Commenting on the Roxana Saberi case, the blogger who once sought to stalk the pregnancy records of Sarah Palin has something remarkable to tell us:
. . . the US will have a hard time complaining about mistreatment as it justifies its own torture of detained terror suspects.
No, it won’t. No, it really, really, really won’t. The difference between the United States and Iran–something Sullivan, a supposed lover of America, doesn’t seem to understand–is that even if one were opposed to the interrogations policies pursued and implemented by the Bush Administration, one had recourse through the courts and through Congress to put a stop to those interrogation procedures, as the courts and Congress have done in many ways. One could even elect a new President, who renounced those procedures, as we have.
There are no such checks and balances in Iran. None. Indeed, there are no such checks and balances in many parts of the world, which perhaps explains why and how Daniel Pearl died his brutal death before “Guantanamo” became a dirty word, and before “Abu Ghraib” entered the public consciousness.
It does not take much of a command of history to know and understand any of this. I have to think that Sullivan knows the history–he blogged through it. The question, therefore, is why he chose to be dishonest in his post, given that history.