Pre-emptive strikes

Back on Sunday, the New York Times reported that US officials say prisoners at Guantanamo

have provided a stream of intelligence to interrogators during the past two years, including detailed information about Al Qaeda's recruitment of Muslim men in Europe

and other al-Qaeda operations. The Times suggests that

sweeping assertions about the value of the detention center at Guantanamo respond to criticism of the operation, in the United States and abroad. Released detainees have also made allegations of mistreatment.

But since claims of value obtained do not refute claims of abuse - particularly since such "cooperation" as these officials cite can be the result of such abuse - what do you want to bet that this isn't a response to those charges but a pre-emptive strike against the suit before the Supreme Court about the legality of the imprisonments at Gitmo?

I predict that government mouthpieces will as part of their arguments point to these statements as proof of the "vital necessity" of the interrogations to "defending the homeland."