The Tea Party Quagmire

So, the Tea Party does it again.  Admittedly, looking out for the country's best fiscal interest is admirable.  The thought of the U.S. spending an additional $1.1 trillion for (discretionary government spending) is enough to churn the stomach of most budget-loving Americans.  But, we must also remember that the Tea Party has its own political agenda.

Just to recap; the ideals of most Tea Partiers are proclaimed on many of its websites:  fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, free market and lower taxes.  On its face, these American ideals are used to propagate their position, but under the surface, it seems that there is no room for "compromise" or flexibility in this, mostly conservative, grassroots movement.  There is almost a camouflaged, exclusivity within the Tea Party itself, as well as how Tea Partiers believe the constitution should be applied. Some argue that the Tea Party appears to be comprised of a group bordering closely on nationalism, and to that point, any idea or thought that deviates from the Constitution, as it stands, is implausible.     

Interestingly, there has been a proposition floating around '"T" Party"' circles, to change the name from "Tea Party" to "Independent Patriot Party" and, ultimately, become a third party. A move as simple as this one, begs the question; does the "Patriot" part of the possible new moniker insinuate that anyone other than a Tea Party member is a non-patriot?  Reaching?  Maybe. Consider this: what about a second Tea Party proposal to nationalize English, which according to the Tea Party, will help "...avoid separation or isolation of Americans by ethnic grouping, and so we may continue to communicate properly with each other."  What happens to those people that don't happen to speak English? The Tea Party tries to make its case, here, to make English the "official" language, so that no feels left out or isolated. This is a pretty weak argument. With this proposal, you are essentially, isolating English speaking Americans from non-English speaking Americans; which is the actual reality behind the term (the Tea Party uses) "isolation of groups".

What about repealing health care? What is the Tea Party's plan to insure over 32 million Americans; cover those with pre-exisiting conditions and bring down medical costs? Those that can't afford health care; do they just suffer because the Tea Party advocates the right to chose whether or not you want health coverage (without it being mandated by the government)?  Is having the "right", for some, to choose, ultimately, greater than the majority actually having health care?      

Without going into the vitriolic behavior and speech that erupted when several Democratic House members were in the process of voting on the health care bill back in March; in this particular instance, the democratic principle of these members' right to vote was infringed upon by angry protesters at the Tea Party rally. Although Tea Partiers feel that mandating health care is unconstitutional, it could be argued that hurling threats or epithets, interfere in that right to vote and is equally unconstitutional.     

Proudly waving signs, held high that warn "Don't Tread on Me"; Tea Party Nation news articles that declare: "Real Americans Did Not Sue Arizona"; anti-Muslim rhetoric; a vehement opposition to birthright citizenship (per the Fourteenth Amendment); and many divisive arguments as to why President Obama is not American, are all examples of a widely held, yet, seemingly, inarticulated notion that unless you agree with these same ideals; you can not possibly be an American. 



Courtesy of Tony Avelar/AP



The Tea party has come out and publicly denounced earmarks under any circumstance. Tea Party Express Leader, Amy Kremer says,  "We will go after them. We're not going to accept it." "I mean there are all kinds of pork in there." As a result of this latest Tea Party rant, some House and Senate Republicans are pledging a two year moratorium on earmark spending in Congress. Surprisingly, a few Republicans have not signed on to the pledge, over fears that the White House would actually incur more power to spend the funds.    

In addition to comprising less than one percent of the overall spending in the omnibus spending package, not all earmarks in and of themselves are inherently evil. Many in Congress (Republicans included) and even in the Department of Defense, would attest to that very fact. Recently, Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates, pushed for the bill to be funded by congress, rather than in the continuing resolution that was passed by the House. The Senate version of the bill would allow Defense to pursue critical national security initiatives, such as standing up the new Cyber Command and increasing special operations forces. According to the Government Executive.com, "The Defense Department would receive an additional  $4.9 billion, including $1.56 billion to cover cost increases in its health initiatives. Veterans' programs would see a $3.7 billion boost". Another Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, says the omnibus bill contained things that pertained to "....homeland security, education, health, energy, and infrastructure...".  Some even argue that "removing selection of local tasks like widening crowded roads, improving harbors, purchase of police, fire and school equipment, from input by representatives and senators who know the area best and transferring that decision-making authority to bureaucrats in Washington is the absolute antithesis of Tea Party objectives."


Whatever the stance on the issue, ironically speaking, the very thing that Tea Partiers and their Republican cohorts are attempting to do away with, may very well be appropriated by federal or state bureaucracy, anyway. What many in the Tea Party may not understand, is that the funds are already approved for spending. Its just now, with the moratorium, someone else will have to do the spending for Congress (at least on the Republican end). In a sense, it may just be the type of back-door politics the GOP pledged to run away from.   

There is never really a black and white remedy for what ails America. In fact, that is what makes this country so great; the foundation of Democracy. We are a diverse nation of people that continues to evolve and change and the proverbially, digging-of-the-heels-in-the-ground way of operating won't cut it in Washington. Not after the mid-term election results. It can't. The American people, outside of the Tea Party, don't want gridlock; they want results. In order to move any piece of legislation, there has to be compromise. That's the reason why we have a two-party system and the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government that preside. The Founding Fathers knew that we needed some governing document to apply to everyone (perhaps to avoid complete anarchy) and, in turn, came up with the U.S. Constitution. Incidentally, the same Constitution Tea Party members are sworn to defend, was born out of compromise.  The three bodies of government are in place to encompass a rich and varied way of thinking, living, governing and doing business. We have rights and freedoms that are protected and while these are the very same set of ideals the Tea Party so fervently protects, ironically, in some instances, they are the ones that the Tea Party seems to be also be so fervently against. 

Not everything the Tea Party considers "American", embraces an America that is constantly evolving, changing and growing; the danger in that, is to view our country and its future through a narrowly, skewed and conservative lens. Such constitutes the Tea Party quagmire. The Tea Party, whether unconsciously or not, deals in absolutes. The only problem with absolutes, is that you have an almost impossible standard that you have created and are expected to live by and, at the same time, is what you are, ultimately, judged by.  Heaven forbid that those who live by these absolutes, act out or endorse anything other than what is in the constitution. Their fate is inevitable. They will immediately lose their "credibility card" and there will be no more absolutes, no more extremes and no more credibility left for such a "patriotic" movement as the Tea Party.                   

Do you view the Tea Party as an extremist organization or just one that loves its country? 

Here a Leak, There a Leak, Everywhere a Leak, Leak

Courtesy of Fabrice Coffrini/AFP Getty Images

Wikileaks...synonymous with freedom of speech? Or is it too far fetched to say that its recent practices just might do more harm than good? On one hand, there is some validity to the recently leaked docs being considered a byproduct of the Freedom of Information Act.  However, one could also make a similar argument that has been made regarding the constitutional rights of developers in New York to build a Mosque (or, more appropriately, a cultural and community center) near Ground Zero, and the, apparent, lack of "wisdom" in doing so; as President Obama so eloquently put it.  

A self-proclaimed Whistleblower web-site, Wikileaks is in the business of publishing and commenting on leaked corporate and government documents surrounding alleged misconduct within each organization. Since 2006 it has leaked more than 400,000 cables and documents, the most notable disclosure, having thrust its way onto the cyber domain back in July, is that of the 90,000 secret documents on the war in Afghanistan. It then released classified documents related to the Iraq War in October and, more recently, a rather controversial, compilation of more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables was published.

With closely-guarded, confidential sources and a small, yet, international group of technologically, astute operants, Wikileaks has been as much an enigma to those that have attempted to size it up, as its founder, Julian Assange, has been to global authorities who had been (until recently) searching for his whereabouts. It "protects" the information it leaks by using cryptographic information technologies and promises strict anonymity to sources of the leaked material. Due to the highly sensitive and publicly damaging nature of the information that it publishes, Wikileaks has been a journalistic magnet for lawsuits while, ironically, winning numerous awards like: The 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award and the 2009 Amnesty International U.K. Media Award. According to Time Magazine, "... it [Wikileaks] could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act."

With so much dissension and varying degrees of interest behind all of the information that is being divulged over the internet, its natural to wonder who is behind the Wikileaks brand and what is the intent.

   

Jilian Assange, a very strange character, in an even stranger tale, is a native of Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He founded Wikileaks in 2006 with the intent to "To radically shift regime behavior [. We] must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not." Assange claims his mission is to [protect] victims and has ".... tried to create a system which solves the problem of censorship of the press and censorship of whistle-blowers across the whole world."

In another ironic twist, as founder of Wikileaks, Assange strives for complete transparency wherever it concerns global governments, yet we know very little about him or his organization. Former Wikileaks’ spokesman, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, went only by the pseudonym "Schmitt".  Assange and any personal details regarding anything other than his past, are, by design, very sketchy. One of Assange's bank accounts, through Sweden's Postfinance, was closed on the grounds that he “provided false information regarding his place of residence” when opening the account.  Even Assange's cohort in the freedom of information fight, Bradley Manning, describes him as a person of extreme elusiveness and secrecy, "I don't know much more than what he tells me, which is very little," he said. "It took me four months to confirm that the person I was communicating [with] was in fact Assange." Assange publicly refuses to reveal his age; is always relocating from place to place; and as a champion of democratic justice, openness and transparency, he vehemently fights to perserve his "secrets" and has been quoted as saying he wanted to "keep the [expletive] guessing." 

On November 28, Wikileaks began releasing the classified Afghan war docs and since then, many conservative politicians and pundits have called for everything from the extradition of Jilian Assange, to his execution and everything in between. Amazon has ousted wikileaks.org from its servers; it has lost its PayPal, Mastercard and Visa revenue services and has faced condemnation and cyber attacks alike. Most recently, Julian Assange has been arrested in Sweden on charges related to a sex crime. The backfire against the organization has been great, but the decision to reveal the largest set of confidential documents on record, has been even greater.

Recently, several reputable news organizations have partnered with Wikileaks in efforts to determine how to disseminate the information and what information should be redacted from the cables. Each organization made suggestions as to what names and details were too sensitive to publish. Though the New York Times is denying being a "partner" of the whistleblower website, it does admit to having a working relationship with the organization.  New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says they have made suggestions to Wikileaks, but how they plan to disseminate the information, remains to be seen. "We have no way of knowing what WikiLeaks will do, no clear idea what they make of our redactions, but if this to any degree prevents WikiLeaks from carelessly getting someone killed, I'm happy to do it," he said. "I'd be interested to hear the arguments in favor of having WikiLeaks post its material unredacted."

Great Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, points out that leaking unauthorized classified documents undermines the ability of governments to operate on a confidential basis. Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn't say whether he considers Wikileaks a traditional news organization that could hide behind the first amendment of free speech, and is currently launching a criminal investigation into the release of the cables. Holder believes the published information jeopardizes "...national security[and] diplomatic efforts" and damages U.S. relationships around the world.

The problem is not so much how the information is disseminated and the international aftermath, but how it is obtained, is in question. Assange appealed to the U.S. Ambassador in London by requesting that he aid Wikileaks in determining which cables needed to be redacted before publishing-the Ambassador's response was (as one might imagine), "hand over stolen property". Did Assange think that asking permission before-hand to help edit leaked classified U.S. documents, afforded him the privilege to publish cables the Ambassador referred to as “stolen”? Still, many people criticize the U.S., among other countries, for being so politically sensitive or overly reactive to the information that has been published by Wikileaks, but how much thought have we given to how many of these cables were acquired?    

Pfc. Bradley Manning is now facing a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for downloading the 250,000 diplomatic cables and military logs of incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq. He then sent those documents to Wikileaks and the rest, well….   Manning obtained and transmitted classified information without authorization. On one hand, many describe his actions as treason; on the other, many support and defend Manning’s efforts as heroic, strongly believing that because “he embodies the principles of democracy that would make our founding fathers proud” that “…we owe him our gratitude.”  

To be clear, there seems to be two separate issues in question. The first: the secrecy behind  many of the actions revealed in the war documents on the part of the U.S. government-which is obviously reprehensible, and the second: how that information is obtained.  Plainly, if Manning had permission to access and disseminate classified U.S. Department of State cables; there would not have been a need to secretly download these documents.

    

It would be naive to think that while David Cameron and Eric Holder and other leaders and officials speaking against the recent publishing of information, do not have an axe to grind against the Wikileaks organization; there is still something to be said about diplomatic secrecy.

No one is proposing that the involvement in any criminal activities by the U.S. government, corporate entities or any other government or regime be tolerated or overlooked because of that organization's power or influence.  By the same token, the answer is not to obtain information on criminal activity (or war crimes) through criminal means.

And what about Wikileaks role? Should those that engage in such practices of publishing sensitive, classified information solely on the basis of public knowledge or for any other reason, be heralded as heroes? Many believe so. Nevertheless, diplomatic secrecy is, many times, vital to our integrity as a nation and abroad, as well as to our national security. Which trumps the other?  

When can we agree that an organization like WikiLeaks has gone too far in its quest to free the human soul from the criminal mishaps on the international battlefield and beyond? Some argue that there is a fine line between revealing the truth and spreading global gossip over the internet. In many regards, the leaked cables have led more to embarrassment of domestic and foreign officials, than actual revelations. So what is the aftermath of publishing over 250,000 cables today from events that occured in 2007? That remains to be seen. But just as Wikileaks’ own founder argues, in the case of Julian Assange, Bradley Manning or any government or regime involved in war crimes, no matter who the perpetrator is, justice must, ultimately, be served. 

What do you think? Could Julian Assange be considered a virtual human rights activist?