Torture Good

At least it is according to Republican's, and by silence, the American public.

You might remember (if you read me regularly) that I linked to a story of a Canadian man who was flying from the US back to Canada, was detained, sent to Syria to be tortured for a year, and was never charged with a thing. In fact, he had not done a single thing wrong. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One of the interesting things about this guy's case is that he effectively cannot sue the US government for what was done to him. The government merely claims "state secrets" and cannot be compelled to respond to the lawsuit, and the case is dismissed. Case closed.

Now we have the story of a Democratic member of Congress, introducing a bill that would ban that practice. Wouldn't any sane, sensible, person think that is a good idea? Well, there are some people that probably think that arbitrary detention and torture is okay, but I'm talking sane people here. The Congressman's bill is going nowhere - because of the Republicans.

A reporter from the New York Times is writing about it here:

A Massachusetts congressman, Edward Markey, has taken the eminently sensible step of introducing legislation that would ban this utterly reprehensible practice. In a speech on the floor of the House, Mr. Markey, a Democrat, said: "Torture is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it is captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people."

Unfortunately, the outlook for this legislation is not good. I asked Pete Jeffries, the communications director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, if the speaker supported Mr. Markey's bill. After checking with the policy experts in his office, Mr. Jeffries called back and said: "The speaker does not support the Markey proposal. He believes that suspected terrorists should be sent back to their home countries."

Surprised, I asked why suspected terrorists should be sent anywhere. Why shouldn't they be held by the United States and prosecuted?

"Because," said Mr. Jeffries, "U.S. taxpayers should not necessarily be on the hook for their judicial and incarceration costs."

Say what? Let me just make the obvious comment here.

If a Mexican national comes here and steals a car, we put him in jail to serve his sentence. If a terrorist comes here and is arrested, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Dennis Hastert, believes it is in our best interest to send that terrorist back to his home nation because American tax payers should not pay for the terrorist's incarceration.

Can you believe that? Isn't it common sense that you should put the terrorist on trial, convict him, and have him serve his sentence where you can keep an eye on him? Nooooo! Republican's think we should send him back from where he came - so he can do what? Regroup and try again?

That's re-fuckin-diculous, outrageous, and Hastert should be kicked out of Congress.

The truth of the matter is, the Republican's cannot come up with a reasonable response as to why Congressman Markey's bill should not be passed immediately. The Republican's want to be able to continue sending possible suspects to other nations to be tortured into confessing.

The news media should, of course, run this story on the nightly news. Of course, they won't. Why?