Is it a War?
So, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld launches a defence of indefinitely detaining people (yes, I unashamedly use the word people) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What is his reasons for detaining people without charge and without access to lawyers?
Simple, for the Bush Administration the ends justify the means. Rumsfeld says it is all ok because they are revealing information under interogation.
This continuing insistence that the rules of war don’t apply and that the people held will not be given prisoner of war status mystifies me. Is this not the same Administration that continues to talk about this War on terror? Is this not the same Administration whose President says he is a War President? It seems we are only at war when it suits us.
February 15th, 2004 at 4:08 am
As a US citizen, I have to admit this policy made a whole lot more sense to me in 2001 than it does now. I know, my hypocrisy is showing. Jingoism always “seems” like the right thing at the time. Now, it just seems wrong! It’s enough to leave a good ‘ol American boy wondering about all those god-flag-country nationalistic values he was raised to believe.
Some might be led to say that Yes, Bush is indeed a “War President”: a president at war with basic human rights. (Not sure I’d say that, but some might…and they might be right.)