Filmmaker Laura Poitras

TRANSCRIPT

Tavis Smiley: Good evening from Los Angeles. I’m Tavis Smiley.

Tonight, a conversation with the Oscar-nominated director, Laura Poitras. Her documentary, “Citizenfour”, is a fascinating look at our NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who decided to pull back the curtain on the government’s surveillance operations and what happened to him when he did.

We’re glad you’ve joined us. A conversation with filmmaker Laura Poitras coming up right now.

[Walmart Sponsor Ad]

Announcer: And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

Tavis: Pleased to be joined by Laura Poitras, the director of “Citizenfour” which has generated a great deal of conversation around the world about our government and specifically the role of the NSA and its surveillance operations.

“Citizenfour” focuses on NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, and takes a deep dive into the what, why, when and how of his decision to leak classified government secrets. Let’s take a look at a clip from “Citizenfour” before we start our conversation.

[Clip ]

Tavis: I’m honored to have you on this program. We met, what, a couple of months ago, I guess, for the first time at the IDA Awards, the Independent Documentary Awards. I was honored to have been asked to present the big award of the night to the documentary of the year and, bam, guess who won? “Citizenfour”.

So Laura and I had a chance to meet at the ceremony a couple of months ago. But I was just completely blown away when I saw this film. I didn’t know what to expect in part because I think I knew everything there is to know already about Edward Snowden and the NSA.

I didn’t know there was anything else to learn, but I was humbled. I was brought low by the film which is my way of asking you, when you approach a project like this, if you think that everything’s already been told about the story or about the guy, then where do you start?

Laura Poitras: Well, I mean, in this case, I mean, I knew I had something that was pretty unique which was I was in the hotel room for eight days when he was meeting with myself and Glenn Greenwald from The Guardian and Ewen MacAskill disclosing the information.

And so that was, you know, pretty unique access and it wasn’t just about, you know, what we learn in the news, but like what motivates a person and what does a person do when they’re under extreme pressures, and that, I knew, hadn’t been seen before, you know, him in the moment of making the decision, to come forward was pretty extraordinary.

Tavis: What did you learn about Edward Snowden, the person?

Poitras: So it went through different stages. At first, I was just in email contact with him for several months and I had a pretty good idea like what was motivating him.

I mean, he felt that there were things that were happening that he had seen that he thought people should know about, that in a democracy, these are decisions that shouldn’t be made in secret in terms of the scope of NSA surveillance.

But then what I learned about him when I met him in person with Glenn was like how focused and calm he was in situations that, you know, most people would be incredibly nervous about, and that he has a real sense of like resolve.

I mean, he believes that the Constitution matters and that he was seeing things that were in violation of the Constitution.

Tavis: We’ll come back to the film in just a second. Let me just back up for a second since you referenced these emails. So how and why–I mentioned earlier we were going to talk about the what, when, where and how.

Poitras: Right.

Tavis: But how and why did Edward Snowden get in touch with you through these emails? You’re one of the first persons he reached out to. Tell me how that happened and why you think it happened.

Poitras: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it started out–first what we know is that he first tried to reach Glenn Greenwald. He sent Glenn some emails in December of 2012 and they had some correspondence, but he was trying to get Glenn to install some encryption software so he could really tell him why he was contacting him. And until that happened, he was just kind of beating around the bush and then Glenn didn’t install the encryption.

And then, in January about a month later, I got a first mysterious email saying that he was somebody who had information about NSA spying and what he felt were violations of the Constitution. And I paid attention pretty quickly because I’d been working on a project about the NSA at that point over a year.

You know, he was saying things that I thought only an insider would know and, at that point, I actually was using encryption, so I was pretty up to speed in terms of how to communicate with him securely so he could talk to me and tell me what was going on before he was ready to reveal his identity.

But we did a bit of a dance. I mean, I had a lot of questions for him because, you know, somebody comes forward like that, you know, you want to know what their motivation is, what makes them tick.

And then I was also concerned that it could have been like an entrapment because, by this point, I’d been on a watch list for several years. So I thought like is this something like that’s going on that’s not what it appears to be? So I just said like how do I know you’re not trying to entrap me? How do I know you’re for real? Why are you doing this? Why me?

And the why me was a big question because I wasn’t, you know, a typical person. I mean, I’m a journalist and a documentary filmmaker, but usually I’m the one who’s approaching somebody else. I don’t get cold emails in my inbox.

Tavis: Stuff just doesn’t fall in your lap like this [laugh].

Poitras: It actually has never happened. This was the first time, so it was a pretty big surprise to me. And I don’t work for a news organization, even though I broadcast my work on PBS and the current film will be on HBO, but I’m not like, you know, knocking on the door of The New York Times.

So I also had to know like why me. He’d seen my previous work. I’d made a film about the Iraq War. Then after that, I made a film about Guantanamo and I think what motivated him to reach out to me and Glenn is that we both had histories of being sort of critical of U.S. policy post-9/11.

We’d asked a lot of questions and we’d proven ourselves to be independent and hard to intimidate. And I think he was worried as a source that something would happen like he would trust someone and then, you know, the information wouldn’t be published.

And I think he felt with me and Glenn that he would be assured that we would make sure that the information would make it to the American people because he didn’t want to take all this risk and then have it withheld, which is the case that happened with James Risen at The New York Times with the first revelations about warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.

It was held for a year by The New York Times before it was published and Snowden knew that very well.

Tavis: You mentioned your previous work. So this film is really the third piece of a trilogy. Your documentary about the Iraq War, your documentary about Guantanamo. Before I come back and go into the details of “Citizenfour”, how do you see this particular piece and this particular story? Situate that as a part of this trilogy for me.

Poitras: So the work I’ve been trying to do in documenting, they have some things in common. I make films where I’m trying to understand something, so I go in with a lot of questions. I don’t have all the answers.

And I film things as they’re happening in real time. This is called cinéma vérité in the documentary tradition where you’re not interviewing people about things from the past, but you’re there when it’s actually happening.

And for me, I’m interested in that for two reasons. One is you kind of create a history. It’s like actually it’s not a conversation about something that happened, but you’re actually there when history is happening.

And then also you have all this drama, like human drama, when you’re actually on the ground because you don’t know what’s going to happen next as a filmmaker, as the people you’re spending time with, they don’t know what’s going to happen. So there’s oftentimes a lot of risk-taking and a lot of decisions that have to happen.

So the first film I made was about the Iraq War and I spent eight months in Baghdad documenting a family, particularly a doctor who had a local clinic and people would come to his clinic and they would talk about their, you know, whatever their illness

But then they would start talking about the occupation and what was happening, and it was an amazing window into understanding what was happening for Iraqis.

And I wanted to understand it not just intellectually, but on human terms. And at that point–this was 2004, 2005. There was a lot of news coverage. A lot of press was in Iraq, but what you got was the front page of the news.

It would say like, you know, 150 people killed in a car bombing today in Baghdad. But you didn’t know anything about those 150 people. You just got body counts. So the work that I try to do is try to get at this sort of human impact of these things.

So that was the first film in this work, and then I made a film about Guantanamo, and filmed both at Guantanamo and in Yemen to look at sort of the war on terror and how that was being played out. That was a more complicated film. I followed somebody who’s a really complicated character, but also a pivotal person in this sort of post-9/11 era.

And then with Snowden and the NSA, I mean, I was interested in the NSA because, you know, right after 9/11, certain things happened that the impact is still effecting us today.

So we have the authorization of military force which created a lot of executive powers that, you know, still govern the war in Afghanistan, and the results of the use of NSA’s powers looking inward at U.S. populations.

So what happened right after 9/11 is we, you know, U.S. citizens became targets of the NSA. And that happened like within weeks after they started bringing in equipment.

So I wanted to go back and look at how the war on terror was, you know, kind of unfolding here and surrounds us as what happened. You have it particularly in the Muslim-American community where people–you know, they sent in agents, informants, and tried to find out what was happening.

And to me, that’s a scary thing because, as we know from the history of cull and tell pro, you know, people who become targets to the government, I mean, surveillance is a really powerful target tool to use against people or if you think of the film, “Selma”, where you have surveillance being used in the civil rights movement.

Tavis: I want to quote–I wrote this down to make sure I got this right. What you said about surveillance a moment ago is a powerful statement, but nothing more powerful than one of your subjects, William Binney, who had this to say, and I quote.

“Every dictatorship down through history has always done that. One of the first things they need to do is try to acquire knowledge of their population. And that’s exactly what these programs do. I see this as the most major threat to our democracies around the world.”

That’s a powerful statement. So my question is whether or not you regard these kinds of surveillance tactics that you referenced a moment ago, whether you’re talking Dr. King and the movement, whether you’re talking the Black Panthers and cull and tell pro, or anything else around the world, is this really a threat to democracy?

Poitras: Yes. So let me put the quote in context a little bit.

Tavis: Sure.

Poitras: So William Binney worked for the NSA for over three decades. He was in charge of sort of surveillance in the Soviet Union and also looked a lot at East Germany. So he knew what was happening in those countries and East Germany, as we know, from the Stasi.

So what he had witnessed and devoted his life is these dictatorships and understanding like it is a form of control so you control dissent, you know. And you control what people can say and freedom of expression and all those kinds of things.

When governments start to do that internally, these are forms of censorship and control that do threaten–I mean, he believes and actually I also believe-that once a government turns its surveillance powers inward, then you really squash basic freedoms of a society.

And then we have sort of histories. I mean, the U.S., there are what we know from the cull and tell pro days where they were going in and, you know, people who were engaging in legitimate dissent, you know, the civil rights movement, etc.

Tavis: I guess the ultimate question that people are still wrestling with is whether or not Edward Snowden is a whistleblower or whether or not he’s a traitor. I raise that and I want to get your take on this. I think I know where you’re going, but I want to ask you anyway.

I was on one of the Sunday shows some months back and I was actually surprised at all of the drama that I created by making what I thought was a pretty simple statement. And, man, social media rained down on me. I’m accustomed to this. I get this from time to time. Nothing new here.

But I was just surprised at the nerve that I struck in America when I made this very simple–I thought as very simple–comment. We’re talking about Edward Snowden and I forgot which show it was. Maybe “This Week” on ABC.

But I made the comment that, you know, it won’t surprise me that, in 25 years from now, Edward Snowden will be on a postage stamp. For all the hell and hate he’s catching right now, he may very well be on a postage stamp 25 years from now.

And my point was that Malcolm X was on a postage stamp, you know, and a lot of other people. So my point is that, as time goes on, we start to view these things differently, hence my question about whether or not he’s really a whistleblower or whether or not he’s a traitor. Your comments?

Poitras: Right, okay. So first of all, you have the case of, for instance, Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers and I think he’s widely recognized as a whistleblower and somebody who did something that was in the public service. You know, I mean, I spend years making films not to get the easy answers.

So I kind of reject the sort of the sad, but I’ll say like certainly I don’t think he’s a traitor. I mean, my personal opinion. But what I think is, you know, more important is in my film, people can make their own conclusions. Like I’m not interested in making films where it’s just my opinions that come through, you know.

The film shows, you know, an hour in a hotel room with Snowden and Glenn Greenwald and I think you get a sense of why he did what he did. And I personally believe it was in the public interest and that I think that we live in a democracy. In a democracy, these kinds of huge decisions should not happen in secret.

We shouldn’t have secret courts and secret interpretations of laws and secret powers to surveil citizens who’ve been suspected of nothing, which is what he revealed. And I think that, you know, I’m very confident that history will be grateful that he’s come forward because it allows us to be informed and then make decisions.

Tavis: So how do you respond then to persons, including President Barack Obama on down, who have still though tried to make the argument that there was a “way” to have done this if Snowden wanted to do this? Now with all due respect to the president, I don’t know who made that point, I don’t know what that way would have been [laugh].

But my point is, it’s almost laughable to me that people even make the argument that senators and congressmen and presidents and others make the argument that there was a way to have done this and the way he went about it was unlawful. How else would he have done it?

Poitras: Well, I mean, you know, with all due respect, I think you have to look at the context of which Snowden came forward. I mean, President Obama has come down harder on whistleblowers and sources than any president in history. He’s also come down harder on journalists.

I mean, we have the case of the AP having all their phone records subpoenaed. We have a case of James Rosen who was defined as a “co-conspirator” and another leak…

Tavis: I think that’s the darkest hour of Holder’s term. I love Eric Holder, but as A.G., he failed miserably. That was an epic fail when they did. That’s the darkest hour they could have tenured, but I digress.

Poitras: Yeah. So Snowden was paying attention. He also paid attention to the case of William Binney and Thomas Drake and the NSA Four. What Binney had done and Drake, they had gone internally to issue complaints. I mean, William Binney didn’t go to the press and he went instead to the Congress to say these are things that he believed to be in violation of the Constitution.

And what happened was is he, Thomas Drake, and two others were all put under investigation. William Binney, in particular, had the FBI show up at his house with guns. And this is somebody who was in the NSA for over three decades.

So I think Snowden looked at what was happening in that context of the sort of crackdown, but many people, as my colleague, you know, Jeremy Scahill at The Interceptor, finds there’s a war against whistleblowers and a war against journalism or investigative journalism.

You know, the government’s come down harder on people who are trying to inform the public than they have on people who’ve engaged in torture, for instance, right? So these are complicated times and I think Snowden looked at the options and he didn’t think that there was a way to internally raise concerns about this. So he decided to go to the press.

Tavis: Since you raised torture, we talked earlier about your project on Guantanamo and we were talking just a moment about President Obama, all these dots sort of connect. You know where I’m going with this.

What do you make of all the promises and commitments made by the president on the campaign trail about Guantanamo, what would happen? You’ve talked about it, you’ve done a film about it, it’s been in the papers, you know, week in, week out, and Guantanamo still remains open. What do you make of that?

Poitras: You know, I don’t think history is going to look good on it. I mean, I think we’re going to look back and ask that question because I think our greatest strength since we’re a country that has a Constitution and we should be based on principles, due process, rule of law, and Guantanamo strayed so far outside of that.

I mean, my feeling is that, after 9/11, you know, we’ve engaged in policies that I think don’t withstand scrutiny and that violate our fundamental principles. And I think that there’s been a sort of moral vacuum that has resulted and I think it’s unfortunate.

I thought Obama was going to close Guantanamo. I mean, I think a lot of people did. And I think that, you know, somehow people have let fear guide us when I think we should actually be guided by our principles and by rule of law.

Tavis: I’ve lost count of how many times in this conversation you’ve used the word “we”. And you obviously use the word we because you are an American citizen, although I happen to know you don’t live in the United States anymore.

You live in Europe. I’ll leave it at that. I don’t want to give your address on my show, although I do know where you live. So does the government, obviously [laugh].

Poitras: I think that they do.

Tavis: Which leads to my question. What happens–you were talking writ large about what happens to journalists who have the courage to do the kind of work that you are doing. You mentioned Jeremy Scahill. Love that guy, and others. But what happens?

I wonder if I can just get personal for a second to the extent you’re comfortable? What happens when you decide to do these kinds of films, particularly one about a guy who they want more than anybody else in the world right now?

But what happens to a filmmaker who decides to do this kind of work, particularly engaging with a guy like Edward Snowden? What’s your life been like?

Poitras: I mean, right now I’m based in Berlin, but I also have a home in New York. I’ve been working between. But I relocated to Berlin to work on this film about the NSA because of my experience of being put on a watch list. I was put on a…

Tavis: So you went to Berlin to do a movie about our NSA?

Poitras: Right, yes.

Tavis: And you did that because why?

Poitras: Well, because starting in 2006, I started being detained every time I crossed the U.S. border. So I would come to the border and then I would be pulled aside and I’d be questioned.

I’d had my notebooks photocopied and I’d had my computer confiscated and this went on for six years. So every time I traveled, as a journalist, who’s entrusted with protecting source material, it became hard for me to say that I could do that.

So I made a decision actually before I was contacted by Edward Snowden to edit the film I was making about the NSA, because I’d already been filming for over a year, in Berlin so as to avoid the U.S. border, so that I wouldn’t have my things confiscated. So it was for source protection reasons. It felt safer.

Then I was in Berlin when Snowden sent me the first email and I edited the film in Berlin. And now we’re showing it. We premiered in New York and now that the film is out, I’ve been traveling more and spending more time in the U.S.

But it was because–in terms of your question about what the consequences have been about reporting on America post-9/11, I mean, for me, it was the fact that I was put on a watch list which was after I made the film about the Iraq War which was, you know, received well.

It was nominated for an Oscar, so it’s not, you know–but the government, you know–the thing that’s concerning to me about being on a watch list is actually it’s a completely secretive process. I have no idea why I was put on it. There’s no way you can appeal it because the government didn’t even acknowledge that there was a watch list.

Tavis: How do you know you’re on the list? If the government won’t acknowledge it, how do you know you’re on it?

Poitras: Well, if they send the agents every time your plane lands to the airplane to walk you in and ask you questions, you know you’re on a list. I mean, it happened over 40 times. I think I had enough evidence to know. And actually…

Tavis: And I’m complaining about taking my shoes off, yeah [laugh].

Poitras: Exactly.

Tavis: How do you process that? How do you feel? Do you live in fear? Do you live in–like how do you move around every day?

Poitras: I mean, you know, this film, there was a lot of–I had a lot of fear making the NSA film. I knew when Snowden contacted me this was going to go. It was going to go high and it was going to make people angry. I mean, that was obvious. But I’d already made a decision like I wasn’t going to be intimidated, you know, that as a journalist, I feel like the public has a right to know things.

And I still believe that we have, you know, a First Amendment in this country and that we have a press and what we should be doing is holding, you know, the government accountable and asking tough questions.

And I continue to believe that that’s possible in this country, unlike other places. I mean, I think other places to do this reporting would, you know, be really putting yourself at risk. But, you know, there’s definitely some times that were pretty scary.

Tavis: Has the movie–no one puts himself or herself through this much danger and drama to not at least want to have some desired outcome. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. What was that desired outcome?

Has the film done what you thought or hoped it would do? I mean, obviously, this thing will live forever. That’s the great thing about film. It goes on and on and on. It’s always there for generations to look at. But has it met whatever your expectations were?

Poitras: I mean, you know, I’m really like a filmmaker first, so I make films to make films. And the goal is to express something about the world that I see. In my case, I think that we should be worried about what I believe is a sort of increased government secrecy and policies that are not being undertaken with the, you know, participation and consent of citizens.

So I wanted to express something about saying that I think that that’s a dangerous path and it’s a film very much about people who are coming forward and also taking risks to question these things. So that’s the goal as a filmmaker. Now if, you know, if that leads to change, that’s great, but I don’t make films because I have like a political agenda.

Tavis: Yeah. I want to end this conversation where I began. I started out by mentioning to you that I met Laura a little while ago the IDA Awards for the Independent Documentary Film Awards.

Because I was doing that, I had a chance to see a lot of film getting ready for that night to be involved in the program. I can tell you, if you have not seen “Citizenfour”, it is absolutely arresting.

And wherever you come down, to her earlier point, it’s not about what side you take, wherever you come down on the Edward Snowden-NSA debate, “Citizenfour” is something absolutely worth seeing and I highly recommend it. Laura, thank you for your work. Good to have you on this program.

Poitras: It’s great to be here. Thank you.

Tavis: Thanks for watching. That’s our program. As always, keep the faith.

Announcer: For more information on today’s show, visit Tavis Smiley at pbs.org.

[Walmart Sponsor Ad]

Announcer: And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.