This Washington Post headline (2/13/10) caught my eye:
2008 Habeas Ruling May Pose Snag as U.S. Weighs Indefinite Guantanamo Detentions
You have to read the piece somewhat closely to understand what they're taking about. Theterrorism case against one Guantanamo detainee was "ironclad"until afederal judge deemed it "too weak"–because some of thestatements against the defendant had been "coerced." Thishas happened repeatedly–judges "'have gutted allegations and questioned the reliability of statements by the prisoners during interrogations and by the informants." This is bad news, we're told; "the government is likely to suffer further losses" in court.
You have to read almost to the end of the piece before you get a more direct view of things:
The government also relied on Hatim's interrogations and his testimony at military hearings, during which he is said to have admitted to training at an Al-Qaeda military camp. Judges have been skeptical of such statements unless the government provides evidence that the men were not seriously mistreated. In Hatim's case, the Justice Department did not dispute his contention that he was tortured in U.S. custody and that he made those admissions to avoid further mistreatment.
The government is trying to justify holding prisoners indefinitely based on evidence gleaned from torture. That is the "snag" referenced in the headline.