From the Guardian, Seymour Hersh (yes, I could call him Sy, but don't you think it's sort of silly to call journalists you don't know by their cute nicknames? Not to mention members of the Cabinet. I mean, I don't have a great deal of respect for Condoleezza Rice, but she has a last name—what is this, women's tennis?—and it's not Condi. At least it's not Condi to me; Bush, that's another story) on the unknown unknowns of the Abu Ghraib scandal:

It's been over a year since I published a series of articles in the New Yorker outlining the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There have been at least 10 official military investigations since then—none of which has challenged the official Bush administration line that there was no high-level policy condoning or overlooking such abuse. The buck always stops with the handful of enlisted army reservists from the 372nd Military Police Company whose images fill the iconic Abu Ghraib photos with their inappropriate smiles and sadistic posing of the prisoners.

It's a dreary pattern. The reports and the subsequent Senate proceedings are sometimes criticised on editorial pages. There are calls for a truly independent investigation by the Senate or House. Then, as months pass with no official action, the issue withers away, until the next set of revelations revives it.

There is much more to be learned. What do I know? A few things stand out. I know of the continuing practice of American operatives seizing suspected terrorists and taking them, without any meaningful legal review, to interrogation centres in south-east Asia and elsewhere. I know of the young special forces officer whose subordinates were confronted with charges of prisoner abuse and torture at a secret hearing after one of them emailed explicit photos back home. The officer testified that, yes, his men had done what the photos depicted, but they—and everybody in the command—understood such treatment was condoned by higher-ups.... What else do I know?
Keep reading.