Philip Zelikow nicely outlines the many problems with the legal argument in the May 2005 torture memos in this important post. Here's a taste:

The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.

This ought to bother conservatives as much as liberals. Jon Stewart provides a rundown of conservative pundits' response. [UPDATE: Check out in particular the bizarre gem by Peggy Noonan at the end.]