The NYT editorial board is in full screeching moral outrage over the fact that a lawsuit brought by several guests of Gitmo against Donald Rumsfeld and friends has been dismissed. The editorial is outrageous in its bald assertions of fact and law. This is the opening line of their editorial:
Bush administration officials came up with all kinds of ridiculously offensive rationalizations for torturing prisoners.
With but one exception, that statement encapsulates the left's entire method of argument as regards "torture" and what once was called the "war on terror." One, label enemy combatants as something other than enemy combatants - a term with specific meaning in the law of war denoting a class of enemy not entitled to treatment as POW's. Two, by virtue of that redefinition, imply that such individuals are akin to criminals and thus entitled to Constitutional protections. Three, baldly assert that the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were "torture" without any reference to or discussion of the applicable law. And four, ignore reality - baldly assert that there was no reason whatsoever to submit anyone to "enhanced interrogation."
I won't bother to further fisk this piece of ridiculous propaganda. I've dealt with the issue of "enhanced interrogation" and torture in some depth here. I have also dealt with the fake moralism of the left here. Suffice it to say, There is not a shred of intellectual honesty to the NYT's editorial - nor to most arguments coming from the left. They deal in false memes, rhetorical devices and repetition. It worked for them through 2008.