BACK FROM REAGANVILLE

So you doubted the White House bonehead, Rummy boy, chief crony Cheney and the rest of the gang had dirty hands? You believed the use of torture on Iraqi prisoners was the low-level notion of "a few bad apples" and not the systematic plan of higher-ups? You didn't (or couldn't) believe the rule of law as we've known it is being corrupted by authoritarian zealots?

Well, The Wall Street Journal had a frontpage exclusive Monday that demolishes those pretty little myths. It began: "Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department."

WSJ reporter Jess Bravin uncovered a classified report -- drafted just two weeks before the Iraq invasion commenced -- arguing that "the president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture,"

It's too bad the WSJ is not available online except by subscription. In the second graf, the story revealed that "[t]he advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners."

The third graf continued:

The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013.

I see this morning's Washington Post (burying its acknowledgment of the Journal) has a frontpage follow that advances the story. It reveals that an even earlier memo from the Justice Department "offered justification for [the] use of torture" and was the basis for the March 2003 report. The Post's story begins:

In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.

This morning's New York Times also has a frontpage follow acknowledging the Journal. It begins:

A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The Post notes: "The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq." But read the reports and tell me if you still believe the pretty little myths.