It's not often I have a bone to pick with Chris Hayes, but last night he asked an interviewee what the "legal architecture" was for our seizure of Benghazi mastermind Abu Khattala.
The answer is one best conveyed to Hayes on background: We perpetrated an act of war.
Every countermeasure in the age of asymmetrical threats falls somewhere on a continuum. At one end, there's the action the US takes when an ambassador is mugged in Paris and he's killed while his wallet's being lifted. On the other end, there's storming the beaches at Normandy.
What to make of our action Sunday in nabbing Abu Khattala? Compare it to a recent action about which no sane person has any qualms: Invading the sovereign airspace of a foreign country with combat forces, shooting a man at point-blank range, collecting his corpse and dumping it at sea. I submit that in both cases the interest of the US in the sovereignty of the target country is small compared to the objective, but minimizing the "in your face" character of the violation is in the US's interest. So even though a violation of territorial sovereignty to perform a military operation on foreign soil is generally considered an act of war, why flaunt it? Better to act as though the invaded country probably didn't really mind.
Now while Abu Khattala's way, way up there on our hit list, he ain't OBL. Which is why the rest of the world might have had more qualms had we simply plugged him and dumped his body in the Mediterranean. Which is why the world might have more qualms if he's thrown into Gitmo forever without trial. Anybody have a problem with the way we have handled this operation so far? Didn't we do, and aren't we doing, the right thing continuum-wise? Extracting him and trying him?
Here's the "legal architecture," Mr. Hayes: For muggings, we call Interpol and send over an FBI task force to help. For terrorist attacks against our diplomatic outposts in shaky counties, we acknowledge them for what they are -- acts of asymmetrical warfare in the 21st Century -- and counter them with a hybrid combination of (i) as "light" an act of war as will accomplish the objective and minimize pissing off the invaded country and (ii) subjecting the terrorist to a world-class American criminal justice system. For full-scale invasions of our allies by hostile forces, we organize coalitions, get congressional approval for action, and launch a full-scale response. Obama's nailed the proportionality here.
Otherwise, I love your work, Chris Hayes, and I'm a regular viewer.