The degree of pressure on reporters and politicians from the White House and Democratic leadership in the Snowden controversy was in full and embarrassing view yesterday when Rep. John Lewis walked back from an interview that he gave to the Guardian praising Snowden. He appears not to have gotten the memo: Snowden is not to be praised in the media or by members of Congress. Various reporters and new organizations have held the line in mocking Snowden or refusing to call him a “whistleblower” rather than a “leaker.” After all, the fear seems to be that Snowden has to be a traitor or Obama would look like a tyrant.
Lewis is quoted as comparing Snowden to those who engaged in civil disobedience in the the civil rights movement and said that Snowden may have felt that he had to follow a “higher law.” Many of course believe Snowden was defending the Constitution and view him as a hero.
Lewis noted that “[s]ome 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 is quoted as comparing Snowden to figures like Gandhi. However, such views are not supposed to be uttered, particularly by a Democrat.
Lewis seem to be frog marched back before cameras within 24 hours and denied everything short of his name, rank, and serial number: “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.”
Whew, that was close. Snowden is back being a traitor and Lewis is back on script.
By the way, as some of our commentators have noted, Happy Whistleblower Day. While the Senate passed the resolution below, I expect that they view the day as referring to a dog whistle that only they can hear:
By a unanimous resolution the U.S. Senate declared July 30, 2013 as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.” The National Whistleblowers Center strongly supports the Senate’s historic action and calls on every American reflect upon the tremendous contributions whistleblowers have made to American democracy, as well as the struggles and sacrifices they have endured By a unanimous resolution the U.S. Senate declared July 30, 2013 as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.” The National Whistleblowers Center strongly supports the Senate’s historic action and calls on every American reflect upon the tremendous contributions whistleblowers have made to American democracy, as well as the struggles and sacrifices they have endured.
nick,
My Paula Deen comment wasn’t bait. It was a comparison that I made. I can recall on another thread where a defender or two of Deen’s were quick to characterize all social workers as incompetent and/or evil. I’d say it’s hypocritical of individuals to say/suggest we can criticize some people and not others.
BTW, I suggested that we criticize what Lewis did–not call him a whore.
I would like to know why he recanted. Like
Darren, I wish he would say what changed his mind overnight.
He specifically told the Guardian that his quotes were correct. I don’t know how else to read the actual quotes but as strong support for Snowden. So what did happen?
It is very scary that he recanted. The govt. is threatening people and other nations. They are showing exactly who they are. I’m sure Obama felt it was quite damaging to have Lewis speak out. He needed to neutralize him and it appears he has done so. The govt. acting like the mafia, not a legal, functioning body.
In that vein: “My Fellow Users,
I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on–the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.
What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.
This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.
Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC”
http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html
What was reported in The Guardian:
His statement of retraction:
So . . . it was okay when Lewis and others were “appealing to a higher law” like say, the Constitution, but suddenly it’s not okay when Snowden was not just “appealing to a higher law” but to that exact same higher law.
hypocrisy /hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/
noun (plural hypocrisies)
[mass noun]
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:
double standard
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups:
Hmmmmmm.
Eric, Russ Feingold was the only Dem senator to vote Nay on the Patriot Act. That hardly constitutes “many”.
Darren, I never heard that history from you. I know what the culture is like. I was never in it, knowing that your story is too common, I went another route. There aren’t many courageous pols left. We had one in Wi, Russ Feingold. He never would have rolled over like this guy.
Snowmen did nothing praiseworthy.
Read the original article in the Guardian. The writer twisted his words. He did not praise Snowden.
Paula Deen is a distraction. Don’t fall for the bait. This issue is important, not trivial. I have not seen any of the defenders of Lewis rebut the fact that he was cowardly in this instance. If they did, I missed it. Now, he may very well also be a whore. Lewis is in a very safe seat, so that wasn’t threatened in that regard. He was most likely told to get back in line and given a quid pro quo. Some cash for his next campaign, some pork for his district. If that is indeed the case, then he would also be a whore. Absent proof, I have to refrain and just say he is a coward.
I’m sorry if you’re offended by a personal acquaintance being taken to task, Blouise, but do you have any reasonable explanation of his about face other than spinelessness, selling out, partisanship or political blackmail? Given the abrupt and total reversal of his stance, a legitimate change of heart just doesn’t pass the smell test.
I expect more from Rep. Lewis. Very sad day when
he will not or cannot stick to his convictions.
Excellent Darren…
Yeah, that’s right … let’s get back to Lewis, the whorecoward.
“I wonder how many folks who are so quick to accuse a man like Lewis of being a whore would have ever been able to take the abuse he did in the fight for civil rights.”
I can answer that question.
I spent five years battling the abuses of a law enforcement agency and specifically those who were sanctioned for being whistleblowers, including myself and other officers who brought up issues and were retaliated against and had our careers threatened, two of those officers were unjustifiably terminated for their advocacy and me speaking up. I had this same department label me a threat, calling me everything you could think of. I also was a catalyst in bringing an officer who was alleged to have committed a felony assault against someone just arrested for a minor violation and the agency covered it up. I brought the issue to the attention of the state Attorney General’s office when it became apparent it was being swept under. The end result of this was the officer retired out. I endeavored to bring this issue to the public forefront by making public disclosure requests so that I could expose these events to the public. I then had then as a result received sanctions against my reuptation and accusations that I was a threat to the safety of personnel in the department to disuade me from probing further and my employer contacted and told that I was essentially unsuited to be a LEO. Despite all this I spoke before the city council in a public meeting and exposed everything wrong that I knew was going on in that department. The council then brought in an outside investigator and the chief of police was forced out of office.
Because I felt strongly that nobody doing a public records request and being whistleblowers should be retaliated against for engaging in lawful activity I filed legal actions against those I alleged to have been responsible in both US District Court and later State court to restore the damage I suffered to my career and the process of citizens’ first amendment rights. I spent thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to do this. And even though the case went against me on procedural and other issues I didn’t stop advocating for justice and helping those others out who suffered under this regime. In fact, I talked with another person just yesterday that was being retaliated against on another issue and made myself availble for them. I went through all this for years on end despite it taking a great toll on my health and spirits.
Last year in fact I went toe to toe with a state agency senior manager because this agency was making administrative demands against a group of business owners, 85% of which were minorities / immigrants, which was forcing them to negotiate lease contracts for their business under greatly unfavorable conditions that threatened their business. I told this person the actions of this agency were unconstitutional and that their continued actions would likely result in litigation against the state. I joined a trade association and advocated the positions of these business owners before the state legislature and I devoted probably 25 to 30 percent of my day with this association trying to make things better for this group of business owners.
So yes, there are those people who have been willing to take up the fight for justice for whistleblowers and those who are being targeted by those who seek to undermine their efforts, and those people also have opinions of those who abandon their principles and cower up to others bent on taking away those rights. And those opinions are rarely favorable or respectful.
I understand when someone has been threatened so much for advocating civil rights that they want to give up and hide. That is understandable, and believe me I know how tempting it is to just give up. But to reverse oneself as this representative had and call another civil rights messenger a threat or a criminal, anyone who has been in the trenches has earned the right to label such behavior cowardly and a sellout.
Gene H – I agree completely. I hadn’t thought of blackmail, assumed a guy like Lewis (with his seniority and record) was not capable of being blackmailed so I assumed bribed or threatened with removal from a committee post, etc.
However, as you rightly point out, who knows what the Administration could find on anyone after a few minutes at the Prism keyboard? I am sure that tool will be used to “manage” political enemies for years to come.
Elaine,
My happiness is not a factor nor did I require you stipulating to having a problem. And I assumed that the castigation remark was directed at me because previous remarks about that argument being about castigation were directed at me. While a reasonable assumption, it may have been incorrect.
However, we are still not addressing that most interesting question in this matter: why did Lewis recant?
Based on his past actions regarding civil rights, such a retraction seems out of character and highly suspicious.
So much so that it may be beyond simple partisanship.
Seamus – I have a dream that some day . . . any Democrat or member of the mainstream press will judge President Obama by the content of his character.
Don’t hold your breath. Not many Republicans would fairly judge Bush either – hell, a bunch of those folks voted for Sara Palin and my state’s governor is probably legally brain dead.
Gene,
P.S. I wasn’t harping. That’s how YOU perceived what I said when I made the comparison between Deen and Lewis.
Why don’t you get a grip…darlin’?
I’ll be away for a while. I’ll be watching videos of trains on Youtube with my granddaughter.
Elaine M: According to the free online dictionary, one of the definitions of “Whore” is ” . . . to compromise one’s principles for personal gain.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore
I did not mean to offend by my use of that term. It was an accurate description of his behavior in this instance – and, I might add, it is an accurate description of many Democrats’ behavior on this Snowden/Prism issue.
I agreed with many Democrats when they vociferously objected to the Patriot Act – many Democrats strongly support civil liberties. Unfortunately, in this instance, they seem to have forgotten civil liberties entirely. They have ” . . . compromised their principals for personal gain” which fits the definition above.
I have been watching the Tudors lately, doesn’t seem to be much difference between the folks in DC today and the folks “at Court” in those days. Anything goes if it advances you personally or hurts one of your enemies. Nothing else matters, no “higher values” (like civil liberties or justice) even considered.
I had just thought we had evolved beyond that.
Gene,
Okay…you win. I have a problem! Does that make you happy?
BTW, why did you assume that I was speaking of you or only you when I used the word castigated? I was criticized/castigated by a number of people on the Paula Deen thread.
You obviously didn’t get the point since you’re still harping about it being about castigation.
If you have a problem that I framed that exercise in the Deen thread as an argument in parallel, it’s entirely your problem.
And none of your responses here go to the salient points made about Lewis’ actions, but instead wish to drag up Deen again. Deen is irrelevant to this discussion. Racism is irrelevant to this discussion. The matter is about Lewis’ present character and a civil rights threat that literally threatens to undermine democracy. I don’t give a damn what color he is. It has nothing to do with his inconstancy on a critical matter involving civil rights being both spineless and feckless. I am looking at the content of his character based on his actions.
Get a grip.
And I say that in the nicest way possible.
I’m not a skert of yous.