Abu Omar is broke, and emailing people for help.

Omar is a suspected al Qaeda operative who in 2003 was kidnapped off a street in Milan, Italy by CIA agents and secretly flown to Cairo for a hard interrogation by Egyptian security forces, overseen by a CIA official.

Now free but physically broken -- he has shown his wounds to visiting reporters -- Omar took to the Internet from Egypt last week and began e-mailing human rights organizations, the United Nations and bloggers who have written about his case, asking for financial help with bringing his family together.

I received mine last Saturday, June 21, having written extensively about the case.

In the battle for public opinion on torture, Joe Navarro doesn't stand a chance against Jack Bauer.

The hero of the Fox action series "24," now entering its seventh season, seems to have cast a spell over the country -- including high level Pentagon, CIA and White House officials who continue to insist that torture works, despite all evidence to the contrary.

People, it's fiction!

Joe Navarro, on the other hand, is the real deal, an FBI counterterrorism veteran who's gone mano-a-mano in prison cells with many a bad guy.

"There are a lot of people that think that torture and pushing people around and just being nasty gets the work done," Navarro said during an almost completely ignored seminar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week

"I assure you, I have never had anybody confess to me who said, well, I decided to confess to you because you treated me like crap. It just doesn't happen that way."

Another tough hombre on the panel, Ken Robinson, who spent 20 years in black ops with the Army Rangers, Special Forces, CIA and NSA, said bluntly: "It doesn't work."

Why do so many people think it does?

Nobody seemed to notice that ElBaradei said Saturday Iran would need only six months to a year to produce a nuclear weapon if it broke off talks and expelled IAEA inspectors. 

This seems like a huge shift: ElBaradei has consistently said that it could take Iran from three to eight years to make a weapon. Or sometimes, demurring on personal estimates but seeking to knock down the more inflammatory statements by some Bush administration figures, ElBaradei took refuge in the softer estimates on Iran by U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell and Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte. In October, for example, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Iran was "a few years" away from a bomb.   

Of course, last fall's controversial National Intelligence Estimate. also gave ElBaradei cover to throw cold water on the hawks' itching for an attack on Iran.   

But now it looks like ElBaradei's gone off the reservation. By the sound of last Saturday's interview, he's pulled much closer to what Israel is saying about the immediacy of the Iranian threat. 

Here's what he said on Al-Arabiya, the Saudi-owned station based in Dubai:

ELBaradei: "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty], expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least -- "

Interviewer: "How much time would it need?"

ElBaradei: "It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up onemorning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon."

Six months is a lot better than a week, or overnight. But what happened to the eight-years estimated lag?

The interviewer seemed shocked by the sudden evaporation of seven years in ElBaradei's thinking, too. 

Interviewer: "Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months..."

ElBaradei: "Or one year, at least --"

Interviewer: "-- to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

ElBaradei: "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon." [...]

What's going on here?

My guess is that the IAEA chief may well be sick of recent Iranian behavior and wanted to send a message to Tehran (while cautioning Washington that Iran has the wherewithal to respond with fire).  

But the English-language media missed the first part.

In retrospect, ElBaradei's toughening -- if that's what it is -- should not come as such a surprise: Last month's IAEA report, after all, was tougher than previous ones, with a complaint that Iran was holding back on the inspectors.

ElBaradei, the most patient of diplomats, may be running out of patience with Iran.