Is Torture Merely a Policy Disagreement?

The Wall Street Journal says it's a policy disagreement and Obama will be haunted by opening the door to torture prosecutions. I think the WSJ couldn't be more wrong. 

Obama made his point -- that he was against prosecutions and he wanted to look forward. But people wanted to know--who signed off on torture-- and they wanted someone to be accountable. There's a lot of anger. It's hard not to get sick after reading the memos.
What else don't we know? It seems a lot of people are running scared.
What's most despicable is the higher ups let the soldiers take the fall. The soldiers are serving prison time for being "bad apples" while the real bad apples are still running around chatting on TV, criticizing the Obama administration.
Obama threw the ball to Eric Holder. That was a great move because more than anything, people wanted the debate and that's what's happening. What needs to be made clear is torture is never okay, even if it works. I use this analogy: robbing a bank will help me pay the bills and then some, but it's probably not the best way to pay the bills.

As far as prosecutions, it doesn't seem feasible. But at least we'll know who did the deeds and how to prevent it from happening again.
The WSJ says Obama is catering to the left wing:

Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

The WSJ considers torture a "policy disagreement:"

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

GOP: Is this a Banana Republic?