The argument is often made that we need to retain the right to torture, in order to obtain information from suspected terrorists, to stop future terrorist attacks. The "ticking time bomb" scenario, popularized by law professor Alan Dershowitz, is often used to make this point: As the scenario goes, a suspected terrorist knows when and where the next terrorist attack will take place, and we only have so much time to get the information out of him. Thus, we have to resort to torture.

In addition to being counterproductive and immoral, torture does great damage to our reputation internationally. The argument is often made that, if only the media would stop reporting on what the military and intelligence services are doing, we could get on with the task of fighting terrorism. But, in the end, news of torture will always get out. And when it does, the threat of terrorism worldwide will only increase, not decrease.

Sadly, the legacies of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have not been limited to sexual humiliation, psychological intimidation, and painful positions. Over 100 people have died in U.S. custody, according to recent records the Pentagon revealed to the Associated Press. Most of them died violently. The American Civil Liberties Union alone has documented forty-four deaths, twenty-one ruled as homicides. It might be tempting to ask: why should we worry about these detainees? After all, aren't they terrorists? Not even close.

Of course, all these inconvenient facts make the glee of Romney and the rest of the pro-torture gang all the more shocking. It would be nice if the Republican Party could move beyond this adolescent view of war and justice. Absent that, the Democrats should voice their outrage at their lawlessness.