Search for: "Kevin Jon Heller"
Results 81 - 100
of 813
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2013, 7:45 pm
Scholars disagreed on the 9th Circuit finding, with Eugene Kontorovich and Jon Bellish agreeing with the court and Kevin Jon Heller and yours truly disagreeing. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 8:19 am
As Kevin Jon Heller pointed out on Opinio Juris: Why is the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians with chemical weapons unacceptable, but not the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians with ordinary weapons? [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 9:00 am
His post drew humor-infused support from Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Jon Heller, and Jameel Jaffer. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 7:49 am
Then I saw this: The following is the Twitter exchange that ensued—with my thanks to Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Jon Heller, and Jameel Jaffer for their good humor. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:11 am
Despite what Steve contends (citing Kevin Jon Heller here) the dropped “enterprise” language in the indictment dealt with RICO-style enterprise liability, not with Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
24 May 2013, 2:00 pm
(Although I incline at first blush to agree with Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris that setting so high a standard was a substantive mistake, in part because it is so far from the actual law of war requirements and because it is unlikely that attacks of the kind that this and future administrations will carry out could meet such a standard each and every time, even allowing for reasonable mistakes about “near certainty. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 7:46 am
I have already addressed Ohlin’s criticisms, in part, in my response to Kevin Jon Heller’s critique. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 5:09 am
This raised Kevin Jon Heller’s eyebrow. [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 1:26 pm
” It is unclear to what legal blog the authors refer (and hard to know for sure what affected OLC’s thinking)—but the timing and content suggest this Opinio Juris post by Kevin Jon Heller. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 7:01 pm
Now, Professor Kevin Jon Heller joins the conversation. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 11:24 am
Over at Opinio Juris, Julian Ku and Kevin Jon Heller also debate the holding. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 7:00 am
In writing my testimony for today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on drones and targeted killing of U.S. citizens overseas, I found myself writing a more complete explication of the essential legal rationale underlying the administration’s position on the subject than I have, to date, set down in one place. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 1:20 am
: Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict Kevin Jon Heller, ‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’: Signature Strikes and International LawSymposium: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’ for Human Rights Reparations? [read post]
16 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
Kevin Jon Heller (Univ. of Melbourne - Law) has posted The Taylor Sentencing Judgment: A Critical Analysis (Journal of International Criminal Justice, forthcoming). [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 7:12 pm
That is, like me, my correspondent reads the White Paper’s discussion of past terrorist planning not as an additional, independent basis for targeting him—as Kevin Jon Heller suggests—but as a a mode of evaluating whether or not a potential target is personally and continually planning attacks. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 4:25 am
The author of the email preferred I not make it public, but the argument was similar to one that Kevin Jon Heller has made in public. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 10:33 am
Patrick O'Donnell has gathered links to aritcles and commentary, including: Kevin Jon Heller, at Opinio Juris. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 9:26 am
But Kevin Jon Heller is quite right in his observation at Opinio Juris that, if the US government actually means its invocation of a non-international armed conflict (a position Kevin does not share, but takes by assumption arguendo), the White Paper’s discussion of imminence and capture is not relevant or is at least confused, at least as a matter of international law. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 10:45 am
As to the former, it assumes there is a global non-international armed conflict (NIAC) against al Qaeda and associated forces--a point contested by many international law scholars (see Kevin Jon Heller's indispensable posts here and here--and, contrary to the white paper, one not actually endorsed (not yet anyway) by the Supreme Court. [read post]
