General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rude Pundit: Grappling with Edward Snowden, Part 1: Thoreau Would Be Proud
Goddamn, how it must have pissed off the people who want, who need Edward Snowden, who stole and leaked reams of documents on the mass surveillance activities of the National Security Agency, to be a shit-tossing crazy beast. When Snowden appeared on NBC last night with the giant head of newsdom, Brian Williams, he was calm, rational, doubtlessly well-rehearsed, and very, very American, like "Golly-gee-whiz-Middle-American-someone-get-this-kid-a-bike" American. He wasn't wild-eyed or wooly-haired. He sounded more sane than anyone on any news network. He didn't come across as a craven weasel, nor did he come across as a utopian ideologue. He was American, part of a long tradition of Americans, who thought that his job as an American was not to prop up those in power, but to prop up and save, if necessary, the ideals of the nation, as, yes, he saw them.
You could easily see Snowden's rhetoric crossing ideological lines. He said that, in the wake of September 11, 2001, "I think it's really disingenuous for for the government to invoke and sort of scandalize our memories, to sort of exploit the the national trauma that we all suffered together and worked so hard to come through to justify programs that have never been shown to keep us safe, but cost us liberties and freedoms that we don't need to give up and our Constitution says we should not give up." Those words sound for all the world like a teabagger talking about Obamacare, and that's what's fucking dangerous about Snowden. What he revealed about how wide a net the NSA has cast causes disgust on the liberal, civil liberties side of things and on the conservative, government-encroachment side, too.
The Snowden on NBC was not some dupe or naif. He merely exists in a long line of Americans who had enough of what their government was doing and decided to behave accordingly. Lacking the ability to revolt (like those law-breaking traitors, the Founders), he broke the law and engaged in civil disobedience, like unionized workers on an illegal strike, like civil rights lunch counter sitters, like bootleggers, like Vietnam War rioting protesters, like so many, right and wrong, in American history.
When the Rude Pundit thinks about Snowden, he doesn't automatically leap to Martin Luther King, Jr. for comparison. Instead, he thinks about the canonized American writer Henry David Thoreau and his essay, "Civil Disobedience." Snowden asserts the phrase in his interview, saying, "I think the most important idea is to remember that there have been times throughout American history where what is right is not the same as what is legal. Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law. And the key there is in terms of civil disobedience." He says, quite rightly, that the idea of coming back to the United States from Russia to "face the music" is ludicrous since he wouldn't be afforded the opportunity to plead his actual case. The rules have changed in the post-9/11 world. Imagine what Daniel Ellsberg would go through if he revealed the Pentagon Papers today.
It sounds like what Thoreau describes: "Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse."
Snowden also sounds like Thoreau when he talks about the need for spying and the good that intelligence gathering can do, but that he chafes at the massive expansion of that gathering. Wrote Thoreau, "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." Snowden threw his body into the gears.
And even if you're not in a position to stop the machine, Thoreau offers this bit of advice, "What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn." It's the least we can do.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/grappling-with-edward-snowden-part-1.html
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Throwing one's body into the gears.
It's also instructive, and it should not be missed, that The Rude Pundit says, "the idea of coming back to the United States from Russia to 'face the music' is ludicrous since he wouldn't be afforded the opportunity to plead his actual case." Any prosecution of Snowden would be delayed for years while the government circumscribed the case against him - in collaboration with the judge hearing the case - to very clearly defined actions. The idea that Snowden would be allowed to "make his case" as Secretary Kerry so blithely intoned yesterday, is a pipe dream more fitting to Fantasyland than any serious discussion. And I believe Kerry knows this, which makes his statement doubly disingenuous. Any presentation of motive or governmental wrongdoing in a criminal trial of Snowden would be ruled strictly out of bounds, and he would never have the chance to make his case.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Kerry is now Obama's Dean Rusk.
Remember Dean Rusk? LBJ's Secretary of State?
Here, from the New York Times' obituary for Rusk:
As Secretary, Mr. Rusk played almost two different roles. Under President Kennedy, his position was much less defined, with the President often taking advice from other officials and not paying that much attention to Mr. Rusk. But Mr. Johnson, himself an outsider in the Kennedy Administration, relied increasingly on the advice of his fellow Southerner.
Mr. Rusk's belief, which he never tired of stating, was that the United States had a commitment to South Vietnam that it could not break without risking a larger war with China or Russia.
He declared again and again that "as far as the United States is concerned, we have a commitment to South Vietnam -- and we shall meet it."
Mr. Rusk was also deeply involved in the hot and cold American relations with the Soviet Union. He helped engineer the first arms control accords with Moscow. And he was President Kennedy's adviser when the Soviet Union, in Mr. Rusk's word, "blinked" during the Cuban missile crisis. Praised by Johnson, Reviled by Protesters [sic]
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/22/obituaries/dean-rusk-secretary-of-state-in-vietnam-war-is-dead-at-85.html
Elizabeth Warren explains how it works in her book A Fighting Chance. page 106
"Late in the evening, Larry (Summer) leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. By now, I'd lost count of Larry's Diet cokes, and our table was strewn with bits of food and spilled sauces. Larry's tone was in the friendly-advice category. He teed it up this way. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders:
Kerry is now an insider. It's not his job to criticize any more. Criticism? That's our job.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)K&R.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)to our attention
starroute
(12,977 posts)Autumn
(45,012 posts)Recommended.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are total authoritarian followers. But the oligarchs dont mind buying Democrats. But the most important thing that Snowden's revelations should be making more obvious, is that the oligarch rulers run the country. Presidents come and go while the oligarchs are always the same. Some were calling for Pres Obama to fire Gen Clapper. But if Pres Obama doesnt follow orders, Gen Clapper may fire him. Nothing really changed in the real power structure when Obama became President. The NSA/CIA/FBI cabal stayed the same. The naive among us think that during the Bush Admin the cabal was working for the Republicans and they changed their ideology when Obama became President. They didnt change. IMO there is nothing we can do. If Sen Warren were to become President, the oligarch overlords would have a little talk with her and convince her that it was to everyone's best interest to leave the cabal alone.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)The Shock Doctrine is absolutely chilling about how TPTB sat Clinton down after the 1992 election and told him the rules
Leme
(1,092 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I love a rude erudite pundit.
Solidarity!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or is that some other whacky meme you're invoking?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)There wasn't the tax structure in place that we enjoy today. Instead, taxes were levied on real property and others were levied on a per capita basis. One of the taxes was to support U.S. military action against Mexico, which Thoreau disagreed with. Although the amount of the tax was easily within his means, he refused to pay it. He was then assessed a fine, and when he refused to pay that, he got tossed in jail overnight until his relatives paid his tax and fine and he was released.
So, while Thoreau did not in fact pay taxes, he still suffered a consequence for his crime of conscience. Bringing him up seems more appropriate than hilarious.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Big K&R for the Rude!
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)they know they're out of their league. Waaaaay out of their league.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't see a single f-bomb in it. I am disappointed.
This issue warrants f-bombs.
(Nicely written.)
Edit: wooooaaah, there IS one in it. Maaan, that's smooth.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)by how few (or no) F-bombs he uses. It's like an inverse relationship:
importance = 1/count(F-bombs)
So in this case, importance is approaching infinity.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and beautifully written.
Among the top Rude Pundit I have ever read, and that's saying a lot.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Happy to rec & kick!
Especially love the rhetorical nod to Mario Savio!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)Always love reading him, but often for amusement rather than inspiration. This was perfect and serious.
Uncle Joe
(58,328 posts)Thanks for the thread, meegbear.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Thoreau is a bit of an antisocial reactionary. In addition to not liking to pay taxes he doesn't think much of voting, insurance, social security, or any other form of collective bargaining:
The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.
Fine for an ENG 101 essay but in reality this is not what most Democrats believe or want. Just sayin'.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)when I think about Snowden, who "threw his body into the gears" versus DU's Swarm, that, well...
K&R!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)where he appears to be living very comfortably. Thoreau went to jail, remember? That's what CD is all about.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)For not paying his taxes...
Like General Patton said, "no one ever won a war by dying for his country"...and if Snowden would have "faced the music" we would not be hearing of this again and you know it.
He can never see his family again and he is alone in a strange land with a strange language and customs...you take that lightly?...I don't.
eridani
(51,907 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to meegbear (Original post)
rocktivity This message was self-deleted by its author.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)I cant understand how they missed on this one. One day they will sober up for a few minutes and realize , that Snowden is their dream. Hell, Obama hates him. What the fuck more do they fucking need ?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...I'm with Rude on this one (and and excellently-written one, at that.).
It's completely disingenuous of Kerry or anyone else to suggest that Snowden will be given 1/2 of a chance in hell to "plead his case" to the American public or anywhere else if he is extradited. He's too much of a threat to TPTB.
840high
(17,196 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....he was willing to go to jail (he did very briefly) and never fled the country to escape the consequences of his acts.
It was the same for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he too was willing to face the consequences of his acts of civil disobedience, consequences that cost him time in jail time and ultimately his life.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If Snowden went to jail, he would never see the light of day. You think he doesn't know what happened to Manning?
George II
(67,782 posts)....about committing an act of civil disobedience. Either one does it or one doesn't.
Thoreau was willing to accept the consequences.
Martin Luther King was willing to accept the consequences.
Bradley Manning was willing to accept the consequences.
Edward Snowden is a gutless coward.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Because we have a traitorous coward who is being put on a pedestal and being compared to others who have REALLY sacrificed for their beliefs, not crawled off to some other country to escape their consequence.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Who is we? You're a Canadian, ostensibley.
George II
(67,782 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Well, you should know that people will assume you are Canadian.
TBF
(32,029 posts)Snowden must be willing to be a martyr? That's some twisted thinking right there.
George II
(67,782 posts)...all those spoken of in this context and all those that he's being compared to have done so too.
Him? Living it up in a foreign, and potentially an enemy, capital.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Can you check in Ottowa for us scared americans?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And certainly not an improved version.
TBF
(32,029 posts)"Snowden asserts the phrase in his interview, saying, "I think the most important idea is to remember that there have been times throughout American history where what is right is not the same as what is legal. Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law. And the key there is in terms of civil disobedience."
I think people sometimes forget that everything Hitler did was legal - likely the same with Stalin. There are times when government is wrong. George Bush put this in place with pushing the Patriot Act through Congress after the 9/11 tragedy. Maybe folks are far enough away from that incident now to be less emotional and figure out that we shouldn't be treating all American citizens as criminals. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed.
Leme
(1,092 posts)"Maybe folks are far enough away from that incident now to be less emotional and figure out that we shouldn't be treating all American citizens as criminals." I agree.
-
I don't think the NSA should be doing mass data collection in the USA.
-
I don't think the NSA should be mass data collecting worldwide, collecting everything.
-
And private entity data collecting in the USA and world wide is also troubling.
-
I think all the data collection is troubling and suspect.
TBF
(32,029 posts)chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)Yes, Snowden is a traitor - to a deceitful, murdering, torturing, spying government.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)When you find yourself on the WRONG side of Thoreau, Ellsberg, and The Rude Pundit,
you are standing on the WRONG side of History and Democracy!
Well Said, Rudie,
and a DU Rec!
On the wrong side of George Carlin, too, incidentally.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and our Democracy!
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I kid.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)already won.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Because most of them "broke the law". Even worse, some of them are (EEK!) whistleblowers.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Eddie stole documents illegally - as to our country's law.
Calling this country Orwellian is ridiculous. There are laws prohibiting "insulting the head of state" in other countries - people breaking that law are fleeing persecution. But we'd have no such law here. It's against the First Amendment. So calling us an Orwellian state is ridiculous on the face of it.
You can bet in those countries the consequences for leaking any government secrets would be harsher than any of the penalties here.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)malaise
(268,844 posts)with the giant head of newsdom, Brian Williams
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And a big fat honking hip hip hooray for Rude and for Snowden and for Greenwald too!
And a salute to the Constitution!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Thoreau turned himself in, and intentionally spent time in jail. More lies from Snowdens delusional fan club.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)there is no singular blue print that must be followed.