Slashdot Mirror
Citizenfour Director Sues To Find Out Why She Was Detained Every Time She Flew
An anonymous reader writes: Since the 2006 release of My Country, My Country, Laura Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every time during that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.
So you not only didn't RTFA or even TFS, you couldn't even bother to read the FIRST SENTENCE of the summary. And yet you think you're competent to have an opinion on the matter. That takes a special kind of stupid.
It's not about not being able to make an educated guess she'd bet on, but getting the official reason. At that point, it's possible to make a case that the reason is unconstitutional.
That's really what all of this is about: Government action without oversight, and it's hard to sue to change that without proof of harm. She has proof of harm right there: All she needs now is a target to use that hammer against.
Don't be daft. This is the unelected bureaucracy. The statist government drones with little to no oversite from elected officials. If you vote for democrats, you're voting for this just as much as if you voted republican. The D vs R thing is a dog a pony show that keeps people like you distracted.
Can we get someone to explain how its OK for the IRS to harass people hoping to change policy but it's bad for DHS to harass people hoping to change policy?
I'm not sure what you mean. It is not legal for the IRS to "harass people hoping to change policy."
It is, however, legal for the IRS to ask organizations claiming tax exemption as charities to show that they are not engaging in political lobbying (because political organizations are not tax exempt). If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.
By that logic, ever defense attorney - even public defenders, should be treated to equal or greater scrutiny as they primarily associate with people believed to be guilty - and go the extra mile to convince the public and the powers that be that they are NOT guilty.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
If fewer people had your attitude and pressed for change, things would change. That's the only way they change.
This person is actually a little more important than a defense attorney. It's her job to tell people what their government is doing. And by all accounts (except the government) she's doing an excellent job.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Laura Poitras was detained by the US every time she flew. How is a journalist, traveling by herself, in the "wrong place at the wrong time"?
Remember, every time she was detained, she was just detained and then eventually let go after being hassled. If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her. Instead, they're just harassing a journalist who has embarrassed them.
If you want to say that embarrassing the government should be a crime, then that's a whole different discussion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Additionally, judging by their reaction she must be doing an excellent job.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The press in its various forms (blogs, newspapers and some filmmakers) are the defense attorneys of a free country. The Founding fathers wrote at length how the press and freedom of speech on its own was one of the major impediments to a government sinking into corruption & totalitarianism.
"The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs."
Continental Congress, 1774
This woman isn't some random person hanging out with "scum", she's an award winning documentary filmmaker. She also helped create the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Unfortunately the press has to hang out with various groups of morally/legally questionable people in order to get to what is important, most of those people reside in our various halls of government.
it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Remember that next time you talk to a cop and they don't feel you were "concerned" enough about the situation and use that fact against you in a court of law: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08...
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
A simple trip to wikipedia would have give you that definition. Or the nazi's 25 point plan. And yes, I realize that much modern rhetoric paints fascists as ultra-right wing, but what fascists actually did in the 20s-40s where about heavy governmental control and social programs, and a lot of the rhetoric was about the evil international corporate and banking interests (usually with jewish controlled thrown in for good measure). Any corporation that told the fascists to stick it found themselves nationalized in no short time.