>>>
>>>That is indeed quite terrifying. As if the ill-treatment at Abu Graib and Guantamo wasn't bad enough already.
>>
>>Aren't we jumping to conclusions here? Is it really quite terrifying? (barring another "Abu")
>
>Why should we exclude the possibility of another Abu Graib? With all that secrecy, it is likely to be much worse in this case.
>

Ah but that's just my point. Yes there is a possibility but at this moment it hasn't been determined that it's a similar case.

My number next is that this has to be done, as terror suspects they will be held and questioned some way or another, with the purpose of obtaining information to determine if in fact they are and more importantly (if they are) information that can be used to prevent attacks. This should be expected, and it's only the methods of getting to that information what we quibble about.

>>What's the alternative? Surely we're not supposed to just turn them loose. I say at least subject them to 8 hours of Pat Robertson, daily.
>
>Hehe, you seem to be an expert in torture.

Torture? Oh no not at all. I forgot to suggest that they could also get restroom breaks during the "information elicitation" technique. This should make it all Geneva-convention-friendly..