Yesterday I posted a lengthy response to Gabor Rona’s critique of the Brennan speech, and Gabor has now replied to my comments. Alas, we seem to be speaking past one another in various ways (for example, I critiqued what I understood to be Gabor’s argument for a narrow domestic law interpretation of the AUMF as a matter of domestic law, and Gabor responds that I improperly focused on domestic law when it is IHL that is really in issue), and worse we may be misunderstanding one another’s positions (for example, a reader of Gabor’s response who did not read my original post almost certainly would come away thinking that I had argued for a simplistic equation of IAC and NIAC targeting concepts (as opposed to what I actually did, which was to write several paragraphs surveying the range of positions in the NIAC-specific debate on this matter)). I think it best at this point simply to refer readers back to our original arguments. I believe mine stand entirely untouched by Gabor’s reply, and I am sure he feels the same way about his.
Filed under: Al Qaeda Operations, AUMF, AUMF: Scope and Reach, Covert Action, Field of Application, International Law, International Law: LOAC, International Law: LOAC: Distinction, International Law: LOAC: Military Necessity, International Law: LOAC: Proportionality, Jus ad Bellum/UN Charter/Sovereignty, Targeted Killing, Targeted Killing: Drones