Obama's riddle

For some reason I found myself watching today's White House Press Corps briefing, which consisted pretty much of 45 minutes of grilling about Obama's position on prosecuting war crimes. Here's the three propositions that the Obama administration appears to be clinging to:

1. The rule of law will be upheld; no one is above the law.
2. No one who carried out torture will be prosecuted if they were acting in good faith in compliance with the OLC memos.
3. The Attorney General will make all legal interpretations and prosecution decisions, independent of President Obama's influence.

So, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is saying that (1) and (2) do not contradict, because anyone who is in compliance with the OLC memos is adhering to the law. But the problem here is that this view rests on a specific legal interpretation--namely, an interpretation that says that OLC memos are as good as law, even if they're written in bad faith and egregiously incompetent. But according to (3), Eric Holder determines legal interpretations, not Obama. So it seems that Obama cannot assert (1) and (2) without contradiction unless he violates (3) by assuming a specific legal interpretation.

In other words: the Obama administration is either full of shit, doesn't know what it's saying, or both.