Last week, the State Department released a February 2006 memo from then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s top aide, Philip D. Zelikow, opposing the Justice Department’s authorization of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e. torture) by CIA officers questioning terrorist suspects. Zelikow concluded in the memo that the techniques DOJ authorized should be considered “‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ within the meaning of Artical 16″ of the Convention Against Torture.

Zelikow — who has previously spoken out publicly against President Bush’s torture program — will publish a “damning article” in the upcoming issue of the Houston Law Journal, Salon reports (emphasis added):

Based on published histories and his firsthand observations, and adapted from a lecture delivered in November, the article calls the administration’s rationale for its use of torture — which he nonetheless insists only on calling “extreme interrogation” and “coercive methods” — “radical,” “an amazing contention,” “untenable and extreme,” “unsustainable,” “an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment,” and, finally, simply a “mistake.” He concludes: “This was a collective failure of American public leadership, in which a number of officials and members of Congress (and staffers) of both parties played a part, endorsing a CIA program of physical coercion without any precedent in U.S. history.” In fact, “The only defense against criminal prosecution would be that officials acted in good faith reliance on the advice of their government lawyers.”

While Zelikow calls on the White House to be more forthcoming and transparent about its own counter-terrorism methods, he praises President Obama for abandoning Bush’s torture polices Noting the Obama administration’s success in combatting terrorism and al-Qaeda in general, Zelikow concludes that “[t]here is no evident correlations between intelligence success and the available of extreme interrogation methods.”

Former Republican senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum announced today that he will suspend his presidential campaign. Santorum rocketed from long-shot candidate to the only real alternative to the inevitable candidate Mitt Romney, and is currently in second place with 285 delegates to Romney’s 661.

Santorum provided endless fodder for those paying attention to the campaign, from journalists on the trail to late night talk show hosts. Santorum once proudly boasted that he’s “for income inequality,” used the trusty “water is not beer” defense in justifying his opposition to same-sex marriage, said he doesn’t want to make black peoples’ lives better, and oddly claimed gas prices caused the financial crisis.

But here at ThinkProgress Security, we will miss reporting Santorum’s extreme right-wing views on foreign policy. Here are some high(low)lights we caught from throughout the campaign:

– Santorum said his “plan,” should he become president, would be to attack Iran.

– He said attacking Iran won’t “start a war” (never mind that the initial attack would start the war).

– Apparently women aren’t capable of serving in combat because, according to Santorum, there would be “emotions that are involved.”

– The former Pennsylvania senator actually said that President Obama wants Iran to get nuclear weapons and is actively trying to help them in that endeavor.

– And apparently Obama’s best friends with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

– Santorum accused Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lying when he told the truth.

– On Obama’s order to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, Santorum said, “In many respects we’ve lost control and lost the war in Iraq.”

– Who is responsible for Osama bin Laden’s death? According to Rick Santorum, not President Obama.

– Santorum said he wanted covert operations made public (thus making them less covert).

– “All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians,” Santorum said, thereby making him a supporter of the so-called “one-state solution.”

Thanks for the memories Rick.

GOP presidential candidates and right-wing pundits are quick to push for military action against Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. But a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the American public is largely in support of Obama’s diplomacy-first strategy towards Tehran and, by a sizable margin, opposes military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The poll finds that while 84 percent of Americans believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon — a conclusion that neither U.S. intelligence nor the IAEA have yet made — 53 percent of poll respondents oppose bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities “to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Only 41 percent of respondents supported taking military action. When asked about Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, respondents offered nearly identical responses with 51 percent opposing Israeli military action and 42 percent supporting.

Indeed the widespread opposition to military action appeared to be bolstered by a belief — held by 76 percent of respondents — that if Israel attacked Iran, it would “risk starting a larger war in the Middle East.” That opinion was shared by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week when she observed that a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran at this time “is not in anyone’s interest.”

Former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan gave voice to similar views last month when he warned that bombing Iran would “ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war” and that no military attack would be able to be able to permanently halt the Iranian nuclear project. The view that military action could only delay Iran’s nuclear program, and not stop it, is also shared by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and U.S. based military analysts.

While the Post’s poll shows general opposition to military action by the U.S. or Israel, the U.S. public support the sanctions regime and diplomacy pursued by the White House. Eighty-one-percent of respondents support “direct diplomacy talks between the United States and Iran to try to resolve the situation” and 64 percent think it’s a “better idea” to “see if economic sanctions against Iran work, even if that allows more time for is nuclear program to progress.”

Top U.S. officials and the IAEA agree that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear capabilities and warn that some of their activities may have a military dimension. But the IAEA, U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran has yet made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon.

The Washington Post poll shows that Americans, by a large margin, are not yet ready to write-off diplomacy and non-military pressure to bring Iran to the neogotiating table. Last week, Panetta told the CBC that sanctions are proving effective at pressuring the Iranian government. “There is evidence that these sanctions are hurting, that it’s impacting on their economy, it’s impacting on their ability to govern themselves,” he said.

The new Post/ABC News poll results also match up with other recent polls on this issue. A poll released last month by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the University of Maryland showed Americans exhibiting strong support for the U.S. and its partners “continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran” while an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on March 5 found that Americans prefer diplomacy over military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.