Denying the Antecedent

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I think I could write a whole book on logical fallacies using the Malkins as an example. This one was tough; however, I think it most resembles this one.

If no cheetos is torture, then torture occurred at Gitmo.
No cheetos is not torture.
Therefore, torture did not occur at Gitmo.

Any logicians out there concur?