Ordered or approved it, clear enough - but how about if he tolerated or condoned it? Or failed to follow up reports that indicated that torture, as defined in that Convention, was being carried out in the course of interrogation by or on behalf of miitary intelligence?

What puzzles me is how Eunsfeld can say he accepts responsibility for things that have gone wrong - and yet that he will not offer his resignation. It seems to me that "accepting responsibility" in such circumstances has to imply doing that. Otherwise I can't see how it really means anything at all.

If this had happened in the United Kingdom, I have no doubt whatever that he would have inevitably resigned. It seems these things work differently in the States. (And if Clinton had been Prime Minister there is no doubt he'd have had to go.)