Cards on the table: I personally agree with the people who say we shouldn’t even deign to treat torture as a policy debate. I think it’s a war crime, both ethically and legislatively speaking. Furthermore, I find it alarming that Ben Carson’s polls surged after last Thursday’s debate.

But even if you wholeheartedly disagree with me, I still believe you — really, all of us — have the right to know, at the very least, where every candidate stands on the issue.

This is a reasonable request not least because, back in June, the independent publisher Melville House sent every presidential candidate a complimentary copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s damning report of the CIA’s torture practices under the previous Bush administration. Melville House did so by telling the recipients: “We hope you’ll read and share these copies with your staff and advisers, and that they will help you clarify your position on the legality, morality, and efficacy of torture.”

As you can guess, the candidate who has spoken out most aggressively against torture is a Democrat. But it’s not who you might think— not Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. Rather, it’s Martin O’Malley, who has declared the need for a special prosecutor from the Justice Department to investigate US officials who had committed torture. O’Malley insists that “there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn’t happen again.”

Here’s why a direct call for the prosecution of torturers matters greatly. By declining to advocate for such legal actions, we’re announcing our willingness to let bygones be bygones. Without any pursuit of accountability, there’s no guarantee that US officials won’t torture again with complete indemnity.

Even Obama, when pressed about the possibility of litigious measures, has consistently said he wants to look forward rather than backward.