Hacker News Reader

Comment by vectorEQ | Hacker News Reader

this is normal. journalists are hot targets to either spoof or buy to snoop around as they often have more access than regular civilians to high profile targets.... counter-intelligence and counter-espionage. people should realise that forgein powers demotivate them against their own government, and now these demotivated people are the ones complaining about this kind of shit, preventing their own government from functioning normally.

so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe, i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later.

View on HN

You do realize this is the exact same reasoning places like China & Russia use and indeed why we always hear they're 'non-free' as a result.

If you simply think that the same actions when done by a Western government are somehow more justifiable/right then you simply fell for some form of exceptionalism propaganda.

The very reason why we're supposed to be more free is because we're not supposed to do these things on principle, even if it makes the work of security officials more convenient to do them.

This is the standard wartime playbook for restricting freedom. It's completely incompatible with functioning democracy.

>so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe, i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later.

Are you suggesting blind fealty? If so, relevant.mp4: https://youtu.be/2HYIJahQKaI?t=189

I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition.

Good individuals (or governments) can do very bad things. And bad individuals (or governments) can do very good things. When one immediately jumps to one conclusion or another, it leaves one open to being trivially manipulated. In political jargon - being made into a useful idiot [1].

In this case it was particularly bad since it wasn't "one" but rather entire groups of people either blindly supporting or blindly opposing the caravan based on political ideology. Comments running contrary to the groupthink tended to be simply attacked instead of considered.

Are there reasons to support the investigation into the caravan? Absolutely. Are there reasons to oppose it? Absolutely. But people are increasingly becoming simple minded on political issues and will simply go full-on one way or the other. This (to borrow from a peer comment) is what is "completely incompatible with functioning democracy."

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

>I don't think he's suggesting blind fealty so much as avoidance of the opposite - blind opposition.

The OC's statement came across as, "The government is doing this for you, so don't question it." To me, it didn't come across as including the facet of being pro/against the caravan in question, whatsoever, but - to the OC's credit - maybe it was there and I just missed it...

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.

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-m...

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-hond...

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.

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?

How is preventing Americans from reporting on the migrant caravan keeping us safe?

There's a lot of implicit trust in this view, it's the same type of trust people around the world have for their governments, that doesn't mean they are incorruptible or well-meaning. This entirely is for allowing the government to control information, and thus control people.

Sadly, most people are subservient to authority, propaganda, epaulets, etc.

Einstein quote on people:

>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions that differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

It's more than just a trust in rulers. I agree with Einstein. It's a complete subservience to them.

Im sure once an opposing government takes power and starts interrogating people who make comments like yours, you’ll be as accommodating.

people should realise that forgein powers demotivate them against their own government

But what's wrong with that? Americans have every right to be "demotivated" and seek change from the government. The government has zero authority to coerce people to support the government, or to prevent dissatisfied citizens from agitating for change through free speech.

> people should realise that forgein powers demotivate them against their own government, and now these demotivated people are the ones complaining about this kind of shit, preventing their own government from functioning normally.

Oh the poor poor US government, with its trillions of dollars in resources and monopoly on the use of lethal force, stopped dead in their tracks by their eternal nemesis, the free citizen airing their opinion.

There are places you can go where governments blame journalists and other opinionated people for all their problems. There are even a few places where the government will go further than mere coercion and intimidation and actually murder people who speak out against it.

Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Maybe North Korea or the Congo.

Perhaps those countries are more to your liking?

Safe from what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com