Reading your arguments I agree that it is tempting to state that it is obviously biased. But how about other reporters? It can be argued that many of these people/organisations too have a tunnel vision, being focussed on the slightest negative incident, and making them bigger than they really are. Personally, I think that in this case the truth is probably somewhere in-between. Yes, there are incidents, but not that many and severe as some reporters want us to believe. And yes, the claim made in this article that the prisoners try to provoke the guards in many ways, sounds valid to me and hasn't been mentioned by any other reporter, as far as I know. And I like to know that too. That's why I'm glad I have read this article too.

>>Having read the article, I have created a new blog on my Dutch weblog. The issue: Do you believe organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who claim that human rights are violated there, or do you believe the writer of the article. I'm curious what the reactions will be.
>>
>>I think you do not believe the writer. But how can you be sure that you are right? Why is the bias 'obvious' then?
>
>In the very first paragraph, he describes the captives as "human debris". While he may feel that way, it isn't exactly unbiased reporting. He isn't there to determine whether or not they are in fact guilty. He is there to see how they are being treated. Immediately, my suspicion is raised.
>
>A little later we learn that he was invited down there for an inspection tour. Does anyone here think things might be a little different at Gitmo during a planned inspection tour, rather than how things are during a normal day? I certainly do. It's a lot easier to clean up your house when you know guests are coming over as opposed to when they arrived unannounced.
>
>He apparently didn't fight in Afghanistan, nor was he stationed at Gitmo. Yet he is giving us an accurate account of what is going on at Gitmo after a short inspection tour? Please.
>
>"General Hood and his staff fielded all questions and criticisms, and were very forthcoming."
>
>Of course they did. With no one there to claim otherwise, I'm sure they gave an accurate picture.
>
>Maybe I missed it, but where did he interview any of the prisoners?
>
>I could go on and on about the bias in this "reporting" all day, but my favorite was where he singled out 2 Democratic Senators for their criticism of Gitmo. He would almost have you believe that the prisoner treatment at Gitmo is a partisan issue. Almost. Maybe he should consult with Republican Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner:
>
>Senate Supports Interrogation Limits
>
>McCain's allies included Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, and Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.). They said new detainee standards are needed to clear up confusion among U.S. troops that may have led to the mistreatment alleged at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and to the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.