Skip to main content

View Diary: David Brooks channels all of the Beltway down onto Edward Snowden's head (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Snowden is a vigilante (0+ / 0-)

    in that instead of following well-established procedures to change the way government operates, he opted for a shortcut and decided to take the law into his own hands.

    In fact, vigilantes, and even some lynch mobs and assassins, are quite often overwhelmed with a sense of moral superiority.

    Even if you feel certain that you are in a morally superior position, even if you believe are correct and everyone else is in error, you still don't have the right to take matters into your own hands the way that Snowden did, or the way various other vigilantes and young children have done throughout history.

    •  When he joined the CIA (0+ / 0-)

      he swore to uphold the constitution.  Complicity in unconstitutional surveillance cannot be reconciled with defending the Bill of Rights.

      If a crime is being committed in your presence, and you have the power to inhibit it if not stop it outright, it is immoral to not act.  

      It's also illegal in my state - you have an obligation to intervene and stop a felony if you can safely do so.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:15:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was Rosa Parks a vigilante? - nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        because all she risked was her own skin. There is an important place for passive resistance as we work to change things, but what Snowden did was far from passive resistance: it was a deliberate act of sabotage. There's an enormous difference between a Gandhi or a Rosa Parks versus an Edward Snowden.

        •  OK, but I didn't think the standard was how (0+ / 0-)

          much (or how little) of one's skin one had in the game, but rather the act of 'taking the law into one's own hand' that made one a 'vigilante.' according to the definition that you yourself deployed.

          The point is that both Parks and Snowden violated a law which they felt to be unjust, in the interests of obeying a 'higher law' (which we can call, for lack of a better word, "Justice"). Few people would call that vigiliantism. To put it bluntly, just because an action is legal does not make it just.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site