Sympathy for chaplain misplaced
Sympathy is one of those peculiar words in the English language with three entirely different connotations, according to my dictionary: the first being understanding, the second being pity, and the third being approval, or support.
Contrary to Catherine Portillo's column in The State Press Sept. 22, Capt. Jane J. Yee, a chaplain with the U.S. Army and a convert to Islam, is not being charged with showing sympathy - understanding or pity - for the detainees in Guantanamo.
What Capt. Yee is being accused of, however, is supporting the detainees in Guantanamo and the organization they represent, al-Qaida.
Of course, it is not a crime to show understanding for these enemy combatants, but it is a crime - particularly under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - to disobey orders, to commit espionage, and to aid and abet the enemy. Found with classified documents and sketches of the prisoners' facilities on his person, Capt. Yee may have just been doing his job. On the other hand, he may have been a spy, a terrorist "sympathizer." For now, that is up to the military courts to decide.
Sympathy to prisoners should not be taken as literal truth. Portillo misrepresented this term when she wrote: "Our nation has gone too far when a chaplain, whose job is to show some level of sympathy to his parishioners, is apprehended by law enforcement for doing jut that."
Capt. Yee was not arrested for his sympathy for the Guantanamo detainees. What is in question is whether or not he crossed the imaginary line from duty to treason and became, in fact, a sympathizer.
Kiyoshi Freeman
AZ NATIONAL GUARD
Hayworth's rebuttal bullies readers a la Bush
I was very disheartened by J.D. Hayworth's rebuttal ("Sept. 13 Bush hatred in media distorting view of Iraq" The Arizona Republic) to O. Ricardo Pimentel's piece regarding the Bush administration's handling of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. Hayworth's timing could not have been worse: For the first time since this insane war started, many Americans are finally asking whether the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq, including Saddam's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, were valid. The evidence has shown that many of them were not, which is why Bush himself finally retracted his comments concerning the Saddam/Sept. 11 connection.
Despite Bush's admission and the growing doubts surrounding the truthfulness of his administration, Hayworth still finds it necessary to reaffirm "the essence of the Bush doctrine," as if thousands of deaths, billions of dollars and a war whose end is nowhere in sight did not offer enough explanation.
More than anything else, however, Hayworth's column reminds us that the "essence" of the Bush doctrine is a We-are-the-chosen-people ("We have an historic opportunity to establish a democracy in the terrorist's back yard"), US-against-them ("The president rightly responded, 'Bring 'em on!'"), Not-in-my-backyard ("[The president] knows it is better that we have this inevitable battle in Iraq, not America") mentality.
Even Mr. Hayworth's interpretation of Pimentel's column is telling in this regard: Hayworth suggests that if someone disagrees with someone else - and that is all Pimentel is doing - then hatred is the cause. Such an interpretation doesn't leave one with many options, which makes it all the more distressing that Mr. Hayworth, a congressman and leader, would even share it.
As an antiquated relic of the past, the imperial worldview offered by the Bush administration and its advocates promises nothing except future strife, violence and misunderstanding.
Maximilian Werner
FACULTY ASSOCIATE
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
