Controversial Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested For Alleged Probation Violations

The filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Mohammad video that sparked the recent protests and deaths around the world, has been arrested by federal authorities for allegedly violating the condition for his probation on a 2010 conviction for bank fraud — violations that could land him in jail for three years. Given the calls for his arrest and even execution by Muslim allies, the arrest raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife.


From my experience as a criminal defense attorney, the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. In addition, the federal authorities insisted on his being jailed as a flight risk, though it is unclear why that is the case and why he could not be given an electronic bracelet.

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal found that Nakoula exhibited a “lengthy pattern of deception” and posed “some danger to the community.” I can see the basis for the first conclusion but not the evidence of a danger to the community. My concern is that the response to his film — which is a protected act of free speech — was weighed in the balance of such a decision. Nakoula is accused of eight charges of probation violation including making false statements to authorities about the film. He reportedly admitted that he wrote the film but authorities insist that he did not fully explain his role.
The U.S. Attorney suggested that he might charge Nakoula with making false statements about the film — charges that would seem an obvious act of retaliation by the Administration.

The distrust shown by many free speech advocates, including myself, is that the Administration has a checkered history of claiming to support free speech while supporting the creation of an international blasphemy standard. The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy. Probation rules are written in a way that make it relatively easy to find violations. The immediate scrutiny left many with the impression that the Obama Administration wanted to show Arab allies that the filmmaker was under arrest while professing a commitment to free speech.

Source: LA Times

167 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested For Alleged Probation Violations

  1. From what I read, the primary rationale for picking him up instead of leaving him ROR until the hearing was imminent flight risk which, all things considered with this particular defendant, is reasonable. He’s not only facing jail time (and you can guarantee the more radical Muslims in the prison population are salivating at that prospect), but he’s literally got a price on his head in addition to a lot people who would simply be willing to kick his ass on principle and/or amusement.

  2. What can a person do? We can’t go to our local newspaper because it’s not a free press (it’s privately owned) and writing to my congress people is hopeless.

  3. We have a new category of law, “flee speech” … express some types of “free speech” and you will be tempted to flee the “Salem Witch Trials” such speech is likely to trigger.

  4. What makes this all the more egregious to me is that it now appears that the film itself was not the cause of the violence. We now know that the attacks were coordinated terrorist attacks in retaliation for drone strikes on Al Qaeda leaders on the anniversary of 9/11 and as to which the US Government was repeatedly warned. We now know that the government was aware that the violence did not emanate from spontaneous demonstration spurred by a film within 24 hours after it occurred, and before the UN Ambassador went on television and said our ambassador was murdered in a spontaneous demonstration in response to a film. The President’s press secretary was also aware that the film was not the motive or provocation when he told the press that the film was the motive and provocation — not the administration’s drone killings. In other words, the invocation of the film appears to have been a clever–and successful–smokescreen intended to deflect attention away from the real question: Why were our consulates and our embassies left grossly unprotected on the anniversary of 9/11 and despite not only clear and specific prior warnings, but the ongoing reports of the now-dead ambassador that he feared for his safety?

  5. Of course, he is a flight risk. They don’t even know his real name. Apparently, he deceived his probation officers repeatedly.

  6. Can’t the CIA and the State Dept do anything right?
    First they pay the guy for the movie, then he doesn’t get away. Why? Because he is the Lee Harvey Oswald in this blasphemy con game.

    My special take (no extra price, cheap just for you)

    It was all arranged. Al Qaida is still doing our bidding. The war on terrorism needed to have some more fuel, lagging at the time. Could not really get the Syria thing to take off.

    So sacrificing a few dips and CIA dips were a cheap price when you consider what we paid in Iraq and now in PakAf.

    I guess the government 9/11 celebration team ran out of ideas and asked the CIA if they had any. The job was solved with maximum cost and people but minimum risk to the bureaucrats, in true CIA tradition.

    Do we have muslims in prison? I thought we tortured them in GBAY only.

  7. To David Your remarks ONLY apply to the consulate in Libya, not the rest of the Arab world. Consulates are not major US installations at all, and in many cases don’t even have a Foreign Service officer or even an American assigned to it. So to treat it as the same as an embassy is wrong. In fact, I have visited US consulates abroad in a couple of countries such as Poland in 1984 where I found the whole staff could not even speak ENGLISH! The one person they finally rounded up who could supposedly speak English could not understand my questions, so I got no help at all.

    As for revoking this guy’s parole, just how many parole violations is a crook allowed? So far they found EIGHT. I think that when you are on parole you are supposed to be honest, and trying to make a new start correcting your behavior. This guy was not caught just drinking in a bar when he was not supposed to be. Let’s get real, he knew he was on probation, engaged in activities he knew were against his parole, committed fraud, among other items, which was the reason he went to prison in the first place,, and thinks he should be immune from being sent back? This is spitting in the face of the Feds and daring them to do something. He apparantly thought his anti-Muslim buddies and Israel would keep him out of prison, plus he could claim free speech violations. There is a principle in our justice system that you have to come into court with clean hands. This guy is so dirty he needs a shower before he can claim anything. Let’s save our outrage for those who deserve it and transgressions that are a lot worse. I also advocate that he go back to prison in a previous post when this came up. I am glad to see the Feds have decided to do their job finally.

  8. My wife is aa retired Federal Probation Officer. Her specialty was writing presentence investigations, however she also did supervision. She concurs w/ Mr. Turley’s analysis, particularly the electronic monitoring being the obvious course of action.

  9. To Arthur Randolph Erb:

    My remarks, in fact, apply to all of the embassies and consulates. Why? Because the Administration immediately brought up the film in response to the Libyan attack, and those other attacks spread from the Libyan flashpoint. At the time the Administration brought up the film, it apparently had been viewed but 10 times in the whole of the Middle East, and months earlier. You’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Administration’s bait and switch.

  10. There’s a lot more to this story. This man worked as a govt. informer. Along with the info that David relates, the differential treatment of probation offenses, the clear record of abuse of the law by the administration, this does not pass the smell test.

  11. This entire thing is theater. I believe that because Obama killed BinLadin, SOMEONE had to make sure there was a big public terrorist fiasco right before the election so the “win” could be canceled out. Not only is this “film-maker” not the author of the theater, he’s an “extra.”

    It’s a shame they will throw lives away like this. Disgusting. Both sides do it without the slightest conscience. I am so sick of all this public theater; what if we had REAL public theater, like Shakespeare in the Park, instead?

  12. He violated his probation. Would the proffessor or others here find it wrong if any other person was being arrested for violating consitions of probation? Flight risk? Probably. Danger to community? Maybe, Does anyone know of what frauds he might have committed in the interim? Sometimes even a cigar is sometimes a cigar.

  13. Dredd
    1, September 28, 2012 at 9:13 am
    We have a new category of law, “flee speech” … express some types of “free speech” and you will be tempted to flee the “Salem Witch Trials” such speech is likely to trigger.
    ———————–
    yes!
    not to mention the political and economic bias involved in selectivity in who gets protected and who gets excoriated….

    laws are like marriages…it’s really not the paper that holds them up….

  14. Ken at Popehat, former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, free speech advocate and definitely no Obama supporter, thinks this guy’s actions are absolutely deserving of probation revocation proceedings, although to be fair he questions whether there’s been improper Administration interference in the proceedings:

    Based on 6 years as a federal prosecutor and 12 as a federal defense lawyer, let me say this: minor use of a computer — like uploading a video to YouTube — is not something that I would usually expect to result in arrest and a revocation proceeding; I think a warning would be more likely unless the defendant had already had warnings or the probation officer was a hardass. But 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. Seriously. Nakoula pled guilty to using alias to scam money. Now he’s apparently been producing a film under an alias, dealing with the finances of the film under the alias, and (if his “Sam Bacile” persona is to be believed) soliciting financing under an alias. I would expect him to run into a world of hurt for that even if he were producing a “Coexist” video involving kittens.

    http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/15/a-few-stray-saturday-thoughts-about-the-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/

    I’d like to see Prof. Turley address the specifics discussed above rather than just make a general statement that “the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.” To many people focused just on the internet use and not on the use of aliases and hiding money and fraud on actors, much more potentially serious violations of his probation conditions. Until Turley is specific and addresses these potential violations, I find Popehat much more credible.

  15. “The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy.”

    Really? It’s been a two-and-a-half weeks since this thing blew up. It’s been one of the biggest stories in the news during that time. The alleged parole violations are in the news reports themselves. Kinda difficult to imagine this not coming to their attention. How much slower were they supposed to go when presented with evidence of multiple parole violations?

  16. Sorry, Waldo. While I agree that, under other circumstances, what the guy did was worthy of punishment (even imprisonment), for the government to do so here, under these circumstances, is wrong precisely because it at least appears to be part of a coordinated effort to suppress free speech. Indeed, the first thing this Administration did about the film was to “ask” Google if it could find a way to delete it. This alone should be outrageous and unthinkable. The government should not be applying pressure to anyone to ban that which it cannot ban under the First Amendment. Thank god that Google stood up to the White House!

  17. rafflaw, You convinced me, it was not only correct to lock him up; it was noble, heroic, and honorable. Sometimes you “must burn the village to save it”, right yes man!!

  18. In my opinion its extremely wrong to have arrested him, as this is giving extremists a message that more violent protests they do the more US will do what makes them happy

  19. From the article:You’d think this would be enough of a hook for conservatives to attack Obama. But no. Obama’s got to be Hitler and Nakoula has to be a martyr to his thuggish politics. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the modern conservative movement at work.

  20. Internet Freud, And some of these people are alleged attorneys.

    SWM, If you were to come out of your myopic world you would realize there are civil libertarians on the right and left. Folks w/ your mindset are the most scary, as Freud just said perfectly it’s, “Our team..right or wrong.”

  21. nick spinelli, Whatever…. The republicans not I made Nakoula their hero at the Value Voters gathering. Do you think it is mere coincidence that nearly every right wing republican website is defending him? If a non celebrity had multiple identities and parole violations, he or she would be spending some time in jail too. The arrest has nothing to do with his civil liberties being violated.

  22. SWM, The phrase, “Even a broken clock is correct twice daily” may apply here. I have applied that to you @ times. In case you haven’t noticed there’s an election going on here so certainly idealogues play the card that helps.That doesn’t make them wrong on substance, and in this case, they’re correct. It’s sad you can’t see that.

  23. Swarthmore mom:

    “Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions — essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted — not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward — similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.”

    Of course, this may not apply to you, being that you either went to Swarthmore, have a child at Swarthmore, or gave birth to a Swarthmore.

    http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html

  24. There is an inherent right to criticize any religion, because religious beliefs deserve no more respect than non-religious beliefs. As an atheist, I relish the opportunity to defend why I don’t believe in a god. This man had a right to make this video but if he violated his probation while doing so, that is a different matter.

  25. If you guys want to waste your time trying to turn this Nakoula or whatever his name is at the moment into a hero, go for it. I have a lunch appointment.

  26. Turning Nakoula into a hero? Hardly.

    It was bad enough that this Administration “asked” Google if it could find a way to remove this video. That, alone, is an egregious act worthy of a unified response from both of our major parties. We are fortunate that Google didn’t cave. (Google did block the video from airing in Egypt and Libya.) What if Google had capitulated? What if the Administration targeted a smaller company, or one sympathetic to the Administration’s brand of “soft” censorship? Yet, we are so far into the team sports approach to politics that a matter of plain vanilla First Amendment law gets forgotten (and trampled) in the process.

    That the filmmaker suddenly gets investigated in the wake of Google’s polite refusal to abandon the First Amendment smacks of the tactics of a police state. Yes, he committed parole violations. But, it appears obvious that the only reason he was investigated was the content of his lawful speech, which he happened to put on the Internet (perhaps in violation of a restriction on computer access). One can reach no other reasonable conclusion than that this arrest was an appeasement, an attempt to punish speech indirectly and bend to the will of the crazy Islamist mobs who kill people over cartoons.

    But, the icing on the cake, so to speak, is that it turns out that this film wasn’t the spark that lit the Middle East. What lit the Middle East were drone strikes that killed terrorist leaders, which the Administration now admits it knew immediately. Despite this, the Administration promptly pointed the finger at this film, which had very few viewings in the Middle East which occurred months earlier. By connecting the film to the Libyan attack which had no relationship at all to the film, the Administration poured gasoline on an already volatile situation. It continued to do so for days and days.

    And so, the question is why?

    Let me offer a suggestion. First, our drone policy is killing terrorists, but inflaming anti-Americanism across the region. The region lives under fear of these attacks, which not only kill “suspects” (who, by the way, are selected based upon suspicion alone), but innocent children as well. In other words, they undercut dramatically the Administration’s narrative of wanting to build bridges with states that harbor terrorists and with the Arab street. Why wouldn’t the Administration want a smokescreen to cover the fact that it new in advance of the Libyan attack that the attack was coming and that it was because of the drone killing of an Al Qaeda leader in Libya? Second, what the film furor also obscured was the fact that the United State had repeated, specific notice of the threat to its embassy in Libya and the reason for it (the drone killing), yet did nothing.

    It’s called the “Pope In the Pool” technique by screenwriters. If you want your audience to miss something in a particular scene, throw the Pope into a swimming pool at the same time. Shame on the government, and shame on partisan columnists like this one for building a superstructure to support the misconduct, lies, and misdirection.

    And, yes, I voted for the President in 2008.

  27. SWM, I can only speak for myself. You are missing the point. I don’t consider this guy a hero in the least. Must one be a “hero” to have constitutional rights..of course not. Enjoy your lunch and remember to tip your waitress.

  28. It’s remarkable how folks like Swarthmore mom–a name that’s about as irritating as going around with your Harvard shirt (note: she or her child did not get into Harvard, or Yale, or Brown, or Dartmouth, etc.)–are willing to shred common sense and the First Amendment to blame the other team. It is really not for believing.

  29. Wait a minute, wait a minute — I’ve GOT IT! “The innocence of…”

    Great schtick!

    See ya in a while, guys, I’m at work: “The innocence of…Gil Davis” HA HA HA HA HA “The innocence of… [fill in the blank]”

    Holiday! (slong as I’m not on probation, of course)

  30. Internet Freud — “It’s remarkable how folks like Swarthmore mom–a name that’s about as irritating as going around with your Harvard shirt (note: she or her child did not get into Harvard, or Yale, or Brown, or Dartmouth, etc.)”

    When all else fails go for the personal. Proof of a weak argument.

    Now quickly everybody click on Internet Freud’s link and up his/her blog count.

    Amateur.

  31. “The innocence of…” Dr. Shakir Hamoodi:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/28/iraq-us-constitution-and-civil-liberties

    “Iraqi-American is imprisoned by US for saving his family from US sanctions

    “A harrowing case of a Missouri engineer highlights the travesties routinely imposed on Muslim Americans”

    “But US-imposed sanctions after the First Gulf War had decimated the value of Iraqi currency and were causing extreme hardship for his large family who remained in Iraq. That sanctions regime caused the death of at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including 500,000 Iraqi children. In 1991, the writer Chuck Sudetic visited Iraq, wrote in Mother Jones about the pervasive suffering, starvation and mass death he witnessed first-hand, and noted that the US-led sanctions regime “killed more civilians than all the chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons used in human history”. by Glenn Greenwald

  32. You’d realize, quickly, that it points to a blog that was long inactive, but why let that get in the way of your failure to make a single, substantive point. Are you too “professional”?

  33. IF, Many of us have names that can refer to many, many things, your presumption and irritation points to yourself, no one else. Maybe I should presume this is merely projection and you like to wear clothing and sticker your car with the name of the school you may have attended, elementary and above

  34. Speaking of Shakespeare in the park–he had to submit his plays to a censor, and some were performed before the court. More than enough politics involved to make a writer who liked being free and alive to think things over before putting pen to paper.

  35. Yes, I’m irritated by folks who wear their college names on their sleeves. Does it point to me? Actually, if you care, the answer is, “No.” It’s one of those peeves with which I live consistently. There are certainly others as to which I don’t. That’s called being human.

  36. I submit that this character is a society wrecking ball in a primate’s body, and has become – by his mere residency – the pluperfect poster child for the reason wise nations pay a hair more attention to whom they anoint citizenship.

    Our ‘melting pot’ mind-bent has become eccentric to the point of madness, and the end result is corrosive beyond belief.

    But that’s just me.

  37. I-Freud, I have been blogging with S-Mom for quite a while and never even noticed her name or wondered about it because I really don’t CARE what name a person would like to use, and certainly another person’s choice of name has no implications about ME. Her posts are very interesting and that is why I read them. I have probably disagreed with her at times and cannot now remember; who cares?

    As in: WATA (What’s all that about?) ;-)

  38. He broke his parole in a way that showed total disregard for the conditions of his parole and which in fact showed that he was still playing fraudulent tricks on people, disguising himself, giving false names, etc etc. Separate this from the free speech issues. He broke his parole. Arrest and losing the privilege of early release from prison is a consequence of it.

  39. Internet Freud 1 said:

    “I hope that’s just you. The idea of censorship by immigration practice is a pretty ridiculous idea.”

    Censorship?

    I’d say any view of this character’s behavior limited to his “right” to free speech, and then gracing him with ‘acceptable immigrant’ status, is naive beyond belief, and goes well beyond the censorship. Such a view opts to ignore his utter disregard for anybody but himself. The fellow has degenerated from knave to firebomb; hides his face because he is a coward; and wreaks more than his fair-share of havoc in a nation where – I’m guessing – he suspected all along he could hoodwink.

    You’ve noticed, I’m sure, that he didn’t immigrate to Singapore or Kuwait to play his reindeer games.

    My point is, some of the finest places to live & raise kids on this planet, learned long ago that the primary responsibility of their leadership, is to its protect own citizens first. They choose not to do this with guns & smart bombs like we do. They do it by simply applying logic to whom they allow at the table.

    And one very effective way to do it, is vetting the incoming folks; tossing out the rowdy; and never allowing a rank criminal’s mere presence to cause harm to the “family.”

    You know, kinda like your house.

  40. Okay, so enlighten me on what aspect of his character–what things he did prior to entering the United States–would have been a red flag for you? Or did you prejudge him based upon what he did after he was here?

  41. “He broke his parole in a way that showed total disregard for the conditions of his parole and which in fact showed that he was still playing fraudulent tricks on people, disguising himself, giving false names, etc etc.” -Natalie

    And while he met the needs of the state, he retained his relative freedom while acting as an informant.

  42. I’m curious about the informant issue. Care to provide a link of some kind? While it may end up distracting from the Free Speech issue, it does cast the arrest and incarceration in an even more negative light.

  43. Waldo,
    “Waldo
    1, September 28, 2012 at 10:54 am”

    Thanks for Popehat excerpt.
    The challenge to the Professor is also a new thought. Why do we always hear either the prosecutor or the defence attorney, but seldom both.
    JT’s presentation seems lacking.

  44. Internet Freud — “I just got irritated and let it spill. I am an amateur, and can’t always control my quirky peeves.”

    And failed to realize that in donning an avatar you were guilty of practicing one of your own pet peeves making you an irrational amateur.

    You went for the personal attack and have experienced the turn around. You failed the challenge so now it’s time to sulk and rename it a pet peeve.

    Predictable behavior as this exercise has just proven.

  45. Freud, You’re being attacked by a coward who made up a lame name so as to have cover. Welcome to the kook fringe here. Most are sane. A few are kooks, pseudo intellectuals, pompous and even a sanctimonious one or two. The real idealogues are like virtually all idealogues on both ends of the spectrum, completely humorless. They’ll try and run you out..stand your ground as I can see you have the intelllect, wit, resolve and humor to survive the attack of the Lilliputians. Most are one trick ponies.

  46. It’s amazing what a snarky aside will get you when the subject has taken as close to an intellectually indefensible position as I’ve seen in a long, long time. And her comparison? I suppose having a picture of an admired thinker as an avatar does carry with it a message of sorts: that I hold a fondness for a free-thinking, syphilis-addled philologist who was terrible at relationships. But, I think that’s a step removed from the folks who make their college connection a part of their name. I know enough of those folks to be irritated enough to deliver a smartass poke which obviously hit a very tender spot.

  47. Prejudge?

    You have me confused with somebody else.

    My bone to pick here is the layers of government not doing their job of protecting the folks from – in this case – at least two decades of crime, by somebody who – in a brighter world – would have been tossed back into a prison in his native country long, long ago.

    Fake passport names, fake drivers license. Fake business names. Drug dealing; tax fraud & stealing a child’s social security number for fraudulent checks. And after each? Well, slaps on the wrist, which only stoke his resolve that he can move off to bigger & better scams.

    I do not believe for a minute he caused the death of our foreign service folks. I absolutely believe he gave mental midgets worldwide a terrific excuse to blow off steam. Because they already hate U.S. foreign policy.

    He knew it, and he figured it was a cool way to get rich & famous.

    20 years worth of crap, spilling all over the citizenry of the country that welcomed him with open arms.

    That’s my beef. So, your question as to what did we know & when did we know it?

    That’s my whole point. When it comes to logical immigration, we are off-the-chart blind. We scrutinize little old ladies at airports in Iowa, while ignoring those who maybe ought to be examined a bit more thorughly.

    And so we vet them and they then wreak havoc? What do we do? We are off-the-chart nuts, for allowing them to take advantage of rights they’ve opted to manipulate.

    What we are doing in this regard is an unsustainable arc.

  48. Internet Freud,

    You make a hard caee to fight. However, one question, how did they manage to throw the pope in the pool just so well timed?
    Do they have them waiting on the shelves?

    And why did they not provide protection to the consulate and accept a politically expensive failure on the war on terror front?

    You trivialize the political aspect. But worse things have been done to win elections. Like the Vietnam war. Every hate-Obama point counts.

    Of course I admit my anti-CIA bias. So the idea that Repub politicians doing deeds on CIA turf attracts me in its novelty.

  49. (1) I suspect the film was out there causing some controversy in other places (perhaps Egypt, which has been looking for reasons to be offended), and it was seized upon as cover for Libya. In other words, it was handy. But, we’ll never really know. What we do know, however, is that the Administration’s seizing upon the film as the specific reason for the attack in Libya, i.e., the attack was an unplanned protest that veered out of control because of a film, was head fake, a dodge, and a lie, and one repeated for more than a week.

    (2) I think they got caught with their pants down vis protecting the embassies and consulates on the 9/11 anniversary. It was particularly embarrassing, and worthy of cover-up, given not only the proximity of the election, but the fierce attacks the President had launched against his predecessor for not heading warnings leading up to the 9/11/2001. From multiple, independent sources, it is clear that the Administration was warned at least four times, including ongoing expressions of concern from the now-slain ambassador.

    (3) Has this entire event been seized on for political purposes by the Red Team. Yes. If this had happened to a Red Team administration, would the misdirection have worked as well? I don’t think so. To date, this President has been able to skate by with very little media scrutiny of his dishonest statements and strategies. Dishonest Red Team leaders tend to get called on the carpet.

  50. Interesting. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side. Not sure how his being an informant on a criminal investigation matters; he struck a deal, gave information, and got favorable treatment of it. That doesn’t mean that the government looked the other way in connection with his probation terms.

  51. PatricParamedic,
    “Our ‘melting pot’ mind-bent has become eccentric to the point of madness, and the end result is corrosive beyond belief.”

    Are you pointing at all those rednecks that came over in the 1700s, or the 1800s, or…..?
    When did yours and how were their immigration proven in advance.

    You really blew it immigrant hater. Hee hee hee!

  52. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side. -Internet Freud

    There’s quite a bit of latitude with this folks, as you probably know.

  53. Internet Freud , mother of swath is not worth spending time on , she is like msnbc , nothing that this president does can be wrong in her view…

  54. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side. -Internet Freud

    Correction: There’s quite a bit of latitude with these folks, as you probably know.

    We just don’t know how he might have been used by the FBI, DEA and others.

  55. Nick Spinelli,
    “Freud, You’re being attacked by a coward who made up a lame name so as to have cover.”

    You said it first. The style of this particular sock puppet is pretty self-identifying. Never reply to a substantive point. Attack the form of the presentation, etc.
    After getting his ass kicked so he had to suck up 5 times before being noticed after his defeat, he prefers now to using sock puppets so he may retreat to his usual persona undamaged, and gleam shining as usual.

    My interp Nick S. Just using you as a launch pad.

    Warning to Internet Freud. Never lose your heat in front of this bulldog. He gets only worse.

  56. idealist707 — “You really blew it immigrant hater. Hee hee hee!”

    From the guy who resides in Sweden.

    (this is almost too easy)

  57. Internet Freud — “Jeez, I just got it! You were using “bulldog” in reference to yourself. That’s the funniest “threat” I think I’ve ever read. Bulldog, your teeth are made of foam.”

    Hooray! Dumb, dumber, dumbest. Easy.

  58. Internet Freud,
    “Internet Freud
    1, September 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    (1) I suspect the film was out there causing some controversy in other places (perhaps Egypt, which has been looking for reasons to be offended), and it was seized upon as cover for Libya.”

    If that was in answer to me, then I got better than I gave. Mine, after a 2 hour nap and a late arrival here, was baaarrreely understandable.

  59. ” 78 Internet Freud
    1, September 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    Interesting. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side.”

    Titles like agent, informant, etc are bureucraticese.
    They serve to heighten the importance and give a legitimate purpose which may be completely misdirection to those being “informed”.

    In this case one can mean that his arm was twisted so he became a tool waiting for an assignment. Considering his previously proven talents, the use in this case is obvious. To mix metaphors: He waa an Oswald waiting to be thrown in front of a bus.
    Not even convinced that he did anything at all himself. He could have been only someone to take the heat, although he did not know it.

    “Welcome to America, my little failed immigrant. Let us “help” you. Since that thin ice you are standing on is melting, we suggest you step over here and help us with this little project we have.”

    Finding fall guys is easy among the usual suspects.

  60. nick spinelli
    1, September 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    Freud, You’re being attacked by a coward who made up a lame name so as to have cover. Welcome to the kook fringe here. Most are sane. A few are kooks, pseudo intellectuals, pompous and even a sanctimonious one or two.
    —————————————–
    nick you forgot ‘judgemental’…don’t forget judgemental!

  61. By bulldog I was referring to the sockpuppet: Read my Blog.

    As to my living in Sweden, explain what that has to do with immigrant hating. I love the ones here. Including the American ones, the Somali one, the Iranians, Kurds, Ghanians, Malinese. Turkish. Assyrian, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Moroccans, Tunisian, Egyptians, Chileanos, Cubans, Brazilians, Colombians, Hungarians, Finns, Iraqis, Gambians, etc.

    And I know and discuss with at least one of each.

    So what’s your point, pinhead?

  62. ID, Just trying to pay it forward as an homage to your assistance when the Lilliputian mafia had me on their hit list. Here’s my take. I think, I don’t know but I surmise, one or two of the more over the top screed folks were put on a short leash. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. And I agree w/ the pathology of the coward being fairly obvious.

  63. idealist707 — “So what’s your point, pinhead?”

    No point, ex-pat. Just messing with a bunch of pseudo deep thinkers busily trying to impress each other.

  64. While I agree that, under other circumstances, what the guy did was worthy of punishment (even imprisonment), for the government to do so here, under these circumstances, is wrong precisely because it at least appears to be part of a coordinated effort to suppress free speech.

    I understand your concern. And, frankly, I almost feel like it would have been better if nothing happened to this guy because of the optics of it. On the other hand, are you really suggesting that, if this is just the normal workings of the US justice system, the Obama Administration should have actively intervened with the Probation Office (a part of the judiciary branch, not the executive) to prevent probation revocation proceedings? That seems like it would be just as wrong as intervening to get the guy’s probation revoked. In the end, I think we follow our laws and values and don’t let terrorists distort our decisions. So, we don’t do things to appease them. But, we also don’t avoid doing things simply because we’re afraid it might encourage them.

    And, I basically agree with you on the Google thing, although it’s more of a minor irritant to me than a major wrong.

  65. Leaving aside what they should have done, it’s quite apparent that what they did do is have the Attorney General or one of his minions direct an operation to raid this guys house (which they did) and find something upon which they could pin an arrest. And, yes, they “miraculously” found something.

  66. At least we’ve established that you don’t mind being called a pinhead, and that you justify your attack on idealist707 by claiming that your intent was to mess with someone else. Full circle, indeed.

  67. Why would I mind being called a pinhead by an ex-pat who hangs out on a blog all day?

    Pretentious folk are a pet peeve of mine. Guess I’m just quirky that way.

  68. Idealist707 said:

    “Are you pointing at all those rednecks that came over in the 1700s, or the 1800s, or…..?

    When did yours and how were their immigration proven in advance?”

    Here’s a snippet of the basic law, which you likely already know:

    “Immigration deportation is now referred to as “removal”. When immigration laws are broken, or when certain criminal charges are brought against an immigrant, the immigrant faces deportation, or removal. U.S. citizens are generally protected from deportation, although if a naturalized U.S. citizen is found guilty of establishing citizenship through fraudulent means, he or she can be deported and will not be allowed back in the U.S. at any time in the future.”

    So, the quick answer is, I’m pointing to anybody who comes here for a “better life” to be accomplished by making mine (and yours) worse. Now, there ain’t much we can do about the criminal rednecks of 250 years ago.

    If you have never walked through Ellis Island, I suggest you do it if you can. What struck me about the entire process of immigrant entry was that they were as careful as they knew how to be at the time.

    If the religious folks are on target, maybe those redneck characters are already getting their just punishments in the afterlife.

    My argument is pretty basic. Why not simply enforce the common sense laws we already have on the books?

    Immigration hater? Get real.

    What I detest is the idiocy of allowing criminals to invade neighborhoods of citizens-turned victims – and the subsequent, insane decree that the victims then pony up for the criminals’ “rights” through the legal system.

    And I suspect the majority of those defending this ingrate’s rights are quarterbacking from an armchair, from the safety of a living room, tucked away in a house, where their next door neighbor isn’t this guy, or anybody like him.

    In my work, I find citizen magnanimity is directly proportionate to one’s proximity to danger.

  69. anonymously posted,

    You are not having trouble posting. Your last post’s quote contained one of the very few words on the automatic moderation filter. Change one letter and repost. Those words again are: f*ck, b*stard, b*tch, and *sshole.

  70. Ex-pat means ex-patriate status, not ex-patriot.
    Did you do 2 years military service? I did.
    So you mean all the people who lost emigrants to the USA should shame the ones who left.

    As for pretentious. Pot versus kettle.

    I express my feelings, opinions, and mostly disclaim facts as I have very few. But I make no false costumes to dignify myself. And I don’t hide behind sock puppets.

    And still you are formalistic in your argumentation.
    How revealing.

    No substance at all. No heat actually. Just faking it. Trolling is a fun game for some. Adjö.

  71. Gene H. –

    So I guess George Carlin, rest his soul, would have had a seriously hard time navigating the Turley site.

    On the other hand, maybe he wouldn’t have. He might have been one of the brighter bulbs in our chandelier.

  72. IF,

    Your smokescreen theory is interesting.

    Do you have a source for your timeline of events vis a vis posting and views versus the reference of the film?

  73. PP,

    We are all just quaterbacking through life. Or do you mean you are on the front lines?

    You got your views, I got mine. Sweden has no great problem from immigrants. What America does, I don’t know or care. It was your heated words with no facts that got me to react.

  74. Patric,

    Carlin would have been an invaluable add. :D I’m sure he’d have had no problem working around the minimal constraints presented here. The low quality of our recent trolls, however? Would have probably made him catch on fire in a way that would be most entertaining for everyone here but the trolls in question. One of George’s most endearing traits is that he did not suffer fools or idiots gladly.

  75. anonymously posted,

    Please tell me what happened then. The only thing I saw when I looked at the filters was the aforementioned comment quoting Matt Taibbi. Sometimes WP simply eats a comment here and there. If it didn’t involve a filter, then the generic WP burp is your likely suspect.

  76. “Leaving aside what they should have done, it’s quite apparent that what they did do is have the Attorney General or one of his minions direct an operation to raid this guys house (which they did) and find something upon which they could pin an arrest.”

    Do you have any evidence that the police “raid” was the result of anything the AG or one of his “minions” did? Why is it so apparent to you when it was local LE that showed up and you’ve already admitted that there’s lots of smoke there to suggest the guy violated his probation? It seems entirely plausible to me (and to a guy with experience in such matters that I trust who is anti-Obama, Ken at Popehat) that looking into whether this guy violated his probation given the public attention to his actions was entirely unextraordinary.

    “And, yes, they “miraculously” found something.” Haha, hardly miraculous to find that a guy using an alias to produce a video clip uploaded to the internet violated probation conditions including not using the internet and not using aliases.

  77. Quirky peeves,
    Quirky peeves,
    Quirky peeves.
    Idem, eadem, yawdem.
    Ipsa Dipsa doo,
    banana fanna fo-fanna.
    OK. No big deal.

  78. Idealist –

    We are all products of our own experiences. My experience is 30+ years on what is indeed the ‘front lines.’

    I’ve no need to run off a string of those experiences to prove my points, as I have occasionally done in the past.

    “Sweden has no great problem from immigrants.”

    Extremely fortunate for Sweden. How do you suspect this character might have been received in your country? I don’t know. I’m asking.

    What I have to say next may cause a loud groan from those who have heard it before, and are not at all interested in hearing it again – but it bears repeating:

    If one has never spent a 24-hour shift with Paramedic team in a southern California metropolis on a Saturday night, then that person simply lacks the tools in their shed, to construct a fair assessment of what is really going on, with regards to unchecked immigration.

    And this ‘filmmaker’ is a perfect example – he should have been deported two decades ago.

  79. Seriously, the link to the Guardian piece, “Iraqi-American is imprisoned by US for saving his family from US sanctions” was very interesting and informative.

    I’m not going to wade back through all the posts to give formal credit but thanks to whomever posted it.

  80. Exactly what ridge do that violated his probation…..there are terms and conditions….right…. Make truthful statements…… But what did he do besides make this film…… Nazi Germany understands….. The Russians certainly understand why….the Cuban have a way of making you understand…… Now we imprison for making films…… Wow……

  81. Malisha,

    Forgot to mention after one of your “what me worry, what’s to worry about” comments earlier.

    Cool! Someone once said: “If someone elses opinions or words disturb you, then the problem is yours, not his.”

  82. PP,

    Stop beating your chest. It is embarassing in an old man. I’m not asking you for merits. I told you why I reacted to you, but you ignore that and pull out your bona fides. So what? How shall I measure them. For all I know they might be proof of a pathological need to observe others suffering. And that is logical, since if the LA world is so puky, then there is space for you and them.

    You know what. I lived on a hill above Sunset for two years in LA. I staye in LA but found another place to live in Silverlake. In the little time I had to expose myself to the life there, I saw more weirdness than in all the places that I’ve visited since then.

    So what does that prove? Napalm ain’t nothing. And Pretty Lady was a fairy tsle. But I did see Liz Taylor dropping off a kid at Grauman’s (?) Chinese one afternoon. So those are my bonafides.

    They are not the issue. I gave you some slack and all you do is the “peevish ol’ man who never can lose an argument”-routine in return.

  83. Idealist (and anyone), a psychiatrist joke.

    For years, in a luxury building in NY where there was an elevator operator (in one of those fancy-cage elevators), two psychiatrists practiced who kept similar hours. Each morning at 8:30 the elevator operator would pick them both up on the ground floor and take them up. At the fourth floor, she would stop for the first one, who would immediately turn, spit into the face of the other psychiatrist, and then get out of the elevator to go to his office. The second psychiatrist, whose office was on the 9th floor, would wipe his face and continue up to his floor.

    After ten years the elevator operator was retiring, and on her last day, she carried the two up, and as usual, the one spat at the other one before stepping off. She couldn’t help but ask, as they continued up to the 9th floor: “I’ve taken you up to your office for ten years, and for ten years, that guy spits in your face every day and for ten years, you say nothing about it. Why is that?”

    He answered: “Why should I say something? It’s HIS problem!”

  84. “The man allegedly behind the anti-Islam YouTube video that sparked deadly riots in North Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world now sits in a Los Angeles jail on charges that have little to do with the crude, 14-minute trailer titled “Innocence of Muslims

    Instead, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – the name authorities have settled on for a man known variously as “Sam Bacile,” “Mark Basseley,” and “Mark Basseley Youseff” (which is what he now calls himself), plus a dozen other names – is being held for violating the terms of probation related to a 2010 bank fraud conviction.

    Following his conviction, for which he served one year in federal prison, Mr. Nakoula had been ordered not to use an alias or access the Internet without the permission of his probation officer.” Christian Science Monitor

  85. Blouise, I was at a gas station just now and a woman noticed that I have 5 schools stickers on my car. My car is ten years old and the stickers have a history. She enjoyed it. I love colleges and would like to have been a lifelong student. We have quite a collection of sweatshirts and t- shirts. Some are only from visits. My husband even has a UT law dad burnt orange shirt. Thanks, Malisha.

  86. “September 27: Nakoula is arrested and held for eight counts of violating probation. At his bail hearing, Judge Suzanne Segal asks Nakoula for his real name. He first gives it as “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula,” and then, upon being asked a second time, as “Mark Basseley Yousseff.” Prosecutors successfully argue that he is a flight risk, and Judge Segal orders him held without bail.” The Atlantic

  87. SwM,

    We are now getting University sweatshirts from the grandkids … it’s a present they can afford and we are happy to wear them.

  88. so to attribute murder of 4 Americans to a video not only energized the islamic world, it also was a lie? Then to arrest the movie maker tells the islamic world that we have heard their request ? Would not this give them reason to commit more violence as they may take it as a sign that their murders have worked?

  89. Two comments: he violated his probation and having done so renege on his end of the contract and that makes his arrest fair game. The only problem IMO is that he wasn’t arrested immediately upon breaking the rules for his probation.

    Also, what is happening now is a movement, or protest, that was in search of a pretext to begin. We have been making enemies with our excursions into various mid eastern countries for ten years and have destabilized and burdened several countries. What is happening in Afghanistan (attacks on Americans rising steadily since the ‘surge’) is a reflection of a widespread and majorly justified attitude against American actions.

    Maddow segment 9-27 on Afghanistan as an election non-talking point- graphs start at 5:40:

    http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/27/14129778-romney-still-silent-on-afghanistan-as-military-report-gives-the-surge-an-f?lite

  90. I think we should submit this movie producer to Sharia law…right folks? F@ck the Constitution, let’s stone the mofo.

  91. Freedom of speech includes giving one aliases. If the judge knew who she was dealing with how is that an false statement worthy of revocation of parole and incarceration, how does that equate to a flight risk?

    It is like implying you have ice cream, therefore you have milk. True it is a dairy product, but the form and substance has been altered. The US incarcerated this person to show that we are a strong nation and do not support terrorism in any format. Unless of and of course we are conducting the same.

  92. If I was some dog living under some alias like this Jehovah’s witness in sheeps clothing then I would hardly chimne in with a comment on this particluar case. But I must say that the suggestion by JT that somehow the President of the United States is responsible for yanking this guy’s probation chain is beyond the pale. Its beyond the Paletinate as well. But Jes Louise, dont lock him up for sporting an alias. Next you will be locking up Willard Romney for calling himself Mitt. Or Jimmy Carter whose real name is James. Or Tricky Dick Nixon whose real name was Richard.

  93. Lottakatz observed:

    “He violated his probation and having done so renege on his end of the contract and that makes his arrest fair game. The only problem IMO is that he wasn’t arrested immediately upon breaking the rules for his probation.”

    It’s very, very hard to argue against fact.

    “Also, what is happening now is a movement, or protest, that was in search of a pretext to begin.”

    100% correct.

    ” We have been making enemies with our excursions into various mid eastern countries for ten years and have destabilized and burdened several countries. What is happening in Afghanistan (attacks on Americans rising steadily since the ‘surge’) is a reflection of a widespread and majorly justified attitude against American actions.”

    If only those in the war room would recognize the obvious, as stated here..

  94. The distrust shown by many free speech advocates, including myself, is that the Administration has a checkered history of claiming to support free speech while supporting the creation of an international blasphemy standard. The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy. Probation rules are written in a way that make it relatively easy to find violations. The immediate scrutiny left many with the impression that the Obama Administration wanted to show Arab allies that the filmmaker was under arrest while professing a commitment to free speech.
    ========
    Screw the international blasphemy standard. Is there free speech or not? Is there freedom of religion or not? Do you want to go back to the Salem Witch trials?

    People aren’t fundamentally stupid. Some of them just don’t know what to do.

    Don’t try to piss on me from the balcony.

  95. Let me ask you all: Why would president of the US, who is supposed to defend freedom of speech, would say in his UN speech that the future does not belong to ones who slander Islam. How dare he said that! Islam is a regressive religion , just ask Mukhtara Mai of Pakistan who was raped by multiple people and islamic law required her to produce four witnesses that actually saw penetration, or ask anyone who may have said anything negative in an islamic world, even if she had down’s syndrome, and this president wants to ban free speech on this violent religion? Give me a break!

  96. a bit of morning irony struck me when reading this twice above, once quoted:

    ““Also, what is happening now is a movement, or protest, that was in search of a pretext to begin.”

    Would that we pursued our constitutional rights, an honorable course for our foreign policy, and a concern for our fellowmen—–as those movements which were pointed out previously.

    No rant today. We emptied the shelves. But the standared accusations and examples can be had from your rote memory. Push the red button behind your right ear.

  97. Uh Oh, “People aren’t fundamentally stupid.”

    They’re NOT? How MANY people are not fundamentally stupid, because inquiring minds want to know! :mrgreen:

  98. Malisha 1, September 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Uh Oh, “People aren’t fundamentally stupid.”

    They’re NOT? How MANY people are not fundamentally stupid, because inquiring minds want to know! :mrgreen:
    ===============================
    Rabbits.

  99. “Shanda Lear, The Brightest Bulb in Trolldom”

    LOL, that bears a ™. It’s a fabulous screen name.

    ***

    Malisha, I’d demand proof along with numbers :-)

  100. lotta,

    Merci mon cher. Je suis originaire de France. Je joue le jeu de Scrabble sur Facebook. Vous devez joindre à nous.

  101. lotta,

    Ich zog nach Deutschland. Ich beobachte einen Film ansehen, Avengers. Ich muss jetzt gehen.

    Addio dalla mia nuova casa in Italia.

  102. SwM,

    Dinner was superb. I’ll be back to Scrabble tomorrow.

    Gene called me a devil. I think we should beat him up… gently.

  103. Lotta,

    You’re pointing out an obviously overlooked issue…. Lights maybe on…but………

    I really do miss anon nurse…. I wonder if she’ll ever return…..

  104. Shanda Lear, The Brightest Bulb in Trolldom, Sorry, my Google translator will not translate your postings (“Page is already in English”) and I am at a loss with languages other than English.

  105. lotta,

    Allow me:

    Thank you my dear. I am from France. I play Scrabble on Facebook. You must join us.

    I moved to Germany. I watch a movie, Avengers. I must go now. Farewell from my new home in Italy.

    the last bit is in Russian and I have no idea … ;)

    She’s a troll … she moves around.

  106. […] Youssef provided the perfect foil for the Obama administration’s battle to cleanse America of blasphemy against Islam.  It wouldn’t let an obstacle like the First Amendment protection of Youssef’s right of free speech to get in its way.  As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: […]

  107. hotel car parking birmingham airport uk

    Hi, all is going nicely here and ofcourse every one is sharing facts, that’s actually good, keep up writing.
    ————————————————-
    Here you have it.

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL News Alert

    IRS Also Targeted Donors to GOP Group
    At the same time the IRS was targeting tea-party groups, the tax agency took the unusual step of trying to impose gift taxes on donors to a prominent conservative advocacy group formed in 2007 to build support for President George W. Bush’s Iraq troop surge.
    See More Coverage »

    Meals & Entertainment is only 50% deductible. Maybe it’s their culture.

  108. Here’s more.

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL News Alert

    IRS Faulted on Conference Spending
    The IRS is facing criticism over past spending at its staff conferences, the latest controversy to hit the agency.
    An internal watchdog at the Treasury Department is set to report Tuesday that the IRS spent almost $50 million on more than 200 employee conferences from 2010 through 2012, spending the tax-collecting agency’s new acting commissioner called “inappropriate.”
    See More Coverage »

Comments are closed.