Two Questions on LOAC
I have no desire to have the final word with Ken. But I would like answers to two questions. First, where does Melzer or the ICRC say that armed conflict is a geographically-bounded concept, such that a participant in an armed conflict ceases to be targetable as soon as he leaves the battlefield? I cited pages in Melzer’s book on targeted killing that indicate otherwise, but instead of addressing my counter-argument, Ken simply reiterated his initial claim. No cites, no quotes, no links, nothing.
Second, if we assume — as Ken and I do, and as I’m confident both Melzer and the ICRC do — that LOAC goes where the participants in armed conflict go, how does that justify targeting someone like Al-Aulaqi, who has never set foot in Afghanistan or Pakistan during the armed conflicts there and does not appear to have any operational ties to any of the participants in those conflicts? Is it enough for a terrorist to self-identify as “al-Qaeda,” regardless of geography or functional connection to Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Ken has already indicated that he will not continue the discussion. Perhaps a reader will?