Sunday, August 19, 2012

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)
'It is the characterization of who we target and when – and how that determination is made – that raises serious questions of law and morality. In a nutshell: are we killing the right people?
'Effective counterterrorism requires the nation state to apply self-imposed restraint. Otherwise, violations of international law and morality are inevitable. ...
'Among the many important international law principles applicable to targeted killing, the obligation of distinction sits at the pinnacle. The notion of counterterrorism as self-defense against imminent threats of harm means that the state must know, in a detailed manner, who poses such a threat, in what circumstances, and how and when such persons can be targeted. ...'
– IntLawGrrls contributor Laurie Blank (Emory Law) and our colleague Amos Guiora (Utah Law), in their Guardian op-ed, "Targeted killing's 'flexibility' doctrine that enables US to flout the law of war." It's subtitled "The Obama administration's targeted killing program is recklessly redefining imminent threat and proportional response." Theirs is the latest on drone killings, an issue on which IntLawGrrls frequently have posted.

No comments: