Here’s how we will end up interrogating terrorists and enemy combatants if the Dems get their way.

And here’s what will happen if we don’t put sugar on top.

And here’s the truth, from Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, about how America has bent over backwards to protect detainees’ human rights. An excerpt:

Gitmo personnel disagreed sharply over what tools interrogators could legally use. The FBI took the most conservative position. When a bureau agent questioning Mohamedou Ould Slahi�a Mauritanian al-Qaida operative who had recruited two of the 9/11 pilots�was getting nothing of value, an army interrogator suggested, “Why don’t you mention to him that conspiracy is a capital offense?” “That would be a violation of the Convention Against Torture,” shot back the agent�on the theory that any covert threat inflicts “severe mental pain.”

Never mind that district attorneys and police detectives routinely invoke the possibility of harsh criminal penalties to get criminals to confess. Federal prosecutors in New York have even been known to remind suspects that they are more likely to keep their teeth and not end up as sex slaves by pleading to a federal offense, thus avoiding New York City’s Rikers Island jail. Using such a method against an al-Qaida jihadist, by contrast, would be branded a serious humanitarian breach.

Top military commanders often matched the FBI’s restraint, however. “It was ridiculous the things we couldn’t do,” recalls an army interrogator. “One guy said he would talk if he could see the ocean. It wasn’t approved, because it would be a change of scenery”�a privilege that discriminated in favor of a cooperating detainee, as opposed to being available to all, regardless of their behavior…

God help us.