Whether or not he used valid sources for his data is still an open question, but i don't see how the Republicans can possibly bring the subject up anymore with all those pictures floating around.
Unforutnatly i'm not sure if we're ever going to find out the full truth about how far things like Abu Ghraib extend. The government will want to cover it up as much as possible, just like events like My Lai. The problem was that this time the perpetrators were stupid enough to take pictures of what was going on. If not for the media getting ahold of those the Pentagon would still be holding secret meetings saying "I heard some bad stuff might be happening, maybe we should do something about that. Let's go get some lunch first though." So instead they'll just court-martial a few people as quickly as possible, insist it was an isolated problem, and maybe outlaw cameras in the military. Unfortunatly or fortunatly, after this any accusations of cruelty against the military are going to be much more readily accepted than they were before.
And whether it's because i'm cynical, or cause i've heard of the events and experiments discussed in the article, i'm disapointed, but not really suprised by the whole thing.
And if this is what happens to people covered by the Geneva Convention, what must be happening in Guantanamo Bay, where the convetion doesn't apply, at least according to our good friend Rumsfeld?