by Travis Normand
* * * *
After I read this article, my first thought was to say that Mr. Scahill apparently doesn’t understand how the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) works as his argument seems to center around the idea of “proportionality.” However, for all I know, he may understand the LOAC better than most.
Either way, I still think he would have been better served by making a different argument. For example, arguing that “drone strikes are disproportional in the specific situations discussed,” would make a lot more sense.
Another argument he could have made would be that the drone strikes are not taking place within an armed conflict, and the current conflict and its field of battle don’t extend to where the strikes are taking place.
So, whats the point of this? The point is that I did not start this blog to lecture to anyone. I have plenty to learn when it comes to the LOAC, and I have no reason to pretend to be an authority on the subject (especially with so many scholars already out there). The point of this blog is to be a resource for those who want to learn and explore the LOAC further. Hopefully I can flush out some details and arguments, while also learning something along the way. The article by Jeremy Scahill demonstrated a discussion of LOAC principles being held outside of a LOAC construct. This blog will try its best to bring these discussions back into the fold, and get them into the proper confines . . . where they belong.