It's not "if" there will be a torture investigation in Congress, it's how and when it happens.

From the always excellent reporting of Sam Stein:

The central debate dominating discussions of a possible investigation into torture by the Bush administration seems to have shifted sharply in the past few days: from whether such an investigation should take place, to now what form it will have when it comes.

If investigations actually do go forward, there seem to be three clear options: creating an independent commission, launching a congressional probe, or having the Department of Justice tackle the topic, likely by appointing a special prosecutor.

Each form has its champions, its benefits and shortcomings. Of the three, the Obama White House -- which still prefers no investigation at all -- is the least enthusiastic about Congress handling the matter. The president has said that if an investigation were to happen, he wanted it done in an independent and non-partisan matter by people above reproach -- qualities sometimes tough to come by in Congress.

That said, on Thursday morning, Sen. Claire McCaskill told MSNBC that she was "sure there will be some form of investigation in Congress." She said she could not make the same value judgments about the other two forms of investigation.

Let's hope Senator McCaskill is right. The Missouri Democrat is one of those sometimes centrists so if the idea is settled with her, it must be a widely held view that there will be an investigation.

And, there should be. It is, after all, only the reputation of the United States that is a stake. Those who advocated and allowed torture must face consequences.