Do you and I believe that the UN Convention Against Torture is part of our law, and therefore we must abide by its terms? Ah, we may say so, but David S. Broder knows better. Our "plausible-sounding rationale", he says, "cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance."

So the Washington Post columnist writes a 700-word column on US torture policy without a single mention of the treaty signed by Ronald Reagan, which obligates the US to investigate all credible allegations of torture. Instead, he issues a clarion call for Obama to obstruct any legal proceedings. Obama should not "pass the buck to Attorney General Eric Holder", Broder says, but instead "should use all the influence of his office to stop the retroactive search for scapegoats."

"Scapegoats"? Is that the right term for the people who ordered the torture, justified it, and carried it out? Yes, Broder argues, because it's you and I who are guilty. "These policies were carried out in the name of the American people, and it is only just that we the people confront what we did."

 We the people should confront what we did … but heaven forbid that our leaders should do the same. In considering the prospect of investigations, Broder concludes with this hypothetical flourish: "if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

"Is that where we want to go? I don't think so."

Hold a president responsible if he has broken the law? Unthinkable – much better to just tear up the Convention Against Torture.