amenendez@herald.com

The man has been accused of a crime in another country. He's in U.S. custody now, but if deported, he faces the possibility of torture back home.

                                                  
                                                                  Photo courtesy of the Kajeguhakwa family

                                                              Beatrice Kajeguhakwa and her husband, Valens Kajeguhakwa, in a 1997 photo.

Why not let him stay?

I'm talking about Valens Kajeguhakwa, who sits today in the Krome Detention Center, bereft of national attention, influential friends or embarrassing secrets that might protect him.

Kajeguhakwa, who entered this country legally in 2002, is not accused of anything so heinous as blowing up an airliner. The Rwandan government, of which he had been critical, accuses him of stealing from the bank he headed.

Earlier this year, his lawyer, Geoffrey A. Hoffman, tried to prove that the charges were politically motivated and that if he were deported, he faced persecution and torture. U.S. Immigration Judge Neal S. Foster rejected the argument.

On June 20, Kajeguhakwa was ordered deported. His family is appealing the order, but in all likelihood, Kajeguhakwa will be gone before Christmas.

''It's been very very tough for us because we know what will happen to him,'' said his daughter, Angelina Gasani, in a phone interview from Naples. ``Torture, death. If he goes back to Rwanda, that's it for him.''

DIFFERENT RULING

This week, a different immigration judge, in a different state, granted an altogether different fate for Luis Posada Carriles, the Cuban exile and militant accused of terrorism. Posada, accused by Venezuela of involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban jetliner, will not be deported to Venezuela because he faces the possibility of torture, ruled immigration Judge William Abbott in Texas.

The gentle humanism displayed by Judge Abbott should be commended, as it seems too often lacking in immigration matters. But the government's sincerity in the case would be easier to believe if it didn't stink of so much hypocrisy.

Aside from George W. Bush's mother, is there anyone around who still believes the U.S. government is completely appalled by the idea of torture?

Since 2001, the U.S. has systematically, and apparently without qualm, been deporting terror suspects to countries known to use torture in their interrogations.

The best known case is that of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who filed a civil suit against a number of U.S. officials for their role in his transfer to Syria, where he says he was jailed and tortured. .

Then there are the prisoners who were abused in Abu Ghraib by American soldiers -- abuse that in its consistency of method and application suggests a planning far beyond that of the grunt soldiers who have so far taken the blame.

In the midst of so much shame, who can believe that anyone in a position of power in this country is genuinely concerned about the mistreatment of terror suspects?

The government's handling of the Posada case has been an embarrassment from the beginning.

The latest ruling may be a victory for the man who stands accused of unspeakable crimes. For the rest of us, it represents the triumph of cynicism over justice.

FAIR TRIAL

Kajeguhakwa's ordeal, like the overwhelming number of cases that go before judges every day, has remained mostly a private one. This newspaper noted his arrest with a brief news item and nothing more.

His deportation, if it goes forward, will take place over the protests of experts like Noah Weisbord, a legal scholar based at Harvard University who warned that Kajeguhakwa faces certain persecution if returned to Rwanda.

But Kajeguhakwa's daughter holds out hope. After I talked to her Friday, she sent me a message, reiterating her father's innocence.

Then she added that he was willing to respond to the charges in the United States, ``where his chances of having a fair trial are higher.''