Torture? What torture?

The U.S. Army, after a three month investigation into FBI claims of abusive treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (and, by extension, Abu Ghraib), discredits the FBI's claims by...corroborating them.

Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

"Creative," is how the Army describes this. So, tell me again what Lyndie England is on trial for?

The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

A central figure in the investigation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib, was accused of failing to properly supervise Qahtani's interrogation plan and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses so far, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the U.S. Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

And before the trolls on the right begin foaming that we liburols' first thoughts after every terrorist attack is, "Were any terrorists hurt?", let me say that my first concern isn't about the detainees, especially the so-called 20th hijacker, though I wonder about those caught up in the dragnet of Afghanistan and the streets of Baghdad. What I do care about is...

Did the Army really believe they could keep this under wraps? Didn't Rumsfeld consider (who am I kidding?) how reports of this would damage our reputation throughout the rest of the world. Keep in mind that many of the detainees are citizens of countries that are our allies in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Many are being released and are returning to their home countries with stories to tell. The stories may be exaggerations, but what do we now have to counter those exaggerations?

"Creative" tactics like putting lingerie on men's heads, sexually harassing them, etc., create a demented atmosphere that can't help but pervade the system, hence the unfortunate Lyndie England, a not-so-bright individual just aiming to please her boyfriend and her superiors.

What will be the affect on the military personnel engaging in this? At some point, aren't we creating monsters in our own military? Don't we run the risk of such abusive bullying spilling out from being used on detainees to being used on other soldiers? And the use of dogs in this is just appalling. Former U.S. Army dog handlers have expressed shock that dogs would be used in this way; it's a violation of procedure and a weird corruption of the man/dog bond.

I don't know much about the military and its culture, but when this stuff is condoned, authorized, winked at, doesn't this funhouse atmosphere begin to affect discipline up and down the chain of command?