Scientific Consensus hurts my Hippopotamus

Report: Bush's America Defending Harsh Interrogation Techniques "Bad" - Obama's Appeasement and Surrender Strategy "Good".

At least that's how I'm reading this "scientific study", which reeks of a conclusion in search of some manufactured supporting evidence. That's how true science is done these days, right? Forget about where the sum of all the evidence leads.

The new Scientific Method seems to be...
1) Hypothesis (Created while sitting cross-legged in the lab while smoking a fatty with the buds)
2) Prove your hypothesis by using hockey stick graphs, while disgarding those fact thingys that might kill your buzz.
3) Communicate through a complicit media that all "progressive thinking" scientists are in consensus on your conclusion.
4) An Al Gore slideshow or Michael Moore movie a bonus for your efforts.

The author of this paper admits he got the idea for this "after reading descriptions of the CIA's Bush-era interrogation methods". Well certainly then, he must have at least interviewed and/or tested those prisoners who have been interrogated by the CIA, right? WRONG.

Their report also doesn't mention this fact that "US officials gained valuable information that saved innocent American lives because Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded, deprived of sleep, and forced to wear a diaper."

That doesn't support their little theory. We should be more concerned that we might have damaged Khalid's hippocampus (or worse yet, made him to suffer a really bad case of diaper rash).

DISCLAIMER: For the record, not all diaper-wearing, sleep deprived adults should be considered terrorists.

I ain't no rocket surgeon, but if I had to rely on getting information from a prisoner in order to prevent a terrorist attack, I would put my money on tough CIA operatives rather than a group of hippie, white labcoat-wearing "Psychologists for Social Responsibility" and "Psychoanalysis Professors".