From “Tortured Arguments: How to interpret those Bush interrogation documents,” WSJ:

The good, if under-reported, news is that the pile of documents released by the Bush Administration this week effectively rebuts the charges of “torture” that have been flying around. While White House and Justice Department lawyers did explore the legal limits of permissible interrogation techniques–something it would have been irresponsible not to do after 9/11 — it turns out that none of the practices actually authorized even comes close to the abuses depicted in the photos from Abu Ghraib prison.

The bad, and entirely ignored, news is that our most deadly enemies now know where the U.S. will draw the line should they fall into American hands. Worse, in disavowing an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that wrestles with the definition of “torture,” the White House has hung a few very fine lawyers out to dry and ensured a hypercautious approach to advice that could very well hamstring future antiterror efforts.

The incentive from now on will be for lawyers to provide internal counsel along the lines of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s infamous 1995 memo instructing FBI agents and federal prosecutors to go “beyond what the law requires” in limiting their collaboration against al Qaeda. We trust the folks who’ve forced this retreat stand ready to offer their mea culpas to the commission investigating the next major terrorist attack on the United States.

Entirely unrelated, because these two groups don’t dovetail at all: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe all think Michael Moore’s new movie is just swell.