Free Markets, Free People

DoJ identifies man allegedly responsible for anti-Islamic film

So the Justice Department (a department name becoming more Orwellian by the day) has fingered the man they suspect of being responsible for this film the administration says caused these deadly attacks in the Middle East?

Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi. It was not immediately clear whether authorities were focusing on the California filmmaker as part of that probe.

A federal law enforcement official said Thursday that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was the man behind “Innocence of Muslims,” a film denigrating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that sparked protests earlier in the week in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen. U.S. authorities are investigating whether the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya came during a terrorist attack.

Uh, so? Implying this film is the reason for the murders that have taken place is a bit like complaining that a woman who was raped dressed too provocatively (which, btw, is a valid complaint … in Saudi Arabia).

And AP, by gosh, is on the job:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Nakoula was connected to the persona of Sam Bacile, a figure who initially claimed to be the writer and director of the film. But Bacile quickly turned out to a false identity and the Associated Press traced a cellphone number used by Bacile to a southern California house where Nakoula was found.

Bacile initially claimed a Jewish and Israeli background. But others involved in the film said his statements were contrived as evidence mounted that the film’s key player was a southern Californian Coptic Christian with a checkered past.

Nakoula told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles Wednesday that he managed logistics for the company that produced “Innocence of Muslims,” which mocked Muslims and the prophet Muhammad.

Nakoula denied that he was Bacile and insisted he did not direct the film, though he said he knew Bacile. But federal court papers filed against Nakoula in a 2010 criminal prosecution said that he had used numerous aliases in the past. Among the fake names, the documents said, were Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily and Erwin Salameh, all similar to the Sam Bacile persona. Other aliases described in the documents included Ahmad Hamdy, Kritbag Difrat and PJ Tobacco.

During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.

The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cellphone 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. Egypt’s Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Arab majority.

If only AP had shown the same drive and interest in Fast and Furious. Or actually vetting the President before the 2008 election.

But to the point. It doesn’t matter who did what to whom concering the film. Or who is responsible for it. Until recently this was America, land of the free and home of those with the right to freedom of speech.

We have the right to express our opinions in various ways whether others like it or not. Do you imagine that “Christian feelings” were “hurt” when “piss Christ” was displayed? Of course they were. Christians were very offended.

Don’t remember 4 dead over that, do you?

Don’t remember the Justice Department becoming involved either.

I think that may be because when that happened the right to free speech wasn’t under assualt and those who created the so-called “work of art” (as well as the government) weren’t particulary concerned with whether or not the feelings of any particular religion.

Because back then we knew the test of freedom of speech wasn’t protecting speech you agreed with, but that with which you vehemently disagreed.


And, like it or not, that’s the principle, so quickly abandoned by this administration, Mitt Romney was talking about.


Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

48 Responses to DoJ identifies man allegedly responsible for anti-Islamic film

  • “Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi.”
    And will they be investigating the allegation that the State Department and the Administration were aware of the threats well in advance and did practically NOTHING in response?
    Yeah, I can hardly wait to see if they think they can prosecute this idiot for his film, link him to the deaths, and try him.  Talk about your Constitutional crisis.

      • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
        DOJ – We find em, you frag em.
        “No film makers were harmed in the DOJ identification process, any injuries or fatalities suffered by any film makers, their acquaintances, or family members, subsequent to identification as a result of third party action are purely coincidental and the DOJ is not responsible, your mileage may vary.”

    • I found it very interesting that YouTube (i.e. Google) has refused to take down the video.
      In this perverted scheme of things, I guess YouTube is an accessory to the crime.

      • I guess I spoke too soon …

        Obama administration officials also flagged the trailer to YouTube and asked the company to review whether it violated the website’s terms of service.

  • Because back then we knew the test of freedom of speech wasn’t protecting speech you agreed with, but that with which you vehemently disagreed.

    Well, and there was the issue of FEDERAL FUNDING of some of these exhibits or the artist themselves.
    Hill-larry has re-avowed her disavowal of her vowel wherein she apologized for free speech if someone’s feelings get hurt.
    Holder is a criminal, as he shows virtually every day.
    And the Obamabanana Republic is a gang of outlaws.

  • Hey, you don’t even have to be American any more to get blamed for this guy’s film.  The German and British embassies in Sudan (Khartoum….now why does that sound familiar to me as a history buff) were stormed today by the peace loving followers of Islam.
    Maybe the Brits will send the SAS to hunt this dude down, whack his head off, and send it in a velvet lined box to Morsi.

  • But Cap expects me to stand with people lkke these in time of crisis? This is disgusting behavior

    • Surrender your freedoms, it will be easier, let others think for you, it takes less work and causes less stress.  Peace will be ensured.
      These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

      • Rioters in more embassies today… must be Romneys fault

        • Yes, they were offended that he didn’t agree with the Cairo embassy apologies.    And he tied his dog to the top of his car!

  • In many instances we are not free to say anything we wish.  For example, suits for defamation of character; we are also not allowed to make threats against certain politicians; nor yell ‘fire’ in a crowded auditorium. I think there are ample examples of this kind of exclusion—if one wants to research the matter.  Why should some idiot jeopardize world-wild diplomacy based on some religious message.

    • I wipe my a$$ with your “world diplomacy” you dhimmi cretin. My freedoms trump “world duplomacy” EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Hey Cap, you see this guy? You honestly expect me to stand together with him?  REALLY dude? 

      I think I’ll exercise my freedoms right now:  Eff Islam, eff Allah, eff the child molester Mohammad, eff the Koran, eff Mecca. LONG LIVE USA, LONG LIVE ISRAEL, LONG LIVE THE JEWS, LONG LIVE BACON, BEER AND BOINKING!

    • Where exactly in the Constitution does it say we lose our rights for the sake of “world diplomacy”? This guy has to be fake, no one can be this stupid.

    • ” Why should some idiot jeopardize world-wild diplomacy based on some religious message.”
      Note your examples – suits for defamation, not allowed to make threats, nor yell fire.   Hey, idiot, which example you gave of someone using speech resulted in the death at the hands of a raging mob that was sanctioned by a civilized religion or government?
      Suits for defamation, you mean there was a court?  Evidence?  A Trial?
      Not allowed to make threats, oh, you mean someone made a threat, it was investigated, they were arrested if appropriate, followed by court, evidence, a trail.
      Yelling fire, oh, let me take a wild guess and see…what, an arrest, court, evidence, a trial.
      What did EVERY freaking one of those things have in common?,  you dhimmi-in-training.   Where was the rioting?  The rocket propelled grenades?  The burning buildings?  The murders?
      So, violence trumps law, order and civilization in your book.
      How about Piss Christ, why would some artist jeopardize world-wide diplomacy based on some religious message?   Maybe the Christians should have followed your advice and gotten violent, avoided the wait of trials or courts or hoping public opinion would come out in their favor and just set fire to the artist and burned down the gallery to show how they felt about the guy’s art/speech.  That’s what you’re advocating, isn’t it?  Silence in return for safety, right?  Violence in return for offense. Idiot.
      Is it okay if we still eat pork?

    • Why should some idiot jeopardize world-wild diplomacy based on some religious message.

      Who jeopardized world-wide diplomacy? I blame Obama. And the morons who voted for him.

    • “Why should some idiot jeopardize world-wild diplomacy based on some religious message.”
      Which idiot with a religious message would that be? Jesus? Mohammed? The Buddha? Etc?
      Speaking of idiots.

    • But you can’t defame a dead man.  “The Prophet” has been dead for centuries.

    • Your side fought hard for public funding of Piss Christ and the elephant dung Virgin Mary.
      Stop being such a wussy about Islam.
      Its shameful – its like you think those poor dumb brown people aren’t human enough to get free speech and free religion so let’s bow to their crazy demands to calm them down.
      Plus, once you start doing this…you are going to be barraged by perceived insults and slights.

    • Seriously, tadcf, this is the stupidest thing you’ve ever written.

  • In case anyone thinks you have to make naughty films about the prophet to cause this kind of thing, consider the German Embassy in Sudan –
    “In Sudan, a prominent sheik on state radio urged protesters to march on the German Embassy to protest alleged anti-Muslim graffiti on mosques in Berlin and then to the U.S. Embassy to protest the film.

    “America has long been an enemy to Islam and to Sudan,” Sheik Mohammed Jizouly said.

    Soon after, several hundred Sudanese stormed into the German Embassy, burning a car parked behind its gates and setting fire to trash cans. Protesters danced and celebrated around the burning barrels as palls of black smoke billowed into the sky.”

    • “America has long been an enemy to Islam and to Sudan,” Sheik Mohammed Jizouly said.
      Obviously in the tradition of the Islamic scholars that brought knowledge and enlightenment  to a Europe mired in the intellectual swamp of the Dark Ages.

      • Appeasement folks are fools to think it’s not whatever floats their anger boat at the moment.  Films, cartoons, comments, graffiti.  Maybe it’s because we don’t force our women to wear Burkas, or because we eat pork.  Maybe it’s because we don’t have Sharia law.
        And if we haven’t REALLY done something, all they have to do is say we did, or imagine we did, or think we might be going to.   There’s always a good excuse for a nice riot in the name of the prophet.  Jihad in the morning, home by supper, on the cheap, right in your own backyard, earn paradise in your spare time.

  • It is always entertaining listening to the likes of Diane Rehm, a card carrying member of the ACLU, talk about the necessity of restricting inflammatory speech.

  • Bomb threats at various U.S. universities today.
    And mob burns American flag at our British Embassy.
    Obama strangely silent on how he got Osama.

    • But he’s got a big fundraiser with Jay-Z!

      • People are over Obama, like he’s a rapper who has not had a big hit in a while or a singer whose last few albums have bombed. You still see people peddling the Obama tee shirts on the south side, “but you ain’t see nobody BUYING them, do you?”.

    • Damn that Romney!  Look what he’s done!  This is surely the day that will sink his run for President!

  • A weird similarity exists between the crazed Middle East demonstrators, many of them evidently high on Tramadol, and our own mainstream media.
    Both are operating under an only slightly buried sense of shame.

    Beneath the Middle Easterners’ rage is an obvious humiliation over the backwardness of their culture.
    Beneath the behavior of our media is a fear of humiliation at the polls — that their blind devotion to Barack Obama was a mistake.
    I am more sympathetic to the Middle Easterners.
    And, ultimately, it is our mainstream media that are more dangerous.

    Magic thinking will kill you…and a lot of other people you care about.

  • White House asks YouTube to pull the clip. Islam is now protected religion

  • “White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday the violent protests throughout the Middle East are not directed at the United States or U.S. policy but are a response to a YouTube video:”
    Yes, and being unable to burn Youtube, or drag members of the Youtube nation into the street for massacre, the peoples of the Middle East have decided US embassies are good stand ins.
    Your President wants to make it very clear, this is not a protest against HIM, and assure you that the Department of Injustice is working over time to track down this scurrilous film maker.
    When they killed the ambassador the other night, it was because he was known to watch YouTube videos, not because he was an American Ambassador to Libya.

    • and they chanted “still a billion Osamas” in Cairo because it is well known that Osama was a big Youtube fan, and he particularly liked the E-Trade talking baby videos and GoDaddy ads.
      That whole Osama thing, he wasn’t, as Obama claims, killed by Obama or Americans, or anything like that.

  • “Jack” Ryan: Obama is “skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries.”
    And supine postures against REAL adversaries.
    About the only people he NEVER bows to are Americans.

  • Show of hands – who thinks the riots will stop if YouTube bans the video?  Who thinks the peaceful peoples of Islam will stop protesting America?

    • Mark Steyn: An act of war, not a movie protest
      Count that as my vote…

    • What Mister’s Carney and Obama forget is it doesn’t matter what THEY (or even we) think the protestors are thinking, what matters is what the PROTESTORS are thinking.
      I’ll sell them a clue, cheap – “Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, a branch of the international network that advocates a worldwide Islamic state, on its website blamed the U.S. government for allowing the film to be produced and released, calling it “an act of barbarism that cannot go unpunished.””