Search: self-defense
16 Sep John Brennan Speech on Obama Administration Antiterrorism Policies and Practices
...the conflict First, our definition of the conflict. As the President has said many times, we are at war with al-Qa’ida. In an indisputable act of aggression, al-Qa’ida attacked our nation and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people. And as we were reminded just last weekend, al-Qa’ida seeks to attack us again. Our ongoing armed conflict with al-Qa’ida stems from our right—recognized under international law—to self defense. An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to...04 Jun Targeted Killings Symposium: Jens David Ohlin Responds to Craig Martin
...(as US in Afghanistan after 2002 against the Taliban and AlQaeda and Iraq) while an NIAC would be like Yemen with consent against the AQ types or Afghanistan after Karzai had effective control consent against the Taliban and AQ. Pakistan is an NIAC in this setting though the lack of consent for the OBL raid (a very big deal for Pakistan) might be justified by the US as self-defense, but also might trigger Pakistan self-defense under Article 51. Subsequent events would not appear to have taken us over the threshold...29 Sep The Invention of the Khorasan Group and Non-Imminent Imminence
entitled to act in self-defence against “bad dudes” no matter when — or even if — those “bad dudes” might launch an armed attack against the US. This isn’t even the Bush administration’s “anticipatory self-defence.” This is, for lack of a better expression, “hypothetical self-defence.” Apparently, the US government believes it is entitled to use force against a non-state actor anywhere in the world as long as it can imagine a future state of affairs in which that actor would attack it. The mind — and international law — reels....01 Sep Syria Insta-Symposium: Marty Lederman Part I–The Constitution, the Charter, and Their Intersection
...which self-defense and protection of U.S. nationals have been the most commonly invoked; and (ii) the operation cannot be anticipated to be “sufficiently extensive in ‘nature, scope, and duration’ to constitute a ‘war’ requiring prior specific congressional approval under the Declaration of War Clause,” a standard that generally will be satisfied “only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period” (quoting from the Libya opinion). Largely for reasons explained by my colleague and Dean, Bill Treanor, I am...26 Apr The Disappointing — If Predictable — CFR Report on the ICC Review Conference
...merely listing acts that might constitute aggression without defining when those acts are unlawful. The definition does not address how claims of self-defense or humanitarian necessity affect the categorization of the use of force as aggression. This is another profoundly misleading statement. The proposed definition does, of course, permit states to use armed force in self-defense — it specifically limits “acts of aggression” to acts that constitute “a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” and Article 51 of the Charter specifically provides that states have the right...08 Feb Why I Disagree with Marty Lederman About Prosecuting Waterboarders
...the relevant law. Any other interpretation of the defense — most relevantly, that relying on an official statement made by the appropriate public officer or body is per se reasonable — renders the word “reasonable” completely superfluous. Reliance itself would be enough to invoke the defense. Differently put, the reasonableness requirement in entrapment by estoppel only makes sense if we leave open the possibility — however slight — that reliance on official advice can be unreasonable no matter how authoritative the public officer or body that issues it. Lederman, however,...02 Jun Case of the Month: United States v. Juvenile Male 1
...deny the power of Congress to legislate over Indian affairs or to curtail the scope of Indian self-government. But the Court declared that Congress had not done so in any clear fashion and thus found no congressional intent to limit Indian self-government. The Court stated that the tribes retained their right of "self-government [and] the maintenance of order and peace among their own members." Unless this power is limited by explicit legislation or surrendered by the tribe, Indian tribes retain exclusive judicial jurisdiction over reservation Indian affairs. Thus today most...