Decided to bring this up from comments:
"Unfortunately, one thing we've learned over the last couple of years is that detainee statements about their treatment at Guantanamo and other detention centers sometimes have turned out to be more credible than U.S. government statements,"
Point being the right always bash a source instead of saying "we're wrong we need to do something about being wrong" but it doesn't happen. (writes Kel)
More credible how? What makes detainees statements more credible? Abu Gharib? Because- in that case, a military investigation was already underway. One complaint (by a cuban detainee) is that the soldiers have been bragging that they have been having sex with the detainees' mothers (see here for the FBI records). How are you going to decide which of these claims is credible and which are not? Obviously, the only way is to investigate - and if the investigation shows NOTHING, then you must throw them ALL out, not cherry-pick which ones sound more believable. I wonder why the Koran toilet flushing story made the head lines, and not the "detainees mother's forced into have sex with soldiers" story?
The "right" bashed the source, because these claims were no more than that -claims. Other detainees have denied that these things happened. At times, we bash the source, instead of saying "we were wrong" - because we weren't wrong.
More here at "Just One Minute"