There is no way the 'omission' of an investigation can be entertained in hoping to simply 'move on.' While I understand the USA government at the time of September 11th seemed to have every legitimacy to their plans to stop the Taliban and al Qaeda, it simply was not prudent to carry on without 'parameters' of civilization.
The torture methods were NOT any MORE effective than prior methods, hence, the 'idea' that 'anything goes' is hideous to consider. Further release of documents is not necessary. The ones that were released were done so with the understanding it settled a very viable lawsuit. Also, to consider to hide the evidence of torture gone a muck was to be as much a part of the problem as the problem itself.
To think there are other memos that need to be released for the sake of lawful disclosure is to assume that every method is at fault. That is not prudent nor is it a reliable defense to the use of torture. If susequent releases were to be allowed it would be used as a leverage to attempt to 'make innocent' those that are already guilty.
This matter is more than simply leaving Vietnam was, it delegates World Authority in regards to human rights, to 'occassion' implimentation of same when at war. The entire purpose of The Geneva Conventions is to allow countries methods of interrogation without causing damage or death to a populous that might be innocent.
To believe that every use of torture will result in the demise of the enemy is another misnomer that plagues the argument of disclosing other documents. The torture, to date, has yet to result in a stable Afghanistan or a capture or dead Osama bin Laden. So, the entire idea of conducting torture for the sake of 'breaking down' a terrorist network to admit its darkest and most loyal secrets has proven to be grossly false.
