We also disagree with policies made by our lawmakers. All of this makes us dissenters. Is it bad to be thought of as a dissenter?  Well, that depends on who you’re disagreeing with.

There are several countries, full of dissenters, who are fighting their governments. Really, the entire Middle East is in upheaval. This “Arab Spring” that we hear about on the news seems to be a good thing; the people standing up against tyrannical governments, but people are literally dying for their views.

In Syria, the military is killing its people. That seems terrible, doesn’t it? Death and destruction because of a difference of opinion? The fighting in Libya started around a difference of opinion, led to peaceful protests and morphed into revolution. A revolution backed by the United States and the UK, but that is another story.

So with all of these dissenters doing admirable and historical things in the Middle East, what about the “Western” countries? Are the Western dissenters admirable?

The UK burned for a couple of weeks in August and unrest still smolders there, almost like the fire is not quite out yet. The initial disagreement began with the shooting of a black man by the police in a predominantly black neighborhood. Dissent began with this terrible act, grew into riots and spread like a wildfire throughout much of London and the outlying towns. Many disagreed with the actions of the police, but many blamed the government’s handling of the economy and massive unemployment – especially among the youth.  It was this difference of opinion that turned into riots and looting, fires and destruction.

It seems dissent causes nothing but violence and death. It seems to carry a negative connotation because of the actions that sometimes follow it. People have a difference of opinion and choose a violent resolution rather than a peaceful one. But that is how it works, right?

Nations forged out of fire, like the phoenix reborn. All throughout history, violence has shaped the world. Even the United States, a republic unlike anything before it, came into being this way. It took a Revolutionary War to create our nation.  We waged war against what we deemed a tyrannical government and we celebrate it every year.

Does this mean dissent is violence? No, it does not, at least it shouldn’t. So why do these differences of opinion become revolutions? Is it tyranny that causes it? Is it money?

This remains difficult to answer and puts it on us, the everyday citizen, to discern the facts from fiction. We love stories where the righteous fight against the evil overlords. We pay to watch Harry Potter defeat the wicked Lord Voldemort or Luke Skywalker overthrow the evil Empire. This is our entertainment and it seems natural to support this good vs. evil paradigm. But as it reflects on us in the real world, do we champion our dissenters or are we happy to not rock the boat? Is it easier for us to accept things for how they are or are we more apt to make a change?

We are challenged on many levels these days. The economy is terrible. Joblessness reflects that of the Great Depression in the 1920’s. We seem to have a government that cannot agree how best to lead our country, destroying our global image and polarizing the nation. We are currently fighting the longest wars in the history of our nation, our government can legally spy on its citizens and the fear of another terrorist attack assaults us from every direction. The only thing missing is soldiers patrolling the streets.

Someone challenged me to remember my audience, in writing columns like this. To me it is simple; my audience is the future leaders. I put my faith in you to lead in a direction that does not cause death and destruction. How do you view the world around you? Does your opinion differ and if so, will you use your voice?

Jonathan is a non-traditional student majoring in english. Reach him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu

What are Wikileaks? The first time I heard about Wikileaks was when Pfc. Bradley Manning was taken into custody for leaking classified docu­ments of operations in Afghanistan. What I saw on all major news net­works was how these classified docu­ments exposed personnel working in Afghanistan and put our sources lives at risk. The next time Wikileaks was on the news, I paid attention. They were poised to release diplomatic cables outlining the U.S. interactions with allied countries and needless to say, we were not painted in the best light. There were several accounts of our diplomats spying on other for­eign diplomats, including monitoring communication methods and gather­ing biometric information of United Nations diplomats from allied na­tions. The cables pointed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but other released documents showed this ac­tivity was present under the former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

Wikileaks presented this informa­tion to the American public, much like newspapers only without the reporting. So who broke the law? Did Wikileaks for publishing classi­fied documents or did the U.S. State Department in spying on other dip­lomats and UN officials? Well, this is not the first time that the U.S. has been found spying in and around the UN. Bugs had been found in UN of­fices in 2003 prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. No charges were filed and no­body was punished for this activity. The only real consequence was a lack of confidence between the diplomats.

So did Wikileaks and its leader Ju­lian Assange break the law? Accord­ing to Time magazine, the U.S. has a weak legal case against him and his organization. Assange and those in­volved are not U.S. citizens to begin with, and we have this right in our nation called the First Amendment 8212; the freedom of speech. If that is the case, why is this even a topic of debate? Because they told secrets. These were secrets of lies and deceit that presented the dark underbelly of how the U.S. conducts business with friends.

Wikileaks informed the American public of the literal truth by present­ing the actual documents, but that created fear. It caused terror &- to the federal government. Immediately following these dispatches entering into the public domain, Assange and Wikileaks were labeled terrorists by some lawmakers in our U.S. Con­gress. Lawmakers and reporters made comments like Assange should be killed like every other terrorist or that he should be thrown in Guantanamo Bay. But what are Assange and his organization Wikileaks? Messengers with no filter. There is no government or organization that can prosecute them for what they say 8212; at the mo­ment. Legislation has been proposed by a few in Congress who want to make a law forbidding the publish­ing of classified materials. This would take care of future Wikileaks prob­lems, but it would also incriminate the newspapers who reported and the American citizens who read them. Is this strangling of the First Amend­ment possible? Of course it is. It has happened before during the Espio­nage Act of 1917 and it can very well happen again in our fear-dominating post 9-11 society.

Whether or not you agree with how Wikileaks attain and release these documents, Wikileaks is not a terror­ist organization. The only terror they are causing is to the federal govern­ment. These documents do not cause fear to the American people. They cause shame. Shame on us for elect­ing officials condoning this activity and shame on us for allowing it to happen. This is an important moment for all of us. If the federal government decides to make laws that constrict the freedom of speech, then what do we have left? The Espionage Act of 1917 was a very dark moment in our nation, yet we have lawmakers calling for this to be enacted again. Do we want lawmakers who are so willing to constrict our constitutional rights? More importantly, do you want to be punished for telling the truth?

Jon is a non-traditional student majoring in English. Reach him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu.

I sat visiting with my father-in-law over the holiday break about our new plans for the coming year. His big plan was to run a 5K in May, which I thought was great because I am also a runner. He is not, and it was a big step for him. I told him that I had two: the first is to start baking my own bread and the second is to boycott Walmart.

“Why’s that?” he asked, head half-cocked with a confused smile on his face.

I told him that it was because of their decision to “partner” with the Department of Homeland Security in what they’re calling, “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign. He asked me what that was and I explained that Walmart stores around the country are putting in teleprompters with the DHS telling shoppers to report suspicious activity to a Walmart employee.

He thought about it a moment and then asked, “Well, don’t you think that it’s a good idea to keep the people informed and have them alert to what’s going on around them?”

The answer to this question is yes, absolutely. I believe that awareness is a great thing. The problem with the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign is that they fail to define what is suspicious. Furthermore, I am more curious as to what is suspicious enough to warrant a terrorist threat at Walmart. That’s what this video is for right? To prevent further foreign terrorist attacks on the U.S.? The DHS could not be implying that we should turn in American citizens for being what we individually perceive as “suspicious,” could they?

I spent 2003 in Iraq, living in a blown-out warehouse, occupying a large portion of Baghdad. One of our tasks was to gather intelligence on former Baath Party members in the area. This was accomplished with locals in the area and involved us either soliciting information from individuals or individuals coming forward with information, both with the possibility of a reward. Most common were individuals coming forward with information. For example, someone would come to our facility stating that they had information on a Baath Party member or high-ranking person in Saddam’s military and we would take that information to apprehend whoever was the target. However, we quickly found that the majority of this intelligence was inaccurate. Most of the people we apprehended were either honest mistakes or victims of spiteful neighbors.

Martial law was in effect during most of my time there, and these false reports were a direct result of the environment we had created. Neighbors began to turn each other in, either for the reward or because of a neighborhood squabble.

So what does this have to do with Walmart? When the authority responsible for keeping us safe from foreign terrorists teams with a major domestic corporation in asking the consumer to be suspicious of one another, it creates an environment of mistrust and resentment. This restricts a free and open society by causing the citizens to be apprehensive of one another. It is one thing to be cautious of day-to-day violence that is possible everywhere in the world. It is an entirely different thing to report a fellow shopper as a terrorist threat, one that most associate with 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I am confused as to why the DHS is asking the American people to disrupt their daily lives and spy on their neighbors, especially in what can be perceived as a highly volatile time in our nation. One might say, “Well, that’s not what they’re doing,” but my reply is what are they doing? Why are they are asking citizens to report suspicious activity without stating what is suspicious? If I am going to ask someone to perform a task, however big or small, I will define exactly what I want done. If I don’t, then I am prepared for the consequences of an undesirable outcome. Certainly the DHS, a federal agency, is not asking us to help Walmart catch shoplifters, are they? Why is the authority in charge of keeping us safe from foreign terrorism, one of the reasons we are still at war, asking us to perform such a powerful task without providing any guidance? Maybe more importantly, why are they asking it to begin with?

Jon is a non-traditional student majoring in English. Reach him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu.

I’m working for a grocery company as a warehouse manager. It’s interesting work. As my boss tells me (he’s a former paratrooper too with 3rd BDE, 82nd Airborne Division), “…They’re just groceries. No one is trying to kill us”.

This was part of an email that I received from a good friend of mine recently. He spent a total of three full years in Iraq that revolved around less than a six month break in between each tour. I caught up with him one time in 2006 when he was stationed in Alaska and he took me to a local restaurant in Anchorage that specializes in Halibut (the fish) pizza. He stated that it was a regional specialty and I believed him since I had never heard of it before. However, the highlight of the evening was not the pizza, although it was surprisingly very good, but the tears in my friend’s eyes as he told me he did not want to go back to Iraq for another year. I wasn’t expecting the conversation to go this way and made no attempt for an answer for there was none. I rode into Iraq with this man. He was part of our vehicular mounted company and would insert us into our drop off point on various missions throughout that year. He would also pull us out when we got into trouble. I have seen him under fire on several occasions, always steadfast and very dependable. Now I was sitting across from him in a restaurant two years later, watching him cry over a piece of fish pizza.

The reality of a combat zone is that you can spend most of your life in one place, the place in which you call home, but after a year in a 360 battle zone, the perception of home changes entirely. What I realize now, what I couldn’t see then, was that I was crying right along with him. At that time, I was a civilian working alongside the military, so I was still around soldiers which made my life transition somewhat easier. But it didn’t matter – not in the grand scheme of things anyways. There is no real transition from a combat zone. The underlying issues just stay dormant until the right time presents itself and the unidentifiable but incredibly acute pain becomes part of everyday life, like a blister that won’t heal. Combat veterans walk with some sort of pain every single day.

We all know a veteran. Many are neighbors, family members, spouses, fathers and mothers. Their pain does not stop when they come home from war. In many ways, it is just beginning. A few weeks ago I received an email from an observant gentleman who pointed out that neither one of the candidates running to represent South Dakota in Congress was asked their positions on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This makes me extremely disappointed in both the local media and the candidates themselves. War truly has become common. Both John Thune and Kristi Noem are supportive of veterans, which they should be, but why not just stop making veterans? Ten years of war and no one asks her position. If you love your brothers and sisters like I love my brothers and sisters, if you love your father and mother like I love my father and mother, and if you love your friends and neighbors like I love my friends and neighbors, then you will look inside your hearts first and ask yourself where you stand on these forever wars.

Then ask those who represent us in Congress.

Jon Weiler is a non-traditional student at SDSU majoring in English. Contact him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu

I hear her voice starting to crack, “I wake up each day and I have to find reasons to get out of bed. It’s getting harder and harder to do.”

My feeble response of, “It will eventually be ok,” was met with her very sad, “I don’t think it will be.”

I am an Iraq War Veteran. I was part of the invading force in 2003 and spent the majority of that year occupying the Southwest Sector of Baghdad. This is part of a conversation that I had with the mother of the very first man that I knew to die in Iraq. Although his death occurred after we had been fighting in country for a little over three months, it made the war real. It became a true turning point in many lives. He was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade while sitting in the same spot that I occupied the day prior, if that says anything about fate. I visited with his mom for a little under an hour, approximately four years after the event. She was very candid, as most stripped-down individuals are. She outlined how her son’s death had led to the deconstruction of her entire life. The shock and grief eventually ended her marriage. The family unit that had been present when their child was alive was completely shattered when he was killed in the Southwest Sector of Baghdad. It was a raw conversation that brought back explicit memories of that day. I hung up the phone, overcome with anger and immense sadness. Those feelings are still with me as I write this.

A story of a young man or woman killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan is one that everyone understands. The Global War on Terror now affects all of us. There are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and friends and neighbors who currently reside or have been in Afghanistan or Iraq. These wartime deployments are so commonplace that it has become normal day-to-day life. Think about that. It has become normal for us to send our youth to war. Never before has there been such a globalized effort to eradicate a perpetually elusive and strategically undefined enemy named Terror. Nine years of fighting in Afghanistan has brought us into the longest foreign military campaign in the history of our nation. The supposed perpetrators of 9/11 have not been brought to justice and we are no closer to containing al-Qaida then when we first set foot in the nation.

We have been fighting in Iraq for approximately seven years now with the same results. There were no weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons plants found to justify such a bold move to invade two separate nations under one campaign. One can argue that we were there to free the Iraqi citizens from such an oppressive governing regime, but I will propose this question: Are the Iraqi people any more free now, seven years later, then when they were under Saddam Hussein? More importantly, are we, the American People, any better off now than we were ten years ago? Our efforts in Afghanistan have required more of our youth to meet the mission requirements and the administration has cleverly changed the name of the fighting force in Iraq from Combat Brigades to “Advise and Assist Brigades”, keeping them in country executing the same mission.

Why isn’t anyone organizing to protest? It is the obligation of the citizen to demand answers in such costly wars. So why aren’t we doing this? We are truly in unprecedented times, continuously on the brink of some sort of destruction. Why we put up with such a dysfunctional environment is amazing to me. If we have lost our way, or did not know our way to begin with, why are we still freely giving our sons and daughters to a lost endeavor? Our futures are at stake, each and every one of us, and we seem content to just let it play out. In the end, who will be held accountable for this: those who send our families to war or those who allow it to continue.

Jon Weiler is a non-traditional student at SDSU majoring in English. Contact him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu.