Final Protective Fire


Links to some interesting places:
R.J.Rummel's blog
Junk Science Blog and debunking discussion forum.
Pirate Ballerina
Dave Kopel's Home Page
Volokh Conspiracy
Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit
Prof Bainbridge Blog
Clayton Cramer
David Friedman's homepage
Vodka Pundit
Tiki Lounge
Jim Dunnigan's site
Cold Fury
Karl's blog

email to finalprotfire at

Note that there is someone sending the KLEZ ( and now SOBIG.F ) virus with forged blogger emails. I will never send you email with attachments - delete any immediately.

Archives ( hard links ):
August 07
July 07
June 07
May 07
April 07
March 07
February 07
January 07
December 06
November 06
October 06
September 06
August 06
July 06
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05
March 05
February 05
January 05
December 04
November 04
October 04
September 04
August 04
July 04
June 04
May 04
April 04
March 04
February 04
January 04
December 03
November 03
October 03
September 03
September 03
August 03
July 03
June 03
May 03
April 03
March 03
February 03
January 03
December 02
November 02
October 02
September 02
August 02
July 02
June 02
May 02


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Monday, June 14, 2004

Kevin Drum gives us yet another waste of webspace with his incoherent diatribe about the Dept of Justice memo on the Convention Against Torture and US law. Drum's comments are just his usual silly content-less nonsense.

But in a failed attempt to provide content, Drum points to this posting by Froomkin purporting to be an analysis of the memo.

The simple fact is that what could be more reasonable than the Justice Dept writing an opinion on what the boundaries of coercion in interrogation are with respect to a treaty and implementing criminal statute? Drum points to Froomkin's slathering posting where we find this comment by Froomkin:
* Nowhere do the authors say “but this would be wrong”.
This silly comment informs us of Froomkin's intelligence, since the memo he's criticizing wasn't requested to discuss morality, just the applicable legal issues. A childish complaint by Froomkin.

Another example of the dishonesty of Froomkin's argument: Despite the increasingly heard right-wing complaint that the Supreme Court should not rely on the decisions of foreign courts, the Memo then turns to what other nations have said constitutes torture. Except that the "right-wing" ( grow up, Froomkin ) complaint about the Supreme Court relying on foriegn court opinions is about when the S.Ct. is interpreting our Constitution, not treaties. Stupid ass.

Mind you, there are some difficult questions posed by this issue. I think the Israelis have done a lot of difficult wrestling with their consciences on the question of what one can do to pressure what are essentially enemy war criminals into giving you needed information. Froomkin does not illuminate the moral debate at all, and his illumination of the legal debate is encrusted with his bile.