Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Released After Questioning

California film producer Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been released after voluntarily going to an LA Sheriff's station to be questioned by federal probation officers. According to sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore, he decided not to return to his besieged home and was taken to an undisclosed location. His most recent attorney, Steven Seidman, who did not represent him in his federal bank fraud case for which he is on supervised release, visited the home this morning saying he was not at liberty to discuss his representation.

Nakoula is a Coptic Christian. In his federal case, an Arabic translator was required and appeared at all proceedings. He is a U.S. citizen. His lawyer in the case was James Henderson, Sr., who replaced Jack Whitaker due to a potential conflict of interest issue that arose.

Nakoula was detained in that case since his arrest in June, 2009. The Government asserted he was an extreme flight risk. He did not contest detention. After cooperating with the government in exchange for leniency at sentencing, in June, 2010, he was sentenced to 21 months, to be followed by 6 months in a halfway house. The Judge recommended he serve his sentence at Lompoc, and BOP records show his release date as June, 2011. There is no indication in the court record of any subsequent violations. He was also ordered to pay $794,700.57, in restitution. [More...]

[T]he defendant is hereby committed on count 1 of the Indictment to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of: TWENTY-ONE (21) MONTHS

....Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of five (5) years, under the following terms and conditions:

.... 2. The defendant shall reside for a period of six (6) months in a community corrections center (community corrections component), as directed by the Probation Officer, and shall observe the rules of that facility;

Sam Bacile is a fictitious name. But it's not difficult to link to Nakoula. In his bank fraud case, which involved multiple instances of him opening bank accounts in the name of fictitious people using real social security numbers belonging to other people (called synthetic identity theft), one of the accounts he fraudulently opened was for a Nicola Bacily, supposedly of Nevada.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigators obtained video surveillance footage of him at ATM machines depositing and withdrawing money from the phoney Bacily account.

He opened the phony bank account for Bacily at Washington Mutual in June, 2008, using an online application. He also got a gold debit card for the account, and a capital one credit card in the name of Robert Bacily, which authorized Nicola Bacily as a user.

Bacily to Bacile -- coincidence?

Nakoula's scheme involved multiple false names and accounts. The ATM surveillance videos showed him conducting transactions in several of the accounts. At times, the surveillance showed his wife, Olivia Ibrahim, with him. She has a company called Golden Export & Import Inc, in Cerritos.

When Nakoula was first contacted by the media, believing him to be the non-existent Sam Bacile, Nakoula, pretending to be Bacile, said he was Jewish and Israeli. That's a total lie. He's a Coptic Christian who speaks Arabic, which is their official language (Apparently, the Coptic Christians were repressed in Egypt. There are many Coptic Christian churches in the U.S. A review of their websites showed some of them to be extreme anti-Islamic fundamentalists.) (Added: Changed to reflect that only some of the coptic christian churches are radical fundamentalists. There are many that don't preach hate.) Bacile's phone is listed at Nakoula's address.

One of the actors in the film said Bacile spoke Arabic on the set and later told her he was Egyptian.

Nakoula also has an old state conviction pertaining to methamphetamine.

Among the terms of his supervised release:

7. Defendant shall not possess or use a device with access to any online service at any location without the prior approval of the Probation Officer. This includes access through any Internet Service Provider ("ISP"), bulletin board system, or any public or private computer network system. Further, defendant shall not have another individual access the Internet on defendant's behalf to obtain files or information that defendant is restricted from accessing personally, or accept restricted files or information from another person;

8. Defendant shall use only those computers, computer related devices, screen/user names, passwords, e-mail accounts, and ISPs approved by the Probation Officer. Computer and computer -related devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, personal data assistants (PDAs), Internet appliances, electronic games, and cellular telephones, as well as peripheral equipment, that can access, or can be modified to access, the Internet, electronic bulletin boards, other computers, or similar media. Defendant shall use any approved computers only within the scope of his employment. Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose. Defendant shall immediately report to the Probation Officer any changes in defendant's employment affecting defendant's access and/or use of computers or the Internet, including e-mail;

9. All computers, computer-related devices, computer storage media, and peripheral equipment used by defendant shall be subject to search and seizure, and subject to the installation of search and/or monitoring software and/or hardware, including unannounced seizure for the purpose of search. Defendant shall not add, remove upgrade, update, reinstall, repair, or otherwise modify the hardware or software on any computers, computer related devices, or peripheral equipment without the prior approval of the Probation Officer, nor shall defendant hide or encrypt files or data. Further, defendant shall, as requested by the Probation Officer, provide all billing records, including telephone, cable, Internet, satellite, and similar records;


The defendant shall maintain one personal checking account. All of defendant’s income, “monetary gains,” or other pecuniary proceeds shall be deposited into this account, which shall be used for payment of all personal expenses. Records of all other bank accounts, including any business accounts, shall be disclosed to the Probation Officer upon request.

The defendant shall not transfer, sell, give away, or otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in excess of $500 without approval of the Probation Officer until all financial obligations imposed by the Court have been satisfied in full.

The terms also state:

In addition to the special conditions of supervision imposed above, it is hereby ordered that the Standard Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release within this judgment be imposed. The Court may change the conditions of supervision, reduce or extend the period of supervision, and at any time during the supervision period or within the maximum period permitted by law, may issue a warrant and revoke supervision for a violation occurring during the supervision period.

He signed a provision stating:

Upon a finding of violation of probation or supervised release, I understand that the court may (1) revoke supervision, (2) extend the term of supervision, and/or (3) modify the conditions of supervision. These conditions have been read to me. I fully understand the conditions and have been provided a copy of them.

Reading through the terms of probation, it's hard to believe Nakoula didn't commit some violation, even if only technical. While he's been released today, I won't be surprised if its just temporary, while the feds put a case together for violation of supervised release. If they do, it probably won't be public until after he's arrested or turns himself in and makes his first appearance.

Is it possible the sheriff put a little spin on his release and he was released into federal protective custody -- with his consent? He could be the most hated man in the world right now. They certainly wouldn't just arrest him and put him into a regular detention facility or jail.

Whatever really happened with him today, I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him.

Update: The LA Times on the "fiery Orange County Cleric" who influenced the filmmakers. He is Zakaria Botros Henein, sometimes called Islam's Public Enemy No. 1.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who paid the actors and organized the production, spoke openly of his devotion to the cleric while in federal prison the year before the August 2011 shoot.

....Jailed several times in his native Egypt for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he was exiled by Hosni Mubarak's government in the early 1990s in exchange for an early release. He fled to Australia and ran a parish there for more than a decade, before departing in the midst of a dispute with the Coptic pope over his authoritarian style....Early in the last decade, he relocated to Orange County, where he bought real estate. He kept his whereabouts quiet, but his ministry continued.

.....Botros' views are in sharp contrast to those of mainstream Coptic leaders, who have condemned the film.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | State Dept . Evacuates US Personnel From Tunisia and Sudan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    we have free speech but there are responsibilities that come with that and you are not free from the consequences of your free speech.

    Responsibility (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    Again, this is my point. Hand-wringing over some
    notion about responsibilty implies that this is
    somehow our fault. This is not our fault and we
    should not be afraid to say so.

    What are (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:21:34 PM EST
    you talking about? The person responsible for the film is what I'm talking about.

    Fine (none / 0) (#13)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:35:02 PM EST
    Then he is not at fault.

    Doesn't follow at all (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    that the individual is "not at fault" for the totally predictable (and quite possibly intended) consequences of his legally protected bad behavior.

    So, if I understand this (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:12:52 PM EST
    an individual should not engage in a behavior, even
    though legally protected, that may provoke a violent reaction. Correct?

    By that logic, the abortion doctor has only himself to blame when killed by an anti-abortion extremist.

    No, the doctor has done nothing wrong the fault lies entirely with his killer.


    Big "if" in that (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:30:49 PM EST
    "if I understand this," because you don't actually seem to.  My moral judgments are not as simplistic as yours appear to be. At least, that's how I perceive it. But you've expressed your views, and I have stated mine.  I don't see any value in pursuing this further between the two of us. (And I don't refer to ob-gyn's who perform abortions as "abortion doctors.")

    Bye (none / 0) (#23)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:45:43 PM EST
    goodbye to you (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:40:10 AM EST
    if you return, please do so with correct information.

    I do not think the word "implies" (none / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    means what you think it means.

    Odd passage (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by markw on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 06:59:16 AM EST
    This is an odd passage:

    He's a Coptic Christian who speaks Arabic, which is their official language (Apparently, the Coptic Christians were repressed in Egypt. There are many Coptic Christian churches in the U.S. A review of their websites show them to be extreme anti-Islamic fundamentalists.)

    First of all, Coptic Christians do not have "an official language." Egypt has an official language, which is Arabic. That is the official language of a state, not of its churches or individual citizens, much less of the many Coptics who become citizens of other countries through emigration or birth. Interestingly, there is a Coptic language that has mostly died out, but is still spoken by a few hundred people.

    More importantly, the remainder of the passage is especially troubling. It's unclear who the "them" refers to, and it's also unclear who reviewed the websites, but I reject the implication that all of "them" (whether websites, churches, or Coptic Christians in the US) are "extreme anti-Islamic fundamentalists."

    not all of them (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:47:43 AM EST
     First, on the language. See The Transition from Coptic to Arabic. And here:

    In the twelfth century, the Coptic Church in Egypt made Arabic its official language.

    And here:

    On the fundamentalist Coptic Christians: Morris Sadek and the fundamentalist Coptic Christians and in the LA Times today, Zakaria Botros Henein.

    There are also "mainstream" Coptic Christians who do not preach hate. So you are right, not all Coptic Christians, and perhaps a minority, are radical fundamentalists. Thanks for the correction and I'll correct that sentence.


    Language (none / 0) (#54)
    by markw on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    And thanks for the correction on the language!

    The Producers, redux (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by unitron on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 08:15:47 AM EST

    1. Get a bunch of investors to put up enough money to make a full-length movie.

    2. Make a trailer that so inflames the Muslim world that no one dare distribute the movie if it did exist and no one dare bring any attention to their having been an investor.

    3. Profit.

    I fully expected that the feds would at least (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    slap together some sort of supervised release violator warrant, however weakly supported as a technical matter, so that US officials could make a public statement, designed for international broadcast (and intended to be widely misunderstood) that the producer of that awful "movie" had been "arrested."  It's sort of to their credit that they haven't, and that the govt seems to be proceeding cautiously rather than going out and finding something ... anything ... to arrest him for.

    and TL stands for critical thinking, (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    among other things. Not sure what your point is, but mine is worth pondering, for you.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:24:20 PM EST
    was deleted. It was a troll comment, the point of which was to blast Obama. That commenter will be banned if he continues to post such diatribes here.

    I'm sorry you feel that way (none / 0) (#7)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:01:51 PM EST
    and, frankly, I'm surprised that you are not more vocal is defending this man's rights.

    no one has violated his rights (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:46:12 PM EST
    at least no one in the Government. He voluntarily agreed to be interviewed, he was not in custody, he asked for police protection.

    If he violated supervised release, he'll be charged, arrested and given a hearing.

    His right to make a movie is one thing. His lie that he was an Israeli filmmaker and his offensive comments about Islam do not deserve my support, nor will they get it.

    Even the movie was a fraud, according to the actors who say they never spoke the lines in it, it was all dubbed in later.


    Yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:53:28 PM EST
    he needed the protection after the government released his name. Everything the government has done could have been done without releasing his name or at the very least they could have waited until this had blown over. But no, they made sure that everyone in the world knew who he was.

    it wasn't the government (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:25:51 AM EST
    it was the media who discovered his name and address through his cell phone number. Bacile's number lists to Naboula's address.

    The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. ....

    the cell phone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula.

    After the AP unmasked him and interviewed and his address was exposed in the media, the feds confirmed it.

    His court case records, just like everyone's are available on PACER.


    My point? (none / 0) (#6)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:00:16 PM EST
    They make a show of taking this man into custody.
    They ask youtube to "review" the video.
    They denounce the video and say the government had
    nothing to do with.

    All of this implies that the video is the problem here. The video is not the problem and we should say so. Clearly. All this guy did was make a movie, the extremists in Libya killed people. They are the
    problem here, not us. That's my point.


    he did a little more than make a video (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:38:55 AM EST
    He claimed to be an Israeli filmmaker and that the film had been funded by Jewish contributions of $5 million.

    That was all a lie. You don't seem to have a good grasp on the disclosed facts behind this and I don't appreciate you spreading misinformation here.


    Did the Lies Place Him in Legal Jeopardy? (none / 0) (#46)
    by RickyJim on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 07:39:55 AM EST
    Could his blame the Jews shtick be interpreted as a violation of some hate crimes law?

    Don't know much about California (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    hate crimes law, but I doubt that simply lying with discriminatory intent would cut it. Doubtful such a law would even be constitutional. Typically, a "hate crime" is a violent criminal act coupled with a bias-infected motive for choosing the victim.  However, as TL has pointed out twice in this thread, NBN's lies and related conduct could violate the specific terms of his federal "supervised release" and potentially land him back in the pokey on that basis. First Amendment considerations would be relevant, since a supervised release provision must involve "no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary" to achieve the purposes of the sentence. In this instance, NBN is not prohibited from making hateful propaganda, only from lying, borrowing money, and using the Internet while doing so.

    Ricky Jim (none / 0) (#50)
    by LeaNder on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    We had a comparative case over here during a party huge donation scandal. One of the involved Christian Democrats (CDU) claimed the money was from Jewish legacies. While it obviously caused indignation and an uproar, it feels it was simply treated as a lie.

    Our laws concern incitement against any ethnic or relgious group, and obviously Holocaust denial. Thus, yes the movie would fit.

    Personally I have mixed feelings about it. It creates a whole set of new problems. The problem is not visible any more, but obviously it has not disappeared. It simply moves behind closed doors, or underground. On the other hand, I am pleased that the preachers of hate are slightly restricted. There are a lot of easily duped people everywhere.

    Bottom line: All in all, I am German enough to prefer the restriction of incitement on our ground. But it is easy to see that you can politically use human resentment, the ultimate source, in ways that are hard to prosecute. Which got a member of the same party in the same state elected. He used dual citizenship of Germans with Turkish roots. One of the things he didn't tell the people is that Turkey has a law that does not allow foreigners to own ground. Now, that means too, you cannot inherit your grandparents's house if you give up your Turkish citizenship.


    "All this guy did was make a movie;" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    that's like saying, "all this guy did was throw a Molotov cocktail, it was the people it was thrown at who ended up killing people."

    Total logic FAIL.


    No, Anne, making a movie (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    no matter how clearly designed to offend and provoke, is not like "throwing a Molotov cocktail." It may be sort of like teaching how to make a Molotov cocktail, but it's not like throwing one.  RichJ25 is way off, but not for that reason.  It's because he jumps from what one crackpot American did to some undefined "us" that is supposed to get behind it. I'm not sure if by "us" he means "the American people" or "the U.S. government" (it seems to be one of those), but either way, I don't identify that "us" (either one) with the fraudster who seems to be behind the "movie." When an individual American takes action that is privileged under our Bill of Rights but is damaging to our foreign relations, the government surely does no wrong by condemning the substance of the individual's (constitutionally protected) speech and by making clear that in our society, the fact that speech is not banned in no way implies that our government (or Americans generally) endorse that viewpoint or celebrate its expression.

    Nothing exists in a vacuum; there's simply (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:23:45 PM EST
    no way to reduce this to "all this guy did" and stop there.

    I fully embrace the right to expression, but these expressions, whether they are film or art or writing or theatre, are like pebbles dropped into the sea in which we all live, and they ripple to varying degrees.  Or they are dominoes that fall without our knowing ahead of time what pattern they will create, what picture will form when the last domino drops.

    Actions have consequences. And they cannot be walked away from by prefacing them with "all so-and-so did was..."

    It is eminently possible to respect the right to expression while condemning the substance of that expression - I haven't suggested otherwise.  You may be right that a film is not equivalent to a Molotov cocktail - but when one creates something that is designed to provoke, one shouldn't be surprised if those provoked choose to go to extremes in response.


    Sure there is (none / 0) (#26)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:06:39 PM EST
    We have all sorts of people in this country, all races, religions, political viewpoints and so on.
    We don't all agree on much, as it should be, but if
    there is a universal belief that is held by all Americans it is the belief in freedom of speech. This freedom is our single most important freedom and without it we are simply not America.

    America does not exist in a vacuum and there will
    be times when individuals, in the course of exercising their right to free speech, will come into conflict with others in the world. This is inevitable. When this happens, do we shrink from defending our most cherished and important value?

    No, the proper course is to defend, without qualification, the individual's right to free expression. If this in inconvenient for our political leaders, then too bad. Nobody said the job was going to be easy but we'll get more respect around the world by standing up and being who we are than we will by trying to placate angry mobs.


    Obama and Hillary Clinton have both (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    publicly defended this man's right to make the movie, citing the first amendment.

    They have also condemned the hateful content of the movie.

    I think both of those statements are appropriate. Nothing in the Constitution obligates the government or our political leaders or any of us to defend the content of free speech statements. We must simply defend the right of people to make such statements.

    You seem to be angry that the content is not being defended. I don't understand that.


    Yeah, I see that they finally got around to that (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:42:07 PM EST
    After they released the film makers name, after he
    was picked up by the police (with pictures), after
    they asked youtube to take down the video and after
    they took pains to say how much they hated the movie. After all this, they found time to defend our
    most cherished freedom. Good for them.

    Also, calling me a bigot doesn't impress me. I'm not
    a nazi but I understand their right to march in Skokie. I don't read Hustler but I understand Larry Flynt right to publish it. I haven't seen this movie but I understand this guy's right to make it.


    What are you talking about? I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    call you a bigot. I didn't call you anything.

    Also, Clinton made a lengthy statement (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:52:05 PM EST
    explaining the first amendment and why it protected the right of the person who made the movie to make the movie on Thursday. The person who made the movie was questioned today. Her statement came well before the questioning.

    Her statements on the 12th mostly concerned the deaths of the four Americans. Since that was the day we all learned about the previous night's attack, her remarks seemed entirely appropriate to me.


    Yes, you're right (none / 0) (#39)
    by richj25 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    She made her comments after the film makers name was released but before the man was taken into custody (with pictures) and before the White House asked you tube to "review" the video.

    Get your facts straight (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    Since one of your fundamental premises is false (the government did not release his name), I'm very skeptical of the others.  Moreover, the MSC asked Youtube to review the video and see if it was within their terms of serice, as opposed to what you claimed ("after they asked youtube to take down the video").

    He does have a right (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:46:11 PM EST
    to make it, but if he violated his probation on fraud charges by using the internet while using a phony name he also has the right to return to jail.

    Defend? (none / 0) (#53)
    by gaf on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    If they are indeed defending his right to make the movie, why are they asking Google to review it and remove it if possible?

    I say "us" (none / 0) (#16)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    because the protests are aimed at "us". They are burning American flags, attacking American embassies, and have killed an American ambassador.
    Clearly, they are blaming American for making this
    movie. The movie was made by an individual but its making is allowed under the American constitution. The point of the protests is to tell "us" what sorts of movies "we" are not allowed to make. "We" should reject this effort.

    Also, they have done more than simple condemning this individuals work. They asked youtube to take it down and they made a show of detaining this individual. They have brought the weight of the White House to bear on this individual for the legal
    exercise of his first amendment rights. This is disgraceful behavior.


    There are reasonable grounds to believe (4.75 / 4) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    as outlined by TL in this post, that NBN may have violated several lawful conditions of his supervised release (which is the legal name for federal post-incarceration probation or parole).  He (apparently) agreed to be questioned about that -- indeed, it is another condition of his supervision that he report to his probation officer when summoned, and that he answer truthfully any questions his probation officer may have about his conduct while under supervision (unless he invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege), so his "agreement" to be questioned was actually not necessary.  The fact that these violent and ignorant protests are (mis)directed against "us" is no reason for "us" to rally around NBN, other than to acknowledge that he has a First Amendment right to express whatever ignorant, hateful, bigoted opinions about Muslims he may hold. That is not to say that he didn't violate the law in making this "movie"; he may have, if in the course of his movie-making he violated lawful terms of his supervised release that (for example) restrict his banking activity, his use of false names, or his access to the Internet.  

    But unreasonable behavior (none / 0) (#28)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    Federal authorities released the man's name which ensured that the press would find him. He's the only one from a supposed network of people involved in the making of this movie who's name has been made public by the government. Why him and not one
    of the others? With him they had grounds to detain him in front of cameras. This is simply meant to placate the violent crowds overseas. It is disgraceful that the government would act this way.

    As far as the content of his movie, I have no idea.
    It doesn't matter. He was within his rights to make it and that's what's important.


    Feds did not do this and expose him to the (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DFLer on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    press as explained in Jeralyn's comment #40 (above)

    In fact (none / 0) (#30)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    the president is sworn to defend that right.

    the use of the film matters (none / 0) (#44)
    by LeaNder on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 05:36:08 AM EST
    In this case, just as in the Zimmerman case, I would really like to know what exactly happened and who was involved and for what reasons.

    I hope I do not need to add, concerning the first sentence below, just as people somewhere else "sprout off" offensive statements against the US collectively. ;)

    The Egyptian Outrage Peddler Who Sent an Anti-Islam YouTube Clip Viral

    Everyday Americans spout off hours upon hours of offensive statements about Islam. So how on Earth did a poorly-produced, wildly obscure 14-minute YouTube clip spark violent uprisings from Yemen to Afghanistan to Algeria to Egypt? The answer is Sheik Khaled Abdullah, an Egyptian TV host who latched onto a trailer of the U.S. film Innocence of Muslims on Sunday, a move that has stoked anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.

    An interesting piece of the larger puzzle, just as the timing. Murky story.

    Admittedly, I find hard to get a coinage by a US journalist during the run up of the Iraq war out of my head: We are feeding the rage.

    The head of the extreme right party pro-Germany (here in Cologne, pro-Köln), has announced he intends to show the film, almost immediately followed by our minister of the interior stating, he won't allow it.


    No, its not like throwing a molotov cocktail (none / 0) (#12)
    by richj25 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    Throwing a molotov cocktail is a violent act that is
    meant to kill or injure people. Making a movie is
    not a violent act. If people who see it choose to
    behave violently then they are at fault.

    I agree that violent reactions to a movie (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 11:04:38 PM EST
    are not justified. However, these events are not about the movie, in my opinion---that is just a trigger.

    It is being reported that protests (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 09:22:16 PM EST
    are calming now.

    Where did you read (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19:26 PM EST
    that he was "drag[ged] out of bed"? That's not how TL describes what happened today.  I didn't think NBN was even arrested.  As I understood it, he was required to meet with his U.S. Probation Officer, and because there was an angry crowd gathered at his home (expressing their First Amendment rights) NBN asked for police protection to escort him to the sheriff's office, as a safe place for the meeting.  Do you have a different version?

    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:36:09 PM EST
    he voluntarily agreed to be taken for the interview. The disguise was his idea. They didn't show up unannounced and drag him out of his house.
    He had called and asked for security due to threats from others after his address was published online and people began showing up.

    He wasn't even handcuffed. He wasn't under arrest.


    Hate to admit but I've paid no attention to this (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    story.  A week without news is a week without heartache.  But here's a bit from Juan Cole:

    Romney Jumps the Shark: Libya, Egypt and the Butterfly Effect

    More background from CNN (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 08:58:22 AM EST