Have people actually read the "torture" memos they are so quick to condemn?

I have had a similar reaction to that of Victoria Toensing as to whether critics of the "torture" memoranda have actually bothered to read either the memoranda or the applicable law. Most of the poseurs who preen in their self righteous fury against enhanced interrogation techniques never seem to bother refuting the memoranda's arguments or show how the EITs specifically violate US law.

Instead, as Ms. Toensing says, the "Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos." They seem to take the position that they know torture when they see it and they don't need no stinkin' law to support their position. Anyone who objects to their position is an unamerican, Nazi who condones torture that destroys the high moral standing of the USA in the world. As with most arguments of this character, they add a great deal of heat, but no light.

It seems to me that everyone should take a deep breath and actually look at the memos and the law. But, hey, what do I know; I'm only a lawyer like Ms. Toensing.

Furthermore, in looking at the law, one must remember the constitutional requirement that criminal law be strictly construed so as to give adequate notice of conduct subject to criminal sanction. Some of the applicable law may be too vague to meet this constitutional requirement.