Aaron Swartz, Jim Bell, Carl Johnson, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden

[James A. Donald]

On 2014-01-04 03:02, John Young wrote:
 > The Swartz situation was more complicated than the prinicipal
 > legal parties involved. A comprehensive legal attack implicated a
 > slew of people and institutions in Aaron's circle, some who were
 > frightened into pulling away from him, some of who were forced to
 > testify much to their later shame and embarassment when that was
 > made public.  It is not unusual for supporters to run from the scene
 > when pressure comes down through federal investigators digging into
 > private affairs, intimidating witnesses, friends and familiies with
 > fruits of those findings, turning poeple against each other,
 > bamboozling journalists and publishers who pretend opposition to
 > authority.
 >
 > Swartz's case parallels what happened to Jim Bell, andto Carl Johnson.

The difference is that Jim Bell never had delusions of grandeur, never
intended to become a civil disobedience case.  Eric Snowdon never
thought he was part of the ruling elite trampling over those no good
contemptible peons.

That Eric Snowdon covered his tracks and prepared his flight shows he
truly intended civil disobedience.  He spoke truth to power.  He
correctly saw himself as powerless, and those he took action against
as powerful.

The civil disobedience of the Aaron Schwartz is that of Greenpeace,
that says "You must obey our laws, but we do not have to obey our own
laws"

Aaron thought he was the powerful, and was horrified to find he was
not.  Bradley Manning was and is simply batshit insane.   Snowden,
on the other hand, genuinely committed civil disobedience.

And who is Carl Johnson?.  Googling for Carl Johnson prosecution, I
get a string of black murderers, all of them habitual criminals,
who should have been executed long before the crimes for which they
eventually became notorious.