I'm hardly the only one to comment on the Torture Memo , so I'm collecting a few other comments.

First, you can get the redacted version of the memo online, so go read it yourself . Warning: extreme legalese.

Phil Carter notes that the intent of the memo appears to be a cookbook on how to torture and get away with it.

Michael Froomkin , also a lawyer (which I remind you I am not) notes a number of specific mistakes in the legal reasoning used.

Demosthenes remarks that the amazing thing is not that the Executive is asserting unchecked power, but that it hasn't happened before.

Katherine at Obsidian Wings worries that this is more circumstantial evidence that the Bush administration condones torture.

Digby was shocked.

Eric Muller notes that there was a time when being a government lawyer was honorable.

(more to be added later)

Interesting to note that, so far, few of the warbloggers have weighed in on this memo. I'm interested to hear what they have to say. Is this memo an example of subordinates getting carried away? Does the President really have unlimited power in wartime? (UPDATE: One thoughtful reader did post a contrary opinion in a comment here, but in the wrong thread . Alas, I can't find an easy way to move it to the right thread. Anyway, read the response.)

I'll add other thoughtful analyses here when I run across them.