RATCHETING UP PRESSURE ON IRAN

There seems a simple solution to end the whole row about Iran arresting 15 British sailors/marines. Tony Blair should apologize. Something like, "I am sorry our marines wandered into waters considered by Iran to be their territorial area." What is so hard about that? Iran would then return the sailors.

Instead, Blair wants to ratchet up the brouhaha. Unsaid is the threat to use military force to force the marines' return and to punish Iran.

Iran arrests British sailors, so the U.K. is going to threaten military action? There is no proportionality. And if this happens, then we can expect the trigger-ready Bush and his chief war-monger Cheney to start bombing Iranian cities and civilians.

Is this all it takes to constitute a casus belli? Does this justify sending war planes and dropping cluster bombs? Where are the statesmen and wise men in Britain and the U.S. who might speak up against this silliness and prevent this coming catastrophe?

JOHN YOO VS. NEAL KATYAL ON THE NEWSHOUR

The NewsHour with Judy Woodruff had a debate tonight between John Yoo and Neal Katyal on the rationale behind the detention center at Guantanamo. Katyal was incisive, insightful, illuminating. Yoo was defensive and meandering. Scorecard: Katyal 10, Yoo 3. Katyal argued that the suspension of the protections of the Constitution was and is the main purpose of Guantanamo. Yoo's defense was that war justifies removal of the Great Writ and other constitutional guarantees. The same John Yoo who supported the Department of Justice in allowing harsh interrogation techniques and gave "legal"cover to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in using methods short of organ failure to extract "useful" information from suspects. Here is the John Yoo/DOJ definition of "torture" :

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.''