Fighting Torture...With the Law

This article is some heady lawyer stuff regarding the ACLU's attempt to hold SOMEONE accountable for the torture regime under the Alien Tort Statute. The particular case involves suing Jeppesen Dataplan for the logistical support that they provided to the government's "extraordinary rendition" policy. The suit claims that the corporation knew that the results of their actions would be a violation of the human rights of the people taken, and that their compliance with this knowledge constitutes accountability. This tactic is being taken because of the "immunity" that both the government and government contractors enjoy when acting in government functions - that is, contractors are immune if they are indistinguishable from the government in the execution of their duties. We have seen previous cases that show this precedent. This is why the contractors that actually do the torturing, for example, cannot be sued. This round-about way of attacking the torture infrastructure is legally clever, but morally ambiguous. It appears that since the actual criminals have insulated themselves from prosecution, certain groups will nibble around the perimeter and take their frustrations out on relatively innocuous targets - sort of like the 2.5 years in prison that Libby got because the real criminals could not be prosecuted. Is it right to punish Jeppesen for the crimes of the administration? I assume that the justification reads that this assault, while regrettable, will aid in the larger cause of ending the rendition program and restoring basic human rights to all people - in other words, the ends justify the means. I have criticized this approach in the past, and I still do not think that defeating terror by trodding over the corpses of the (relatively) innocent is the proper method for handling the situation. I just wish I had a better suggestion.