Where did the meme come from that civil disobedience requires you to sit in jail afterwards?

[backscatter712]

There's this idea that in order to commit civil disobedience credibly, you have to face jail and other penalties meted out by an out-of-control and unjust government. It's something that the detractors and apologists would have us believe to be an inviolable norm.

It isn't.

Letting yourself get arrested is a tactic, as civil disobedience itself is a tactic. And like all tactics, they work in certain situations, and they fail in others.

It's a matter of measuring benefits versus risks.

For John Lewis and others in the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, deliberately getting arrested was a working, useful tactic. The jails couldn't hold all the people getting arrested for marching or doing sit-ins. And the political climate was such that they couldn't keep people like Lewis or MLK Jr. in jail for very long or make criminal penalties or prison treatment so severe that people get broken. Also, the whole cacophony that went with civil-disobedience, arrests, crowded-jails, and jury-trials created earned-media publicity that helped the cause.

That tactic is also useful in Wisconsin - Scott Walker can only get away with so much abuse when it comes to protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol, so the rule there is catch-and-release, with a media circus around the entire conflict. It's also productive in North Carolina

That's not the case for Snowden - the day he ends up in U.S. custody, he's in for life. The military-industrial complex is vengeful, and they'll be at least as brutal towards Snowden as they were and are towards Bradley Manning. Once he's in prison, there will be no media circus - the media will at best disparage him, but usually be silent about him.

Snowden's not stupid, nor is he a coward. If I were him, I'd flee the country too. Civil disobedience and direct action do not demand that you be suicidal.

Going to jail for a cause can be a useful tactic. It is not a required tactic, nor is it a smart tactic in all situations.

Edit & clairification: As MineralMan pointed out, it was Henry David Thoreau who originally wrote about civil-disobedience, followed by seeking imprisonment. As I stated earlier, it's a valid tactic, that works in a lot of situations - another one being Lt. Dan Choi handcuffing himself to the fence around the White House grounds and being arrested repeatedly to protest DADT.

It's a valid tactic, but not the only tactic, and IMHO, a counterproductive tactic for Edward Snowden, who doesn't face a night in jail. He faces the kind of prison sentence that normally is given to serial killers, he faces being supermaxed, isolated completely from the outside, and even his own family. He faces a censored kangaroo trial, like Manning faced, and he faces the atrocities of the Federal prison system that includes abuses such as "diesel therapy", beatings, withholding of medical care, supermaxing, placement with violent inmates who are expected to assault him, etc. etc. etc. Coverage of his trial and imprisonment would be controlled, spun to favor the government, and will leave Snowden completely silenced.

No. It's not "cowardice" to refuse to accept such cruel treatment, and in fact, it creates more publicity, and thus, better results, if he stays out. President Obama himself had to respond, and make some concessions. Weak, toothless concessions, but it's clear that the people don't like having their 4th Amendment rights violated, and demand action. And we wouldn't have gotten there without Snowden.

Other tactics are pointed out by Gene Sharp in From Dictatorship to Democracy ( http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf ), and one of them is "seeking imprisonment." Another one is "Hiding, escape and false identities." There's lots of non-violent resistance tactics to use, and Thoreau-style civil disobedience is but one.