Yesterday, the Brookings Institution and National Security Network hosted a panel on Human Rights in Iran to mark the release of a new report, Placing Human Rights in Iran on top of the Foreign Policy Agenda.

Published by The Century Foundation and the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, the report is the second to be generated from a series of meetings with Iranian democracy activists, with the goal of better understanding the current state of Iran’s democracy movement, the nature and extent of political repression in Iran, and to develop ways in which democratic governments can best help the movement overcome that repression. The first report was discussed at a Center for American Progress event in April.

One of the panelists yesterday was Mojtaba Vahedi, a close aide of 2009 Iranian presidential candidate and Green movement leader Mehdi Karroubi.

Through an interpreter, Vahedi discussed some of the details of the abuse endured by protesters detained during the June 2009 election demonstrations, which included “placing 145 people in a room of 70 square meters for three days” at Kahrizak detention center. At one point during that time, according to Vahedi, 25 violent prisoners — murderers and rapists — were put into the room. “Many of the rapes that occurred happened this way,” Vahedi said. “After 16 months, not one person has been held accountable.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei eventually admitted that crimes were committed at Kahrizak, but insisted they were trivial when compared to “the injustice that some did to the regime” by protesting the election.

Calling on the Obama administration to take a stronger stand in favor of Iranian human rights, report co-author Geneive Abdo said that, unlike the nuclear issue, around which there is fairly strong support in Iran, “human rights is a subject that can really turn public opinion against the regime.” There’s also evidence that criticism on this front is a sensitive issue for the regime, Abdo said, as it strikes at the core of their claim to be a just Islamic government.

Asked about Western talk of military action against Iran, Vahedi said that such an eventuality “is not in the picture for us,” something not even being considered. “As an Iranian, I don’t like talk of military strikes on my country,” Vahedi said, and “if pressure [against the regime] is applied intelligently, there will be no need for it.”

Back in May, formerly imprisoned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji was adamant that talk of a U.S. military option was harmful to the cause of Iranian democracy. “If you do not have the threat of foreign invasion and you do not use the dialog of invasion and military intervention, the society itself has a huge potential to oppose and potentially topple the theocratic system,” Ganji said. “What I’m trying to get to is that jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”

Looking at the idea that we must “keep force on the table” with regard to Iran, Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch recently wrote “If the administration is really having an internal debate about whether to put the military option openly on the table, I hope that they quickly and firmly resolve it in the negative.”

It would not increase U.S. bargaining leverage over Iran. It would undermine the international consensus on sanctions for which they have worked so hard. It would almost certainly kill any prospect for the meaningful diplomatic process which is so badly needed. And it would represent the next step in the seemingly inexorable ratcheting process towards an unnecessary and counterproductive war. This would be yet another of those painfully predictable victories of narrowly-conceived tactics over realistic strategy. It may offer momentary satisfaction to U.S. domestic hawks and earn a few fleeting moments of praise, but at the expense of real U.S. strategic interests. Let’s not go there.

A couple weeks ago, I reported that the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was urging Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to apologize for and stop running a race-baiting anti-immigrant attack ad on his opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that contained offensive ethnic stereotypes. “We found the ad to be totally abhorrent and shocking, and I’m going to use the ‘R’ word and say racist,” Darlene Kattan of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana told a local news station.

In a debate last night, Vitter was asked to respond to the allegations. Rather than apologizing, Vitter affirmed, “I stand by the ad.” According to him, the images in it aren’t a “stereotype,” but rather, “a fact”:

MODERATOR: Do you offer them an apology or do you stand by the ad?

VITTER: We have an illegal immigration problem and a huge part of that is the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Ninety seven percent of our apprehensions of illegals is at the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Over 80 percent of the 12-15 million illegals in this country have come through that border from Mexico and South American countries. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Now there’s one thing in that ad that is offensive and that is Mister Melancon’s votes that the ad highlights. [...]

MODERATOR: How do you respond to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Charities, the Archdiocese of New Orleans who say that this ad played into offensive racial stereotypes?

VITTER: Let me just ask you, what is the stereotype?

MODERATOR:They’re talking about the images seen in your ad.

VITTER: Is it a stereotype that folks coming across the border — that is a problem and they look like that? Dennis that is a fact, that is not a stereotype! Let’s get our heads out of the sand!

Watch it:

It’s interesting that Vitter avoided taking the Sharron Angle route of denying that the negative images in the ad are necessarily Latinos. Instead, he readily admits that there’s a connection between the two. Yet, Vitter’s ad isn’t a “fact,” it’s a racist parody of Latin culture. His implication that the running image of goofy Latino men who sneak through a hole in a fence with a giant neon welcome sign and then run off with a check from the government is somehow representative of people from Mexico and South America says a lot about how Vitter perceives reality.

It also shows just how disconnected the Senator is from the immigration issue. While it is true that many undocumented immigrants are from Latin America, most of them don’t look anything like the caricatures shown in the ad. Their journey to the U.S. is plagued by the threat of violence, kidnapping, rape, and death. When they arrive, they’re not greeted with a welcome sign and a check. Instead, many of them work below the minimum wage for abusive employers in towns where their presence is resented and in states that are driving them out. Meanwhile, all undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving major federal federal benefits.

About two dozen New Orleans-area community leaders called on Vitter to apologize and remove the ad, including representatives of African-American, Latino and Vietnamese groups and Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans.

In a sane world, the malfunction of a squadron of ICBMs would cause great alarm at the instability of the US maintaining so many irrelevant nuclear missiles on a hair trigger alert. After all, the Cold War ended 20 years ago and the US has no peer nuclear threat. Yet, in the current reality-warped world of tea-party gripped America, the mechanical failure of a squadron of ICBMs has actually prompted demands for more nuclear weapons.

Last week, a mechanical failure caused the Air Force to lose control of 50 ICBMs. This is not the first incident of its kind; a few years ago a B-52 flew across the country with “hot” nuclear weapons aboard, unbeknownst to the pilots and crew. Also, throughout the nuclear age there have been a number of mechanical and human errors that have almost led to absolute catastrophe, making a nuclear accident in many ways a greater and more likely danger than nuclear war.

Yet, as Marc Ambinder reported, to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the malfunction is actually a reason not to pass the New START treaty:

If new START had been in place on Sunday, we would have immediately been below an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies. Before ratifying this treaty, the Senate must ensure we modernize our own nuclear weapons and strengthen our national security.

Honestly, what is Barrasso talking about? The notion that the US was left exposed by this failure is laughable. Does Barrasso seriously think that having only 375-400 ICBMs ready to roll instead of 450 would have put the US below “an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies.” And what enemies is Barrasso talking about? Iran? China? Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear weapon yet and China has about 300 nuclear weapons total (compared to our roughly 2,000). Perhaps he is talking about Russia. But does he not realize the Cold War ended a long time ago, and does he really think that Russia would suddenly launch a first strike? It’s absurd.

Furthermore, Lt. General Dirk Jameson said that the interruption had “no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces to carry out their deterrent mission.” And if the modest reductions contained in the New START treaty had already taken place when this incident happened it would have made zero difference. Joe Cirinicione of the Ploughshares Fund explained that the incident shows that we have significant overkill capabilities:

Even with the 50 missiles off-alert, we still had 400 nuclear missiles each armed with a warhead twenty times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima ready to launch in 15 minutes, plus 1,500 hydrogen bombs on submarines and bombers.

Really, Barrasso is just talking nonsense. He is, after all, from an ICBM state and wants to keep the nuclear pork flowing; Obama is for New START, therefore Barrasso thinks he must be against it. But his comments also just demonstrate how untethered from actual reality the far right in the Senate has become. As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said this week:

There are those in America that are trying to flex their muscles and pretend they’re ballsy by saying, ‘we’ve got to keep those nuclear weapons… [They think] that’s very rugged, when you say that. It’s not rugged at all. It’s an idiot that says that. It’s stupid to say that.