Operation Northwoods Proves That The US May Be Capable Of Endorsing Or Committing Terrorism

"My opponent would like to use the legal definitions of terrorism as oppose to common definitions."Right, because the DoD's official definition of terrorism is not also the common definition of terrorism for all US military operations. "This proposal is a simulated use of violence to inculcate fear to coerce & intimidate both our government and society in pursuit of goals both political and ideology."You're forgetting that Northwoods proposals are lawful. There is no evidence or legal precedence to suggest that a US President could not order a fake terrorist attack if it is within the security interests of the United States.In the case of Operation Northwoods, the purpose was to help provide political cover for preventative military action in Cuba. You'll remember that during the Cold War, Cuba was a well-known ally and a dangerous proxy state of the Soviet Union. "My opponents makes an attempt at downgrading this proposal to a "pretend terror campaign" and "faking some woundings."As far we can tell, Operation Northwoods presented 9 different proposals that the Pentagon could consider for gaining political support for military action in Cuba, none of which involved killing US citizens on US soil - which is the whole point of PRO's argument. "The proposal reads specifically as follows:"We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)."Cubans. Not Americans.Sinking a boat is also not unlawful killing if not lives are targeted or lost."We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees un the US even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."Again. Cubans, not Americans."Important note here; staging does not negate the fact that riots near the base will be genuine. Just to give some context here, this is referring to turning a peaceful protest into a riot by staging instigation."Important note here; the US government has never proposed an unlawful military attack on US citizens on US soil. Operations Northwoods proposals, despite being ethical questionable to some, were also swiftly rejected by the Kennedy administration and never left the drawing board."[Operations Northwoods] emphasizes just what lengths our military intelligence felt able and willing to go in order to "inculcate fear and coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political"The use of military force by any country; including lawful declarations of war also attempt to "inculcate fear and coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political."Operations Northwoods proposals however, again, were legal, and cannot be considered terrorism."The US government is capable. To embrace the notion that they are simply incapable is naive."Really, so when was the last time on TV you saw a US president -or any head of state for that matter- come out and publicly endorse or thank secretive (aka black ops) missions by 007, Jack Ryan, and Jason Borne?It is usually political suicide for any government official to officially acknowledge their classified military operations."Irrelevant (Posse Comitatus Act)." Not irrelevant. The Posse Camitatus Act declares that only by an overt (aka public) act by Congress can the US President legally deploy US forces against US citizens on US soil.The Posse Comitatus Act therefore greatly limits the government's ability to become a police-state. "I suggest to my opponent that the proposals were, in fact, proposals to commit terrorism against American citizens. You may define it as lawful terrorism, or unlawful terrorism. I propose it is terrorism, nonetheless."If the proposals were lawful, then they cannot be considered terrorism. None of Operations Northwoods proposals however, involved harming US citizens on US soil. Each operation was also planned as a "fake" (not actual) terrorist attack to be blamed on the Cuban government so that the US might take preventative action against the Soviet advances in the Western Hemisphere. These proposal's however, again, were ultimately rejected by the Kennedy administration and never left the drawing board.The US government has no history of endorsing or undertaking illegal terrorist activity against US citizens on US soil. PRO's resolution is easily negated.