Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the filmmaker connected to the controversial film “The Innocence of Muslims,” has been sentenced to a year in prison for violations of his probation for his 2010 bank fraud conviction. The arrest of Youssef raised immediate objections that, while the Obama Administration insisted that it would not punish such acts of free speech, it set out to arrest him on any possible grounds to satisfy the “Arab Street.”
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder sentenced Youssef on four of the eight alleged violations that he admitted to, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver’s license (which can be based on any information deemed inaccurate or false). What is most problematic is the violation of denying his full role in the film. The Obama Administration wanted a two-year sentence for Youssef. He also was found to have used a different name without the approval of his probation officer. At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. However, documents show that Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002 but continued to occasionally identify himself as Nakoula.
When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — an image that was immediately broadcast around the world. It sent a chilling message to some that the government can generally find some grounds to punish you when you cause a controversy — even if you are not prosecuted for the underlying speech itself. Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.
None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy.
95 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail”
Those who are compelled to have the last word have OCD.
And we both know why your opinion of me (or anything else) doesn’t matter to me, id707. But thanks for proving my point.
And we know who has and is and will always misuse the tactic.
Myself, it was just for laughs, at you. I am not dependent on using it. Just as I am not dependent on
either synchophants, buttering up daily, or pompous phrases.
Watching you and your circus of non-alpha hounds is good for a laugh each day.
Being subtle is not your metier. Nor an achieveable avocation.
Carry on, James.
Using a tactic it is not the same thing as misusing a tactic.
“BTW, Gene and I and several other posters here are old science/fiction fans, he would not use a bribe to put me under his sway, he would use a pod, a big giant-ass pod:”
I don’t think they have your model pod in stock, if they ever had.
You give me greater skills than I ever possessed.
Depending on which comment you are talking about (your pointing at second comment to you was not much help, but I
tried) I see some point that adding my criticisms of XXX after praising you for your commetns on XXX can be regarded as using you as a tool. I will keep that it mind, and try to keep my stuff properly separated. Praise in one comment and critcism in another.
I was just so happy that YUU would criticíse GeneH on the same grounds as I have before several times.
It would fall natural to me to re-state those grounds with my elucidative addition, but as you point out—that would be a carom shot.
I have offered several SF vs reality comments but got no return comments. Am I excluded from the club, or out my readings too dated?
“ID707, You are quick to use the same tactics as Gene but usually as a carom shot, see the above posts of yours. You are becoming a ‘lets you and him fight’ kind of poster. It adds nothing. It’s passive-aggressive. You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.”
To my knowledge I have of late begun to use GeneH’s tactics only as I now have learned from him to use them to my advantage, and certainly only spiced with irony, no rage at all, rather laughter at him instead.
The “you and him fight” was a misinterpretation which I, while referring to your mentioning it, tried to correct in an explanation to NickS and SwM, whose argument I had intruded in. Try to find it. It is hopefully helpful.
Whatever my true motives (which are of the nature of wanting to come to the rescue of the one whose argument I support for the occasion) it remains a stupid thing to do.
It does not help in any way, is ignored by those arguing (shoould be of course), and contributes onlu noise.
An entrenched bad habit. Thanks for your reminder.
Your last sentence does not ring a bell, so no comment.
I trust your judgement, even if it is not often sweet.
So strange. And appropriate. On so many levels.
ID707: “What’s a carom shot, never played it?”
Srsly, just look at your 2nd posting to me. You use a posting directed to one person as a vehicle (even to the point of changing from 1st to 3rd person voice) to rail about another party. It uses the party you are addressing. It is usury of a sort and acts to spur on an argument while cloaking your own argument or simple personal attacks as support. It is really bad form. Most folks when commenting (here and generally in comment sections/blawgs) when in agreement with someone will make a general statement like ” I agree with [some poster] because blah, bah, blah.”
BTW, Gene and I and several other posters here are old science/fiction fans, he would not use a bribe to put me under his sway, he would use a pod, a big giant-ass pod:
It should also be noted that there is a huge difference between a conciliatory Bohner and make up sex.
Strange interlude? Yes. Have some.
Blouise: “The only real blind spot I have found is his refusal to admit that Pelosi is a superior legislator.”
That IS a serious flaw and one that will have to be addressed at some point. I’m sure ample opportunity for that will come up in the next four years should she decide to stay on as Democratic leader. I think the job is hers unless she indicates she no longer wants it but she’s in her seventies and contending with Republican dominance isn’t going to be easy no matter how conciliatory Bohner may sound now.
I do recall that conversation with Slarti and it was great fun. He hardly used any maths on me at all! and I could pretty well keep up. 🙂
I do appreciate your kind thoughts and I’m happy you get a chuckle when you think about him being called out and clueless. He was a coward and so far over the line I’m still amazed. “Vagina” was not the word he wanted to use and made constructing his insults difficult and clumsy to the ear, but perfect to use as a retort. LOL, That was a strange interlude on this blawg.
Comments are closed.