Comments by "JLH" (@Kyarrix) on "Return From ISIS (full documentary) | FRONTLINE" video.

@powruser0 I'll share what I wrote about it. I understand what you're saying but when a woman's husband says "we need to do this so that we can take our money with us" and the husband is middle eastern, he expects compliance. That doesn't mean she didn't know but it doesn't mean that she did. Here's my full comment: The rush to judgment is wrong. Too many commenters are basing their assessment of her on the things her father and an ex-boyfriend said. Their statements regarding her character are not credible evidence. Her father says she was rebellious as a child, of course she was rebellious, they were Jehovah's witnesses. Most of us would be rebellious in that situation. Her ex-boyfriend talked about her liking cars and motorcycles, many people like cars and motorcycles. But it's presented as being suggestive of an inherently flawed personality. She talked about being tortured in an ISIS jail under suspicion of being an American spy. That was substantiated but the interviewer still portrayed it as suspect. The little boy who was purchased as a slave regarded her as his surrogate mother and said that she was very kind to him and that he wanted to be near her. The girl who was purchased as a slave, said that Sam told her she wouldn't be a slave and that she would be treated as a daughter. She viewed it as a rescue. The girl said that Moussa beat Samantha and abused her. The fact that Moussa also raped the girl cannot be held against Samantha. If you blame her for bringing the girl into their home, consider what had happened to her until that time and what would have happened to her in other households. It was and is a horrible thing, but Samantha was acting out of compassion and wanted to help. She also substantiated the fact that Moussa beat Sam to the point of screaming. And her son Matthew referred to Moussa being violent and mentally unstable. Every point the interviewer raises, talking about her story unraveling and viewing everything with suspicion, each one of those points can be explained. She made a very poor choice in getting together with Moussa but that doesn't prove that she intended to help ISIS. All that it proves is bad judgment. We don't know how much she knew about where they were going. She was married to the man, she had a child with him and at that point she probably trusted him. With respect to the videos the interviewer raised as though they proved certain guilt, it is entirely credible that she didn't pay much attention to what they were watching. It's reasonable that she went shopping or did something different while he was watching videos with his friends. The culture that he came from doesn't encourage men and women socializing together. It would have been viewed as odd for her to sit with the men and watch whatever videos they were watching. The part of this that I find most objectionable is the interviewer's approach. Frontline generally does an excellent job but here there is the building of a case with each piece of information presented as more damning evidence. However, when you look at it, each point can be explained. But when she tries to explain, he presents it as though she is lying. By the time you reach the end of the video you're ready to lock her up and throw away the key. At the end the interviewer tells us that she is lying, that she won't accept her guilt but he puts her in untenable position by asking her to say something that contradicts the terms of the plea agreement. She can't do that, if she does the plea agreement could be withdrawn. I don't know if she is guilty, I don't know what she knew or when she knew it. We know that she exercised poor judgment. We can say for certain that she should have known things that she might not have known due to the kind of relationship she was in and the culture of the man she was married to. She shouldn't have been willing to move money illegally, but this is something that many people do and it doesn't prove intent to support ISIS, it proves bad judgment. I've written this not because I find her to be sympathetic, but because I found the interviewer's approach to be lacking in objectivity and unnecessarily condemnatory. It is wrong on his part to offer hearsay and opinions from people who have an axe to grind as solid evidence while viewing her explanations as suspect and instructing the audience to do the same. ... For context, I lived in the middle east for a few years. I know that culture. You might be right but the way the video presented the information was one-sided. Information that he presented as compelling evidence wasn't. I would have liked to have represented her in this, either her attorney did not do a great job or the government was determined to find someone to blame, perhaps both.
39
No, the journalist did not. He came at this from a perspective of her guilt and everything he presented tended towards that conclusion. I don't find her necessarily sympathetic but his approach was flawed. I wrote a longer comment explaining why, you might want to read it. He presented information as facts. The opinions of her father and an ex-boyfriend with an ax to grind are not evidence. They are opinions. The only thing we can assuredly conclude is that she exercised poor judgment, poor judgement, however, is not intent to help ISIS.
15
@gf3011 So have I. I lived for over 12 years in the middle East. And I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who has lived in the middle East and is an attorney.
13
@gtr5860 No, I don't know either of them. You seem to be suggesting that her sister would be the person who would have an accurate picture. I don't know if the person commenting here is her sister. We can assume that she is, but even if that person is her sister that doesn't mean that her information is accurate. A relative who is involved is going to have a point of view. There is the father who talked about how she was rebellious, there's the boyfriend who talked about how she liked fast motorcycles. A boyfriend who was broken up with is going to have a negative perception, this will color his views. Please read the entirety of my comment. What I said related to how the video was presented. I don't know if she is guilty or not or to what extent there were or were not mitigating circumstances. It is the presentation that I was writing about. Neither you nor I know whether she is guilty.
12
The rush to judgment is wrong. Too many commenters are basing their assessment of her on the things her father and an ex-boyfriend said. Their statements regarding her character are not credible evidence. Her father says she was rebellious as a child, of course she was rebellious, they were Jehovah's witnesses. Most of us would be rebellious in that situation. Her ex-boyfriend talked about her liking cars and motorcycles, many people like cars and motorcycles. But it's presented as being suggestive of an inherently flawed personality. She talked about being tortured in an ISIS jail under suspicion of being an American spy. That was substantiated but the interviewer still portrayed it as suspect. The little boy who was purchased as a slave regarded her as his surrogate mother and said that she was very kind to him and that he wanted to be near her. The girl who was purchased as a slave, said that Sam told her she wouldn't be a slave and that she would be treated as a daughter. She viewed it as a rescue. The girl said that Moussa beat Samantha and abused her. The fact that Moussa also raped the girl cannot be held against Samantha. If you blame her for bringing the girl into their home, consider what had happened to her until that time and what would have happened to her in other households. It was and is a horrible thing, but Samantha was acting out of compassion and wanted to help. She also substantiated the fact that Moussa beat Sam to the point of screaming. And her son Matthew referred to Moussa being violent and mentally unstable. Every point the interviewer raises, talking about her story unraveling and viewing everything with suspicion, each one of those points can be explained. She made a very poor choice in getting together with Moussa but that doesn't prove that she intended to help ISIS. All that it proves is bad judgment. We don't know how much she knew about where they were going. She was married to the man, she had a child with him and at that point she probably trusted him. With respect to the videos the interviewer raised as though they proved certain guilt, it is entirely credible that she didn't pay much attention to what they were watching. It's reasonable that she went shopping or did something different while he was watching videos with his friends. The culture that he came from doesn't encourage men and women socializing together. It would have been viewed as odd for her to sit with them and watch whatever videos they were watching. The part of this that I find most objectionable is the interviewer's approach. Frontline generally does an excellent job but here there is the building of a case with each piece of information presented as more damning evidence. However, when you look at it, each point can be explained. But when she tries to explain, he presents it as though she is lying. By the time you reach the end of the video you're ready to lock her up and throw away the key. At the end the interviewer tells us that she is lying, that she won't accept her guilt but he puts her in untenable position by asking her to say something that contradicts the terms of the plea agreement. She can't do that, if she does the plea agreement could be withdrawn. I don't know if she is guilty, I don't know what she knew or when she knew it. We know that she exercised poor judgment. We can say for certain that she should have known things that she might not have known due to the kind of relationship she was in and the culture of the man she was married to. She shouldn't have been willing to move money illegally, but this is something that many people do and it doesn't prove intent to support ISIS, it proves bad judgment. I've written this not because I find her to be sympathetic, but because I found the interviewer's approach to be lacking in objectivity and unnecessarily condemnatory. It is wrong on his part to offer hearsay and opinions from people who have an ax to grind as solid evidence while viewing her explanations as suspect and instructing the audience to do the same.
6