I understand that we have the right to say what ever we want , But would the families of Embassy employees have a suit against the maker of the video for inciting these recent events ?
Would they have a civil suit for offending Islam?
I was wondering the same thing: IF you could somehow prove that this video was produced and distributed for the explicit purpose of inciting violence, is punishment in order? That is, if a court were presented with some or another document which proved beyond doubt that the makers of this movie intended for it to be a catalyst to violence (I’m not even saying that they did, this is hypothetical), could there be a case there?
I’m no lawyer so I obviously have no idea. It seems to me that the connection between the video’s production and the violence is far too indirect to warrant any kind of civil or criminal punishment. Far less direct than shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
Seriously, that would be one scary precedent.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Would they have a civil suit for offending Islam?[/quote]
I do not think so
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I was wondering the same thing: IF you could somehow prove that this video was produced and distributed for the explicit purpose of inciting violence, is punishment in order? That is, if a court were presented with some or another document which proved beyond doubt that the makers of this movie intended for it to be a catalyst to violence (I’m not even saying that they did, this is hypothetical), could there be a case there?
I’m no lawyer so I obviously have no idea. It seems to me that the connection between the video’s production and the violence is far too indirect to warrant any kind of civil or criminal punishment. Far less direct than shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater.[/quote]
It is like Reverend Jones . If his intent was not to incite violence , he knew it would do so.
.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Would they have a civil suit for offending Islam?[/quote]
I don’t think so because , What is Damage ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand that we have the right to say what ever we want , But would the families of Embassy employees have a suit against the maker of the video for inciting these recent events ?[/quote]
No. Such an absurd case wouldn’t have a leg to stand. This summer’s series of attacks on diplomatic targets in Benghazi and last week’s protests over the video are separate and unrelated events.
But they would have an excellent case against the state department and the administration for negligence and incompetence for putting people in harms way without proper security precautions in place.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand that we have the right to say what ever we want , But would the families of Embassy employees have a suit against the maker of the video for inciting these recent events ?[/quote]
No. Such an absurd case wouldn’t have a leg to stand. This summer’s series of attacks on diplomatic targets in Benghazi and last week’s protests over the video are separate and unrelated events.
But they would have an excellent case against the state department and the administration for negligence and incompetence for putting people in harms way without proper security precautions in place. [/quote]
The marines wouldn’t. I’d assume as well it could be shown that working in the fucking vacation paradise of Libya might have some risks a reasonable person would be aware of.
I am more than certain the PMC’s they use for security often know the risk as well.
That being said to the OP come on man. What thought process made you even think that there is some civil liability here.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand that we have the right to say what ever we want , But would the families of Embassy employees have a suit against the maker of the video for inciting these recent events ?[/quote]
No. Such an absurd case wouldn’t have a leg to stand. This summer’s series of attacks on diplomatic targets in Benghazi and last week’s protests over the video are separate and unrelated events.
But they would have an excellent case against the state department and the administration for negligence and incompetence for putting people in harms way without proper security precautions in place. [/quote]
The marines wouldn’t. I’d assume as well it could be shown that working in the fucking vacation paradise of Libya might have some risks a reasonable person would be aware of.
I am more than certain the PMC’s they use for security often know the risk as well.
That being said to the OP come on man. What thought process made you even think that there is some civil liability here. [/quote]
I agree with thge part that you would assume your own liability . But if some one’s actions caused a family or even the victim (IF THEY SURVIVE) damage , I would think they would be liable. I do not think intent would even matter
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…if some one’s actions caused a family or even the victim (IF THEY SURVIVE) damage , I would think they would be liable. I do not think intent would even matter[/quote]
Yes…but the filmmaker’s actions didn’t cause a a family or victim damage did they pity? The IslamoNazis who raped and murdered a United States ambassador caused the damage. Put down the bong for five minutes and try thinking.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…if some one’s actions caused a family or even the victim (IF THEY SURVIVE) damage , I would think they would be liable. I do not think intent would even matter[/quote]
Yes…but the filmmaker’s actions didn’t cause a a family or victim damage did they pity? The IslamoNazis who raped and murdered a United States ambassador caused the damage. Put down the bong for five minutes and try thinking.[/quote]
You guys need to stop drinking the Obama administration koolaid. There is no evidence to support their cover story that the attack in Libya was just another protest like the one in Egypt that got out of hand. The Libyan accounts say that there were no protestors. So the movie is irrelevant for that reason.
This was a planned and organized terrorist attack and it’s not the first one they have had in Benghazi. In June the British ambassador was attacked with an RPG just outside the consulate.
Britain’s ambassador to Libya was in a convoy hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, it was confirmed last night.
Dominic Asquith escaped injury during the attack in the countryâ??s second city Benghazi.
However, two British close protection officers were hurt as the convoy was struck about 300 yards from the consulate office in the al-Rabha neighbourhood.
A few days before that the American Embassy there was attacked by an IED.
A bomb has exploded outside the U.S. embassy offices in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.
An embassy official said the improvised explosive device detonated outside the gate of the embassy offices and no one was injured.
The attack is the latest on international missions and institutions in Benghazi.
The administration is claiming the attack in Benghazi was a Mohammad movie protest that got out of hand in order to cover their own incompetence. The truth is this was just the latest in a series of attacks on diplomatic compounds in Benghazi.
If there is a legal case to be made it can be made against the administration for negligence. The claim that there wasn’t “actionable intelligence” so that is why they didn’t have better security is risible.
There should have been a Marine FAS Team assigned to secure the embassy and personnel before the attack as a precaution and to discourage such an attack. Instead they sent an FAS Team after the fact. This is gross incompetence and negligence.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
You guys need to stop drinking the Obama administration koolaid. There is no evidence to support their cover story that the attack in Libya was just another protest like the one in Egypt that got out of hand. The Libyan accounts say that there were no protestors. So the movie is irrelevant for that reason.
[/quote]
Never said otherwise. I said the filmmaker is not responsible. Also, it’s likely the Egyptian attack was planned too. An AQ affiliated television network broke the ‘story’ about the film inciting the riots on the anniversary of 911.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
You guys need to stop drinking the Obama administration koolaid. There is no evidence to support their cover story that the attack in Libya was just another protest like the one in Egypt that got out of hand. The Libyan accounts say that there were no protestors. So the movie is irrelevant for that reason.
[/quote]
Never said otherwise. I said the filmmaker is not responsible. Also, it’s likely the Egyptian attack was planned too. An AQ affiliated television network broke the ‘story’ about the film inciting the riots on the anniversary of 911.[/quote]
I saw that but you didn’t explain why he isn’t responsible. It came across as if you believe the administration story about protestors instead of what the Libyans and others are saying. The reason why he isn’t responsible is important because if the truth is that it really was an Al Qaeda assassination team that took out the ambassador and his two body guards then it’s a case of gross incompetence and negligence.
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
Whether or not you were a terrorist prior to being held and tortured don’t you think it might change your opinion after?
Take it to the bank that if any government ran me off to a prison camp for some time even if I had nothing against them prior to that I would foreverafter be their enemy.
[quote]groo wrote:
Whether or not you were a terrorist prior to being held and tortured don’t you think it might change your opinion after? Take it to the bank that if any government ran me off to a prison camp for some time even if I had nothing against them prior to that I would foreverafter be their enemy.[/quote]
This argument is too fatuous to be worthy of any response. Just thought I’d mention that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Whether or not you were a terrorist prior to being held and tortured don’t you think it might change your opinion after? Take it to the bank that if any government ran me off to a prison camp for some time even if I had nothing against them prior to that I would foreverafter be their enemy.[/quote]
This argument is too fatuous to be worthy of any response. Just thought I’d mention that.[/quote]
Yet you couldn’t help yourself. Besides which you know I am correct.
If we have to suspend habeus corpus and engage in torture to win have we really won?
Not interested in hearing any sophistry about how they are some type of third class of person detained or how its not torture.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ex-GITMO detainee ‘involved in Libya attack’
Shit I just hope someone didn’t pour any water on that guy’s face when he was in that hellhole. That’s the main thing.[/quote]
Whether or not you were a terrorist prior to being held and tortured don’t you think it might change your opinion after?
Take it to the bank that if any government ran me off to a prison camp for some time even if I had nothing against them prior to that I would foreverafter be their enemy.[/quote]
Fucking A!