Rule 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".

Rule 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians; this is called "self-defense", or these days "collateral damage".

Rule 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".

Rule 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.

Rule 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism"

Rule 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran"

Rule 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.

Rule 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox.

Rule 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them
Speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".

Rule 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn't democracy wonderful ?).

In a promotional clip for the interview Simpson is shown answering questions posed by an unseen woman.

"You wrote, 'I have never seen so much blood in my life'," the woman asks.

"I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson answers.

In a statement Brown's sister Denise condemned the interview. "It is unfortunate that OJ Simpson has decided to awaken a nightmare," she said, before expressing concern for Brown's two children, who are being brought up by Simpson. "We hope Ms Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialise abuse," she added.

Although Simpson was famously acquitted of the June 1994 murders, he was found to be responsible for both killings at a subsequent civil trial and was ordered to pay $33.5m to the heirs of the victims. To date he has not made any payment. A lawyer for the Goldman family said he would explore legal action should Simpson profit from the book or the interview.

Regan Books had no comment, although a recent report on the book said that Simpson's account of the murder is "so detailed and so chillingly realistic" that readers will likely draw the conclusion that he committed the murders.

Since the trial, Simpson has lived a secluded life in Florida. He recorded television interviews to mark the 10th anniversary of the killings, and to promote a reality TV show he planned to make.

The verdict in the civil case meant that Simpson has been unable to work as any income would go toward the costs awarded in the judgment. Simpson, who was a professional football player before becoming a film star, receives a pension from his sporting career which is protected from any court action.

"OJ won't get rich off this because if the money comes to him then it's subject to the civil judgment," said Laurie Levenson of Los Angeles' Loyola law school.

"OJ loves the limelight," he added. "I think he just wants to be in the headlines again."

For more than two years, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department have vigorously battled efforts to force the administration to account for the network of secret C.I.A. camps at which specially designated prisoners are hidden away. It has resisted a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that seeks the release of documents relating to prisoner policies, including the C.I.A. prisons. Government lawyers have argued that even admitting that some documents existed would endanger national security.

But when Mr. Bush announced that he was sending the 14 prisoners to Guantánamo for trial, he effectively confirmed the existence of the secret C.I.A. prisons. Later, in the debate over the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Mr. Bush said that Congress had to absolve C.I.A. agents of any legal responsibility for their actions so he could order them to go on interrogating prisoners.

That was a major blow to the C.I.A.'s legal strategy. After all, if the president could talk about the prisons and interrogations to suit his political interests, why couldn't they be discussed in court?

The Justice Department quietly reversed field after Mr. Bush's announcement, and it informed the A.C.L.U. in a letter last week that two of the documents the group has been seeking do, in fact, exist - although it is still refusing to release them.

One of those documents is a presidential order signed by Mr. Bush authorizing the C.I.A. to set up prisons outside the United States to house terrorism suspects. The other is a 2002 memo from the Justice Department outlining what sorts of "aggressive interrogation techniques" may be used against those prisoners. That phrase, we now know, is Bush administration code for acts that the rest of the world regards as abuse and even torture.

The government now has to file a detailed argument by the end of this month explaining why it believes these documents should not be made public.

Courts are sympathetic to legitimate claims of national security when it comes to intelligence and military operations. But the Bush administration has abused the courts' - and the nation's - trust in the indiscriminate way it has tried to hide its policies behind a supposed shield of national security. At the very least, it should now be much harder for government lawyers to do that.

It would be even better if the courts ultimately compelled the release of these and other documents. Americans have a right to know what standards their president has been applying to the treatment of prisoners. The nation's image is at stake, as well as the safety of every man and woman who is fighting Mr. Bush's so-called war on terror.