Althouse: Watching the video of the beheading of James Foley could be a criminal offense...

August 20, 2014

Watching the video of the beheading of James Foley could be a criminal offense...

... in the UK.

47 comments:

Jaq said...: Does this guy, Al Baghdadi, wear a blue turban?

I get the feeling he is trying to find out where the Pearl Harbor level of provocation of the US is.

They want a war, clearly. Maybe the best course is not to give it to them, but who are we going to call? Iraq Interpol?; 8/20/14, 4:46 PM
The Godfather said...: My first thought was that we ought to make watching the beheading (why the quote marks?) mandatory. I think it was watching the Twin Towers come down that (temporarily) moved Americans off their apathy long enough to start the counter attack against Jihad. But I won't watch it, so I can't honorably require others to do so.

I suppose the Brits are worried about their domestic population of Jihadists getting pumped up by the video. Maybe they ought to consider whether people who would react that way should be allowed to walk around the UK at will.; 8/20/14, 4:54 PM
Fandor said...: These Jihadists are rabid animals and need to be treated as such.
Time to get to work!; 8/20/14, 5:01 PM
Fandor said...: Oh, yeah, and while we're at it, invade and free Britian of the scourge (Muslims) that are occupying the country. Then France and next Germany. Drive 'em back into their hellhole and let Israel keep them all in line.; 8/20/14, 5:11 PM
Jaq said...: The Spanish did it once. Bin Laden was still pissed about it, and if you look at IS map, they include Andalusia.; 8/20/14, 5:18 PM
Quaestor said...: They want a war, clearly. Maybe the best course is not to give it to them, but who are we going to call? Iraq Interpol?

They've already got one. It was declared 1435 years ago by the only authority they respect. The fact that we won't fight a war in return suits them just fine.; 8/20/14, 5:25 PM
traditionalguy said...: They did a Jewish Journalist 8 years ago. Since then the kow towing to Muslims in Europe has made it a crime to reveal the depth of the Murder Spirit that is Islam.

Islam has always been proud to be called "The Religion of the Sword."; 8/20/14, 5:26 PM
Quaestor said...: There was once a pointless War of Jenkins Ear. Perhaps what we need now is a very pointed War of Foley's Neck.; 8/20/14, 5:30 PM
Ron said...: The country that made where they did their beheadings a tourist attraction!

Today, that is... :); 8/20/14, 5:43 PM
khesanh0802 said...: To me there are two sides to this coin:

1. Foley should have known better than to risk his life for a story. If we were all-knowing we would probably find that he did some dumb things that exposed him to capture. He better than most should have been aware of the nature of the rabid Islamics.

2. The Islamic Jihadists are most definitely "seventh century barbarians" (credit the Drill Sgt.?). My initial response to the beheading is "kill "em all, etc." Failing that, this act should make it clear to all of us that peaceful intentions and caring about the down trodden don't rate very high with ISIS, or whoever it was. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" should be our operative guide now.

I don't think Obama will be able to bring himself to go on the attack as we should. The only way to make our world a little safer is to make it a lot more dangerous for the radical Islamists. I think we have the capabilities to bring some real terror into the terrorist camp. Do we have the guts?; 8/20/14, 5:49 PM
Drago said...: Tim in Vermont: "I get the feeling he is trying to find out where the Pearl Harbor level of provocation of the US is."

There is no level of provocation the islamist crazies can reach that will cause the left to care.

On the contrary.; 8/20/14, 5:55 PM
Michael K said...: Britain has a serious problem with jihadis; 8/20/14, 6:08 PM
Michael K said...: Britain has a serious problem with jihadis; 8/20/14, 6:08 PM
Michael K said...: Britain has a serious problem with jihadis; 8/20/14, 6:08 PM
Birkel said...: The troll "Fandor" is well over the line.

Oh, look! Another Leftist has entered the comment section to say outrageous stuff anonymously.

When will the concern trolls be along to castigate everybody on the Right for what the Leftist troll has posted?; 8/20/14, 6:13 PM
Michael said...: The actual chopping off of the head is a misdemeanor, watching the film a felony.; 8/20/14, 7:11 PM
Revenant said...: Needless to say I don't think watching the video should be illegal. But I have to wonder who the heck would even want to watch it.; 8/20/14, 8:42 PM
David said...: I sure as hell am not going to watch the video, legal or illegal. Not because I could not handle the sight of it. I probably could. But because we own Foley the respect of not making a spectacle of his agony, and we owe ISIS nothing but contempt. I do not need to see the video to understand ISIS.; 8/20/14, 8:44 PM
Richard Dolan said...: The analog in the US is that watching or downloading certain kinds of porn is a criminal offense. Watching Kiddie porn in particular comes with draconian penalties and stiff mandatory minimums.

There is a strong argument that proscribing the viewing of this video makes more sense than proscribing even the most vile forms of porn.; 8/20/14, 8:56 PM
David said...: Very little has been made of the fact that the masked ISIS killer in the video was directly addressing President Obama in his statement. He blamed Obama for the attacks on ISIS and for Foley's death. He stated that further attacks would result in the same fate for another captured journalist, a man who was apparently on hand to witness the murder of Foley.

So a fanatical killer, speaking for a group of fanatical killers, is beginning a dialog with our President. Obama did not mention this in his statement today, but nevertheless his statement is a response to the challenge. As will be our next military action against ISIS, which surely will come.

ISIS does not care about Obama's words, and can not predict whether Obama will react by escalating military response. But surely they know that escalation is a potential response. Just as Obama knows that personalization of the fight by ISIS is raising the stakes for him, and for the country.

ISIS seems to want as much war with the United States as it can get. Notwithstanding Obama's ambivalence and the nation's about this fight, seeking a major military confrontation with the United States has never been a very good move in the longer run.; 8/20/14, 9:04 PM
Paul said...: Since the terrorst like beheading so much, I suggest we do the "Pershing' to them.

What is the 'Pershing' you ask.

When Gen. Pershing was sent to the Philippines to put down the Muslim Moro uprising, he ordered the troops to gather all the Muslim dead, wrap them in PIG SKINS, and bury them.

Of course the pig skins were sacrilegious to the Muslims as it damned the ones buried to hell.

So how about our GI's dipping their bullets in pig fat and burying their dead in pig skins (and no 72 virgins for them.)

See, turnabout is fair play.; 8/20/14, 9:22 PM
Cynicus said...: I used to think being an American citizen was like being a citizen of Ancient Rome. And I walked in foreign countries in a bubble believing that if I were attacked then the wrath of America would descend and protect or avenge me. Now I am not so sure. Maybe we should change white privilege to American privilege.; 8/20/14, 10:11 PM
jr565 said...: No, people who are squeamish about dealing with ISIS should be forced to watch
Imagine its your brother or father or husband having their head sawed off. And then support the destruction of those murderous bastards. We should blow them up and them Put out tapes of us offing ISIS members and send them to Al Jazeera.; 8/20/14, 10:49 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/20/14, 11:00 PM
jr565 said...: Hypothetical. If we had captured an ISIS member, high level and he had information on the beheading of this journalist, or the next journalist who is about to have his head cut off. Would it be justified to waterboard him if we might get info that might determine the whereabouts of the journalist, or John (the guy who is chopping off people's heads on camera) not only would I be ok with it I'd make him eat a ham sandwich after we did it just to humiliate him. Would that make us as bad as him? well no! because waterboarding is done to our troops. But chopping someone's head off is barbarism of the worst kind.
And not just chopping off someone's head, but sawing it off with a small knife while they are living. This is what ISIS is doing to Christians and Muslims every day. They should not be allowed to get away with it.this is what is happening because Obama decided to buy out in the ME. It's not a pretty sight is it?; 8/20/14, 11:03 PM
jr565 said...: Incidentally, for the Rand Paul's of the world. 20 or so British subjects left Brittain and joined ISIS. If we had Americans who joined ISIS would you have a problem with us taking them out on the battlefield or with a drone strike without giving them a trial first? because I sure wouldn't. Yet another talking point that is complete rubbish.
If they join ISIS and ISIS is decapitating journalists on camera, they lose any protections of their citizenship. They are enemies. And should not expect any Geneva protections.; 8/20/14, 11:40 PM
Hyphenated American said...: Funny fact, the guy who decapitated foley spoke with a British accent. Interestingly enough, twice as many British Moslems joined tbe jihad than joined British armed forces. Somehow, diversity is not working in Britain. Not surprise is that Britain foreign policy is pro-Moslem and anti-Israeli.; 8/20/14, 11:58 PM
Revenant said...: I sure as hell am not going to watch the video, legal or illegal [...] we own Foley the respect of not making a spectacle of his agony, and we owe ISIS nothing but contempt.

Nicely put, David.; 8/21/14, 1:33 AM
Cedarford said...: "Paul -When Gen. Pershing was sent to the Philippines to put down the Muslim Moro uprising, he ordered the troops to gather all the Muslim dead, wrap them in PIG SKINS, and bury them.

Of course the pig skins were sacrilegious to the Muslims as it damned the ones buried to hell.

So how about our GI's dipping their bullets in pig fat and burying their dead in pig skins (and no 72 virgins for them.)

See, turnabout is fair play."

===============
Heard this foolishness since 9/11 and it is by people that do not realize Muslims long ago ruled that no haram means of killing a Muslim on Jihad or desecrating his corpse mattered in the least. The body of a slain Jihadi instantly goes to Paradise, Islamic theology holds, all other sins and transgressions do not matter at all.
Nor wounding means or forced consumption of alcohol or pork or other haram substances.

What does bother the heck out of Muslims are things that the Geneva Conventions and Hague now unfortunately prohibit. Raping their women, taking their sons and daughters to be raised as Christians or good Communist atheists. Taking all a Muslims land as penalty for waging war or terrorism..; 8/21/14, 1:34 AM
Revenant said...: Incidentally, for the Rand Paul's of the world. [...] If we had Americans who joined ISIS would you have a problem with us taking them out on the battlefield or with a drone strike without giving them a trial first?

I'm not sure why you need to ask that, since Rand Paul explained -- at considerable length, in his filibuster -- that he had no problem with the US government killing enemy combatants on the battlefield, US citizen or no.

What he had a problem with -- and what all sensible Americans have a problem with -- is the idea that the United States government can simply declare a US citizen to be an enemy and then kill him, no matter where he is and no matter whether or no he poses any credible threat to anyone.

People around here will expend unlimited energy talking about how much they hate Obama, what a liar he is, how he shreds the Constitution and doesn't give a shit about American lives.

But when he kills some teenager on the other side of the planet, tells you "oh, that was an enemy combatant planning to murder Americans", and offers you no evidence for that claim beyond the fact that the dead kid had a Muslim name? You line up to suck his cock in gratitude.; 8/21/14, 1:40 AM
Bob Loblaw said...: ISIS seems to want as much war with the United States as it can get.

I think it's about recruiting. According to strategypage, their ranks have swelled from 15k to over 50k since they invaded Iraq. If they can spit in Uncle Sam's eye and get away with it they're the very definition of bin Laden's "strong horse" in the eyes of radical Muslims.

I'm split on what we should do. On the one hand, it's really up to the people in the region to deal with this. ISIS/ISIL isn't threatening US interests directly, and whenever we get involved it just fuels the next round of wild-eyed barbarian antics.

On the other hand, you pay a penalty for looking weak. If we decide to do nothing it's not impossible the other players will decide ISIS is going to come out ahead and throw in with them. We could very well end up with another country using boatloads of oil money to frustrate US interests in the region and finance terrorism on US soil.

This is one of those situations where no matter what we do the academics will be clucking their tongues and saying "you shouldn't have done that." I'd almost feel sorry for Obama if I didn't think he's mostly responsible. I hope he can drag himself away from the links to think about it a bit.; 8/21/14, 2:14 AM
stlcdr said...: The UK is stupid. They just don't realize it. Of course, the US sees this as something to aspire to; more civilized.; 8/21/14, 4:59 AM
MayBee said...: I was bothered to hear the US State Department is asking US outlets to take the video down. I don't want to watch the video, but I certainly hope nobody complies.

The US State Department needs to stop trying to control video availability in the US.; 8/21/14, 7:07 AM
jr565 said...: revenant wrote:
What he had a problem with -- and what all sensible Americans have a problem with -- is the idea that the United States government can simply declare a US citizen to be an enemy and then kill him, no matter where he is and no matter whether or no he poses any credible threat to anyone.

if the US govt is killing someone with a drone strike they are alleging that they are terrorists. That will be asserted despite the fact that such a person never had a trial. And so the argument would be that govt is saying they are, but how do we know? Who would make the argument that govt should kill citizens who pose no threat?
The threat is that they've joined terrorist organizations. And we are treating them as if they are in that terrorist organization.; 8/21/14, 7:41 AM
jr565 said...: "But when he kills some teenager on the other side of the planet, tells you "oh, that was an enemy combatant planning to murder Americans", and offers you no evidence for that claim beyond the fact that the dead kid had a Muslim name? You line up to suck his cock in gratitude."
Those that conduct the war and have intelligence on Al Qaeda, and now ISIS will have knowledge of who,s who that you and I won't have. Since they are the ones fighting the war. Rand Paul is not.
So then what proof do they want govt to offer before blowing someone up? Especially an Americwn citizen who went off to join ISIS. What evidence do you want, and how should it be presented?
I'm sure the military has gotten it wrong on occasion. But they need to conduct a war. And they don't consult with libertarians every time they pick a target. If you want to have a say so about whether the target is justified join the army. Or get on the Intel committee.; 8/21/14, 7:46 AM
jr565 said...: The issue reared its ugly head when we targeted Al-Awlki who was an American citizen but was fighting alongside Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda shouldn't get a pass on a drone strike simply because an American is sitting at the table. Is he fighting along side Al Qaeda? Then he's a valid target. Adam Gaddan, wherever he may be, would be a valid target unless he renounced his Al Qaeda ties and turned himself in before we got him with a drone strike.; 8/21/14, 7:52 AM
MayBee said...: The issue reared its ugly head when we targeted Al-Awlki who was an American citizen but was fighting alongside Al Qaeda.

But we also, separately, targeted his 14 year old son. The official explanation was "He should have had a better father"

That is problematic.; 8/21/14, 8:01 AM
Birches said...: Agreed Maybee. I don't ever want to watch the video and I can't understand why someone would.

However, I also know these videos are used as propaganda tools for recruiting. As was mentioned upthread, perhaps it;s best that way in Britain because of British jihadis.

I was watching a Frontline almost ten years ago that featured audio of some jihadis watching the beheading of Nick Berg (they were already under surveillance). I had nightmares about his scream mingled with their laughs and glee. I thought about that scream when I found out about James Foley...; 8/21/14, 9:51 AM
Revenant said...: if the US govt is killing someone with a drone strike they are alleging that they are terrorists. That will be asserted despite the fact that such a person never had a trial.

And that's a problem. What you described, there, is the US government killing an American and defending it by saying "we have secret evidence that he needed killin'". That's bad.

The threat is that they've joined terrorist organizations. And we are treating them as if they are in that terrorist organization.

Joining a terrorist organization is not legal grounds for summary execution, under either American law or the laws of war.; 8/21/14, 11:48 AM
MayBee said...: However, I also know these videos are used as propaganda tools for recruiting. As was mentioned upthread, perhaps it;s best that way in Britain because of British jihadis.

I can't imagine how much it must hurt, and how terrifying it must be, to be beheaded with a knife.

I also can't imagine the person who does that to someone who is not hostile to him.

I don't know what to say about Britain. People there live a wonderful life with their basic needs taken care of and their religious freedoms intact. And then they want to go to Syria and behead people.

The attack on Lee Rigby was horrible, in the middle of the day on a busy street. And people just walked by the murderers because there was nothing for them to do while the police waited for a squad that carried guns to arrive.

I think Westerners are really going to go down a rabbit hole if our governments start trying to ban things that recruit these guys. Because apparently it's our very existence that recruits them.; 8/21/14, 11:53 AM
Revenant said...: Those that conduct the war and have intelligence on Al Qaeda, and now ISIS will have knowledge of who,s who that you and I won't have. Since they are the ones fighting the war. Rand Paul is not.

Thanks for proving my point.; 8/21/14, 11:56 AM
Bob Loblaw said...: But we also, separately, targeted his 14 year old son. The official explanation was "He should have had a better father"

None of that is true. First of all, he was 16. Secondly, he was not the target - the target was Ibrahim al-Banna. They didn't even know Awlaki's son was there.

And lastly, that "official explanation" smells of ass.; 8/21/14, 4:12 PM
Revenant said...: None of that is true. First of all, he was 16. Secondly, he was not the target - the target was Ibrahim al-Banna. They didn't even know Awlaki's son was there.

After the fact, they classified the son as an enemy combatant, not as collateral damage.

So while it is true they didn't know he was there, their official stance was "even though we killed him accidentally, we would have been within our rights to do it deliberately". Basically the "fake but accurate" mentality, but applied to assassinations instead of new stories.; 8/21/14, 5:20 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "After the fact, they classified the son as an enemy combatant, not as collateral damage. So while it is true they didn't know he was there, their official stance was "even though we killed him accidentally, we would have been within our rights to do it deliberately". Basically the "fake but accurate" mentality, but applied to assassinations instead of new stories"

All too true and troubling as we move forward.; 8/21/14, 7:05 PM
Jaq said...: "Joining a terrorist organization is not legal grounds for summary execution, under either American law or the laws of war." -- Revenant

Umm, there are no laws of war except for one, it is essential that one win. Not sure about in your dream world though. Little 'd' democratic governments cannot really survive a complete disregard for the safety of its people out of concern for the infantile fantasies of a small few who have never read any history seriously. It is kind of an imperative.; 8/22/14, 5:08 AM
MayBee said...: Eric, thanks for the corrections.

And Revenant, thanks for the clarity.; 8/22/14, 9:51 AM
ken in tx said...: Every person who has grown up a Moslem in a Moslem country has seen a large animal, goat, sheep, or camel have its throat cut as a sacrifice and a cookout in their back yards at least once a year. Many of them have also been taught over and over that Christians and Jews are animals. They are usually called pigs and apes. These people simply do not have a problem with these beheadings. They are raised to be desensitized to it.; 8/22/14, 11:32 AM