CRUEL?
OR
JUSTIFIED?
The recent shut-down of the government has also lead to the closing of many government funded attractions such as zoos, parks, and most notably, memorials. Many veterans have been denied access to the memorials which they fought so hard and risked their lives for to be a part of. One would think that in the case of a government shut-down, military veterans would receive special permission to visit their closed memorial, however that is not the case.
At the war memorials in D.C., barricades were placed at the entrance of the memorial not only to keep out the tourists, but to keep out the veterans as well. The barricades were moved aside several times by the veterans as they made their way into the park to see their cherished memorials, but every time they were quickly met by park rangers telling them they had to turn right back around. Is denying veterans access to their war memorial a cruel act? Or is it a justifiable act to maintain the law and treat the veterans and the tourists equally?
In New York, an undisclosed amount of war veterans were arrested at the Vietnam Memorial Plaza when they refused to leave after the 10 p.m. curfew along with several verbal warnings. Police say that the veterans were reading the names out loud of all the deceased soldiers on the memorial to protest the 12th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. In this situation, the removal of veterans from a memorial seems justifiable.
With incidents such as this, it makes me wonder if most of these veterans really do just want to see their memorial, or if they really just want to create a publicity stunt and use this opportunity as a way of voicing their disagreement with the government in general.
