I'm not sure I understand. In Riemannian geometry it might be convenient to use a connection with non-vanishing torsion, but it is not required. What do you mean by 'includes'?
Well, to give an explicit example (sorry, non-specialists!), consider the nonlinear sigma model action for superstring theory in an arbitrary background geometry (that is, arbitrary spacetime metric G and NS-NS B-field; we'll ignore the dilaton). The coefficient of the 4-fermion term is the Riemann tensor. But if you construct that Riemann tensor just from the metric (as one does in general relativity without torsion), you'll omit essential pieces: you also need to include terms in the Riemann tensor resulting from a non-zero torsion tensor T=-dB (in differential form notation). A similar situation holds for the covariant derivatives in the fermion kinetic terms.
Now, it's entirely up to you whether you write that 4-fermion term coefficient as "Riemann tensor (including torsion)" or as "Riemann tensor (torsion free) + (lots of weird, arbitrary-looking interaction terms involving derivatives of B)". So on some level, there's no reason that you must use a connection with non-vanishing torsion. But I would claim that the equations are much more elegant (and give deeper insight) when expressed with torsion "built-in". [Fun fact: So does Polchinski, but he's not talkative about it. If you look up "torsion" in the index of Vol. 2, the first reference is to the page with the equations I've referenced above... but the word "torsion" doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the page!]
Aside: If anyone out there is interested in how this torsion stuff fits into the mathematics of Relativity, you might have a look at my notes on how it would be incorporated into Bob Wald's textbook: http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/GRtorsion.p...
Incorporating as much symmetry as possible and worry about a possible symmetry-breaking at a later stage has been a hugely successful path in high-energy theoretical physics. Hidden variable theories, on the other hand, do not have such an impressive track record.
As for the article, I think it is terrible and only manages to confuse the reader. To finish it off with ill-advised sound-bite that makes even a Nobel laureate sound like a dumbass is in poor taste too.
I'm not sure I understand. In Riemannian geometry it might be convenient to use a connection with non-vanishing torsion, but it is not required. What do you mean by 'includes'?