That Mean, Bad For Civil Liberties George W. Obama
All those people who touted Barack Obama as the great black hope for something better for civil liberties got a surprise -- if they truly were looking for something better for civil liberties and not just something not George Bush.
I don't see a whole lot of squealing about Obama's awful record on civil liberties.
Jonathan Turley writes about "Innocence of Muslims'" filmmaker Nakoula's arrest for probation violations (which could land him in jail for three years):
Given the calls for his arrest and even execution by Muslim allies, the arrest raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife.From my experience as a criminal defense attorney, the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. In addition, the federal authorities insisted on his being jailed as a flight risk, though it is unclear why that is the case and why he could not be given an electronic bracelet.
Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal found that Nakoula exhibited a "lengthy pattern of deception" and posed "some danger to the community." I can see the basis for the first conclusion but not the evidence of a danger to the community. My concern is that the response to his film -- which is a protected act of free speech -- was weighed in the balance of such a decision. Nakoula is accused of eight charges of probation violation including making false statements to authorities about the film. He reportedly admitted that he wrote the film but authorities insist that he did not fully explain his role.
The U.S. Attorney suggested that he might charge Nakoula with making false statements about the film -- charges that would seem an obvious act of retaliation by the Administration.
...The immediate scrutiny left many with the impression that the Obama Administration wanted to show Arab allies that the filmmaker was under arrest while professing a commitment to free speech.
No time to leave an extended comment ("whew!" says the Goddess commentariat), but it's clear that whatever statutes authorize these federal "false statement" charges must be unconstitutional on their face, since they obviously can be used to charge anyone with anything. If the feds charge you randomly with a crime, and you don't give them a full confession, you have by definition made a false statement.
Cousin Dave at September 28, 2012 6:55 AM
Maybe the "some danger to the community" is if someone tries to kill him, bystanders could be hurt?
nonegiven at September 28, 2012 7:09 AM
Make enough silly convoluted crimes and everyone is a criminal. Then it just becomes if they want you enough, they will search enough. They can find something to take you in. It may not have anything to do with why they want you.
Wikki links guy is wanted for having sex without a condom (= rape in some places).
Donate to Romney and the IRS takes special interest in you.
Joe J at September 28, 2012 9:16 AM
Yes, and all presidents prior to George W. Bush were just ever so fierce champions of our civil rights...
Insert massive eyeroll here.
Patrick at September 28, 2012 9:47 AM
Way to miss the point, Patrick.
If the evil, brilliant, stoopid Boooosh (I'm confused, which was it again? is it dependent on the day of the week?) had done this, then the Usual Supects on the Left (Hello, ACLU) would have howled like a scalded dog.
In this case? not so much, 'cause Teh Won is their man.
Did you notice that warrantless wiretaps are way up under Teh Won's reign? not to mention the number of drone strikes, one of them targeting an American citizen?
Wither the outrage the Left showed when Boooosh was in office?
I R A Darth Aggie at September 28, 2012 10:24 AM
Oh, why don't you just shut up, Aggie? At least until you learn to read a post before you comment on it?
Please note, I said "presidents prior to Bush." You know, as in Clinton? Who was pestering Congress for increased wiretap authority.
The point of my post...which went so far over your head, you didn't hear the whoosh!...is that our civil rights have been being eroded long before Bush started doing it. You know, with things like Japanese internment camps that was started under FDR?
"Oh, but Patrick just can't criticize a librul! Patrick only criticizes conservatives! He's just a librul who claims to be an independent."
Well, to all my various enemies on this board who think that way about me, why don't you all just go fuck yourselves?
Patrick at September 28, 2012 10:51 AM
Deer Patrick,
The people who were most likely to scream about the imperial presidency during W's term can't seem to be bothered to even quibble with the current regime. Even when the current regime promised to take a different course.
Me? I'm not surprised. The President is always looking to expand the power of the Presidency at the expense of the Legislative or Judicial branches, or more often, at the expense of the people.
You know who can undo a lot of W's encroachments is, right? all he has to do is pick up a pen and write an executive order and roll things back.
Oh, yeah, he'd have to undo his own encroachments as well. Choices, choices...
I R A Darth Aggie at September 28, 2012 12:28 PM
So, basically they have no proof he was the one to upload it on the web but are going to charge him anyway.
And tack on charges of lying to investigators for failing to answer questions they never asked
lujlp at September 28, 2012 12:34 PM
Hello Jeff: We are going to have to talk about this.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 28, 2012 1:17 PM
What kind of stupid punishment is not being allowed to be on the internet anyway?
As for the example I used earlier, the SCOTUS ruled that it was constitutional in Korematsu v. United States. Could such a thing happen again? I don't know. But I do know that no president can overturn it. SCOTUS overturns SCOTUS, barring a constitutional amendment.
Patrick at September 28, 2012 2:08 PM
Amy did you happen to see this?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abc-news-tracks-missing-ipad-florida-home-tsa/story?id=17331937&singlePage=true#.UGYoiqAbD0e
Score one for ABC, performing a successful sting operation on TSA.
Patrick at September 28, 2012 3:47 PM
Agree with Amy on civil liberties (and as Patrick says, *nobody* should be banned from sharing his political views on the Internet for *any* reason).
But can we all, please, stop spreading the disproven myth that Nakoula's video provoked the embassy attack? The attackers planned and armed themselves for the attack before the video ever saw the light of day.
John David Galt at September 28, 2012 9:29 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/09/that-mean-bad-f.html#comment-3347297">comment from John David GaltI just woke up and posted on that, John David Galt.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/09/29/obama_white_hou.html
Amy Alkon
at September 28, 2012 9:59 PM
Patrick: Good video. I can't believe the guy blamed it on his wife.
Ken R at September 28, 2012 10:08 PM
Leave a comment