Not only has the jihad attack in Garland, Texas at the Muhammad Art event demonstrated that Islam is not a religion of peace, but it has also demonstrated that the surveillance state that the federal government has illegally imposed upon the American people to allegedly combat these jihadists does not work.
"The Supreme Court has ruled unambiguously that deliberate provocation is protected speech," Napolitano said. "It is the duty of the government to be aware of the deliberate provocation, the likely danger of the provocation and to protect the speaker, not to punish the speaker."
"These cases come about where the government seeks to punish the speaker for provoking a crowd that trashes the place," he added. Napolitano referenced a 1949 Chicago case (Terminiello v. Chicago), in which the speaker's conviction was overturned.
Napolitano paraphrased some of the court's ruling in that case, saying that speech does anticipate some violence simply because there will always be someone who does not agree and there will always be those that do not know how to exercise self-control over their own anger. He then pointed out the fact that it was the government's duty to deal with those who would act in violence in order to silence others.
One of the Islamic jihadists, Elton Simpson, tweeted out his plans to attack Pamela Geller's event. Napolitano was asked where he stood on the issue of mass surveillance by the government when a person like Simpson tweeted out such a threat.
"It depends on to whom he (Simpson) made this known," Judge Napolitano said. "If he made this known to someone who reported it, well then the report is privileged and the police can look at the report."
"If he made it known to the public, the police are entitled without a search warrant to look at anything that's in the public domain," he continued. "But if you're talking about the police capturing his speech at the time he uttered it, guess what? The NSA already does that and it obviously didn't work in this case."
When challenged further on the issue, the judge appealed to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which the federal government is supposed to be abiding by. They are the ones bound by that, not the people.
Napolitano said that the government could not scan the internet for key words of a future attack, but he affirmed that they do it anyway. However, he went a step further.
"Ask me if it keeps us safe, it does not," Napolitano retorted.
Though the judge was accused of "assuming" that the NSA didn't pick up on Simpson's tweet, Napolitano said, "This is not an assumption. This is the NSA's refusal to deny to my face and to the face of the public allegations that it captures every word, every tweet, every message, every email, every text of everybody in the united States."
It's more than not denying. The NSA has actually defended collecting 90% of its data unconstitutionally, which had absolutely no ties to terrorism. To make matters worse, Congress continues to fund it!
He also affirmed that the NSA capturing those pieces of information is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment requires that specific evidence be required in order to obtain a warrant so that one might engage in searching and seizing by the government.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Napolitano even likened what is going on today by a tyrannical federal government to what the British were doing to our forefathers and part of the reasoning behind why the Fourth Amendment was written in the first place.
But to go one step further than what Judge Napolitano said, both Simpson and his accomplice, Nadir Soofi, attended the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix, Arizona. The FBI sent in an informant into the congregation of the mosque in order to befriend Simpson, implying they were suspicious of him.
The president of the mosque, Usama Shami, spoke out against ISIS, but as Walid Shoebat demonstrated, his mosque financially supported terrorists. "While the ICCP does not support ISIS, it took a few minutes to prove that it is typical of these centers to support the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas which last I checked, by the State Department, is considered a terrorist organization," Shoebat wrote. So why have there been no warrants obtained and a lawful search of the premises and those involved conducted, especially in light of the Garland attack?
We see already another issue brewing under the surface. The FBI wouldn't deal with the jihadists and it appears a mosque continues to go on functioning unabated by the federal government as it funds terrorist organizations who have, as part of their aim, the destruction of America in their plans.
I think the evidence demonstrates that Judge Napolitano's statements are indeed accurate.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.