Glenn Reynolds Calls for Obama to Resign
Apparently, questioning someone who may have violated their probation on the way to contributing to a series of international incidences is a major civil liberties violation.
As Doug Mataconis noted earlier today, the filmmaker behind the Innocence of Muslims, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (aka, Sam Bacile) has been taken into custody for questioning. Nakoula is currently on probation for bank fraud. Doug notes:
Under the terms of his probation, Nakoula is essentially required to cooperate with any request from his Probation Officer to appear for questioning, so he really had no choice as to whether or not he was going to appear. Additionally, if he has violated the terms of his probation then he could be in danger of being sent to Federal Prison to serve out his sentence. So, legally, there was nothing improper about what his Probation Officer(s) did here.
Ok, so here’s the deal as I see it at the moment: Nakoula is behind a film that is supposedly the motivation behind rioting in various Muslim countries and is possibly part of the motivation behind actions that lead to the death of several Americans, including the US’ ambassador to Libya. Nakoula plead guilty to a federal crime and is on probation for said crime and may have violated the terms of his probation and is obligated to speak to authorities. The authorities have decided to exercise those rights and talk to Nakoula.
This is problematic how? Surely, given the situation, there are reasons to want to speak to Nakoula to find more out about the film. Such questioning does not violate his right to hold unpopular views nor does it stop him from sharing them. And the only reasons such questioning exists as an option is because Nakoula plead guilty to federal crimes. This is not the authorities dragging someone away simply because he made a controversial film.
It is worth underscoring the following(via the LAT and quoted by Doug in the linked post) :
The probation department is reviewing the case of Nakoula, who pleaded no contest to bank fraud charges in 2010 and was banned from using computers or the Internet or using false identities as part of his sentence.
So, it is possible that he violated the terms of his probation in making this film. How is it problematic that he would be questioned in this context?
Given the probation situation in the context of a federal crime, is it not due diligence to question the man? What if he actually has information that is relevant to the situation and he was not questioned, despite the perfectly legal opportunity to do so? Would that be proper? Would that not be grounds for criticism of a different type?
I am willing to reassess this initial reaction, but I am not seeing a major civil liberties issue here because of the probation situation.
Glenn Reynolds, however, thinks that the president should resign over this issue:
By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
Ok, so because LA County sheriffs wear khaki colored uniforms (as do many law enforcement officers across the country) that justifies conjuring, multiple times in the post, images of Nazis paramilitaries? This strikes me as inappropriate, to be kind.
Also, I find it odd (and profoundly partisan) for Reynolds, a law professor, to gloss over the probation issue. I am trying to understand why Nakoula wouldn’t be brought in under these circumstances. And, further, I am thinking that law enforcement would be rightly criticized for not taking the chance to legally speak to Nakoula. How this amounts to a major civil liberties violation that should result in a presidential resignation is profoundly unclear to me.
I would be objecting had Nakoula been picked up by authorities simply for making a controversial film. That he is a confessed felon on probation changes this equation because it means that Nakoula himself created the legal opening for his subsequent questioning—especially since the posting of a film online would appear to have violated the terms of said parole.
I also find it disingenuous that Reynolds is suggesting that the President directly ordered the LA County sheriffs to bring in Nakoula, because it doesn’t work that way. But why let such things get in the way of a good narrative?
To sum up: the authorities have the legal means to question a person directly responsible for a film that is currently linked to massive rioting in a number of countries and not only should the authorities not exercise that right, but the president should resign because of this option? Did I get it right?
Update: (Based on a comment I posted below):
One last general thought: if Reynolds had simply noted the story and expressed reservations about the event, as Doug did in his post, that would have been a legitimate response. I am sympathetic to concerns about law enforcement overstepping its authority as a general proposition.
But, instead we get: “By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath.” This then leads to a call for the president’s resignation.
If one cannot see how this is hyperbolic and unreasonable, I suspect I will be unable to persuade you otherwise.
How the questioning of a felon on probation for 90 minutes (which was done voluntarily, according to press accounts) is equivalent in any way to Nazism (which, in case anyone does not know, is what the brown shirt reference is) does not understand what Nazism was. Since I would like to think that a person with a professorship at a major university ought to have at least a passing understanding of the concept of Nazism, I find Reynolds worthy of criticism on that count. That he considers me noting this as a form of hackery in an update to his post is telling because it is a non-response (also mischaracterized my post as calling this as being “routine” which I did not).
My years of not taking Glenn Reynolds seriously continues to pay off.
Steven, you are completely correct. Glenn is, and always has been, a complete idiot. Pay his ravings no mind at all.
If Obama ought to resign over something, it’s for staying in AfPak well beyond our presence’s sell-by date.
No, you didn’t.
Reynolds is correct.
The problem, the cause for the failure, is the ideals laid out underneath that policy. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and his three staff members, were fully believing in the leftist mantra that all we had to do was show respect and we’d win the day. I wonder, if in the moments before they expired, they realized the error of that line of non -thought. I rather tend to doubt it. Sadly fact never hinder the mantra of a leftist.
In the meantime, we, in the form of Obama, apologize to to the protesters and the murderers of ambassador Stevens and his staff, Are you kidding me?
Indeed, there’s not been this much sympathy for Lynch Mobs since Bull Connor.
In effect, the Obama administration doubled down on its liberal stupidity . They’ve yet to figure out that there are some things some ideas some ideals and some cultures that deserve no respect. That’s some situations require that no respect be shown. I would argue that radical Islam is one such.
And Obama’s response? To clamp down on free speech because some 14th century neanderthals want to raise hell about our free speech rights? Screw them, and Obama with them. THey appear to be on the same side… Obama certainly isn’t on the side of the US.
This kind of thuggery has been going on since Carter. Clearly the problem back in 1979 was we weren’t appeasing them enough.
And whose butt is getting covered here by laying the blame on a You tube vid that nobody’s even seen? ? Whose choice was it not to reinforce the embassy at Benghazi? Hillary Clinton. Now, at least, we have an explanation for why the Clinton run State Department is refusing to answer any questions on the matter. Not only had the British told us repeatedly that attacks were coming, CNN reports that the Libyans did as well.
I’d personally find it interesting that white house adviser Valerie Jarret has a full contingent of secret service personnel surrounding her, and yet for some reason this White House couldn’t figure out the people in the Middle East needed at least that amount of security. I wonder, however, if by virtue of this failure, we’re going to see less heavy Democrat campaign donors angling for ambassadorships around the world. Particularly, to the Middle East. I suppose there’s a never ending supply of true believers among leftists.
And as I said in another thread, I would point to the double standards being applied…. I observe that for example, the very same president who doesn’t seem to have a problem with insulting Christians calling us “Bitter clingers” and disregarding the first amendment rights of Catholics as regards abortion etc., tells us that we should not be insulting to Islam.
Obama needs to go. Now.
The only drawback is we end up with the blanking moron Joe Biden till January 20th, but I suppose we can survive it.
Yeah, it seems as if Nakoula violated the terms of his probation, pure and simple. If the guy had no criminal record and wasn’t currently on probation for crimes related to using aliases, then I could maybe join Reynolds in hitting the panic button. But the questioning of Nakoula in and of itself doesn’t appear to be a big deal here when taken into context. It feels creepy, yes. But if he violated the terms of his probation, as it appears he has, then it isn’t a huge deal. To suggest, as Reynolds does, that he’s being dragged from his home in the dark of night for humiliating Obama is rather ludicrous.
I’m not saying the situation doesn’t make me uncomfortable. But smarter people than me who I have a great deal of trust in and usually agree with have said this isn’t really unusual. And I believe them.
And can you imagine, folks, the reax of the press to a George W Bush going to a couple of fundraising parties while our embassies are burning? Why, we’d never hear the end of it… wall to wall 24*7 “coverage” of the thing. With Obama, no big deal. Hm,mm?
The mistake is in taking Reynolds seriously.
We are beginning to see the breakdown of the GOPers who never, ever, ever thought Obama could be re-elected. After all, birth certificate, teleprompters, golf, socialist . . . Sorry guys, looks like four more years.
@Chris Berez: That’s as may be, but do you really suppose the guy would have been brought in at all, absent pressure from the WH? And what purpose do you suppose THEY might hvae in all this, other than covering their own asses?
Anyone who takes Glenn Reynolds seriously is an idiot – think @Eric Florack:
@Ron Beasley: Do I take Reynolds seriously? Depends on what he says. Same as my taking YOU seriously.
I was advising a commenter here not to “bring the crazy” when you want to help your side. Shortly thereafter I see that Glenn Reynolds has ridden the crazy to the top at memeorandum.
Unbelievable, but doubly unbelievable that he thinks it gains him anything of merit.
What kind of law does Glenn Reynolds teach? Clown law?
For the writer, if you don’t see the problem with it, you are surely in a sad state. Just a point. I’m a former Intel analyst and federal LEO, so I have a bit of knowledge about what’s involved. The FBI questioned this man, but didn’t have the juridiction to do so.
Probation is not a law enforcement function, it’s under the court. If his probation officer wanted to question him about the use of a computer, that broke his probation fine. But that wouldn’t inclue questions about making an anti-Islamic movie. It’s irrelevant. That means that the FBI showed up outside their jurisdiction for a reason given by their superiors. The question then is who ordered them there.
Reynold’s point is about freedom and about the Constitution and our rights under it You miss that, you’ve missed the point, and deserve the inevitable consequences.
http://tinyurl.com/9e2yket
@john personna:
I am firmly of the opinion that Reynolds decided a while back that he could have a very lucrative secondary career catering to a particular element. As such, he is seeking cred with that audience. I feel it is occasionally worth calling out because some people still take him seriously who shouldn’t.
Quite frankly, as much as I find hackery annoying and problematic, I especially find it frustrating when it comes from professors who should know better. This is not to say that I think his profession should have anything to do with his personal philosophy, but it should impact his public analysis. It should be of far higher quality than what he gives.
I read a post over at the Monkey Cage recently about Niall Ferguson that fits pretty closely to how I feel about Reynolds: link.
@Jack Moss:
I’d guess that a number of organizations “self-started” when they found this guy in their back yard. You might find that someone crossed a legal line, but assumption of conspiracy doesn’t really cut it.
It interests me how someone can achieve a professorship in political science and not understand the use and abuse of power. Cannot comprehend the intimidation in even seeking out the true identity of someone who simply posted a lawful video. Or using a midnight knock to “invite” someone in for a chat with the authorities.
I wonder, is it the probationary status that makes this amenable to you? What if he had no prior convictions but had mixed his Round Up in someway not in accordance with the directions? Or perhaps carried a dose of medicine in other than the bottle or packaging it came in?
And please, pray tell, why the possible use of a computer requires a midnight pick up? Could perhaps the federal probationary agents need a bit of overtime?
Who could have guessed that among your many other talents, you possess the ability to read people’s minds, especially those who are no longer with us…do you charge for your services as a medium?
Actually I was wondering if you were kidding us, what with this lying bull$hit, as the President never “apologized”…
Still following the Romney playbook, eh? Once again, that didn’t work for him and it certainly won’t work for you…
Well, considering the fact that you can survive despite your delusions, I’m sure you will survive another four years of the President…after all, I’m sure you need something to bitch about…
The black helicopters…once again, you are missing the black helicopters…
Maybe Reynolds just wants Joe Biden to be President.
@JKB: Did you read the post?
One thing my professorial training does provide for me is the ability to spot poor comprehension skills. I would further note that while you are entitled to question my professional credentials, such questioning is not an argument nor does it address what was written.
The following is a series of non sequiturs:
Is the best “argument” you can conjure is “what if he…carried a dose of medicine in other than the bottle or packaging it came in?” That is a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the situation under discussion (and an odd one at that).
As I noted: yes, it is the probationary status that makes this situation what it is. I said that several times.
Florack, you shoulda stayed with the pseudonym. Now you’re not only a fool, but everyone knows it.
@john personna: point is that the FBI had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that point is without argument. Not talking about “conspiracy”, but the question of why the FBI was brought in out of jurisdiction is what will have to be discovered.
And gosh, I can’t imagine what besides Obama coulda got this guy questioned … nothing surely to do with being all over the news for a computer video when he’s expressly forbidden to touch a computer. Nah.
@Steven L. Taylor: So you arrived with your pre-conceived conclusion based on your personal bias of Glenn Reynolds? Indeed fodder not worthy of a post, perhaps a screed on a bathroom wall. You have discredited yourself sir.
Well, that was fatuous.
The DOJ–which is so busy it cannot enforce our immigration laws–has time to find out the identity of an anonymous producer of a film Obama and Hillary don’t like. Since the film itself broke no law, why was the DOJ investigating who made it?
They then leak the information to the press, which gleefully prints it.
Then they pick up the producer for “questioning”–at midnight, with camera crews around–and take him “voluntarily” in.
This is an abuse of Free Speech. Can anyone say “chilling effect”? Go against the criminal mob in the White House, and this will happen to you.
It has been a clarifying movement however–it shows (once again) that the Left in this country view the Constitution as so much toilet paper, that it can dispose of at will. You make me puke.
Oh man. Does anyone know how to get spittle off the inside of a monitor?
Clearly none of you have been on probation or know anyone on probation in the state of california. Given that this state has about 1/2 or less the national per capita average of police officers, no one, no one gets pulled in for violating their probation unless it’s part of a serious offense. For example, you’re out on probation and you’re pulled over and have a loaded gun in the glove or the cops knock on your door for a noise violation and discover 100 lbs of pot and $100,000 in cash. For the cops to bother with a pissant violation like this, there had to be “encouragement” from above.
Did the Gateway Pundit link to this post or something? Comments are seriously cracking me up.
For those of us who read Professor Reynolds’s angry post carefully (and Professor Taylor demonstrates manifestly that he did NOT), we see that Reynolds’s argument is an ethical argument more than it is a legal one.
What exactly is the justification for arriving at the man’s home in the dark of night? What is the justification for trumpeting loudly the precise location of the man’s domicile?
It is his “behavior” (Reynolds’s word) – not any specific legal action – and specifically the behavior of these past few days since 9/11/12 – which has rendered Obama unfit to hold office.
Furthermore, L.A. County deputies were assisting U.S. Marshalls and the federal probation office in bringing this man “downtown.” Since L.A. County deputies have no standing with regard to the federal plea which the man has made, the order to bring him in came from FEDERAL authorities. So, yes, Obama is indeed most likely responsible for giving the order, Professor Taylor; it can (and in this case almost assuredly did) work precisely that way.
The deaths in Benghazi had NO connection to this film. (There were NO “demonstrations” in Benghazi; all eyewitness accounts agree that the attack occurred swiftly, and was well orchestrated. There is no ‘crowd rage’ here; all evidence suggests that it was entirely pre-planned.) Obama is sure as hell going to do everything he can to muddy the waters and distract anyone from the fact that this was a miserable intelligence failure on his administration’s part. Finding a scapegoat in L.A. and trampling on the first amendment along the way is what makes Obama unfit for office.
@Jack Moss:
I’m reading that the FBI contacted Nakoula because of the possibility of threats, but that he was not under investigation. That sounds like something self-started to me.
@Jack Moss:
One suspects I am unable to persuade you one way or another, but you are missing my point from the comment. My point was that I think that Reynolds engages in public analysis that is of poor quality and that he should do a better job, especially given his profession. His post is an example of this poor analysis, in my opinion (which you are entitled to disagree with).
Even if there are ways to criticize the questioning of Nakoula, to make it sound like a raid on his house while downplaying the probation issue, and at the same time invoking Nazi imagery, is poor analysis. One’s assessment, of course, may vary.
No doubt his situation does call for answers to questions of computer use. However, a midnight pick up? Strangely with press in attendance? And that is even after the federal government used its power and resources to identify then reveal this individual to the whole world thus making him a target for every murderous Muslim on earth. And we know there are more than a few of those.
No doubt this guy is going into prison as discretion rests with the bureaucrats who will seek to please the White House. It would be interesting to know if they question the content of the video as opposed to any computer use in relation to it. It will also be interesting to learn if the midnight pickup over a simple probation violation is the norm. Was he questioned in the wee hours of the morning or did they let him sit in a cell till the bureaucrats rolled in later?
It is not that the bureaucrats looked into possible violations brought to light by this guy’s embarrassment of the administration but how they did it. All within discretion, I’m sure as a way to show a probationer who owns them. As an interesting aside, due to this person’s prior conviction, he is owned by the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If, for some crazy reason, Obama did resign, I don’t know, to write poetry or whatever, does Glenn Reynolds realize that Biden would still beat Romney going away, even with a 2 month campaign?
Romney is awful and nobody likes him
And then, Biden would be eligible for reelection in 2016.
Calling for Obama to resign now is the surest sign yet that wignuts like Reynolds expect Romney to lose
@JKB: I honestly can’t speak to the timing, but this is secondary, yes? If you admit that “No doubt his situation does call for answers to questions of computer use.” then what you are really arguing over is logistics.
I am presuming that the press were present because his identification had been figured out and the press are understandably interested in him. I may be mistaken, but I am fairly certain that his identity was figured out by the press independently of the authorities.
I think, by the way, that this focus on the embarrassment of the administration (which is Reynolds’ line as well) is a bit silly (if not childish) because the problem is not the embarrassment of the administration, it is dealing with a number of incidences allegedly linked to this film. Again: due diligence.
@Dr. C.:
And yet, there are claims from various quarters that the film is the inspiration for the rioting. And there is a convicted felon on probation who was involved with the production of said film. I am looking for the justification of why, in the face of massive protests in various locations, that the administration would not want to question someone who was in a legal position to be questioned.
@jon:
Indeed.
Big fan here.
Your point?
@Anderson (22:58)
The consensus appears to be that Mr. Nakoula made the film; whence comes your knowledge that he posted it to the internet?
@David (23:08) – your comment is irrelevant, since Mr. Nakoula was on federal probation. The state in which he resides is not germane.
@rh:
Currently my post is one of the few criticizing Instapundit showing up on Memeorandum, hence the attention, I suspect.
As we know, Reynolds has a loyal following who can swarm comment sections (something I find ironic, given the lack of comments at his site).
@Dr. C.:
This would be a grounds for questioning him, yes? That is if one looks at the terms of his probation and the fact that it ended up online,
Again, I ask, what is the argument for not questioning him, given his probation and the seriousness of the situation?
@Jack Moss: Sorry, where are you getting the FBI from? This guy got a visit from “federal officials.” He’s on federal probation, so he has a federal probation officer. Who do you expect to be administering it?
Geez. @Jack Moss:
No. Taylor as a political science professor is using the episode to debate the role that Glenn Reynolds plays in the political debate and his as a academic. There are so many professor playing the role of the political hack so that´s a very important discussion.
Mmmmm. I love the smell of Republican desperation in the morning. It smells like . . . victory.
@Steven L. Taylor:
The film (even in the Arabic dubbed version) had been on YouTube for months. Bill Maher’s movie Religulous (which has about 25 minutes IIRC worth of very unkind criticism of Islam) has been out for years. News of Sony’s paean to Obama’s role in the killing of Bin Laden has been all over the news of late. And yet – when the ‘Arab street’ suddenly erupts (completely coincidentally, on 9/11), the Obama administration opts to “look tough” by taking a man out of his home in the dark of night…
Do they – strictly speaking – have the technical legal authority to do so? No one ( not even Reynolds) is arguing that they don’t. The point is that it was (is) a manifestly stupid move, when the proper response would have been to point to the first amendment and tell the Arab street to shut up. Put another way, why – when there is absolutely no overt crime – is Obama (and there is no doubt that it is Obama) aggressively pursuing the technicality? His actions are an offense to the first amendment. Obama’s promise of “smart diplomacy” has proven to be vapid, not surprisingly.
There is one thing you did not get right. Making the “film” did not violate his probation, but posting it on the internet and doing so under an alias did.
david:
“Clearly” you are making shit up. “The national rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants remained at 3.5 in 2004.” PDF, p. 4. That number for CA is 3.6. Same PDF, find the relevant numbers on p. 13 (112,584/31,273,858=0.00359).
You have roughly as much credibility as Glenn.
fred:
He was banned from using computers. He made the movie without using computers? Really? And you know this how?
Don’t f— with the JBG.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Quite simply, you are asking an invalid question. The question, properly asked, is, “What is the argument for
notquestioning him?”. (The strikeout is there to illustrate how I have corrected your mistake.)And the only correct answer to that question is, “There is none.” Because there is no underlying crime. Period.
Steven wrote: “Nakoula plead guilty to a federal crime and is on probation for said crime and may have violated the terms of his probation and is obligated to speak to authorities. The authorities have decided to exercise those rights and talk to Nakoula. This is problematic how?”
I think the problem is that hardly anyone will believe that Nakoula’s questioning is unrelated to the content of his film. If people believe there is a connection between the questioning and the film’s content, then there will likely be a chilling effect. It won’t matter that the government had a legal right to question Nakoula; no one will believe the government would have exercised that right had the Administration not found the film objectionable.
Having said all that, I’m extremely skeptical that the President exercised any influence over the decision to question Nakoula. There’s just no history of Obama making this type of rash misjudgment that could so easily discredit his authority.
Well this is strange. I just spent all my time on the other thread defending the Administration’s request of Google
He was not “banned from using computers.” He was prohibited from accessing the internet for anything other than crucial business purposes. It was not even a complete ban from the Internet.
Facts, people. They’re pesky little things precisely because they matter.
Why does the public know this man’s name? Why was the press at his house at his house when the deputies showed up? How long before he and his family suffer some sort of “accident”? The feds have the right to question this man about the possible violation of his probation, but not to parade him around while making his identity public. Smacks a little of retaliation to me.
Setting aside this particular manufactured outrage, how cool is it that 52 days out this is what the wingnuttery has to serve up? This is when the opinions of a campaign and a candidate are being permanently baked in, and this is what the right wing goes to?
Hey, what happened to jobs? Economy? Seven weeks out and they suddenly want to talk foreign policy?
Honest to God, I know Republicans are stupid, but in the old days they used to at least know how to run a campaign. Axelrod’s laughing his ass off.
Flail my rightwing friends, flail!
@Fredw:
Again, where is the evidence that Mr. Nakoula posted anything?
@michael reynolds:
“Manufactured outrage.” I find myself in turn both amused at how credulous the Left is, yet also terrified of the degree to which it actually loathes the concept of free speech.
@Steven L. Taylor: Taylor, do you think midnight is the routine time to question someone on probation for financial misconduct? That was a point that Reynolds made that I haven’t seen you address.
@Dr. C.:
Yeah, you’re right, genius. I make 100% of my income from writing, and have for the last 23 years. Which is why I hate free speech so much.
Remember when Glenn Reynolds called on Bush to resign for torturing people?
* 404 link not found *
Man of principle, that one.
dr c:
Are you sure? I see this:
That report was written by Fox, and published by Fox. What is your source for your claim that they are wrong?
Another claim you need to support.
It’s easier to understand where Florack is coming from if you’re familiar with his record of making brazenly false claims (example).
Ditto for JKB (example).
Ditto for Glenn Reynolds (example).
Birds of a feather etc.
@Jack Moss:
Nice try, with those phony “former Federal LEO” credentials. I am a CURRENT, Fed LEO, and anyone who is or ever was knows the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate federal matters, just as any State bureau of investigation has jurisdiction when it demonstrates a vested interest of the State it serves.
Again, nice try, but your supposition doesn’t fly.
So now we see the right-wing fringe falling over themselves to accuse the President and Los Angeles County Sheriffs of being Nazis.
And the “Glenn Reynolds is right!” chorus is utterly pathetic. The lengths they’ll go to to hate Obama is really something.
Let’s see, hauled out of your home at midnight so the G-men can ask you questions for a half hour before dropping you off at an undisclosed location.
Don’t worry society has been saved from this menace.
JKB, the word “menace” applies to people who lie. That means you.
And speaking of liars, I have a question for Glenn’s minions who are stopping by. He said this:
Where is Glenn’s proof that these officers were sent by Obama? This is the heart of his accusation, so is he speculating, or does he actually have proof?
Yes, I realize this is a rhetorical question.
A gaggle of Sheriff’s deputies, a gang of media outlets, midnight, quite neighborhood. Why was all this activity occurring when a telephone call from the man’s probation officer the next morning would have been the proper procedure? You know the answer, professor, you know. But keep playing dumb, it suits you.
“Given the probation situation in the context of a federal crime, is it not due diligence to question the man?”
So you are either high, stupid, and complacent with the administration. Funny how you say that “President directly ordered the LA County sheriffs to bring in Nakoula, because it doesn’t work that way.”. Guess what? Questioning someone on parole also doesn’t work the way we’ve seen with Nakoula. Have you heard of the term “parole officer”? Because that is who would question him. Not half a dozen deputies. See parole isn’t in the sheriff’s purview. Its the courts. This is why in June of this year when they swept up parolees, it was the California department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that lead the way, not the the Sheriffs office.
Also if this was totally a legit parole issue, why was he brought in at midnight? Under armed escort? Then questioned for “several” hours? But perhaps to you Steven Kristallnacht was just a regulation street cleaning then.
@jukeboxgrad (00:36)
My source. Apparently, however, I misread part of it. It was indeed a total ban on internet, but not on computers.
I think “pathological liar” more or less covers it.
dr c:
This is what your source says:
So what are you now claiming? I don’t think we have any reason to believe he made the film without using computers, and I don’t think we have any reason to believe his making of the film would be considered “work,” for the purpose of his parole. Therefore Fred was wrong when he made this claim:
samuel:
It’s so much fun to have some new visitors from the world of fiction, where fantasies are treated as facts.
What is the basis for your claim that “the DOJ [was] investigating who made it?” You seem to think the DOJ made an effort “to find out the identity” of Nakoula. Do you have any evidence to support this fantasy? Because here on Planet Earth, it appears that it was the press that managed “to find out the identity” of Nakoula, on 9/12:
Do you grasp that “AP” is not “DOJ?”
You’ve got it backwards. The press found him, and then law enforcement went to see him, because they knew where he was thanks to the press.
Do you understand why there were “camera crews around?” Because the press found him, and once they found him, they decided to stick around. Do you understand anything about what the press is, and how it works?
And do you understand why they took him out at night? Here:
The place was a circus of reporters, and it made sense to dodge them as much as possible. Which meant waiting for most of them to leave. Duh.
dr c:
I just explained that. Also, it’s not clear they were just “arriving” at that time. What’s clear is that they waited until that time to take him out.
@jukeboxgrad (00:58)
There is no question that this was a federal operation. Given that it was the White House that contacted Google to ask them to review the video ( and Google did the correct thing in telling Obama to stuff it), why wouldn’t we conclude that the White House is behind this too? Something as petty as this is strictly within the domain of the P.O. No federal attorney who values her time would bother with this nonsense unless someone on high told them to. Occam’s Razor, friend.
Apart from that, are Leftists truly so obtuse and uninformed that they don’t recognize that Reynolds is ridiculing the likes of Biden, Gore, Pelosi, Warren, et al. with his “literally (Biden, Warren, Mika Brzezinski) Brownshirts (Gore, Pelosi, Boxer)” line???!!! Is anyone reading this so daft that they actually thought Glenn believes that? Can someone please supply the class with the definition of “hyperbole”?
Because you have no evidence to support that claim. But I realize you come from a world where ‘speculation’ and ‘fact’ are treated as synonyms. And where it’s perfectly fine for Reynolds to state that Obama sent these officers, as if this is a proven fact, even though it’s pure speculation.
I don’t know what you mean by “that.”
@Eric Florack:
He’s not going and the way things look he’ll stay on for another 4 years. Deal with it.
@Moderate Mom:
The press uncovered his name on Thursday. They have had his place staked out since. If you researched rather than asked what you perceive to be meaningfully pointed questions, you would know this.
@J. Knight: Why, it’s almost as though this person was involved in some sort of newsworthy event or something!
Minor correction: Wednesday.
It’s so wonderful to look at Memeorandum and see this as the top story:
Followed by this:
How perfectly perfect. Notice this from Glenn’s article:
He seems to be pretty excited about the “midnight” part. It’s supposed to make the whole thing more sinister. He’s counting on the idea that his readers are too stupid to read the linked story and find out why it was midnight:
Not surprising, and not sinister, and done for all sorts of good reasons.
Glenn also makes this deeply stupid remark:
He doesn’t tell us how he knows that (especially since it contradicts the story he cited: “a lone photographer”). But the point is we would expect a lot of cameras, because the press found this guy days ago, and he is a top story. Why is it the government’s fault that the press is there? They found him first, and they have good reason to be there. And if the government did anything to chase the press away, then Glenn would whine about that.
As MM pointed out: “Why, it’s almost as though this person was involved in some sort of newsworthy event or something!”
And this is why “Conservatives Will Never Have ‘Smart People On Our Side.’ ” Because you have to be a moron to fall for this transparent bullshit that Glenn dishes out.
rh:
At some point Glenn put a link to this thread in his article. Down towards the bottom he says this:
That’s a link to this thread.
Glenn’s work is essentially a bunch of fallacies strung together. That one is called “Appeal to Ridicule.”
In the morning we’ll probably have a new bunch of clowns who don’t understand why it happened at night, and why there were cameras. I can’t wait.
Midnight!
@Eric Florack: Eric, this blog is for intelligent arguments, not regurgitated right-wing talking points.
Nazis!
“This strikes me as inappropriate, to be kind.”
You are far too kind. It is nuts.
“Also, I find it odd (and profoundly partisan) for Reynolds, a law professor, to gloss over the probation issue.”
Really? Have you ever READ the Instapundit blog? It is a bastion of right-wing hackery, not legal scholarship.
MIDNIGHT. IT WAS MIDNIGHT! MIDNIGHT! MIDNIGHT! MIDNIGHT!
I CAN HEAR THE BLACK HELICOPTERS NOW.
SHARIA LAW!
PLEASE DON’T SEND ME TO THE FEMA CAMPS!
DID I SAY MIDNIGHT?
jack moss:
I realize Glenn quoted you saying this, even though it’s complete baloney. What a surprise. As john explained:
More details:
Also see here:
So it’s not that “the FBI showed up outside their jurisdiction.” It’s that Nakoula et al invited the FBI to get involved to help protect these characters. And it’s not the FBI that talked to him early Saturday. It was “federal probation officials.” Link:
jack:
Oddly enough, “he was questioned by federal probation officials,” from “the U.S. Probation Office,” which is “the administrative office of the U.S. courts.” As you said, “probation is … under the court.” So all is right with the world, and you can stop wetting your bed now.
Once again: if Glenn says it (or quotes it), you can rest assured that it’s probably some kind of lie or distortion.
But don’t forget: MIDNIGHT!
Reynolds, as noted, is a hack, not to mention an idiot. A law professor not knowing the difference between the executive and judicial branches? A non-tenured lecturer, perhaps, but a law PERFESSER? Good grief.
He intimates that the authorities “tipped off” the media, but the fact is they were camped outside the guy’s front door since maybe Wednesday, as this makes clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EoC3-AKa2g
jkb:
You seem to be upset about the “undisclosed location.” Really? You’re upset because the authorities did not announce his new address to the press? Can you think of any reasons why the authorities would make that choice? Can you think of any reasons why Nakoula would beg the authorities to make that choice? Can you think of any reasons why Nakoula would beg the authorities to take him to a new location and not disclose it to anyone?
Are you seriously going to argue that it was wrong for the authorities to keep his new location secret?
knight:
Nakoula’s house has been surrounded by the press for days. It’s a circus. He’s also getting death threats. It’s in his interest to move to a place where the press can’t find him. This is also a good idea from the perspective of public safety.
There was “a gaggle of Sheriff’s deputies” because it’s a good idea to protect his life. It was “midnight” because the operation is easier and safer when there is less press around. And they took him downtown, and then to a new location, because this was a very good way to move him to a safer place while also keeping his new location secret from the press (and, therefore, from the people who want to kill him).
That’s why this was not done via “a telephone call from the man’s probation officer the next morning.” Then he would still be in this house, surrounded by press, which is a problem for his safety and also a problem for public safety.
The federal probation officials wanted to question him, and under the circumstances they had a duty to do so, but all the parties involved also had an interest in moving him to a new, safer, secret location. What was done seems like precisely the best way to accomplish all those goals.
But I realize that instead of looking for a simple and obvious explanation like this, you’d much rather invent a narrative about OBAMA THE TYRANT. FEMA CAMPS. MIDNIGHT!!!
@Fredw: I’m sad that I need to point this out but many films are edited with computers these days.
I think the technical term for this piece by Taylor is “punching up”.
Thank you, Dr. Taylor, for prompting so many delicious wingnut tears in one thread. Too bad they are just empty calories.
Why should Obama resign? A response to a few of the author’s insinuations:
I find it very interesting that the author is troubled by the brown shirt analogy.
Has he been similarly troubled by the repeated accusations of the Republican party and conservatives in this country as being Nazi’s? A quick review his past pieces found no title running to the defense of those defamed as Nazi’s.
Also, this is the height of a highly contested political race, with a president who feels free to use the laws of this country very loosely. That president is not going to be involved in, or at least consulted before a highly public law event occurs. Not on your life.
As for this President being loose with the law. His HHS secretary politicizing on federal time and given a slap on the wrist. His military Joint Chiefs calling a civilian asking him to curtail his first ammendment rights. Dimiss the case of the Black Panthers at sentencing after conviction. Selective enforcement of immigration laws for selective classes of people!
This last affront to the integrity of our laws deserves further attention. The selective enforcement of immigrations laws is so blatant that the US Border Patrol agents are suing for inability to stay within the laws. This enforcement “discretion” of immigration laws reaks of tyranny. Who needs a judicial system? Who needs a legislative system? They are so cumbersome to the will of one man.
This administration also seems to have selective sensitivity to open speech that offends religion. The film that makes trouble for him now, “the administration never condones speech that offends religion.” That is why Obama took 1,000,000$ from Bill Maher who produced a movie mocking Christianity. No brown shirts at Bill Maher’s door.
So given that this president has no respect for the laws of this country, given that he has high respect of sharia, yes he should resign.
If we don’t allow the government the freedom to send teams of armed agents to take blasphemous filmmakers from their homes to undisclosed interrogation facilities in the middle of the night, the terrorists will have won.
Obama should reactivate his fl**@wh********.gov “report your neighbor” program to make it easier for concerned patriotic citizens to identify blasphemers and traitors who are spreading disinformation about the regime.
Ultimately it’s all a misplaced slippery slope, right?
If the government questions this parolee “the next thing you know” they’ll question people who are not parolees.
Isn’t that like saying if the government arrests embezzlers “the next thing you know they’ll” be arresting accountants?
Well it’s even less serious than that, because no one has been arrested and we certainly have not heard from anyone in California who thinks their rights have been violated in this. Everyone we hear from has cooperated.
Oh forgot, “the next thing you know” it will be people who are not cooperating.
@mike: I don’t know, Mike, was Bill Maher on probation at the time?
OK Steven Taylor, You’re a Liberal, I got that part, but don’t insult our intelligence, please….Using probation for a White Collar, Non Violent crime to drag a free US citizen in for questioning in the middle of the night, because he did something to offend the sensibilties of Muslims is OK with you??? Good Lord, You Obama sychophants have to twist yourselves in all kinds of knots to wear those rose colored glasses I see.
@Smooth Jazz:
If you had video of someone being “dragged” that would improve your case considerably.
We have quite a few reports on the other hand of Nakoula “cooperating”
Who is actually ignoring reality here?
@michael reynolds:
I think you were the one who said that as the Romney campaign stalled we would see breakdown and finger pointing. That’s actually going on:
Republican lawmakers say Romney campaign needs to change course
This absurd “Obama should resign” spasm takes it to the nth.
This is what the concern trolls are reduced to, defending sending massive law enforcement over what is at best a probation violation.
Granted this film is so bad it would be used as torture if Gitmo was a prison for film critics but ask yourself this simple question: “If this man had made a film attacking Gay Marriage as Blasphemous against Islam, Christianity and Buddhism would your reaction be the same?”
I guess the right has finally found their story since Romney completely crapped his cage over the whole Libya thing.
@datechguy:
Google’s terms of use rank all those equally:
For some reason the far right wants to keep up a vid that does demean a group based on religion, and wants to make sure that no one checks out the guy who made it.
Your Sgt Shultz (you have to be old to get that one) isn’t really useful.
@Steven L. Taylor: Just because “there are claims” doesn’t mean that they are credible.
The thrust of you argument against Professor Reynolds shows that you clearly have some sort of personal argument with him, as you have yet to provide a legal basis for your argument.
This video is not the root cause of the violence, as you and this administration insist. A very dangerous Constitutional precedent has been set, yet you refuse to acknowledge it in favor of your ad hominem attacks on Reynolds.
@JoshB:
Yeah, Obama’s police state. So sane. So persuasive.
Since when did a possible probation violation (non violent offender) require a perp walk with half a dozen cops and a couple of news crews in the middle of the night? A blind man can see that this is Capital B BOGUS. It was an obvious way to publicly out the guy, scare the heck out of him and all other would be ‘offenders’ of Muslim feelings. Hey the film is lame and stupid, but so was Piss Christ and nobody raped(?) and killed a US Amb. over that, besides that didn’t come out around a year ago??? So what, Glen Reynolds sensationalized and when did that become uncommon?
@Jack Moss: Gosh, Mr Moss — do we understand that bank fraud is not a federal crime? Or stated another way, are you as much an idiot as Prof Reynolds even if you are a former “LEO” or even the frigging messiah?
@BackwardsBoy:
Yeah, yeah. Cooperation is such a dangerous precedent.
@datechguy:
A Probation Violation is hardly a minor thing, especially in Federal Court. If he did indeed violate the conditions of his probation by using a computer and/or using an alias, he could potentially be sent to Federal Prison to serve out the term of the sentence he was given, but which he has yet to serve since he was placed on probation instead.
Also, it is quite clear from the reports that the guy was appearing voluntarily and that the law enforcement you mention was in place largely for his own safety.
@Chris Berez: If the bloggers and the leftest commenters knew anything about reality, they would know that such techenical violations of proabation are, as a matter of administrative policy, ignored unless some government authority wants to use it as leverage against the probationer for some other issue. Further, if the subject of the video had been christianty rather than islam, the justice department wouldn’t have any instrest in it. The video was the pretext, not the cause for murderous behavior by one infantilized group (moslems) whom are now being absoloved of responsibility by another infantilized goup (the poliotical left of the US) who are beclowning themselves in the process.
@texas jim:
So your position is that parole violations are, and should be, ignored?
Awesome. That’s so much more reasonable than what the “leftest commenters” are saying.
@jukeboxgrad:
SLT and jukeboxgrad… reading Glenn Reynolds so we don’t have to.
The author of this story got the facts wrong in his attempt to a) protect Obama and b) slam Glenn Reynolds.
1) Nakoula Basseley Nakoula voluntarily went with the Los Angeles County sheriff deputies for an interview. There were no handcuffs. He was never in ‘custody’ as reported.
2) After the interview, the deputies returned Nakoula to his car. He was not arrested/detained for any probation violation as claimed by the author of this blog.
“He is gone,” Steven Whitmore, spokesman for the sheriff’s office, told the news wire services. “We don’t know where he went. He said he is not going back to his home.”
Does that sound like the response from law enforcement regarding a probation violator? No, they would say they arrested him for a probation violation.
How did I do?
@Blue:
You failed. What you described was a reasonable process to question a parolee who might have violated his terms.
It’s really absurd, that they did the right thing, and let him go, bugs you now?
@Blue: Well, then, your main beef is with Reynolds, who described it a brown-shirted midnight raid (literally!) on Nakoula’s house with press in tow.
While I did use the word “custody” (in the broadest sense of the word, since he was in the presence of law enforcement), I never mentioned handcuffs nor did I say he was arrested.
I find your critique an odd defense of Reynolds’ post.
You did catch the part where Reynolds used the incident to call for the president to resign?
I am not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that I am exaggerating the event, but it wasn’t me who invoked Nazi imagery and called for presidential resignations.
@Blue:
Seriously, you are cracking me up now. The fact that Nakoula is out on his own is proof that he was oppressed by the (cue “Dennis” from the Holy Grail) “violence inherent in the system.”
@Steven L. Taylor:
No no, Blue’s logic is that since they let him go, they must have been Nazis in questioning him.
(Everybody knows Nazis let you go, that’s what makes them Nazis!)
@BackwardsBoy:
No, not a personal argument but, rather, a professional one. There is a difference.
I have never met Reynolds nor do I know much about him personally. However, I am in academia, as is Reynolds, and I have high expectations of persons in that profession.
@Smooth Jazz:
SJ, I think you left your brain on your pillow this morning. You do understand that someone on probation by definition is not free. Probation is a conditional release.
A general observation: I find it interesting that so many defenders of Reynolds are mostly concerned about the Left (it is frequently capitalized above) and that several are mostly concerned with the fact that if the film criticized some other religion no one would care (e.g., texas jim ” if the subject of the video had been christianty rather than islam, the justice department wouldn’t have any instrest in it.” as well as references to Bill Maher’s “Religilous” in such a way as to make me assume this is some internet or talk radio meme).
All of this sounds like more like tribalism than it does an argument, I would note.
Beyond any of that: why is it so hard to recognize that this is a story not because the movie was anti-Islamic (those aren’t that hard to find) but that the reason this is a story is because of the linkage of the film to ongoing riots aimed at US embassies. This is no small thing. I am NOT saying that the film is at fault or that the filmmakers should be prosecuted for the film. I AM saying that it should be obvious why there would be press and governmental interest in persons associated with the film.
@mike:
Yes, I find the casual and inappropriate application of that label to be troubling in any context and found it problematic when Bush was president.
@john personna:
Well, of course!
@john personna:
“I know nothinnnnnggggg!”
And you guys would’v been every bit as nonchalant about this before January 20, 2009….
@Jim Treacher:
What “this” Jim? That a guy cooperates, and leaves? So scary.
Seriously, I can think of a far-left parallel. Now and then leftists find a darling in prison, some murderer that they think is actually a victim of the state. That is as crazy as Reynolds making Nakoula his darling.
@Steven L. Taylor: If the film had been about Christianity Glenn Reynolds and his comment thugs would want the film makers head on a platter.
One last general thought: if Reynolds had simply noted the story and expressed reservations about the event, as Doug did in his post, that is a legitimate response.
But, instead we get: “By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath.” This then leads to a call for the president’s resignation.
If one cannot see how this is hyperbolic and unreasonable, I suspect I will be unable to persuade you otherwise.
How the questioning of a felon on probation for 90 minutes (which was done voluntarily, according to press accounts) is equivalent in any way to Nazism (which, in case anyone does not know, is what the brown shirt reference is) does not understand what Nazism was. Since I would like to think that a person with a professorship at a major university ought to have at least a passing understanding of the concept of Nazism, I find Reynolds worthy of criticism on that count. That he considers me noting this as a form of hackery in an update to his post is telling because it is a non-response (also mischaracterized my post as calling this as being “routine” which I did not).
I would ask if we are all now clear, but I know that the persons to whom this is directed either a) will not read this or, b) if they do, will not give it a dispassionate reading.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Seconding this.
If it was simply “Mr Reynolds” that was posting this, it would be just another bit of tribalism and poor analysis.
But the fact that this is “Professor Reynolds” selling this type of shoddy thinking is akin to a Doctor selling sugary snake-oil as a cure-all for cancer. It’s both abusing the authority the title grants and abusing the training that earned the title in order to maintain and profit from his audience.
@mattb:
Indeed.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Dough was overboard but still had hold of the gunwale. Reynolds is swimming free.
Sorry Doug, I did the baker’s error.
@michael reynolds:
“Setting aside this particular manufactured outrage, how cool is it that 52 days out this is what the wingnuttery has to serve up?”
It’s time for another empty chair day!!! Post your pictures of an empty presidential chair on the internet, with a flag nearby of course (God bless America!).
Reynolds went full Godwin barely a 100 words in, when authorities decide to question a felon whose film led to riots throughout the Middle East (you remember the Middle East–our interests there are so important we fought our last 3 wars there and have troops throughout the region).
But funny, when police are pepper spraying liberal protesters, or when they are instigating criminal behavior in various Occupy groups, not a peep.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Your forgot to add “heh” to that indeed.
Are you really trying to pretend that sending a half dozen deputies a couple of FBI agents and a truckload of reporters to a guy’s house at 2 in the morning to take him away for questioning is just standard procedure when dealing with a non-violent parolee?
Mark Steyn:
Has anyone seen any evidence to support his claim that I highlighted? It seems that Steyn is doing the usual wingnut thing: making shit up.
@the guy that moves pianos for a living….: Are you really going to pretend that the government sent the press?
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.
Cool to see the sudden, intense embrace of the rights of the accused. Maybe those concerned could send a few donations to the ACLU.
The GOP has become the Million Abe Simpsons March: An entire army of old coots shaking their fists in rage at empty chairs while ranting about black helicopters.
@Steven L. Taylor:
That “theory” has appeared numerous times in this commentary. Anyone who puts it forward is ignoring the fact that the press have been continuously camped out on Nakoula’s front lawn since his identity was revealed on Thursday.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/media-frenzy-continues-outside-home-of-alleged-anti-muslim-filmmaker/
Reviewing all the “me too” posts via memeorandum, I think the hard right realized this weekend that Mitt is a loser, and so just decided to collectively lose their shit.
Crazy train from here to November?
(Mitt’s opportunity to Sister S, or to join the madness.)
@john personna:
We know which he will choose. He would need to have character to have his Sister Souljah moment.
@Samuel Dijk: @mantis: Midnight: it’s the new You Betcha.
@Libert60: No, the ACLU are lefties, which translates into winger as “Fascists”.
@john personna:
It isn’t new- they lost their shit on January 20,2009, and only periodically quieted down.
After the inauguration, some winger put out a videogame set in 2011 featuring a Red Dawn-like plotline, there were all sorts of apocalyptic predictions of FEMA camps and death panels.
Gawd only knows what will be happening on January 21, 2013.
I don’t know if someone that knew the cops were coming tipped them off or if the press was just camped out….doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether the authorities are using standard procedure with a non violent felon. Do they usually show up in force to haul the suspect away in the middle of the night or do they usually call and have the guy report to his parole/probation officer? The latter seems far more likely to me.
But then you wouldn’t get the “Invisible Man” pic to try and appease the mobs in the ME.
@mattb:
As we all know, the lame stream media, aka “the press”, are the shock troops used by Obama the usurper to enforce his socialization of these once great united states of America.
Have recently visited any of the reeducation camp organized by your local community? Or have you eaten any organic food (there are mind control drugs in them)?
Wow, it certainly seems that Glenn Reynolds is substantiating Santorum’s Law – “We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.”
guy:
This is one of those situations where the same idiotic questions are going to come up perpetually, no matter how many times they are answered.
The group was large for his protection. If a small group had been used, and he was attacked and harmed, you would be whining that the group was too small.
There is no evidence that FBI was present. However, they are involved because Nakoula et al have asked the FBI for protection.
The press located him on Wednesday. They got there first, and they have been there for days. His front lawn has been a media circus. And if the authorities had done anything to chase the press away, you would be whining about that.
It was shortly after midnight, and the authorities did it at that time because they were waiting for most of the press to get bored and go home. This enhanced safety for him, the press, and the public.
“Standard procedure” in this unusual situation would be foolish because this person is under extreme death threats. Protecting him and the public meant getting him out of there carefully, and not stupidly sticking with “standard procedure.”
And you omitted one more asinine talking point, so I’ll insert it for you:
He’s been cowering in his house for days, unable to escape to a safer place because the press would follow him. The authorities have now helped him solve that problem. This enhances his safety, and public safety, and was probably done at his request.
You have already been shown proof that the truth is the latter. You “don’t know” because you are motivated to not know. This is called being actively, intentionally misguided and ignorant. A key feature of Republicanism.
If he had been left to his own devices to travel to the parole office he might have arrived dead.
If the authorities had prevented the press from taking and publishing that photo, you would be whining about that. Heads I win, tails you lose. And he was dressed that way at his own request, and for his own safety.
@Nick:
Nailed it. Professor Reynolds is walking around today with teh internets equivalent of a “Kick Me” sign taped on his back.
That’s analogous to “Summer intern gopher at MSNBC calls on General Electric CEO to resign,” or to “Buck private calls on Joint Chiefs Chairman to resign,” or perhaps even more aptly to that of “Student body president at rural high school calls on governor to resign.”
Speaking of which, one of the primary reasons why the political Internet never went anywhere (even most of the “noteworthy” blogs have less than 1/5th of the audiences of tiny cable TV shows nobody knows about) is that quickly after inception it cocooned itself into two adjacent and perpetual echo chambers. Disproportionately these echo chambers are made up of full-time academics and journalists.
The point being that in the Blogosphere there’s very little to nothing in the way of reality checks. The chances of Obama resigning his office are the same as Glenn Reynolds’ chances of becoming president: zero.point.zero. Moreover these types of “debates” only can exist within the confines of the political Internet. Out in Realityville people are too busy to be this banal.
Oh, I see….it is for his own good.
That is pretty pathetic.
@the guy that moves pianos for a living….:
Maybe you were wishing for some crazy fanatic to kill him?
While we are it, should the government pay for protection for this guy? Or should he pay for it himself?
guy:
Yes, exactly. Doing it the way they did it is for his safety, and for the safety of everyone else involved (the press, the officers, and the public). Can you explain why doing it some other way would have been safer? Are you going to argue that he isn’t really getting death threats, and that safety should not be a consideration?
I realize you’re ignoring the reports that Nakoula et al got in touch with FBI, not vice versa. That’s because you ignore all inconvenient facts. You also probably think that Nakoula wants desperately to announce his new location to the world, and Obama is preventing him from doing so. Right?
@Tsar Nicholas:
I usually bristle at your overly-generalized place names…….but man, you nailed it here.
@Tsar Nicholas:
There are moderate sites. This is a moderate site.
Wait, I thought he was picked up for parole violations, now you are saying he is just in protective custody so the jihadi types don’t get him?
Get your stories/rationalizations straight guys.
There is an American citizen being scapegoated by the president and harassed by the authorities for his exercising his freedom of speech and you are desperately trying to justify it.
You are what you accuse the right of being.
PS I think he should pay for his own security guards.
No, I didn’t say that. Your reading comprehension sucks.
He has been questioned regarding possible parole violations, and at the same time he has been helped to escape from the press that has been surrounding and endangering him since Wednesday.
The threats against him account for the unusual way he was picked up, and they also account for the fact that he ended up in a new place.
@the guy that moves pianos for a living….:
You really are confused. He was never in custody, he cooperated, he was escorted and shielded for his protection.
Is any of that really hard?
@Dr. C.: “It is his “behavior” (Reynolds’s word) – not any specific legal action – and specifically the behavior of these past few days since 9/11/12 – which has rendered Obama unfit to hold office.”
Since you state right up front that Obama has committed no “specific legal action” that renders him unfit to hold office, I have to ask if the “behavior” you object to is him being a Democrat or him being black.
The usual suspects are not quite lining up the way they’re supposed to. For example, I think Patterico is experiencing some cognitive dissonance. Of course he has his obligatory post last night citing Glenn, but in a late update he says this:
Popehat is a slight problem, because Frey (Patterico) has a history of praising and citing him. It’s a bit inconvenient to find him now saying this:
First emphasis added. Second emphasis in the original.
John Cole summarizes the problem:
@Steven L. Taylor: My goal is not to defend another blogger but to refute your hypothesis that Nakoula violated his parole and was taken into ‘custody’ as you alleged in your post. There are no charges, no arrest, and the man is free. As far as Reynold’s thoughts go, sure its hyperbole but that does not excuse your’s either.
The Obama White House has asked Youtube to remove the video in question is not even mentioned. Why?
BTW what’s with your constant Godwin’s Law on this site?
It is like a meeting of the minds between Officer Barbrady and Nurse Ratched….
OB: Nothing to see here, move along….
NR: Besides, it is for his own good…
Maybe this guy’s life would be safer if the administration wasn’t trying to blame him for their failure in the ME.
@the guy that moves pianos for a living….:
Sometimes there is nothing to see, and sometimes you do have to be a little crazy to see more.
buzz buzz:
As usual, you have a hard time separating fantasy and reality. No, he was not taken “to undisclosed interrogation facilities” (link):
Would you like the exact address? I’m pretty sure there’s only one sheriff’s station in Cerritos, and I can tell you where it is. Are you upset because they didn’t tell us which room?
You can stop wetting your bed now.
Republicans are in favor of enforcing the law, except when they aren’t.
If this was merely a matter of probation violation, why was there a whole army of police there, why did they wait until midnight to bring the man in, and why was the whole thing recorded by a horde of reporters and cameramen? A mere probation violation is surely no justification for all that.
Stepping back, anyone sympathetic to Reynolds but sane should worry about using paranoid delusion as a movement hobby horse.
@Eric Florack:
I gather your position is that the government shouldn’t bring in people who violate parole? Why bother with parole if there’s no penalty for violating it – wouldn’t it be cheaper to not bother with the paper work and send them free?
Do you have to make it so easy? Recently I said this:
In a comment which answered 100% of your deeply stupid questions.
If there was nothing to see, why was the press there?
Because they were hoping that something exciting would happen. Trouble is, nothing exciting happened, except from the perspective of people like you who are easily excited.
@the guy that moves pianos for a living….
Gawker, etc? You know why they were there, a political story exploded on the California media beat. We are not short reporters or Paparazzi.
@Blue:
I never said he was arrested. Again: your defense of Reynolds on this score makes no sense: he was the one alleging Nazi-like tactics in raiding a citizens’ house at midnight.
Because they think it is contributing to turmoil in the ME. You may have noticed the riots filled with rioters claiming that the video is a motivating factor in their actions. I, for one, do not think that removing the video from YouTube would make any difference. On the other hand, I have not problem with the request. You will note, I hope, the utter lack of consequences for Google’s noncompliance with the request?
I have not used the term “Godwin’s Law” (and I am pretty sure I have rarely, if ever, used the term). I do insist that people use specific term correctly, especially university professors.
@Dr. C.: You have addressed THE critical issue. I challenge anyone who has posted on this issue: Can you honestly say that it’s common procedure for someone who is suspected of violating the terms of his probation (and, indeed, by most standards, not even a gross violation; ie, possession of firearm) to be brought in for questioning at MIDNIGHT, by a group of law enforcement officials large enough to handle a major bank robbery? When you add to that situation the presence of FEDERAL officers, it gets a little hard to argue this was something other than a well-orchestrated, from-the-top-down misuse of power. If this man’s probation officer believed there was a probation violation, the appropriate reaction would have resembled NOTHING like this. Using the issue of the “offensive” film is convenient for muddying the waters.
@cb essex: No one is saying that this was a normal situation.
And it is not normal because the normal probation violator is typically not connected, even tangentially, with ongoing international incidences (note the plural). Indeed, the whole point would be the lack of normalcy here. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Again: read my post.
@cb essex: Also: most of your questions are answered in the comment thread above (if you are really interested in potential explanations).
cb:
Someone else who thinks it’s a good idea to ask a bunch of questions that have already been answered.
Like I said:
john:
“Some murderer that they think is actually a victim of the state” is a nice description of George Zimmerman. But that story is a bit stale, so the usual suspects are now hoping to make Nakoula their next Zimmerman. They love turning creeps into heros.
steven:
Minor correction: all the reports I’ve seen say it was about 30 minutes. Link:
@john personna: Yes, SOME violations should be ignored; but that’s not what I said. I said that some (actually most) normally are.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Maybe blue is just young and doesn’t know who the original brownshirts were, nor that Glenn Renynolds was making a direct Nazi reference.
texas:
Try reading what Popehat said.
nick:
Also not a peep about torture and lying us into war.
@MM: So many of you here think that this man was taken in for questioning in the middle of the night–oh yes, to avoid the press–because he violated his parole? Is it because violating his parole tied in with an international incident for which he can’t be blamed due to that nasty First Amendment? Would that justify it? Exactly how?
He was questioned because his parole violation was serious. Try reading what Popehat said.
He was moved in this manner because he is indeed “tied in with an international incident” and therefore safety is a major consideration. Safety of everyone: him, the officers, the press and the public.
This has only been explained a jillion times. But wingnuts will always stick with their favorite position.
@Steven L. Taylor: Mr. Taylor (et al): Of course it’s not a “normal situation.” Your argument should be with those who attempt to pass it off as such. Also, when you say the film is connected with international incidences, are you attributing this connection to those who declared it to be connected? If I publish my own version of a “Satanic Verses” book, I believe that, no matter how obscure, if it garnered the attention of the extremists, it could very easily gather steam to the point where it could be my face in that picture. I read your article; I understand it’s in response to Reynold’s article. You can belittle my points until you’re exhausted–I KNOW this midnight foray tramples our laws on many fronts. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to say Pres. Obama’s administration was in some way instrumental in announcing to the (Muslim) world that we are addressing the issue of the film that “provoked” these international incidences.
Name one.
@cb essex:
The risks are high, but then so are the benefits.
Is politics so dead in modern America, that people have to pay attention to Glenn Beck. I guess spending time thinking about someone who is totally irrelevant like Glenn Beck helps people ignore those who really have power in the U.S.
@cb essex:
You are the one (amongst others) who brought it up–or at least that is how your comment came across.
Also:
Knowing is wonderful, but you still have to make an argument if you want to convince people of the quality of said knowledge.
In truth, I am not entirely sure what you point.
@Steven L. Taylor:
1) Quibbling on your part. You wrote, “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (aka, Sam Bacile) has been taken into custody”. The legal definition of ‘custody’ is: “law enforcement officials’ act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person”.
Might I suggest you use the term properly or change your post to reflect what truly happened which was a voluntary meeting.
2) I am not here to defend anyone’s hyperbole, so Reynolds is not germane to our discussion. I am discussing what you wrote.
3) Your stunning admission that you have no problem, especially as an educator, with the federal government attempting to restrict unpopular free speech in the United States is disturbing on many fronts. It does not matter that Google was not punished for refusing.
What other lawful examples of free speech do you wish the government to attempt to restrict next?
There’s already a 146-comment thread about that. This thread does not have to become a duplicate of that thread.
@Blue: I take the point about “custody” but if you are going to be such a stickler about vocabulary, you cannot call a request that a video be removed with an “attempt to restrict” speech.
Indeed, I would argue that your use of “restrict” in context is far more incorrect than my usage of the term “custody” (which, as I noted above in response to your comment, was used in the broadest sense of the term).
Ultimately: what’s your point?
@Steven L. Taylor:
What’s the point? I should think the point is obvious: Obama bad! Obama other.
That’s been the point ever since the so-called conservatives noticed that Obama wasn’t just sporting a nice Hawaiian tan.
At this time there’s no educating these people, the educable ones have already been saved. We just have to wait for them to finally age out and die.
@Steven L. Taylor:
If the government demands that an unpopular example of free speech be removed from the public domain is not an example of an ‘attempt to restrict’ speech, then I guess I am done here. There is no reasoning just an echo chamber of nonsense.
Here is an example perhaps that you can relate to.
Close your eyes and imagine the scenario.
It’s 2007, and you just wrote a post highly critical of President Bush and made fun of his ears. President Bush found it offensive and the White House contacted your ISP and demanded that your blog be removed from the public domain. However, your ISP in the interests of our Constitutional rights refused because your content was lawful and just your opinion.
Give what I laid out, you are still going to say that this was not an ‘attempt to restrict’ your free speech rights?
@Steven L. Taylor:
If you squint until you eyes bleed, you can see all kinds of things. Scary things.
@M.L.Johnson: Look at what jukebox grad has been posting throughout this thread. He answers all of your loaded questions. Repeatedly.
Look, I find the Obama administration talking to Youtube disturbing. Really I do. But this situation is not even close to what Reynolds, or his band of howler monkeys is claiming.
Is it standard procedure that a fraudster is going to be brought in for using the internet? No. But this is not a standard case! As an analogy, Every day there are thefts and most police departments do nothing except ask the victim to fill out a report.
Yet almost daily there are reports of thieves getting arrested for posting evidence of their crimes on facebook. If you make it really easy on the police, don’t be surprised when the police get involved.
It’s not like this guy was arrested (AT MIDNIGHT) by Obama thugs the day he posted something to the internet. He was questioned (not perp-walked) and released to a safer place than he started after he drew literal worldwide attention to himself.
@Blue:
Stupid or dishonest?
YouTube is not “the public domain” and has “terms of service” quoted above.
Gawd, why do you people make us go in these circles?
@Blue:
You got a citation? I mean….I don’t think one need be accused or convicted to be legally detained. But then again….not sure you’re really up to challenging this.
“So and so has been taken into custody” is a statement of fact, one that cannot be challenged by quibbling over the “legal definition” of the word “custody.” Better to just accept the term as a reflection of what actually occurred.
Also….try as some might, this will never become a free speech issue. If what’s-his-face were an upstanding citizen engaging in “unpopular free speech,” maybe….
But he’s a convicted criminal whose speech was restricted as a condition of his probation. If you want to argue the free speech angle, forget about Bacile and his movie.
You’re going to have to argue that convicted criminals deserve access to unlimited speech, even after they’ve voluntarily gave it up as a condition of their sentence. Good luck with that.
@Blue:
Again, let’s consider our words: asking if the video could be taken down in conformity with YouTube’s own policies is a far cray from a “demand.”
Except, of course, this is in no way analogous to what is being discussed here.
On this we may agree, although not for the same reason (and yet, I continue to try and engage…).
Oh, what a surprise! I’m unable to submit my latest post! Guess I’ll take my comments to one of those sites where the First Amendment applies to EVERYONE.
@jukeboxgrad: Thanks. I had seen 30-90 (but that may have just been in comments) range and went with the longest to give the benefit of the doubt to the worst possible interpretation.
@cb essex:
You mean like Instapundit? 😉
Don’t panic, let me see if the automatic filters kicked in for some reason.
@cb essex: I see nothing in the moderation queue. Perhaps you had a technical glitch?
But, as an aside, you do not have a first amendment right to post here. You are here as our guest. But, I will note: there has been no attempt to silence you, only to politely engage you.
@Blue:
Ok… this is a load of horse shit on numerous levels — a strawman that bear little resemblance to what’s being discussed.
1. Video making fun of one man’s ears != Video intended to provoke a highly volatile group of people.
NOTE: I am not saying that that act of provocation is necessarily illegal. I would argue that this video is about as grey an area as one could come up with (less akin to directly shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre than planting a land mine primed to go off when someone discovered it.
Further, you set up a situation where a president is doing something simply because “he doesn’t like it” — devoid of any broader real world facts.
2. Requesting You Tube examine whether or not this fits their TOS != asking an ISP to shut you down.
There is no promise of free speech on YouTube. It’s a regulated distribution medium. This request in no way prevents the individual from (a) going to one of YouTubes competitors and placing the video there or (b) purchasing their own hosting space and hosting the video themselves.
I’m not a particularly big fan of the request to YouTube. That said, that’s entirely different than *Demanding* an ISP to take your account down.
Thanks for demonstrating that you cannot honestly construct a counter argument.
@cb essex: One more: this is a thread that now has over 200 comments and the post’s author has tried to actively engage with the commenters. How many sites do you actually find that to be the case?
As such, I find your outrage over what you think to be a denial of your right to speak to more than a bit rude.
@Steven L. Taylor:
In fact, you have very few *first amendment rights* to post anywhere on the internet. Likewise, Dr Laura, for example, did not have a first amendment right to a radio program.
Again, for those who “love” the Constitution, please take the time to understand what it actually says.
Any commercial space (which includes stores and just about any website) is, generally speaking, a first amendment free zone. The degree to which you are extended first amendment courtesies is based on the proprietors.
@Steven L. Taylor:
There’s a chance that he directly responded to @jukebox using the “Reply” link… for some unknown reason that’s still an instant ticket to the moderation cue.
@superdestroyer:
The post is about Glenn Reynolds, which explains why his name is used in the headline.
@Herb:
Entirely correct btw. The fact is, upon conviction of a crime, you give up any number of rights (including the right to vote) as a penalty for breaking social contracts.
Most commenters here seem to conveniently ignore that Mr Nakoula is not just “some average” citizen.
@mike:
Honestly, this is the best thread of the year.
So, the $1 Million campaign contribution from Bill Maher to President Obama was really ‘protection money’ intended to keep the FBI away from an investigation of Maher?
@de stijl:
But why get excited about someone who irrelevant to policy, governance, or politics in the U.S.
Do people want to get excited about Glenn Beck because it creates a great excuse to not pay attention to what is really relevant in the U.S.
Are we sure that the aka is not “M Becile”?
@al-Ameda:
Isn’t that obvious?
Hmmm. Try this. Take six shots of whiskey in rapid succession.
Okay, now isn’t it obvious?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Mr. Taylor,
Do you consider it ok for the FBI to get involved in routine probation violations? Do probation violation matters normally get addressed at midnight? And how many times have you seen probation violators taken away with a scarf over their faces, with TV cameras all around them?
If you really think the fig leaf of the probation violation is good enough to apologize away all this, then you are incredibly obtuse.
brian:
Do you consider it ok to join a thread by asking a bunch of stupid questions that have already been answered multiple times?
Like I said:
Thanks for being part of a group that is going to keep on proving how right I am.
As far as I can tell, this was the actual number of actual TV cameras: zero. Have you noticed the noticeable absence of video posted anywhere? Glenn said this:
You’re making a common mistake: not realizing that most of his statements are some kind of lie.
cb:
Do you mean Glenn’s site, which doesn’t allow comments? Never did, never will? Or do you mean sites like Hotair, where the comment registration is highly restricted? Which mythical righty site are you thinking of? Most righty sites allow no comments, or drastically restrict comments.
I realize Steven already asked you essentially the same question.
And thanks for letting everyone know that you don’t understand the First Amendment.
matt:
Yes, I’ve heard that and I don’t know why it happens. Would be nice to get it fixed.
In the meantime, it’s easy enough to just not use the Reply button. The hard part is knowing that this button is the cause of the problem.
steven:
That makes sense. I didn’t think of that. Thanks for explaining.
@Brian:
Can’t answer for Dr. Taylor, but considering the circumstances –multiple embassies being stormed abroad in protest of said video– I don’t think this is all that unusual….or alarming.
I just noticed this:
So the police were there because he asked them to protect him; he and his pals had also asked the FBI for protection (although there is no indication that FBI was present when he left the house early Saturday morning).
Starting Wednesday, his front yard was a zoo, with lots of press and police around. Ed Morrissey has pointed out correctly that this was a dangerous situation:
Too bad Ed is not quite clever enough to realize that the police had a responsibility to deal with that danger, and they did so in a completely professional and appropriate manner: by getting him out of there with a large escort, and at night when most of the press wasn’t around.
They ended the danger to this neighborhood by moving him somewhere else, where the press hasn’t found him (yet). And along the way, federal probation officials spent 30 minutes questioning him about his possible parole violation, which is something else that was necessary and appropriate, and it made sense to do this at the same time.
I also notice this:
The move was carefully planned; it involved the local police and also federal probation officials. Nakoula undoubtedly participated in the planning and was happy to be escorted out of there. It needed to be done, and there was no better time to do it, and no better method for doing it.
Turning this into something sinister is yet another vivid demonstration of wingnuts engaging in mass hysteria over nothing.
@Herb:
Or rather, as Dr Taylor keeps pointing out, there is nothing routine about the current situation.
It seems only those who have a particular political axe to grind are attempting to pretend that Mr Nakoula is an “average” citizen and this particular situation is in any way “routine.”
One small point, from someone who doesn’t pass Glenn Reynold’s laugh test, because apparently I am in the tank for Obama or something:
Part of Nakoula’s sentence was restitution. Specifically, he was supposed to repay more than $700,000 he defrauded from banks.
One of the reasons for terms forbidding aliases, and for requiring supervisees to disclose jobs and other sources of income, and for requiring supervisees to disclose bank accounts and other financial instruments they are using, is allow the PO to do his or her job of making sure that the supervisee is paying restitution or fine to the extent they are able, and to prevent the supervisee to plead poverty while hiding assets or income.
The evidence suggests that Nakoula, as “Sam Bacile,” was using an alias to produce a movie, and was involved in paying vendors, actors, and crew. Some of his statements — which, of course, might have been lies designed to train Muslim rage about this film against Jews — suggested that he was soliciting money for the movie.
Of course, I suppose it’s possible that he got his PO’s permission for all that first. Or it’s possible that he didn’t personally handle any money, or bank accounts, or transactions, and wasn’t paid anything.
But I would expect federal probation to check it out.
Bear in mind that the federal criminal justice system is considerably less resource-strapped than the state systems. I have prosecuted and defended people in probation or supervised release revocation proceedings for some very petty shit.
Of course, it’s still possible that someone in the Obama administration reached out to the Probation office — an arm of the judiciary, not of the Executive — and influenced the proceeding. If so, heads should roll.
@Steven L. Taylor:
ZING!
@Ken:
Well, welcome to hackery-ville.
Thanks for the insights. I had read your post on the subject, which I thought was quite good, but had not gotten around to blogging it.
@michael reynolds:
Okay, I smoked some weed and listened to the Dead’s Live in Europe 1972′ album.
And yeah, you’re right, It’s all clear to me now.
ken:
Hi Ken, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I don’t know if you noticed me citing Frey citing you. I bet most people reading the comment you posted here don’t realize it’s the same person.
Steven, jukebox and mattb, at this point the only appropriate response to the stupid, already answered questions, is the Picard facepalm pic. I admire you gentlemen for your perseverance and civic mindedness, but sweet jesus, it has to stop.
@KansasMom:
🙂
Americans who protest the Iraq War are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and thereby threatening the troops’ lives and should shut up.
Man on probation makes offensive movie that predictably ignites the Moslem world, American civil servants actually die, no problem.
I haven’t taken Reynolds seriously for years. That being said, the brown shirt comment is beneath contempt. What is so contemptible about the frivolous use of Nazi comparisons is not that they insult the intended target, but that they trivialize the suffering of those who lived under Nazi occupation and terror.
The idea that coming to take someone into custody – in full view of the media – is anything remotely like invading nearly an entire continent, crimes against humanity so horrific that they resulted in the legal codification of the term genocide, and the near destruction of a continent is risible.
For anyone who has ever visited Dachau (I have) or Auschwitz (I haven’t) the sense of overwhelming evil is palpable. Last May, I visited Germany with my wife (I lived there for three years) and we made a point to visit Remagen. The Nazi’s fired V2’s at Remagen in order to destroy the bridge, resulting in the deaths of numerous German citizens.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the comparison is baseless.
A very important point. I think Steven was getting at the same problem when he said this:
What an awesome thread, and I’m sure no one has enjoyed it more than me. I appreciate everyone who added to the fun, but I want to give a special shout-out to this group (in order of appearance):
Samuel Dijk
David
Moderate Mom
J. Knight
Zaggs
Paul A’Barge
mike
Smooth Jazz
datechguy
BackwardsBoy
Floyd Alsbach
Jim Treacher
Rlynh
Brian
Some new names along with some names we’ve seen before. Anyway, what’s special about these 14? I think of them as the One-Shot Drive-By squad. They each posted exactly one comment, and in every instance it was unintentionally humorous (often this was accomplished by mindlessly regurgitating Glenn’s harebrained talking points even though they had already been addressed, over and over again). But then instead of sticking around to share in the fun, they all promptly disappeared! What a disappointment.
It’s like someone who walks into a room, farts, and then sneaks out without waiting to hear all the applause they have earned. But they brought us lots of laughs, and I’m sure they were just overcome by shyness. Hope y’all come back soon!
@Eric Florack: “Ambassador Chris Stevens, and his three staff members, were fully believing in the leftist mantra that all we had to do was show respect and we’d win the day. ”
You start with a lie, and lie all the way down from there.
@al-Ameda:
I totally listened ti Europe 72 last night (side 4). Crazy.
Just above I expressed my appreciation for Glenn’s minions, and now I realize it’s only fair that I do the same for him. He’s a first-class liar, one of the best you could ever hope to find, and he’s particularly skilled at lying by omission. Students of lying should study this article of his because it’s a superb example.
The authorities who moved Nakoula early Saturday morning had two reasons to be interested in him:
A) Federal probation officials had a duty to question him because they knew he had probably violated his parole in a serious way. People in doubt about this need to read what Popehat said.
B) Once the press located him on Wednesday, there was a continuous media frenzy on his front lawn that was creating a dangerous situation in his neighborhood. Local police had an interest in addressing this problem.
A good report about that media frenzy, from the local paper, is here:
(Emphasis added.) It’s important to be aware of both A and B. If B was not a factor, A could have been addressed in a variety of simple ways: e.g., talking to Nakoula on the phone, or having one agent visit him. Trouble is, these methods would address problem A but do nothing to address problem B. Problem B is harder.
Addressing problem B required finesse, planning and coordination. It meant getting him out of there, and helping him escape from the press. Doing this safely meant using more than just one or two officers, because a mob of reporters trying to get at him could create a dangerous situation (especially because someone trying to attack him could hide in that mob). Doing this safely also meant doing it late at night, after most of the reporters (and other bystanders) had left.
A key thing to notice about Glenn’s article is how carefully he avoids telling his readers anything about B. But of course it’s quite important for him to hide B, because his entire point is that there were a bunch of cops, and it was done at night. B is a perfectly good explanation for those facts, and Glenn wants to his readers to not know that there is a perfectly good explanation for those facts. That perfectly good explanation would entirely undermine the alternate explanation Glenn prefers to offer: that it was done at night and with lots of cops strictly for the purpose of intimidation and punishment. That’s why the word “midnight” appears in his article seven times.
An important skill for Glenn is hiding critical facts while creating the impression that he’s being thorough. He creates an impression of thoroughness by using lots of words. His article includes over 1400 (both his own words and words of others that he quotes). He also creates an impression of thoroughness by calling on lots of sources. In this article he references 13 sources. This includes articles he cites (using 7 links) and readers he quotes. (All those sources have this in common: they say virtually nothing about B. So Glenn avoids mentioning B, and also carefully selects a bunch of sources that don’t mention B.) He also creates an impression of thoroughness by posting lots of updates. This article has 5.
The idea is that a lazy reader ends up thinking something like this: ‘it’s a long article, and he cited lots of sources, and he updated it repeatedly; therefore I can assume he’s being thorough and telling me everything I need to know.’
It’s interesting to notice the article Ed Morrissey posted three hours before Glenn posted his article (I also mentioned this article above):
Ed has a special perspective on this, because this story happened in his hometown. We know that Glenn knows about this article by Ed, because four hours after posting “WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN,” Glenn posted a new item citing Ed’s article. But there is nothing to connect Glenn’s later item to his earlier item, so readers of the earlier item can remain safely ignorant of B.
Glenn has a difficult job, and he does it with great skill and devotion. It’s worth examining his work closely because it helps us understand why so many Republicans are so ignorant.
Oops, I missed something. I said this:
I meant to say this: it’s quite important for him to hide B, because his entire point is that there were a bunch of cops, and it was done at night, and the press was there.
Those are all things that are hard to explain if B is not part of the picture, but they are all things that are easy to explain if B is part of the picture. So Glenn carefully painted a picture which hid B.
Picking up this guy for parole violation now, after he had been ignored for yers, and is now the high profile offensive video guy, looks like a very transparent pretext to me. It might be legal, but is still stinks. It reminds me of the book that said that the laws are so complex now that everybody is guilty of a felony, and doesn’t know it, and the gov can get us whenever they wish. I wont say it is grounds for resignation, but glenn Reynolds is right in pointing out that it is an abuse of prosecutorial disgression, it stinks, and smacks of gov intimidation for speech the gov considers offensive, but can’t legally prosecute. I noticed the gov also published the guys name and address, so now the islamicists know who to kill and where he is..
How shocking you would mention that, since Glenn’s article links to another article which makes that claim. What a good little Glenn-bot you are.
The parole violation just happened. Making the movie was the parole violation. Duh.
I notice you’re making shit up. His name was published by the press. I’m not aware of anyone who published his address. The government published nothing.
But thanks for being one more person who wants to prove that wingnuts are impervious to facts.
Another falsehood. He was in a federal prison until 9/10. He was released from a halfway house on 6/22/11 (link). So he hasn’t been “ignored for yers.”
I guess Republicans just love crooks, and think crooks should be able to violate their parole agreements. And if a crook is questioned for 30 minutes about his parole violation, this means Hitler has come to America. Who knew.
The only good Islamist is a dead one – preferably basted in pig fat.
@Anderson: the video had been online since June. so they show up at his house at 2 o’clock in the morning 3 months later with the FBI who had no business anywhere near the place violation or no?
and all of this happens only after Obama’s foreign policy proves to need a scapegoat..
face it Anderson if George Bush it done anything of the sort you’d be on the front line carrying a torch and a pitchfork. as it is dear leader seems to need some defending these days.
Florack, we already know you’re a pathological liar (example). You don’t need to keep proving it over and over again.
The government would have no awareness of or interest in an obscure Youtube video until after it became associated with an international crisis. That didn’t happen until last week. And no one knew Nakoula was behind the movie until 9/12, when Associated Press solved that puzzle.
And you always manage to somehow exaggerate even the most basic facts. The video appeared on Youtube on 7/2/12, not “June.”
The police started showing up at his house on Wednesday, after Nakoula called them asking them to protect him. There were also police at his house during the day Friday, helping escort his lawyers into the house. The police escort was needed because Nakoula’s front lawn was a media frenzy, with dozens of news crews. So the police didn’t suddenly “show up” at night. As far as I can tell, they had been there all day. They waited until night to remove him, in order to avoid the press as much as possible.
And they didn’t remove him “at 2 o’clock in the morning.” He left the house shortly after midnight.
There is no indication that the FBI was there. There is no indication that the FBI has ever been near him or his house. There is no indication the FBI is investigating him. All we know about any FBI involvement is that Nakoula et al have asked the FBI for protection. Just like they asked the police for protection.
As I said, there is no indication that the FBI has ever been “anywhere near the place.”
“This happens” for reasons that have already been described, above. I’ll quote myself:
But I know you are impervious to facts. Otherwise you would have understood these facts the first time I said them.
Under Bush felons on probation were not questioned about obvious parole violations? I had no idea.
@john personna:
?!?!!!
To what purpose? Political theater? nahhhh… couldn’t be….
For the purpose of getting him out of there safely and smoothly. This includes the safety of him, the officers, the press and the public, and this meant evading both the press (as much as possible) and also various people who want to kill him.
You probably think this was easy, but I’m pretty sure you weren’t there and I’m also pretty sure you’ve never been in charge of solving a problem like this.
Yes, I would expect folks interested in “political theater” to carefully pick a moment when the least number of cameras and reporters would be there. Makes perfect sense.