nakoula's trailer and enjoyed it immensely. It struck just the right tone to make fun of the preposterous nonsense in the Koran.
Also, I liked the fact that it pointed out that Mohammed, himself, is a mythological figure, there is no historical evidence attesting to his existence, other than the fairy tales written down centuries after his supposed death.
Kirk Parker ... it (should) go without saying that I will entertain any conversations regarding "Dearbornistan" that do not fit the threads per se. What you read or hear in national media is far from the truth. Simply eMail me ...my email is in the Blogger profile.
I am quite capable of defending good points and acknowledging those that are not so good. I can even change my mind...wonders of wonders, eh?
A mild takedown of Inga's new best friend, Tom Ricks, by Victor David Hanson from 2006: link
Inga,
Thanks for that bit of demonstration how liberals and idiots use buzzwords to ignore or otherwise excuse criminal cover-ups on the part of Democrat politicians.
If you can find a way to mention Fox News or W, you an get away with murder and no brainwashed liberal will ever question or care.
Bob Ellison
That's not fair to assume Bush would have acted the same in his third term as he acted in his first two terms and as governor of Texas, well his whole previous life. It's also unfair not to believe the press would have finally fallen in love with Bush in his third term, giving him political cover at every turn..
Nathan it speaks to the question of how and why Bengahzi was turned into some great "scandal", some supposed "coverup".
You were used as pawns, they needed you to be outraged, before the election. Where is the outrage over Iraq and 4000+ deaths of Americans, for what did they die?
@Inga interesting transcript. Thanks.
That's a military expert who won't be invited back to Fox News.
Wait a minute!
John McCain is going to back down from Obama so he doesn't look bad in the eyes of the main stream media!
STOP THE PRESSES!
GET ME LOIS LANE!
WE HAVE A SCOOP!!!!!
"And I'm not dissembling, for what it's worth saying. It's true I may be an asshole or stupid, but I'm not dissembling when I ask for a theory of who arranged this if they did."
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter to me if Obama himself called someone (well, okay, that might matter a bit) or if the local Sheriff took it upon himself to "help out" the administration. People do that, you know. Like the person who violated Joe the Plumber's privacy and released government information about him (did she get fired or just a wrist slap?)
In a sense what "looks like" is what "is". And permission for similar outcomes, and similar initiative taking, is implicit. It's okay to bring down the weight of the law on those who are guilty of embarrassing or "bad" speech. A message is sent to the sort of Islamists who stage violent protests that we can SO arrest those who insult Muhammad. This is not good diplomacy, this is very very bad.
The big picture on this is horrible. It has the appearance and gives the appearance that if we don't control the speech of our citizens it is because we choose not to do so. It undermines our principles. Basic, fundamental, *liberal* principles.
And all anyone can say is he's not a nice person and he broke his parole? By using a pseudonym?
Considering the damage to our standing in the world and our American principles of free speech and freedom and "we don't DO that here", I can only wish that a way had been found to pretend not to notice his parole violation.
Instead, clearly and for the WORLD to see... we have a political prisoner.
Brilliant.
Inga said...
Where is the outrage over Iraq and 4000+ deaths of Americans, for what did they die?
Would you care to discuss that with a couple hundred Iraqis? I can introduce you.
BTW I was against Gulf War I, but in favor of Gulf War II. I despise half assed efforts, where the enemy is found and fixed, but is allowed to escape none-the-less...which is what I anticipated in Gulf War I and was proven to be true.
Although I favored Gulf War II, I despised the crony capitalism involved in the contracting efforts...and the fact that any criticism of it could cost you your career. Criticism of that aspect of it all is mostly dead right.
"The larger scathing problem is, is that this video was released months prior to the 'riots' as we were told and yet Muslims everywhere became incensed on the same day because of it. The world really does think we are that dumb."
Well *someone* thinks that we're that dumb. Certainly.
Inga@4:16
Relevance to Nakoula?
McTriumph said...
Nakoula is in prison, Corzine is walking the street. "Walking the street" is a euphemism for free, not in jail. Corzine doesn't actually walk much, he mostly rides in a limo, to the WHITE HOUSE.
Corzine should be in prison for the flagrant fiscal malfeasance and clear illegality of his stewardship of MF Globals monies. And all he had to say was, to paraphrase, "I had no intention or idea that costumer monies were being used." and "I don't know where the money is." That's it. Steal 1.6 billion dollars and get away with it. I mean, he isn't in Bernie Madoff territory, but hell, I'm clearly in the wrong business.
Inga@4:46
This is important, how?
CWJ, if you must ask that question, you won't understand the answer.
I've read/heard from a lot of former conservatives. I'm an expert in that. Don't question my authority on this. Thomas Ricks is 100% correct in everything he insinuates.
PHX@5:19
I think that might be the reaction regardless of the network on which he was appearing.
Is there a point to your comment?
@Bob Ellison I wish you'd rewrite that last comment. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say. Of course that might be one of MY lapses.
I think that might be the reaction regardless of the network on which he was appearing.
Probably not true, as he probably wouldn't say that about any other network on which he appeared.
Is there a point to your comment?
No point. My fairly innocuous comment speaks for itself. Tom Ricks is an extinct species at Fox News.
phx, I was being sarcastic, perhaps badly.
I'm suggesting that Mr. Ricks presented himself falsely to Fox News. Between you and me-- let us admit this-- FNC leans conservative. Yes, it does. And I suspect that FNC expected something different from Mr. Ricks than a quick and stupid slam on the whole network in that segment. What he did is not something that I would have done, or that I would have expected any honorable person to have done.
But I'm speculating here. Maybe they were just spit-balling, and hoping for some journalism. Mr. Ricks didn't provide that.
"Ricks told POLITICO “my feeling was that they asked my opinion and I gave it.” The author's Monday interview with Fox News kicked off with him saying, “I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially,” and ended after he told Happening Now’s Jon Scott that “the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party.”
“I had told the producer before I went on that I thought the Benghazi story had been hyped. So it should have been no surprise when I said it and the anchor pushed back that I defended my view,” Ricks told POLITICO in an e-mail. “I also have been thinking a lot about George Marshall, the Army chief of staff during World War II, and one of the heroes of my new book. He got his job by speaking truth to power, and I have been thinking that we all could benefit by following his example as much as we can."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/tom-ricks-fox-news-asked-my-opinion-and-i-gave-it-150300.html
“One staff person said she thought I had been rude. My feeling was that they asked my opinion and I gave it,” Ricks wrote."
Bob Ellison said...
phx, I was being sarcastic, perhaps badly.
phx, Bob evidently purchased my sarcastic educational video thru Professor Ann's Amazon portal, titled "Sarcastic Sarcasm'. Bob failed to read the reviews, not my best work.
Inga said...
Nathan it speaks to the question of how and why Bengahzi was turned into some great "scandal", some supposed "coverup".
Well, if it's so clear cut for you, then why did the administration cover it up multiple times with Rice going out there 5 times in the media and saying the same thing, only to have the administration 2 weeks later say it was terrorism. Why would they do that? They haven't said, we don't want to say it's terrorism and instead opted to call it terrorism even against their better judgement. They couldn't even keep their stories straight.
You were used as pawns, they needed you to be outraged, before the election.
So it's a conspiracy now?
Where is the outrage over Iraq and 4000+ deaths of Americans, for what did they die?
Oh we saw plenty of leftist outrage over the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all there. In reality, it is war, soldiers fight and die. That is the cold reality of it, your maudlin gnashing of teeth notwithstanding.
Phx@5:41
Exactly. And that comment alone speaks volumes.
Inga@5:35
No reference to Nakoula. Hicks says Benghazi was hyped and refers to Iraq. So I say again. What is the relevance to Nakoula. If you are right, than it will only show what a fool I am, so give it a shot. Explain it to me.
phx, Bob evidently purchased my sarcastic educational video thru Professor Ann's Amazon portal, titled "Sarcastic Sarcasm'. Bob failed to read the reviews, not my best work.
Yeah. I guess I'll wait for the movie.
McTriumph, you ignorant slut!
Somehow that works every time. See how quiet they are now?
It's the quiet before the intervention, Ellison.
CWJ: It's relevant because in Ingaworld conservatives kept mum about war deaths but now they clamor about Benghazi. Now that the tables are turned, it's OK for Inga to stay mum about war deaths because Bush people did it first. Shut up and obey POTUS is her message. I think that's her logic.
Oh, dear, phx. I need a good night's sleep. Can you promise they won't bust the door down before 6:30?
CWJ said...
Inga@5:35
No reference to Nakoula. Hicks says Benghazi was hyped and refers to Iraq. So I say again. What is the relevance to Nakoula?
1. Radical Islamists used the video to lay seige to 11 other embassies. 2 of which were sacked.
The Yemen one avoided sacking and deaths because the Yemeni cops fired on the video demonstrators.
2. Nakoula stated his political goal with the video was to get Muslims to injure and kill Americans to give them a taste of what Jews and Copts have suffered. He suceeded with deaths and injury to Americans and putting tens of thousands of other Americans in Muslim lands in increased jeopardy. And is apparantly unrepenitant about it in a NYT interview today.
3. The video was apparantly ammo for the Benghazi attackers, where it was used as a propaganda tool to motivate the fighting spirit of the Jihadi combatants before they mounted their organized attack.
4. Hicks notes that the hysteria over 4 Dead Heroes the conservatives are trumpeting was not matched by equal hysteria over hundreds of other American civilians killed in Iraq (and Afghanistan) "giving the people there freedom and democracy and saving women from wearing hajibs and buquas". PS - and we know the Left detests 'mercs' openly and detests the active duty soldiers the civilian contractors generally once were...but they cannot openly revile "the troops", since they still get heat over trying to demonize soldiers who served in Vietnam and Nam Vets.
Post a Comment