Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Okay, everyone knows your idiot neighbour is an idiot, and this one definitely fits the stereotype of the xenophobic midwestern busybody. But I think the part that actually irks me about the FBI's handling of it was that they seemed to scold the kid for being Arabic and cooking.

No, it's still shocking. You could make a tenuous argument that the Innocence of Muslims director (I assume that's what you're referring to) was trying to incite riots and violence. this was a case of an Arab kid cooking dinner and living next to a xenophobic bigot, wherein the FBI allegedly told the kid that he should accommodate his xenophobic bigot neighbour. While there is an extremely weak case to suggest that every "tip" had to be followed-up on, there is zero excuse for not saying "yeah, sorry about the hassle, we have to follow-up on every tip. Enjoy your dinner, kid" rather than "next time, be more careful about who sees you cook rice in a rice cooker, kid. You neighbours are donkey-caves and you need to act differently in order to accommodate their asinine fears."

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's still shocking. You could make a tenuous argument that the Innocence of Muslims director (I assume that's what you're referring to) was trying to incite riots and violence.

What's shocking about that dude was that he was investigated for his FREE SPEECH. They just so happen to find that he was using an Alias, which was in direct violation of his probation... hence, he's in JAIL because of that. A very convienent scapegoat... Think about that for a minute.

this was a case of an Arab kid cooking dinner and living next to a xenophobic bigot, wherein the FBI allegedly told the kid that he should accommodate his xenophobic bigot neighbour. While there is an extremely weak case to suggest that every "tip" had to be followed-up on, there is zero excuse for not saying "yeah, sorry about the hassle, we have to follow-up on every tip. Enjoy your dinner, kid" rather than "next time, be more careful about who sees you cook rice in a rice cooker, kid. You neighbours are donkey-caves and you need to act differently in order to accommodate their asinine fears."

Yes, it's shocking... I should rephrased my previous statement as "I'm not surprised" that this happened.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's still shocking. You could make a tenuous argument that the Innocence of Muslims director (I assume that's what you're referring to) was trying to incite riots and violence.

What's shocking about that dude was that he was investigate for his FREE SPEECH. They just so happen to find that he was using an Alias, which was in direct violation of his probation... hence, he's in JAIL because of that. A very convienent scapegoat... Think about that for a minute.

You have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to not be investigated based on what you say.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's still shocking. You could make a tenuous argument that the Innocence of Muslims director (I assume that's what you're referring to) was trying to incite riots and violence.

What's shocking about that dude was that he was investigate for his FREE SPEECH. They just so happen to find that he was using an Alias, which was in direct violation of his probation... hence, he's in JAIL because of that. A very convienent scapegoat... Think about that for a minute.

You have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to not be investigated based on what you say.

Excuse me?

So, if I say something about my government... like... Obama is flubbing his economic policy... thus, excercising my right to "freedom expression".

Something that some Obama flunky in the FBI/IRS/DHS/DA doesn't appreciate... you'd be OKAY with them investigating me? gak, let's take it a step further... just after I said something like that... BLAMO! The IRS audits me. Would you be okay with that?

You don't see a problem with that?

That's fethed up dude...

The director of that movie has absolutely nothing to do with this and was not about free speech. Pretending that it was means being ignorant of the facts at best, and being dishonest at worst.

The guy was on probation for prior convictions of bank fraud and was specifically prohibited from using aliases (which he did) and from using the internet without prior approval from his probation officer (which he didn't get).

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's still shocking. You could make a tenuous argument that the Innocence of Muslims director (I assume that's what you're referring to) was trying to incite riots and violence.

What's shocking about that dude was that he was investigate for his FREE SPEECH. They just so happen to find that he was using an Alias, which was in direct violation of his probation... hence, he's in JAIL because of that. A very convienent scapegoat... Think about that for a minute.

You have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to not be investigated based on what you say.

Excuse me?

So, if I say something about my government... like... Obama is flubbing his economic policy... thus, excercising my right to "freedom expression".

Something that some Obama flunky in the FBI/IRS/DHS/DA doesn't appreciate... you'd be OKAY with them investigating me? gak, let's take it a step further... just after I said something like that... BLAMO! The IRS audits me. Would you be okay with that?

You don't see a problem with that?

That's fethed up dude...

I'm not certain how to answer your question, considering the situation your proposed is completely different than the statement I made.

If you make a bunch statements, such as "I'm going to blow up *insert important building here*" then that is your right. However, it likely means you're going to be investigated, and rightly so. Whether or not that investigation turns up anything is entirely based on whether or not you've done anything against the law.

You see, the world is not black & white, Whembly. Your right to free speech just means that you cannot be punished for saying something. However, that does not mean you cannot be investigated. An investigation does not equate to a punishment. The guy that made the Innocence of Muslims video exercised his right to free speech. It drew attention from the authorities, who investigated him. In doing so, they found that he had violated the terms of his parole. He was not jailed because he made the video.

Now, if I had made the video, then I'd also be investigated. And the investigation would turn up nothing, because my record is spotless. And thus I would be free to make a second asinine video. However, this was not the case of the video's actual director, however.

This is a completely different concept than what you have outlined, because you seem to be equating every facet of government as a solitary body in the way someone who has never attended school would. Do you honestly not see the difference between the FBI investigating someone, and the IRS auditing someone?

 d-usa wrote:
The director of that movie has absolutely nothing to do with this and was not about free speech. Pretending that it was means being ignorant of the facts at best, and being dishonest at worst.

Why was he investigated in the first place? Answer that... please.

The guy was on probation for prior convictions of bank fraud and was specifically prohibited from using aliases (which he did) and from using the internet without prior approval from his probation officer (which he didn't get).

He's no angel and is a very shady person...

Yes he broke is probabtion...

We he did isn't in question... it's WHY he was investigated in the first place is VERY concerning.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The director of that movie has absolutely nothing to do with this and was not about free speech. Pretending that it was means being ignorant of the facts at best, and being dishonest at worst.

Why was he investigated in the first place? Answer that... please.

The guy was on probation for prior convictions of bank fraud and was specifically prohibited from using aliases (which he did) and from using the internet without prior approval from his probation officer (which he didn't get).

He's no angel and is a very shady person...

Yes he broke is probabtion...

We he did isn't in question... it's WHY he was investigated in the first place is VERY concerning.

Because he did something stupid, and to see if the stupid thing he did broke any laws.

That's why people get investigated, to see if they broke laws. If you are breaking laws, don't do stupid crap that will get you investigated.

Think I'm heavily medicated.....could not understand what the Hell D put down

 azazel the cat wrote:

I'm not certain how to answer your question, considering the situation your proposed is completely different than the statement I made.

They're not different... you'll see why when I parse your statement below...

If you make a bunch statements, such as "I'm going to blow up *insert important building here*" then that is your right. However, it likely means you're going to be investigated, and rightly so. Whether or not that investigation turns up anything is entirely based on whether or not you've done anything against the law.

That's understandable... but, then again, did that director threaten anyone? What did he do that warranted the full attention of the DoJ? Carefully think about this man!

You see, the world is not black & white, Whembly.

I've never claimed that... and please show me where I've done that.

Your right to free speech just means that you cannot be punished for saying something.

True.

However, that does not mean you cannot be investigated.

FULL STOP! Why was he investigated? Really explain your logic here... and what I mean, WHAT should/can the investigator look into? Sure they could've watched the movie... what they would've seen is a poorly made movie that is decidedly anti-islam. SO WHAT! From there, why would there be ANY fething reason to do any FURTHER investigation?

An investigation does not equate to a punishment.

He's being punished for violating his parole... what's scary is that the Feds probably wouldn't have known if he hadn't made the video. LET.THAT.SINK.IN.FOR.A.BIT.

The guy that made the Innocence of Muslims video exercised his right to free speech. It drew attention from the authorities, who investigated him. In doing so, they found that he had violated the terms of his parole. He was not jailed because he made the video.

ANd you don't see a problem with that?

Now, if I had made the video, then I'd also be investigated. And the investigation would turn up nothing, because my record is spotless. And thus I would be free to make a second asinine video. However, this was not the case of the video's actual director, however.

They shouldn't investigated you w/o a warrant. You have rights ya know.

This is a completely different concept than what you have outlined, because you seem to be equating every facet of government as a solitary body in the way someone who has never attended school would. Do you honestly not see the difference between the FBI investigating someone, and the IRS auditing someone?

The FBI invesitgation / IRS audit isn't what I'm trying to compare... I'm telling you that "the powers that be" is abusing their position of power here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Because he did something stupid, and to see if the stupid thing he did broke any laws.

That's why people get investigated, to see if they broke laws. If you are breaking laws, don't do stupid crap that will get you investigated.

Prosecuting someone because they broke the law is one thing.

Only prosecuting someone who broke the law, after they embarrassed the administration, is gangster government, extortion, and the road to totalitarianism.

Because if they can do this here... can it happen again?

If he would have made the video and gotten investigated, without breaking any laws, nothing would happen.

Despite your best efforts at mental gymnastics, the government is not at fault here.

He broke the law, willingly. But it's the governments fault he got investigated?

And his video did nothing to embarrass the administration. You really need to come out of the muck of whatever blogs you are hitting in your downtime at work...

 d-usa wrote:
If he would have made the video and gotten investigated, without breaking any laws, nothing would happen.

Despite your best efforts at mental gymnastics, the government is not at fault here.

He broke the law, willingly. But it's the governments fault he got investigated?

And his video did nothing to embarrass the administration. You really need to come out of the muck of whatever blogs you are hitting in your downtime at work...

Look, I resent that you don't think I can't think for myself... so, I'll ignore that for now brah.

A POSSIBLE probation violation doesn't get you a late-night visit from multiple police and a media squad.

Here's what we know:

1. The guy was utterly uninvolved in the Benghazi attacks.

2. The administration knew that.

3. They claimed he was sole reason because that story was more politically convenient to the president during an election. (which is my main beef)

4. They were willing to single him out for unequal enforcement in order to protect their political backsides.

If you don't see how this action is abusive... well, I'll never convince you.

You can think for yourself. I just think that you are so fixated on something that you are willing to let it be reinforced by bad sources from [RandomCrazyBlog] because you want this to be true. I just honestly think that you have become so hung up on the Benghazi thing that you:

1) Really want this to be a much bigger deal than it is.
2) Are willing to believe any possible paragraph that somehow backs up what you want to be true.
3) Ignore the fact that this video was a big deal, and that Benghazi played a very minor role in everything relating that video. But you are now willing to make Benghazi the pivotal factor in why it was investigated.
4) You are bringing up Benghazi in a thread about a guy who had Neighbors call the FBI on him for CRWB (cooking rice while brown).
5) You are complaining in the IRS thread that it will become bigger then Benghazi

Don't be this guy:

 d-usa wrote:
You can think for yourself. I just think that you are so fixated on something that you are willing to let it be reinforced by bad sources from [RandomCrazyBlog] because you want this to be true. I just honestly think that you have become so hung up on the Benghazi thing that you:

I'm hung up on this because the administration fethed up and didn't want to admit it during an election season. That is not what I want in a leader

1) Really want this to be a much bigger deal than it is.

It's a big fething deal... I said my piece.

2) Are willing to believe any possible paragraph that somehow backs up what you want to be true.

Not true... I'm no where near the "impeachment" bandwagon.

3) Ignore the fact that this video was a big deal,

Explain to me how it was a big deal. Please.

and that Benghazi played a very minor role in everything relating that video. But you are now willing to make Benghazi the pivotal factor in why it was investigated.

I'll quote Hillary:

“We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
– Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012

That directly infers that Benghazi WAS.THE.PIVOTAL reason why Nakoula was investigated. You are wrong there.

4) You are bringing up Benghazi in a thread about a guy who had Neighbors call the FBI on him for CRWB (cooking rice while brown).

Yeah, I brought up that the Fed's "behavior" isn't surprising (yes, it's shocking... I clarified that with azazel), citing that you could be investigated by the DoJ and officials come for an "interview" in the wee hours of the night. This is shocking too:

5) You are complaining in the IRS thread that it will become bigger then Benghazi

Not complaining... surmising that IRS issue resonate more with the low-information voters (waaaay more of those that political junkies like me) because the tax-man is a more tangable/scary dude.

Don't be this guy:

Don't be like this guy:

I'm posting plenty of critical comments in the IRS thread, as well as the AP thread, don't worry about that.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm posting plenty of critical comments in the IRS thread, as well as the AP thread, don't worry about that.

I know... I'm being cheeky.

Can you two at least agree that we all wish we were this guy?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Guns don't kill people,starchy grains do.

Considering how obesity is killing Westerners and Americans in particular, this is actually more true then might have originally been intended.

Whembly: you want a warrant prior to an investigation, yet an investigation is required in order to come up with grounds to obtain a warrant (for either search or arrest).

All you are doing is demonstrating that you lack a fundamental understanding of how the criminal justice system works, both in design and practice.

This is a (admittedly basic) outline of how the investigative proicess works:
something draws police attention --> investigation --> possible charges, if any apply.

As I've said before, you can say whatever you like, and you cannot go to jail for your speech. But if you draw the attention of investigators, then you'd best not have a legitimate reason to go to jail.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Whembly: you want a warrant prior to an investigation, yet an investigation is required in order to come up with grounds to obtain a warrant (for either search or arrest).

All you are doing is demonstrating that you lack a fundamental understanding of how the criminal justice system works, both in design and practice.

This is a (admittedly basic) outline of how the investigative proicess works:
something draws police attention --> investigation --> possible charges, if any apply.

As I've said before, you can say whatever you like, and you cannot go to jail for your speech. But if you draw the attention of investigators, then you'd best not have a legitimate reason to go to jail.

Look...

There's two distinct "event" if you will driving our discussion.

The director was made "famous" in the first place because he was erroneously blamed for the protest in Cairo and the event's on Benghazi was placed at his feet. THAT'S my real issue. Instead of "hey, let's take a breath and get all the facts" like you've ALL implored me on Dakka! But, no... the administrations actions placed the blame on the director.

Because he was made famous by the administration's action, of course this attracted the attention of the Parole Officers... which lead to the discovery that he was in violation of his release, thus was remanded back in prison.

This thread isn't about the director... it's about that poor kid in the OP. So...I'll stop.

Most parole infractions are found not in and of themselves but secondary to another investigation.

That is normaly the point in parole conditions. Not to stop an action as punishment but because that action is fundamental to the crime commited and that someone can be put back in prison very quickly if they cannot keep away from that crime. You therefore often find out about them when someone commits that crime, the go strait back to prison for the parole infraction whilst the new crime is investigated, rather than having them out ont he street on bail.

The director, whoever he was, was investigated for a possible crime. It was found that he was someone who was braking his parole and therefore sent back to prison. There is no conspiracy or attept to curtail someones freedom of speech.

It dosn't matter HOW the parole violation was found, the fact is that it was found.