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.
