There is no doubt that some soldiers and officers are guilty of abuse and acted without due authority in these cases - and should be tried and punished appropriately.
However, a package deal is being passed by most of those antagonistic to the U.S. presence there - the notion that many or even most of those prisoners are innocents and, regardless of that, the notion that anything short of treating these prisoners as honoured guests is de facto abuse.
The first is simply wrong; there may be a few exceptions but otherwise all prisoners there are there for a legitimate reason. If they did not directly attack civilians or coalition soldiers, they at least aided and abetted those who did, or are otherwise involved in undermining efforts to bring stability and a better form of government to that nation.
The second is a blurring of the difference between prisoners of war and domestic criminals. Prisoners of war are taken in lieu of killing them, and because it is a war, it is perfectly legitimate to use various tactics on prisoners in an attempt to gain information that can help the war effort.
Does this mean torture is ok? Well, yes it does, however there can still be objective measures on what is acceptable to a civilized nation. A common sense rule here is that any such tactics (including humiliation and demoralization) is legitimate only if it is conducted with the clear and specific purpose of gaining information that might help save lives, either soldier's or civilians, or contribute to defeating the enemy. If any such acts are conducted out of nothing but hatred, sadism, etc, then it most definitely is abuse and must be stopped.
Most of these prisoners, if free, would not hestiate to kill coalition soldiers, and in many cases, civilians too. There is no moral basis for not treating them accordingly.
