To see the article, click on the link below or paste it into your Browser:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/boysgonewild

Okay--that's some seriously alternative methodology.  Question the source if you want to, but Abu Ghraib is pretty well documented.  Does this methodology equate to torture?  Is it right?  If the recipients of these practices do not fall under the Geneva Convention definition of enemy combatants, and are therefore not protected by Geneva Convention dictum, shouldn't their interrogators at least be subject to internationally-recognized and sanctioned interrogation practices?  Our techniques may not be illegal (thought they just might be), but are they ethical?  Are they morally-defensible?

 I look at it this way: the terrorist doesn't live up to the same code of conduct regarding prisoners as does a government based upon law, but it is this difference that gives legitimacy to the actions of that government, and brands the terrorist an outlaw.  If the government in question abandons its laws in this regard, what differentiates it from the outlaw?