it's kinda confusing trying to figure out which cases are actually being talked about here for some reason.
here are a couple henderson rulings from jan. 2008 that bear directly on these questions of torture and person-ness.
in a very general sense, what i see happening here is a bush appointee paying back the administration who appointed her.
but there may be newer cases.
these two do outline the logic however:
rasul et. al. vs. rumsfeld
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5209a.pdf
national military institute v. department of defense
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...1/06-5242a.pdf
the upshot of these cases, if i understand them correctly (and i'm not a lawyer) is more about whether it is possible to sue either bush administration officials or the defense department in general for the effects of regulations instituted under their watch which condoned torture.
the ruling is itself in a straight line with the reactionary politics that informed the regulations in the first place, so they're not really a surprise.
bush administration court appointments: gifts that keep on giving....
but it looks like the main question here is really whether and how individuals within the government can be held accountable (same for the dept of defense)....looked at from that viewpoint, that other government appointees would argue in the way they did, not so much on the basis of the consequences insofar as torture was concerned but in order to prevent suits being filed against government appointees...then i don't see the "same as the old boss" line making any sense...mostly because it seems to me to be talking about the wrong thing.
again, i'm not sure whether these are delayed reactions to these rulings of if there was another based on them done this past week by the same judge.
but it's something to chew on.