The New York Times on Torture

Following the release of the CIA torture memos and reading some of the commentary, I headed over to NYTimes.com to get their take on the issue. I knew that they would be less than supportive, and I desired serious insight and reflection on the topic from the opposing side.

April 19th saw an editorial titled "The Torturers' Manifesto," which was 19 paragraphs in length. Given the amount of detail disclosed, I assumed the Times would have much to say. Surprisingly, there were zero direct quotes from the memos. Only two paragraphs mention a total of four techniques. Instead, because "the dangers do not end with the torture memos," they change topics half way through to discuss "President Bush's decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans." The editors believed this was important enough to dedicate 21% of the piece to the topic.

How long has the liberal establishment, and the Times by extension, railed against the Bush policies of torture? Couldn't they dedicate an entire editorial to the practices and policies? Is warrantless wiretapping worthy of being discussed in the same piece?

This is further highlighted by a failure to actually engage the memos. With no use of direct quotes to support them, the editors assert that the memos employ the language of "dungeon masters," are "sickening," and are "clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners." With zero direct references, why should I accept their assertions?

I sought the New York Times as an intelligent, alternate, voice but found a group that holds to their preconceived conclusions and who simply "do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans' rights as Mr. Bush did."