Yesterday we criticized the Administration's opposition to an amendment (called a protocol) to the International Convention Against Torture.

The objective of the protocol is "to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment."

The protocol to the treaty passed late Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The United States abstained.

Allies of the U.S. such as Denmark and Costa Rica took us to task for seeking to reopen ten years of negotiations and further stall passage of the measure. Some said reopening the negotiations would kill the measure.

Was the protocol really necessary? It's a necessary start, for sure. Here's a stat: "People were tortured or ill-treated by authorities in 111 countries last year, according to an Amnesty International report."

Who else joined in our position? Nigeria and Iran (both accused of torture themselves) Japan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, India, Pakistan and Egypt.