Home  >  Anju Links

Heads in the Sand (Updated: Gov’t “Invites” Filmmaker to Midnight Interrogation on Questionable Grounds)

It seems odd that almost none of the news services reporting on the Cairo and Benghazi attacks are mentioning that they were carried out on 9/11 by affiliates or sympathizers of Al Qaeda. The flag the Egyptian demonstrators raised over our embassy was Al Qaeda’s flag, and Ayman Zawahiri’s “reformed” brother was one of leaders of the mob. Now, I don’t think there’s much this administration could or should have done to prevent the overthrow of Mubarak, and I still think it did the right thing by intervening in Libya, but the always dubious idea that Al Qaeda died with Osama Bin Laden no longer passes the laugh test. Extremists are steadily gaining influence in Syria, and probably in Libya and Yemen, too. They’re still capable of killing people in Iraq, and they’re increasingly capable of killing people in Egypt. If the Libya attack (at least) was planned long in advance by Al Qaeda affiliates to avenge our killing of another Al-Qaeda terrorist, then it would seem that one anti-Muslim film was simply a convenient excuse to incite a crowd.

I’m not surprised that Egypt was ill-prepared for immediate self-government. That was probably the last thing Mubarak wanted to prepare them for, after all. I had held out some hope for a Turkish model — with the military hovering in the background to ensure that the next election would proceed on schedule — but that hope died when the army’s top generals were removed in a soft coup a few months ago. In due course, Egyptians will realize that unaccountable and authoritarian regimes are incapable of effective governance, but by then it will probably be too late to do anything about it for several more decades. After all, we tend to forget that it was Nazi sponsorship was essential to creation of the Brotherhood, just as we forget that in a very different way, the Nazis were essential to the creation of Israel. Egypt’s new President and 75% of his constituents believe some sort of 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, and judging from the events in Cairo, plenty of those who don’t deny 9/11 celebrate it. (Somewhere, Christopher Hitchens once wrote about the capacity of others to both deny and celebrate it.) The fact that the world’s greatest powers feel compelled to try to appease these thugs gives them a sense of power that life itself never will, at least until those societies create plausible pathways to self-respect, money, love, sex, fancy gadgets, and everything else that young men crave. But for now, there is no appeasing people like this, no matter how much some may try.

Previously posted here. I know that just about everyone in this country has piled on the noob who wrote those words. That may be the only good thing to come from any of this. I know how hard it is to be a civil servant trying to please six different audiences with conflicting interests. The problem is that on matters this fundamental, there shouldn’t be internal conflicts, and as for the external conflicts, we can’t reconcile them and shouldn’t default to a snivel reflex in the vain attempt to do so. In the interest of adding something new to this discussion, the statement is also risible as a matter of law. Individual respect for religious belief may be good civic behavior in a tolerant and pluralistic society (do you suppose that this week’s events will result in greater respect for Islam or the reinforcement of the worst stereotypes about it?) but unanimous, collective, mandated respect for religious belief is anathema to American democracy. On one of the few recent occasions when anyone tried to ban blasphemy in this country, the Supreme Court said this:

In seeking to apply the broad and all-inclusive definition of “sacrilegious” given by the New York courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies. New York cannot vest such unlimited restraining control over motion pictures in a censor. Under such a standard the most careful and tolerant censor would find it virtually impossible to avoid favoring one religion over another, and he would be subject to an inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority. Application of the “sacrilegious” test, in these or other respects, might raise substantial questions under the First Amendment’s guaranty of separate church and state with freedom of worship for all. However, from the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures. (citations omitted)

Some things aren’t negotiable. So why, in such a vain attempt, should we negotiate away things that really matter to us? We know, of course.

But this is nothing compared to the extent of the denial in the Middle East. For all the why-do-they-hate-us introspection our society has undergone since 9/11, the Middle East seems completely incapable of understanding why it has an image problem, much less doing anything to withdraw society’s approval of violence and intolerance. Governments — even governments that don’t claim the power to control speech and thought — have been known to exercise leadership on such matters.

I would still argue that our aid to Libya buys us influence within its government and puts us within hunting-down-and-liquefying distance of the goons who killed our Ambassador. The situation there is still unstable and fluid — the kind of situation in which we have the most capacity to influence the future shape of its government and society, as our late Ambassador must have known. The case is harder to make for sustaining our current level of aid to Egypt. Yes, we’re buying peace with Israel, and that’s worth something, and what’s more, it’s worth having friends in Egypt’s military and government, but how much is that worth if they aren’t willing to protect our embassy? Because we shouldn’t doubt that they’re able. And are we really invested in the success of the new government, or isn’t the best outcome that it should fail to keep its promises to the people, and that they grow disillusioned with it, as they did in Iran? One thing I’ve come to believe is that our obsequious response to the Rage Boys only arouses their predatory nature. Perhaps if our President were to publicly appoint a commission of inquiry to look into the response of local police forces to both incidents, and then suggest that a comprehensive review of our aid programs would follow, local governments would have an incentive to impose order on the streets rather than to stand aside and let us be the mob’s convenient scapegoat.

Update: Seriously? People are willing to kill over this? It’s nowhere near as persuasive, or even as sacrilegious as this or this (warning: NSFW). Judge for yourself while you still can.

Your government wants YouTube to remove this.

Update 2: The filmmaker has now been arrested, specifically for the act of uploading the video to YouTube.

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

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. “Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose,” the terms read. [L.A. Times]

So the Muslim Brotherhood is now officially able to demand and get “legal action” taken against an American for offending his medieval sensibilities. Any President who won’t defend freedom of speech, our most important freedom, right here in our own country, should be fired for failing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any candidate who won’t preserve, protect, and defend freedom of speech doesn’t deserve to be elected in the first place.

But the case law says that restrictions that infringe on constitutional rights must be reasonably related to the objectives of the parole and probation restrictions. The state can prohibit pedophiles from having contact with kids, and it can prohibit an outlaw biker from having contact with fellow gang members, but blanket prohibitions against communicating over the internet, or against using Facebook or social media sites, have been held unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

The American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice state that probation conditions “should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer’s liberty or autonomy” and that “where fundamental rights are involved, special care should be used to avoid overbroad or vague restrictions.” American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice 2d { 18-2.3(e)). [link]

Unless the feds have been equally rigorous in enforcing similar restrictions in the past, this looks like pretext to turn our government into a censor for Muslim extremists who will always find some reason to hate us and some pretext to express their hatred violently. I hope Nakoula files for habeas relief, and then follows it up with a Bivens action against whatever officials were behind this. It should make for interesting discovery.

2Shares

27 Responses

  1. Speaking of heads in the sand: two steel buildings fall straight down into their own footprint. Audible and visible charges detonating sequentially from top to bottom as it happens. An Israeli surveillance crew set up before the first attack apprehended, then released. A small fire in WTC7 leading to the collapse of the entire building, again straight down into its own footprint at free-fall speed. A terrorism insurance policy taken out weeks before the attack by a Jew who bought the towers weeks prior and ended up conveniently missing his breakfast in WotW that morning.

    No conspiracy at all here.

    ? ? ??

  3. Who’s the noob? Career foreign service officer Anne W. Patterson. Appointed by George W Bush to be our ambassador to Pakistan in 2007. Appointed by Barack Obama to be our ambassador to Egypt in 2011, approved by the Senate unanimously. Her embassy issued the statement condemning “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” before the violence started. I don’t think she’s to be condemned for that; in fact I agree with her.

    As to the murder in Libya, it seems Obama is preparing to respond with warships and drones. Here’s the story at CNN.

  4. They guy that made the anti-Islam film is a Coptic Christian and convicted fraudster, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, but he hid behind a fake Jewish persona, Sam Bacile. Pretty clever, huh? Annoy the Muslims and blame the Jews! Mitt Romney might want to know that one of those involved in this film, Steve Klein, also protests against Mormon temples. For more information and links, visit Juan Cole.

  5. I’m with Glans. The text was carefully worded to express appropriate regret while acknowledging Constitutional freedoms. It appears tha the very low-budget film blamed by its makers on Jews achieved its intent of inciting mob violence. Makes me wonder who the Coptic Christian Egytotian was in cahoots with.

  6. Actually, no, Glans. Patterson was out of the country when the statement was released by the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The guy who wrote it is named Schwarts who released the statement even after being told not to by State D.C. Secondly, the reported Copt Christian posing as “Bacile,” an “Israeli-American” (or vice versa?) was triangulating the situation: enrage the easily enrageable Muslims while blaming the Jews. The Copts have not been faring well in Egypt lately under the Brotherhood, so his motivation is understandable.

    And responding to the main point of the post…it doesn’t really matter “who shot John.” Or what to do about the fact that “John” was shot. It’s far more fundamental and goes to the heart of the nature of Islam. For whatever set of reasons, it is obvious that Islam is on an ideological roll. Fundamentalist Islam is very powerful and is probably the most energetic and malignant movement on the planet at this time.

    From the standpoint of Islamic “theology,” the rest of us, non-Muslims, are Infidels. We are to be offered to opportunity to convert and, if we refuse, we are to be killed UNLESS we are “people of the book,” (Jews or Christians) in which case we can select a third alternative, i.e, as dhimmis, in which case we get to pay a tax for not converting and to live as third rate citizens, beholden to our Muslim superiors in everything.

    So, to the fundamentalists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn’t matter what really happened about some abysmal “movie”; the “movie” allows the jihad to move forward against the Infidels.

  7. I wrote a post about mob violence and terrorism directed against a free society for having the temerity to tolerate heresy. Some “liberal” commenters then turned this into a trial-by-thread of whatever speech the mob objects to. Once our society chooses that path, we’re selecting which speech our society is willing to protect, tolerate, or permit, and at the end of that conversation, you have “human rights” tribunals and the U.N. blasphemy police steadily pushing the boundaries of those exceptions to free speech, driven by the power of the mob’s inexhaustible and ever-advancing rage. So at what point would you stand up for a society that defends the right not to be Muslim? When they try to tell you how you can dress, or maybe when they demand the banning of some book or film you actually like? The first time you feel afraid to write something?

    Some of those who would defer to the sensibilities of the Rage Boys seem to accept, implicitly, that the Rage Boys are not only incapable of self-restraint in the face of offense, but also broadly representative of Muslim sensibilities. A more egalitarian approach would expect them to behave like civilized human beings. It is neither liberal, tolerant, principled, or even practical to hold that this is expecting too much.

    You argue that the makers of the film are asshats. I emphatically do not care. Nor do I care about their ethnicity or religion, and I’m slightly horrified that you do. If free speech doesn’t protect asshats of all ethniticies, races, and creeds, it’s not free speech. Why do you suppose might someone — even an American — feel that he must hide the fact that he’s Coptic from the mobs in Cairo? He might have reasoned, understandably enough, that the mobs have already driven the Jews out of Egypt after all, but that there are still plenty of Copts to persecute. Not only has the maker’s identity now been exposed, but our own government is helping to expose it, which comes awfully close to vicarious censorship. Our Secretary of State, who disavowed the Cairo Embassy’s tweet, is now saying that “[t]he United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” Wrong, Madame Secretary. Our government shouldn’t give a f**k, and particularly shouldn’t abandon the long-standing constitutional principle of government neutrality about religion because terrorists use the views of private citizens as a pretext to do what they would have done anyway.

    Also, is Islam the only religion that gets to bomb its way to immunity from criticism, or do I have to stop making fun of Scientology now?

    A final, closing comment: Fuck you, Mohammad Morsi, and fuck the mob you rode in on:

    In another statement, Mursi said he expects “assurances from the U.S. government to prevent any infringement on the sacred.”

    On second thought, let’s just cut off the aid now and warn our citizens and tourists that Egypt isn’t safe to visit. If they’re determined to turn their country back to the 10th Century, our tax money isn’t going to stop them. It’s better spent on drones and JDAMS. Libya, on the other hand, may not be a hopeless cause just yet.

  9. If Romney said it, it must be right? Or conservative? Or what?

    You know Glans, this whole problem could be fixed with a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting negative statements about Islam, Muslims, and individuals in Muslim-majority countries. By making an explicit exception to the First Amendment, this solution would get around that irritating “free speech” issue. Then nasty anti-Islamic invective like “Please stop murdering Copts” would no longer be permitted, and no-one would be angry at the U.S. again.

    Come on, Glans, we can make this happen!

  10. Nice speech, Joshua, so loaded with strawmen I feel like I’m in a barn. Freedom of speech in the US is not infringed upon or threatened in any way, shape, or form by public or private statements that judge the speech as offensive or hateful. Violent Islamists will riot anyway, regardless of whatever statements are made by US government officials. The real audience of the above text are the non-violent majority, who appreciate the gesture of respect.

    And as for some of us ‘liberals’ not adhering strictly to classical liberalism, well, maybe we need to be careful about attaching labels to people, lest they fail to fmeet our expectations.

  11. Rhesus, Romney’s answers to Stephanopoulos are almost the same as the embassy statement for which Romney condemned Obama. It’s just another Mitt flip. He doesn’t deserve your vote.
    I wouldn’t dream of abridging your right to criticize Islam. If you do it in an irresponsible and needlessly provocative manner, if you pretend to be someone else while doing it, you too might be legitimately criticized. But if you do it carefully and politely, I might even agree with you.

    Sonagi, Joshua is like Alan Dershowitz, wise and fair on many subjects. But when certain sensitive areas are approached, let me just say he doesn’t remain calm.

  12. Glans, if you found any support for Romney’s statements in my comment, then you were doing a whole lot of filling-in. That’s certainly characteristic of our current political discourse though, where presumed identity always comes first.

    And of course there’s also the personalization – the issue isn’t _my_ desire to “criticize” Islam, or how _I_ would do it, or whether _I_ would do it “carefully and politely,” whatever those words are supposed to mean (probably they mean “in a way always acceptable to the other party”). My personal opinions about Islam don’t matter. What matters is whether Islam will become a subject exempt from criticism or even from public debate. The words of both candidates suggest that the time is a little closer when “please stop murdering the Copts” will be considered “irresponsible and needlessly provocative.”

  14. Rhesus, the right to criticize Islam is secure. If I think some criticism is needlessly inflammatory, I won’t support it, but I certainly won’t do anything to the critic. If the criticism makes sense to me, I’ll agree with it.

    Joshua, I mean subjects where you stop thinking and start attacking.

  15. The issue isn’t whether someone who calls himself Glans agrees with the criticism. The issue is whether we’re willing to allow our freedom of speech to be eroded because a bunch of infantile thugs demand that we join them in the dark ages.

  16. No, we’re not willing to allow our freedom of speech to be eroded because a bunch of infantile thugs demand that we join them in the dark ages.

    And now Joshua, I’ll change the subject. Even if you won’t join me in urging people to vote for Obama, will you recommend that they withhold their vote from Romney? At a critical time, when not all the facts were in, he condemned a statement by a US embassy, and he blamed Obama for the statement. Then, in an interview, he expressed the views which he had condemned. This guy shouldn’t be the next president, should he?

  17. Sorry, dude. You may be in the endorsement business, but I’m not. Romney’s statements have been as weak and tepid as I’d have expected, but Obama has violated his oath of office and utterly disqualified himself for the presidency by calling for YouTube to take down the video and sending the feds out to arrest a filmmaker for the act of publishing a film just because a pack of whooping loonies, incited by terrorists who want a mob to hide in, deem it blasphemy against an extreme interpretation of THEIR religion, which I choose to reject.

    My heart says cut off the aid and use the money to buy flamethrowers for our embassy guards. My head says do a careful review of our aid, reduce aid that supports the Morsi regime’s power base, and make a credible threat to cut all of it off summarily* unless Morsi dismantles the Salafists and other groups that advocate violence. We can use the savings to support whatever relative moderates are left in Egypt, and help them build a real power base. I don’t know enough to say that this administration squandered the chance to help build up a secular opposition in post-revolutionary Egypt in the same way it squandered the chance to support Iran’s Green Revolution, but that’s a question that deserves a serious and public inquiry.

    Incidentally, who remembers the time when electing Obama was supposed to make the world (especially Muslims) swoon over us? How’s that working out?

    * Obviously, we could do other things, such as issuing more strident safety warnings against travel to Egypt, and imposing additional restrictions on visas, financial transactions to certain political parties, and technology transfers.

  18. Considering what I had heard about”Innocence of Muslims”, I wasn’t planning to see it. But you made it so easy — how could I not look? I’m glad I did. It’s very good work, free of pretence and polish. Anybody that demonstrates against that is a fool. I’ll never convert to Islam!

    Too bad the filmmaker violated his parole. If he had uploaded a video condemning Zionism, maybe his violation would have been ignored, and that would be OK with you.
    By the way, the Onion image blasphemously depicted Ganesha circumcised, but that’s not sufficient reason to violate any embassies.

    OFK is a great blog. I hope you’ll always find time to keep up the good work.

  19. The LaTimes story to which you linked says:

    “Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.”

    and:

    “For now, the video remains on the site because YouTube has determined that it does not violate the community guidelines that prohibit sexually explicit content, graphic or gratuitous depictions of violence, hate speech or other “bad stuff,” such as animal abuse, drug abuse or underage drinking.”

    and:

    “YouTube declined to comment on the Obama administration’s request.”

    I don’t see any oath violations by Obama. I do see the splendid video still on YouTube.

  20. The video is ill thought out, dunderheaded, outdated in its esthetic, and crassly demagogic, which is to say it functions exactly at the level of the mobs protesting it. They can identify with it perfectly. In that respect the film maker snags his demographic admirably well. But I was smirking two seconds into it. If a similarly rendered skit was made impugning the life of Jesus it would be laughed out of town and draw only ironic viewings. Islam really is a civilization in crisis and like North Korea capable of exploding or imploding. Like North Korea I hope it implodes. In the meantime it’s a downer to see the “understanding” high pinnacle wing of “our” civilization repeatedly stepping forward to self flagellate and apologize for not keeping to the high standards we supposedly set ourself. We don’t set ourself impossible standards and that’s half the point.

  21. Namoula was not arrested. He agreed to be escorted by police for his own safety and was questioned before being released. As an attorney, you certainly know the difference. Muslims aren’t the only people upset about the video. The actors who were deceived into participating are hiding in fear for their lives. I ask you, the attorney, whether these people might have any bais for a lawsuit.

    As for Obama violating the presidential oath to defend the Constitution, perhaps you could clarify which clause or amendment was violated. In response to the government’s request, YouTube removed the video from a few countries where it is illegal. The rest of the world’s people with Internet access, including us folks here in the US, remain free to see it on Youtube’s US site. Our free speech has nor been eroded. I watched the trailer last night. A glass of wine helped me sit through what appeared to be an intentionally campy mockery of Islam’s greatest prophet.

  24. Escorted by police for his own safety? Where did you get that theory? Look here and here. Why would probation officers have been present if this was about protective custody? As far as “arrest,” I know the difference, but the L.A. Times’s original article didn’t (see update here). I’ll make a correction. So ….

    Now we can rest better knowing that the police merely came to the man’s home “just after midnight Saturday morning” to ask him to “voluntarily” come in for interrogation about a possible probation violation for which he could have been summarily sent back to prison, because he uploaded a video to YouTube that extremist mullahs deemed objectionable. Obviously, it’s routine for the feds to send deputies to frog-march people out of their homes at midnight for publishing “blasphemous” speech, even several days after the video was posted. Just as obviously, it’s a complete coincidence that this came after a four-star general called the pastor who supported this film, and after the Obama Administration asked YouTube to “review” whether the video should be removed from your sight. Thanks for setting me straight, Sonagi! Sleep well, nothing to worry about here!

  25. Well, actually, Joshua, I don’t sleep well in a country whose Supreme Court in 2008 upheld “knock and announce” searches in which police with warrants can break down a citizen’s door without knocking first or identifying themselves, a procedure that had led to several,shooting deaths of armed men who thought they were targets of a home invasion. If the LA police hauled the man away at midnight for questioning, then that sounds like yet another law enforcement harassment of a citizen, in this case at the behest of the federal government. Given the man’s criminal history, I do not have a problem with investigating him for a possible parole violation. I’ do have a problem with the stakeout and timing of the interrogation. Jeffery Hodges at Gypsy Scholarship has excellent commentary on Hillary Clinton’s statement on his blog:

    http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2012/09/secretary-of-state-clinton-on-religion.html