• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alleged "Innocence of Muslims Flim Director Taken in for Questioning.....

Or how about, where's the condemnation of Jimmy Carter who signed in the original Patriot Act (FISA)?
 
MMC said:
6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi


Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.
Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web 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.
Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.....snip~

Alleged 'Innocence of Muslims' filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies - latimes.com


Looks like they will find something to arrest him for. Thoughts? Think this will now affect Freedom of Speech Laws?
Click to expand...

No.

He wasn't arrested based on his freedom of speech.

Rather he was arrested for a parole violation.

Which is perfectly legal and constitutional.
 
samsmart said:
No.

He wasn't arrested based on his freedom of speech.

Rather he was arrested for a parole violation.

Which is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of parole violation here. What is in evidence is that this is a convenient excuse for the POTUS and his admin to placate the terrorists by throwing them a goat.

Absolutely disgusting.
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, it is rather interesting you aim such hatred for the seeming hypocrisy of the right on this. Perhaps, rather than just stereotyping you and making prejudiced assumptions as you seem to be keen on doing, I'll simply be up front and ask. Did you have similar indigntation about any Democrats who lambasted Bush and the Republicans for 5+ years over PATROIT who have largely stayed silent as the Obama administration reup'ed it? Or, how about those on the left who are currently all in favor of infringing upon individuals rights for a little temporary security but had an issue with the Patriot Act? Do you have equally frothing retorts towards those as well? Or is your ire simply aimed at one side and thus, in and of itself, just as hollow and hypocritical as the stereotypical figment of a Republican you seem to be railing at in your past few posts?
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm a hypocrite in every sense of the word when it comes to politics. I should have equal disdain for the left or "my side" and I won't lie and say that I do. I'm not aiming hatred at the hypocrisy rather pointing at the fact that this man's arrest has nothing to do with his first amendment right. The fact is the government is obligated to protect him and his right to make his film, and I feel people expect the government to do so with overwhelming joy. If you're going to make films like this and draw attention to yourself you should have all your past criminal matters resolved, because they will be looking for any reason to arrest you.
 
clownboy said:
Or how about, where's the condemnation of Jimmy Carter who signed in the original Patriot Act (FISA)?
Click to expand...

Eh, too be fair, FISA wasn't so much the original PATRIOT act. You could actually probably make a stronger case for TITLE III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street's Act where we really first started substantially putting survellance law down onto paper. Though FISA was probably the closer example to PATRIOT, as it both expanded stated power of the government in some ways but did so in part to close loopholes where the government was abusing unstated power which is similar in some situations to portions of the PATRIOT ACT. Really, PATROIT is kind of the grandson of TITLE III and son of FISA while perhaps being an cousin to FDR's internment camps and actions with regards to the nations mail or Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus.
 
samsmart said:
No.

He wasn't arrested based on his freedom of speech.

Rather he was arrested for a parole violation.

Which is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that by this article here.....but notice my question. I didnt say he was arrested for anything. I stated they will arrest him for something. Also I never said anything would affect the Freedom of Speech laws. Again I questioned this? As Should be Questioned.....especially in Light of what has taken place. But even moreso from the very own Words of this Administration which they have put out concerning all that has taken place.

Those who are aware of what is taking place.....well then it should be a concern. Remember that saying. To Be Aware.....Is to Be Alive! ;)
 
JoshuaW said:
I'm not aiming hatred at the hypocrisy rather pointing at the fact that this man's arrest has nothing to do with his first amendment right.
Click to expand...

Where have I suggested otherwise? As long as the charges aren't trumped up, it semes he's getting arrested for legitimate voilations of the law. Don't do something stupid to bring attention to yourself when you're breaking the law, that's not smart.

My only issue was with those suggesting that his comments were hate speech and thus shouldn't be protected comments. I haven't spoke a peep against the notion he's got pulled in for parole violations.

It's the same kind of reasoning behind why I firmly am against laws that would keep Fred Phelps from saying the vile **** he spews.....but would likely be the prime candidate for jury nullification if I was one of the 12 on the jury during a case where someone beat him to a bloody pulp.
 
clownboy said:
There is no evidence of parole violation here. What is in evidence is that this is a convenient excuse for the POTUS and his admin to placate the terrorists by throwing them a goat.

Absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...

No evidence needs to be presented to a judge or any court in order to issue an arrest warrant for parolees, that's done by their parole officer and a board or set policy will decide if in fact they have violated terms or conditions of their parole and the state doc or federal bop will decide when they get released.
 
JoshuaW said:
No evidence needs to be presented to a judge or any court in order to issue an arrest warrant for parolees, that's done by their parole officer and a board or set policy will decide if in fact they have violated terms or conditions of their parole and the state doc or federal bop will decide when they get released.
Click to expand...

So then why did the Feds get involved in a State Case again that was Administered thru the Legal System, which involved a conviction, time and release with conditions of probation again?
 
This is not blocking freedom of speech. They are simply bringing him in to analyze if he broke his parole. It would be violation of freedom of speech if the video was taken down by the government.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is not blocking freedom of speech. They are simply bringing him in to analyze if he broke his parole. It would be violation of freedom of speech if the video was taken down by the government.
Click to expand...

Again.....any reason why the Fed is getting involved into this kind of state case? What warrants the Fed looking into the terms of his probation?
 
MMC said:
Again.....any reason why the Fed is getting involved into this kind of state case? What warrants the Fed looking into the terms of his probation?
Click to expand...

You think it will have to do with the giant repercussions this video has caused around the world? I would put my money on that....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You think it will have to do with the giant repercussions this video has caused around the world? I would put my money on that....
Click to expand...

Of that I am already sure.....but regardless what gives the Fed the Right to step in and take anything away from California State Law? Or if California Law says theres nothing there. Why would the Feds need to look?
 
MMC said:
Of that I am already sure.....but regardless what gives the Fed the Right to step in and take anything away from California State Law? Or if California Law says theres nothing there. Why would the Feds need to look?
Click to expand...

How are they "taking away" they are simply lending assistance in a case that has lead to federal workers being murdered.... Im guessing since a federal worker was murdered they are using this as justification to conduct an interview... .
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You think it will have to do with the giant repercussions this video has caused around the world? I would put my money on that....
Click to expand...

The guy was convicted of Identity theft, financial crimes and meth production.. He broke the terms of his parole. He should go back to prison unless he is cnsidered "SPECIAL".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How are they "taking away" they are simply lending assistance in a case that has lead to federal workers being murdered.... Im guessing since a federal worker was murdered they are using this as justification to conduct an interview... .
Click to expand...

Again there is no tie to murder with this case. That would be an excuse for the Fed overextending it's jurisdiction. As this guy was already under conviction. They got Checks signed with this Sam Bacillies Name. Yet No one has identifed that individual as even the Producer of the film. Yet they Say Jones gave money to the project. Plus there is those saying it was Finaced by Coptic Christians. Which if that is the case. Then that has nothing to do with this guy.

Which I am not a legal expert on California Law. I would think California would want first crack at anything that was going down in their State?
 
MMC said:
Again there is no tie to murder with this case. That would be an excuse for the Fed overextending it's jurisdiction. As this guy was already under conviction. They got Checks signed with this Sam Bacillies Name. Yet No one has identifed that individual as even the Producer of the film. Yet they Say Jones gave money to the project. Plus there is those saying it was Finaced by Coptic Christians. Which if that is the case. Then that has nothing to do with this guy.

Which I am not a legal expert on California Law. I would think California would want first crack at anything that was going down in their State?
Click to expand...

He says he produced and directed the film.. and the Actors and Actresses identified him.. Plus those who were hired to come in and Dub "Mohammed" over the original sound track all identified him.

His mentor was Jihad Watch.
 
tech30528 said:
I don't think it will affect the laws but rather the application of them. This is a thinly veiled breach of Posse Comitatus, and regardless of whether or not it will later be justified, the fact that he was picked up under federal orders because of the film (which he was within his rights to make) will dissuade others from exercising their rights.
Click to expand...

Dissuading someone from doing something that helps the muslim extremists cause and results in riots and injuries and more hatred of America is not really in our best interest? Of course it is. Since when do our interests conflict with our freedoms? Something is wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Again.....any reason why the Fed is getting involved into this kind of state case? What warrants the Fed looking into the terms of his probation?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying it's a state case?? He's on federal parole for a 2010 bank fraud case. His 97 case for meth was a state case, that's resolved. His current case is federal. I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess that's why the feds are involved in this case.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi


Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.
Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web 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.
Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.....snip~

Alleged 'Innocence of Muslims' filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies - latimes.com


Looks like they will find something to arrest him for. Thoughts? Think this will now affect Freedom of Speech Laws?
Click to expand...



I think it will affect people's common sense. Because how do we know that's even him? just because some Libyan cops grab a guy? OK.
 
sharon said:
The guy was convicted of Identity theft, financial crimes and meth production.. He broke the terms of his parole. He should go back to prison unless he is cnsidered "SPECIAL".
Click to expand...

Again, there is no evidence he broke the conditions of his parole. This is just a case of using a convenient excuse to get around supporting the first amendment rights of this individual in order to placate foreign interests. Again, very disgusting.

A good president wouldn't need the goat. He'd defend the first amendment rights of this individual and put the screws to the foreign governments who are using this excuse to do violence against American diplomatic missions abroad - and he'd do this publically.

Privately, he'd ding the parolee if he did in fact violate the terms of his parole.

Instead, he's appeasing.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Yes, anyone who leaves Islam is either murdered or lives under 24 hour guard.

That's quite a religion you belong too. Even the KKK, the Fascists or the Nazis weren't that strict.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Nazis were stricter than that, Mr. Godwin.
 
VanceMack said:
20 minutes of Bill Mahers 'Religulous' directly scorns and ridicules the Muslims. I'm sure Obama will be returning his campaign cash and ordering him detained soon. Any day now. Any day...waiting...waiting...

So...I wonder if this new found 'respect' for Muslims will extend to all religions? Cant say anything that might hurt their feelings. Oh! Conundrum...homosexuals are pretty high on the Muslim infidel hit list. Thats going to be a problem too...
Click to expand...

Vance, you're smarter than this. The guy wasn't arrested for insulting Islam. He was detained for violating the terms of his probation, which include not publishing anything on the Internet.
 
MadLib said:
Vance, you're smarter than this. The guy wasn't arrested for insulting Islam. He was detained for violating the terms of his probation, which include not publishing anything on the Internet.
Click to expand...

As well as identity theft.. He was expressly forbidden from using alias and phony names.
I am glad he's going back to prison.. I consider him a traitor.

He's unrepentant and has NO remorse.. Throw the book at him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom