Want torture accountabilty-- join the ACLU...

[TreasonousBastard]

They're big, they're bad, they sued to get the memos released, and they are still pressuring for more.

www.aclu.org-- I'm a card-carrying member, and you should be, too.

Or toss a few bucks and some volunteer time to your own favorite organization that's actually working to "hold their feet to the fire" and not just blowing off steam.

(We can only win if we are organized, and there are plenty of organizations already out there leading the charge.)

[mmonk]

1. I'm kicking this. The ACLU is fighting for constitutional protections

from tyranny even when the people are too nonchalant to stand up for their birthright.

[Political Heretic]

2. Former employee and card-carrying member!

(though there's not really a card)

Well... there is a piece of paper that you could cut out and laminate and make a card I guess but... :D

[K8-EEE]

3. I give $10 a week auto-bill! What I used to give the Catholic Church

Until I decided to stop funding the Cardinal Mahoney's evil nonsense and send to people who actually do God's work.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. But, but but, they defend NAMBLA

:evilgrin:

[TreasonousBastard]

5. NAZIs, too.

[jberryhill]

6. The ACLU Agrees That Good Faith Reliance on DOJ Opinions Is "Effective Defense"

Interesting you bring it up.

Here's an ACLU memo which, in the main, agrees with the administration that good faith reliance on the AG's opinion is an effective defense:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39060prs20090318.html

The application of the "advice of counsel" statutory defense depends on the facts of any possible charge against a particular defendant. While the OLC opinions and the statutory defense may be an effective defense for some potential defendants, the OLC opinions and the statutory defense will be less effective, or completely ineffective, for other potential defendants. In particular, persons who might not be covered by the "advice of counsel" defense include: persons who engaged in torture or abuse prior to the issuance of the OLC opinions; persons who did not rely on the OLC opinions; persons who knew the OLC opinions did not accurately reflect the law; persons who are lawyers or were trained as interrogators on applicable law; persons who acted outside the scope of the OLC opinions; or any persons who ordered the OLC opinions drafted specifically for the purpose of providing a defense. The determination of the likely effect of the statutory defense would depend on the facts of a particular instance of alleged torture and abuse.


The only difference I see between the Obama administration and the ACLU is that the ACLU memo fleshes out the definition of "good faith reliance".

Perhaps you might explain to others here why the ACLU agrees that entrapment by estoppel (i.e. relying on official interpretation) is a valid criminal defense, because a lot of DU'ers don't seem to get it.

[high density]

7. The DU outragers evidently want somebody to just go through the motions so that they can feel better

And then they'll be able to feel even more outraged when the court dismisses the case because of the reason outlined here by the ACLU.