That the Bush administration authorized and ordered acts of torture seems beyond dispute to all but those entrenched in the right wing, along with those who have an actual stake in there being no real consequences for acts committed by and because of the Bush administration. That brings us to [link=http://www.newsweek.com/id/192314]this[/link]. Right now, there is an intense battle being waged over the release of several memos that would (and will, because they'll come out one way or another) probably inflame the issue further and remove any lingering doubt as to what the Bush administration authorized. It is my fervent hope that these memos are released and that more light is thrown on the acts of the Bush administration. Is there truly any reason to hold back these memos? It seems to me that the only reason to withhold them is one of the oldest justifications used to block disclosure known to man, which is embarrassment to a government and group of people. That Eric Holder apparently wants to go forward with it speaks volumes about him, but I think this will be a huge test for Obama. If he bows to pressure from people who probably know they went too far but are afraid of facing up to the consequences of their actions, it will be a tremendous disappointment for a lot of people. The terms of the debate surrounding torture seems to have quietly moved from whether torture was ordered by the Bush administration to whether it was justified, which seems like something of a marked change. If Obama wants to move forward without a Truth commission or official inquiry, the best way to do that is by opening up as much as possible that went on during the Bush administration and letting history be the judge. If Bush's actions were right, there shouldn't be anything to fear. Of course, we know that many of their actions weren't, and so we find ourselves where we are today. It's Obama's move, and I hope he chooses wisely.