So also do I have doubts about this ...
which (IMO) is unfortunate. Just as to Wilf, war is war is war; to me, armed conflict is armed conflict is armed conflict in the legal sense. To cast the Laws of War and SROEs in terms of "self-defense" is (IMO) totally nuts - except insofar as a nation is concerned (UN Art. 51).from Danny
...I have doubts that they ever will again ...
Once a nation is attacked in an armed conflict (thereby triggering Art. 51 rights), the traditional Laws of War should apply. That does not mean that you should kill everything in the woods, but enemy[*] combatants should be fair game until they surrender.
What SCOTUS will do with this developing problem will depend on what the Executive and Legislative branches do with it.
--------------
[*] Defining "who the enemy is" is the key to any logical solution. In the case of non-State actors that is not easy - consider drafting an appropriate authorization to use armed force against Nicki and his "gang".
Looks like an armed conflict to me (100 KIA per week - e.g., MSNBC today). It also looks like a loosely networked "insurgency" - thus, the drafting and characterization problem.
Bookmarks