Egyptian Warrants Issued For Terry Jones, Coptic Filmmaker

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Published: September 18, 2012
CAIRO --

Egypt's general prosecutor has issued arrest warrants for Gainesville pastor Terry Jones, seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and referred them to trial on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that has sparked riots across the Muslim world.

One of the accused is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian Copt living in southern California and believed to be behind the film.

Jones, who has said he was contacted by the filmmaker to promote the video, as well as Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who pushed the video on his website, are also among those charged.

The connection of the other five to the film was not immediately clear.

Read more: http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/2012/sep/18/egyptian-warrants-issued-for-terry-jones-filmmaker-ar-504556/

[LeftinOH]

1. No way. No extradition for "blasphemy". I hope the State Department makes

this perfectly clear. They can respond by making Jesus Christ look like a monster or by burning all the Bibles they want, but they don't get to impose religious law on us.

[Bragi]

5. Agreed! Blasphemy is not illegal in the US /nt

[jtuck004]

17. And if they TRY to impose religious law on us, we will shoot them with guns that

have our OWN religious inscriptions on them.

How dare they...

[Scootaloo]

18. Why would they do that, though?

They regard Jesus as a great prophet, and see the Bible as a holy (but flawed) book.

But yeah, I don't think you're going to have to worry about extradition over blasphemy charges. Feel free to work yourself into a self-righteous lather over it, though.

[silvershadow]

27. I never thought I would be defending Jones, but I absolutely agree with you. nt

[octothorpe]

69. I doubt anyone actually thinks the guy will be extradited.

[Canuckistanian]

86. I have to agree

But it isn't "imposing religious law", it's basically AGREEING with a theocratic government about basic law issues.

America is OFFICIALLY a secular nation in matters of law.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. I guess if the US can arrest Swedish nationals outside of this country

Egypt can arrest Americans in the US.
All is fair in money and war.

[hack89]

23. Who was that? nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. Assange

[hack89]

28. America hasn't arrested Assange

they haven't even requested extradition.

[nichomachus]

52. That's what they've got the UK for.

[hack89]

57. The UK has had Assange for two years

don't you think if the plan was for America to get their hands on Assange he would be in a US jail by now?

[King_David]

54. Assange is not a Swedish National

Julian Paul Assange ( /əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

[PavePusher]

72. Sigh.

60 seconds on Google/Wikipedia is all it would have taken.

Come on, we're better than this....

[fascisthunter]

87. "we" are?

come on now.... Assange

[frylock]

79. egypt has every right to kill them with drones..

the precedence has been set.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. So, by that "logic" al Qaeda is free to send a team of operatives after Obama.

[frylock]

93. take it up with whoever it was that wrote the policy

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. I'm guessing that would be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States

I mean, I doubt he typed it himself, they pay people to do that for him; but I'm pretty sure he was briefed on the policy and approved it and when a strike is conducted he's briefed on the results as well.

[Nihil]

96. Let's hope that he thought far enough ahead before he signed it then.

(Thinking beyond an election cycle? A politician? I obviously need more coffee ...)

[Frances]

3. It seems to me

that the filmmakers were deliberately yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Bragi]

4. What if the person shouting thought there was a fire?

I ask because there is every reason to think that this film reflects the views of the the people who made it.

This being so, it matters not who might be offended, as this was an exercise in free speech.

You do understand that religious blasphemy is legal in the US, right?

[LanternWaste]

6. I imagine there are ways to alert people to a perceived fire-danger

I imagine there are ways to alert people to a perceived fire-danger that does not in fact, marginalize or trivialize anyone.


"You do understand that religious blasphemy is legal in the US, right?"
I imagine that's why America is not bringing charges.

[Ash_F]

61. Hate speech, not blasphemy. Don't try to minimize it.

The film's focus was on attacking Muslims, not just Islam. That is the difference between hate speech and blasphemy.

That said, hate speech is not illegal in the states, but is in every other first world nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[Bragi]

62. A truly American value

One that ought not be undervalued.

[Ash_F]

76. It makes you wonder if every other first world country is wrong...

...or if the USA should not be considered a first world nation, considering we also rank at/near the bottom of most civil liberties and human wellness charts.

There is a difference between inciting hate and poking fun. People who claim this video is just poking fun, criticizing or merely blasphemous are being dishonest at best, poorly veiling their own bigotry at worst. No, the intent is to incite hate; nothing of value and nothing to be encouraged.

btw - Check out the latest twitter trend #MuslimRage. That is what poking fun at Islam looks like. Big difference between that and the "Innocence" video.

https://twitter.com/#!/search/?q=%23MuslimRage&src=hash

[Bragi]

82. S do I understand you correctly?

You think anyone who disagrees with you on the merits of having laws against "hate speech" are really just dishonest bigots.

Okay, I get it. Care to explain your reasons?

[Ash_F]

89. No you didn't

Reading comprehension...

[sabrina 1]

63. Blasphemy is not legal obviously in other countries. We generally don't consider

that our laws would not make this a crime here when considering extradition. Eg, everyone acknowledges that the allegations against Assange would not be a crime in Britain, yet, Britain has cooperated with Sweden to extradite him.

It is the law in the country in question that matters. Or so we have been told here over and over again, regarding the Assange case.

It will be interesting to see now how those who have argued FOR Assange's extradition despite the fact that what he is alleged to have done would not violate Britain's laws, will argue about this case. I am looking forward to see if they will remain consistent.

[Bragi]

68. An important distinction

The right of Americans to engage in offensive blasphemy is not just "a law" that needs to be considered, it is a *constitutional right* that cannot be infringed.

Unless the US were to repeal the First Amendment, and then pass a law outlawing blasphemy, (hello, anyone still there?), no-one can/will ever be extradited from the US to anywhere for offending someone's religious sensitivities.

I think that's the point.

Maybe what we're seeing here is a deal between Egypt and the US. Egypt gets to lay a charge, the US refuses to extradite, the Egyptians then get to run a mock blasphemy trial, the US ignores it and moves on.

Not sure how the filmmakers will fare in the end, but I imagine they will at minimum be subjected to a fatwa, and have to disappear.

[sabrina 1]

85. I wasn't referring to America's laws. I was referring to Egypt's laws.

Clearly their laws and Europe's btw, are different to ours. I was pointing out the similarity now in this case, Egypt, under THEIR laws may request the extradition of those who have violated their laws and the Swedish case. What will Western Nations do now?

Sweden's laws re sexual abuse are very different to the laws of other European countries. Yet, when considering Sweden's request for the extradition of Assange, the British Court did NOT say 'we can't do it because he didn't violate OUR laws and we don't care if he violated YOUR laws. They based their decision on Sweden's right to pursue someone they claim violated THEIR laws.

I'm interested in the reaction of those who supported the British Court's decision and whether they will take the same position on Egypt's laws as they did on Sweden's.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Seems to me your are wrong

That meme has pretty well been debunked as has the incitement claims.

[Bragi]

8. Yes, but they've not been debunked in this thread

In DU, every thread is a new sisyphean struggle.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. And of course there are new embellishments on each thread

It does get tiring slapping them down.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. If the film makers made the movie with the intetnion of causing riots and...

precipitating internatonal incidents, it would not be freedom of speech, and it would be a crime in the U.S. But that would be very dificult to prove unless the makers were stupid beyound belief.

[Bragi]

15. Not quite so...

It matters not the state of mind of the speaker, what matters is whether they have actually urged and advocated that people rise up and commit illegal acts of violence.

If people just get outraged because of what they hear and decide to commit acts of violence to protest what is being said, then that is not the fault of the speaker, nor is it a reason to suppress their right to free speech. (At least now in America, where the 1st amendment rules such matters.) - B

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. My point was not their state of mind.

If this group conspired to do this to incite a riot, then it would matter indeed. It would be a matter of intent not state of mind.
The problem is proving the conspiracy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. You might want to review some of the other posts on the USCS before you make that claim

It does not fit under the definition of incitement and that section does not have long arm status.

[demosincebirth]

32. he did not break a U. S. law. We can't help what fanatics in other countries deem a crime . I hate

to defend the guy, but it's, definitely, not like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[movonne]

55. If they burned our bibles would we be fanatics...the

repugs would be bombing them right now..that is if the repugs were in power...

[demosincebirth]

60. I don't think so. Fundies might get their shorts in a knot...a guy might throw a brick at mosque,

certainly not "the world is ending" kind of thing. We do have religious assholes but no comparison.

[hughee99]

33. It's not even mumbling fire in an open field with almost no one around.

Then, a person who heard the mumble goes and tells a few other people, and one of those other people runs into a crowded room and screams "We're all gonna die if you don't scramble for the exits right now".

The filmmaker has every right to make the film, no one saw it. During the process of trying to get some, ANY, publicity for the film, he showed it to a few other people. At some point, someone looking for things to be offended by came across this and sent it to someone who they knew would definitely be offended. That person used it to rile up their followers and direct their anger at a government that had nothing to do with the film.

[PavePusher]

73. Really? Mocking someone's Sky Elf equals "Fire!" in a crowded room with limited exits?

I nominate that post for dumbest on D.U. today.

[4th law of robotics]

75. Except that makes the other attendees very much afraid for their lives

and they will likely respond to that real threat with panic and trampling.

What real threat is forcing people to riot as an act of self-preservation here?

[iandhr]

9. Even bigots have free speech rights.

[SoapBox]

11. Unfortunately...

Personally....

I believe in Free Speech...but there are limits...and should be limits.

What should those limits be? Hell, I'm not even sure but...

just say'n.

[Missycim]

36. Short of calling for violence

or committing libel (or is it slander?) it shouldn't be against the law.

[cpwm17]

12. This is like the Assange case

So as long as they stay out of Egypt they are legally safe. They broke no American laws. Blasphemy is legal here.

Likewise, Assange was not in the US so he isn't subject to American laws, despite the claims of the imperialists.

[msongs]

14. bullies of Islam doing what they do best nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. I'm personally more concerned with the bullies of Christ right here at home.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. The risks are no where near the same

In an islamic country, if you are gay, you get stoned to death. In the US bible bet, if you are open about being gay you might have a harder time finding an apartment to rent.

It is not against US law to criticize islam or its central figure, In Egypt it can get you the death penalty.

[rexcat]

30. Not necessarily true...

Gays in this country do risk physical harm and even death. Not to the extent in countries where Islam is the primary religion but it does happen in this country way to often.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. That is why I focus my weekend firearms classes on GLBTs and women

since they are the most vulnerable and often the least informed about firearms.

Also note the difference between the difference between government action (stoning) and illegal discrimination.

Overall, by any reasonable measure, the risks to gays from religion is much higher from some religions than others.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Not at the hands of the State. Risk from criminals and haters is universal.

But it is a very different matter when death is dolled out officially. That does not happen in this country. It does happen in other countries, not all of them Islamic, but most.
I find the equation of the two things to be minimizing of murdering people for being who they are. When a State does it, they are like Nazis and they should not be pampered by saying 'we all do it'. That's bullshit.

[rexcat]

83. And...

the end result is the same. Intolerance by the State or by its citizens is not good but if done by the State it is worse.

My point was killing of GLBT persons does happen in this country. That is all I was saying and not specifically as it being State sponsored or not. There are too many crimes against the GLBT community in this country and the police and too many in positions of political power could care less. Our culture needs to change!

[JoeyT]

48. Inorite!

Matthew Shepard had a terrible time renting an apartment. Before bigots tied him to a post and beat him to death, I mean.

Uganda doesn't even have laws to make it easier for gay people to rent apartments. Well, and they keep trying to make it a capital crime with the help of our homegrown bigots.

I have to wonder if you live in the US bible belt, because I do and the problems go way beyond "Can't rent an apartment". It's a little easier in the cities, but in rural areas being gay will get you killed just as fast as living in Egypt. It won't be the cops doing the killing, they'll just help cover for the people that kill you. It's why every gay kid in rural areas denies it until they're old enough to move, then they GTFO of town as quickly as possible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. There is a world of difference and quantifiable risk between Government laws and illegal actions

The post I responded to the poster was more worried about xtain fundies at home...my point is that it is considerably worse elsewhere.

[Scootaloo]

19. Filing for an arrest warrant in accordance with the laws of their own nation?

The monsters!

[Bragi]

37. It's fine as Kabuki theatre

As long as no-one expects the US to do anything against the film or its makers.

[Scootaloo]

38. I think it's more of an "arrest these guys if they visit" thing

You know, like all the warrants out for Cheney and Rumsfeld

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. It also shows the "only the radical fringe are upset" meme is a lie

even if it was intended as a sop to the mobs.

[Scootaloo]

43. A similar situation exists in germany, Professor

Wherein Jones and the others involved in this movie will be arrested if they show their noses past the border. In accordance with Germany's laws against hate speech.

Are Germans a "mob" too? Is this the result of a "radical fringe" in Germany? Or is it just Germany issueing a warrant in accordance with hte laws of Germany? It's okay for a white, Christian, western nation to issue such a warrant, but not an Arab, Muslim, middle eastern nation?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Germany is considering banning it, not arrest warrants from what I have read

[Scootaloo]

64. Terry Jones will not be allowed into the country, from what I understand

But hey, banning! That's against freespeech. Let's hear you condemn the lunatic mob of Germany, professor!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. I have not read that, but even if true, it is still not a rioting mob

[Bragi]

70. What's your point?

The kind of hate speech laws found in most Western countries would not survive a court challenge in the US because of First Amendment rights. So?

[glacierbay]

97. You said Germany would arrest them if they tried to enter the country

now your changing your tune? Being arrested and not being allowed into the country are two totally different things.

[Panasonic]

22. I would love to see a Red Notice from Interpol on Jones

so he cannot leave the country or face arrest.

[Bragi]

24. How would that help anything?

Turns out it is possible to enrage some Muslims without even leaving home.

Also, has Interpol ever put out an arrest warrant for someone accused of blasphemy? I doubt it.

[dkf]

31. I highly doubt Terry Jones wants to go to the Middle East.

The idea is laughable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I am waiting for the Obama administration to react

If they don't make some statement against this, it will be used against them in the presidential campaign.

Then again, its not like the outcome of it is in doubt after the last few days.

[Bragi]

29. I'm waiting for the administration to even say the words "free speech"

I think it's a terrible error not to explain to the Muslim world what free speech means in America, so they can understand that Americans are free to be offensively blasphemous if they choose, and that if and when they do so, it does not reflect the approval or views of the government or the American people.

I have yet to hear an administration official make that statement in the current setting, or two years ago when Jones had his burn a Koran moment. Not once did they talk about free speech.

With no-one prepared to explain free speech, it is not surprising that many in the Muslim world simply do not understand what American-style free speech means that offensive blasphemy is legal in the US.

[julian09]

34. I think that SEC of STATE Clinton addressed the matter.

[Bragi]

35. I don't think she did

I've been trying to keep up with every statement, and I have not heard her say the two words "free speech" to explain why the government cannot censor the film, and arrest its makers.

I would be very agreeable to be proven wrong on this.

Can you (or anyone else) point me to any statement made by a US official explaining that this film is protected free speech in America?

[karynnj]

44. Here you go:

"At the State Department, speaking alongside her Moroccan counterpart, Clinton said, “our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/egyptian-president-calls-blasphemy-red-line-clinton-invokes-free-expression

AND

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday strongly denounced the mysterious anti-Muslim film tied to protests and deadly attacks on American diplomatic compounds. But she reiterated that America will not tolerate limits on its free speech — and challenged leaders in the Muslim world to immediately denounce violence in response.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/hillary-clinton-we-reject-disgusting-film-but-all-leaders-must-reject-violence.php

These were the first 2 articles that Google gave me when I put in "Hillary Clinton freedom of speech Egypt"

[Bragi]

56. Thanks

Those are indeed good statements. pleased to see them on the record.

Now I'd just like it said more often and emphaticly. Given that if I missed it, I suspect much of the Muslim world also missed it.

I also think the US needs to do a campaign explaining it when there isn't a crisis.

But I'm glad to see free speech in the transcript.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Not the ones I have read

[Scootaloo]

42. Funny thing...

Offensive blasphemy is legal in the US...

But protesting for better living conditions is harshly punished.

I'll wait for ANY US administration to understand the concept of "free speech" before I demand they speak on the subject.

[Marrah_G]

46. I'm not sure the muslim rioters would listen or care

In fact most of the rioters have not seen the film, they are just reacting to what extremist imams tell them. If those rioting are that ignorant, i doubt anything our administration can say will change that.

[Bragi]

49. That's a good point...

That's a good point. But if not now, when does the USA try to explain free speech? And why should we assume it is a concept that no-one but Americans can understand? I'm Canadian and would love to have *real* First Amendment rights. It's one of the best things about America. - b

[demosincebirth]

59. If you did explain to them they would not understand "free speech." They live by the Koran

[Blue_Tires]

47. Why the hell would the president need to "react" to a completely symbolic gesture?

The only "statement" I'm waiting for is from the filmmaker himself...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Because it is a real threat to US citizens.

Egypt is supposed to be both a moderate and an ally. They did this by choice, showing that they are not moderate at a minimum

[Blue_Tires]

66. What "threat" is this? Is Egypt demanding extradition, or else a declaration of war?

And one general prosecutor doesn't equal the entire populace of a country...

It's just a meaningless, 'feel-good' action to give red meat to his base...No different from our own batshit insane attorney general suing President Obama every two weeks for one thing or another...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. The warrants did not happen without the concurrence of the highest level of the Egyptian gov

It may well be a sop to the mobs, but it is scarcely progressive or helpful

[Blue_Tires]

71. But ultimately harmless...Not worth the paper it's printed on...

AND it's mutually beneficial...The prosecutor gets to look "tough" in office, and the Coptic Egyptian(s) involved in making the film have their cop-out reason to never, ever visit the country...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. I think you conclusion about harmless is premature

Rushdie is still under a fatwa, and the price on his head has been increased recently.

[Blue_Tires]

90. fatwa =/= arrest warrant

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. It is still a price on his head/death threat ordered by the then Iranian head of state

and it is still in force.

[Marrah_G]

45. LOL good luck with that

They didn't break any laws.

Perhaps Egypt should do something about the lying imams who turned nothing into violent riots.

That is what a sane government would do.

Dear Egypt: We are not responsible for your people's complete lack of self control.

[4th law of robotics]

74. If your religion requires that you arrest people for blasphemy then

your religion is wrong. Find a new one or change the way you interpret your old one.

/you can hate blasphemers all you want. Just leave it at that.

[Ken Burch]

77. I'd forgotten about the Florida Terry Jones

Couldn't figure out why Egypt would want to arrest THIS guy:

[smirkymonkey]

80. Was the film maker an American citizen or was he still an Egyptian citizen?

And weren't his relatives who financed the film Egyptian nationals? Terry Jones is obviously American, but as much as I find this film stupid, distasteful and offensive, I don't really think it warrants extradition.

[davidn3600]

84. Egypt has no jurisdiction

The "crime" of making the movie did not occur on Egyptian soil. And the United States does not recognize that a crime occurred.

An extradition request will go nowhere.

[fascisthunter]

88. stupid... if your belief is that strong, no ridicule should incite you...

... to doing something your faith and doctrine are against.

[sakabatou]

94. This is why the US has the 1st Amendment

[Tom Ripley]

98. Maybe Egypt is planning an Eichmann Extradition for these clowns