Thanks for bringing those links to my attention.

According to the CCRJustice report: [which I admit to not having fully read, yet]:

...there is

"New Evidence of DOD Cooperation with CIA Ghost Detention Program" [...] these documents confirm the existence of secret prisons at Bagram and in Iraq; affirm the DOD’s cooperation with the CIA’s ghost detention program; and show one case where the DOD sought to delay the release of Guantánamo prisoners who were scheduled to be sent home by a month and a half in order to avoid bad press.[...]"

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-release-documents-obtained-foia-case-relating-secret-detention

This fits in with the Taguba report, which said that:

Between August 2003 and February 2004-“The various detention facilities operated by the 800th [and 320th] MP Brigade [in Iraq] have routinely held persons [known as “ghost detainees”] brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. […] On at least one occasion, [6-8] “ghost detainees” [held] for OGAs [were] moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting ICRC survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law.” [19]

November 19, 2003- CJTF-7 issues Fragmentary Order 1108 [which] effectively made a Military Intelligence Officer, rather than a Miltary Police Officer, responsible for the MP units conducting detainee operations at [Abu Ghraib]. “This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties.” [19]

[19] The Taguba Report, 3/3/04 http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm

I hate to wreck muntaba’s rosy view of [his/her team] The Democrats, but as a Hillary supporter during the primary season, I could not discern a Democratic entity which was “generally more accepting of a variety of views [i.e.: mine] and positions [which] tend[ed] not to demonize those who [had] different ideas” AT ALL…much less “to a fault.” As a matter of fact, at that time, trying to have a conversation with an Obama supporter in a comment section felt an awful lot like trying to have a conversation with a Bush supporter in 2003.

What I found was described above by Jim White [emphasis mine]:

“[…] Now, Democrats have placed Obama into a role that appears to be headed toward the strict father model. […] the Obama "movement" is indeed far from embracing anything remotely identifying itself with the "left" and now is threatening to enforce orthodoxy with exactly the same framing as the right. […]”

There are Right Wing Authoritarian Followers along the whole political spectrum. It is not only a conservative [fascist] phenomenon. According to Bob Altemeyer, a major long time researcher of Right Wing Authoritarianism:

“High RWAs in the USSR turned out to be mainly members of the Communist Party. So psychologically [emphasis in original] they were right-wing authoritarian followers, even though we would say they were, as Communists, extreme political and economic left wingers.” [Chapter 1, note 21]

“The Authoritarians” http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

There are commenters in this thread that call Obama their “leader”. That’s not my view of how our system is supposed to work.

Jim White also said:

“[…] How did we get here? Going back to Lakoff, one thing that stands out is the "natural" move to the strict father model in times of fear. With the economic meltdown bringing fearful times to every household in a much more real way than the two Bush wars ever did, Obama has huge weapon to use in enforcing adherence to his proclamations. […]”

This morning I was listening to the recent hearings [don’t know if that’s the correct term] in the ACLU-Jeppsen case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Audio at Media for Case No. 08-15693

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000002777

The ACLU is bringing suit against a CIA contracted flight planning corporation for their clients who were renditioned to torture. The Obama Administration decided to stick with the Bush DoJ “state secrets” argument. Toward the end [@42:35], the “Government” [Executive Branch] argues that examining the disputed state secrets claims [documents] separately, as the ACLU is requesting, is dangerous, and cautions, [even seems to threaten] the Judicial Branch:

“[…] That exact approach has been rejected because, in the words of the Fourth circuit in the Sterling Case, the judges shouldn’t play with fire with this type of national security situation. […] but again, this Court’s sister circuits and this Court itself have made clear that you don’t play with fire, you don’t say let’s see…maybe let’s push this a little further, that’s precisely what is not permitted…in el Harriman this court criticized the district judge’s approach for saying well let me try to do this step by step and this court indicated that that is not appropriate. […]”

The Obama administration argument sounds pretty Right Wing Authoritarian to me.

QED

The Republican Party is more intolerant in general than the Democratic Party.

Republican right wing authoritarian leaders deliberately chose to recruit Fundamentalist Christian right-wing authoritarian followers into the ranks precisely because of their RWA-follower characteristics. Ideological orthodoxy doesn’t have to be enforced, because following [submitting to] the leader is a basic characteristic of that personality.

I was just surprised to find the [IMO] intolerance and "follow the leader mentality" so strong among Democrats, the Party with which I normally identify [for lack of a more Progressive one] during the Primary.

You're right. But also, I wanted to somehow get across exactly how uncomfortable...even frightening the whole phenomenon is to me. I don't want US to go there.

And, yes, that is odd, isn't it?

Congratulations!