So help me understand.
An American -- convicted of financial crimes, admittedly -- has made a film that the Muslims don't like. The US government and press has revealed his idenitity to the world, thus putting his life in danger. Conveniently, the government has a reason to take him for questioning to the police station . . . he was not supposed to be using the internet under the terms of his probation.
Wonder if Secretary Clinton and President Obama will make it clear that's the reason he's being taken in a police car? Or will they allow the pictures to be conveniently broadcast in the Muslim world to allow the idea to spread that this man has been arrested for "hurting religious feelings"?
People should not violate the terms of their parole. If they do, they should lose their freedom. And just because there is a right to make films that hurt religious feelings and incite religious passions, that likewise doesn't mean they should do so.
All that being said, it seems to me that there's something more than a little creepy about how the government seems to be turning this film maker into a convenient whipping boy for the frenzy in the Mideast -- especially when even the AP concedes that "It could be difficult to establish a probation violation case" against the man whose life has now been put in danger.
The Alberta Example: Spending Caps Are the Way to Prevent Unsustainable Fiscal Binges During Growth Years | Daniel J. Mitchell
Chicago's Fiscal Freefall: Moody's Cuts Chicago Credit Rating to Two Steps Above Junk | Mike Shedlock