In 1995, scufundatorul american Scott Cassel se afla pe plaja californiana din laguna San Ignacio, dupa o zi de filmat balene. Langa focul ce incerca sa alunge racoarea serii, cei doi mexicani ce-l insoteau, incepand sa depene amintiri legate de pescuit, au ajuns la un subiect ce l-a facut pe Scott sa devina  atent...

Devorator de oameni

Dosidicus gigas este numele stiintific al calmarului gigant, supranumit „demonul rosu” sau calmarul lui Humboldt. Unul dintre mexicani isi amintea ca intr-o noapte, cu cativa ani in urma, se intorcea impreuna cu tatal sau de la pescuit, cand au observat in apropierea tarmului o barca a altui pescar, aparent goala. Lucru straniu, deoarece stiau ca nici un pescar nu-si abandoneaza vreodata vasul. Totusi, intr-adevar, nimeni nu se afla la bord. Doar o multime de calmari in agonie.

Deodata, la lumina lanternelor, au observat un amanunt socant: pe marginile barcii erau cateva unghii umane rupte si urme de sange, in mod cert de la maini care se zbatusera sa se prinda de un punct de sprijin. Urmele unei lupte! Singurul scenariu plauzibil pe care l-au putut reconstitui pornea de la capturarea unui calmar urias (cele mai mari exemplare cantaresc in jur de 100 de kilograme!), care l-a ranit grav pe nefericitul om. Incercand sa traga in barca animalul, barbatul probabil cazuse in apa si „demonul rosu” il tarase in adancuri, pentru a-l sfasia si a-l devora, impreuna cu alti congeneri.

Aventura in bratele mortii

Scott a crezut si nu prea povestea. Totusi, pentru el era o provocare deosebita si, cum fostul militar nu se temea de eventualii monstri ai marii, a abandonat balenele si s-a deplasat la cateva sute de kilometri mai spre sud, intr-un alt port californian, La Paz. Acolo a inchiriat o barca de pescuit, si-a pus echipamentul de scufundare, a luat camera video subacvatica si a plonjat. In cateva minute, era inconjurat de o intreaga familie de calmari la fel de mari ca el.

Unul dinte acestia i-a smuls camera din maini, apoi i-a aruncat-o in plina figura; altul si-a incolacit tentaculele cu ventuze pe bratul sau, anesteziindu-i instantaneu umarul; un al treilea s-a indreptat catre fata lui, moment in care s-a simtit tras in jos, brusc. Intr-o clipa, banda octopodelor l-a impins la 20 de metri adancime, parca pregatindu-se de festin. Temerarul aventurier nu a inteles niciodata ce miracol a facut ca bestiile sa dispara la fel de rapid cum aparusera. Abia ajuns din nou in barca, a observat ca echipamentul sau fusese transformat in zdrente. Totusi, ramasese fascinat de ceea ce vazuse acolo, jos.

Canibalul cu 72.000 de dinti

Calmarul lui Humboldt nu e o faptura terifianta, pentru cercetatori, ci mai degraba interesanta. El face parte din familia cefalopodelor (e un fel de var al... melcilor), care a aparut acum 500 milioane de ani si s-a adaptat conditiilor din toate marile globului. Pana in prezent, s-au identificat peste 700 de specii, dimensiunile lor variind intre 15 milimetri si mai mult de 20 metri (Architeutis). Toti au un cap inzestrat cu ochi evoluati, comparabili cu cei umani, care le permit sa vada la distanta si in intuneric, nu insa si sa distinga culorile.

Creierul este suficient de mare, pentru a le da si o anume inteligenta. Deosebit de interesante sunt tentaculele: opt, scurte si doua mult mai lungi, specializate in capturarea prazii, dar si in „imbratisarile” din perioada imperecherii. Pe ele se afla nu mai putin de 2000 de ventuze, fiecare avand cate 36 de dinti dispusi circular. Un dispozitiv perfect de sfasiat. De altfel, calmarul are si faima proasta de canibal: daca vreunul din grup este ranit, ceilalti il sfasie si il mananca imediat.

La fel de interesant este si sistemul de propulsie subacvatica – un sifon cu ajutorul caruia trimite apa in sensul opus deplasarii, putand ajunge astfel la 25 km/ora, adica de trei ori viteza unui inotator de performanta. Desi se cunosc multe despre acest animal, care in cei doar 2 ani de viata poate ajunge la dimensiuni incredibile, el ramane inca un mister al lumii vii. Suficient de „seducator”, dar nu chiar atat incat vreun om sa-si doreasca imbratisarea celor 8 plus 2 tentacule si „sarutul” ventuzelor dotate cu „numai” 72.000 de dinti...

ADRIAN-NICOLAE POPESCU - magazin.ro

When Tenet exclaimed "It's a slam dunk case!" it was in the context of the case to be made to the public.

In the memoir, Bush himself recalls having declared: "Surely we can do a better job of explaining the evidence against Saddam."

Bush writes in the memoir: "No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn't find weapons of mass destruction. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

But as David Corn also points out Bush famously treated the missing WMDs like a big joke at a March 2004 press dinner. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said as he narrated a slideshow of pictures of him looking out his window and under his furniture.

And Bush of course never actually tells us who he's angry at, or what exactly sickened him. He's certainly not willing to say that he was angry at himself, or that going to war was a sickening mistake.

LAUER: Was there ever any consideration of apologizing to the American people?

BUSH: I mean, apologizing would basically say the decision was a wrong decision, and I don't believe it was a wrong decision.

In fact, despite everything, Bush continues to indulge in the same unfounded rhetoric to this day"For all the difficulties that followed, America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD and supporting terror at the heart of the Middle East," he writes.

And the cherry-picking of the intelligence continues, as well. As Walter Pincus wrote on Monday (in a story the Washington Post buried on page A29), the book "makes selective use" of a Jan. 27, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council by chief inspector Hans Blix, "citing elements that support the idea that Hussein was not cooperating and leaving out parts that indicate his government was. More to the point, however, Bush fails to mention two subsequent Blix pre-invasion reports in February and early March, weeks before U.S. bombs struck Baghdad. Those show Iraq cooperating with inspectors and the inspectors finding no significant evidence that Hussein was hiding WMD programs."

George W. Bush was no reluctant warrior. The U.S. went to war in Iraq because he wanted to. The war he launched was arguably an illegal act of aggression. And the costs have been enormous.

The United States has spent $750 billion and counting on the war in Iraq. More than 4,400 members of the U.S. armed forces have perished, with nearly 32,000 wounded in action, and somewhere in the ballpark of 500,000 more suffering from brain injuries, mental health problems, hearing damage and disease. Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated to number at least 100,000 andmore than a million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes.

Bush told Lauer it was worth it: "I will say, definitely, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, as are 25 million people who now have a chance to live in freedom."

But author Nir Rosen recently addressed Bush's claim:

Certainly the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are not better off. Their families aren't better off. The tens of thousands of Iraqi men who languished in American and subsequently Iraqi gulags are not better off. The children who lost their fathers aren't better off. The millions of Iraqis who lost their homes, hundreds of thousands of refugees in the region, are not better off. So there's no mathematical calculation you can make to determine who's better off and who's not.....

Saddam Hussein is gone, that's true. The regime we've put in place is certainly more representative, but it's brutal and authoritarian. Torture is routine and systematic. Corruption is also routine and systematic. There are no services to speak of, no real electricity or water. Violence remains very high. So, there's nothing to be proud of in this. The Iraqi people deserve much better, and they're the real victims of Bush's war.

In what was perhaps the single most preposterous assertion of his book tour, Bush seemed to suggest to Lauer that he was actually against going to war:

LAUER: So by the time you gave the order to start military operations in Iraq, did you personally have any doubt, any shred of doubt, about that intelligence?

 

BUSH: No, I didn't. I really didn't.

LAUER: Not everybody thought you should go to war, though. There were dissenters.

BUSH: Of course there were.

LAUER: Did you filter them out?

BUSH: I was -- I was a dissenting voice. I didn't wanna use force.

For the nation's journalists to allow this outrageous lie to go uncontested is particularly galling. During the run-up to war, one of the elite media's most common excuses for marginalizing or ignoring the true voices of dissension and doubt was that everyone knew an invasion was a foregone conclusion.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

Progresele realizate de medicina in ultimul secol au permis omenirii sa invinga o serie intreaga de maladii. Exista totusi boli teoretic „eradicate” de decenii, dar luand inca milioane de vieti. Una dintre ele e malaria, careia ii cad zilnic victime mii de oameni. Ar putea fi invinsa aceasta boala, transmisa de tantarul anofel, tot cu ajutorul tantarilor?

 Raspunsul pe care il dau geneticienii la aceasta intrebare este un „Da” categoric. Pentru ca genetica „facatoare de minuni” este pe cale sa mai faca una, in ceea ce priveste transformarea temutului tantar anofel intr-o insecta inofensiva, al carui principal defect va ramane, poate, bazaitul... Metamorfoza are loc, deocamdata, doar experimental, intr-un laborator al Universitatii Michigan, unde entomologistii Vladimir Kokoza si Alexander Raikhel incearca de doi ani realizarea unei specii de tantari modificata genetic, care sa actioneze ca un „cal troian” pentru semenii lor, distrugandu-i.

Aceasta optiune este considerata viabila, in conditiile in care cu toate miliardele de litri de pesticide imprastiate pretutindeni in lume, diversele specii de tantari care transmit malaria, frigurile galbene, febra Nilului si alte boli mortale, rapun anual aproape 3 milioane de oameni.

O sabie cu doua taisuri?

Daca insa, in alte parti tantarii sunt vanati fara crutare, in laboratorul din Michigan ei beneficiaza de o grija deosebita, fiind feriti de intemperii si pradatori, ba chiar cercetatorii le ofera propriul lor sange drept gustare... Si toate astea pentru ca studiul tantarilor de aici poate oferi cheia eradicarii acestei plagi ce ameninta omenirea de mii de ani.

Kokoza si Raikhel cred ca pot transforma tantarii din vectori ai bolilor in luptatori impotriva acestora. Cercetatorii au reusit deja sa stopeze abilitatea tantarilor de a transmite infectii, prin imbunatatirea sistemului imunitar al liliputanelor insecte, pentru ca acestea sa poata ucide agentii patogeni care ii paraziteaza. Modificand o gena a tantarilor respectivi, insectele pot recunoaste o gama larga de microbi, inclusiv temutul Plasmodium falciparum, care transmite malaria, si ii pot distruge.

Pentru a fi mai usor de identificat, tantarilor li s-au modificat si genele ce determina forma si culoarea ochilor, care au devenit mai mari si... rosii! Imbucurator este faptul ca gena modificata pe cale artificiala este dominanta, transmitandu-se si urmasilor tantarilor de laborator, chiar celor proveniti din incrucisarea cu tantari „salbatici”. „In cativa ani s-ar putea ca tantarii modificati genetic sa devina dominanti in salbaticie si incapabili de a mai transmite boli infectioase”, spune Raikhel.

 Si totusi, metoda nu este lipsita de riscuri, pentru ca, asa cum s-a intamplat in multe cazuri similare, lucrurile pot scapa de sub control. Unul dintre scenarii ar fi ca solutia sa fie eficienta doar temporar iar tantarii salbatici sa prevaleze iarasi, pentru ca, dupa cum apreciaza entomologul Andrew Spielman, de la Harvard School of Public Health, „exista riscul ca tantarii transgenici sa sufere ei insisi alte mutatii, pe cale naturala, si sa devina astfel mai periculosi”.

GABRIEL TUDOR - magazin.ro

The result back then was that instead of watchdog journalism, what we got was credulous, stenographic recitation of the administration's deeply flawed arguments for war. Or, as formerWashington Post executive editor Len Downie told Howard Kurtz in 2004: In retrospect, "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale."

Today's journalists would like to think they have learned some lessons from their poor pre-war conduct. But letting Bush get away now with saying the exact opposite of what they knew to be true even at the time -- and what has since been amply confirmed by the historical record -- would be yet another major victory of stenography over accountability.

The Embrace Of Torture

That torture is even a subject of debate today is a testament to the devastating effect the Bush administration has had on our concept of morality.

And in his book and on his book tour, far from hanging his head in shame, Bush is more explicit and enthusiastic than ever before endorsing one of torture's iconic forms. "Damn right," he quotes himself as saying in response to a CIA request to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. "Had we captured more al Qaeda operatives with significant intelligence value, I would have used the program for them as well."

Bush's two-part argument is simple; That waterboarding was legal (i.e., that it was not really torture); and that it worked.

But neither assertion is remotely true.

Waterboarding -- essentially controlled drowning -- involves immobilizing someone and pouring water over their mouth and nose in a way that makes them choke. It causes great physical and mental suffering, but leaves no marks.

It's not new; villains and despots have been using it extract confessions for something like 700 years. The CIA just perfected it.

It is self-evidently, almost definitionally, torture. The U.S. government had always considered it torture. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer who waterboarded an American with war crimes. It is flatly a violation of international torture conventions.

And as far as I know, no American government official had ever even suggested it wasn't torture until a small handful of lawyers in Bush's supine Justice Department, working under orders from the vice president, claimed otherwise.

These lawyers drafted a series of memos so lacking in legal merit -- and so cruel and inhuman -- that they were retracted and repudiated even by a later wave of Bush appointees.

The original "torture memo" from August 1, 2002, for instance, argued that to "rise to the level of torture" an act had to cause pain "equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Anything short of that, according to the memo, was OK.

Lauer asked Bush in their interview why he thought waterboarding was legal.

"Because the lawyer said it was legal," Bush replied. "He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer, but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do."

When Lauer raised the possibility that Bush's lawyers had simply told him what they knew he wanted to hear, Bush vaguely denied it and suggested that his book might shed more light on the topic. But it doesn't, at least not much. In it, Bush writes:

Department of Justice and CIA lawyers conducted a careful legal review. They concluded that the enhanced interrogation program complied with the Constitution an all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.

I took a look at the list of techniques. There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did not lasting harm.

I knew that an interrogation program this sensitive and controversial would one day become public. When it did, we would open ourselves up to criticism that America had compromised our moral values. I would have preferred that we get the information another way. But the choice between security and values was real. Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take. My most solemn responsibility as president was to protect the country. I approved the use of the interrogation techniques.

But the choice between security and values was not real. And this is exactly the reason we have laws: To prevent people from doing what they may for some reason think at the moment is a good idea, but which society has determined is wrong. No man is above the law. And "the lawyer said it was legal" is not a sufficient excuse.

As for the claim that torture worked, Bush writes in the book:

Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded. The information the detainees revealed constituted more than half of what the CIA knew about al-Qaeda. Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.

But the only thing we know for sure is that detainees who were tortured made elaborate confessions. That, after all, is what torture is good for. We don't know how much valuable information they really provided. We don't know how much of that information came before they were tortured, rather than after. We certainly don't know how much information they would have shared under proven, standard interrogation techniques.

And under close inspection by investigative journalists, every one of Bush's specific assertions about torture having saved lives has been thoroughly debunked.

The first detainee waterboarded directly on Bush's orders was Abu Zubaydah, in August 2002.

During his presidency, Bush repeatedly used Zubaydah as his Exhibit A for torture. In the book, Bush describes him as a "senior recruiter and operator" and "trusted associate of Osama bin Laden."

After CIA interrogators strapped Zubaydah to the waterboard and suffocated him 83 times in a month, he broke down. Bush writes:

Zubaydah revealed large amounts of information on al Qaeda's structure and operations. He also provided leads that helped reveal the location of Ramzi bin al Shibh, the logistical planner of the 9/11 attacks. The Pakistani police picked him upon the first anniversary of 9/11.

In the book, Bush did not, as he had on several occasions during his presidency, give Zubaydah credit for identifying bin al Shibh as a terror suspect in the first place. That particular claim was undercut by the fact that, some four months before Zubaydah was captured, an FBI indictment detailed bin al Shibh's alleged involvement in the 9/11 plot.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

Nu de putine ori, se vorbeste despre intuitia feminina la modul anecdotic, daca nu chiar de-a dreptul ironic. Ce poate sa insume aceasta sintagma? Un fel de al saselea simt, un har la impartirea caruia barbatii au fost discriminati ori poate o calitate absolut naturala? Un raspuns la asemenea dileme „existentiale”, cel mai bine il poate oferi stiinta bazata pe argumente practice, concrete.

 Un fel de magie

Iar cercetarile facute in acest sens in SUA nu numai ca au confirmat existenta a ceea ce putem numi intuitie feminina, ci au relevat si detalii de domeniul senzationalului, ale acesteia. Evident, fortam acum putin nota, dar sa pornim de la o observatie nu prea luata in considerare si deseori chiar neluata in serios: majoritatea covarsitoare a persoanelor care se ocupa de domeniul ocult al ghicitului, al magiei, sunt femei. Cercetatorii americani nu s-au aplecat insa asupra acestor practici foarte dificil de patruns, ci au recurs la un studiu cat se poate de... lumesc. Astfel, au remarcat ca femeile care cauta sa stabileasca o relatie pe termen lung cu un partener prefera barbatii care iubesc copiii.

Nu in modul cel mai banal, punandu-i intrebari mai mult sau mai putin directe, ci folosindu-se de capacitatea de a distinge la ei calitatea respectiva, doar privindu-le fata. „Studiul indica faptul ca femeile disting caracteristici faciale ce se pare ca sunt legate de calitati paterne”, explica psihologul James Roney, de la universitatea din California. „Cu cat ele constata ca un barbat iubeste mai mult copiii, cu atat au tendinta sa stabileasca o relatie de durata cu el.”

„Cobai” pentru studente

Potrivit expertilor, evolutia omului a dotat femeile cu capacitatea de a-i recunoaste pe barbatii doritori sa perpetueze specia intemeindu-si o familie. Studiul amintit, realizat la universitatea din Chicago, a implicat un grup de 39 de barbati tineri, intre 18 si 33 de ani. Fiecaruia i s-au aratat cate zece perechi de fotografii cu persoane reprezentand una un adult si cealalta un sugar si s-a cerut sa arate pe care o prefera.

In acelasi timp, li s-a analizat saliva, pentru determinarea nivelului de testosteron. Apoi, fotografii cu fetele „cobailor” au fost prezentate la 29 de studente de 18 pana la 20 de ani, de la universitatea din Santa Barbara. Tinerelor li s-a cerut sa-i evalueze pe barbati dupa patru criterii: iubeste copiii, are masculinitate, este seducator fizic si e dragut. De asemenea, trebuia sa indice pe care dintre ei i-ar prefera, pentru o relatie scurta sau de durata. Pe ansamblu, studiul a aratat ca femeile au intuit corect care barbati iubeau cel mai mult copiii, iar cei catalogati drept masculini aveau un nivel de testosteron mai ridicat decat ceilalti.

Barbatul – o carte mereu deschisa

Foarte interesant este ca barbatii cu masculinitate mai ridicata au fost considerati de femei drept potentiali parteneri doar pentru o idila de scurta durata, in timp ce aceia atasati de copii au fost preferati pentru o relatie pe termen lung. S-a observat ca principalele caracteristici ale masculinitatii sunt maxilarele puternice si barba stufoasa. In schimb, nu e clar ce detaliu fizic face ca o femeie sa creada ca un barbat iubeste copiii.

O ipoteza a cercetatorilor ar fi ca e vorba despre o fata mai rotunda si mai blanda; alta se refera la anumite expresii faciale. Un „supliment” al studiului a solicitat cinci studente pentru a-i nota pe barbati pe o scara de la 1 la 7, indicand astfel daca acestia aveau un aer suparat sau mai degraba fericit. Concluzia a fost ca cei atrasi de copii aveau o privire mai fericita, mai satisfacuta. „Femeile stiu foarte bine sa foloseasca toate informatiile pe care le pot «citi» pe fata unui barbat. In functie de ceea ce doresc si de perioada vietii prin care trec, ele se folosesc de informatiile respective in mod diferit.” Un adevar etern valabil, pe care, vrand-nevrand, trebuie sa-l recunoastem ca atare!

ADRIAN-NICOLAE POPESCU - magazin.ro

But what Bush did assert in his memoir was equally untrue. Investigative journalist Ron Suskind, in his breakthrough 2006 book, "The One Percent Doctrine," reported that the key information about bin al Shibh's location came not from Zubaydah but from an al-Jazeera reporter who had interviewed bin al Shibh at his apartment in Karachi.

And Zubaydah was not a major player. According to Suskind, he was a mentally ill travel booker who under CIA torture sent investigators chasing after false leads about al Qaeda plots on American nuclear plants, water systems, shopping malls, banks and supermarkets.

Almost three years after Suskind's book came out, the Washington Post confirmed what Suskind had reported: that "not a single significant plot was foiled" as a result of Zubaydah's brutal treatment -- and that his false confessions "triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms."

Another detainee waterboarded on Bush's say-so was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who stands accused of plotting al Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

As far as I can tell, Bush has never actually made any claims about any intelligence whatsoever reaped from Nashiri's brutal treatment at the hands of CIA interrogators in Poland (who, among other things, used a power drill and a handgun to terrify him.)

The unclassified transcript of Nashiri's Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearing in 2007, while redacted to eliminate any mention of the specific ways in which he was tortured, indicates that his response was to tell interrogators whatever they wanted to hear.

Nashiri was asked about his statements about plans to bomb other American ships, about a plot to fly a plane and crash it into a ship, and about bin Laden having a nuclear bomb.

"I just said those things to make the people happy," he explained. "They were very happy when I told them those things."

And then there was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who the CIA asphyxiated 183 times after Bush so enthusiastically approved his waterboarding. Bush writes:

He disclosed plans to attack American targets with anthrax and directed us to three people involved in the al Qaeda biological weapons program. .He provided information that led to the capture of Hambali, the chief of al Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate in Southeast Asia and the architect of the Bali terrorist attacks that killed 202 people. He provided further details that led agents to Hambali's brother, who had been grooming operatives to carry out another attack inside the United States, possibly a West Coast version of 9/11 in which terrorist flew a hijacked plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

There seems to be little doubt that KSM provided intelligence of some value (along with a number of false confessions) -- although he might have done likewise (minus the false confessions) in the hands of a skilled interrogator using traditional methods.

But despite the lengths that the Bush White House, intelligence officials and various torture apologists have gone to over the past several years to help Bush make his case, there remains not the tiniest shred of evidence to support his assertion that KSM's torture -- or any other -- actually saved a single life.

As far as we know, none of the alleged plots that were allegedly disrupted was anything more than a fantasy. There is no evidence they presented an actual danger. There is not a single saved life they can point to. If they could, they would have.

The first time Bush disclosed what he alleged were thwarted terror plots was in a speech in October 2005. "Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States," he said. The White House then distributed what it called a fact sheet.

But a few days later, the Washington Post reported:

Intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the White House overstated the gravity of the plots by saying that they had been foiled, when most were far from ready to be executed....

The president made it 'sound like well-hatched plans,' said a former CIA official involved in counterterrorism during that period. 'I don't think they fall into that category.'

Similarly, in a February 2006 speech Bush offered more details about that alleged Library Tower plot. The Director of National Intelligence obligingly declassified a Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program to go along with that. But the Washington Post soon reported that "several U.S. intelligence officials played down the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush's speech to politics."

And even when the CIA last year released documents that Cheney had sworn would definitively prove that torture had "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people," those documents turned out to include no such proof -- just a lot more cover-your-ass language from the CIA.

Senator Rockefeller concluded in March 2008:

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack. And I have heard nothing that makes me think the information obtained from these techniques could not have been obtained through traditional interrogation methods used by military and law enforcement interrogators. On the other hand, I do know that coercive interrogations can lead detainees to provide false information in order to make the interrogation stop.

Bush's assertion that torture thwarted plots to attack Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf got some renewed attention earlier this month after portions of his memoir were serialized in the Times of London. The journalists across the pond, at least, pushed back a bit.

The Guardian reported:

British officials said today there was no evidence to support claims by George Bush, the former US president, that information extracted by "waterboarding" saved British lives by foiling attacks on Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf....

British counter-terrorism officials distanced themselves from Bush's claims. They said Mohammed provided "extremely valuable" information which was passed on to security and intelligence agencies, but that it mainly related to al-Qaida's structure and was not known to have been extracted through torture.

The Daily Mail reported:

Lord MacDonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, said: 'These stories about waterboarding thwarting attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow -- I've never seen anything to substantiate these claims. These claims are to be treated with a great deal of scepticism.'

Now it's true that some British intelligence officials -- notoriously close to their American colleagues -- share Bush's views. The head of Britain's MI5, for instance, actually defended the use of torture on familiar grounds last year:

Al Qaeda had indeed made plans for further attacks after 9/11: details of some of these plans came to light through the interrogation of detainees by other countries, including the US, in the period after 9/11; subsequent investigation on the ground, including in the UK, substantiated these claims. Such intelligence was of the utmost importance to the safety and security of the UK. It has saved British lives. Many attacks have been stopped as a result of effective international intelligence co-operation since 9/11.

But he offered no verifiable details, of course.

TO BE CONTINUED ...