Scott Lucas on BBC Radio 5 Live: "Can Torture Ever Be Justified?"

I'm on air right now with the BBC Radio 5 Breakfast phone-in on torture: not sure what will come out of this, but the outcome will be up later on BBC's website.

The Dilemmas of Non-Violent Demonstration: Jalal Ahmed and the Luton Protest

A British citizen Jalal Ahmed, who was working as baggage handler at Luton Airport, took part in a demonstration against the war on Iraq on Tuesday. During the Royal Anglian Regiment’s homecoming parade, he was brandishing a sign saying “Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra.”

Two days after the demonstration, his employer, Menzies Aviation, stated that they had revoked his airside pass, and he could not work with them until a full investigation was complete.

Some argue that the decision was correct , as a person with extremist views should not be working as an employee loading luggage onto conveyor belts into aircraft holds. Others insist that anyone who takes part in a non-violent demonstration cannot be treated as a potential terrorist without any proof, even though the decision taken might produce temporary consequences.

What are you thinking about this situation? Do you consider the situation as a deadlock or is there an answer to the problem?

What if Jalal Ahmed decides to cooperate with terrorists and helped them pass the bomb in a luggage into a plane? Do you think that most people will feel much safer if we can employ someone else who has not participated in any kind of demonstration?

On the other hand, what if life became unbearable for Ahmed in his country?  How "safe" is Jalal Ahmed if he loses his job without any proof linking his non-violent demonstration with an illegal organization?

I am an advocate of Jalal Ahmed's actions, simply posing questions. Are we going to deprive a human being of his livelihood, even as he is innocent of any specific crime, and maintain the presumpton that a protestor is more likely to be manipulated by terrorists rather than, say, an employee who has not participated in a demonstration?

Mr Obama's War: Taliban at the Gates

CNN has a dramatic headline this morning: "Taliban Poised at the Gates of Kabul". The story is based on interviews with two very different sources, a Taliban leader and a Kabul police commander.

It's an atmosphere piece rather than a consideration of latest developments, but the conclusion is still significant in its focus on the local rather than on plans for the US military:

Coalition forces have no choice by to keep rooting for Kabul's cops. By the end of the year, NATO will hand over much of the responsibility for securing the capital to the city's police force. And that will be a crucial test to see if this city and this country can stand on its own, even with the Taliban standing at the gate.

The Freeman Case and US Foreign Policy: Don't Say "Israel". Or "Lobby".

Two days after the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council, primarily because of his views on the Middle East and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, the unspeakable is being spoken:

Was it the "Israel lobby" that bumped him off?

And as breath-taking as that question might appear, even more breath-taking are the evasions to tuck that question back in a box in a very dark place.

To be fair, both The New York Times and The Washington Post offer consideration of the reasons for Freeman's demise. In the Times, Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper assert, "Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post" while Walter Pincus in the Post notes "a debate over whether powerful pro-Israel lobbying interests are exercising outsize influence over who serves in the Obama administration".

Even in these stories, there is some tiptoeing. Pincus, for example, says, "a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes" against Freeman. Anyone paying even cursory attention to blogs, Internet chatter, and the pages of key journals like the Weekly Standard and The New Republic from mid-February, just before Freeman's nomination was public, knows that this was a very large handful.

Pincus also offers the official disclaimer of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that it "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," before letting us in on the open secret: AIPPAC spokesman Josh Block "responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him".

If Pincus was being direct, he would note that this was precisely the strategy of the Dump Freeman campaign: if AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobbyists were seen as openly sabotaging the nominee, they would have been accused of political intervention. Instead, with "private" bloggers and editorial-page scribblers cherry-picking from Freeman's career, notably his 1999 e-mail on Tiananmen Square, distorting his remarks about the Middle East, and on occasion labelling one of his supporters as a "pederast", the Congressmen who eventually took Freeman down could see they were merely reflecting the legitimate concerns of individual constituents.

Mazzetti and Cooper are much better in reporting the developments without hesitation:

The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

On the Middle East, Mr. Rosen wrote, Mr. Freeman’s views are “what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry,” rather than from someone who would become essentially the government’s top intelligence analyst....

Pro-Israel groups weighed in with lower-ranking White House officials. The Zionist Organization of America sent out an “action alert” urging members to ask Congress for an investigation of Mr. Freeman’s “past and current activities on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

Unfortunately, such revelations raise the uncomfortable prospect that any Government nominee holding views that are unacceptable to staunch supporters of Israeli policy will be blacklisted. So some of the gatekeepers of Washington knowledge are furiously trying to sweep the story away.

Foreign Policy blogger David Rothkopf, motivated primarily by hatred of Stephen Walt, the leading proponent of the "Israel Lobby" thesis, snaps:

My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States.

Walt made no such implication in his analysis, which we posted earlier today. There was no reference to "dual loyalties", with its insinuation of un-American activity; rather, Walt contended that those opposing Freeman equated US interests with "unconditional support" of Tel Aviv. This, he argued, would cause "further erosion in America’s position in the Middle East, and more troubles for Israel as well" (an argument that Freeman has also made).

Of course, one can challenge Walt's contention that a detachment of US policy from its current backing of Israel would be beneficial to American interests. This, however, is not the aim of Rothkopf's distortion. It is a double distraction, both from meaningful consideration of the attack politics in the Freeman case and from a wider analysis of the US-Israeli relationship.

Still, for chutzpah, Rothkopf is outdone by his Foreign Policy colleague, Dan Drezner. Drezner flees from reality by making up motives for Freeman: "He was not all that eager to re-enter government life." To be blunt, Chaz wasn't tough enough; in fact, he wasn't even as tough as a girl: "If Hillary Clinton had been in the same situation as Freeman, there's no way in hell that she withdraws her name."

So there you have it. No need to worry that this incident, with all its real (rather than Rothkopf-ian) implications for US foreign policy and intelligence, has anything to do with the manoeuvrings of those opposed to any interrogation of the American position on Israel.

It's all down to Stephen Walt's lack of scruples and Charles Freeman's lack of cojones.

Meanwhile in Pakistan: 11 Killed in Drone Attack

A Pakistani official says 11 people in northwest Pakistan have been killed by a missile fired from a US drone aircraft. Six others were wounded.