Embassy Attacks

U.S. Foreign Policy Not to Blame for Anything!, Plus: Alleged Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Nakoula Voluntarily Accepts Ride from Police

|

That's probably Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to the right, the man who says he served as "logistics manager" behind The Innocence of Muslims, the short trailer/movie/whatever that some folks still believe is the reason that various American citizens, soliders, diplomats, embassies, and consulates have been attacked throughout the Middle East over the past week.

[Go here to watch the 13 minute video, which most recently served up an anti-Mitt Romney ad for me before running!]

He's being helped into a car by Los Angeles Country sheriffs. This is from early Saturday morning when, as the Los Angeles Times writes, he was "taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained." And there's this:

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California was reviewing whether Nakoula [a.k.a. Sam Bacile], who has been convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the Internet.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit writes that this arrest is

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable.

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to "grow the economy." He does not swear to institute "fairness." The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It's just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that's what's happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

Reynolds doesn't seriously think Obama will resign, of course, but he argues that "Obama's behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention." Which is to say, the focus on the film and the larger notion of free expression as the real problem is pretty goddman godawful.

Recall, for instance, Obama's spokesman Jay Carney's assertion that the recent deadly attacks on American people and property throughout the Muslim world are a

response not to United States policy, not to, obviously, the Administration, not the to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.

And the administration also leaned on Google, owner of YouTube, to pull the video (Google has thankfully and rightly declined to do so, although it has reportedly blocked it in Egypt and other countries). Mitt Romney, whose fumbled response to the attacks in Egypt and Libya last week bizarrely became a bigger story than the attacks themselves, has also castigated the film.

As Matt Welch has noted, it shouldn't be difficult for the president of the United States—and the press more generally—to conjure up a specifically American response to situations like this: "In the United States, we are not in the business of approving these messages."

As important—maybe more important, really—there is dwindling reason to think that The Innocence of Muslims movie or trailer or whatever it is should be accorded any major role in the recent attacks. As Kevin Drum of Mother Jones summarizes things, extremist Arabs and Muslims can always conjure up a pretext for whatever they want to do and there are strong indications that the attacks in Egypt and Libya were planned long before this film ever drifted into view.

My colleague Tim Cavanaugh is right, I think, when he focuses not on the putative cause of actions, but their essential function: "The purpose of the attacks in Egypt and Libya was for the Sunni leadership to show it can unleash mob attacks against American diplomatic assets. (There may be some historical exceptions, but it's more or less axiomatic than mob attacks cannot happen without government approval.) That point has been received by everybody except U.S. State Department employees."

There are really two large points in all of this which should be kept front and center.

First is the one related to free expression. As I suggested during the Mohammed cartoon controversy—another outrage that was completely ginned up by religious fanatics who counterfeited drawings and toured the Muslim world stoking outrage that simply did not exist—"No one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats."

Second: U.S. foreign policy is part of our problem with the wider world. It's not the whole problem and it doesn't sanction anything done by al Qaeda or the PLO or Iran or the despotic Syrian government or anything else (even as it might help explain and predict where, why, and how those actions take place). But when idiots like Jay Carney and large chunks of Congress and the president and his main rival for office and so many others continue to insist that the way the U.S. has acted over the past five, 10, and 50 years has no bearing on foreign attitudes toward America, its people, and its interests, you've just got to wonder how these people tie their shoes in the morning. Are they really that stupid or are they just totally convincing as actors?

At least since the end of the Cold War, the United States has drifted along without anything resembling a coherent or sustained conversation about foreign policy, much less working to hash out a consensus position that reflects our body politic. In the 1990s, we witnessed Bill Clinton lurching from action to action. He ordered 25 major troop deployments over eight years, twice as many as Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush entered office promising a "humble" foreign policy that repudiated "nation building" and then embraced a disastrous "region building" approach from which we have yet to extricate ourselves. Barack Obama tripled troops in Afghanistan without bothering to clarify our mission there and unilaterally decided to drop bombs in Libya. Congress has acted the role of helpless bystander in foreign policy for going on the last 20 years at least (for god's sake, far more members supported the second invasion of Iraq than the first!).

The predictable result is a foreign policy that is completely unpredictable and unprincipled. There are simply no clear rules governing when and how America will act militarily, what we stand for, and what we stand against. Or, as Obama's bizarre phrasing of our relationship with non-enemy Egypt (which receives billions of dollars in aid from us), even who are allies are.

And we wonder why things aren't going our way around the world?

Advertisement

NEXT: Video: David Stockman on TARP, the Fed, Ron Paul and Reagan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Apparently it was federal authorities, not the AP, that fingered Nakoula as the guy beind the film. Which of course, exposes the guy to the threat of being killed for having made it. Then they drag him in on charges of violating his parole.

    I’m not saying the White House was involved in making the decision to publicly release the guys real name, thereby exposing him to death threats, but someone wasn’t thinking straight about this man’s first amendment rights.

    1. Ever heard of a sacrificial offering?

      1. JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!

    2. Gawker says “Confirmed: The Director of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Is a Schlocky Softcore Porn Director Named Alan Roberts.”

      So, now what? Does Roberts get the two-minute-hate treatment, or will his porn-making status let him off the hook with the lewinsky press?

      1. Eric Holder will have the FBI at his door in a New York minute.

      2. with the lewinsky press

        I’ve seen that phrase before, what does it mean?

        1. A press that sucks the presidents weenie.

    3. Judge: so you found possible violations in your investigation

      Feds: yes

      Judge: Why were you investigating?

      Feds: he said mean things about Muslims

      Judge: You had a warrant for that?

      Feds: No

      Judge: what law did you suspect he broke that gave you probable cause to investigate?

      Feds: Ummm…. can we seal this case?

      Judge: Sure do what you want, everything the government did here looks OK to me.

    4. It isn’t just Nakoula whose ass is in the crosshairs now, but that of every Copt in Egypt. Their lot has become very precarious since the “Arab Spring,” and it got a lot worse with this.

      1. That’s the very reason the supporters of the Arab Spring were out to lunch from the start. Increasing attacks on the Coptic people should have been an indicator to everyone where this shit was headed.

        1. Sadly, some of the prime contributors at Reason are such complete and total morons than even now, they STILL think that the Arab Spring is just peaches and cream.

          1. It’s hard to be against the overthrowing of dictators when you’re a libertarian.

            My hope is the Islamic fucktards will get sorted out internally once thier beliefs come into contact with reality.

            1. Sorted out? buddy, their beliefs ARE reality in Egypt. 84% of Muslim Egyptians support the death penalty as punishment for apostasy. you have no idea how powerful this ideology is.

              1. Excellent response.

  2. ” On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California was reviewing whether Nakoula [a.k.a. Sam Bacile], who has been convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the Internet.

    He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -? and any approved computers were to be used for work only. “Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose,” the terms read.

    yea, in relation to that previous thread… i don’t hate to say i told you so. media reported that it was a term of his probation that he not use computers. i suggested it probably had to do with using a computer more specifically with access to the internet, since it was RELATED to the crime he was convicted of, and such restrictions are common for probationers, even though related to 1st amendment related activity, they pass scrutiny since they are related to the conduct the person was convicted of, they apply to a probationer (substantially restricted rights just like if in custody…1st amendment still APPLIES, but not like it would with a free individual),
    etc.

    1. much like a probationer can be prohibited from wearing gang apparel, also a 1st amendment protected activity.

      that aside, unless they find “nefarious” use of his computer/internet connection,i would suggest that violating him (probation) for such a purely political use will be a bit “suss”, even though apparently obviously legally valid

      but the feds ime take conditions of probation seriously. if he was prohibited from using the intertoobs, and he did so, he very well may get locked up.

      i wouldn’t lose sleep over it

      i WILL over the main point of the article which is the tendency of our govt. to bend over backwards for these thugs who would murder, etc. over perceived insults to their holy bullshit

      and yes, anybody who would murder, riot, etc. over insults to their “sacred beliefs” is a savage, by definition

      heck, there are few better definitions. show me a man who reacts violently to stuff that mocks their religion (and i include sectarian but religiously held views, if you know what i mean), and i’ll show you a fucking savage who deserves nothing but more scorn and NEVER an apology.

      1. Except the feds don’t investigate every YT video’s production history to find probation violations, just this one which happens to be politically inconvenient.

        How long do you think this guy’s going to survive in jail, btw?

        1. tulpa, the feds tend to investigate ANY incident that suggests a violation AND gets “public impact”

          similar to the metric they use when investigating PD’s for excessive force.

          and if federal probation is anything like federal criminal law (as contrasted with state/local) , then par for the course for them will be draconian as fuck.

          that’s how the feds are IN GENERAL on criminal shit.

          and i suggest if you google the kid of shit high profile probationers get violated on, you are going to find plenty of picune bullshit.

          i mean the restrictions are CRYSTAL clear. and again, i pray did NOT violate them

          but investigations like this have an inexorable oh shit the ball started rolling nature to them. once started, you’ve got a bunch of federal pissant bureaucrats none of whom are going to wnat to be the ones holding the hot potato when the music stops

          again, i just PRAY this guy was smart enough to get the trailer out WITHOUT violating his probation. like using a third party.

          1. Um, he was allowed to use a computer for work. As far as I’m concerned, his art should be considered work to any reasonable person. Therefore, there’s no way in hell he could have violated it.

            Also, that could have easily been determined without dragging him in and making a show of this whole infringement of his 1A Rights.

            Only a fool would “hope” that it isn’t a violation when it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that this would be considered work by anyone but the most unreasonable or stupidest person in the world.

            1. No, I think the reports have simply been too vague in referring to “work”. It was probably a more specific restriction that may or may not have applied to the work he was doing here. Like maybe he had to have every job pre-approved, or maybe he could use computers only during certain hours.

          2. So if someone donates $100 to Obama’s campaign online, do you think the feds will check that person’s name to make sure they’re not violating parole by using a computer?

            1. Tulpa, in both 2008 and this year, you can go to the Obama website, put in a donation with an obviously fake name and address along with the credit card, and it will go right through, because the standard e-commerce credit card validation has been disabled. Of course, that also prevents any verification that the donor is a US citizen and hasn’t exceeded the max donation as required by the laws everyone else has to follow.

    2. The description is still too vague. They said he could use computers only for work, but did they mean only for a job they specified, or could it be for any kind of work? Did he have authorized access to the computer he used?

  3. Quickmeme: Defend the Constitution

    “If he had pissed on a cross, he’d still be in bed”

    1. “Now you know why there is a second amendment”

    2. “Can I haz free speech?”

        1. conditions of probation routinely and constitutionally touch upon speech related matters.

          when you use the intertoobs to commit a crime, as wire/bank fraud usually do, and you agree to condition of probation LIMITING your intertoobs usage (note: not PROHIBITING but limiting),

          and you subsequently violate those conditions (and god i hope he didn’t. like i said, maybe he was smart enough to get around a technical violation by having a friend post it etc.), you are literally begging to be put back in the pokey.

          if he had put this shit on video and played it in a movie theatre or whatever, we wouldn’t be having this issue
          it is NOT the content of what he said, it is the fact that IF he used the intertoobs to upload it, he violated probation

          again, not related to the content of his speech, related to the MEANS of dissemination IF he did so

          and again, i pray he didn’t

          these fucktard savages deserve nothing but contempt.

    3. counting his federal funding.

      and again, it may be suss, but if his conditions of probation said “don’t use the intertoobs”, which they apparently did (and which i suspected in the previous thread yesterday, because ime we see that shit with crimes like his, then he very well may have violated probation

      violatiing probation is a crime

      however, it’s clearly suss as fuck to violate him on it, but they have NOT done so yet.

      it’s really fucking simple. you take a plea deal for wire fraud and shit like that, and as a condition of probation, “He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -? and any approved computers were to be used for work only. “Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose,” the terms read.”

      you wanna stay out of the pokey. don’t violate conditions of probation.

      again, he;s a sympathetic character, but the feds are NOT known for mollycoddling people who violate probation, whether they are speech crusaders like this guy, or just some nimrod who is caught drinking a beer, when his probation forbids him from doing so

      1. Dunphy thinks he’s just lucky they didn’t shoot his dog in front of his kids.

        1. no, i think that the feds are within their rights to violate somebody on probation when they violate the conditions of their probation

          i HOPE and PRAY he did not violate his probation, since i 100% support the right to insult people for religious idiocy. it’s what our 1st amendment was designed for.

        2. dumbphy is a serial braggart who probably isn’t anything he says he is. I’d ignore him if I were you. I know I do.

          1. Yea, but stroking his tiny penis while staring at a sheriff’s badge he got in a box of Cracker Jack is his only joy in life. Why take that away from him?

        3. Dunphy thinks he’s just lucky they didn’t shoot his dog in front of his kids.

          I’m sick and tired of the preferential treatment some people on here get courtesy of our resident cop apologist.

          If sarcasmic, Epi, heller or I would have said this, we would have been on the troll-o-meter right away, yet Johnny gets a normal (and half-reasonable) response. I assume dunphy is still under sedation from his penile-enlargement from yesterday.

          Fuck the double-standard for reason commentators! Stop the bigotry!

          1. Penile enlargement? I thought he was having his corkscrew tail removed.

            1. I thought he was taking steroids and doing curls.

              1. i used to get insulted by comments like that, ted, but now (and i have to thank my coach for the idea) i take it as a compliment

                usually, it’s when somebody SEES you or sees you lifting, and you hear some kind snide comment about “roids” or whatnot.

                what’s the underlying message?

                “no way a guy could get that big/strong etc. without roids. so, it must be roids.”

                it’s a compliment

                granted, when i was a distance runner, i didn’t get similar comments about EPO, blood doping, etc. but it’s a prettty common response you are going to get if you are a mesomorph (or lifting big weight)

                embrace it, said my coach. and this is a guy who was surrounded by AAS back inthe day. EVERYBODY used back then. my coach is a former olympic team coach. he knows of what he speaks

                that aside, curls are fer girls. squat, pull, clean, jerk, snatch

                although again, i just had surgery. i’m the weakest i’ve been in 15 yrs. but it will come back post surgery. it always does.

                encephalitis stripped 30 fucking lbs off my body. when you can barely eat, throw up constantly, and can’t train.

                it sucks

                NOW, i’m all squared away, and my shit is coming back with a vengeance

                to quote dryden: BEWARE THE FURY OF A PATIENT MAN

                1. oh, and like i said, i;m an OLer. it’s not about arms and chest and beach muscles. the muscles we tend to have are functional posterior chain – glute/hams, spinal erectors, traps.

                  and on the front – quads.

                  man, my traps have dissapeared. 🙁

                  olifting aint about physiques and curls and shit. it’s about being explosive and also being strong … rate of force development, power, as well as limit strength

                  look at SAGIR. world champion lifter

                  he aint winning any physique contests

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCuh8trNago

                  weighing 77 kilos and snatching and cJing; huge weights

                  POWER!

                  fuck curls ! 🙂

                2. Actually, it’s your tiny nuts, your rageful attitude, and muscles that look nice for the ladies but serve no useful purpose.

          2. I think you guys have a history with him that may explain the difference. Epi in particular is a serial insulter who it’s basically pointless to respond to with rational argumentation, as all you’ll get in response are insults.

            1. That doesn’t happen to me, Tulpa, and I’ll prove it.

              Hi, Epi! I disagree with a point you made the other day and would like to rationally discuss it.

              Now we sit back and watch…

              1. Ken, since I respect you so much (as opposed to Tulpa Dumb), what would you like to talk about? By the way, I have a tennis match in about, oh, five minutes, so let’s discuss this rationally on another thread later today. Also, Tulpa Dumb is an idiot, but you already knew that.

              2. You guys aren’t actually disagreeing about anything specific, and the whole thing is being done for the express purpose of “proving wrong” a person you both dislike. So it’s not the same thing.

                When you defend a cop or a member of a political party on a thread where Epi is doing his thing and he doesn’t insult you, I’ll believe it.

                1. No matter what you say I still won’t care that Giffords got shot.

      2. If he’d put a cross in urine, he’d still be in bed.

    4. “Yelled ‘Theater!’ in a crowded fire”

    5. Enforcing Sharia…easier than defending embassy

      BURN

  4. Let’s hope the ACLU doesn’t wuss out and that they monitor Nakoula’s detention for First Amendment violations.
    Unasked in all this is: “Are the film’s allegations true?” Without being an expert on the matter I understand that Mohammed fellow really did have sex with underage girls and order the murders of his enemies. It would be nice to shift the debate to fact checking so that we have a clear idea of the origins of this religion.

    1. there is not going to be a first amendment violation is he used a computer connected to the intertoobs IN VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

      i see this kind of stuff get upheld all the time. you get convicted of something like wire fraud, it’s going to be common to LIMIT one’s internet usage (note: he was allowed to use the intertoobs according to probation, but it has to have probationary officer approval and had to be for work purposes.

      per the probation HE agreed to

      remember, a probationer is the functional equivalent in many respects of a prisoner. just like they can be prohibited from wearing gang apparel, whereas a free citizen cannot, they can have restrictions on their intertoobs usage imposed.

      the thing that sucks is it’s going to LOOK LIKE he is getting punished for the content of his internet usage, when it would be a violation whether or not it insulted mooooslims. but that will get obscured in the frenzy.

      the feds ar free to ignore the probation violation, assuming one happened, but ime they are loathe to do so

      1. the thing that sucks is it’s going to LOOK LIKE he is getting punished for the content of his internet usage

        He is being punished for the content. Probation is just the excuse. You really think he’d have been taken into “voluntary” custody for posting pictures of kittens on Facebook?

        1. i think before we jump the gun, …

          after the brouhaha and with clearly articulable reasons to suspect probation violation, it was ENTIRELY reasonable to question him. the feds would be remiss for NOT doing so.

          i think if he drew attention to himself for non-work related internet usage, they’d investigate, whatever the content was.

          but again, he MAY not have even violated his probation or we may get a US attorney who steps aside and says “fuck this. let’s nolle pros this fuckstick and get dim sum”

          i’m going to hope and pray either of those options happens 🙂

          1. it was ENTIRELY reasonable to question him. the feds would be remiss for NOT doing so.

            Is that pic REALLY of someone being “questioned”?

          2. after the brouhaha and with clearly articulable reasons to suspect probation violation, it was ENTIRELY reasonable to question him. the feds would be remiss for NOT doing so.

            His probation had a work exemption to the “no internet” policy. If making and distributing a film isn’t “work,” I don’t know what the hell is.

            Any person that thinks the Feds would “be remiss for not doing so” couldn’t give a fuck about freedom and would support living in a police state. Die In A Fire, fuckstick.

            i think if he drew attention to himself for non-work related internet usage, they’d investigate, whatever the content was.

            They’re using this as a pretext to chill his 1A Rights. What constitutes “work” is not determined by the quality of content of the film, but in the practice of creating and disseminating it. The Feds know this and are still hassling this man. That’s pathetic and you’re pathetic for supporting it in any manner.

            1. In the context, “work” requires remuneration. The purpose of work exceptions for these kinds of probationary restriction is so the person doesn’t starve, not so they can enrich the social media with their artistic endeavors.

              1. Where in the law does it say that work requires remuneration? Please provide links to show your work.

                kthxbai

                1. There’s no relevant law in this case, as it’s a probation agreement. But a similar regime:

                  While your driver license is suspended or revoked, you may be eligible to receive an Occupational/Restricted Driver License (ORL). It’s good for the length of your suspension or revocation period.

                  You may use an ORL for:
                  Work, including self-employment, WorkFirst, apprenticeship, or on-the-job training.
                  School, if you’re enrolled in an educational institution and pursuing a diploma, degree, or other certification.
                  Court-ordered community service.
                  Substance abuse treatment or 12-step meeting, if no transit service is available.
                  Continuing your own healthcare, driving to a healthcare provider.
                  Providing continuing care of someone who is dependent on you.
                  Applying for an apprenticeship or on-the-job training. This type of ORL gives you 14 days to apply for these employment programs.

                  http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/orl.html

                  1. Yeah, so what?

                    If you are operating on a restricted license, you merely need to notify the court where you work and when. There’s no requirement that you tell them if you’re being paid for the work or not.

                    Ex: A man runs a karaoke night at a local bar. He is not paid by the bar to do so, but is doing it for free in the hopes of expanding the exposure of his fledgling business.

                    Is he not “working” because he is not being paid? What if he gets a tip? What if he expects a tip but receives none?

                    Seriously, Tulpa. You’re way out of your depth on this one. And besides, shouldn’t the government err on the side of the individual and liberty instead of the state and restriction? I imagine the founders would weep at the contortions the feds and you are doing here.

                    1. If you are operating on a restricted license, you merely need to notify the court where you work and when.

                      Nope, the court verifies employment status prior to allowing you to drive on that route. They don’t just trust you.

                      And besides, shouldn’t the government err on the side of the individual and liberty instead of the state and restriction?

                      Not when it comes to punishing convicted felons. The work exception, as I stated above, is there only to prevent starvation. If you don’t want your liberty taken away, don’t commit bank fraud.

                    2. Nope, the court verifies employment status prior to allowing you to drive on that route. They don’t just trust you.

                      Note that doesn’t address my point, which is what is the obligation of the person on probation. They are obligated to notify the court where they work. What the court does with that information is out of the hands of the person on probation.

                      Not when it comes to punishing convicted felons. The work exception, as I stated above, is there only to prevent starvation. If you don’t want your liberty taken away, don’t commit bank fraud.

                      So even if a person is meeting the requirements of their sentence, and in this case that means probation, the state should err on the side of restriction and making their life more difficult?

                      Maybe they should have stayed his sentence until he exhausted his appeals and let him keep his job. Like they did for this guy.

                    3. Did this fellow notify the court/his probation officer of his alleged filmmaking “work”? I really doubt it. If it comes out that he did they’ll look even worse.

                      So even if a person is meeting the requirements of their sentence, and in this case that means probation, the state should err on the side of restriction and making their life more difficult?

                      But he’s not meeting the requirements of his sentence if he’s using computers for non-employment purposes! That’s the point. He chose these restrictions over actually serving the statutory sentence for his crime.

                    4. You said there were a lot of “if” s in my post above, but you’re making a couple of huge assumptions here. You don’t know what he put on his request (if he had or was required to provide one) for use of the internet. You just use your Jump To Conclusions mat to assume he had to tell them he was a filmmaker, those films had to pay him as work was being done and the feds may have known or were entitled to know what kinds of films he was making.

      2. So much for shifting the debate. I tried.

  5. maybe … MAYBE this guy was smart enough NOT to use the intertoobs (a violation of his probation) for this clearly non-work related upload. like he asked a buddy to do it for him (assuming no third party clause existed on his probation restrictions). i hope so

    that would be a possible “out” for him.

    otherwise, he may well be proper fucked

    1. MAYBE this guy was smart enough NOT to use the intertoobs (a violation of his probation) for this clearly non-work related upload.

      How is it “non-work related”, dumbass? Is it up to him to determine what he wants to do for a living? Was a term of his probation that he could not go into filmmaking as well? Because if not, this very much is work related since no filmmaker or distributor would be able to get by without using the internet.

      You sure love that all-powerful police state and the means they use to fuck people over, don’t you? You make me want to puke.

      1. He wasn’t paid for it, therefore it’s not “work” in the context of a probationary restriction.

        Just like if you have a restricted drivers license which only allows you to drive to work, you can’t claim that the trip to a karaoke bar was driving to work because you made art there.

        1. You’re so full of shit, Tulpa. An artist, and filmmakers consider themselves artists, is free to pursue his work, which may lead to prifit at a later date. It’s still considered work, even if he doesn’t make money right away or every day. Also, he got investors to fund the project, therefore he did get paid to do it since they underwrote it.

          Also, by your fucked-up idiotic logic, every person that painted a portrait or acted in a film without being compensated didn’t actually work.

          Do you still want to stand behind your strawman, because if you do, you may want to put on a fire suit.

          1. It’s still considered work, even if he doesn’t make money right away or every day.

            Not in this context. The probation restrictions would be totally unenforceable if you could get around them like that, and thus we would never have work exceptions.

          2. Basically… words have different meanings in different contexts. Ever heard the expression “if you work doing something you love you’ll never work a day in your life”? The first “work” refers to remunerated activity, while the second refers to undesirable but necessary activity.

            1. In the context of the government, words have very defined and particular meanings. And saying someone must be compensated immediately for something to be considered “work” is absurd on its face. That would basically preclude anyone from working on commission, is a business which deal in commodities where a marketplace may be limited and in the film production industry, where a great deal of work is speculative.

              You’ve contorted yourself into a pretzel trying to make is appear that the government is “technically right” even if morally wrong. And you’re just plain wrong here.

              1. It wouldn’t “preclude” anyone from those kinds of activity, it would just prevent them from getting an exception to their parole agreement for those activities. You can still work on commission, you just can’t use the Internet to do so. Also, he can always ask permission from his probation officer if he absolutely needs to use the internet for something.

                Bottom line: don’t commit federal felonies because your life will be heavily restricted afterward.

                1. You guys are arguing over something stupid: a news report. What the report sums up as “work” may be 10 pp. of rules. The reporter just thought “work” was a good compromise between conciseness and accuracy in describing the situaion.

                  1. yea. you will notice a lot of threads devolve to this… it’s like this inexorable staggering loping march towards paragraph after parapraph of it…

                    that’s why it’s usually good to define terms up front, and despite the ridicule the concept has received, to clarify in situations where you are ATFPAP (Assuming The Fact Pattern As Presented)

                    it helps prevent people arguing past each other.

                    in so many of these discussions, the people are actually agreeing, they just don’t know how to reconcile the stuff they are wanking about, with the core of the issue which gets lost in the details.

    2. for this clearly non-work related upload.

      So he gets thrown in jail for breaking the law at his job and the condition of his probation is that he can’t use his computer when he is not working.

      Brilliant.

      His probation requirements are clearly unconstitutional so your bullshit is bullshit Dunphy

      1. they may be in your opinion. are you speaking normatively?

  6. If BO resigned every time he violated his oath of office, he probably wouldn’t have made it into February 2009.

    1. BO already violated triple secret probation about a dozen times, whether it’s going to war w/o congressional approval, assassinating (or at least getting permission to ) US citizens w/o due cause or… need i go on?

      obama, otoh and unfortunately, is not a probationer

      he’s just a fucking scumbag.

      1. It’s not even the first time he’s had his water-carriers throw someone in jail for political show. JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!

        1. Whose Streets????

          OUR STREETS!

  7. i really hope this guy wasn’t stupid enough to violate the conditions of his probation to post this shit.

    this isn’t a garden variety derp derp criminal, like the ones we normally catch. wire and bank fraud, etc. implies he is not a drooling idiot.

    otoh, a lot of time with well edumacated, overconfident white collar criminals, their inflated self confidence in their abilities to cover their track far outweigh their extra brainz when compared to the average meth-addled street mopes doing burgs in his own neighobrhood

    the only thing easier to catch than a profoundly stupid criminal, is a profoundly arrogant one

  8. Which is to say, the focus on the film and the larger notion of free expression as the real problem is pretty goddman godawful.

    “Goddman” is an awesome typo.

  9. U S Ambassador to the United Nations (WTFSRSLY?) made the rounds of morning talk shows, saying, pretty much, “It’s not our fault! Leave Barach ALOOOOOOOONE!”

  10. Second: U.S. foreign policy is part of our problem with the wider world. It’s not the whole problem and it doesn’t sanction anything done by al Qaeda or the PLO or Iran or the despotic Syrian government or anything else (even as it might help explain and predict where, why, and how those actions take place). But when idiots like Jay Carney and large chunks of Congress and the president and his main rival for office and so many others continue to insist that the way the U.S. has acted over the past five, 10, and 50 years has no bearing on foreign attitudes toward America, its people, and its interests, you’ve just got to wonder how these people tie their shoes in the morning. Are they really that stupid or are they just totally convincing as actors?

    See Sheldon? That’s how one makes a point without resorting to the hyperbolic telemarketing script promulgated by Pallywood. That’s why Gillespie is the boss.

    1. Diamond-studded grillz would totally go with the black leather jacket.

  11. Ken White at Popehat theorizes that his violation wasn’t using the Internet but producing the film under an alias; White (who is a defense attorney, so he’d presumably know) says most probation terms forbid the person from doing business under an assumed name.

    1. To dig up the exact quote: “if I had a client with a serious fraud conviction, and his fraud involved aliases, and he had the standard term forbidding him from using aliases during supervised release, and his probation officer found out that he was running a business, producing a movie, soliciting money, and interacting with others using an alias, I would absolutely expect him to be arrested immediately, whatever the content of the movie.”

      1. excellent!!!

        MOTHERFUCKING EXCELLENT!

        we need more defense attorneys posting here, even by proxy. a very needed voice. they , simply put, just like cops KNOW shit that people outside those fields simply don’t have access to, etc.

        very valuable info.

        thank you

  12. Here is a brief conceptualization for my contribution to “Everybody Draw [redacted] Day.”

    A(n) European Mount domestic goat’s head, with live goat eyes photoshopped into the orbits.

    1. I’ll get to work on mine later today, but I kinda like this one.

    2. How meta can we make it?

      I hope we get to the point where one can draw random x’s on a mr. potatoehead and Muslims will think we’re insulting Mohammed.

  13. If this guy tried to make money distributing this film, then he was free to use the computer in its dissemination, as it would be deemed “work-related” to any reasonable person out there.

    This is a clear violation of his 1A Rights and there’s no way in hell it’s a violation of his probation. It’s an attempt to chill unpopular free speech by this administration and it proves they don’t give a fuck about the rights of American residents and will bow down to the sensitivities of people that place human rights a lot lower on the scale than they should be.

    Fuck Obama. Fuck the DOJ and fuck anybody that would defend this practice in any way, shape or form.

    1. But meanwhile, this is on CNN’s front page.

      Lest we forget, rural White men are scary too.

      1. They left out the VA Tech massacre, Nidal Hasan, The Joker and the idiots at Columbine but included the dude at the Holocaust Museum and the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building?

        Fucking CNN makes my blood boil.

        1. Narrative, dude, it doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’.

          1. i’ve always preferred “metanarrative”

            because it’s FUCKING META!!!

    2. It is a legit violation of his probation if he was the one who uploaded it. It’s also a politically motivated prosecution, since these types of things are not usually pursued with this degree of zeal. No reason it can’t be both.

  14. Anyone focused on this idiot film and its provenance is easily and foolishly distracted.

    Back to Jay Carney’s bull shit lie – not an “assertion” – that the attacks are a “response not to United States policy, not to, obviously, the Administration, not the to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”

    This absurdity is certainly not believed elsewhere in the world. For example, this morning in the Folha de S?o Paulo one can read of the “anti-USA revolt”

    http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/m…..aris.shtml

    And directly to the point about the so-called movie: “For Brazil, the film alone does not explain the violence in the Middle East” –

    http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/m…..edio.shtml

    In that article, foreign-policy advisor to the President of Brazil makes the point that the initial optimism about the arab spring being pro-democracy has to be reconsidered.

    Anyway, the carney lickspittle crap is only for the toadying lewinsky press in the US. If carney and the rest of the thug-state con artists think they are fooling anybody serious, then the US as a power is in stupidly dangerous hands.

  15. At least since the end of the Cold War, the United States has drifted along without anything resembling a coherent or sustained conversation about foreign policy, much less working to hash out a consensus position that reflects our body politic.

    Wait- incoherent chest-thumping and vast spending programs don’t qualify?

    How can this be?

    1. Our foreign policy seems to be, “bomb, bomb, bomb, spend, spend, spend.” That seems pretty coherent (and horrifying) to me.

  16. in framing this case, the natural inclination is to frame it as a criminal matter. after all, there is penal jeopardy

    however, probation violation is actually a CONTRACT issue, not a criminal law issue

    when the probation CONTRACT was drawn up, nakoula agreed to terms, conditions and restrictions on future behavior for a period of time (referred to as probation and the equivalent of a duration of contract) *in exchange* for years of prison time shaved off. that’s the tradeoff. that’s the contract

    the probationer says ” i agree to do this, to be restricted of these behaviors for a period of X years”

    the prosecution says “we agree to swallow the X years of prison time you would be getting without this agreement and it will go away if and when you successfully abide by the terms of this contract to the point of the contract expiration date”

    simple. it’s a contract

    the terms need not, and quite often do not involve criminal behavior. many restrictions, such as a person convicted of criminal activity that was related to gang membership and being subsequently contractually obligated not to wear gang apparel involves ENTIRELY LEGAL AND EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED BEHAVIOR (wearing of certian clotjhing to express group belonging in the case of gang attire)

    in nakoula’s case, a term of the contract involved no usage of internet connected computers except under certain conditions (work related, approved by supvr etc.).

    1. again, behavior that is not illegal. and that relates to expressive activity – 1st amemdment

      and again, contracts are adjudicated without a jury, JUST like probation is (in most cases. i am aware in certain jurisdictions, in some cases, juries attach), and the violation of a probation contract is simply put – just like any contract with one diference. penal jeopardy attaches

      however this prison time already “existed”. it was taken out of the picture in exchange for abiding by the contract. a violation of the contract merely puts the PREVIOUS agreement back in place- the one with that prison time.

      if you are willing to frame this issue that way, it makes sense, and it helps to understand why entirely legal and even constitutoonally protected behavior CAN be restricted by a probation contract (but not a criminal law)

      i pray nakoula did not violate probation, and in the chance he did, i hope the US attorney drops the case.

      i hope he was not stupid enough to violate probation

  17. “9/11 has set the threshold for what terrorism is in the minds of many Americans, and if domestic terrorism lacks the magnitude, it must not be terrorism,” said Daryl Johnson, a former counterterrorism expert at the Department of Homeland Security. Johnson says he left DHS in 2010 out of frustration.

    Poor Daryl, he’s up there on the kitchen table with his skirts pulled up, shrieking bloody murder about that mouse behind the refrigerator, and NOBODY TAKES HIM SERIOUSLY!

    1. HE’S SUPER SERIAL

  18. i pray nakoula did not violate probation

    Dunphy is posting an awful lot for a guy typing w/ one hand while pleasuring himself in front of this pic of the arrest with the other.

  19. the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building

    NEEDZ MOAR TNT

  20. I yield to no man in my loathing for the totalitarian-in-chief, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was involved, but I don’t see any indication of that in the above links. Am I missing something?

  21. To the govt apologists: If the high visibility of this guy and his film make this “parole violation” a ‘special’ case, wouldn’t it lead more to letting him walk than to re-arresting him on the grounds that the First Amendment (and how this looks to the world and to the violent idiots) is more important than any technical parole violation involved w/ someone uploading a film under an alias?

    1. He agreed to the parole restrictions to avoid the statutory penalty for his crimes, so there’s no first amendment issue. You can have your free speech rights (temporarily) taken away after being convicted of a crime; otherwise how can they forbid prisoners Internet access?

    2. I should say, there is an issue of politically-motivated prosecution, but it’s not really a first amendment thing.

  22. open carry an MP5 and harassed by cops…

    i gotz da ptsdz from watching the carnage in this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  23. Goddammit! For the last time, this is not a fucking violation of his probation. And those who think if he personally filmed and downloaded this video, that he sought funding for and almost certainly planned to profit by, that he violated his probation or even approached violating it can suck on my fucking balls.

    The government is supposed to be there to protect our rights and defend the Constitution. Twisting a probation agreement to chill free speech because a bunch of psychopathic nutballs half the world away are attacking our outposts while we fly murderdrones over their lands is as egregious a violation of the spirit of America as I can remember in the past month or so.*

    *I’d have to go all the way back to killing American citizens without due process for likewise exercising their 1A Rights (albeit overseas) to find a more egregious example.

    1. Just because it is a probation violation doesn’t mean it’s not a politically motivated prosecution. You are rightly outraged by the way this is being handled, but this is leading you to some very questionable arguments about whether this is a probation violation.

      I do of course condemn the selective prosecution.

      1. I’m outraged that this man is not able to work in a speculative field like filmmaking because the state, and you, think he has to be paid by the fucking hour for something to be considered “work.”

        I’m also outraged that they (the government) would use that as a pretext to blame the violence of barbarians on him and further diminish the already-gutted First Amendment.

        1. I’m outraged that this man is not able to work in a speculative field like filmmaking because the state, and you, think he has to be paid by the fucking hour for something to be considered “work.”

          Of course he can work in a speculative field, so long as he doesn’t use the Net or gets permission from his probation officer. Is that inconvenient and demeaning? Of course. That’s why it’s appropriate as a punishment for bank fraud… the victims of which you apparently have no outrage on behalf of.

          1. You obviously suffer from reading comprehension then. The terms of his probation say he cannot use the internet except for work. If his chosen profession is filmmaking, and it looks like it is evidenced by his activities that included actually making films and distributing them, then there’s no way it violates the terms.

            Again, the probation said he could use a computer and access the internet for work-related activities. You need to check your premises.

              1. Like elderberries?

            1. I smell a lot of “if” coming off this argument…

        2. I’m outraged that nobody sees the actual violation he committed and is assuming that this is about the upload rather than the use of a false name by a convicted fraudster.

          1. wow. the false name thing makes me think of lori drew, but this case would obviously me much stronger.

          2. By your fucked up logic, once convicted of a crime, one can’t ever use a pen name, speak anonymously or use a pseudonym for any reason whatsoever.

            Do you realize how fucking retarded that sounds?

            1. No, by my logic he likely had a condition in his probation agreement that forbade him from doing business under a false name (I quoted Ken at Popehat to that effect above), and violated it by raising funds for and then producing a movie while representing himself to investors and business partners as an Israel named “Sam Becile”. That goes well beyond the use of a pen name or an online handle.

              1. That’s going to be much harder to prove, though. He could claim he told the investors his real name, and I seriously doubt they’re going to turn against him.

              2. As far as I know, and all that’s been publicly released, the only time he used that name was on YouTube. Not a single person he solicited money from has come forward and claimed he used a false name in any contracts or agreements. And if the feds wanted to find out if he did, is this really worthy of sending the LASD out to his house after midnight to pick him up? One would think a phone call could have cleared it up.

                This is an attempt to chill free speech and placate the whackaloons that are killing our ambassadorial staff overseas and trashing our embassies. And all it’s going to do is make them more resolute that they can intimidate us into abandoning our way of life and free speech whenever they want us to.

          3. I can’t imagine why anyone who made a film insulting Muhammad would want to use an alias. Nope, not a single fucking one. So clearly he must have been hiding his probation violation.

          4. I don’t think that dog’s gonna hunt. No one expects YouTube videos to contain people’s real names. It’s not like using a false name on an official document or for the purpose of obtaining employment, etc.

            1. What about using a false name when dealing with investors, or the film crew and actors – his employees?

              1. I don’t know… it doesn’t look like a big production. If the people involved in the film agree with his ideas on Islam, which they probably do, I doubt they’ll hang him out to dry.

                1. The people involved with the film had no idea what he was doing – a few actors and the director have already talked to CNN (and probably other places too, but that’s where I saw it) about how he used the “Bacile” persona on set, and that the script they shot had nothing to do with Muhammad – Which you can see if you watch the clip, because every name and every line about Islam is dubbed in, and not very well.

                  1. Ah, more evidence of fraud you say?

                    I am shocked the police believe he has violated his probation!

                    1. That’s rich coming from The Derrier. If using false names online is fraud you should be serving 35-life.

      2. he may not have violated probation. for example, maybe he had a third party o the internet stuff.

        but i can tell you that it hardly smacks of political motivation for a federal probation office to be informed that there is evidence that a violation occurred, and then they subsequently investigate.

        that’s what they are supposed to do. and routintely do

        we don’t even HAVE *a* prosecution at this point, so how can you condemn it being selective?

        a lot of assumptions made here

        but i can tell you this. people are ROUTINELY violated for shit like this

        but this is the perfect example of how selection bias kicks in

        when joe bankfraud guy violates terms of probation and is sent back (usually when it’s something piddly like this, they might get 3-6 months), you will nevert hear about it tulpa. is reason.com going to report on penny ante NON stories like that? of course not. when was the last time you read about a guy gettign arrested for shoplifting for stealing a package of gum in safeway in renton WA?

        1. you will never read about it happening UNTIL it’s some famous guy or some political case. then, that case comes down and the instant assumption is that “it must be political and this shit doesn’t happen to average joes” when you have no way of knowing that.

          it’s a common information hole that people will naturally fill with what seems sexy and/or “common sense” vs. what actually happens. because, unless they hang out reading prosecutor filing sheets at the district courthouse, they wont’ be aware of this

          so, before assumptions are made, it migh behoove people to step back and do a little research, about what kidns of probation violations routintely GET violatied by PO’s at the federa level.

          do you know? i don’t. i admit i don’t. i’ve worked maybe three or 4 times with federal prob. officers. i’ve worked a few dozen times with city level, though.

          it’s all bald speculation

          we don’t know IF there was a violation, we don’t know IF they are going to prosecute IF there was one, and we don’t know if federal probation officers routinely do so for cases like this

          1. just to clarify, i KNOW it routinely happens with city probation officers (because i work with them a lot), as well as DOC (which is essentially WA’s version of parole officers, except we call it’ community custody” not parole)

            i can’t speak to what federal probation officers routinely do in cases like this with alleged violations like this. i am reasonably confident others here are operating from a similar position of not knowing.

            what i am loathe to do is fill in my not knowing with idle speculation presented as fact. we simply DO NTO KNOW if federal probation officers given a job blow average dood would get involved in a case like this

            and again, we don’t even know if he violated probation in the first place.

            1. Does it also “routinely happen” that the alleged violator is dragged out of bed after midnight for the interview with the probation department?

              Sorry, dunphy, but there’s nothing “routine” or normal about what they are doing in this case, and you know it. I hope you’ll revisit the absurdity of the situation once the anesthesia wears off and your head is a little clearer. I doubt it, but maybe we’ll get a more sensible reaction from you.

        2. but i can tell you that it hardly smacks of political motivation for a federal probation office to be informed that there is evidence that a violation occurred, and then they subsequently investigate.

          Who informed them that a violation occurred?

          1. Yeah, who told them? And did they tell them at midnight, because that’s when they went and picked him up.

          2. again, just speculation

            i;m not aware anybody did. and i’ll use this opp to clarify that.

            again, lots of holes in our knowledge here

            here’s what i know

            1) he had probation restrictions involving computer/internet usage
            2) i have NO idea whether he violated those restrictions
            3) i pray he did not and i don’t want to see anything bad happen to this guy
            4) it’s sad that so much (elsewhere not just here) energy is concentrated on him, when we should be concentrating on savages who would murder over a slight to their beliefs
            5) if making trailers/movies IS this guy’s “work” or “job”, man does he need to find a new job. i would suggest one that involves neither movie production nor wire fraud. that still leaves a lot of options
            6) i sincerely hope the feds don’t pull some kind of lori drew-esque bullshit.

            1. That’s kind of the whole point, dunphy. There’s a high probability that the fact that this fellow has this probation restriction was discovered BY THE FEDS themeselves.

              1. wait, what?

                of course the feds KNEW he had this restriction. they were one of the two parties TO the contract.

                or do you mean a high probability that this possible violation of same was discovered by them?

                that’s certainly possible.

                let’s just hope it turns out to be a nonissue.

        3. You know this just exposes how stupid reqiring peopole to never use the internet as a condition of probation is.

          The internet is a ubiquitous part of modern life. Fuck, they are closing post offices because everyone uses email to communicate these days.

          He’s supposed to go through life handwriting letters to family instead of looking at their Facebook page? WTF?

          IMO, the government should stop imposing idiotic probation conditions that are virtually impossible to not violte. How about that?

          1. That’s why it’s called punishment, Hazel. It’s hard to keep in touch with your family from a jail cell too.

          2. wow.

            conditions of probation that BAN internet usage by probationers completely are pretty rare. mitnick had one, for instance. for 3 yrs

            Dove had one for life. this was a sex offender guy with quite a history.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..8-1332.pdf

            these are hardly common

            and several court cases have made the point you are making about the internet, and overturned such restrictions.

            i can state anecdotally, and i routinely review probation conditions when i run NCIC/III checks on people , that you are basically tilting at something that is very rare.

            you gotta work really hard to get such a condition imposed, and the person in this case we are discussing had no such condition

            imo, as in the dove case, it’s usually doled out for people that have used the internet to prey on children for sexual purposes.

            1. So, what EXACTLY did this guy do that justified banning him from using the internet except for work?

              You know that “bank fraud” might just mean “passing bad checks”, right?

              1. i can’t find a copy of the indictment online

                i know this much. several sources online reference
                ” the court-ordered restitution of $794,700, according to probation department officials and court records.”

                those are some bad-ass checks!

                frankly, i don’t really care at this point. those are the conditions of his probation – the computer shit. whatever he did, it rose to the level of 795k , he spent a year in lompoc, he took probation adn agreed to conditions of probation

                on its face, it looks entirely reasonable.

                he either violated probation or not. i don’t know. we don’t know.

                here’s a daily beast article quote (consider the source):

                ” 2009 criminal case in which he pleaded guilty to federal charges of identity theft and bank fraud so extensive as to require $794,700.57 in restitution. He was sentenced to a relatively lenient 21 months in prison, followed by five years’ probation, which among other things prohibits him from using computers or in any other way accessing the Internet without explicit permission.”

                and cnn

                http://articles.cnn.com/2012-0…..lm-islam/5

                THEY won’t put a link up to the indictment they got. they just talk about it. see, they don’t trust us to see source documents. drives me nuts

                “When CNN inquired about Sam Bassil, the U.S. attorney’s office sent a copy of a 2009 indictment. Those court documents showed the bank fraud conviction for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

                1. Popehat has most of the relevant docs online.

                  http://www.popehat.com/wp-cont…..ctment.pdf

                  1. thank you. never heard of that site. but i’m checking it out

                    (dunphy checking)

                    oh fuck yea

                    thanks. exactly what i wanted to see

  24. Tulpa, you’re so certain about your argument, answer me a question: what is this man’s job?

    1. I have no idea. I seriously doubt it’s uploading YT videos.

      1. So he very well could be a filmmaker, evidenced by the fact that he solicited donations for and actually, you know, made a fucking film which he then proceeded to distribute on YouTube.

        But you still think it’s a violation of his probation, right?

        Incredible.

        1. He distributed it under a false name, which violated another term of his probation.

          Either the video is work, and he violated his probation by working under a false name, or the video is not work, and he violated his probation by using the internet for activities not related to work.

          1. He distributed it under a false name, which violated another term of his probation.

            [citation required]

            Seriously. I want you to show me where he’s not allowed to release something under a pseudonym for his own safety. As long as he didn’t misidentify his name to people in contracts, he did nothing wrong in that regard.

            And this was undoubtedly work. Only an idiot would disagree that he actually worked on the project.

            1. 5. The defendant shall not obtain or possess any driver’s license, Social Security number,
              birth certificate, passport or any other form of identification in any name, other than the
              defendant’s true legal name; nor shall the defendant use, for any purpose or in any
              manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written
              approval of the Probation Officer;

              http://www.popehat.com/wp-cont…..ulaJNC.pdf

  25. i would suggest that, unless people are privy to case facts that have not been released in any sources i have seen – NOBODY knows if nakoula violated probation. nobody even knows if there is PC to believe he did.

    all we know is he is associated with a movie trailer that ended up on the the internet.

    AND that his conditions of probation prohibit him from internet usage that is not work related / has approval from his PO etc.

    for all i know, his work IS making film trailers. we simply don’t know

    what i can say is i hope to god he did not violate probation. and my fingers remain crossed that this is the case.

    1. NOBODY knows if nakoula violated probation

      Which didn’t stop the feds from telling murderous thugs how to find him.
      They may has well have written down his home address and emailed it to Al Qaeda.

      1. yea, but the feds are so notoriously bad at getting addresses right, that’s probably the safest thing they could do for the guy :l

  26. FYI

    So Lubo? Motl links the full movie

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012……html#more

    and that a porn director, Alan Roberts, is likely to be the next hate object

    http://www.firstpost.com/bolly…..57452.html

  27. FYI

    So Lubo? Motl links the full movie

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012……html#more

    and that a porn director, Alan Roberts, is likely to be the next hate object.

  28. As schlocky as this film is, I do think there is a little bit of genius in it. At 9:20, the guys sit around wondering if Muhammed is gay, and they’re basically ok with it. It’s more of a “you’re a retard” taunt from the tolerant left, rather than a slur from the religious right. It suggests an absurd political juxtaposition which is mostly falling right into place. The left would quickly subjugate a message of tolerance at home to the appeasement of foreign aggressors. Not that I think the right would do any better with this conundrum.

  29. Speaking of movies… WTF is with this Looper movie? The mob sending people back in time to be executed? Huh?

    1. speaking of movies. i had surgery on friday, so I will be watching a lot of movies over the next few weeks. any recommendations? stuff i might not have heard of?

      i’ve heard good things about game of thrones. i don’t get HBO but the first season boxed set DVD for $35 at amazon.com sounds worthwhile…

      would it be the kind of thing that has value in that you’d rewatch (like lord of the rings. or the first two godfathers? I watch those series at least a couple of times a year).

      tia

      1. Con Air and Dunstan Checks In.

        1. ok, fair enuf :l

          i guess i can do the old reliable and go back to directors i like and see what other movies they have out i haven’t seen.

          that got me into haywire, for example, since i was such a huge fan of soderbergh’s other stuff. plus gina carano is gorgeous.

          the problem is with most directors i really like i’ve pretty much seen everything – scorcese, ridley scott, kubrick, friedkin, coppola

          but i also like pop schlock that’s fun

          love the twilight series. seen it half dozen times, for instance.

          stuff like doomsday, underworld,

          love 28 days/weeks later

          i guess i’m just looking for more “entertainment”, not “great films”. i’m on so many meds, i don’t need complexity. not films, MOVIES

          i loved hunger games, and just looking for stuff like day watch and night watch (the same guy who did wanted before he came over to the states) and other kind of under the radar fun stuff like that.

          if it’s got a vampire or a werewolf, i’m in. benicio del toro’s one was good, for example.

          i don’t know. maybe just some under the radar stuff. i mean i’ll even take something like boondock saints.

          and btw, i think carano could be a star.

          1. love the twilight series. seen it half dozen times, for instance.

            WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU

            Ok, movie suggestions. Waking Ned Devine, City of God, or the classic Quest for Fire.

            1. seen all three but i concur they are good.

              thx

              (yea, i know about the twilight things. — it’s a sappy romance, the vampires SPARKLE. etc.

              what can i say – i’m a sappy romantic. i’ve read the series – twice. seen the series multiple times

              does the fact that i can admit that give me any kind of “cred”? ok, probably not

              1. Oh yeah, Brett L suggested this the other day, OSS 117, a hilarious French parody of Connery’s James Bond.

          2. Now could be a good time for you to look to Hong Kong for your cinematic fix. I would recommend A Chinese Ghost Story, and The Bride With White Hair if you want some vampire/ghost/kung fu action. Of course, any of the John Woo films like A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, Bullet in the Head, Once a Thief, and Hard Boiled would be good for your action needs.

            1. thanks. seen the killer. but none of the others.

              btw, in the subject of asian actioners, may i recommend “infernal affairs”?

              it’s the movie that The Departed is a remake of

              it rules

      2. If I were you, I’d watch the following:

        Training Day
        The Departed
        We Own The Night
        Cop Land
        Pride and Glory
        Righteous Kill
        American Gangster
        Bad Lieutenant
        Streets Of Blood

        and finally
        Rush

        If the doctor told you you shouldn’t get an erection, watch The Usual Suspects and Leon: The Professional over and over.

        hth

        1. Not Lakeview Terrace? Come on, the tagline is “What could be safer than living next to a cop?”

          1. fwiw, i generally don’t watch “cop movies”. or rom-coms (unless it’s with my wife). comedies in general, i’m just kind of meh on. i mean i love animal house, and some of the classics – mash, etc. but just not really my thing

            i love a good drama. chariots of fire is top 5 all time for me.

            1. I figured you were a big Babe: Pig In The City fan.

      3. Do you get an MJ prescription for your recovery?

        1. i got dilaudid (hydromorphone). for me, it’s much more efective than the codones (hydro or oxy). much better complement of benefits vs. costs for me vs. the codones, which are the “go to” post surgery drug for most people.

          i think under federal law, the MJ prescription would be problematic

          i’ve discussed this law before. basically, it says that if you are a user of illegal drugs under the federal schedules , that you are prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm. actualy, iirc, the law says either a user of or addicted to.

          iirc, it’s a federal felony

          so, TECHNICALLY speaking, if somebody is using medical MJ *and* in possession of a gun – federal felony

          they have yet to enforce this law as far as i know, but if there is anybody they’d go after, it’s a cop.

          regardless, i think MJ is lame as fuck. zero desire to smoke it. i am for legalization from a policy angle.

          1. they have yet to enforce this law as far as i know, but if there is anybody they’d go after, it’s a cop.

            I thought you said you weren’t a fan of comedies. Strange when you might have said the funnies thing I’ve fucking heard in weeks right there.

            BTW, it wasn’t only funny, but it is also dead fucking wrong

          2. Yeah, well it’s also illegal for Eric Holder to possess a firearm as he’s a fugitive from justice.

            1. it’s illegal for mark furman too. he pled guilty to perjury, a felony.

              otoh, bill clinton got off with a simple contempt charge for his blatant perjurious statements

              but i would never suggest a double standard . 🙂

              bugliosi , fwiw, hardly a kneejerk cop apologist, supported the idea that furman was railroaded and that under relevant case law the defense should have been foreclosed from asking him questions about those racial slurs

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..Post-Trial

              regardless, the guy is a fucking hero for helping to get justice for martha moxley, while in a “civilian” capacity

              “For his next book, Murder in Greenwich, he investigated the then-unsolved 1975 murder of Martha Moxley and presented his theory that the murderer was Michael Skakel, nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert Kennedy. Skakel was subsequently convicted of Moxley’s murder in June 2002. The book was adapted for a 2002 television movie starring Christopher Meloni as Fuhrman.”

              furman is a nice tangent, since his name is such a lightning rod for many people. 🙂

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Moxley

            2. omg. i just realized who you are talking about. i read eric holder, but i saw “eric rudolph”

              apparently, need more or less drugs.

          3. I’d watch Drugstore Cowboy and enjoy the dilaudid.

            1. good idea. it is working pretty well to suppress the post surgical pain.

              and it’s a good movie, too.

              cheers

      4. There’s a lot of good stuff on TCM. John Garfield is in several movies where he’s wrongly accused by the authorities on Wednesday morning; I know at least They Made Me a Criminal and Dust Be My Destiny fit the pattern.

        The Window (1:45 AM Tuesday) is a good twist on “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

        1. noted. spanx

  30. The government is supposed to be there to protect our rights and defend the Constitution.

    You slay me.

  31. So, dunphy, how do you feel about the feds blowing the guys pseudonym in the process of arresting him, knowing full well that hew was using a pseudonym to protect himself from murderous thugs?
    Is that just what you deserve for violating your “don’t ever use a telephone” probation terms?

    1. i almost never use the word “deserve” because it frames stuff improperly. kind of like the ilk that always see cops in the ENFORCEMENT sense, automatically, when the majority of a patrol guy’s shift is not dealing with enforcement.

      see: the whole OD reroute thing where somebody thought i was rerouting to an OD to “catch” somebody. hint: i rerouted to provide medical care. i happen to have a AED and most of the guys i work with don’t. that’s why i went.

      sorry, tangent.

      how do i feel about it?

      i feel that if it was an inevitable result of their commencing the investigation into possible prob. violations, then it’s a lame result, but process justified.

      if they did it on purpose to fuck with him and/or could have easily avoided doing so but did so anyways, then clearly that’s a wrong.

      btw, it’s not MY probation terms, and i have complete sympathy for the guy. IF he violated his probation, and i have no idea if he did, then that was stupid of him, but again – we are operating from an information hole here. it’s just speculation. and little enough is known at this point, that it’s just kind of rehashing the same stuff. need moar data

      1. i feel that if it was an inevitable result of their commencing the investigation into possible prob. violations, then it’s a lame result, but process justified.

        There was no probation violation investigation.

        There was an investigation into a guy who spoke his opinion that inconvenienced the administration and they found possible probation violations.

        It was the feds who notified the locals dipshit.

        This was in every way was a politically motivated lynching and nothing more.

        1. if that’s true, then wonderful. setting aside the name calling, increasing understanding is a good thing

          rock on

          1. “rock on”
            Easy to say for a guy that has a different set of rules applied to him than the rest of us do.

            1. You seem awfully snippy this afternoon. Is something in your sports-related life not going as well as you’d expected? Might it have something to do with a defense from the land of the sasquatch?

              1. Please don’t rile him up anymore than he already is, Tulpy Poo. I am trying to enjoy my Cards beat the Patriots high right now and he keeps killing my buzz.

                1. OK, I’ll be the bigger man. Which I was already, but…

        2. Yeah, but the process worked. And we all know that the process is all that fucking matters to some people.

          Also, maybe these cops and feds simply hadn’t been trained not to disclose the name and personal information of a man whose life would be endangered if it was found out. I’m sure after proper training, the next guy that makes a movie about a psychotic religion based on the writings of a rapist pederast will not have his personal information released by the authorities for kicks.

          1. My point is that Feds had no warrant and no probable cause to investigate the guy in the first place.

            The information about possible probation violations was obtained illegally.

            My guess if there was a leak to the media by the feds which the probation officer picked up on that the leak was intentional to get around the illegality of how the information was obtained.

            A judge will probably let this all pass by him without a second glace.

            Of course this whole thing deflates dunphy’s bullshit. “Oh yeah the probation officer just randomly found out about this. hurray for justice”

            Hogwash pandering to authority like he always does.

            It also demonstrates either complete naivety in regards to how these things work behind closed doors, terrible for a cop, or his acceptance that it is all on the up and up even though it is profound corruption of justice.

            1. The main reason I believe it was coordinated is that they went to his house and picked him up after midnight to question him about a possible probation violation that was neither that serious or violent in nature.

              Remember, this guy was convicted of a non-violent crime in the first place and to the best of my knowledge, he had not been a physical danger to anybody. And trust me, if he had so much as farted on someone, the press would have reported it as an assault. There’s no reason in the world to think there was a compelling interest in the name of public safety to have him rousted from bed after midnight to question him about something so petty.

              This is a case of the local cops getting a boner to get in on a newsworthy case and trot out their badass toys while the feds harass the shit out of someone for embarrassing their boss.

    2. So, dunphy, how do you feel about the feds blowing the guys pseudonym in the process of arresting him, knowing full well that hew was using a pseudonym to protect himself from murderous thugs?

      Hey Hazel. The local newspaper Long Beach Press-Telegram had a photo of his house, and mentioned the city he lives in (Cerritos, CA). I could probably find his house in 15-20 minutes, maybe even easier now that there are TV news crews swarming around it. This guy will probably be killed, unfortunately.

      1. at least around here, if you know the guys name and he owns his house, or filed some sort of deed, it is pretty quick internets info

        unless you are serving a search warrant in some jurisdictions, apparently, in which case addresses mysteriouisly are impossible to verify. :l

  32. The Egyptian Independent had an interview with some of the people rioting at the embassy….you know, it really is about the movie.

    I realize that people want to project their own beliefs onto the actions of others (in this case Reason’s foreign policy agenda), but in this case, it’s simply not true.

    1. The movie’s been on YT for months and the attack just happened to occur on 9/11. mmm-kay.

      1. Should also note the number of views was below a couple thousand on September 12. The day after the attack.

        One would think a video that caused a wide spread protest over multiple nations would have more views then that.

        My guess is Al Qaeda only informed people about the video on Sept 11th who lived near enough to the embassies in Libya and Egypt to be able to attend the protest they needed for their cover.

        1. while recognizing this is just speculation, it WHEN FRAMED AS SUCH, sounds reasonable and stuff

    2. Are you out of your mind, Jeremy? They may be saying it’s their motivation, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the truth.

      Question: do you believe David Berkowitz’s neighbor’s dog was possessed by a demon that told him to kill six people and harm all those others?

    3. I am sure there are real protestors complaining about the movie.

      Here is how it works. Al Qaeda operatives decide they are going to attack the American embassy in Libya on Sept 11 2012. Part of the op requires a cover of protest to get their military operation in position for the coordinated attack. They need a reason to motivate some non-operatives to protest so they do a search on the internet to find an incendiary anti-muslim piece to get people riled up. They find the youtube video.

      They then wait until the right time then spread word about the video to Muslims. they may even help organize protests without telling about their true intent.

      Protest happens, Al Qaeda military attack works without a hitch and American ambassador is dead his body is drug through the streets.

      allahu akbar

    4. Outrage over the movie may have been the tool used to get people in the streets. But it’s pretty clear that the protests have been planned for some time and that that the people in Egypt and elsewhere are responding to what they were told was in the Arabic translation of the movie. Which someone made and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the ‘translation’ was intentionally more inflammatory than the movie itself.

      And the people outside the US embassy in Egypt were chanting we’re all Osama.

  33. How about, it’s not REALLY about the movie, AND it’s not REALLY about US foreign policy.

    It’s about an internal power struggle between different sects of Islam in Muslim countries. The rioters are more likely using the film and US foreign policy as a pretext to protest in a way that undermines the authority of the more moderate people in power. If they can demonstrate that the moderates can’t protect the US embassies, they make them look weak, they make a more extremist, violent, vision of Islam appear to be more powerful, and they make the idea of waging a sucessful jihad against the US seem more plausible.

    1. Barry Rubin agrees.

      http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/…..strations/

  34. That picture of the SS…errr… LAPD picking up the film maker(?) should be splashed on every newspaper and news website in America. The fact its not says everything about the country in which we now live.

    1. jesus christ, what a bunch of happy horseshit.

      omg, they went to interview him LATE AT NIGHT

      wow. that’s like practically the same thing as waterboarding him

      and they didn’t even offer him tea and crumpets

      jesus christ, the manufactured outrage over the most ridiculous shit. it’s just amazing

      chucklnenuts either violated prob or he didn’t

      none of us fucking know one way other the other.

      the idea that the cops acted unreasonably and the godwin bullshit here is beyond absurd.

      i better make sure i have my cruiser stocked up with tea and crumpets upon my return to work.

      and maybe some brushes to remove sand from all those vaginas

      1. Is it normal to interview people on probation about possible violations at midnight?

        1. Normally, they do it at 6:00 AM, like with Jose Guerena.

          1. oh SNAP!

            🙂

      2. the idea that the cops acted unreasonably and the godwin bullshit here is beyond absurd.

        The only reason those cops are there relies on the fact that Obama sent his lap dogs to investigate him.

        You defense of the cops who are being lap dogs of the lap dogs is not convincing.

        Anyone under the gun of a federal investigation will fall because that is how fascism works. With nearly everything being illegal everyone can be silenced because there will always be something they did wrong.

        1. The only reason those cops are there relies on the fact that Obama sent his lap dogs to investigate him.

          I would love to see evidence of this. Until then it is just speculation.

          1. Either you are not paying attention or you are intentionally spreading doubt.

            https://reason.com/24-7/2012/09…..uslim-film

            1. Does that show that the Obama admin called his probation officer to go pick up the filmmaker for possible probation violations?

              1. The Feds had him picked up. Feds that work for the DOJ, which is an executive department.

                And I’m wondering why the feds felt it necessary to broadcast to the entire world through their media mouthpieces that they were picking this guy up, after midnight, and that they were questioning him for possible probation violations for releasing this clip on the internet.

                Is it customary for them to go through those exercises in a typical probation violation investigation? Especially when that investigation could easily be completed on the phone or in his PO’s office during normal business hours.

                Sorry sticks, but it sounds to me like you’re sucking the proverbial government cock all the way up to the balls.

                All the way up, dude.

                1. No i’m not sucking the gov’t’s cock. I’m just not convinced that Obama or his admin sent/told anyone to check on his parole violations. The feds interviewing Velzat(sp?) about the film does seem fucked up to me.

                  The feds had him picked up? By him do you mean the filmmaker? If so where is the evidence of that beyond the FBI interviewing Velzat?

                  1. ” federal probation officers at a sheriff’s station ”

                    Not the FBI. fed probation is under US courts not DOJ.

                    Hey it does seem possible and even likely that this is Obama and his admin going after him. But we need proof of that.

                    1. Hello, sticks? Let me introduce you to Occam.

                      Occam, this is sticks. Perhaps the two of you should get to know each other.

                    2. So the DOJ or O putting pressure on the filmmaker’s probation officer involves less assumptions than the probation officer reading the fucking news and seeing that one of his parolees has been using an alias which breaks the terms of that parole?

                    3. That might make sense except for the fact that the probation department are the ones that fed all of the information to the media in the first fucking place.

                    4. That might make sense except for the fact that the probation department are the ones that fed all of the information to the media in the first fucking place.

                      What might make sense?

                      Shrug. Both seem plausible to me. I’d just like to see the evidence that Obama or whoever leaned on someone. And then I would be quite happy watching Congress investigate the Admin.

                    5. And the evidence would come from where? BO claims executive privilege on every document down to records of National Archives mouse flatulence.

                    6. heh.

                      i am totally borrowing this

      3. And this man was such a giant threat that they couldn’t wait until morning? Do you really think they would have brought him in at midnight if he wasn’t a political liability?

        1. i know this would NEVER cross you mind because of course cops never try to help or protect people, but for all i know (or you know, and in both cases in this regards, it’s pretty minimal), they were conerned for his safety

          really, who the #4# knows?

          it’s just baseless speculation on this issue.

          and of course, that will give some people cause WHEN speculating to always assume the worst about the cops.

          ok, granted, we are talking the feds here, but 🙂

          1. Hahahahahahahahaha. They were concerned for his safety? Holy dog shit, now I know your meds have completely addled your brain.

            If they gave even a fleeting fuck about his safety, they wouldn’t have given his name and location to the press, they wouldn’t have shined the spotlight so brightly on him and they wouldn’t have trotted him out as the poster boy for “Intolerance to Islam”.

            Jesus Christ Almighty. Even pretending for a second the cops were doing anything in this guy’s interest is beyond retarded.

          2. Fine, the SS comparison was a little much. And I’m not really upset at the police doing their jobs. Whoever sent them however should be ashamed.

          3. Lol. They were concerned for his safety after “accidentally” blabing his real name to the media.

  35. Now there is a dude that clearly knows what is going on. Wow.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

  36. Diplomacy through strength, I think somebody once said. One of the first lessons I learned as a teacher was if you try and be friends before you get respect, chaos ensues in the classroom and discipline will be very hard to get back. President Obama might take a lesson from this.

  37. this for corning, and others that think that “the Feds had no warrant and no probable cause to investigate the guy in the first place” is at all relevant when talking about SUPERVISION OF AN OFFENDER ON PROBATION

    we are talking about supervised offenders on probation. that is what Nakoula is. probation is a contract. offenders on probation do not have the kind of rights to privacy, freedom from “harassment” etc. while on probation that ordinary folks do. their probation officers are tasked with SUPERVISING them.

    relevant stuff follows…

    where is this system where a probation officer needs a warrant or probable cause to INVESTIGATE?

    their JOB is to SUPERVISE offenders. they can go to their house or their job. and they DO. they can conduct spot interviews sometimes. and they do. they can look into financial information, talk to neighbors, associates, employers, etc. routinely … and they do.

    if an officer did this with joe blow, it would be harassment

    but these guys aren’t joe blow. they are SUPERVISED OFFENDERS.

    within their job description, they are supposed to “maintain personal contact with offenders”. they may stop by a person’s office or home. these people are on probation.

    1. “The cornerstone of the investigation is the interview with the offender, during which the officer inquires about such things as the offender’s family, education, employment, finances, physical and mental health, and alcohol or drug abuse. The officer also conducts a home visit to assess the offender’s living conditions, family relationships, and community ties and to detect alcohol or drugs in the home.

      Besides interviewing the offender, the officer interviews other persons who can provide pertinent information, including the defense counsel, the prosecutor, law enforcement agents, victims, the offender’s family and associates, employers, school officials, doctors, and counselors. The officer also reviews various records and reports, including court records, financial records, criminal history transcripts, birth/marriage/divorce records, school records, employment records, military service records, medical records, and counseling and treatment records. The officer verifies the information gathered, interprets and evaluates it, and presents it to the court in an organized, objective report called the presentence report. ”

      “In supervising offenders, officers hold weighty public safety responsibilities…. Such techniques include verifying offenders’ employment and income sources, monitoring their associates, restricting their travel, and requiring them to undergo correctional treatment.”

      http://www.mow.uscourts.gov/pr…..ficer.html

    2. So why couldn’t they “suprvise” thuis offender, without telling the global news media who he is, why they are “supervising” him, where he lives, and what his relationship to the anti-Mohammed film is.

      Why does the film even factor into it at all? Why mention to the media that there is a connection between him and the movie in the first place? Why tell the media anything about it?

    3. This is pretty clearly politically motivated, even if he did legitimately violate his probation. So why do you feel compelled to stick up for the DOJ here, hell they’re not even cops.

      1. im not sticking up for anybody. i am explaining to people who are clearly ignorant of how PO’s OPERATE and what their job is (supervision of offenders) that it’s hardly unusual for a PO to visit an offender’s house, have them come in for an interview, and yes sometimes at inconvenient and weird times- that’s a way to catch them “dirty’ so to speak

        look,i have 100% sympathy for this guy.i don’t know if he violated probation,nor frankly do i care.

        but it doesn’t therefore follow that there is this huge nefarious politically motivated conspiracy here.

        there is a case with huge PUBLIC impact.those cases get attention, WHATEVER the relevant facts are- whoever is in charge in that DOJ office is going to be all over the PO for Nakoula.

        again, MY hope is that there was no violation,and that nakoula is free to get along getting along

        but unlike the kneejerkers here i am not going to assume some sort of vioation of nakoula’s rights,because i see no evidence of same

        and again,he’s a SUPERVISED OFFENDER and thus has significant lesser expectation of freedom from police contact,investigation,urinalysis, etc.

        i’ve done ridealongs/stings with local PO’s before.they generally are like CPS workers.they carry a huge case load and are pretty much in many cases shuffling cases and just managing to stay afloat

        and the cases they are going to make sure go to the top of the heap are cases with fucking INTERNATIONAL implications for pete’s sake.

        basically,there is no “there” there

  38. This is the shame of our nation. I never imagined that our government would so easily turn against our principles and a citizen in such a naked fashion.

  39. Crazy Arabs attacking our embassies overseas and all you people can think of is why they’re talking to this idiot late at night? Sorry, but if the terrorists aren’t taking the night off, why should our police when we have a chance to hold the offending party accountable.

    Good luck selling your brand of “freedom” to Americans who have family and friends in harm’s way because of people like this guy.

    1. Offending party????

      The “offending party” are the idiots who are rioting, looting, and killing U.S. ambassadors and citizens.

      Very brave of you to try and throw this shmuck under the bus and blame him for others misdeeds.

      1. yea, am i reading that shit right? offending party?

        we don’t even know if he committed ANY offense, and if he did it is probation related. the trailer is a first amendment protected exercise of free speech and is in no way an offense, if that is wjhat you (pity the fool) are implying, clubber

        1. He committed an offense equal to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre. Only this time the theatre is the entire middle east.

          Look, we have free speech, I understand that and I couldn’t be happier. But with that comes a little bit of responsibility.And this guy violated that responsibility and put the actors in his little movie in danger by dubbing hate speech over their real words. In my book, that’s criminal. As is endangering the lives of American citizens overseas, some of whom are dead now because Muslim crazies now have a pretext to attack us.

          At the least, he should be jailed for reckless endangerment for dubbing the words over the actors real ones and also for breaking the terms of his parole.

          As distasteful as it may sound, I look at the OJ Simpson case for guidance: he’s in jail for murdering his wife and Ron Goldman even if the verdict came down for something else. Likewise, this idiot should be in jail for inciting violence and endangering the lives of Americans even if the guilty verdict is for parole violations.

          1. Oh, fuck you. The guy is a Coptic Christian, who knows what kind of oppression he and his family have suffered at the hands of Muslims in Egypt .

            You seriously think everyone whose ever been harmed by a Muslim should keep their mouth shut because Muslims are just too sensitive to handle ciritcism and will riot at the drop of a hat?

            Well, boo-hoo, people who don’t like Muslims have a right to get pissed off too. And it’s pretty fucking cool that when non-Muslims get pissed off , they express it in the form of making offensive movies, instead of , ya know, killing a bunch of innocent people.

            1. If this guy’s a Copt, he should understand what backlash would come from his intentionally deceitful making of this film.

              You know who aren’t Copts? The people whose lives he endangered when he made this movie. And I mean both the actors and the people in the embassies overseas.

              Sorry, but he has blood on his hands to a certain degree. If one of these actors gets killed, it will be even more blood, and should result in an accessory to murder charge since they were unwittingly used in his film.

              1. Retard, the only people responsible for these psychopaths’ actions are themselves. It isn’t his fault that a bunch of homicidal maniacs chose his crappy youtube clip as their excuse.

                1. Exactly. It’s almost as if there’s no such fucking thing as personal responsibility.

                  Welcome to Gen Y!

          2. Hey if I kill someone because your comment offended me, will you turn yourself in as the murderer?

          3. Fuck off dhimmi.

        2. we don’t even know if he committed ANY offense, and if he did it is probation related.

          Yeah, so why are the cops broadcasting his name, address, and involvement with the film in question to the global media? How is that relevant to the exercise of their otherwise lawful probation-related duties?

          1. Um, because that’s what cops do to try and set the narrative…unless, of course, the investigated party is a cop himself. They get conspicuously tight-lipped when one of their own is breaking the law violating departmental policy.

    2. My troll-dar is beeping like crazy. That name is way too long and clever for someone just wandering into H+R for the first time.

      1. I used to comment but stopped before registration because it was taking too much of my tiime away.

        1. i 100% support his right, or anybody;s right to ridicule any religion or belief system, including nakoula

          i 100% will never blame the victim. the people responsible for murder are the murderers not nakoula et al for “incitement” or other such happy horseshit

          reminds me of when the progs were all over bill oreilly for inciting dr tiller the abortionist’s death because he referred to him as “dr tiller the baby killer” on his show

          bfd

          let’s get the fucking sand out of our vaginas and support the right to free speech

          and for those referencing fire in a crowded theatre, the mem is FALSELY yelling fire, it was used by the supreme court to rationalize prosecuting a WAR protester (in WWII iirc), and it, as a matter of case law was superseded by brandenburg.

          schenck isn’t even controlling law

          *if* nakoula violated his probation, it’s entirely reasonable for his PO to violate him, and ime with local PO’s for something like this it’s likely a 3 or 6 month stint

          either way, IF he violated his probation, that’s his fucking bad. it’s not the cops or his PO’s fault, either. speaking of people who want to transfer blame

          the crimes he pled to involved access devices, bank and wire fraud, etc. the restriction was agreed to, and it’s a RESTRICTION . he can still use the internet as long as he goes about it the right way, and i vrey much hope he did

          eof

          1. I am getting curious about the original banking fraud crime Mr. Basseley committed. I, for one, thinks it is wrong and a crime to forge a check on someone else’s bank account. But I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to open a bank account under an assumed name or an anonymous number, if that’s the problem, but it is still a crime. So does anyone know what exactly he did in first place?

            1. you can thank “sticks”

              Popehat has most of the relevant docs online.

              http://www.popehat.com/wp-cont…..ctment.pdf

  40. extremist Arabs and Muslims can always conjure up a pretext for whatever they want to do and there are strong indications that the attacks in Egypt and Libya were planned long before this film ever drifted into view.

    This. It is pointless to even attempt a non-offensive foreign policy. These people wage a war against civilization.

    Gillespie is right about US foreign policy: it is totally random and incoherent. And it is riven through and through with appeasement appeasement appeasement and failure to terminate state sponsors of anti-American terrorism.

    1. As usual you’re looking at everything backwards, Cyto. These protests/attacks have everything to do with our foreign policy.

      Your fellow neocons’ party lion right now is that it’s just about the video.

    2. Unfortunately the likely state sponsor of the Libyan embassy attack was probably the US itself. The US/Obama administration gave the Libyan rebels arms, despite warnings that A: The US/Obama didn’t exactly know who the “rebels” were, B: that we knew a substantial portion of the rebels were likely affiliated with Jihadist groups, and C: That we had little to no control over the rebels after Gaddafi was ousted.

      So its not really/just appeasement that is the issue on this one, its sheer stupidity on the part of the US executive and legislative branches(for letting Obama violate the war powers act).

    3. How much more aggresive does our foreign policy need to be until it’s not “appeasement?” That word is so meaningless these days – it’s nothing more than an attempt to shut down debate by evoking images of Neville Chamberlain. It’s like the equivalent of “ROADZ!” or “SOMALIA!”

  41. I’ve been trying to figure out why some people think the authorities gave the press info about the filmmaker. I thought the AP figured out who he was?

    1. That’s what I thought too, but then I read articles saying that federal authorities told the AP who he was. Or at least confirmed that ‘Sam Bacile’ was one of the guys aliases.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.