When President Obama decided to release the "torture memos," the door was open for a mere debate. When he opened the door for the prosecution of lawyers who opined on what constitutes torture -- despite encouraging everyone not to spend "time and energy laying blame for the past" -- we face something far more important.

Many on the left see a perfect opportunity to investigate and prosecute Bush-Cheney and company. And if officials broke the law, they should pay the price. But why stop with them?

As Blair also noted, "From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."

The Washington Post reported in 2007 that the CIA gave details of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to members of both parties. Did these legislators sign off on waterboarding? If so, why should they be immune from action? For that matter, why should interrogators who participated in illegal activities be immune -- as Obama has suggested?

Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday that he is willing to release as much information as possible about the interrogations. That's good news because it hasn't happened yet.

More transparency -- and less moral preening -- would be a nice start. We ought to know the full extent of torture -- its consequences, its effectiveness and its specific results. If not, the entire memo scandal will just stink of political hackery and payback.

Don't misunderstand me. I doubt you will change your mind on the issue. I doubt I will. The thought of granting government the power and responsibility to secretly torture, especially when it already spends billions of dollars to supposedly keep us safe, is a thought I can't stomach.

But to pretend that all harsh interrogation techniques are created equal -- or that eliminating those techniques is devoid of consequences -- is just dishonest.