Cruz and Snowden

The rollout of Obamacare has been disastrous. Even a liberal from Massachusetts like me can agree on that. Perhaps a few more months of testing the system would have been beneficial if that was what was needed. It appears that the government agrees and will delay the completion date of the roll out by a few weeks.

“We told you so,” is what Ted Cruz and his cronies are saying. “This is precisely what we wanted the Democrats to do when we shut down the government---delay the roll out.” They may be right, but the tactics they used were totally wrong. One cannot stop the functioning of the government, and hold the full faith and credit of the country hostage to get something one wants, even if it turns out be the right thing to want.

Obama was right in standing firm. Agreeing to the Tea Party demand under the gun would have established a wrong precedence, and there will be no way to stop someone else using the same tactic to slam through another policy change of his choice, one that is not at all beneficial to the country.

End does not justify using illegal or harmful means.

Interestingly, a new drama is now being played out, which has some parallel to the above story. This one deals with NSA and the snooping it did of the heads of state of foreign countries. While NSA does need to do surveillance to identify and deter terrorist plots, it seems inconceivable that tapping of Angela Merkel (which was authorized by Bush/Cheney, by the way, not Obama) would serve any purpose. “Just because we can do something does not mean we should do it,” said Obama, and he is right.

So, Edward Snowden, who released secret documents to bring this to our notice, should be praised, yes?

Not in my opinion. Once again, end does not justify illegal or harmful means. The tactics he used are totally unacceptable, just like the tactics that Ted Cruz used.

When you are granted a security clearance, you pledge not to reveal the secrets that you are made privy to. There is a reason why something is kept secret, because revealing it can cause harm to the country. That is why disclosing state secrets, no matter what they are, is considered to be an act of treason, punishable by law. It has to be a blanket decree that is not left to personal interpretation. Allowing exceptions, just because this time around such a release did provide some benefits, would be disastrous.

Take for example someone with access to our sources in Syria. Should he release their names to Guardian, because he does not believe we should be meddling in Syria? What will be the results? Death of people who have been helping us? If we make Snowden a hero, what right do we have to blame this other disgruntled employee? Where will we draw the line?

Our government is hardly perfect--- even the most patriotic person will agree. There are major issues with the way many departments are being run. However, releasing secrets that may prove harmful to the country is not the way to bring about a change in the policy, even though it may be needed. That is akin to shutting down the government or harming our full faith and credit in order to force a change in the Obamacare roll out.

So, if you agree that what Ted Cruz did was wrong, even though what he was advocating was right, there is no way you can say what Snowden did was right, even though he helped us become aware of NSA’s alleged abuse of power.

If Cruz is an anarchist, then by the same logic, Ed Snowden is a traitor.