UN Convention on Torture--hmm, seems clear enough.

Great post from Andrew Sullivan on this one. He cites the actual legal definition of torture from the UN Convention on Torture and highlights the two most relevant and damning passages, which are pretty damn clear about what torture is and when it's allowed; to wit--it's causing physical or mental harm to get confessions or third party information, and no country should do it, ever.

It's simple. It's not a "some say/others say" debate (the "some" vs. "others" debate which seems to be what passes for balance in a lot of "villager" editorials). It's sure as hell not a partisan debate. It's a legal one. It's a moral one, as well, but this is an imperfect world, and sometimes the law is all we've got.

That's why so many bloggers have commented on this piece by David Broder,who writes the following:

Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.

He could have stopped at the first sentence. The reason this should be pursued is exactly because the people involved should be held accountable, and yes, it would be desirable to prevent it from happening again. Full stop. This is why I see this as an issue for the Justice Department, and not really for the White House. As to vengeance--wait, what? Is he saying it's political retribution for being--the other party? That is actually "unworthy", both as a characterization of critics on the left, and in a failure to recognize that there are people on the right who are also pretty disturbed by what went on.

This is a mistake a lot of the "let it go" people are making--it's too messy and partisan and "unhelpful". But the evidence is there. We've seen pictures, we've seen the memos. And so has the world. It just is against the law, and it just was under a Republican administration, and it just happens to be a Democratic Administration that the resolution gets played out under. We can't confuse legal responsibility with vengeance, or be "squeamish" when it comes to taking a moral stand.