That was sloppy of me wasn't it. Sorry about that.
I was in a rush to post before I went to class (I was still late, BTW) and that link wouldn't allow you to cut and paste, so I had to type it all out. I skimmed till I found the part I needed and typed it; looks like I should have skimmed down a bit further. It wasn't intentional, but that is no excuse. I was effectively taking Liddy out of context. Again, sorry about that. It was a mistake on my part.
Still, it doesn't change anything...
Again, for reference,
here is the full quote...
DIAMOND was our counterdemonstration plan. At the time, we still expected the convention to be held in San Diego. I repeated my objections to the site, then pointed out that the best technique for dealing with a mob had been worked out years before by the famed Texas Rangers. They were so few that law enforcement types still tell the story of the town that telegraphed Ranger headquarters for help is supressing a riot and were startled to see a solitary Ranger ride into town. "There's only one of you?!" they cried, and the Ranger replied quietly, "There's only one riot, ain't there?"
The Texas Ranger technique was to linger on the fringes of the disturbance, watching until they could identify the leaders, then work their way through the crowd to leaders and beat the hell out of them until, leaderless, the rioters became easy to disperse.
I pointed out that we would be dealing with skilled and determined urban guerrillas who had been distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention, including homemade bombs; that the Sports Arena area would be impossible to hold against a wel-led mob attack; and that I proposed to emulate the Texas Rangers by identifying the leaders through intelligence before the attack got under way, kidnap them, drug them, and hold them in Mexico until after the convention was over, then release them unharmed and still wondering what happened. Leaderless, the attack would be further disrupted by faked assembly orders and messages, and if it ever did get off the ground it would be much easier to repel. The sudden disappearances, which I labeled on the chart in the original German, Nacht und Nebel (”Night and Fog”), would strike fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas. The chart labeled the team slated to carry out the night and fog plan as a “Special Action Group” and, when John Mitchell asked, “What’s that?” and expressed doubt that it could perform as I had explained, I grew impatient.
Here is the definition of terrorism I cited in
this post:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Here is what I wrote in post
#28 of
this thread:
For it to be terrorism, two things have to be in place:
- The act has to be aimed at coercion, and
- The act has to actually have taken place
Here is the Department Of Defense definition of terrorism that you cited in post
#30 of that same thread:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological, also antiterrorism; counterterrorism (FM 1‑02)
And here is why Liddy's actions never met any of those definitions:
- Liddy never committed any of the actions in question.
- None of the planned actions was aimed at coercion or intimidation. That was an added benifit that he acknowledged in the book and used to sell the plan, but the obvious purpose was to neutralize the mob by removing it's leadership and effectively removing the head of the inpromptu organization. The intention was not to intimidate, but to neutralize.
- Liddy's plan was never aimed at the government or society in general (or in any way causing political change). It's scope was very limited to the potential rioters and their leaders. It was aimed at security.
- Liddy was working for the government. While his actions may have gone beyond the scope of power of the executive branch, they were aimed at countering potential rioters who were likely to use terrorist tactics at the convention. If anything, counterterrorism might be more accurate (but not by much), but not terrorism.
So, striking fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas - Liddy's term (who were innocent, they wanted to protest at the convention, not a crime at all, they hadn't been convicted, or even officially accused of anything, Liddy was taking a preemptive action).
They were
innocent?!
They were urban
guerrillas who were
distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention specifically (including homemade bombs). The government has an
obligation to work to stop any threat like that. This is the protection of the general population from would-be terrorists. You have
no reason to assume that they simply "wanted to protest the convention", but you do have the fact that they were distributing those manuals specifically promoting targeting the convention with violence, which you are ignoring.
Oh, and in case you wondered Nacht und Nebel was a Nazi directive in WWII - "The order stated that any underground resistance activities against the Reich carried out in Western Europe would be punished in the most severe ways."
Hitler's purpose in issuing this decree was stated by Keitel in a covering letter, dated 12th December, 1941, to be as follows: Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany.
Read up. You are making a rather obvious ad hitlerum fallacious argument, by implication.
Odd that Liddy used this term for his plan as well... As the 'innocent' families and friends of the 'innocent' kidnap victims wouldn't know their fate they would have been subject to 'efficient and enduring intimidation'. Just as I had stated earlier Shag...
Again, these potential kidnap "victims" were not innocent, except in the legal sense of the word, which is clearly not the definition appropriate to use in this situation or the definition that I was using in post #33.
I said "
innocents"; plural. The legal definition does not apply to that, as it is ment on an individual basis and is only applicable in a court room. I was using it in a broad sense. The definition that fits with that term is
this one:
harmless in effect or intention
You are equating...
