3 ms·
As someone who believes in the rule of law, I don't find these assertions particularly compelling, or even relevant. If Poitras committed a crime or was suspect
by justcommenting 12y ago
As someone who believes in the rule of law, I don't find these assertions particularly compelling, or even relevant. If Poitras committed a crime or was suspected of committing a crime, she should be charged and entitled to defend her actions in open court in front of a jury of her peers.
But what reportedly happened to her--since we're talking about Germany--reminds me of some of the Stasi's zersetzung: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung. Instead of enforcing laws, she was repeatedly harassed, seemingly with the intent to intimidate and destabilize her and her work.
- csandreasen 12y ago> If Poitras [...] was suspected of committing a crime, she should be charged If she was suspected of committing a crime, she should be investigated to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to show that she did commit the crime. You don't charge someone with a crime until you're fairly sure they committed it. Questioning her at the airport is one means of investigation. Based on the descriptions given in the two articles I linked to, she traveled out of country 40 times over the course of 6 years, went to places like Iraq and Yemen, and openly hung out with Sunni insurgents and two close associates of Osama bin Laden - on top of already being reported filming at the scene of an ambush on US troops that resulted in multiple casualties. Maybe she didn't do anything, but the border control agents wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they didn't stop her and investigate.
- justcommenting 12y agoUnless Poitras committed 40 different crimes or various crimes spanning 6 years, I think there's still something to be said about the rule of law based on what's been reported...which I think we both agree may not be the full story. It's one thing to question/investigate someone in conjunction with specific, credible evidence as part of a larger, legitimate investigation; but having your devices searched or being questioned repeatedly at border crossings dozens of times over six years--especially for someone at least occasionally based in NYC who could have trivially been visited by law enforcement while home--seems a lot more likely to be part of an intimidation strategy than a legitimate investigation.