I define harbor as to give aid and comfort (comfort not in a warm and fuzzy sentimental sense, but rather in the sense that one is giving another a chance to refresh and strengthen in fortitude).
I have to confess, I don't understand your subsequent comment. I'm not very up on political jargon as I don't watch television at all...and don't read much media sources...so I don't get the references: "W H toddlers' homogeneous 'idea' pool"? What is this? :) Thanks in advance.
A perhaps silly question : does a country have to be aware of a terrorist's presence to be guilty of harboring, and thereby subject to drone strikes inside it's own sovereign boundaries ? I suspect that many countries will have a much different definition than whatever this month's W H consensus happens to be. Suppose a critically wounded terror suspect in the Algerian fiasco was transported to one of the seven bordering countries, without knowledge of that government. There are many levels, up through simple awareness, to residence, to resupply, finance, armament, and international transport. Has the W H published any guidelines on where the line is crossed in their opinion ? Have any of these been before the USSC ? Just IMHO, there appears to be a blindered, homogeneous outlook. Of course, as with any topic in this area, those folks at the W H and the alphabet agencies have information we may never see.
When U S military aircraft entered Libya in 1986, the French wanted to be so antiseptically distanced that they refused to allow the U S force to even fly over French territory.
Just me, it feels dangerous that one individual is making these decisions with what appears to be input from only one viewpoint, with no declaration of war, and not even some sort of enabling legislation or resolution.