Yesterday, I showed how Steven Bradbury’s May 30 Memo was a failed response to Congress’ insistence that the Administration consider whether its torture program complied with the 8th Amendment. Well, that’s precisely what Philip Zelikow’s dissent was about.

When asked about his role in the Bybee One memo at the HJC hearing last year, Addington repeatedly made it clear he was answering the question ONLY as it pertained to Bybee One. I would bet the answers would be far different if he were asked about Bybee Two.

The finance press is started a new meme–that Obama gave the union Chrysler and hurt some poor little hedge funds in the process.

It’s the Moonie Times’ Eli Lake and Bill Gertz’s turn to do the pro-torture spooks’ bidding again. Pity they misrepresent a letter Silvestre Reyes writes, let Hoekstra continue to lie about briefings, and show no awareness of the appropriations process.

Here’s the quality of Bradbury’s legal work. He argues we can waterboard people because, under torture, they confess to things that prove they’re very important and scary people so we can then point to them to argue it’s okay to waterboard.

Judge Bybee doesn’t seem to know what to do to respond to Pat Leahy’s invitation to come chat.

EPIC reports that Bush didn’t keep up with its required reporting on certain kinds of surveillance activities. Sort of makes you wonder what they’re hiding, huh?

One of the reasons Jay Rockefeller wrote a narrative of the OLC memo process tied to torture was to document just how little the Administration gave a shit about what Congress had to say about the program–particularly it’s demand that the torture program comply with the Convention Against Torture.

When did John Yoo start writing the Bybee Memo? In March, 2002, after Abu Zubaydah was captured? Or just a few months after 9/11?