What's This Got To Do With Torture?

The LATimes ran about 50 inches of not entirely awful copy on the struggle to define torture. It seems to me that if the word "torture" hadn't been misapplied to the prisoner embarassment and harassment that went on at Abu Grhaib, we wouldn't have had to endure Boxer, Kennedy et. al. at the Gonzales and Rice hearings. Plus, we'd probably be gaining better intelligence, and we wouln't have to wade through 50 inches of LATimes-speak on the subject.

Two take-aways from the article:

First, the Administration points are more solid. Most Americans agree that it's important to get information out of these creeps and most also trust our troops not to be Saddam-Masochistic in the process.

Second, the media is biased. Surprise. How else can you explain the inclusion of the following paragraph quoting a group whose home page is splashed with anti-Gonzales content, without providing any additional clarifying information?

Human Rights First, a New York group, said more than 30 detainees had died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, although not all under the control of intelligence officers or as a result of interrogation.

That's it. It just sits there like a stink bomb, providing no relevant facts, and the LAT doesn't help a whit, leaving unanswered all the obvious questions: Did any actually die as a result of interrogation? Did they die of injuries received in combat? At the hands of other prisoners? Old age? The croup?

There is more to be gained by looking at who was quoted here -- the sort of extreme Lefty group MSM is so attracted to -- than what they actually said.