Civil Rights Icon John Lewis: Snowden’s Actions In Line With Gandhi, Thoreau

[Capt. Obvious]

Civil Rights icon John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia, believes Edward Snowden's decision to leak classified information from the National Security Agency was an act of civil disobedience in-line with the non-violence teachings of figures like Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi.

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price," Lewis sad in an interview with the Guardian published Wednesday. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.

"Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law," he added. "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

Moonbat Professional Leftist Link

[The Link]

1. Uh oh. Can't wait to see how they smear John Lewis.

[Capt. Obvious]

4. Start a pool

I got money on comments about him getting hit over the head at Selma.

[backscatter712]

10. Naw, they're gonna make ageist jokes and claim he's got Alzheimers... n/t

[Enrique]

33. that's what they did to Ellsberg

so it could happen with Lewis.

[struggle4progress]

148. Ellsberg's full release, in print, fits in a backpack; he had read it; and he knew what he released

Manning's release, similarly printed, would fill hundreds of backpacks; and with few exceptions, he had not read the material and did not know what he was releasing

If Ellsberg doesn't grasp that important distinction, between his acts and Manning's acts, the conclusion that his mind has deteriorated is quite natural -- because the distinction is not difficult or subtle, and because Ellsberg in his prime was quite a sharp thinker

[kelliekat44]

51. Disagreeing with Mr. Lewis is not "smearing" him. I disagree because he and others before him

conducted civil disobedience and stuck around to face the consequences. Snowden did not. And he is pushing the lie that he faces the death penalty here as the reason for fleeing to Russia.

[AppleBottom]

60. What kind of punishment should someone get for doing the right thing?

And as for Russia he got stranded there because the American government revoked his passport.

[struggle4progress]

146. The reporter did some spinning, to make his story sexier. Lewis is actually explaining

his own views of civil disobedience: Lewis points out that he believes people may sometimes break the law as a matter of conscience, as he himself has sometimes done, and that civil disobedience (as practiced by Thoreau or Gandhi) involves accepting the legal consequences of such lawbreaking as part of the strategy of protest against those laws

Whatever one thinks of Snowden, his protest has not been civil disobedience in the tradition of Thoreau or Gandhi -- as Lewis has pointed out more fully today, in his objections to the reporter's article

[pnwmom]

178. Yes, especially now that Lewis has come out with his own statement criticizing this reporter's

work as misleading and taking his words out of context.

[geek tragedy]

2. Now that is the highest possible praise he can get. nt

[pnwmom]

179. It would be if Lewis had actually made this comparison. n/t

[geek tragedy]

181. Yep. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Another durn "professional leftist". Bravo for John Lewis and Snowden.

[msongs]

5. obviously a paulite libertarian and racist basher lol nt

[progressoid]

18. And a traitor.

[Octafish]

22. +1

A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. A broken record sounds like that. But it's still just a recording.

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. and, they didn't like him anyway

if all else fails.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I had no idea Lewis was an Emoprog libertarian Paulite!

nt

[Catherina]

8. Who knew lol n/t

[ProSense]

7. Is Snowden

Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: "In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price."

<...>

When it was pointed out to Lewis that many in Washington believed that Snowden was simply a criminal, he replied: "Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law. Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

He added: "We had that problem during the height of the civil rights movement. People spied on, and got information on Martin Luther King junior, and tried to use it against him, on the movement, tried to plant people within different organisations – that probably led to the destruction of some of those groups."

..."willing to pay the price"?

Unlike Lewis and others, he fled.

Still, I'd love to see a transcript of the interview.

[bvar22]

12. So did the American insurgents in 1776.

The Royalists, who had blind faith devotion to their king,
called them "cowards" and "traitors" who should Turn themselves IN for their illegal activities and face their just punishments!
The Early American Traitors to the Crown said, "No Thanks. YOU come and get me."

Like the early American Traitors to The Crown, Snowden has Run Away to keep fighting for what he believes.
Like the early American Traitors to The Crown, I think this is a smart choice for Snowden too,
especially in light of what happened to Bradley Manning and the other Whistleblowers under the current administration.




[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=3 color=firebrick]Solidarity Snowden & Manning![/font]

[ProSense]

13. LOL! n/t

[libodem]

21. Maybe I am humor challenged

Why is that laughable? What did I miss?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Snowden now equals the founding fathers ...

that doesn't strike you as laughable?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Thomas Paine, perhaps?

Having taken work as a clerk after his expulsion by Congress, Paine eventually returned to London in 1787, living a largely private life. However, his passion was again sparked by revolution, this time in France, which he visited in 1790. Edmund Burke, who had supported the American Revolution, did not likewise support the events taking place in France, and wrote the critical Reflections on the Revolution in France, partially in response to a sermon by Richard Price, the radical minister of Newington Green Unitarian Church. Many pens rushed to defend the Revolution and the Dissenting clergyman, including Mary Wollstonecraft, who published A Vindication of the Rights of Men only weeks after the Reflections. Paine wrote Rights of Man, an abstract political tract critical of monarchies and European social institutions. He completed the text on January 29, 1791. On January 31, he gave the manuscript to publisher Joseph Johnson for publication on February 22. Meanwhile, government agents visited him, and, sensing dangerous political controversy, he reneged on his promise to sell the book on publication day; Paine quickly negotiated with publisher J.S. Jordan, then went to Paris, per William Blake's advice, leaving three good friends, William Godwin, Thomas Brand Hollis, and Thomas Holcroft, charged with concluding publication in Britain. The book appeared on March 13, three weeks later than scheduled, and sold well.

Undeterred by the government campaign to discredit him, Paine issued his Rights of Man, Part the Second, Combining Principle and Practice in February 1792. It detailed a representative government with enumerated social programs to remedy the numbing poverty of commoners through progressive tax measures. Radically reduced in price to ensure unprecedented circulation, it was sensational in its impact and gave birth to reform societies. An indictment for seditious libel followed, for both publisher and author, while government agents followed Paine and instigated mobs, hate meetings, and burnings in effigy. The authorities aimed, with ultimate success, to chase Paine out of Great Britain. He was then tried in absentia, found guilty though never executed.

In summer of 1792, he answered the sedition and libel charges thus: "If, to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy ... to promote universal peace, civilization, and commerce, and to break the chains of political superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank; if these things be libellous ... let the name of libeller be engraved on my tomb".[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Yeah ...

I'm pretty sure the hyperbolic poster above was referencing T. Paine ... Yep.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. That post was about the American revolutionaries in general

Paine was prominent in what was effectively 'the media' then, so there are some similarities. I think the main point was that Americans didn't do a bit of civil disobedience and then wait to be arrested and jailed.

[bvar22]

164. Nicely Done, M.

Nicely done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

177. True ...

I think the main point was that Americans didn't do a bit of civil disobedience and then wait to be arrested and jailed.

But they didn't start the revolution then run away to Canada, either.

[ronnie624]

98. They probably weren't considered "founding fathers" back then.

The suggestion would have doubtless been ridiculed as "laughable". They were surely regarded as traitors, by many.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. ...and apparently civil rights leaders. He is no such thing.

Had he stayed, perhaps he could make a case. But he fled into the arms of one of our biggest enemies. He's a coward and a fraud. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a conversation about surveillance. Sure, we should. However, I agree. I still think Snowden is a coward of the highest order.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

46. Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!

Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337

Hmmm... who knew how influential a DU meme could be

[Civilization2]

23. lov that Wellstone quote !

Yes this is a silly ad hominem attack, "running away",. Why would anyone submit to the persecution this corporate-military regime has shown to its detractors? Reason escapes some of the pro-totalitarian spy war cheerleaders.

[Puzzledtraveller]

26. ^^THIS^^

[uponit7771]

50. Ummm, no...those people weren't citizens for the MAIN REASON of stealing from the British..

...all that happend while they were just living.

Snowden hired on to Booze Allen for th sole purpose of steeling.... no matter if he found something or not cause he never stated he knew someting was wrong BEFORE he joined BA

[reusrename]

114. And the patriots boarded the Dartmouth, Eleanor and the Beaver to steal tea.

What's your point?

[bvar22]

165. He doesn't have one.

*

[uponit7771]

205. ...all planned BEFORE they were citizens?! You're kidding right, don't think I can make myself more

...clear that the man wasn't THERE and then said he found something wrong.

He claims there was something wrong BEFORE he got to BA but doesn't prove such or tell us how he knows.

If anything he went into BA for the SOLE PURPOSE OF STEALING without full knowledge there was something to steal

[reusrename]

208. He worked for the CIA for a couple years, and the NSA for a few more, before joining BA.

By all accounts he's a fairly gifted infrastructure analyst, with a lot of experience in US electronic eavesdropping techniques. Most of that experience came before his job at BA. He was with the NSA during the period when PRISM was actually being implemented.

I guess you could also argue that the patriots didn't know that there was any tea onboard.

It's a ridiculous argument, but I guess that doesn't stop some people.

[uponit7771]

212. Then why not steal from them!!??!

[reusrename]

213. He may have wanted to get to the truth.

You know, validate the story with his own eyes.

It seems so obvious that I don't understand how folks get so confused by it.

[bvar22]

169. Can you document your claim that...

[font color=firebrick][font size=3]"Snowden hired on to Booze Allen for th sole purpose of steeling (sic)"[/font][/font]---- uponit7771, post # 50

...or are you just making stuff up again?



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[uponit7771]

204. Here yah go

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/snowden-booz-steal-files/66539/

[bvar22]

206. Oh Boy....Lets check the "documentation" YOU provided!

Right off the bat in the first sentence

[font color="firebrick"] "according to a report today in the South China Morning Post"

[/font]
Well, thats not very reassuring.
Any rational person would need some corroboration before repeating something like THAT.
To just go spouting THAT in public would be embarrassing to an Honest Broker of Information.


Lets do our due diligence, and check a little further.
Nobody wants to be know as a catapulter of BOGUS information at DU, do they?
[font size=3]UH-Oh...bad news, from the SAME article:[/font]

[font color="firebrick"] "Snowden's admission above (and one later in the Morning Post article) imply that he may have sought employment at Booz to gather information primarily about foreign places in which the United States was conducting hacking operations. In other words, Snowden may have been collecting precisely the insurance policy that he ended up using to escape extradition from Hong Kong. Its statement announcing Snowden's departure has a very pointed reference to the hacking of Hong Kong computer systems revealed by Snowden.

[/font]

WOW. Information it the article itself contradicts the headline!!!!

Do you even bother to read the stuff you post at DU?

But it YOU want to stick with YOUR story,
Please Proceed!

[treestar]

92. Each case is different, you do realize

It may have been the right thing then. But Snowden's revelations are not exactly the same as the Stamp Tax, the Townsend Acts, Quartering of Soldiers and General Search Warrants.

I love how you emoprogs see things in black and white just like the freepers do the opposite. Either you are for the revolution or you aren't! Doesn't matter what the content of the revolutionary issues are. You just have to be for it, because the status quo is always bad and the revolution will always make things better (see Egypt).

[ronnie624]

106. The vast database on US citizens that is being constructed by the ruling elite

will be mainly for the purpose of suppressing political dissent and limiting political organization by the working class. It will most certainly be used to thwart reform to our corrupt system and maintain the status quo. The implications seem pretty grave for our society, to me.

I've seen you paint progressives with that 'black and white/freepers' meme before. It never makes any sense.

[treestar]

107. How do you know what it will be used for?

Our system is set up to avoid political persecution, and it has worked pretty well for 234 years. The list of phone calls is not a very practical place to start for a would-be tyrant.

If Bush could not pull it off right after 911, it isn't going to happen.

[ronnie624]

113. It has not worked well for 234 years.

Civil rights for African Americans and women leap to mind.

Every piece of information about you, that can be accessed online by the authorities, including your text messages, e-mails, search history, purchases, medical records and so forth, will be used to create a complete profile of who and what you are; a very effective weapon for the establishment to deploy against political activists and reformist-minded leaders.

How do I know that is what it will be used for?

Because the road to democracy and equality for the working class has been long and rough, with resistance from societies elites at every turn. Those with power always want more. It's why our Founders made it clear that we must be ever vigilant.

[treestar]

117. But they happened, didn't they?

that was because of our system. It worked well. It was not perfect at the beginning is all you really said.

Everything you did on the internet is not available to the government. Are there some CT web sites giving out misinformation? All that is available to the government without a warrant is what is in plain sight.

[ronnie624]

180. CT web sites?

So clueless.

[reusrename]

209. We know stuff because, unlike neocons, we are not afraid of facts.

Learning, the ability accept new thoughts or new perspectives, is probably what makes us "emoprogs" different, or unique from, the criminally insane neocons and those who support their agenda.

[cali]

27. I bet you would love to see a transcript

and yes, Snowden has payed a high price for what he did.

It's not the price that those of you who want him thrown in the deepest, darkest hole on American soil want him to pay, but it's a steep price nevertheless.

[truedelphi]

32. Well, anyone with a brain would flee the USA after seeing what happened to Manning.

I consider the real terrorists and traitors to be those in Congress who want to turn what should be a significant Peace Dividend into hundreds of billions of dollars for Total Surveillance.

The scarey thing for me is knowing how the Big Corporations want us environmentalists to be treated the way that the actual suicide bomber style of terrorists are treated. Just a few months ago, one of the Major Interests in the Keystone XL Pipeline, tar sands industry told the Nebraska police to start treating the environmental protesters the way that the other terrorists are treated.

[Chef Eric]

39. IMHO, not being able to visit one's family...

is paying a price of some sort.

[kardonb]

40. lewis

is a lesson in rhetorical BS . Snowden is still a TRAITOR !

[sabrina 1]

43. He has already 'paid the price' which I am certain a man as intelligent as Lewis already

understands. Not only that, but allowing himself to be silenced, which was guaranteed had he been arrested in a country that tortures and isolates its own Whistle Blowers, like Manning, would have been extremely foolish.

But thanks, we were waiting to see what the response to Lewis would be. This is not going to work, sorry.

Giving up everything you know and love, including your country which you love enough to speak out when you see wrong-doing, knowing what the consequences would be, is a price few people are willing to pay. I know I wouldn't have that kind of courage. Lewis understands courage. So do a majority of people who have no agenda.

I do admire YOUR courage however to keep on trying to do whatever it is you are trying to do. I am serious when I say, it's a tough job that gets tougher every day. Maybe some day you will move over to the side of those who have been right all along. Fighting losing battles is tough, I know, I've been there.

[kath]

176. Eh, I'm sure she's being very well paid for what she does here.

[MotherPetrie]

9. K&R!

[pinboy3niner]

11. John Lewis's signature...

I didn't march with him in Selma, but I was honored to be with him when he led a march in Columbus, Ohio in 2004 to protest voter suppression by Ohio's SoS, Ken Blackwell.

Mr. Lewis was kind enough to autograph my Kerry placard at the end of the march--even though I wasn't smart enough to give him something smaller than my 3'x4' placard to sign.

John Lewis is one man whose opinion I value VERY highly.

[democrank]

14. Bravo, Congressman Lewis!

Another fine example of why we should be listening to and supporting the left-leaning people in our party. Congressman John Lewis is an absolute gem.

"Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it." How true, Mr. Lewis. How true.

[MADem]

118. You may want to...er..... Curb Your Enthusiasm....

Or maybe not. I think Congressman Lewis is Living History.


But here's the truth, not the spin: http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

[KoKo]

15. Recommend!

[grahamhgreen]

16. And in line with the presidents oath to "defend and protect the Constitution".

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[War Horse]

19. I think it may very well be a disservice to Snowden

to compare him to people like Ghandi and Thoreau.

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if it weren't for Snowden. So I'll give him credit for that. And I harbor no ill will towards him, personally.

I wouldn't call him a 'whistleblower', though. More of an 'info dumper'. And that seems to be a distinction that's easily lost these days.

[deurbano]

37. Info dumper? How so? Snowden looked at the accusations (of dumping) against Manning...

and deliberately chose a different method. In fact, others (here) complain the information is being released too slowly. Apparently, Snowden provided Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian many, many documents that they are methodically reviewing and analyzing before deciding what to reveal. How does that make Snowden an "info dumper"?

[JDPriestly]

20. Beautiful statement.

Trust me. Being exiled from his family, friends, girlfriend and country in Russia is enough punishment for Snowden. He is still young enough to make a life for himself, but he will become very homesick.

We were not exiled and had family and friends when we lived overseas for years. But we did not have the money to visit our family and friends, and it was really tough especially at Christmas and most of all at Thanksgiving.

Snowden is sacrificing more than people can imagine by doing what he did -- by simply telling us the truth.

[cali]

24. hmm. throwing Lewis under the bus could be tricky for the professional apologists

hard to call him a racist Obama hater. Of course the professional apologists could always say he's in the throes of dementia. I wouldn't put it past them.

[lark]

29. Yesiree

All *** could post was "lol", very dissimilar from her usual anti-Snowden, how dare you dis Obama - who by the way is not negotiating with Repugs to lower Social Security benefits - rants. When questioned about her response - crickets.

[cali]

31. how PROfessional of the PROlific PROpagandist

[backscatter712]

34. A very SENSEible post. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

91. It's nice to not to see her/him/them on this thread

[lark]

111. LOL

[markpkessinger]

38. Tricky, yes . . .

. . . but then, they are quite an imaginative lot!

[Number23]

49. Looks as though you beat any "apologist" with the dementia claim. Funny that.

[treestar]

112. the messenger doesn't matter

I thought it didn't?

the statement itself just goes too far.

[MADem]

119. He didn't say what people cheering for him thought he said, though.

He's not demented, he is pissed off because he was misrepresented in the GUARDIAN.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

Does this mean all the praise gets taken back?

[bvar22]

170. throwing Lewis under the bus could be tricky for the professional apologists?

Not in the slightest.

They tossed the legendary Humanitarian and Civil Rights activist Harry Belafonte under the bus without a 2nd thought.

[tblue]

28. I'm with him!

[CakeGrrl]

30. About that "willing to pay the price" detail...

cutting and fleeing to Hong Kong and Russia?

Yeah. Not so much.

[morningfog]

35. Glad you were able to find something to latch on to!

Glad to see you thought better than to disparage Mr. Lewis.

[MADem]

120. Mister Lewis has disparaged the GUARDIAN....

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

[morningfog]

122. Rightfully so, for the use of the word praise

in the headline. This OP didn't use that headline and Lewis stands by the quotes in the OP.

[MADem]

123. Not quite. The reporter misrepresented Representative Lewis's intent, focus and opinion on this

issue. As Dick Cheney would say ... "Big Time!"

The Guardian completely trashed themselves with this reporting. It's not just about a headline. The reporter did a poor job, at BEST (that's being kind) and misled as to Lewis's POV at worst.

“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://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden

That is STUNNINGLY unambiguous. GUARDIAN was acting like Putin's RUSSIA TODAY in trying to skew the meaning of Lewis's remarks, and they got served. When the Guardian article first came out, I disagreed with those who viewed Lewis's remarks as "praise." Turns out my sense of what the man was saying was the correct one.

[morningfog]

127. The OP in this thread was almost entirely Lewis' words, accurately quoted

which Lewis has not contradicted with his clarification. I agree that his comments did not reach the level of praise. It is much more a relating of the motivation. Lewis clearly distinguishes between a criminal intent and a act of conscience. And says that "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

The understanding of Snowden's motivation, that his motivation to act is akin to civil rights actions hasn't changed. Nor has Lewis suddenly embraced government spying programs. Guardian mangled the meaning of the message so badly on the first print that it is as good as lost.

[MADem]

130. Those three paragraphs I provided were entirely Lewis's words, written by him, and in full context.

That's the entire contents of his press release--these are not snippets taken out of context. He condemns his actions and says he has to pay the price. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to Representative Lewis's meaning, which is just as I said it was yesterday.

What the Guardian did, in their eagerness to keep the Snowden story bouncing like a beach ball at a stadium rock concert, was conflate Mister Lewis's commentary about the values of the participants in the March on Washington with Snowden's specific situation, and "imply" that Lewis was saying Snowden had common cause with civil rights leaders. I think Lewis slapped that down pretty effectively.

That wasn't reporting by the GUARDIAN, it was propagandizing. And it was ham-handed, too.

[morningfog]

135. For completeness, here are Lewis' exact words, which he has not

disavowed:

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price," Lewis sad in an interview with the Guardian published Wednesday. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.

"Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law," he added. "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

[MADem]

147. Indeed, and that was in response to a query about the anniversary of the March on Washington.

They did a "mash up" of his responses and made it appear as if he was "praising" Snowden and conflating Snowden's behavior with that of Ghandi and others, as Lewis said. In actual fact, Lewis was saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

“ 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.

It's pretty clear what this reporter did--he took two separate statements, about two separate issues, and pretended that it was all of a piece. It's a cheesy, sleazy thing to do.

I think Rep. Lewis's smackdown was succinct, though, and left no room for doubt as to how he feels about what they tried to do with his words.

Of course no one likes to be spied upon--but that doesn't mean that Lewis endorsed Snowden's cut-and-run, and that is what the Guardian, and many here on DU, insisted was the case. As Lewis has made clear, nothing could be further from the truth.

“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.”

[MADem]

150. They weren't 'accurately' quoted, though, that is why Lewis issued his statement.

They took his comments about the March on Washington, and conflated them with a remark or two about Snowden. They editorialized, and they slopped one set of remarks over on another topic. It was sleazy, tabloid propagandizing--worse than a "hit piece" oppo political ad.

One can take issue with spying but that does not mean that Lewis ever felt that Snowden's actions were appropriate. In fact, he says, plainly, his actions endangered lives and should be condemned. Yesterday, he talked about paying the price--though no one supporting Snowden chose to believe that bit was about him, it most certainly was.

He also didn't compare Snowden with Ghandi. The Guardian took his March on DC comments and did a mash up.

This was some of the sleaziest reportage they've ever done. It diminishes their effectiveness as a mouthpiece for Snowden's POV. Up to now they've been an obvious "champion," but now we know they are willing to misrepresent to the point of the "lie" word to advance his cause.

If they have any financial interest in the documentary that is being made about Snowden, that would be a motivator, certainly. Not an excuse, though.

They embarrassed themselves with this stunt.

[morningfog]

152. His statement does not say his quote was a product of a "mash-up" as you say.

Where did he say that? Guardian editorialized its coverage with the slant and the headline, inappropriately I agree. But, where was he mis-quoted and what support do you have to claim that the quote was either incorrect or not in answer to the Snowden question?

[MADem]

155. He says PRECISELY that in the third paragraph of his press release.

“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.

See, he was being interviewed, NOT about Snowden, but about the anniversary of the march. You cannot tell that from the GUARDIAN's story, OR their headline.

If that's not a mashup, I don't know what is. They "conflated" to suit themselves and their agenda--it's more than "editorializing," it's rank misrepresentation.

All that other Ghandi stuff that was quoted was in the context of the March on Washington. But they didn't bother to mention that. Hell, DUers here were crowing that Lewis compared Snowden to Ghandi, and wasn't he a great guy and Ha Ha to the "Snowden haters" and all manner of foolishness. I disagreed and was shouted down by people who said they knew better. Turns out they didn't. I guess they will be the ones throwing Lewis under that bus, now...?

This part that was about Snowden was the "pay the price" business.

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.”

Lewis is saying what I've been saying all along--face the music and dance.

I'm betting GUARDIAN is on Lewis's shit list for this stunt, and I wouldn't blame him.

[morningfog]

157. He says it came at the end of an interview about the March,

but does not say the answer was not to the question posed (about Snowden).

Here is what was quoted in the OP:

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price," Lewis sad in an interview with the Guardian published Wednesday. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.

"Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law," he added. "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

The second portion was certainly an answer to Snowden, wouldn't you agree?

As for the first part, you claim that was in answer to a question unrelated to Snowden. I am asking how you know that.

Here is how the Guardian reported the relevant Q&A exchange went:

Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: "In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price."

"That is what we did," he added. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it."

Lewis said the Guardian did "not reflect [his] complete opinion." And then, that he "never praised Snowden."

He then says: “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."

You are reading into Lewis' statement that he did not give the answer mentioning Thoreau and Gandhi to the Snowden question on civil disobedience. I think you are wrong and am asking where is the support for your inference?

[MADem]

159. I am not "reading into" anything. I'm going by what Congressman Lewis actually said in his press

release.

All of that stuff you are quoting about Ghandi and civil disobedience is about the March anniversary. LEWIS SAID THIS in his press release--geez, look at it again. Read the sentence that says

I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders.


That seems ENTIRELY straightforward to me.

The damn reporter got in the door by lying about the focus of the interview. He wasn't there to interview Lewis about Snowden, so he said--he was there to talk about the March. You'd never know it from the way he wrote that piece of shit article. He sandbagged Lewis, and I'll bet Lewis won't forget it, either.

He asked about Snowden at the END of the "March Anniversary" interview.

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.

Look, all I can suggest to you is that you read what Lewis said one more doggone time. Note where I have bolded, again.

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.”

LEWIS is entirely clear--he can't help it if people refuse to listen to the words exiting his mouth, or mix them up and pretend that a comment about the movement and Ghandi applies to Snowden--when--as he clearly said--it does not apply to him at all.

[morningfog]

162. Sorry, you are not convincing.

No matter how manner caps lock words or bold you use.

When asked if Snowden was engaging in civil disobedience, he nodded and gave the answer:

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price,"..."I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.

"Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law," he added. "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

When he says now that he didn't praise Snowden, that is not inconsistent with the entire quote which Lewis does not deny. When he says now that his action don't rise to those of Gandhi, that too does not contradict the quote.

[MADem]

163. No--he said that about the MARCH ON WASHINGTON. That was the TOPIC of the interview.

And he said that in his press release. His press release is telling us the reporter "conflated." Yet you want to believe the completely unknown reporter, who is affiliated with a news outlet that has an agenda that is wrapped around Snowden, and not the civil rights leader, who has been a known quantity to us all for fifty years now.

You just don't have a right to your own "facts," here.

Surely you aren't calling Lewis a liar? That is what your last paragraph is smelling like. If Lewis didn't have a problem with this "story" that the "reporter" wrote, he wouldn't have written a press release to correct the record.

But he DID write a press release. He's mad, because that guy's article MISREPRESENTED his words, his context, and his meaning. That's why his release started out with this: 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.

This is plain English: I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders.

This, too, is plain English: 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.

Trying to infer that "some people say" and "He could say" comments, which are discriptive, somehow rise to the level of endorsement is flat-out absurd, particularly in light of Lewis's press release.

You just can't pretzel your way out of this. Lewis thinks Snowden needs to face the music. He doesn't think the guy is Ghandi, either. Lewis says that the article was MISLEADING and does not reflect his full views. He's not a fan of Snowden's actions.

You will just have to live with that. It's what it is.

[morningfog]

166. Sorry. You are making assumptions that aren't supported.

You may be right, but as of now, you are the only person making the claim.

Look, we agree on most of this. I just don't accept your claim without support. The Guardian put an inaccurate headline and spin on the article. Lewis issues a statement to clarify because it their slant did not accurately reflect what he was saying.

The question about Snowden came at the end. But, Lewis does not say that the answer printed in the Guardian was not the answer he gave. He clarified his position based on the Guardian running in the wrong direction.

Here is the answer the Guardian attributed to the question on Snowden and civil disobedience:

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price,"

That is not praise of Snowden. Notice the "willing to pay the price." It is also not an agreement with Snowden. It is does not suggest that Snowden's actions "rose to those of Gandhi." Only that it was an act of civil disobedience in the "philosophy and the discipline of non-violence." If the Guardian hadn't butchered the slant and the headline, Lewis would have nothing to clarify.

I just think you are wrong on your reading.

[MADem]

171. I am NOT the only person making the claim. JOHN LEWIS, who was IN the interview, is making it.

I think I'ma gonna believe him before I buy off on your ... not sure what it is--denial? Refusal to take the word of the key participant?

He said they gamed him, and he corrected the record and called them out.

Yet you're still sifting through those out-of-context quotes and trying to find any excuse to believe the reporter.

Sorry--the "reporter" is pond scum. He did a bozo no-no, and so did his paper, breathlessly tweeting as quick as the could:



They were trying to USE Lewis, and he wasn't obliging. Good thing. The guy didn't survive the most brutal years of the movement by being some sort of malleable guppy.

[morningfog]

173. Go back and read my last post.

We only disagree on one point. I am saying you could be right, but no one but you has said so.

The reporter messed up big time. They supplied the word praise when that is not what Lewis said or implied. Lewis did say it was an act of civil disobedience, one that he does not agree with or support.

He clarified because the reporter ran the opposite direction with his answer to the Snowden question and/or because they did not give the full answer. But, it does seem to be at least part of the answer to that question he gave.

There is no denial from me. I don't see why you think you can be so sure of yourself that the answer quoted either 1) is not what Lewis said (which we know isn't the case) or 2) was an answer to a different question. That came from you and you alone. Lewis clarified and expanded on that answer. The Guardian and those who picked it up used it improperly, wrongfully interpreted it and added "praise."

[MADem]

175. Lewis's press release is more than a clarification. It's an objection.

It's not just about the "praise." That 'reporter' got the interview on the basis of the March anniversary. His article doesn't reflect that, though.

He lied. He tried to game a civil rights icon. The reporter didn't just "run in the opposite direction" he acted like Lewis gave him a sit-down on the subject of Snowden.

And to make it worse, his editors eagerly ran with it, and tweeted this line of horseshit:



They were determined to make John Lewis a cog in their wheel, and he wasn't having it.

I have to say I agree with others who see elements of racism in what they did. It was certainly shoddy, Faux-like "journalism" on the part of the reporter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. The reporter was clear in the question that the subject was Snowden

after talking about the 60s marches (that part of the interview is described in a separate article, which was linked to from the 'Snowden' article:

More on this story

March on Washington leader John Lewis: 'This is not a post-racial society'

Fifty years after a great day for US civil rights, congressman laments Voting Rights Act decision and Zimmerman trial verdict

Lewis was clear in his answers that he was talking about Snowden:

When it was pointed out to Lewis that many in Washington believed that Snowden was simply a criminal, he replied: "Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law. Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

He added: "We had that problem during the height of the civil rights movement. People spied on, and got information on Martin Luther King junior, and tried to use it against him, on the movement, tried to plant people within different organisations – that probably led to the destruction of some of those groups."

And once again, you, personally, try to play the race card. That is shoddy.

[MADem]

183. What is shoddy is that you buy this unknown reporter's assertions, and disregard the civil rights

icon's statement. Funny how you put so much faith in one guy and so little in the other.

I believe John Lewis. He was obviously sufficiently disturbed about how he was portrayed to issue a press release. The press release makes his intent and his meaning clear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

184. John Lewis didn't like the impression the Guardian article gave

'Praise' was the word The Guardian used; they've withdrawn it, though I would say it was a fair characterisation, still:

Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: "In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price."

"That is what we did," he added. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it."
...
When it was pointed out to Lewis that many in Washington believed that Snowden was simply a criminal, he replied: "Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law. Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

He added: "We had that problem during the height of the civil rights movement. People spied on, and got information on Martin Luther King junior, and tried to use it against him, on the movement, tried to plant people within different organisations – that probably led to the destruction of some of those groups."

John Lewis has not disputed that was what he said in the interview, nor has he said (as you are claiming) that he was talking about the March on Washington when he mentioned Gandhi. What he has said is that what is in the Guardian doesn't reflect his complete opinion. He has not said that the Guardian left out anything relevant that he said to them. He has added to what was in the Guardian report.

[MADem]

185. Spend less time trying to spin the out of context quotes and more time reading his press release.

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://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden

Keep twisting--I'm not buying it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. I had already read it - without your bold and underlining spin

That is weird, isn't it - in a post accusing me of 'spin', you yourself cannot let Lewis's words stand for themselves, but you have to try and spin them? It's quite laughable, in fact.

There's nothing in Lewis's statement that disagrees with what I wrote. I made it clear that it is my personal opinion that 'praise' was a valid description, but he disagrees, and the Guardian withdrew that word.

[MADem]

187. Yeah, sure--it's SPIN to call attention to the comments you choose to ignore. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. You're a mind-reader, are you?

What makes you think I ignored anything that John Lewis said? I read it all, and took it all into account when I wrote my post. Point out anything I said that shows I ignored something from the statement on Lewis' website.

[MADem]

191. By your words I know you--doesn't take a mind reader. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

192. QED - you can't point anything out.

You're flailing around, pretending to read my mind. Your spin has been exposed.

[MADem]

193. Listen to you--you're the one doing the flailing.

Goading, baiting, all ticked off because I don't agree with you. Poor you.

By your words I know you. I could cut and paste but since you don't like people pointing stuff out to you, I leave you to your own uncivil, disruptive self to figure out what you said.

You really aren't convincing anyone, least of all yourself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. I suggested repeatedly you point something out, and you have failed to do so

We must conclude that you cannot do so. We've seen, for instance, that you incorrectly claimed the remark about Gandhi was about the March on Washington, when it wasn't. Your claims about this are just not worth reading.

[MADem]

196. I gave you the text of Congressman Lewis's remarks. If you can't sort out the meaning from them

then you are the one with the problem.

You complained that "bolding" was spin. And now, because you don't like my responses, you pretend that I didn't point out what I pointed out.

Nice try--big fail on you, though. You are very transparent.

If my comments aren't worth reading, it's pretty odd that you keep coming back at me with your goading remarks and demands for more of my "not worth reading" comments. I should think you would know how to solve the problem, yet here you are, again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

199. And you still can't point out how my posts contradict anything Lews said (nt)

[MADem]

200. Well, I already did that. I gave you the text of Congressman Lewis's remarks. They contradict your

"spin."

But there you go again!

[muriel_volestrangler]

201. Are you trying to emulate Ronald Reagan?

A weird choice, but it's yours.

You have not even attempted to show how the remarks contradict what I said, let alone succeeded.

[MADem]

203. So, the goading and baiting didn't work; now you're trying out personal insults?

What's next, I wonder?

Hold your breath till you turn blue?

I gave you Rep. Lewis's remarks, and I even bolded the best bits for you....so I did show you how the remarks contradict, but I guess you're having trouble with the written word, poor you.

[HiPointDem]

36. you don't think life in exile & fear of reprisal = a price? you'd rather he got what manning got,

then the critics would think he was noble, like they think manning is?

lol, what bs.

[CakeGrrl]

73. With statements like Lewis, why WOULDN'T you want him back?

I thought this statement was posted as an attempt to prove he has high-profile support.

With this kind of attention, why fear a trial? Why not use it as a giant soapbox to espouse his principles?

If he has so much to fear here, then isn't Russia a respite? Weren't the beaches of Venezuela seen as a haven?

Has he triumphantly stuck it to the MIC and the POTUS or is he consigned to living in fear?

It can't be had both ways.

[HiPointDem]

76. why wouldn't he fear a trial? it means being locked up for the rest of his life like manning.

inevitably.

I don't even understand why you are setting up this nonsensical proposition, as well as all the diversions about the beaches and sticking it to the mic.

it's all ideologically driven but doesn't have much to do with reality.

also, lewis isn't a statement.

[chervilant]

42. Brave,

or relentless, to post your strangely intolerant, Coulter-ish perspective herewith...

[CakeGrrl]

55. Coulter-ish?

The people who know me in real life would have a good guffaw at that one.

So now, not wanting to bestow the Nobel Prize at Snowden's feet gets you labeled as "Coulter-ish". At least it beats the tired old "Authoritarian/Stasi/Surveillance State Apologist" blah blah, I'll give it that.

[chervilant]

65. So many people online

seem to find no irony in relentlessly bashing individuals and/or ideologies with which they take exception -- precisely the same behavior they decry among conservatives. In this sense you remind me of Ms Coulter, because that is her MO.

Also, the "either/or" thinking -- eg, "not wanting to lay the Nobel Prize at Snowden's feet." Who said that? Why is that even relevant to Mr. Lewis' comparison of Snowden to Thoreau and Gandhi?

I've seen you on other threads bashing Snowden, and anyone who might be called a "supporter" of this much maligned young person.

I have to wonder: from whence comes such hate?

[Cha]

57. And, there you are with your personal attacks and insults to DUers, A-gain.

[chervilant]

66. Pot calling kettle ...

Do you see the irony?

[Cha]

69. Deny it all you want.

[sabrina 1]

47. So what do you think of what Rep. Lewis said?

[CakeGrrl]

58. I think he's entitled to his opinion, and

I pointed out that his words are NOT being considered in their full context in people's haste to laud Snowden.

I disagree with Rep. Lewis' assessment, inasmuch as I don't ascribe such noble motives to Snowden. I think he abused his power to his own single-minded purpose. The lofty rhetoric is great cover, and it plays very, very well to Greenwald's target audience.

But unlike a lot of Snowden supporters here, I can disagree with Rep. Lewis without using spittle-flecked invective simply because his view doesn't align with mine.

Snowden should have his say in court if he wants to shed light on his "discovery". That he's sought asylum in a place that is TRULY a surveillance state is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the height of irony and undercuts the sincerity of his motive.

[sabrina 1]

59. I see a little invective in your comment, the usual attempt to undermine those you disagree with.

It is getting harder and harder to aim invective at those who support what Snowden did, like Rep. Lewis, for the mud-slingers, considering how many respected, ethical people across the spectrum are now stepping forward to support him.

I guess Rep. Lewis is one of Greenwald's 'targeted audience' who is foolish enough to fall for, well whatever it is this, growing, btw, 'targeted audience' needed to have 'aimed at them'.

It's a growing audience, of pretty angry people, across the globe, not to mention many members of Congress, all part of 'Greenwald's targeted audience' I suppose.

Here's my opinion, Greenwald published the truth, his 'targeted audience' was anyone who wants to know the truth. Simple as that and old as journalism itself.

Always these underhanded attacks on those who simply want to see this country end these Bush policies. I just don't get it because it does the opposite of what is intended and only alienates people.

[CakeGrrl]

72. I think you have it quite backwards

Did you miss the poster above attempt to compare me to the execrable Coulter?

THAT is invective.

THAT is alienating.

Believing Snowden should face trial for breaking established laws is an opinion, not an attack.

Questioning Greenwald's motive is the right of anyone to do. If he's being "smeared", then so is the President of the United States - on this site, on a daily basis.

If you don't think that calling people "idiots" and "quislings" and "surveillance state apologists" for doing the two things I just mentioned isn't invective and alienating, while you try to find it in my very civil response, I believe you're viewing these exchanges through a biased and selective lens.

[1awake]

101. Granted, I haven't read nearly all posts about the president,

But the ones I have read... how can you smear someone who's actually doing or allowing things to be done that you call a smear?

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. Yet 'free' countries like France, Italy, Spain and Portugal blocked the Bolivian president

just on the rumour that Snowden was on board his plane. Clearly such places would have handed him over to the Americans, with or without due process. You take exile where you can find it. Russia is not an ideal country. This, of course, does make it a form of 'price' that he is paying.

[treestar]

84. It's funny how they keep coming up with someone

that we "have to" agree with because of who they are. Ellsberg, Carter, etc. Yet we shouldn't "attack the messenger."

i don't know who Lewis is, so I have no problem disagreeing with him on any issue.

[Cha]

61. Exactly, CakeGrrl.. John Lewis was speaking of those willing to pay

the price".. and snowden is not. He'd rather be with Gay and Civil Rights Abuser Putin in Russia than come back and face what he did..

// Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: “In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience.

You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price.”
“That is what we did,” he added. “I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I’ve been in Congress I’ve been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.” //

John Lewis paid the price by being arrested many times.. as MLK and Rosa Parks were arrested. And, JL didn't have to lie about anything.. and he didn't have some agent like greenwald trying to sell a book.. threatening the USA with their fucking revelations. snowden hacked/abscounded to China/leaked/Ended up in Russia/ and not willing to face what he did. He knows he broke the law and isn't willing to pay the price.

[chervilant]

67. What?!?

You don't think Snowden is "paying a price" for what he did?! Wow. Words fail me...

[CakeGrrl]

74. Didn't the fox evade the evil US hounds by getting asylum?

Which meme are you going with?

[cali]

79. yes, Snowden evaded U.S. "justice". Yes, he paid a price

Being on the run and chased and he's going to be looking over his shoulder virtually every moment. He's in a strange land. He's been vilified by many. He can't return home without being thrown in prison and charged. Yes, you can say that he brought it on himself. It's still a high price- just not as high as the apologists want.

[Cha]

151. Yeah, and I was right..

“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.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/aug/08/your-daily-jolt-john-lewis-backs-comparison-edward/

[cali]

78. he was speaking directly of Snowden, and of course Snowden has paid a price

it's not the price that some of you want him to pay but it's patently absurd to say he hasn't paid a price.

[Enthusiast]

41. John Lewis is a well known racist!

[riderinthestorm]

44. So lets see, John Lewis, Jimmy Carter, Daniel Ellsberg, Juan Cole, Naomi Klein

Rabbi Micheal Lerner, Noam Chomsky, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame... etc etc etc... All in support of Snowden.

The list just keeps growing and growing. He's standing with a great crowd of people.

[CakeGrrl]

75. So he'll have plenty of high-profile support in a trial.

Why not come back and stand on - and give voice to - his principles with this groundswell?

Perhaps because he'd rather hide in a true oppressive state walking "free" than deal with any consequences of the actions he took.

[MADem]

124. Nooooo....looks like the Guardian didn't quite get that story right.

http://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

45. Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!

Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337

Hmmm... who knew how influential a DU meme could be

[chervilant]

68. Tyranny has arrived,

wrapped in our flag and spouting religious justifications for the relentless destruction of our democracy.

[AtomicKitten]

48. I respect John Lewis.

I literally cringed when Occupy rejected his request to speak.

[sabrina 1]

53. That was a lie. And Rep. Lewis corrected it when he made a statement about the false

reporting of it. He fully supports OWS. DU used to be a place to come to, to get factual information when the right wing was furiously spreading false information.

I don't know why it has changed so much, maybe because some of the great DUers who attracted people here, are no longer around.

[AtomicKitten]

54. He is a gracious man.

A humble gracious man.

[sabrina 1]

56. He is a truthful man who doesn't tolerate lies, especially about those he respects. He told the

truth, and yes, he did it very graciously as he always does.

[AtomicKitten]

62. well there is the youtube video

like I said, he's a gracious man

[sabrina 1]

63. There was also a process which was followed. Rep. Lewis, unlike OWS haters, understood the

process and praised it highly as a truly democratic process.

He is not just a gracious and truthful man, he is an extremely intelligent man.

Of course if you don't like something or someone you can ignore facts and deliberately misinterpret things and then you see what you want to see.

Rep. Lewis thankfully, is not such a person and as I said, he praised the process, which was attempted to be used to create a false impression. He corrected that false impression.

You may continue to believe the smear campaign against OWS, if you wish. I believe Rep. Lewis.

OWS was honored that someone they so highly respected, chose, of his own volition, to stop by unannounced, to give them his support. OWS learned a lot from Rep. Lewis.

[AtomicKitten]

64. It's not important that you believe me or agree with me.

I know what I saw. I know how I feel.

John Lewis is this country's history. A genuine hero in the struggle for civil rights.

I'm going to bed. 'Night.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. another case of the Greenwald left meeting the Alex Jones right

[xchrom]

80. du rec.

[treestar]

82. That's deranged.

I don't know who this guy is, but the idea is insane.

[Enrique]

86. i recommend repairing that gap in your knowledge

Lewis is a good person to know about.

[treestar]

90. Fine, but I don't have to agree with him

It's funny how when it comes to Snowden, we are not to worry about the messenger.

Then we get posts like this. Ellsburg thinks he's great! Carter thinks he's righteous! And Lewis thinks he's goddammed Ghandi and Thoreau wrapped up into one! So you should think so too! It's only the messenger that matters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. 43,000 posts, 7 years on DU, and you don't know who John Lewis is?

You're not paying attention.

While still a young man, John Lewis became a nationally recognized leader. By 1963, he was dubbed one of the Big Six leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. At the age of 23, he was an architect of and a keynote speaker at the historic March on Washington in August 1963.

In 1964, John Lewis coordinated SNCC efforts to organize voter registration drives and community action programs during the Mississippi Freedom Summer. The following year, Lewis helped spearhead one of the most seminal moments of the Civil Rights Movement. Hosea Williams, another notable Civil Rights leader, and John Lewis led over 600 peaceful, orderly protestors across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965. They intended to march from Selma to Montgomery to demonstrate the need for voting rights in the state. The marchers were attacked by Alabama state troopers in a brutal confrontation that became known as "Bloody Sunday." News broadcasts and photographs revealing the senseless cruelty of the segregated South helped hasten the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and serious injuries, John Lewis remained a devoted advocate of the philosophy of nonviolence. After leaving SNCC in 1966, he continued his commitment to the Civil Rights Movement as Associate Director of the Field Foundation and his participation in the Southern Regional Council's voter registration programs. Lewis went on to become the Director of the Voter Education Project (VEP). Under his leadership, the VEP transformed the nation's political climate by adding nearly four million minorities to the voter rolls.

In 1977, John Lewis was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to direct more than 250,000 volunteers of ACTION, the federal volunteer agency.
...
John Lewis is the recipient of numerous awards from imminent national and international institutions, including the highest civilian honor granted by President Barack Obama, the Medal of Freedom, the Lincoln Medal from the historic Ford’s Theatre, the Golden Plate Award given by the Academy of Excellence, the Preservation Hero award given by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Capital Award of the National Council of La Raza, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Non-Violent Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Georgetown University, the NAACP Spingarn Medal, the National Education Association Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Award, and the only John F. Kennedy "Profile in Courage Award" for Lifetime Achievement ever granted by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

http://johnlewis.house.gov/john-lewis/biography

Obama on Lewis: "John Lewis was but a 25-year old activist when he faced down Billy clubs on the bridge in Selma and helped arouse the conscience of our nation."

[treestar]

94. No, I don't know everything about everything

Do you admit that you don't know everything?

What of the people I've heard of that you haven't?

Oh, that can't be. You know everything.

I'm more objective in this case. I can evaluate his rash and extreme statement. You're trying to claim he's a saint with whom I must agree. I thought the messenger didn't matter?

[treestar]

210. Arrested 40 times

And hasn't fled to Russia yet.

Permanent injuries to his head - hasn't fled to China yet.

Interesting man. He paid the price. And apparently thinks Snowy should, too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. you participate in an American political discussion forum and you don't know who John Lewis is?

[treestar]

95. Is that the standard?

Is there a test that we have to pass?

Is there no one you've never heard of? Without looking it up, who was the Speaker of the House in 1922?

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. I would expect someone who blogged about baseball and had written thousands of post about baseball

to have heard of Mickey Mantle. Just saying.

[treestar]

100. I would expect that John Lewis is not Mickey Mantle to politics

and politics is a lot more complicated, and involves a lot more people, and involves ideas rather than mere stats.

And I see you don't know everything, either.

And I can also evaluate Lewis' statement without wondering if I am qualified to do so by knowing more than you do. If I have to know all you know to have an opinion, the same applies to you and anyone else. Those most informed are those that know they don't know everything and can evaluate a statement on its own without regard to who said it.

If Cheney calls Snowden a hero tomorrow, you'll be forced to re-think your opinion, whereas I won't.

[Oilwellian]

89. Not knowing who John Lewis is, and...

calling yourself a Democrat is what's deranged.

[Capt. Obvious]

93. How does mail get delivered to the rock you live under?

[treestar]

96. Every single one of my responses is about not knowing who the messenger is!!!!!!!!!

Yet I do know a deranged statement when I see one.

[Capt. Obvious]

97. "Yet I do know a deranged statement when I see one. "

As do I.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Fine - you have no clue whatsoever about history or human rights

as shown by you calling he said "deranged" and "insane".

[treestar]

103. What? We have to know who one Congressman is or we know

nothing whatsoever?

No wonder you think you know everything there is to know. What you know is all that matters?

Typical black and white thinking, too. All or nothing. No one knows everything or had heard of everybody.

You'd have to be able to name all 435 Congressmen in every Congress since the dawn of the Republic if that's your standard.

[Capt. Obvious]

104. Don't be obtuse. Here's a few pictures of him so you'll know in the future.

Right around the time he was spit on by Teabaggers.


And finally:



Yep, that's John Lewis getting the Medal of Freedom. Not sure who the other guy is.


If you weren't asleep during the 2008 primaries you may have heard of him then. He made pretty big news then.

[treestar]

108. Nice but that doesn't mean he hasn't made

a very silly statement about Snowden.

I could read his biography and his statement would still be silly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. I'm not taking about him now; this is about you calling what he said

"deranged" and "insane". This shows you have no understanding whatsoever of history, human rights, or politics. You are just throwing out ignorant insults, because meaningful discussion is beyond you.

[treestar]

109. It is insane to say that about Snowden

It would be just as crazy to say it about Obama.

Or anyone alive today, come to think of it. If anyone can be said to be such a hero, it would be people in other countries, real dictatorships where someone is risking their life to fight it.

[SidDithers]

83. Snowden is just like Jesus and Santa Claus...

and I don't think Santa should be crucified like the way Snowden has been.

I also disagree with the lynching of Paul Revere.

Sid

[msanthrope]

198. I thought Manning was Jesus? Is he the Baby Jesus, or

the Grownup Jesus, or the Teenage Jesus? I like the Christmas Jesus best.....

[SidDithers]

110. Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"

Rep. John Lewis: No Praise for Snowden
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://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden


Doh!


Sid

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. Thanks, Sid! :)

[morningfog]

121. Your article does not contradict the OP.

He is pretty clearly saying that he understands why Snowden acted and thy the motivation is in line with civil actions. The guardian wrongly interpreted that as praise, but this OP accurately provided Lewis' quotes.

[lamp_shade]

133. Yes it does. Read it again... carefully. n/t

[morningfog]

139. You need to read carefully, bud.

The OP is not a link to the Guardian headline or the Guardian article. The OP is a link to TPM where they do not do any of the manipulated that the GUardian did. They provide Lewis' opinion in his words. His words quoted at TPM and the OP do not contradict his statement that he released.

[hrmjustin]

126. The OP should correct the record.

[cthulu2016]

128. Or perhaps you should try reading before saying foolish things

In your eagerness to parrot some dumb nonsense you seem to have skipped over the step where you read the OP.

[hrmjustin]

129. Where is the correction in the OP? The OP should place this additional information in the OP.

And I am not eager to do anything thank you. I just was making a comment. Coming off a bit strong there my friend. Please show me where I am wrong in a civil manner please?

[cthulu2016]

136. You have not earned a civil response

Your post is gibberish because there is nothing in the OP to correct.

Which you would know if you were 1) an honest person, and 2) had read the OP.

[hrmjustin]

137. Why am I not an honest person?

The Op should include this new additional information in his OP.

[hrmjustin]

143. Just for the record I hope no one alerts on this.

We all have bad moments.

[lamp_shade]

131. Ooooo.... snotty remark. Mind your manners.

Read this again, more slowly this time please. http://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden

[morningfog]

134. You're one to talk...slowly.

[cthulu2016]

138. You either cannot read or

are so constitutionally dishonest that it doesn't matter whether you read or not.

There is nothing. In. The. OP. To. Correct.

Nothing in Lewis's statement contradicts the OP.

[phleshdef]

145. "I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi..."

"I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders." -- pretty much completely contradicts the OP.

[Cha]

153. They prefer the guardian's version to what John Lewis actually said..

“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.”

[hrmjustin]

158. Apperantly. All I said was that the OP should correct the record and I got attacked for being

dishonest.

[Cha]

160. Totally.

[hrmjustin]

161. You can't please everyone in this life.

[lamp_shade]

132. Thanks Sid. I knew in my heart that Lewis's words were somehow being misrepresented.

[morningfog]

141. Here are Lewis' words, without any representing.

"In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price," Lewis sad in an interview with the Guardian published Wednesday. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.

"Some people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law," he added. "Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people."

I bolded the key part for you, so you can read it carefully and slowly.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. More of Lewis' words: "I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Gandhi."

Would you like me to bold the key part for you?

[morningfog]

144. I did not, nor did the OP ever claim that he praised Snowden.

Or that his actions rose to those of Gandhi.

You are confusing it with the Guardian headline.

[Bolo Boffin]

156. Now that we know the Guardian will mispresent the facts

What else have they gotten wrong?

[Cha]

154. You're not "confused" at all. More spinning from snowden fans now that the guardian has

been exposed for spinning John Lewis' words.

[lamp_shade]

168. Lots of bent-out-of-shape noses here today.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

207. ^^^ THIS ^^^

K&R

[freshwest]

188. Looks like they added a lot to his words, too. We know who's paying for all of this. The Koches.

[DevonRex]

149. Anybody with half a brain CELL knew it was more Guardian slimy reporting.

That's what they do. And people who want to fall for it do. And people who don't read carefully.

For me, it was the absolute absurdity of the headline that tipped me off. But reading the important paragraph, it's obvious that the "journalist" stuck his question in the middle of Lewis's discussion of the civil rights movement.

[ucrdem]

174. +1

It had a funny smell and the Guardian attribution clinched it.

[freshwest]

189. Please make an OP out of this to clear the air at DU.

[SidDithers]

194. kpete had the OP first...

I added the info to this thread simply to make sure the full record could be found in the same place as the Guardian's, and some DUer's, misrepresentations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

[freshwest]

197. Thanks. I'll go K & R that for clarity.

[sofa king]

125. Try instead Ames, Pollard, and Morison.

There is a reason why the Wikileaks attorneys dropped Snowden like a hot brick, and the most obvious guess as to why that is is because Snowden was working in the service of a foreign nation, namely China and possibly also Russia.

I would caution my fellow Democrats not to stick their necks out too far over this guy. His disclosures--which were comprised almost entirely of stale information already publicly disclosed (but yes, ignored)--appear to me to have been carefully designed to strike back at the United States for shaming China on the anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre.

Sooner or later his red stripe is gonna show, and then a lot of us are going to look like fools.

[KoKo]

167. His "Red Stripe is Gonna Show!" Welcome to DU, Joe McCarthy...it's

been awhile since we've seen you visiting these parts!

[MADem]

202. That is something I really haven't considered. It's an interesting theory...

I wondered why that Spanish judge refused to represent him.

Well, maybe he can star in a Russian commercial for this product--that's a way to make money!

[ucrdem]

172. " In fact, The Guardian itself agreed to retract the word “praise” from its headline. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

[KittyWampus]

211. kick