You really should disclose your links to organizations that you want to advertise for. Doing otherwise is disingenuous at best.

The author of this post repeatedly did identify himself as a member of the Amnesty; he specifically used "our" when referring to the group's upcoming video on student reactions America's use of torture.

I wrote the entry, and did say that I'm a member of Amnesty. I didn't go to the protest (I helped make the flier), but received photos -- and, as noted, was genuinely struck by the dramatic display.

This was a very powerful protest. Dershowitz struggled to justify torture "warrants" - and what was even more laughable was the way he said major organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Intl' and the UN are "wrong" about Israel.

He failed to address a pertinent question about the Right of Return for Palestinians. He said 50 years should be enough to end their claims. Right, because Zionists get a 2000 year window to make up their mind, right?

Ironic, because for those who attended his talk, you do realize that he it's true - he does have a clay head, but speaks well. Think about what he had to say - it really wasn't that well thought out.

Event Attendee: I don't think we were at the same event. The protest was confusing to most people there, and there were many people questioning what was going on, and the flyers were terrible ways to explain.

As for Dershowitz, I believe that both critics and supporters called his talk a sound argument, and he did in fact address the issue of right of return, saying both sides had to give something up.

If one must criticize, at least do it well, I mean you do go to Stanford.

To the original poster: you ought to mention that Dershowitz himself is anti-torture (even in "ticking time bomb" scenarios). He clearly and precisely stated his position at this very talk! That you criticize him without knowing his true stance is laughable.

To self-proclaimed "Event attendee": did you actually attend this event? Based on your post, you either didn't attend or are horribly misreporting what was said; both are reprehensible.

dear as -- i correctly stated his position -- he supports legalizing torture and mutilation for exceptional cases where we *know* the captive has information that *will* save lives and there's *no* other way to stop the lives from being lost (aka the time bomb scenario). if you read the links i provide in the original entry, you can read more about his position and more about why some think it's wrong-headed.