General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere did the meme come from that civil disobedience requires you to sit in jail afterwards?
There's this idea that in order to commit civil disobedience credibly, you have to face jail and other penalties meted out by an out-of-control and unjust government. It's something that the detractors and apologists would have us believe to be an inviolable norm.
It isn't.
Letting yourself get arrested is a tactic, as civil disobedience itself is a tactic. And like all tactics, they work in certain situations, and they fail in others.
It's a matter of measuring benefits versus risks.
For John Lewis and others in the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, deliberately getting arrested was a working, useful tactic. The jails couldn't hold all the people getting arrested for marching or doing sit-ins. And the political climate was such that they couldn't keep people like Lewis or MLK Jr. in jail for very long or make criminal penalties or prison treatment so severe that people get broken. Also, the whole cacophony that went with civil-disobedience, arrests, crowded-jails, and jury-trials created earned-media publicity that helped the cause.
That tactic is also useful in Wisconsin - Scott Walker can only get away with so much abuse when it comes to protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol, so the rule there is catch-and-release, with a media circus around the entire conflict. It's also productive in North Carolina
That's not the case for Snowden - the day he ends up in U.S. custody, he's in for life. The military-industrial complex is vengeful, and they'll be at least as brutal towards Snowden as they were and are towards Bradley Manning. Once he's in prison, there will be no media circus - the media will at best disparage him, but usually be silent about him.
Snowden's not stupid, nor is he a coward. If I were him, I'd flee the country too. Civil disobedience and direct action do not demand that you be suicidal.
Going to jail for a cause can be a useful tactic. It is not a required tactic, nor is it a smart tactic in all situations.
Edit & clairification: As MineralMan pointed out, it was Henry David Thoreau who originally wrote about civil-disobedience, followed by seeking imprisonment. As I stated earlier, it's a valid tactic, that works in a lot of situations - another one being Lt. Dan Choi handcuffing himself to the fence around the White House grounds and being arrested repeatedly to protest DADT.
It's a valid tactic, but not the only tactic, and IMHO, a counterproductive tactic for Edward Snowden, who doesn't face a night in jail. He faces the kind of prison sentence that normally is given to serial killers, he faces being supermaxed, isolated completely from the outside, and even his own family. He faces a censored kangaroo trial, like Manning faced, and he faces the atrocities of the Federal prison system that includes abuses such as "diesel therapy", beatings, withholding of medical care, supermaxing, placement with violent inmates who are expected to assault him, etc. etc. etc. Coverage of his trial and imprisonment would be controlled, spun to favor the government, and will leave Snowden completely silenced.
No. It's not "cowardice" to refuse to accept such cruel treatment, and in fact, it creates more publicity, and thus, better results, if he stays out. President Obama himself had to respond, and make some concessions. Weak, toothless concessions, but it's clear that the people don't like having their 4th Amendment rights violated, and demand action. And we wouldn't have gotten there without Snowden.
Other tactics are pointed out by Gene Sharp in From Dictatorship to Democracy ( http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf ), and one of them is "seeking imprisonment." Another one is "Hiding, escape and false identities." There's lots of non-violent resistance tactics to use, and Thoreau-style civil disobedience is but one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)The penalties of the laws they broke were not as substantial when considering what Manning and Snowden are facing.
If you would like to cite the worst penalties charged under the law and compare them I am open to changing my mind.
But we see what happened to MLK Jr. which was the true danger. There was more to fear from the crazy public than from the law.
Irony is these are our civil rights we are talking about with this surveillance. You think the target of those DEA intelligence laundering incidences aren't significantly minority? I would bet they are.
If I were AA this would scare the bejesus out of me with this nation's history of unfair targeting, charging and incarceration. Yet there is a reflex in the community to protect the Prez from any criticism.
Californeeway
(97 posts)and have totally disrespected a whole swath of some of the bravest and best Liberals in the history of Liberalism for the sake of putting positive spin on Snowden.
fuck all those brave people who ate shit crossing the bridge, what's really important is making sure that Snowden looks good. That's the only thing that matters anymore.
so Snowden having to sit in a jail cell is worse than lynchings, people having German Shepherds sicked on them? The water hoses? the beatings? Have you seen a picture of what they did to John Lewis? For fucks sake, do you know the recent history of your own damn country?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Or the lynch mob types? Mobs are monsters of course. The Government is supposed to be better than that.
What were the charges leveled? How long were the possible sentences? Or was the risk in what the crazies would do?
antigone382
(3,682 posts)I have extraordinary respect for civil rights activists--my home town originally housed the Highlander Folk School, a civil rights training school where Rosa Parks, MLK Jr., and many other civil rights activists gathered to learn and share strategies for combating the injustice they were facing; I am proud of that connection. In addition, I have not yet formed an opinion about Snowden or the merits of his decision to leave the country. However, I do want to clarify that "sitting in a jail cell" in this era is not a trivial thing. The justice system has become a horror show; ranging from the Supermax prisons of Appalachian Virginia to the detainment facilities in Arpaio's Arizona, swaths of people--many of them of color, almost all of them poor--are being subject to vicious, inhumane treatment that any decent nation would recognize as torture. We have dehumanized prisoners to a horrific extent.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article documenting some of these abuses:
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Onion_State_Prison|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Onion_State_Prison]
Here is a quote from the article on the lives of these prisoners:
"More than two-thirds of prisoners at Red Onion are held in solitary confinement, or "segregation". They are alone 23 hours per day in 7' x 12' cells with slats for light. They shower three times per week. Length of confinement ranges from two weeks to fourteen years.[16][17] Food and medicine are served through trays in the cell door.[18]"
Here is another:
"Mac Gaskins, a prisoner at Red Onion for fourteen years, reported: “having your fingers broken inside of these places, being bitten by dogs, being strapped to beds for days, as we’ve talked about many times, being forced to defecate on yourself – I mean all of this has led to these men demanding to be treated as human beings. It’s like if you are put inside prison, you forfeit that right to be treated as a human being." Gaskins also reported that prisoners were denied access to soap, toothpaste, and books.[23]"
This is one prison. There are many more.
I understand where your anger is coming from; but please do not minimize the horror of being incarcerated in this day and age.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)predecessor.
Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #3)
Post removed
agent46
(1,262 posts)...he didn't start out that way but here we are. Obama has made his choices - however difficult or simple they may have been, we will never know because we will never know the man himself or the pressures he has succumbed to.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)rationale ... the silent levers of power pulling on him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)you are wrong. The vast majority of Democratd also reject such assertions from the fringe.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Wow, the fringe is rejected by the vast majority of Democratd? Sounds painful.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bush policies wherever they can. Now that they have made their presence known in this party, that is the first job the majority of us Democrats has to do, replace them and send them back to their own party. We don't need two Republican, Bush policy supporting parties and that appears to be their goal. In many ways it is has been a good thing to see them reveal themselves and their motives because you can't solve a problem unless you first identify it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Most commonly known as Blue Dogs. Heath Shuler, etc.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)or any of the policies that distinguished Democrats from their counterparts in the Republican Party. That has been changing as the Third Way wormed its way into more powerful positions within the party. That will have to change, now that their presence is so out in the open. They can go fix the Republican Party which badly needs fixing and which also used to have a few on their fringes who were relatively rational.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)about 2004 (before he was even a U.S. Senator) and have been turning the screws ever since.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
progressoid
(49,978 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)to come out… as if that was what Snowden really gave a crap about.
But his posts on the internet make it clear what he was really worried about.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)what additional information do you think would come out of a trial?
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...he's got a sharp beltway lawyer...Bruce Fein...who was part of the Clinton inquisition. He knows how to use the power of subpoena and discovery to put the NSA and the government on trial. He can compel testimony from people like Clapper and others as to the extent of the invasion of personal privacy. Also this would given Snowden a great forum for him to show all the material he's accumulated...put to rest once and for all if he had any real evidence of the NSA watching people's words as they were being sent or stockpiling everyone's phone calls. Let's get it ALL out in the open...and this can't happen hiding in a Moscow dacha but it sure can in an American courtroom and in the halls of Congress.
With his high profile status Snowden can't be "silenced" and any such attempts to "torture" him will quickly be exposed and spread far and wide. Since this is a civilian court he is innocent until proven guilty, thus the burden to prove he's broken the law falls on the government. Let's put all out there...if his allegations of government spying is true, he'll be acclaimed the real whistle blower and hero that many here wish him to be...
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)How much relief did exposure of torture prevent the torture Manning had to go through? It is easy to make these idealist statements about Snowden staying put to face the consequences of his actions when we are not the ones that will experience the torture in the first place.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Manning was tried in a military court under the UCMJ...a totally different process than Snowden would go through. His case is a federal one that would be tried in front of a jury of piers...not military judges. Bruce Fein is a big name beltway attorney who knows anytime someone looks cross-eyed at his client, he'd run right to a faux noise camera. Again...if Snowden wants to be the hero...the whistleblower...then he should present his case like Daniel Elsberg did...hiding in authoritarian Russia isn't going to do it...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ever legal step to report abuses afforded, supposedly, to Whistle Blowers, starting with reporting to Congress first, speaking to the FBI etc, completely DISAGREES with you. He stated just week that what happened to him 'five years of hell' is exactly what would happen to Snowden, with all the power of the Government to smear and attack him through their proxies if not directly.
What an idealist you would have to be to believe, after what we have witnessed re how Whistle Blowers are treated in this country, that what you propose is even remotely likely to happen to even the most respected citizen as Drake was regarding his career in Intelligence and the Military.
THIS is what happens when a Government persecutes Whistle Blowers and Manning is only one in a fairly long string over the past decade. Eventually they lose faith in the 'legal process' and as has happened in other countries at this point, they seek asylum elsewhere. We used to be the country such individuals viewed as a safe place to turn to when their own governments engaged in the behavior towards their truth-telling that OUR Government is now engaging in.
Snowden did exactly the right thing.
As Drake said this week to the National Press Club, the ONLY thing that saved him from decades in jail, after the Government refused to look into his allegations, lied about him, turned him into a 'traitor' and 'coward' despite his long years of impeccable service, WERE THE PEOPLE in the INDEPENDENT MEDIA who, as they are doing now re Snowden, continued to expose the lies being told about HIM.
It's a nice dream, about a country far, far away, which once upon a time treated Whistle Blowers as innocent until proven guilty of SOMETHING. This is not that country, the one even Ellsberg lived in, which was bad enough.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...not all cases are the same. Once again...like a broken record...Manning was tried under military rules where Snowden has been indicted by a federal court. It will not be a jury of military judges that decide his fate but a jury of 12 American citizens...not "political tools". I guess you have very little faith in your fellow citizens to know if someone is guilty or not...and seem to condone lawbreaking if it suits your agenda. Sorry...that's not how a functioning civil society works. Again, Snowden has more to offer by coming here and exposing the corruption and lawbreaking he claims to have witnessed than hiding away in some foreign country whose record on civil liberties (especially if you're GLBT) is far worse than anything anyone faces in this country.
For someone who supposedly is for openess and exposing corruption, his running away and hiding reeks of rank hypocrisy...
The government will dictate what can be reported and will classify the rest.
If you doubt that, how much new info came out from the Manning case? Remember him?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)What posts on the internet are you talking about? I am genuinely surprised that you think Snowden doesn't give a crap about the information coming out. I thought you did at least accept that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)
from military officials having to publically state the impact/danger his leaks presented to our allies and our foreign policy....no more vague suggestions in the news that Manning killed someone, or caused irreparable harm. They have had to swear and give testimony.
Clear, open testimony in court cleared Manning's name on whether or not he aided Al Qaida. If nothing else, isn't that of benefit?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)confinement.
Since when has civil disobedience required that one submit voluntarily to torture? Oh, that's right, it's not 'torture' when a Democrat's in office.
(in case it's needed).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . It may not have used the specific word 'torture,' but it is clearly referencing torturous conditions of his pre-trial confinement. You can read it here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/manning/072712-dismiss.pdf
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that I always give my client the best chance possible when filing a motion by accurately describing events and how they should be viewed legally.
So if Manning's own attorney isn't making a claim of torture, then people who use that claim, are, in my opinion, using hyperbole to the detriment of actual, everyday prisoners who are victims of cruel and unusual punishment....like this:
http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2013/08/angola_prison_heat_trial_wraps.html
Manning got time off his sentence for any improperly restrictive confinement, as found by the Judge. That is proper and just. But he wasn't tortured, or his lawyer, who has done an excellent job defending him, would have said so.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . to sacrifice his ability to be with family, his career, his girlfriend -- indeed his entire life as he formerly knew it -- in order to bring this to the public's attention. That hardly sounds like a coward to me.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)trial in the interest of "national security." That catch-all works for them all the time when they are trying to hide things.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... for their crimes.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Getting an abortion back in the day. All should have turned themselves in?
The stuff people say nowadays.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
Tien1985
(920 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Snip)There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I remember people brave enough to burn their draft cards, openly.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and/or hard labor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
If it was 1960, would you turn me in to the authorities for being LGBT, so that I would have to "man up" for my felony, and take responsibility for my crime?
Do you have any comprehension whatsoever of the difference between law and ethics, and law and morality?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Ick.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You wouldn't happen to have any pirated software on your computer? Downloaded movies or music?
Oh right, this standard only applies to other people who do something that you disagree with.
treestar
(82,383 posts)These personal actions and snowys claims that the republic and freedom are affected. Fail.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You should report to the police station immediately. Don't bother washing off the reek either, if you don't go in smelling of sticky green, you're even more of a coward.
One, "man-up" sounds like just another version of "Fulfill your gender role, citizen!"
Two, why go to jail if you can get away in the clear? Snowden wanted to dump documents. He did. He gains nothing from imprisonment, unless he's a masochist.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What would your view be on that? How do you handle the specific amorality of what you are saying?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)When people can't understand the difference between ethics/morality and law, they are not worth paying attention to, other than making damn sure that they don't get into positions of authority in the real world.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when you want the felony to be heralded as an act of civil disobedience!
i
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For John Lewis and others in the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, deliberately getting arrested was a working, useful tactic. The jails couldn't hold all the people getting arrested for marching or doing sit-ins. And the political climate was such that they couldn't keep people like Lewis or MLK Jr. in jail for very long or make criminal penalties or prison treatment so severe that people get broken. Also, the whole cacophony that went with civil-disobedience, arrests, crowded-jails, and jury-trials created earned-media publicity that helped the cause."
...there are other issues.
Aug 8, 2013
“News reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading, and they do not reflect my complete opinion. Let me be clear. I do not agree with what Mr. Snowden did. He has damaged American international relations and compromised our national security. He leaked classified information and may have jeopardized human lives. That must be condemned.
“ I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders. In fact, The Guardian itself agreed to retract the word “praise” from its headline.
“At the end of an interview about the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, I was asked what I thought about Mr. Snowden’s actions. I said he has a right as an individual to act according to the dictates of his conscience, but he must be prepared to pay the price for taking that action. In the movement, we were arrested, we went to jail, we were prepared to pay the price, even lose our lives if necessary. I cannot say and I did not say that what Mr. Snowden did is right. Others will be the judge of that.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Just someone who knew a lot about the NSA spying, felt disgusted by it, had an opportunity to expose it, and took it. He doesn't appear to be as organized as say Julian Assange was in his releasing of documents. The comparison of Snowden and such highly respected civil rights leaders is just silly at best and appears to be another attempt at discrediting him. He strikes me more like an accidental hero who can't quite fill the shoes. But any attention drawn to Snowden personally is a distraction from the really important story concerning the massive data collection going on in our name, against us. Even Snowden's motives behind releasing all the evidence is secondary to what has been revealed.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is at most a side issue, and the post you are responding to did not bring it up at all. The post did mention John Lewis' name though, which I guess was enough to invoke a Pavlovian response from you. I for one am willing to accept John Lewis' statement regarding the level of support (or not) he has for Snowden. Now, what about the issues brought up in the OP, regarding the relative effectiveness of different tactics of civil disobedience, then and now, and how they may differ depending on the question at issue?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)By Daniel Ellsberg,July 07, 2013
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.
After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”
Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It's hard to pay the price for your convictions. It shows that you are willing to pay the price of your oppressor's wrongful exercise of authority. You can't prove that the other side is unjust if you aren't willing to endure the injustice.
There's a reason Gandhi incorporated suffering as part of the satyagraha and Dr King incorporated it into his understanding of nonviolence. Aung San Suu Kyi and Desmond Tutu and others have incorporated similar understandings into their philosophies.
And really, I'm pretty sure John Lewis knows more about how to fight injustice than you or I do, what with he put his life on the line to fight for justice.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He's in exile, he had to leave his family and his girlfriend. He left his friends, his career, everything he ever knew.
Besides, do you really think that the punishment the US gov't has in mind for him is really proportional to the crime?
It might be worthwhile to do a year in prison, if it was a normal prison, where prisoners weren't abused, and you could get visits from friends and family. But when whistleblowers are threatened with the kinds of sentences normally given to serial killers, and prisoners face supermaxing, beatings, withholding of medical care, complete isolation, no communication with family or anyone from the outside, "suicide watch" treatment like what happened to Manning, etc., it's become clear that the "justice" system here is completely off the rails, and asking anyone to go through that for any reason is insane.
And going to jail is one way of showing moral leadership, but I don't see it as a requirement to engage in direct action or civil disobedience.
Oh, and I personally have gone to jail in an act of civil disobedience, and seen some police violence. Don't assume that I'm ignorant.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It makes a difference, it makes a damn BIG difference.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . the rest of their lives behind bars, as Snowden is.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)For someone to "count" there has to be a gun against their head, then? Sorry, but that's an excruciatingly high bar for you to hold. I suspect you hold it just for this one guy - just as you probably understand the deep corruption of the US legal system, except as it pertains to this one guy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)'Course, not tough nor principled enough to respond in an intelligent manner to a point raised about the ludicrous standards you hold for just the one person... but still, it's nice that you're an internet silverback, I'm sure you're proud of yourself.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Funny though, I don't recall that we were talking about Obama. I thought the subject was Snowden. Are you confused? need to sit down for a minute? All that spin must leave you awfully dizzy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe stick to screaming "COWARD!!!!" at your screen, and proclaiming anyone not facing down the threat of death "doesn't count."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)related to him, and have no discernible connection to him, decide that calling a female Obama-supporter a gorilla is appropriate?
On the other thread, which is about racism and white privilege, this reads even better. But I find myself in awe that the poster who wrote this----
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002826076
would then think it appropriate to call a female poster a gorilla. Awesome.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I think someone pounding their chest about how they have no "patience" for "cowards" (defined as "someone who's not staring death in the eye) can very aptly be compared to a gorilla doing the same goddamn thing.
Weird thing is, it looks like you're trying to claim that since you're female, you deserve some sort of special consideration when you say something dumb. Or because you're an Obama-supporter. And you're the only one talking about either. If anyone's belittling these people, i'm afraid it's you, msanthrope. Me, I'm just defaming G. beringei by comparing them to someone who has a harder time getting a damn point across.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)an animal?
Who is Snowden to you that you are offended on behalf of him? And why do you think calling another human being an animal is justified?
I ask because in your lecture to DU about porn, you decried the objectification of women.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002826076
And yet, you think that calling another woman an animal is ok. That you pretend that you do not know anything about the racial undertone that 'gorilla' carries in context to this President is quite revealing.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're some schmuck (is that better?) coming up and giving a little speech about what a principled hardass you are, how some dude who isn't spitting in death's eye is thus a coward, by your estimation. I find that sort of thing to be absolutely ludicrous. Good for you, you can post on the internet about what a tough motherfucker you are and how everyone who doesn't meet your amazing standards is a worm. You might as well talk about how much ass you could kick, really.
And again, we're talking about Edward Snowden. This guy:
Just because you see his face sometimes in the news does not make him the president. I know this might be confusing, and I know I probably don't have your trust, but you're just going to have to believe me on this one. Edward Snowden is not the president.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)did you not decry people being described as sex organs?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here, allow me to make a three-point summary for you.
1) Despite your cockamemie rhetoric, someone who does what Snowden did is by definition not a coward. A coward would have kept quiet, went along, minded his own business, never said anything, let it slide. On the other hand someone who so brazenly defies one of the most powerful and potentially dangerous alphabet soup agencies of the United States of America, in an effort to expose what he feels is a wrong perpetrated by them, is pretty far from "coward." There's all sorts of other things you could call him, but "coward" is just factually inaccurate.
2) Meanwhile you are sitting on your rump behind a keyboard, bellowing about what a coward he is for not spitting in death's eye. Yes, you're a real hardass, aren't you? You have no patience for people who don't live up to your (completely arbitrarily-applied) standards of bravery. grr, grunt, grr.
3) when called on how absolutely ludicrous your "principled and tough" statement sounds, you snivel and cringe that you're being picked on because you're a woman, and the person pointing out how dumb and goofy your "me tough, me hate coward, grrr!" statmement was is an insensitive ogre who probably drowns puppies (but only the black ones, be sure to get that nonsense in there too)
There's a level of irony there that I'm certain you're not going to ever pick up on. So I'll spell it out for you - It's a hell of a thing that someone proclaiming "I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR COWARDS!" doesn't even have the guts to stand by their own words when they're criticized, choosing instead to flail at things totally unrelated and pretend they're being attacked because of their ovaries or their bumper stickers.
Frankly I'd be more impressed if you'd just threatened to beat me up or something, at least that would have been staying in theme with your "ME HATE COWARDS GRUNT GRRR!"post
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)an indictment.
The fact that you've had to resort to name-calling a fellow DUer to defend this coward doesn't speak well for you, IMHO. But it does tell me that "coward" really, really gets under your skin.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to be right.
the moral part was to demonstrate these 'acceptable' laws were *wrong* & part of showing they were wrong was to show how far the state would go to enforce them & how far the demonstrators were willing to go to overturn them.
snowden did something quite different, which was to reveal things people *didn't* know & mostly didn't find acceptable.
a whistleblower, not a civil libertarian.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Thank you.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
Theories[edit source | editbeta]
In seeking an active form of civil disobedience, one may choose to deliberately break certain laws, such as by forming a peaceful blockade or occupying a facility illegally, though sometimes violence has been known to occur. Protesters practice this non-violent form of civil disorder with the expectation that they will be arrested. Others also expect to be attacked or even beaten by the authorities. Protesters often undergo training in advance on how to react to arrest or to attack, so that they will do so in a manner that quietly or limply resists without threatening the authorities.
Mahatma Gandhi outlined several rules for civil resisters (or satyagrahi) in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire. For instance, they were to express no anger, never retaliate, submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities, surrender personal property when confiscated by the authorities but refuse to surrender property held in trust, refrain from swearing and insults (which are contrary to ahimsa), refrain from saluting the Union flag, and protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He blew the whistle on something that was unconstitutional...there is a diference...and that is in the action.
In civil disobedience you take an action to defy an unjust law....Snowden revealed an action that was unconstitutional.
I see no reason why he should offer himself up to be punished for revealing an unjust action of others...
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)He leaked information about our spying on China and Russia -- a job that the CIA and the NSA are supposed to be doing, and that isn't in conflict with our constitution.
Cha
(297,146 posts)thanks for pointing it out, pnwmom.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)For China, I believe he pointed out a few computers that were being targeted - information the Chinese authorities almost certainly already assumed (Snowden said it in an interview with a Hong Kong paper).
Compared with what the current vice chairman of Booz Allen Hamilton (then DNI) leaked to Bob Woodward, this seems minor:
In the first 12 pages of his new book, “Obama’s Wars,” famed journalist Bob Woodward reveals a wealth of eye-popping details from a highly classified briefing that Mike McConnell, then-director of National Intelligence, gave to President-elect Barack Obama just two days after the November 2008 election.
Among the disclosures: the code names of previously unknown National Security Agency programs, the existence of a clandestine paramilitary army run by the CIA in Afghanistan, and details of a secret Chinese cyberpenetration of Obama and John McCain campaign computers.
The contents were so sensitive that McConnell, under orders from President George W. Bush, barred Obama's own transition chief, John Podesta, from sitting in at the briefing, which took place inside a tiny, windowless and secure room known as a SCIP (or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.)
These and other revelations sprinkled throughout the book more than confirm Woodward’s reputation as the country’s pre-eminent journalist when it comes to reporting on national security secrets. But it might now present an awkward dilemma for Obama administration officials as they pursue an increasingly aggressive — and, arguably, unprecedented — crackdown on national security leaks.
http://www.today.com/id/39693850/ns/today-today_news/t/double-standard-white-house-leak-inquiries/
treestar
(82,383 posts)He has the whistleblower protection scheme. He did not use it. Therefore his claims to victim hood don't stand.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If you take an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic it IS your call.
And when that protection is not honored it is a fool that would think to use it...Ask Bradly Manning what protection he had.
Snowden would have been imprisoned and tortured just like Manning if they got their hands on him...and you know that, but think it a good I suppose, so that people will STFU about this.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)And both he and Manning made their biggest mistake, if they wanted to be treated as whistle-blowers, in not focusing on actual whistle-blowing. Extending their leaking to thousands of pages of unrelated classified documents was unnecessary and harmful.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and he made it. Not sure what you mean by his "claims to victim hood", unless you are referring to his fears of how he would be treated if he returned to the US. IMO those fears are well justified.
Anyway, we can sit here and theorize all year long about what is and is not "civil disobedience" vs. "whistle blowing", and whether or not Snowden followed the "rules" of civil disobedience or of whistle blowing.
There is no disputing, however, that his actions have initiated a huge public debate, both domestically and abroad, regarding government spying. Whether one approves or disapproves of his decision to leak this information and the way he chose to do it, he has already had a huge impact. Good on him for that.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Last December, Congress passed (and the President signed), the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Contained in that bill was section 828, now codified at 41 U.S.C. 4712, which, beginning July 1, 2013, will protect disclosures made by government contractors to any member of Congress, an Inspector General, the GAO, a contract oversight employee in an agency, authorized DOJ or law enforcement agencies, a court or grand jury, or a management official at the employing contractor with authority to investigate wrongdoing.
However, and this is a big however, there is an exception for “any element of the intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a (4))” or to
any disclosure made by an employee of a contractor, subcontractor, or grantee of an element of the intelligence community if such disclosure—
(A) relates to an activity of an element of the intelligence community; or
(B) was discovered during contract, subcontract, or grantee services provided to an element of the intelligence community.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong.
There is no prerequisite that a person must go to jail for engaging in an act of civil disobedience in order for that act to be defined as an act of civil disobedience, and the paragraphs that you posted from the article in no way make it so, and do not even indicate that it is so.
The idea that one must go to jail for an action in order for that action to be considered an act of civil disobedience is astoundingly ludicrous.
From the same wikipedia article:
snip---
Ronald Dworkin held that there are three types of civil disobedience:
"Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law she or he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities.
"Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to her or him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement.
"Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government
civil disobedience, refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust.
the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.
Notice that none of these dictionary definitions include getting arrested, being tried, or being incarcerated.
Cha
(297,146 posts)punishment.. unless you stand trial and are found innocent. Which in snowden's case won't be happening if he has anything to do about it. He's Putin's Puppet now.
"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations."
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html
Reporting his hacking through the proper channels would have taken guts.. snowden wanted a
sweet gig in Iceland but they didn't want him. that's not a sacrifice. Saying snowden's had to sacrifice is an insult to all those who did for their cause.. like John Lewis.
But, no worries he likes it in Russia and hates the USA. "Bad Obama!!11"
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)There is no excuse for not using the channels. This country actually provides them. Unlike the bastions of freedom Snowjob praises.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Snowden just isn't avoiding the US, he's avoiding any scrutiny.
But now like you said he's Russia's asset now. No more. Off to Siberia. Snowden will be snowed in.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."would have taken guts."
It also would have been ineffective, as evidenced from previous whistle blowers.
Also: are you suggesting it takes no guts to hop on a plane out of the country with a trove of NSA secrets, and then to notify a member of the press and publicly reveal who you are to the world? Now one can certainly debate whether this was the best way to do it, one can argue that it was foolhardy, and one can argue that it was wrong and illegal. All of these are certainly reasonable points to debate. But it seems unreasonable to say that it took no guts to do what he did.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)otherwise known as "solitary confinement".
The word would have never gotten out, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Good luck maintaining that law and order delusion, must be getting difficult.
ecstatic
(32,681 posts)is the way he went about things. Snowden says the government was spying on us, so in response, he gave our "private" info to any and every person he could, including the so called terrorists, but not before fleeing the scene and ensuring his own personal safety. He doesn't have to deal with the fallout of what might occur between the United States and other countries or random terrorist groups.
Imagine if a friend who you trusted with your personal information got mad at you--maybe because you installed hidden cams around the house to watch the nanny or something. Imagine if s/he, instead of trying to discuss things with you in a sane manner, decided to hand out free copies of your house key, alarm code, and a map of where the cams were installed?
There's a possibility that some of the information he revealed could directly or indirectly lead to another 3k or so deaths at some point in the future, but luckily for Snowden, he won't be here. Nope. He'll be relaxing in the wonderful, shining example of what a nation should be--the snoop free nation of......... Russia.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I know this because I just checked the Wikipedia page and it said different people interpret it in different ways.
To my understanding civil disobedience would be when you face the civil penalty, get arrested or whatever. That's what the "civil" part means, I think. It doesn't mean "civil" as in "polite". It means you recognize the legitimacy of the civil authorities but you can't obey the law as a matter of conscience, so you face the civil penalty. Either that or you don't recognize the legitimacy of the civil authority but you choose to respect it as a tactic, and face the legal consequences.
Other wise it would be just disobedience, not civil disobedience. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with plain old disobedience in some cases. I think snowden did the right thing, but I wouldn't call it civil disobedience. I think H.D. Thoreau coined the term, and he went to jail over not paying taxes because we was against war and slavery.
Modern examples are MLK and Gandhi. Older classic examples are Thomas More and Socrates. All accepted their punishments, which is in fact what makes them the classic cases if civil disobedience.
It's not a clearly defined term though so it is debatable either way. I can see both sides. "Civil" can also mean "polite" or "non-violent".
Deep13
(39,154 posts)And no, I see no reason at all to be a martyr. Most people in the abstract see telling the truth as a good thing, but the Fed. govt. does not when the truth is about them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It goes back to the Mexican-American war, at least by the name "Civil Disobedience".
Deep13
(39,154 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Mohandas K. Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Nelson Mandela
To name a few.
Civil disobedience is not a "tactic". It is a strategy of living in the reality you desire to be.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He went around incognito, traveled in secret, utilized safe houses, and did his best to evade the South African authorities. They had to chase him down and drag him out of Howick in chains.
What the fuck, do you think Nelson Mandela just walked up to the chief of police in Johannesburg and said "I'm turning myself in"?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)History is weird that way
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)On July 24 or July 25, 1846, Thoreau ran into the local tax collector, Sam Staples, who asked him to pay six years of delinquent poll taxes. Thoreau refused because of his opposition to the Mexican-American War and slavery, and he spent a night in jail because of this refusal. (The next day Thoreau was freed when someone, likely his aunt, paid the tax against his wishes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau#Civil_Disobedience_and_the_Walden_years.2C_1845.E2.80.9349
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Snowden has no ties with the MIC (as opposed to Manning).
He is a civilian who broke his own Oath of engagement.
A civilian.
And as such, he would have had access to protection programs that have been put in place by the current administration.
Looks like paranoia makes you distort the whole thing.
Why?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)you added the paragraphs from Ellsberg, too. It's so important to drive home how drastic and brutal the changes in this government really have been, just since 1971.
Thank you for taking the time to articulate all this.
K&R
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)7700 arrested Occupiers and the incredible number of militarized police who showed up against us certainly reveal something about the state of the union. You'll be arrested for singing in the Wisconsin capitol and Moral Mondays have evidently just passed 1,000 arrests.
PFC Manning sitting in solitary for much or most of three years before any hint of a trial sends a message to whistle-blowers, journalists, and truth-tellers. Snowden's no dummy. He realizes the US government waterboarded, renditioned, and worse. He knows about the NDAA section 1021 (indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation; one of Obama's worst anti-Constitutional offenses yet) and that solitary confinement re: Manning is not considered (by the US) to be torture. If he's grabbed, he'll be drugged and stuffed into a box for the rest of his life, and the government will say he's being treated fairly.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)PorridgeGun
(80 posts)A. No real experience with the modern US prison system. Even a short county jail stint can be turned into a death sentence for inmates disliked by the jail administration who aren't protected by mass media coverage these days.
B. An authoritarian streak that results in heads burrowing firmly into the sand at the mere suggestion that all might not be well with the US justice system.
I've seen this syndrome at work first hand in the women who worked in the administration building of a California prison. There were things that just "weren't talked about" and subjects that couldn't be brought up unless you wanted a sneering glare and later retaliation from the guards. I was concerned about this even as an employee of the State at the time.
I once witnessed an ambulance carrying an elderly inmate having a suspected heart attack stopped at the exit gate for more than half an hour (as the guards lazily ambled around) for "security" purposes. The real reason, of course, was that the inmate inside happened to have been a troublemaker (ie. activist type) and the guards were doing their best to turn his prison stint into a death sentence.
This sort of thing happened every day. If you were a state employee driving a truck you were waved straight through. For the media and civillians they'd hold 'em up until they could get a couple guys parading around on the roof brandishing mini-14's to give the entirely false impression they were entering some sort of dangerous environment rather than the outer administration bloc of a low security prison.
I don't think I knew a single "free staff" employee who didn't over time grow to loathe and in some cases develop a visceral hatred for prison guards. The same was not true of the inmates they worked with.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)thanks for sharing that.
Not really surprising but just sick or something.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)taking this material and developing it into its own original post. These are some weighty issues you raise herein and DU would profit from a fuller discussion of them.
Here's a question for you (without being critical of you and recognizing that most of us have to earn a living): did you try to report any of the abuses you witnessed up your 'chain of command' or to journalists?
Again, your post is much appreciated and I hope to read more from you in the future.
PorridgeGun
(80 posts)Unfortunately everyone in any position of authority knew what was up and would listen, sigh, nod, and nothing would get done. Try to cause too much trouble and you get moved around. Those who were disgusted by the whole thing either never got promoted or, far more often, quit in disgust as soon as they could. I fell into the latter group. I stopped working for the state of CA and moved back to the UK quite a few years ago.
There were journo's who listened, but they were from MJ, The Nation etc - magazines who were already publishing letters from convicts about the conditions they were experiencing.
To his credit, former Gov. Schwarzenegger attempted to take on the prison guards union. He got more than he bargained for and didn't have the support of legislators who were either repubs (who openly praise the system, of course) or democrats who knew the guards union could cost them their jobs in the next election by running targeted ads. They have a stranglehold on the state legislature and have been milking it for all its worth with overtime, bloated pensions and lobbying for laws that cause mass incarceration. They waste billions of dollars every year that could be far better spent elsewhere.
The sad thing is that both Senators are otherwise reasonably solid D's. Unfortunately Feinstein has a mile wide authoritarian streak and has openly undermined efforts to reform 3 strikes or pass laws stopping the incarceration of small time meth pushers. She appeared in an ad in some state election, maybe '08, and called a law which would have caused the diversion of small time meth users into community and rehab programs "the drug dealers bill of rights."
I guess Boxer just goes along with it as the junior senator, not wanting to contradict Feinstein in any way.
When you've got friends like that :p.. as they say.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thanks for sharing that.
PorridgeGun
(80 posts)The more people who know these things the better, even if nothing much appears to be happening in the present.
I think I'm going to take the suggestion made earlier that I develop this into a standalone post. I was reluctant to do so because of newb status but it seems there are enough people concerned about this stuff and would like to hear from a former insider to make it worthwhile.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Prison abuses need to be brought to the world's attention.
PorridgeGun
(80 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)especially in pursuit of drawing attention to some injustice, is part-and-parcel of civil disobedience. Some are imprisoned as a result; others might not be - but they face that possibility, same as the next man.
Think about black men in the south during the civil rights era, who faced not only jail, but much worse at the hands of the white cops into whose hands they were delivered.
Their willingness to stand firm in their convictions was not a "meme" being bandied about on a message board. It was real life - brutal, violent, and often fatal.
You obviously want to turn Snowden's cowardice into some sort of well-thought-out heroism, as though he simply "planned ahead" better than the fools who stood their ground, and allowed themselves to be jailed as a result.
If you want to worship at the altar of Snowden, you are free to do so. But reducing the unbelievable sacrifices made by the many, who were "civilly disobedient" to the point of risking their lives, to being merely a 'meme' is despicable.
Number23
(24,544 posts)the Civil Rights Movement. I keep waiting for the lack of knowledge to hit the floor (the post last month comparing surveillance to an MLK speech just about did me in) but the floor somehow keeps dropping.
This sentence in the OP: And the political climate was such that they couldn't keep people like Lewis or MLK Jr. in jail for very long or make criminal penalties or prison treatment so severe that people get broken.
made me actually gasp out loud. As if the government -- because it was the government as in the police, the courts, politicians, judges etc. aided and abetted by a hell of alot of "good" US citizens that were the greatest impediments to black civil rights -- needed to put anyone in jail in order to "break" them. The sound of a cop car pulling up in the driveway was enough to break a hell of a lot of people. Lots of folks never even made it to the damn jail cell to GET broken.
Thank you. I mean that. And I meant to say this before in response to your post to 1SBM's thread, but as far as I'm concerned you are always welcome in the AA forum here.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)at the lack of knowledge being displayed here. It's not like the civil rights movement is ancient history.
"The sound of a cop car pulling up in the driveway was enough to break a hell of a lot of people. Lots of folks never even made it to the damn jail cell to GET broken."
To see all of that reduced to being a "meme" that is now to be seen as neither here nor there, rendered irrelevant and somehow "foolhardy" by people who consider themselves (and their heroes-de-jour) above such immature foolhardiness, is truly beyond insulting.
And thank you for the warm welcome to the AA forum - and I mean that, too. I mean that very, very much.
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)for affecting change.
Snowden's actions are historic. The civil rights movement - which used MANY tactics, including civil disobedience - was historic and affected change.
We are talking about the BEST EMPLOYED TACTICS to affect change.
Different circumstances, different times call for different tactics.
Eyes on the prize.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)dairydog91
(951 posts)The meme going around was the idea that the only way to "legitimately" disobey the law is to submit yourself afterwards to law enforcement. But that's really just a tactic, and one that is only useful in certain conditions. 60s civil disobedience worked because police overreaction was broadcast for the country and the world to see. The size of protests resulted in enormous and grotesque violence that couldn't be concealed. Americans living far from the Jim Crow South were disgusted at what they saw on TV. The US national gov't was humiliated on the international stage, as its attempts to declare itself the Beacon of Freedom in the Battle against Communism clashed with what people could see on their TVs. Meanwhile, Snowden was acting alone, and he would have disappeared into a faceless federal prison. Poof. Maybe a closed-door trial, with the court documents redacted.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."during the civil rights era".
Yes black people were heroic during the Civil Rights era (they weren't all men BTW), and yes they did use the classic methods of civil disobedience to achieve their ends. They deserve every bit of praise and admiration we can give them. Of course, there were a huge number of them, and of other supporters who were willing to act en masse, which was part of the reason they succeeded.
Today we are dealing with a different civil rights issue. This civil rights issue does not have to do with the overt mistreatment of, and inequality under the law of one group of people. This civil rights issue has to do with the massive surveillance of the citizenry, and it has nothing to do with one group vs. another. Or if it does, we would have no way of knowing that, since it is all done in secret.
Furthermore, and this is the important part: There is no huge number of people in a position to know what Snowden knew. And of the people who did share his knowledge, most were in agreement with what was being done. Even if they might have had concerns, very few people are willing to rock that boat: good job, good pay, working for one of the most secretive organizations of the most powerful government in the world.
I'm not seeing that Snowden had a lot of options if he really wanted to get the information out there. Using channels would have been risky, both as to his own legal status (others have suffered charges and incarceration due to their whistle blowing in this area) and also as to getting the message out (yes others have talked about this stuff, but they were unable to spark the broad discussion that is happening now).
I do not think we can invoke the Civil Rights Movement as a parallel here. Yes both are civil rights issues but the particulars are very different and there is a very different dynamic involved.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You call the man a coward for not wanting to subject himself to life in prison in the American gulag? I call him sensible.
shanen
(349 posts)You left out the important aspect that his trial would be completely secret and the issue would be expected to die quietly--like him. His continued visibility outside of prison is an important aspect of why the issues continue to get attention. Every time some rightwing lunatic tries to argue he's not a whistle-blower, it reminds people about the real issues.
By the way, I think it is important to emphasize the real threats of these assaults on our privacy. It isn't just the negative stuff that threatens you. Of course no one is perfect and you can be threatened or even blackmailed with your past mistakes. I'm not sure if there is any solution there, because we are all doomed to live increasingly public lives unless we are as rich, selfish, and even sociopathic as the big dick Cheney.
The stick is threatening, but the carrot is just as effective in removing your freedom. Knowing what you like and your strengths can be used to twist and manipulate you. That's both directly in terms of appealing to what you like, but also indirectly in terms of knowing who to recruit for mediating the manipulation. Your most trusted friends can relatively easily be tricked into helping. It's just a question of where the resources are leveraged.
Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. If they can control what you know, your choices are not meaningful, and they also can constrain your choices every way from Sunday... Welcome to 1984, though we're running a few years behind.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)So comparing Snowden's "fight" to that of Medgar Evers is silly. You cannot compare a black attorney who gets a bullet or two slammed into him in his driveway in Mississippi 50 years ago and Snowden.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)We still don't know how many lives have been endangered by Wikileaks or Snowden. And no one has yet offered up a case where an American citizen's rights were denied because of NSA. I am not an apologist for the Obama administration...I hate what they did in Libya, and now in Syria and Egypt. I hate the drone attacks and have written to Congress and the WH about stopping them. But I also hate cowards and people who are used by others to tear America down for purely political reasons under the guise of performing a public service.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)How can anyone show his rights have been denied by a secret program? Until it isn't secret anymore.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)The more I'm convinced that we are going to learn that our programs aren't as big AND effective as we are being lead to believe. And perhaps that's the real risk: having it out on the streets to those terrorist groups that wish to do us and other countries harm that we aren't as effective as we would like them to think we are.
If the Fed Gov is relying on Verizon Communications as a cornerstone of this program - I don't believe its effective. We can't even effectively execute a Bill Message notification let alone be relied on to get all that data over to the authoritEH! The Data Warehouse has problems at least twice a week which leads me to believe NSA is a Keystone Cops kind of operation.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Indeed, can one really mount a moral argument that surmounts Dr. King's? Snowden had legal recourse available to him--he just didn't want to suffer consequences. The avoidance of suffering the natural consequences of one's actions marks him a coward in this situation.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is a difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hiding in Russia, lest he have to give up his computer.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Society makes the laws. If we don't like them we still have to obey them. Snowy in fact lived in a society so fair that it had whistleblower protection laws.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I dont see anyone from the NSA sitting in jail for that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Violate the constitution by enforcing the laws. In fact in the US laws can even be challenged in court ! Imagine that ! Snowy used to live in such a country!
A country that even had a channel for him to use if he thought the laws weren't being carried out properly.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The constitution has put limits on what the government is permitted to do. When they go across those lines, it is illegal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-4th Amendment
The NSA is collecting our data and communications. They then promise not to look at this data until they first go to a secret court for a secret warrant. A secret court that has approved over 99% of requests. There is practically no oversight. There is no transparency! This violates the check and balances of the republic. This is putting the cart before the horse. The way it's supposed to work is the government gets probable cause of a crime being committed. They then go to a civilian judge, the judge issues a warrant, and THEN they can begin collecting data on that targeted person. That's the way it's supposed to work!
If that means it makes it harder or impossible to track certain terrorists....TOO FUCKING BAD! Not my problem. Im not sacrificing my rights so you can enjoy an illusion of safety.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)And as Manning has made clear, the notion that you will be allowed to freely make your case under a presumption of innocence is poppycock.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... it's authoritarian damage control bullshit.
They are being seen for the scummy, Anti-American, Anti-Constitutional control freaks they are, and are powerless to turn the tide.
These scum think We the People are stupid and finding out just how wrong they are has them in desperation mode.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)
to argue that whistleblowers need to be punished punished punished.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)behind the words of MLK---I live them.
I was arrested for protesting the sale of chemical components to Saddam Hussein, who then gassed the Kurds in Iraq outside of the Iraqi Embassy in DC. I was also arrested outside the South African consulate. I cannot tell you the problems I incurred--from the actual detention, to bail, to court appearance, to later getting my records expunged, to still having to account for the arrests for my security clearance, to later having to account for my arrests when I went to law school, and later, on my admittance to the bar. At the time, I was nearly tossed from my college, and only the direct intervention of some of the Jesuits at the protests saved me from getting kicked out.
I was lucky---
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_803
--the ordinance under which I was arrested was struck....but I willingly paid the price.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I was arrested at two protests as well.
That's absolutely nothing like spending the rest of your life in prison.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)crime if you can't afford the natural consequences of your actions.
Marr
(20,317 posts)What if, just hypothetically speaking, the subject at issue was torture and not domestic surveillance? Could you sincerely argue that a person who exposed that should willingly spend the rest of their natural life in prison?
A government that's engaged in wrongdoing has little moral right to throw people in prison for exposing it-- even if the bureaucrats have secretly decided, amongst themselves, that their crimes are legal.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is widely divergent.
If I came across you, Marr, being tortured, I would attempt to immediately intervene to prevent you further immediate physical and psychological harm.
If I came across you, Marr, being illegally surveilled, I would report it under whistleblowing statutes if I got no resolution otherwise. If you were arrested, I would attempt to intervene. But what I would not do is go off half-cocked to China then Russia, where I could not testify on your behalf.
Snowden is saving his own ass in Russia. That's his right, but that makes him a coward, in my book.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)protest, the participants should run.
Civil Disobedience Arrests Mount In N.C. In Protest Of CONSERVATIVE AGENDA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022797978
More Than 150 arrested at NC Legislature during Monday protests
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014500004
hack89
(39,171 posts)which is the question about Snowden.
When he actively challenges the many abuses of his new home is when I will be convinced that he has courage.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)as a way to throw mud on someone who has done something they wouldn't have the courage to do, nor even the moral compass to find such an abuse of the Constitution intolerable to the point of taking such a stand in the first place. It's only a way to try and create the illusion that they are morally superior to such a person, when in fact they know they are not.
Unless any of them who make such criticisms have been in the position of facing 20+ years themselves, and had the chance to leave the country but chose to stay and stand trial instead, they have no room to talk. How many would that be, I wonder? Any so qualified can reply to this post. Btw, I am one. And I throw no stones at Snowden for his choice. He did the right thing, given the condition of law and justice today.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Did he copyright it as well?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He and others went to jail in protest of the Mexican war in order to:
1. Draw attention
2. Increase the cost of the war
3. Make local officials (who, like Thoreau, were not fans of the Mexican war) have some "complicity" in the Polk administration's actions.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)A couple of weeks ago, in response to an article that appeared in The Nation titled, "A Letter to Edward Snowden," I tried to make a similar point (albeit not as eloquently as you have done here) in response to a commenter who took issue with the article's comparison of Snowden to the likes of King and Mandela. That person commented:
This letter is offensive to real heroes like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, who were willing to go to prison for what they stood for, by comparing Edward Snowden to them. Hell, Martin Luther King gave his own life.
To support his argument about Mandela, he relied on the following quote of Mandela:
"In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness and democracy in a society that dishonored those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even in the fortress of the enemy."
In response, I pointed out that Mandela did not willingly submit to South African authorities. When Mandela was arrested, he had recently been in another part of Africa receiving military training. He sneaked back into South Africa to lead a band of saboteurs, having grown frustrated with the lack of positive results from the ANC's previous, peaceful efforts. On the day he was arrested, he and an associate were driving from Johannesburg to Durban, when a police car swerved in front of them, stopping the car. Mandela initially tried to pose as a chauffeur, using the alias David Motsamayi, but the police did not believe him. The only thing Mandela willingly did in all of this was choose not to use the revolver in the glove compartment of the car he was in (which probably would have been suicidal). None of this takes away from the greatness of the man, but the suggestion that he willingly submitted to arrest is pure fiction. The realization that he could be effective even while imprisoned, which the quote refers to, was one he came to after he was arrested and imprisoned, not before.
Likewise the suggestion that Dr. King "willingly" gave his life is utter nonsense. Dr. King's life was taken away from him by a murderer. Yes, he was willing (as was John Lewis) to go to jail on several occasions, but the fact is neither he nor any other civil rights activist was facing the likelihood of a life sentence, nor even a terribly long sentence, such as Snowden certainly faces if he returns.
Whether or not one believes Snowden is on par with the likes of King or Mandela, the U.S. government is seeking to make an example of him (indeed, much as they are doing with Bradley Manning). The suggestion that anybody who has -- as you concede Snowden has -- done the right thing should willingly submit to that is simply insane.
Here's a link to my original comment on the article in The Nation.
Marr
(20,317 posts)sit in prison to earn their precious respect didn't show an ounce of respect to Bradley Manning?
I think it's bullshit, frankly. They just want to see people suffer for making their chosen authorities look bad.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)who seek to diminish Snowden's actions. Almost like they want to see Snowden tortured while in captivity if he is to prove his bona fides to their satisfaction. Some don't even care to see his bona fides demonstrated, they simply want to see him (and Manning) punished\tortured.
I think we can all imagine if the same standard had been applied to those who left the U.S. to evade the draft during Vietnam. I'm sure there would have been a vocal contingent here questioning the draft dodgers' standing if they didn't stay here, face trial and go to prison.
N.B. Many Vietnam-era male draft resisters did decide to stay and go to prison here (including at least one DUer whose screen name escapes me now). Where's the D.C. monument to their heroism?
Marr
(20,317 posts)You'll occasionally see these very echo-chamber types of threads that don't attract anyone but the usual Obama defenders, and when the subject turns to punishment, there's a palpable sense of excitement. They start anxiously offering all sorts of ideas and speculations about the things that might be done to their object of scorn.
It's very creepy.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)These are the kinds of people that cream their pants when they imagine people being raped in prison.
KG
(28,751 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)and if Snowden were to turn himself in, they'd just turn and attack him with their other twenty talking points.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)That or people that are being willfully obtuse and have figured out yelling about boxes in garages and stripper girlfriends isn't going to work as a derailing tactic anymore. (Although there's at least one that's STILL yelling about that. So that's probably not willful)
Pretending being arrested by the Sheriff of Stumblefuck county is exactly the same as being disappeared by a wholly unaccountable federal security agency and only (possibly) reappearing for your public show trial FTL.
Marr
(20,317 posts)was a waste of time, was violating the law and ought to disperse, made us all look bad, etc., etc.
Who do they think they're fooling with this shit?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They were also spreading the whole "Occupiers are dirty commie hippies" memes, saying the Occupiers were criminals, did drugs, spread lice and scabies, all that bullshit.
I could tell you what that group of posters is really doing here on Democratic Underground, but that would be breaking the rules. Not only that, it would hurt their precious little feelings, and they would whine and complain to Skinner, wearing sackcloth and ashes in a huge crying jag about how mean old backscatter and all the mean troll hunters are making DU suck!
Because don't you know, astroturfing and psy-ops don't exist.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)"Civil Disobedience." I guess they don't teach that in school anymore.
You can read the extremely interesting and influential essay here:
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
It has influenced movements ever since, along with people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It should be required reading in high school for everyone.
I highly recommend reading through it. It doesn't take all that long.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)eschewed non-violence in favor of, shall we say, more militant tactics.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)There's no disconnect there. Thoreau did not write an essay entitled, "Non-Violence." He wrote "Civil Disobedience." The word "Civil" in that title has nothing to do with behavior. It has to do with "Civil Government," and laws. Read the essay, and you'll understand. Keep in mind that it was written in 1849, when people were not afraid of using language. A good dictionary might help, if you keep it close at hand while reading the essay. Not every use of a word refers to the primary or 21st Century primary meaning of that word.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)with non-violent civil disobedience, whereas John Brown practiced an entirely different form of CD (what some might call with reason insurrectionary CD or even - GASP! - 'terroristic CD').
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)That originated with Gandhi, and was related to Hindu beliefs. He added that to the concept of civil disobedience, to excellent effect.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)historical assessment and general assessment are both correct.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)We've come a long way since Thoreau coined the term.
snip---
Ronald Dworkin held that there are three types of civil disobedience:
"Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law she or he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities.
"Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to her or him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement.
"Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government
civil disobedience, refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust.
the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.
Notice that none of these dictionary definitions include getting arrested, being tried, or being incarcerated.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Excellent post, backscatter712!
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)The idea of civil disobedience is that you should be willing to be dragged off to jail if that's what happens. But I think it was expected in long-ago actions that, after the first few jails were clogged up with protesters, the government would be ashamed to commit more to retribution.
Might have worked in a time when governments felt shame, but those times are clearly past.
-- Mal
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)civil disobedience and paid a price ... From the folks that didn't practice civil disobedience because the feared paying the price; but in honest hindsight, realize that those the did and did pay the price were heroic figures.
Now the flipside to that question: where did the meme that one can practice civil disobedience without paying a price?
I would say from the same place, and a product of the mindset, that has it that, not only, every kid "makes" the team; but every kid plays the same amount of time and, at the end of the season, gets a trophy, regardless of ability or effort.
From the same place that has teachers pressured to give their students passing grades (to avoid law suits) regardless of the student's effort.
From the same place that has employees thinking that showing up to work, on time, every day should earn them a merit pay increase, if not a promotion, regardless of the quality of work they actually produce.
IOW ... we have developed a mindset where "just showing up" is enough and, more, should be rewarded.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're not wrong, but ouch
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately"
~ Ben Franklin
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am wrong because ... you say so, and moreso, because you say I'm wrong AND have a bunch of big words behind it?
Okay ....what am I absolutely subjectively, illogically, and ludicrously wrong about?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)we can again compare Eddie the fleeing accused felon to leaders of the civil rights movement.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It is fucking hilarious that people think the most orderly, pro forma civil disobedience works and nothing else can possibly work without recognizing that they got their views from a system intent on preserving the status quo.
Why do we teach school children about the power of passive resistance?
Is it because our curriculum is all about best empowering people to upend the system?
Right...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (3)
How do you take the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and mutate it to be subservient to the interests of the elite?
Simple. Say that if you want to honor him, you have to take civil disobedience, a tactic, and make it into a religious observance, with the addendum that you must allow yourself to be punished for every act of disobedience, and if you disobey, then escape, you're committing blasphemy.
You must be 100% passive in your defiance. You must submit yourselves to the authorities as you're defying them. Otherwise, you're Bad People!
And that's why the elites love the concept of non-violence - makes it easier for the pigs to kick your ass.
KG
(28,751 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)We are in a new era of attempts to silence dissent and keep the money flowing in the "right" directions. Thomas Drake followed the chain of command, played by the rules, and only when that didn't work did he blow the whistle. The government response, which continued unabated under the present administration, was not to lock him in the County Jail for a few days, but to accuse him of betraying the security of the United States and threaten him with 35 years in prison. Kick in his door with an armed squad. Ransack his house. Seize his possessions. Financially devastate him, taking his job, his pension, and costing whatever mountain of legal fees was involved. When shown to be completely wrong, the charges were simply dismissed.
We know what they did to Bradley Manning.
No one is required to subject themselves to the specter of these outsized, bad-faith threats in order to do the public a service in releasing information that belongs to the people. If the persecution of whistleblowers doesn't stop, we will see more ex-patriates. More journalists, unwilling to tell the truth from inside the U.S.
That doesn't reflect cowardice on the part of the whistleblowers. It reflects the bad faith and untrustworthiness of a segment of our leadership.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Corps whose job it is to smear anyone who dares to stand up and reveal wrong-doing on the part of the Government. I wonder how much of our tax dollars pay for this?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)that has no basis whatsoever in fact?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leave everything you love, be hunted by the most powerful Empire in the world, are completely ignored, you KNOW this is nothing more than just another part of a not-very-good smear campaign. I could see someone sincere asking the question, then being willing to discuss it rationally. THIS is nothing but an attempt to 'kill the messenger' and so obviously so, it is doomed to failure.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)of acts of civil disobedience, and that his civil disobedience could only be validated and defined as civil disobedience because he went to jail for his acts of civil disobedience.
So, like, this argument purports that everyone else who participated in the Civil Rights movement, who made an active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of the government, in order to help gain recognition and enforcement of the legal human rights of black people, did not engage in an act of civil disobedience, solely because they did not go to jail for their actions.
What is wrong with this picture?
There does not seem to be any logical or factual premise for this argument, so where did it originally come from? Maybe from the source you cited, or something similar:
"A contract issued to one of our Private Security Corps whose job it is to smear anyone who dares to stand up and reveal wrong-doing on the part of the Government.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The latest talking points say that civil resistance is ONLY valid if you submit yourself for punishment.
When you defy the authorities, you must submit to the authorities.
Otherwise, you're labeled a "coward", "traitor" or some other epithet as you're a Bad Person.
I also note that the corporate-government-industrial complex loves non-violence, because it makes it easier for the cops or security contractors to kick your ass.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)think that anyone could fall for these claims.
Not to mention, that Snowden most definitely faces jail and worse, but he doesn't have to walk right into it.
In fact, with the power of the most powerful government in the world after him, I would say he is already in jail, just free to TALK for now.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Today, we are faced with trying to prevent the dawning of The Fourth Reich.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49
Zorra
(27,670 posts)cannot be considered to have engaged in acts of civil disobedience simply because of the fact that they were not jailed for their actions.
Is that what you believe?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I simply said it was a tactic that worked in a lot of places, but not everywhere.
And I said that it's not cowardice to use different tactics that are more appropriate for the actual situation.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)