If the government does it it is a war crime, not terrorism.
For some reason, "We're not terrorists, we're war criminals!" was not used as a campaign slogan this time around. I can't figure out why.
But in any event, it depends on your definition, with the same country sometimes having conflicting definitions. For example, Title 22 of the United States Code states that terrorism is committed by "subnational groups or clandestine agents". Now why on earth would the United States want a definition of terrorism that specifies that it is performed by "subnational groups"? Can anyone think of a reason? But in any event, it looks like the lawmakers dropped the ball with the "clandestine agents" part - the United States can (and has) used clandestine agents to commit premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets, thereby satisfying all the other requirements of the Title 22 definition. Such inexcusable incompetence on the part of the lawmakers, no?
This is not the only definition the US has; it also has a Title 18 definition which does not exclude national groups. Whatever were they thinking?
Let's ask Edward Peck, United States Chief of Mission to Iraq during the Carter administration and also United States ambassador to Mauritania, who did some work for Ronald Reagan.
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress [passed] U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331 ... the US definition of terrorism. […] one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
This dangerous anti-American criminal is still alive. Justice has not yet been served.
William Odom was a three-star general in the American army, and the director of the NSA during the Reagan administration. Here's what he had to say.
As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.
This dangerous anti-American criminal escaped justice, having died of a heart attack in 2008.
However, we can use your preferred nomenclature, and refer to "war crimes" rather than "terrorism".
Presidents who haven't violated international law are few and far between.
The electorate never seemed to care.
Many members of the electorate do not care, and why should they?
They are not the victims of war crimes, foreigners are. As long as they get theirs, why should they care how many thousands of foreigners are slaughtered?
But Clinton never was president, the president makes the decisions and bares the moral responsibility.
I think you meant "bears", as the president does not "bare" the moral responsibility; he rather tries to hide the moral responsibility, which is the opposite of baring it.
But, the Second Halcyon Dayz Principle above must bring warmth to the hearts of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The United States government itself seems to take a somewhat different view of the situation, having once attempted to prosecute Usama bin Ladn's chauffeur for terrorism. The prosecution failed, but not because the law was declared invalid; rather, it was an ex post facto law, passed by the US congress after Mr. bin Ladn's associate had stopped providing his chauffeuring services. Usama bin Ladn's
next chauffeur, however, should he ever be captured and tried by the United States, may find "I'm just a driver, it's my boss you want!" does not save his neck. In fact, there are people in prison for 65 years in the United States for donating money to charities registered as tax-exempt organisations; despite this seal of approval from the US government itself, they were found to be conduits to some organisations in Palestine that were so nefarious the US government actually supported them with funds. So the US government does not seem to accept the Second Halcyon Dayz Principle. They even forgot to let all the other Nazis go when Adolf Hitler blew his brains out.
But, if someone serves as a high government official in a president's administration, plans, recommends, and supports operations including war crimes, even though they are exonerated by the Second Halcyon Dayz Principle, they must be careful - they must not actually
vote for the president in whose administration they are serving. If they do, then they are endorsing the war crimes, according to the First Halcyon Dayz Principle:
Candidates are a package deal.
If you vote for a candidate who advocates bigotry for other reasons than their bigotry you are still endorsing the bigotry.
You didn't find the bigotry objectionable enough to not vote for it, you are fine with people who don't happen to be middle class white heterosexual males being discriminated against as long as you get yours.
So it is acceptable to plan, organise, and support war crimes in a president's organisation - you're completely clean, as long as you don't actually
vote for that president.
Or do I misunderstand the First Principle as applying to war crimes, when it really only applies to bigotry?
