This has been a brewing controversy for several years, because military psychologists are sent in to ensure that "detainees" aren't driven insane. The profession has been in turmoil about this for some time.

One would hope that these people realize that if they make case notes during interrogations using torture that they leave themselves open to prosecution for "medical experiments" that violate statutory law. Not that anyone is ever likely to be prosecuted under US torture or war crimes statutes (unless they're foreigners).

It makes sense to keep Gates at Defense. Replacing Bush with Obama is already changing horses. Replacing Gates would be like trying to change both horses and saddles in midstream. Institutional memory is important at Defense, especially during active conflicts, because people's lives depend on it. When Gates took over, Rumsfeld was kept on as a consultant for some time afterwards.

Gates has been both competent and professional in his office. That's a pretty low bar that Rumsfeld set where mere competence and professionalism makes for an outstanding SecDef, but after Rumsfeld, Porky Pig would have seemed competent and professional.

On another appointment note, it appears that Clinton may be constitutionally ineligible for Secretary of State:

Article I, Section Six :

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Since cabinet secretaries' salaries were raised last year, this would seem to make Clinton ineligible. It would also make Kerry ineligible.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/is_clinton_barred_from_state_j.php

It is universally recognized as a matter of presidential rhetoric that the language Obama deliberately and repeatedly used regarding Iran -- "unacceptable" and "will do everything in my power" -- is a declaration that war is justified and will be pursued in the event that X occurs.

So, as I suspected, Obama hasn't made a "promise to bomb Iran rather than let them proliferate", otherwise you would have provided a link to the broadcast and the transcript. This is something that you have inferred from "universally recognized rhetoric". In view of the other thread you have running don't you think you should correct "promised" to "implied"? There is a difference in nuance.

So who knew that, through "universally recognized presidential rhetoric", Bush declared war on Israel in 2001 when Sharon found Bush's statements "unacceptable" and Bush found Sharon's statements "unacceptable" right back:

US President George Bush branded the comments unacceptable. But Mr Sharon made it clear that Israel would ignore international diplomatic pressure. And just hours later Israeli troops invaded Palestinian areas in the West Bank.

ARIEL SHARON: Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism.

ARI FLEISCHER: The President believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States. President Bush is an especially close ally. The United States has been and will continue to work very hard to secure peace in the Middle East, to press the parties to end the violence and return to a political dialogue.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s384081.htm

This was actually an interesting little contretemps and shows the power of the US presidency vis-à-vis Israel: After the Israeli invasion of the West Bank, Bush called for an immediate withdrawal by Israel. Sharon replied to the effect that he would withdraw when he was damn good and ready. Bush's response was, well, just be sure that you do. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1614561.stm

It may be that Obama will think he'll need Congressional approval to do it (and his answer to Question #2 on Charlie Savage's invaluable questionnaire back in January, though containing some wiggle room, suggests you're right about that -- http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/), but that is secondary to the fact that Obama has made clear he believes war is justified against Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon if all other options fail.

He hasn't made it clear through anything that I've seen. "Unacceptable" is simply a diplomatic term of art. Here he isn't even sworn in yet and you are already labeling him a war criminal who advocates aggressive preventive war based on the way you interpret things that he has said, while ignoring things he has said like:

Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with — that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long."

(Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)