BY ELAINE MAGLIARO
Last April, during the running of the Boston Marathon, a tragic event occurred when two bombs exploded killing three people and injuring more than 260 others. Two brothers—Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—quickly became the FBI’s primary suspects for the bombings. Early in the investigation, another man was also named as a person of interest—a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian student named Abdulrahman Alharbi. Boston Magazine reported that Alharbi “became the focus of public speculation for a brief time during the search for those responsible for setting off two pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street.” Alharbi—who was injured in the bombing—had won a full scholarship to study English in Boston. He was questioned by police and ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter.
That wasn’t enough for Glenn Beck though. The well-known conspiracy theorist and former Fox News personality still had suspicions about the Saudi national. Last April, the radio host “urged the U.S. government to release information on Alharbi.” Beck said if the government didn’t, he would “expose” the young man. “Let me send this message very clear,” said Beck. “We know who this Saudi national is…. We know who this man is and, listen to me carefully, we know he is a very bad, bad, bad man.
Days later, Beck was still pushing his theory about Alharbi being involved in the monstrous act. Beck said, “While the media continues to look at what the causes were [behind] these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved.” He alleged that the U.S. government had “tagged” Alharbi as a “proven terrorist.” According to The Washington Post, Beck later claimed that Alharbi was an al-Qaeda “control agent” and the “money man” behind the attacks. “You know who the Saudi is?” Beck asked. “He’s the money man. He’s the guy who paid for it.”
Alharbi has now filed a defamation lawsuit against the radio host. “Alharbi claims that political commentator Glenn Beck and the company that carries his show, The Blaze, smeared his name in the media even after Alharbi was no longer the subject of the investigation.” (Boston Magazine)
The lawsuit says that Alharbi—like many others—was questioned by federal authorities who were investigating the events of the day of the 2013 Boston Marathon…and that “authorities quickly concluded that Mr. Alharbi, other than being injured in the attacks, had no involvement.” The lawsuit also says that “Beck repeatedly and falsely identified Mr. Alharbi as an active participant, repeatedly questioned the motives of federal officials in failing to pursue or detain Alharbi and repeatedly and falsely accused Mr. Alharbi of being a criminal who had funded the attacks.”
According to Alharbi’s complaint, Glenn Beck’s allegations “have haunted the Saudi student. Alharbi has received numerous messages, internet postings and other communications based on Beck’s false statements accusing him of being a murderer, child killer and terrorist.”
Glenn Beck Sued Over Boston Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Theory
SOURCES
Boston Marathon victim sues Glenn Beck (USA Today)
Glenn Beck sued for defamation after calling victim of Boston Marathon bombings the ‘money man’ behind attack (Washington Post)
Glenn Beck sued for Boston Marathon bombing claim (Politico)
Boston Marathon Bombing Victim Sues Glenn Beck for Defamation (NBC News)
Blasts at Boston Marathon Kill 3 and Injure 100 (New York Times)
‘I Don’t Bluff, I Make Promises’: Beck Gives Gov’t Until Monday to Come Clean About Boston Bombing Cover-Up (Right Wing Watch)
Saudi man investigated after Boston Marathon speaks out (Washington Post)
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
From the Daily Kos:
Seems like the, “very bad, bad, bad man,” accusation should go the other way. Sort of like this:
gbk,
Thanks for the laugh!
Christian Dem in NC has a diary up on this case. He is a good writer and does his homework. Shades of Richard Jewell!!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/02/1289230/-Boston-Marathon-bombing-victim-sues-Glenn-Beck-for-falsely-accusing-him-of-ties-to-bombers
It was said of Joe McCarthy that he couldn’t understand all the hostility directed at him, because his actions were all political, not personal. The Senator couldn’t understand that ruining peoples lives made it personal. I’m sure too that Beck can’t understand what all the fuss is about, since after all he’s only a TV entertainer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
Pete,
And here it is so many years later and we still remember who Richard Jewell was. This, however, wasn’t a man who chose the notoriety forced on him, but who was wrongly vilified in a frenzy. He remains a prime example of “trial by media” a phenomenon whereby law enforcement cares more for quick convictions tan uncovering the truth. The parallels with Beck’s defamation of Mr. Alharbi are direct and disgusting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/glenn-beck-obamacare-enrollment-obama_n_5083382.html Glen Beck flips out over Obamacare.
SMom: It is amazing to me Beck thinks the people in the Rose Garden were paid; I am certain there would be at least several million willing to volunteer to fill a seat and clap. It isn’t like Obama has no fans (or the Rose Garden has no fans).
Glen Beck is a maniac with a microphone. Hopefully, Mr. Alharbi will clean out Beck for a tidy sum.
And in other news, When Dog Doody Duty found out their company ads were being run in Rush Limbaugh’s time slot, the owner of the company sent this message:
What is Dog Doody Duty, you ask? It is a company which specializes in removing dog turds from your property. When you are too toxic for dog shit specialists, that is about as low as you can go.
http://www.dogdoodyduty.com/
Chuck,
“When you are too toxic for dog shit specialists, that is about as low as you can go.”
I dunno. I think Rushbo has been able to sink below the level of dog duty–which often oozes from his mouth as he raises his head from the muck and mire to spout his vile rhetoric.
Elaine,
This is off topic but I posted it on turley directed to Jonathan ….. After he’s decided to start deleting posts….
“on 1, April 5, 2014 at 5:30 pmAnonymously Yours
Jonathan,
I think you are missing the greatest offender of breaching the civility rules…. You may have deleted mine as well as Pete’s and AP…. But you don’t stick close enough to realize the damage that is being done by one unnamed…. It’s unfortunate…. This used to be a premiere site that one could express opinions, ideals, beliefs, life etc without fear of reprise… Today not so much….
There are digs put out there and as soon as they are called in it they go mea culpa…. And the change the subject…. No sooner do you go away …. They start right back up….
Have you noticed the quality and quantity of the posts going down in here in the last few months…. This should be an indication something else is going on….. And it’s not just you not being here…..
I have been getting attacked for spelling errors…. You should take exception to that…. You need to look deep and hard to really see what’s amiss here….”
I hope you don’t mind the intrusion….. If you wish to delete it…. Ok….
AY,
I think many folks are disgusted by what’s going on over at RIL. It’s too bad that a once fine forum for intellectual discussions has been turned into a venue for nastiness, personal attacks, the Breitbarters of this country…and inanity. BTW, we guest bloggers don’t delete comments.
Thank you …. I’m frustrated…. Didn’t say anything really…. But was the center of aggression….
Glad to hear someone is going up against Beck. Wishing him luck.
“waldo” at the other place has been blocked. Spinelli, between episodes of documenting his love of every man and woman who served, is missing waldo.
Anybody up for notifying Spinelli that his “victory” is more of a fixed fight?
I had to check out the thread in question. Might I say . . . “wtf?” It was so out of control I had to leave a comment:
And the notion that JT’s going to delete individual comments instead of banning repeat offenders? Good luck with that considering he can’t even figure out who is what in the comments. Oh well. At least it has the entertainment appeal of a slow motion train wreck. So he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.
Just got back to this thread a day late. WTF is going on over at Turley’s? t seems like Jonathan’s flailing about. One can be very, very intelligent and still not get the point of what is going on around him. We tried to tell him, but he just didn’t think we were credible. Sometimes hubris creeps up on the famous and bites them in the ass.
It’s much stranger than fiction.
I went to RIL just this last Thursday — because I like to watch slow-motion demolitions — and saw a comment posted to an almost five year old thread.
Crazy stuff, here’s the link:
**Mike Spindell says:
April 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm
Just got back to this thread a day late. WTF is going on over at Turley’s? t seems like Jonathan’s flailing about. One can be very, very intelligent and still not get the point of what is going on around him. We tried to tell him, but he just didn’t think we were credible. Sometimes hubris creeps up on the famous and bites them in the ass.
**
Mike,
Being friends isn’t easy or comfortable at times. I’ve not been following all of JT blog, but let’s please attempt to support JT in a positive manner as I do this blog.
Today’s battle flied is a mess & we need dependable allies. 1st we Breath & then we answer the Phk’in phone & see what blew up next! 🙂
I hate phones! LOL especially at 3:30 in the morning.
It feels like this, there, now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pVjl4Rrtc
**Gene Howington says:
April 5, 2014 at 9:52 pm **
Gene,
Hold my beer while I slap some sense into you.
It’s unbecoming of you.
Come on, I know you know better!!!
Support, Oky? Sometimes love is tough love. There is a difference between “critical” and “unsupportive”. Do not mistake one for the other. I have both computer skills and a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of propaganda. If I wanted to make this unfriendly? There would be a lot more disruption there than he’s currently enjoying. But if you want to talk about unsupportive behavior? I think that in all the events leading to the schism, the GBs got (and continue to get) a raw deal there. For example, he’s demanded exclusivity of GB generated content there since the schism: something of value he demanded as if it were due and without offer of value. Free speech is a two-edged sword. That he didn’t understand that and clings to a mistaken notion that “polite” is the same thing as “civil”? Is his failing. His laissez-faire approach to a free speech in a public forum was doomed to failure from the start. Once the audience reached a certain critical size threshold, the self-moderating model was bound to break down. I may have even told him so if memory serves. Way more than once. I had been asking for the rules to be clearly posted for more than a year before certain people even started posting there. Why? Because rules without enforcement are suggestions. Civility cannot be maintained without rules. But why should he listen to anybody else? He’s famous. Everyone knows famous people are always right. JT was warned about the corrosive nature of certain posters many many times in ways ranging from subtle to baseball bat. He not only ignored those warnings, how shall I put this, he didn’t exactly throw us under the bus but he made it clear he expected us to jump voluntarily and in the process sacrificing not just the rules as they were explained to all of us when we started GBing but some of our rights as well – including the right to our own free speech and self-defense in the face of endless attack. I’m nobody’s doormat, Oky, but if you think I haven’t been supportive of RIL? Then you simply don’t know what was (and is) going on.
JT made his choices. He chose poorly. I have the right to say so and I have the right to be critical. And sarcastic. If he doesn’t like it? He can always ban me from his playground. I turned away voluntarily when it was demanded that I give up something of value – my own rights – simply because he said so. And while I do feel badly for what has happened to that forum? He got what he wanted . . . and exactly what was predicted. That it hasn’t been working out how he thought it would?
Schadenfreude is not only a natural response, it is a just response.
People will never be banned from FFS for simple disagreement. That is the essence of what the Founders were protecting with free speech – the right to dissent. But there are rules. Just like almost all rights, free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in conjunction with other rights. That is why the rules are clearly set forth and enforced here the way they are: to protect dissent and allow for a mechanism for ejecting those who would stifle it not by having a better argument but rather by true incivility – dishonesty in argument, character assassination and other base propaganda techniques. This is a free speech salon with bouncers. Why? Because you see how well the laissez-faire approach is working out over there. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Rules without enforcement (or with capricious enforcement) are just suggestions.
Feel free to disagree all you like.
I had maintained almost silence …. But responded to pete… And then boom…. But since I dont use Briebart as a monolog…. I’m kinda out of my realm….
Some selected comments from RIL reposted here for posterity . . .
I believe in Karma.
**Gene Howington says:
April 6, 2014 at 5:09 am **
Gene,
Your’s was a very appropriate response & I agree with it.
After I posted my comments & while I was sleeping I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t have posted or that I should have further qualified my remarks with something about leadership dealing with these controversies in private.
I was wrong I see now.
I didn’t wish to get involved in these type messes yet stepped in it. I recall now you guys did deal with these issues in private with JT many times.
I hate it that I wasted you time, but maybe your 5:09 comments needed said in public again.
Hopefully Professor Turley see them & take your advise.
Actually, he took exception and deleted the comment, Oky:
C’est la vie.
Annie,
As do I.
Gene,
Just takes patience….
That’s what many people don’t realize about me, Annie.
I have the patience of stone.
It is a hard earned skill and it serves me well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfDZNGj_x7E
My last 2 posts on Turley, sadly I couldn’t help myself:
#1:
“I have no problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people. However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support.”
Jonathan,
In congratulation for your 21 million visitors and your Fox celebrity. Sometimes winning is in how we, not others define it. :)”
#2
““We have moved on at this site. I have banned a few people and deleted dozens of comments. I do not like to do it. We value each and every voice on this site. I just ask you not to bore readers with personal attacks or revisionist posts. We get it. You don’t like each other or the policies of the blog.”
Sometimes “getting it” is merely the consequence of hubris. Farewell JT, you coulda done me better….but I don’t mind. Obscurity has its rewards, just as fame has its curses.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG_q_qUqupw&list=RDTG_q_qUqupw&feature=player_embedded
Oky1,
You and I like some of the same music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLP7ANPyYC0
Mike,
That struck me as well, Mike.
1) “[N]o problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people”? Sure didn’t seem that way and you know what they say about actions and words.
2) The last part is even more interesting: “However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support.” The instigator – once again free from public punishment – was nick. Yet Turley still tried to paint it to be about my response and not nick’s provocation. Makes you wonder if someone has pictures of JT doing something untoward or if his apparent animus has become personal. How adorable.
Apparently Jonathan labors under the delusion I have to follow his constraints on my free speech even though I’m no longer a guest blogger. I was perfectly polite in my response as can be seen above in its deleted entirety. And on a technical note, I never said I didn’t support RIL. Every action taken was taken in furtherance of the forum under the rules as they were explained out of camera. What I said was that I was no longer going to be an active participant. And for the most part, I’m not. I commented more there today than I have in four months. But hey, I do love a good train wreck. What can I say.
A most curious, angry and telling response from him overall.
Oh well.
It’s almost as if Bowie knew what weirdness being put in the public eye could drive one to.
Imagine that.
Well…. In searching for something on the net this popped up and I think its appropriate…… St Concalo….. The Patron Saint of Assholes….. Actually hemorrhoids…. I think serendipity hits occasionally……
Mike,
They told me for decades about these “Golden Years”.
Yes, it’s fraught with problems, but on the up side is I’ve forgotten so much stuff over time that when I’m listening to things like your play list it’s just as enjoyable as if it was the first time I heard them. LOL 🙂
Roger Daltrey, Excellent!
a lot of my comments are what I consider “drive-by comments”. Just observations or b/s I throw out there for the hell of it and as a rule don’t go back to see if anything came of it. I don’t know how many times I’ve had comments deleted but I do know I’ve had them deleted before. I don’t stress it, but in my own defense I do try very hard to keep my comments relevant to the subject and on topic, even if they my seem somewhat irreverent.
besides, you should see some of the shit i decide is too hardcore and don’t post.
Pete,
Some people’s drive-by comments are funny. Some people’s drive-by comments are snide and meant to insult and/or bait others. Yours fall in the former category.
**pete says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:25 pm **
My past comments on cars/trucks fuel efficiencies are very relevant & if you payed attention guys like you can help yourselves & customers profit by the conversions & the savings in fuel consumption.
Mike,
We’re planning a birthday party for ole dude, ( I think we’re pullin out all the stops, I know I am.)
I’m pretty sure the steel guitar player is his brother-in-law.
I’ll know soon.
The Green Springs Inn is near Medford, Oregon. The owner of Green Springs Inn was rather upset when he learned his ad was inserted into Rush Limbaugh’s time slot on KMED radio. The owner of the inn speculated that the Limbaugh show was so devoid of sponsors, they were grabbing ads meant for other placements and inserting them into his time slot to lessen the appearance of losing advertisers. The owner of the inn, who had placed a small ad on the station’s website, said:
**Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABPP says:
April 6, 2014 at 11:12 pm **
Stanley,
I used to train German Shepherds for fun/hobby.
I don’t think there’s any training necessary I could give for them to raise a hind leg & piss on a picture of that Limbaugh creep.
What an obvious fake & even with a stolen name, “Rush”, of the Band.
Stanley,
I want you to get on board cleaning up this vaccine issue.
Others & I have been at it for decades.
I’ve been to long & now too many kids/people have be needlessly injured.
Come on, we can put an end to the BS & actually fix a problem that demands being fixed.
Back Channels, put your shoulder to the grind stone.. Please. We can fix this.
Thank You!!
pete,
It’s not the deletion that bothers me. That bothers me not one bit. Truthfully, none of it bothers me at all. In fact, I find it an odd mixture of amusing and sad. I knew my response to dipstick’s provocation wasn’t going to sit well with JT. I gave it a 70% of being deleted before I hit the submit button. That’s why I put a record of the exchange here as well.
And what Elaine said.
I am extraordinarily unlikely to delete something for simply being offensive humor. Offense is a subjective reaction. I can really only think of one reason off the top of my head I’d even consider such a thing and that is excessive cruelty (especially to another poster). Even then, it would have to be way way out of bounds. Despite what JT (or others) might like to think, the rules/editorial policy’s of this blog are geared toward a two-fold end: 1) maximizing free speech whilst minimizing trollery and 2) encouraging the substantive exchange of ideas. As such agent provocateurs (like the aforementioned dipstick) and agenda driven propagandists (like those who would persistently and consistently hijack threads to their own ends) are not welcome here. Dissent and disagreement will never be the basis of exclusion. Bad behavior though will be. Those kind can go to JT’s or HuffPo or straight up for all I care, but the reality is that a truly civilized marketplace of ideas runs on rules that are known and enforced. Just like a strip club. If the sign says “don’t touch the dancers”, then don’t touch the dancers unless you just want a bouncer to introduce your ass to the pavement out in the parking lot. Our rules here are simple. They are published. They will be enforced. I have, in fact, specifically instructed all the editor/authors here that they have the power to enforce the rules at their discretion with the caveat that if I have a problem with what they did or how, I’ll let them know and possibly override the decision. But I really don’t expect to have to ever use the caveat. Why? Because unlike some, I trust them with the power they have been given with their assumed responsibilities. I’m not a Tom Sawyer looking for whitewashers to paint for me. Even though I retain ultimate editorial discretion, I think of every editor/author here as a equals in this endeavour. I wouldn’t have offered them that access if I didn’t trust their judgement as well as their commitment to free speech and the maintenance of a marketplace of ideas.
But funny? Funny is always welcome.
Pingback: UPDATE: Judge Allows Libel Suit Against Glenn Beck to Proceed | Flowers For Socrates