4 ms·

Please apply this to the case at hand. The case at hand is not about supporting or opposing the caravan, or its investigation. It is about how journalists repo

by wsy 8y ago

Please apply this to the case at hand. The case at hand is not about supporting or opposing the caravan, or its investigation. It is about how journalists reporting on it are marked for special treatment at the US border. I fail to see any complex pro/con political issue there. Free press is a constitutional right for a reason.

rjf72 8y ago
The first critical point is to classify the caravan. This is something you have to step outside of politics for, for a minute. This caravan had already illegally broken past the border between Guatemala and Mexico. [1] There's every reason to believe they planned to attempt similar behavior at the US border. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy. In this case it would likely have also been a politically destabilizing event in the US. You would have had far right vigilantes work to 'apprehend' the trespassing individuals which likely would spark 'anti-vigilante' action from far left individuals. Violence would have been inevitable due to the fact you have loonies on both ends meeting up with emotions flaring high. This could have been an organic action, but it could also have been driven by actors who would benefit from such instability. In any case it would be absolutely remiss for the government to not investigate the funding, composition, and other aspects of the caravan. And on this front the journalists were/are not only witnesses but witnesses with video, photographic, and audio evidence as well as first person accounts. Like the article states, "[The investigators] said that I [journalist] was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.". The really important question is whether the investigation has gone from investigation to intimidation, which would be an issue. So is the government doing their due diligence, or are they intimidating journalists? Perhaps it's even a bit of both. But I don't think this article is enough evidence to really determine one way or the other and so I think the wisest course of action would be to await further information. [1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-migrants-guatemala-20181019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...
- pjc50 8y ago
  The classification of the caravan is itself politics. The classification of refugees as criminals is extremely political. As is the question of why they're fleeing Honduras in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-honduras-democracy-has-roots-in-us-tacit-support-for-2009-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-hond...
  - rjf72 8y ago
    A person walks into a store and steals a loaf of bread. Have they engaged in theft? There can be very compelling mitigating circumstances and factors that can help explain their action (perhaps their family is starving), but this does not change the fact that they have now engaged in a criminal act and should be treated as a suspect, though of course with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The caravan engaged in numerous criminal actions and likely conspired to engage in further criminal action at or within the US. Not investigating this would be remiss of the government, regardless of whether or not they find such actions justifiable. If we only investigated those we did not like or defended those we did, we'd have quite the broken system -- and, in fact, such systems were the norm for much of society's existence. Suffice to say such systems were not conducive to justness or fairness.
- wsy 8y ago
  If they want photos or videos as part of an investigation, there is a legal procedure: subpoenas. What does it have to do with putting journalists on a customs control list for special treatment when re-entering the US?

by wsy 8y ago

rjf72 8y ago

The first critical point is to classify the caravan. This is something you have to step outside of politics for, for a minute. This caravan had already illegally broken past the border between Guatemala and Mexico. [1] There's every reason to believe they planned to attempt similar behavior at the US border. This is the definition of criminal conspiracy. In this case it would likely have also been a politically destabilizing event in the US. You would have had far right vigilantes work to 'apprehend' the trespassing individuals which likely would spark 'anti-vigilante' action from far left individuals. Violence would have been inevitable due to the fact you have loonies on both ends meeting up with emotions flaring high. This could have been an organic action, but it could also have been driven by actors who would benefit from such instability. In any case it would be absolutely remiss for the government to not investigate the funding, composition, and other aspects of the caravan. And on this front the journalists were/are not only witnesses but witnesses with video, photographic, and audio evidence as well as first person accounts. Like the article states, "[The investigators] said that I [journalist] was on the ground and they’re not, which I thought was really interesting.". The really important question is whether the investigation has gone from investigation to intimidation, which would be an issue. So is the government doing their due diligence, or are they intimidating journalists? Perhaps it's even a bit of both. But I don't think this article is enough evidence to really determine one way or the other and so I think the wisest course of action would be to await further information. [1] - https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-migrants-guatemala-20181019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-m...

pjc50 8y ago
The classification of the caravan is itself politics. The classification of refugees as criminals is extremely political. As is the question of why they're fleeing Honduras in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-honduras-democracy-has-roots-in-us-tacit-support-for-2009-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-hond...
- rjf72 8y ago
  A person walks into a store and steals a loaf of bread. Have they engaged in theft? There can be very compelling mitigating circumstances and factors that can help explain their action (perhaps their family is starving), but this does not change the fact that they have now engaged in a criminal act and should be treated as a suspect, though of course with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The caravan engaged in numerous criminal actions and likely conspired to engage in further criminal action at or within the US. Not investigating this would be remiss of the government, regardless of whether or not they find such actions justifiable. If we only investigated those we did not like or defended those we did, we'd have quite the broken system -- and, in fact, such systems were the norm for much of society's existence. Suffice to say such systems were not conducive to justness or fairness.
wsy 8y ago
If they want photos or videos as part of an investigation, there is a legal procedure: subpoenas. What does it have to do with putting journalists on a customs control list for special treatment when re-entering the US?