Mitt happens.

I expect some of you saw the Republican debate this past week - ten-strong G.O.P. hopefuls in a fiddling contest as Rome burns around them, sparked by an ember first coddled by the sainted Ronald Reagan, whose administration launched the resurgent America now being destroyed by his veep's mutant spawn. Yes, it was a proud moment indeed when applause could be heard at the mere mention of torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques", as some put it). McCain, of course, gave his standard speech about torture - inspiring, until you recall that the "anti-torture" legislation he ultimately signed onto last year has holes big enough to pass a dozen waterboards through. To be certain, he was the only one there who'd ever experienced torture, and I imagine he and his fellow P.O.W.'s may have believed during their captivity, as McCain suggested, that America would never abuse prisoners in such a way. Just a ways south of the "Hanoi Hilton", however, the C.I.A. and local allies were applying grisly and often lethal techniques on their captives with sickening regularity, particularly in connection with the Phoenix program, which left probably 20,000 dead (many of whom, like so many current detainees, may as well have been picked at random). Of course, how that is any worse than just dropping cluster bombs or jellied gasoline on people kind of escapes me.

So, yes... the FoxNews-sponsored event (hosted by correspondent Shit Fume... I mean, Brit Hume) turned into a pissing match over who was the bigger troglodyte on prisoner abuse. In all, I think Mitt Romney deserves a special prize for saying that Guantanamo should be "doubled." Reasoning? We don't want those terrorists to have access to our laws and equitable (ahem) justice system - to do so would only contribute to the collapse of western civilization and the universal values it represents. So... we can't allow our western standard of human rights to apply to them because that would undermine our western standard of human rights. Well done, Mitt. Beautiful circularity. And that sort of sotto voce delivery (a la Reagan) is getting better every time I hear it. (Of course, Tom Tancredo gets a special prize for exclaiming, "We need Jack Bauer!" to deal with Shit Fume's 24-esque straw man torture scenario.)

We were also treated this week to some of the actual real-world reasoning behind keeping terror suspects out of the courtroom. As with the Phoenix program, I'm certain many of these detainees were captured on the basis of an informant accusation - perhaps a disgruntled neighbor or the like - or some other questionable evidence that might not stand up in open court. At Jose Padilla's trial, for instance, the prosecution presented a kind of Al Qaeda recruitment document that purportedly had Padilla's fingerprints on it. Of course, the guy was held in an extra judicial hole for years and had his wits tortured out of him to the point where he cannot even aid in his own defense, so it's just possible that during that long process he may have been presented with this document during "enhanced" interrogation. Fact is, it seems the real reason they don't want to try terror suspects in open court is that they often don't have much of a case against them.

Note to Mitt and colleagues (both Republican and Democrat): if you don't have a case, you shouldn't be holding people. That's supposed to be one of our founding principles. Why are you all so afraid of that?

luv u,

jp