It isn't a policy reversal...
Read this article and then think about what the White House is saying:
Article on Guantanamo Bay Detainees vs. Geneva Convention
It is rather interesting to see that this is "not really a reversal of policy ".(Tony Snow, Whitehouse spokesperson) Being told by the Supreme Court that provisions of the Geneva convention apply to these detainees is absolutely miles away from the Bush administrations previously asserted stance of 'enemy non-combatants' not deserving those very protections. And how can we fight a war on terror if there are no enemies, merely "people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense"? (Tony Snow, Whitehouse spokesperson) Damned inconvenient, just happening to be plucked off a battlefield without being a combatant. I suppose they were just doing the Battle of Bull Run thing and taking in the view.
I guess it all makes sense; if we're going to redefine the term 'war' as something that can be waged against 'enemy non-combatants', then we might as well embrace a redefinition of 'policy' as something that doesn't mean a set of rules, guidelines or ethics by which a particular endeavor is prosecuted. While the Supreme Court has ordered that the rules and ethics with which the US must approach the 'enemy non-combatant' have changed, The Policy hasn't. Thank God for a little constancy in our lives. Glad to know The Policy is intact.
Thankfully, while congress and the Whitehouse throw around redefinitions of the term 'policy', they'll also finish redefining 'civil liberty'. I think we can trust Bush and this Congress to ensure that, in prosecuting our war against no one, our own civil liberties will end up as unchanged as The Policy.
Comments