It was interesting to me when I started reading the memos which are public, that each one starts out with the words "You have asked for our office's views...". For example the first paragraph of a January 22, 2002 OLC memo from Bybee and Yoo to Gonzales, consel to WH states and Haynes, counsel to DoD:

You have asked for our Office's views concerning the effect of international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by US Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan. In Particular, you have asked whether certain treaties forming part of the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial of members of al Qaeda and the Taliban militia. We conclude that these treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda [...] We further conclude that the President has sufficient grounds to find that these treaties do not protect members of the Taliban [...] This memorandum expresses no view as to [Presidential decisions on policy...].

Would these questions from the White House be considered "leading" questions? [Not a lawyer]If they are. it might indicate there was some co-ordination of effort.

Here's the synopsis of Propublica:

This memo, RE: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, finds that hardly any laws apply. If the detainees are held at Gitmo and tried by military commissions, the memo explains, POW status and other protections of the Geneva Convention from torture or inhumane treatment won't apply, and the U.S. personnel overseeing their detention couldn't be prosecuted for war crimes in U.S. courts.

http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos

That's funny...no laws seem to apply to Bush Adminstration officials either. hmmmm

Thanks for the answer.

What do you think about RMP's question?

thomas c said:

Although the implications of their arguments are inescapable, they have not acknowledged the uncomfortable, incongruous and alarming consequences of their argument, and I think there is some advantage to be gained if they are made to expressly concede that they've advocated placing U.S. officials beyond any earthly laws.

To some people, nothing they believe can be incongruous with anything else they believe, and so, not uncomfortable or alarming. They "compartmentalize".

From an interview by John Dean with Bob Altemeyer, who studies Right Wing Authoritarianism [emphasis added]:

One of the traits of right-wing authoritarian followers is highly compartmentalized thinking. That means many of their ideas remain largely unconnected, as though they were stored in separate boxes. Beliefs and attitudes and behaviors that contradict each other coexist because they're never "in play" at the same time. This leads authoritarians to inconsistency, self-blindness, double standards, and hypocrisy--as research has uncovered time after time.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070406.html

From chapter 3 of his book, The Authoritarians [Emphasis added]:

“[…] But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and- -to top it all off- -a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a would-be dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said, “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf

These two paragraghs remind me of every conversation I've ever had with a Bush-and-the-Cheney-Gang supporter.

Do you think the Administration felt it might not get the 90 days from the Judge, so they made a deal for 30 with the ACLU? I really don't know how this stuff works.

Thanks for taking the time to tell me about your thinking on that. It sounds like a reasonable possibility.

Sorry I got you into that...it's just difficult to "wait and see", sometimes. Don't spend any more time on it for my sake. ;-)

You were really on a roll there...I wonder how long we could make that list?

is a giant who smells the "blood of an Englishman"...

That was the funniest thing I had read in a while...but it often seems that most thought-paths about these people lead me back to "The Authoritarians", by Bob Altemeyer. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

That report was the subject of a strictly worded request today from Congressmen Durbin and Whitehouse. I can't believe it was begun in 2003[4?], and only just recently was a draft report issued. Sheesh.

Report Request, Durbin/Whitehouse to OPR chief Jarrett, 2/16/09 http://whitehouse.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=F4DAA699-1BE7-4872-8156-311688ABF7B2

Earlier in the thread Jeffrey Kaye linked to a post he worte about the evolution of the present AFM and another one mostly about Appendix M of the AFM. These two essays are informative about what it means when Obama says everyone will follow the AFM for interrogations.

Two short excerpts, but I recommend reading the entire posts.

http://www.alternet.org/story/122341/how_the_press,_the_pentagon,_and_even_human_rights_groups_sold_us_an_army_field_manual_that_(still)_sanctions_torture/?page=entire

If this is not solitary confinement for the purposes of breaking a prisoner down for interrogation, then the English language has lost all purpose in explaining things.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/how_the_u.s._army's_field_manual_codified_torture_--_and_still_does/?page=entire

Buried in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual, the Guantanamo virus is spreading, and eradicating it will require all of us to spread the word.

Haven't read the comments yet, but I just can't wait to say

WOW!, Mayor...that was beautifully done!

but, people might be interested in this talk at Berkley [on youtube] by Elizabeth Warren, who teaches contract law, bankruptcy and commercial law at Harvard Law School.

The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=channel

It's an hour long, and I'm not trying to detract from the conversation here, but imo it's worth a listen sometime, when/if you get the chance. [link at sig.]

"At what point does a "news" organizations deliberate deceits become actionable fraud?

-- Robobagpiper

Probably about the same time as the government’s WMD deceits. Maybe there should be a class action law suit [is that the correct term?] called:

The American People v. The Corpornment.