Edge of the Financial Cliff
Title 18 of the U.S. Code:
[T]he term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”
The Code of Federal Regulations on terrorism:
…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives
The D.o.D. definition of terrorism:
…the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.
Let’s play pretend. You are a lawyer. Read the above legal standards. Can you tell me if the United States commits or is complicit in terrorism abroad?
(Hint: Gunrunner Scandal, Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Oil-for-Food Programme, Gulf War, Iran Contra Scandal, bombings of Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Panama, Kuwait, Lebanon, Grenada, Cambodia, El Salvador, The Congo, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and Bosnia [among others], Vietnam War, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, all of the ruthless dictators installed/supported by the U.S., etc.)
What makes us different?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Isn't that the Gov just providing for the common defence?
One might argue. But to wage a war on terrorism while engaging in the exact same tactics abroad is unacceptable, and in many cases unconstitutional. I think it is fair to say that something is only constitutional when it does not conflict with any other constitutional provisions, not merely that it is acceptable under one. Right?