Michael Goldfarb attacks those of us who believe that same-sex marriage is okay, but torture isn’t, because logically, you’d realize that those two things are inextricably joined at the gay terrorist hip.
As to the morality of the methods used, I don’t see anything immoral about smacking around a terrorist or making him sit in the cold or dunking him in the water, but you can argue it either way. Still, I wonder why the same people squealing about the alleged moral indignity to which these monsters were subjected are the same people who want the government to keep morality out of their bedrooms and doctors’ offices. Why should the government be forbidden from making a moral judgment about gay marriage or abortion but compelled to make a moral judgment about the treatment of terrorists plotting to murder Americans citizens?
This is an incredibly clever argument, if by “clever” you mean “using a word in one context and then putting a cloth over its mouth, dragging it to a basement, dumping it in a hole and spraying it with a fire hose until it breaks down crying”. Which you do.
A better (and marginally realistic) way of phrasing this argument would be “why should the government be forbidden from restricting people’s fundamental rights when it comes to gay marriage or abortion but allowed to restrict people’s fundamental rights when it comes to torturing the shit out of them?” And then you realize that when you phrase the question like that, IT’S TORTURE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.