Is protecting civilians pro-terror?

What did Doug Feith mean when he called the protocol on protecting civilians “law in the service of terror”?

Does anyone have a link to a copy of Douglas Feith’s National Interest “Law in the Service of Terror: The Strange Case of the Additional Protocol”? (Issue #1, Fall 1985). The title seems pretty damning (the Additional Protocol is the treaty protecting civilians, and its language appears, to a non-expert, fairly straightforward) but I’d like to know what Feith’s argument was.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

One thought on “Is protecting civilians pro-terror?”

  1. The Relevant Portions of "Law in the Service of Terror–The Strange Case of the Additional Protocol" by Douglas Feith [The National Interest, Fall 1985]

    In response to overwhelming interest (well, okay, moderately whelming interest, e.g., Matthew Yglesias and Mark Kleiman) in the 80's era legal writings of Douglas J. Feith, now famous, alas, for his many alleged follies and foibles as the Undersecretar…

Comments are closed.