ayin jade Posted November 8, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2012 Political prisoner? http://news.yahoo.com/man-behind-anti-muslim-film-sentenced-prison-005040006.html They are still spreading the lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Political prisoner? http://news.yahoo.co...-005040006.html They are still spreading the lies. He was wrongly arrested for something that he had nothing do with and he has a case against the gov't. They will not let him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 So didn't have a parole violation? Yes he did. But that is not why he was arrested. His rights were violated by arresting him for the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted November 8, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Kimberly Guilfoyle (who IS an attorney, and IS on TV) says that the sentence this man got for "parole violation" was way out of line. Now granted - she is a conservative and she does oppose pretty much everything the Obama admin does. I read the article, and if all the charges against him are valid (big IF) , I have to honestly admit that the punishment does seem to fit his crimes. But here's what bothers me about it - and this whole "video caused the violence" thing: We have an American citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights in making a video. Now granted, it may be a crude and rude video - I can not attest one way or the other because I haven't seen it. Nor do I plan to - but that is irrelevant to the point I want to make. The 1st Amendment means nothing if it cannot protect UNPOPULAR speech. That is why I tend to take a more libertarian view than most of my Christian brethren when it comes to censoring smut or porn. (Not that I'm in favor of smut or porn - HEAVENS NO!) But in the case of the 1st A, I believe we have to take an absolutist view. Because if a case can be made against speech and for censorship in a case like this, then it makes it much easier to make a case in the future about Christian speech or speech that someone like Obama may not like. My problem with the way the Obama admin has handled this is twofold: One, he made it "about the video" in the first place. And even if it were accurate that it truly WAS about the video, Obama never tried to make the case to the Muslim world (which for the most part is stuck in the 12th Century) that hey - you may not like it, but we have free speech in this country. WE (Christians) have to deal with "works of art" that depict our Savior immersed in jars of urine. So whine about depictions of your prophet all you want. But DEAL with it. And if you resort to violence, we will DEAL WITH YOU. THAT would have been an Obama administration response I could have enthusiastically supported. The second problem I have with the way Obama dealt with this is the way the video producer was arrested. Again - I concede he was a parole violator, so apprehending him was entirely justified. But in the middle of the night? With hoards of assorted lawmen? I am, after all, not aware of any violent tendencies that the man is accused of having. So I do believe a more low-key, more traditional apprehension would have been way more appropriate. What kind of message did this media circus send to the Muslim world? Blessings! -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Why was he arrested again? He made a video that he was never supposed to make. He was arrested for the video. That he violated his parole is a separate issue. He was arrested to protect Obama's image. He had every right under the freedoms of our Constitution, (freedom of speech) to make the video. I was a video about the violent nature of Islam. His freedom of speech was violated and his video was blamed for an uprising that it had nothing to do with. The video was made in July. The attack on Benghazi occurred on Sept 11, but that video was initially faulted for what the administration false called a spontaneous backlash to the video. They needed a scapegoat and they found one. Its his own fault, and he is in jail because he put himself there. You admit that he violated his probation, he admits that he violated his probation. Nothing to argue, he messed up. Folks may not like some of the underlying issues, but point blank it is his own fault. The problem is bigger than that. His rights were violated if he was arrested because of the video. That he violated his parole is a separate issue and is his own doing and he alone is accountable for the consequences, but that doesn't diminish what the government did in order to cover up a major foreign policy crisis that the adminstration could have prevented. It does't change the fact that ;four Americans were sacrificed to terrorists and their murders are being covered up in order to protect the president's image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 8, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2012 And no one is asking the pertinent question... How did the White House get knowledge of this video? I asked that on facebook. Most will not deal with the underlying that it was never about a video. One lady ranted about the producer and now, no comments on Benghazi. That is truly disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Be careful what you say. Free speech, and indeed the Constitution, is dead now. And no one is asking the pertinent question... How did the White House get knowledge of this video? IMO, this was all a set up by the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi specifically, with Obama's foreknowledge and support as an excuse to impose "blasphemy laws" at the U.N. level worldwide. Walid Shoebat is related to this film-maker, and says he is a muslim, not a coptic christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 8, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,134 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,859 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2012 And no one is asking the pertinent question... How did the White House get knowledge of this video? I asked that on facebook. Most will not deal with the underlying that it was never about a video. One lady ranted about the producer and now, no comments on Benghazi. That is truly disturbing. The Egyptian news media stirred up protests in Egypt over the video which was actyally posted on youtube in July. There were protests in Egypt. However there were no protest crowds in Libya just radical jihadists. Yod is correct. walid Shoebat says that the guy that made the video was a good friend of his cousin which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Most likely the Brotherhood had the video created to stir up hatred. I might add that if the laws are passed and approved by the Senate against speaking out against Islam, it will do untold damage to the US and Western Civilization as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 8, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm already aware of that but thanks for pointing that out. It does underscore that no one in the intelligence agency said the video was at fault for the attack in Libya as "reported". Hillary Clinton went as far to tell Tyrone Woods' father it was the video when all of them except the father knew the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Nakoula had eight probation violations, including lying to his probation officers and using aliases, and he might face new charges that carry a maximum two-year prison term, authorities said. After his 2010 conviction, Nakoula was sentenced to 21 months in prison and was barred from using computers or the internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. In July, a 14-minute trailer for the film Innocence of Muslims was posted on YouTube,...... http://www.guardian....ms-man-arrested While the video may have been a catalyst, it is simply his own doing he is in the situation that he is in. The video would have never been an issue if he didn't upload it. Once again his fault. The point is that the video should not have been the catalyst. To arrest him on the grounds that he created the video is a violation of his constitutional rights. If he is being held in prison on genuine probation violatinons, that is his fault and he will have to pay for that. But to use the video as the grounds for the initial arrest is against the law and was done NOT for the sake of justice but to make it appear that the adminstration was taking some kind of action, when in fact it was violation of the rights of an american citzen. It further highlights the fact that there is greater problem with a coverup going on to shield president from tough questions about his foreign policy failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts