I am still hoping that this is a joke. However, according to Gawker and other sites, the Trinity Broadcasting Network is airing a series called Bibleman for children. In the video below, Bibleman appears to fight New Yorkers in a talk show setting.
Unlike Hamas, Bibleman does not espouse violence and hatred like Hamas’ many ventures into children programming, click here.
Indeed, Bibleman wears “shoes of peace” as well as a “shield of faith” and “belt of truth” as shown here in his dress sequence.
I checked, this seems real, click here.
However, the armored Bibleman appears to be fighting the force of evil in New York in what the bloggers have called the “Bibleman v. the New York Jew” episode.
I am waiting for the League of Religious Justice with Bibleman, Torahdude, and Koranguy fighting atheists around the world. For a funny trailer for a video game on Bibleman v. a protester, click here. It is still better than the homicidal children shows on Hamas television.
Whatever happened to Gilligan’s Island? It wasn’t particularly educational (beyond learning how a brilliant scientist could make a radio out of a coconut but a simple boat). Yet, the most one developed was a crush on Mary Ann (before her recent arrest of course).
For the Bibleman episode, click here
Mr. Turley,
Why do you seem so appalled by Hamas?
You are currently defending someone who espoused the same views and took it upon himself to strengthen the ties between his organization and Hamas.
He wrote about it here:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/133.pdf
You’ll note that the translation is stipulated, and that he wrote (aside from soliciting funds for future suicide attacks):
“The relationship with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and there are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination.”
So Hamas’ “Killer Mickey” is bad, but your client is, er, not?
Ok.
anon:
Here’s a little insight into the American justice system: just because an attorney agrees to represent a client does not mean that the attorney personally adopts and accepts every action or word rendered by that client on every topic under the sun. Confusing for some to understand, but demonstrably true.
mespo727272
Here’s a little insight into the world, and the “American justice system”:
Taking stances that publicly undercut your client’s positions (especially on tangential issues which Mr. Turley and other of Al-Arian’s former attorneys and supporters have worked so hard to elevate as legally important – such as “free speech”) not only open up people to charges of hypocrisy, but have the potential of hurting his client’s public case.
If you’re going to be so boringly condescending, it would help not to be so dense.
WOW!!! Bibleman (on sale at amazon.com) dresses just like Jesus did. How cool is that?
It’s so charming to see three heavily armed faith-troopers taking out one unarmed protester. I’m glad these type of christians are here to properly deal with freedom of speech. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to destroy the constitution. Good work Bibleman!
anon:
Thank you for the compliment. To champion our system against undeserved attacks by know-nothings is something I will wear as a badge of honor. Just so you know, I reserve condescension only for those who are well deserving of it. Another little rule, a lawyer does not give up his free speech rights when he represents his clients either, but I fail to see how Prof. Turley has undercut anything his client is advocating. I am glad to learn from such a broad thinker as yourself that free speech is now a “tangential issue,” and that lawyers must elevate it into the realm of “important.” Answer a question for me please, from which tyrant-lead country do you hail? If not, are you a Limbaugh or Beck man*?
*I assume a man because women are usually brighter than this, and a lot more courteous, but then again, there are Ann Coulters out there too.
mespo,
Embarrassing yourself is not a problem for you, I see, as you’ve now ventured from just plain idiocy and poor reading comprehension into blatant sexism.
But back to your idiocy and poor reading comprehension. Dr. Al-Arian has suffered a string of appellate defeats since Prof. Turley took over, which has nothing to do with Prof. Turley’s “free speech rights” in and of themself, nor was such a claim made.
As for this, this is truly embarrassing:
“I am glad to learn from such a broad thinker as yourself that free speech is now a “tangential issue,” and that lawyers must elevate it into the realm of “important.” ”
It is =- and always has been – tangential to this case, as he was not arrested, charged or imprisoned because of “speech,” but overt acts, despite the vacuous claims of many of his supporters.
As for your second to last truly dumb question, I voted for Senator Kerry last election, Vice President Gore in 2000, and President Clinton before that. I am supporting Senator Obama in this election. Vigorously.
But as you have demonstrated that you are not only dense, but completely sexist (read: prejudiced), I do wonder which bubble of groupthink you hail from.
Actually, I don’t. Dense, sexist and prejudiced.
That’s enough information.
“but I fail to see how Prof. Turley has undercut anything his client is advocating.”
I think, blinkered by your prejudices, you will fail to see a lot of things, mespo.
Mr. Turley’s “narrative” on Hamas’ TV show happens to be the correct one, but runs counter to the one his client and his supporters have been pushing, which is that such shows and statements are the natural and understandable result of other people’s actions.
Public statements to the contrary undercut the argument that actions (and “speech” – the public debate/court of public opinion, as opposed to its “tangential” nature in the courtroom istelf – this is obvious, amazing that you’re arguing otherwise) on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are the natural and understandable result of other people’s actions.
I’m sure you still fail to see how one undercuts the other. C’est la vie.
“Taking stances that publicly undercut your client’s positions (especially on tangential issues which Mr. Turley and other of Al-Arian’s former attorneys and supporters have worked so hard to elevate as legally important – such as “free speech”)”
#################
anon:
Well, how would you read the statement above? Maybe you meant Prof. Turley’s free speech rights but you might want to actually say that next time. If so, I don’t see how he has undercut his client’s position that he took a longer prison sentence to avoid cooperation and just wants a hearing to prove that’s what he was promised by the feds. Fiery rhetoric and unfounded charges of unethical conduct don’t advance your argument one bit, but you apparently are a one issue guy bent on attacking the man’s lawyer. Go ahead, it will be about as important and successful as trying to blow down the Empire State Building with your breath. Carry on, I have my popcorn ready now.
“Well, how would you read the statement above?”
I read it as I wrote it. That issues of “free speech” are only tangential to Dr. Al-Arian’s actual criminal case, but his lawyers have tried (and, honestly, have been fairly successful in certain instances, although not overall) to elevate the issue of free speech in the case.
Is english not your first language?
Enjoy your popcorn.
As for this “bent on attacking the man’s lawyer” – I doubt Prof. Turley is such a wilting flower he needs your assistance. And I hardly feel like I’m “attacking” him by pointing that incongruities of going after Hamas’ “speech” while defending someone who has, in such a untoward manner, embraced the group, and who’se supporters have tried so vigorously to paint as some kind of “free speech” martyr.
anon:
It was my understanding that Prof. Turley simply represented Dr. al-Arian in his appeal on the the denial of an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Perhaps you have more insight into the representation, but I have not that Prof. Turley has been retained to advocate what “his client and his supporters” are pushing. Let me see your logic:
1. Turley represents al-Arian on a due process appeal of unjust detention after al-Arian has admitted bad things and served his time.
2. al-Arian advocates bad things and defends them by means of free speech claims
3. Turley points out that bad things are bad as already admitted to by his client in court
4. Therefore, Turley has undercut his client’s appeal on due process grounds (even though bad things are not part of the appeal) merely because he has pointed out that his client has advocated things that Turley agrees are bad.
The only way this makes sense is if Turley has lost his free speech rights due to representation which I believe I have already proven is not the case in this Country. Now who is being dense here?
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants. (And they shall be wearing hats and smoking cigars).
5. (And they shall be New York Frogs; sounding much like Edward G. Robinson, and they shall speak sarcastically and mock and taunt thy people with no remorse whatsoever….)
(And so it was that God’s first attempt at making humans, the frogs, according to C. G. Jung, did help Moses free the Jews from Egypt ….)
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants. (And they shall be wearing hats and smoking cigars).
5. (And they shall be New York Frogs; sounding much like Edward G. Robinson, and they shall speak sarcastically and mock and taunt thy people with no remorse whatsoever….)
(And so it was that God’s first attempt at making humans, the frogs, according to C. G. Jung, did help Moses free the Jews from Egypt ….)
Exodus 8:1-5
God damn double post…
Perhaps Jehovah took umbrage with your redaction of the text! Sort of a mini-miracle shot-across-the-bow disguised as a keystroke error!
Now who is being dense here?
You, because this “The only way this makes sense is if Turley has lost his free speech rights” is just absolutely ridiculous.
No one is saying Prof. Turley doesn’t have “free speech rights.” It is frankly bizarre (and sad) that you are claiming I’ve said otherwise.
He can say whatever he wants. The question is whether it hurts or helps his client’s case, whether in actual court or in the court of public opinion. Claiming that this position hurts his client’s public stance has absolutely no bearing on Prof. Turley’s “free speech rights.” None.
It’s not really not that hard, mespo.
anon:
The problem is you have apparently made this some sort of war that Prof. Turley, as his counsel, cannot fire back in. This wild accusation that he is acting unethically by criticizing the conduct of a group al-Arian supports is bizarre and unfair since you know Turley is duty- bound to ignore you as you take the potshots. Turley certainly doesn’t need me to defend him on an intellectual or legal basis, but since you seem to take advantage of every opportunity to criticize (foolishly I might add) his representation of Dr. al-Arian knowing full well that you strike with impunity’s, I was simply disgusted by your persistent firing into a figurative barrel of fish.
deeply worried,
Are you sure The Big Guy didn’t use the double post as a punctuation mark; sort of an exclamation point?
JT wrote:
I am waiting for the League of Religious Justice with Bibleman, Torahdude, and Koranguy fighting atheists around the world.
*****************
lol Now THAT would be an interesting show to see. Although I don’t know who would make the best atheist “antagonist” if the only battlefield is a talk show. I can’t make up my mind whether to choose Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. And they are just the top three contenders.
Bob esq,
I hadn’t thought of that!! Darn, you’re right…it would seem proof of Divine approbation!
I’m used to expecting bolts from Above, have to get used to the idea it can sometimes be rose petals…..
DW
The problem is you have apparently made this some sort of war that Prof. Turley, as his counsel, cannot fire back in.
What?
You must be kidding.
By writing a comment on his blog?
The rest of your argument is even more ridiculous.
I didn’t accuse Prof. Turley of being unethical. I have no idea where you got that, except as another obvious misreading of plain language on your part.
Simply stating that his argument in this blog post undercuts the public position of his client and his supporters does not:
a) equate to charges that Prof. Turley is acting in any way unethically; nor
b) have any bearing on Prof. Turley’s free speech rights.
You are living in some kind of hysterical fantasy world where criticism equals censorship and disagreement equates to charges of ethical failures.
I have made no such claim, and Prof. Turley can very much comment on the nature of “fiery rhetoric” or “free speech” of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (and Hamas, as he had) without impacting directly on the case of his client in terms of his professional ethics, or otherwise, because, as I stated earlier, “free speech” as a concept, and in the legal sense, is only tangential to this case.
You’re not doing well as a surrogate for the Prof. Turley, if that is indeed your intention (after all he is duty bound not to respond! please), by claiming that criticism of his position on this blog post = censorship and accusations of unethical behavior.
anon:
If you do not understand that the lawyer who “undercuts” his client in his case is committing an ethical breach, and that you by making such a assertion against Prof. Turley are calling him unethical, I fear we are operating in two different realities. I know you have some problems in clarifying your position, but if this is your intention and I were the affected attorney, you would be learning quite a bit in the next few months about the law of libel per se. Perhaps this is the reason for your moniker. While you may enjoy your invective, you should realize that you are directly impugning this man’s professionalism and reputation. If you need more proof of this assertion I suggest you consult the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. And by the way, I am not kidding.
If you do not understand that the lawyer who “undercuts” his client in his case is committing an ethical breach, and that you by making such a assertion against Prof. Turley are calling him unethical, I fear we are operating in two different realities.
Yes, me in the real world, and you in some strange world unto yourself where an understanding of legal ethics is not necessary.
Look, if there are two (or more) attorneys representing a single client (as happens with frequency), and they disagree over either a legal strategy and/or p.r. strategy, but they choose ultimately to go with one (whether better or worse, each having its own degree of benefits and/or liabilities), as they ultimately must, that doesn’t mean that the other strategies not chosen (both legal or p.r.)are unethical, because they would be worse. Or that the one chosen, if it backfires, is unethical.
Telling a lawyer – who’s blogging publicly! (you really are daft if you think public statements of bloggers who happen to be lawyers are not open to criticism) that they’re undercutting positions held by his client and his clients supporters are somehow actionable – amazing! And not in a good way, in a sad way.
Ill-advised and/or counterproductive does not equal unethical.
Please tell me you are not a lawyer. Or a law student.
You’re “reality” is highly confused, sir/madam.
I know you have some problems in clarifying your position.
No, I don’t. You just have difficulty with reading comprehension and enjoy projecting views onto others. Not atypical in people who like to condescend without fully understanding the situation.
you would be learning quite a bit in the next few months about the law of libel per se.
Wow. Trust me, that won’t be a problem. I imagine Prof. Turley is now embarrassed by your “help.” What a joke. That threat is laughable. It’s interesting to see where certain people go when they get desperate.
I imagine Prof. Turley, however, can handle criticism of his public positions – on something as minor as a blog post – without thinking that it constitutes falsely accusing him of having committed a crime, engaged in behavior constituting failures of moral terpitude, being inept or having a social disease.
If you need more proof of this assertion I suggest you consult the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Please. There is nothing in there to address the fantasies of a whiny hysteric.
And by the way, I am not kidding.
Oh my god. Well then, that’s certainly bad news for you.
Impugning the reputation of a lawyer? Oh no. That never happens. Ever. Even if it’s only you that imagined that this is what has happened.
Again, you must be kidding. I hope so. However, since you assure everyone you are not, that’s really, really sad.
The really ironic – and tragic – thing of all this is that you, a supposed and imagined paragon of “free speech” are trying to stifle criticism by threatening legal action.
Classic. Embarrassing, but classic nonetheless. Wow.
Anon, I think it is the case that Mespo (and I also, but less knowledgeably and articulately) share a dislike of posts that attack Professor Turley unfairly. (I say “posts” and not “posters”. I admire your abilities to hold up your side against a very tough opponent)
Your post to Professor Turley seemed to me in overall tenor a bit unfair (I am a classic FDR liberal and worry about fairness a lot!) But it was subtle. On first reading, you were simply making a facial challenge of inconsistency. In later posts, you deepen the initial challenge and give the consequences of weakening the case as a likely outcome.
First the facial challenge of inconsistency. You are correct. Professor Turley isn’t globally consistent here. But the question is open whether he needs to be.
Can’t one represent a member of a group and simultaneously write a piece critical of that same group? The defense of the member on a specific issue is not contingent on approval of the group as a whole. There is no linkage. I would LIKE it if Professor Turley’s clients uniformly belonged or were associated with groups with high social approval rates: say Quakers or Episcopalians, but alas that’s not possible.
Your second, strong position of asserting that Professor Turley is undercutting his client could conceivably be correct in SOME administration of justice scenarios we could envision. But in the specific, particular scenario that Al-Arian is in, I doubt that it makes an iota of difference in the outcome of the process that the above thread essay was penned. And that is why Professor Turley, who is a seasoned defense counsel, thought it safe to write it.
I really think that this whole argument could have been boiled down to the initial challenge, but arguments, like events, get out of hand.
.
By the way, I really do appreciate the response you gave me before. It helped my understanding of the issues.
deeply worried,
I appreciate your posts, both the content and the tenor.
And I appreciate your interest in fairness, especially as it applies to this case, especially since that has been a plank of the defense, in all its incarnations. And I think sometimes it has been a real issue, and sometimes it has been just rhetorical.
I’m heading out to dinner – but I want to address some of your points first:
But the question is open whether he needs to be.
I’m not saying he “needs” to be, nor am I saying he “should” be. That is up to him.
I am just observing, as you have, that he has not been. Despite mespo’s fevered contentions, stating that he has not been is not “libel per se” and does not constitute an allegation that Prof. Turley has acting in any way unethically.
As for your second point, and this is another reason (just one of many, actually) why Mespo’s posts are laughable – I have not said/claimed that this blog post will make any difference in the outcome of Dr. Al-Arian’s case. I don’t think that prosecutors in the Eastern District will bother to read Prof. Turley’s blog, and to the extent they do, I doubt they will ever cite it in court proceedings – that Dr. Al-Arian’s attorney is on the record as being against extremist hate speech, of which his client has a history of engaging in.
It is, however, undercutting Al-Arian’s (and, by the way, much of his previous legal team’s) public positions that this type of behavior is completely understandable as a direct result of the actions of others.
I’m glad Prof. Turley doesn’t feel that way. It is too his personal credit. It does, however, knock down a part of the Al-Arian narrative, which has been present not just throughout his legal proceedings but when he became the object of media attention. That has no bearing on whether or not Al-Arian gets held in contempt again, or not, and I have not stated that it would.
I noted the inconsistency, to which Mespo – for whatever reason – took great offense and chose to get insulting (resulting in my tone towards him/her) – and then delved off into some fantasy land about accusations of unethical behavior, libel per se, defamation lawsuits, etc…
As I have said before, it is to laugh.
Have a good night.
DW:
Thank you for the rational response to anon. He is obviously a youthful poster bent on the last word in the argument and that is fine. In youth, I too believed my words did not matter and that I could say or do anything to anyone with impunity. With experience, that foolishness left me and I suspect it will for anon too. He is certainly bright and passionate, but a tad perplexed when confronted with obvious facts and well established legal concepts. He is certainly entitled to that now. What concerns me is when I see a shipwreck like that waiting to happen, that a shot be fired over his bow. That has been done. If he heeds it fine, if not, I suspect we will see the debris floating by as both of us have many times over our lives.
Mespo,
Yes, it is the truth of it that we learn to approach the world with more kindness and more wisdom as we get older. I am definitely not the audacious firebrand of my younger years. It just saddens me that our dreams didn’t come true. When both you and I were coming up, there was this dominant feeling that the future of the country involved more openness, more civil liberties, more rationality and humanism. And for a while it looked like that was going to be the way things worked out.
But then came the Counter-revolution and our two conservative economic royalists, Reagan and Bush II have set this country back fifty years and they would, if they could, have set it back 30 more…when their world, built on inequity, ended. Worse, they have made a marriage of convenience with socio-religious-nativist forces of reaction and that too has added the slide backwards.
It is so sad to see our country slip further and further behind the civilized industrialized world, with our population neutralized and in the thrall of propagandists and political marketeers. With science despised and new religious zealots looking for enemies to stigmatize.
Anon may be a product of this new age and perhaps does not question its values: he/she may never have seen the alternative, nor knew the history that led us to this present pass. But this is all rank speculation. Anon may be older than either of us!
What puzzles me about today’s fire fight is this. Not that you two tangled…I have seen a lot of that, and as such set-to’s go, this was pretty mild. It was that there was a glaring inconsistency in Anon’s self-portrait. He announced that he had voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and was now vigorously supporting Obama.
Yet his initial comments seemed more typical of the type we see on Powerline and LGF and other such sites…it was passing strange….
My hypothesis is that he/she is as advertised, but also a strong supporter of Israel and as such might have a deep loathing for Hamas, the source of so many murders and senseless slaughter. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, he/she is not here to trash liberals or anything else of the agenda of Niblet and his ilk, but only to attack the defenders, in however removed a sense, of an organization much-despised in that country.
If Anon returns, and there is no reason he/she shouldn’t and be welcomed at that, I hope there won’t be any further fireworks between you. It seems that with your vigorous styles you may actually become friends and jointly defend the salon from the REAL crazies out there.
DW the Pollyanna
DW:
Pollyanna you are not. Like you, I suspect that a loathing of Hamas is anon’s motivation, hence my reference to a “one issue guy” in a previous post. I agree that he is a passionate advocate and that is what makes the discussion interesting. I do not think him old enough to have voted for Clinton, but a little embellishment is expected. All in all, I hope he returns too. He certainly is willing to research and defend his views and that is the saving grace for me regardless of his argument style.
Don’t tell this to anyone but I think I saw Bibleman and Cypher in a gay pride march last night. Of course I was disgusted because they were each holding a football and Leviticus said touching the skin of a pig is an abomination (unless you are sitting in swively chairs). I was going to protest but I was afraid Bibleman would take out after me with his light saber and I had forgotten to bring my shield of glory. So I just had to enjoy the parade.
May I just say:
“oy.”