If you make a film that is critical of the United States of a United States ally, does it stand to reason that the United States will and should give you extra attention when you enter its country? It’s an intriguing question that folks like Michael Moore seem to think has a definitive answer. Unlike Michael Moore, I believe the line to be squishy.
When Michael Moore’s friend, Palestinian filmmaker Emad Burnat, was detained by immigration officials at the Los Angeles International Airport on his way to attend the Oscars for his film, 5 Broken Cameras, Moore was outraged, and his outrage has caused subsequent controversy after Guardian columnist and blogger Glenn Greenwald called out Buzzfeed reporter Tessa Stuart for inaccurately downplaying what happened. According to Greenwald, Stuart allegedly used a government official as her source, and any such official would obviously be biased.
Now that I’ve summarized the events, allow me to make my point. My issue doesn’t surround the length of Burnat’s detention. It’s whether the United States had the right to take extra precautions. Is it really relevant that the man was invited to the Oscars? If our national security is at issue, then he should be detained. It’s clear Moore felt no such security was at issue, and this was akin to profiling. But is racial profiling okay if it pertains to our safety?
Some people are just objectively incorrect. And it’s up to The Dishmaster to point my electronic fingers at those people and call them ridiculous. When Michael Moore asserted that Osama Bin Laden should have been given a trial instead of being killed in cold blood, Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s head almost exploded. “The Nazi’s were given a trial,” said Moore. At which point Hasselbeck chirped, “the war was over.” I’m not sure why that distinction is relevant, and judging from Hasselbeck’s subsequent comments — neither is she. Moore also pointed out that the United States is an especially unique country because “we give even the most heinous person a day in court.” “That’s a right given to our citizens,” said Hasselbeck, and Osama Bin Laden doesn’t deserve that right.” Um . . . what? First, I highly doubt that the real reason she’s opposed to the idea of giving Osama a trial is because he’s “not a citizen.” I’m certain of this because of Hasselbeck’s comment that a trial “worked so well for Casey Anthony.” Need I mention that MY head almost exploded at this comparison?
Allow me to take you on a tangential-Dishmaster ride for a moment. Should we have convicted Casey Anthony just because we had a personal feeling that she was guilty? There was not enough evidence to support her conviction, which means that the judicial system worked upon acquitting her — not that it failed. Perhaps Hasselbeck should marry Rick Perry and live happily ever after with excessive executions on their conscience. Isn’t this woman pro-life? She’s opposed to killing a fetus, but she has no problem sentencing someone to the death penalty with minimal evidence? Talk about hypocrisy.
Whether or not I agree with Michael Moore is irrelevant. When a man makes a point — respond to it with something other than nonsense. And furthermore, allow him to finish a sentence without your obnoxious, arbitrary interjections.