Cognitive dissonance

First up, we have this story: US army investigates new allegations of Iraqi prisoner abuse.

Then, there's this one: U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture.

Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.

...

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

So, on the one hand, when public evidence surfaces of prisoner abuse (whether it be in Iraq or Gitmo), the administration's goons act all surprised and shocked, determined to investigate the charges.

Yet, on the other hand, we have the administration's legal beagles arguing in court that "evidence" gained through torture be allowed to be used against the detainees.

Confused? I know I am. Why would they argue in court that "evidence" derived through torture be admissible as evidence against the detainee if there is no use of torture?