Tortured reasoning

25 October 2005 18:07 EDT Posted by Highlander

According to LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer, reporting on the "Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody" --
"Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, and Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., who chair Congress' defense spending subcommittees, will be among the leaders of those talks in coming weeks.

Young has said the United States has no obligation to terrorists, and he and other top House Republicans have signaled they will try to change the Senate-approved language."

"Terrorists" is, apparently, a code word meaning 'subhumans' or 'animals' or, I don't know, liberals, or something... something that isn't entitled to anything remotely like basically civilized treatment.

Now, I'm not saying that 'terrorists' should be entitled to the full range of Miranda rights, but it seems to me that every human being has a basic, essential right to not be tortured. That's something we, as civilized human beings, owe to every other human being on the planet. Whether they are 'terrorists' or not.

And, thinking on it a little further, it also seems to me that someone's status as a 'terrorist' is something that is supposed to be established in a court of law, after a fair trial. I'm not sure exactly what document, Federal, state, or international, gives a member of the U.S. House of Representatives the ability to simply pronouce someone a 'terrorist', and therefore, outside due process of law as well as all constraints of civilized behavior towards captives.

But, you know, I'm one of those soft headed bleeding heart liberals, so don't listen to me.

Popular Posts