Man behind anti-Muslim film ordered jailed
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man linked to the anti-Muslim film believed to have sparked so much unrest, was taken out of his home to be interviewed by federal probation officers earlier this month. He was arrested on Sept. 27, 2012 for a probation violation.
Updated 1:30 a.m. ET Sept. 28, 2012
LOS ANGELES A federal judge on Thursday ordered the man behind a crudely produced anti-Islamic video that inflamed parts of the Middle East to be detained because he is a flight risk.
Citing a lengthy pattern of deception, U.S. Central District Chief Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal said Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be held after officials said he violated his probation from a 2010 check fraud conviction.
"The court has a lack of trust in this defendant at this time," Segal said.
Nakoula, 55, was arrested Thursday. He 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. Nakoula will remain behind bars until another hearing where a judge will rule if he broke the terms of his probation.
Nakoula wore beige pants and a collared shirt when he was led into the courtroom handcuffed and shackled. He appeared relaxed, smiling at one point before the hearing and conferring with his attorney.
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.
Probation office looking at anti-Muslim filmmaker
Protests have erupted around the Middle East over a 14-minute trailer for the film "Innocence of Muslims" that depicts Prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, religious fraud and child molester. Though the trailer was posted to YouTube in July, the violence didn't break out until Sept. 11 and has spread since.
Nakoula's jailing appeared to be having little immediate effect on protests expected after Friday prayers in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, a senior government official speaking on condition of anonymity told CBS News. He said the detention "will not subdue the protests immediately." However, he said, the government expected fewer participants than there were a week ago.
Nakoula, a Christian originally from Egypt, went into hiding after he was identified as the man behind the trailer.
In court Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale said Nakoula was flight risk, partially because of the uproar over the film. The violence in the Middle East broke out Sept. 11 and has spread since, killing dozens, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
"He has every incentive to disappear," Dugdale said.
The hearing had an unusual wrinkle as the news media were banned from the courtroom, and reporters had to watch the proceedings on a TV in a different courthouse a couple blocks away. Court officials didn't give a reason for the decision.
Nakoula's attorney Steven Seiden sought to have the hearing closed and his client released on $10,000 bail. He argued Nakoula has checked in with his probation officer frequently and made no attempts to leave Southern California.
Seiden was concerned that Nakoula would be in danger in federal prison because of Muslim inmates, but prosecutors said he likely would be placed in protective custody.
The full story about Nakoula and the film still isn't known.
The movie was made last year by a man who called himself Sam Bacile. After the violence erupted, a man who identified himself as Bacile called media outlets including The Associated Press, took credit for the film and said it was meant to portray the truth about Muhammad and Islam, which he called a cancer.
The next day, the AP determined there was no Bacile and linked the identity to Nakoula, a former gas station owner with a drug conviction and a history of using aliases. Federal authorities later confirmed there was no Bacile and that Nakoula was behind the movie.
Before going into hiding, Nakoula acknowledged to the AP he was involved with the film, but said he only worked on logistics and management.
A film permit listed Media for Christ, a Los Angeles-area charity run by other Egyptian Christians, as the production company. Most of the film was made at the charity's headquarters. Steve Klein, an insurance agent in Hemet and outspoken Muslim critic, has said he was a consultant and promoter for the film.
The trailer still can be found on YouTube. The Obama administration asked Google, YouTube's parent, to take down the video but the company has refused, saying it did not violate its content standards.
Meantime, a number of actors and workers on the film have come forward to say they were duped. They say they were hired for a film titled "Desert Warrior" and there was no mention of Islam or Muhammad in the script. Those references were dubbed in after filming was completed.
Actress Cindy Lee Garcia has sued to get the trailer taken down, saying she was duped.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Young victims of deadly Okla. tornado 8 Photos
- Tsarnaev friend implicates dead brother, self in murders 163 Comments
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Boy Scouts to vote on allowing openly gay members
- Minn. park landslide leaves 1 child dead, 1 missing
- Hard recovery in store after Okla. tornado's devastation
- Body of child recovered from deadly Minn. landslide
- Up-close video of Moore, Okla., tornado Play Video
2. The cases you cite, from an admittedly cursory look, seem to concern actions on US soil by US citizens, and subject ot US law. Violent actions by foreigners against sovereign US territory are generally considered acts of war from an American perspective. They're only merely criminal acts in Libya if Libya's laws prohibit such actions. I would argue that there is no precedent in the cases cited based upon that fact.
3. Most importantly, you still have yet to provide reasonable support for your assertion that it was, in fact, the video that spawned these actions. Plenty of experts and high level officials offer a dissenting point of view.
p.s. Brandenburg v. Ohio seems to call into question several of the previous (chronologically) judgments you cited, whittling your list down to it and 1 other case. May I also remind you that the courts have been known in the past to be legally binding at the time, but ultimately wrong.
He should be prosecuted for probation violations, but not for the movie is all we are saying...surely you can see that? and you can't deny that his probation violations were brought to light by his movie...law enforcement does that all the time.
For instance, a person is suspected of murder, first thing detectives will do will look for some "unrelated" outstanding criminal record, in order to bring him/her in for questioning. It is a useful tactic...the problem here is that murder is against the law, whereas making the movie isn't. He should be punished for parole violations, but his parole violations should not be used as an excuse for exercising his freedom of speech, no matter how offending it was.
That is all we are concerned about. Understand?
And if you don't believe in FREE SPEECH, well then, there is just no reasoning with you.
"He who gives up freedom for a little safety deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin
A lot of times, we neglect to consider the effects of our actions. I really don't have a problem with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula using his right to protected speech, my problem is with the consequences of his actions, because they obviously represented something in law known as "A Clear and Present Danger." It's not like there wasn't a strong precedent of violent reaction to anti-Muslim rhetoric already, some that already had taken the lives of other Americans. This individual would have a very difficult time convincing rational people that he wasn't aware that this sort of thing would take place.
Here are a few legal precedents by none other than the Supreme Court of the United States of America, covering "Clear And Present Danger" issues in regards to repressing the Constitutionally mandated Freedom of Speech. I doubt that you'll go to the trouble of looking them up, but non-the-less, I encourage you to do so.
Schenck v.U.S., 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed.
Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.
Gitlow v. New York- 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138., This is a 1925 decision by the Supreme Court that upheld the Constitutionality of Criminal Anarchy Statutes.
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S., 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927). Here the Supreme Court argued that before speech could be prohibited, a "clear and present danger must be imminent.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 491, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951).
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed. 2d 430 (1969).
Understand ?
So while he was on probation, he allegedly made a false passport application (which is under penalty of perjury), used a variety of aliases and lied to his parole officer...all of which are probation violations. This is an arrogant, reckless and selfish man who has a history of deceiving people and is only out for himself. This time, he didn't just take people's money to make a very controversial movie whose contents are protected by the First Amendment. He repeatedly violated his probation and got a lot of people killed and injured in the process. For that, he should go back to prison.
I have no sympathy for him.
Suppose a Christian fanatic, which there are some, killed someone in response to the DaVinci Code movie...would we be having this debate? I doubt it.
Yeah okay.
People like Ryan and Santorum, and especially that "legitimate rape" clown, will be the first to strip us of our freedoms, if anyone can.
He used AN ALIAS when they told him not to, B.F.D. -
There is NO reason he should not have received BAIL - even rapists and murderers, child molesters get BAIL. The judge ruled he was 'a danger to others' BY WHAT LOGIC or set of circumstances is he a danger to others? NONE, nothing - he's not.
His attorney requested $10,000 bail, which is probably standard. The man was guilty of fraud - which was probably something else he used a fake name for. L.A. COUNTY where he is arraigned has over 1,500 outstanding arrest warrants for HOMICIDE and the majority of those wanted killers are illegal aliens, and the country is up in arms because some schmuck who used an alias is arrested for violating his probation and people want to see him get hurt.
A man in my town strangled his wife to death and got $50,000 bail. What's up with that? This guy can't get bail?
And @BRADKT1 yeah, making a false passport application is a very serious matter, just ask the guy who was going to testify about false passports and social security numbers in a case that involved BHO and his wife (using made up social security numbers on some real estate deals) OH WAIT THAT'S RIGHT,he was assassinated, found dead in his car in front of his church with a single gunshot wound to the left temple, no robbery.
GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT. It IS serious business, especially when the corrupt government is involved.