I'm watching CNN, just for a few more minutes. Lots of documentation has been released, and among it is a memo in which Rumsfeld approved "waterboarding" for use on one individual, but later recinded it when lawyers objected.

Whatever one might think of Rumsfeld and said memo, the point I'd like to highlight here is the manner in which CNN "explored", or more precisely failed to explore, the possible ways to view this situation.

To help the viewers understand what this means, CNN's anchor simply interviews Jonathan Turley, Esq. In what appears to be carefully coordinated prompting from the anchor, Turley tells us in no uncertain terms that this abuse is linked to what happened in Abu Ghraib.

Is that an unbaised approach?

Rather than simply quote the content of a memo, or report the number of memos released, or cite the specific objections of the lawyer in the memo, or even interview a panel of people with differing views, CNN instead chose an one-sided, apparently pre-scripted interview with a trial lawyer who has made his career suing the government over such things; a lawyer who has previously written editorial columns for the left-leaning Los Angeles Times that repeatedly allege Bush is trying to take away all your rights.

Such a person might be able to provide one possible view of the memo in a panel, but as an standalone "expert", he's clearly not the kind of person who can give a level-headed, unbiased analysis both sides of the issue.

So it's extremely telling that CNN decides to cover this issue only by tossing choice bones, in a solo interview, to a leftist lawyer who gets money and fame from making these kinds of allegations, without disclosing his strong anti-Bush bias nor vested interest in the matter.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the sneaking suspicion Fox would have run a panel with both sides represented. I know, I know, I'm supposed to believe that Fox is therefore right wing, whereas CNN is "mainstream". Mainstream if you're a leftist, I suppose.

Does the memo prove a link to Abu Ghraib? A pattern of abuse?

Interestingly enough, from only the bit I heard on CNN, it would seem to show the exact opposite of that, contrary to Turley's claims. Here, one high-level guy in the government attempted to order a questionable interrogation technique for one man, and couldn't even get that through.

One might argue it shows poor judgement, a lack of understanding of the definition of torture, or even a character defect on Rumsfeld's part. Perhaps. But what it also shows is the paucity of evidence, so far, for the contention that this is part of some systemic pattern. If so, why are we talking about only one memo? Is that the worst there was? Given CNN's demonstrated bias, I'd guess so.

If there was a general pattern of authorized abuse, torture, and even killings (as Turley alleges) would a questionable policy have to be authorized for one specific person? Why would you get Rumsfeld to authorize "waterboarding" if, as Turley alleges, far worse things are regularly being done? If we regularly kill people in the course of torture, and keep evidence of that off the books, do we then need an official permission slip to frighten them?

Turley's analysis seems to be "Yes". My common sense says he's whacked.

Is waterboarding "torture"? I have no idea. Rumsfeld was quoting as saying it didn't fit the dictionary definition of torture. Turley disputes this idea, saying "everyone in the world" agreed with his view.

(Turley must be a leftist. They're the only people I've ever met who lead lives so insular they can make such statements!)

To resolve this, I checked the dictionary. The first definition refers to "agony of mind", but seems to be a general use, as in "sitting through that lecture was torture." Contrary to Turley's claim, the definition which refers to coercion seems to confirm what Rumsfeld said: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."

Waterboarding is a technique where the person is submerged in water and made to think they will drown. I'd disapprove of such, given the easy possibility for abuse: if interrogators step out of bounds and held the suspect under too long, he could start to drown (and take in some water) which would then fit the definition of torture. But Rumsfeld's right: If practiced as stated, it would not inflict "intense pain ... to coerce".

Instead, Turley's argument seemed to be that this was torture because the individual was made to think their life or health might be in danger.

I guess that's where he and I part company: Good heavens, by the logic Mr. Turley is using, apparently scaring a murder suspect with the implication he could face the death penalty would count as "torture" since he was made to feel he might be in physical danger! We're left with nothing but Monty Python's "comfy chair" with occasional breaks for tea.

I'm not saying Rumseld's completely right here. But what it does show is that any wrong tendancy he might have had was (a) clearly contrary to the standard modus operandi, since it had to be specially approved for one case, and (b) that a system of checks and balances caught any such problem before it was implemented.

I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but CNN certainly didn't seem to have it, though their interview seemed designed to skillfully distract the viewer from that.

But just as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "waterboarding" (which this memo seems to definitely prove that Bush doesn't and won't authorize as policy), I'm also uncomfortable with Mr. Turley's overbroad definition of "torture".

At another point in the interview, Turley cited interrogations lasting 16 hours as another apparent case of torture. Is that also immoral?

So what's left in a world where lives are on the line, and people could die if we don't get some answers and we can neither make the subject think they might face some harm, nor even ask them questions past the point at which their defenses might break down?

As with most leftist agendas, this begs the question "What alternative are you proposing?"

From what I read in Mr. Turley's writings, he doesn't propose an alternative. I guess we're left with taking away TV privileges, or bribery. ("We'll take you out to a really nice restaurant, Mr. Terrorist, if you tell us where they're holding the victim.") Perhaps we all should just sit down with our arms folded and let the terrorists have their way.

There's got to be a better tradeoff between situations involving the potential loss of lives and protecting people's rights than Mr. Turley's views.

Sure, I don't want us to become a kind of society in which people's "rights" are removed, but nor am I sure from what legal principle Turley is deriving his apparent idea of rights he thinks we have, including the apparent right not to fear any harm, and the right not to be questioned too long.

But this brings me back to the main objection I had regarding CNN's "coverage": There was nobody there to ask Mr. Turley what rights he thought suspects should have ("the right not to be frightened?"), how he arrived at that analysis, nor ask what he recommended instead, nor expose the fact he was operating from underlying assumptions the average viewer might not accept.

Instead they put a leftist on, with no balance whatsoever, didn't even label him as such, and used what appeared to be a scripted interview in which he wasn't asked any tough questions which might disagree with his analysis.

There was no debate: They just dictated their apparent conclusion to the viewer.

I can't help but wonder if maybe that wasn't the point.

UPDATE: Well, doesn't that beat all. Not only was CNN biased, it turns out the entire story itself was false. Worse than all the above, it turns Rumsfeld ruled out, not approved water boarding:

The senior defense official who provided the original information to CNN now says Rumsfeld only approved "mild, noninjurious physical contact" with a high-level al Qaeda detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and specifically did not approve a request to use water boarding.

Oh, well, you know, that would be a little different than the story they fed me this morning. Reprehensible!!!

Also, as I stated above, a trial lawyer (Rocket Man from Power Line) confirms that fear of "death or severe injury" are regular part of the workings of the domestic justice system.

Another commenter adds data that makes me think perhaps I had overestimated the dangers of "waterboarding" (which was never approved, it turns out, anyway):

"Waterboarding" is nothing.

It is used to give US troops with a high probability of capture as training. I held the record at Warner Springs, CA for waterboard interrogation. There is the sensation of drowning. It is uncomfortable, but it is easy to keep under control and it causes no damage.

I guess we're supposed to treat terrorists better than our own troops.