5 ms·

> Which US military intelligence offices were those? I don't recall anything of that sort from the 9/11 Commission report. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-

> Which US military intelligence offices were those? I don't recall anything of that sort from the 9/11 Commission report. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cia-lost-office-in-wtc/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cia-lost-office-in-wtc/

_djo_ 3y ago
The CIA is not the US military, so saying the towers 'had US military intelligence offices as well' is not an accurate statement. Further, a tiny office with a handful of intelligence personnel would not make the entire facility a legitimate target.
- skulk 3y ago
  > The CIA is not the US military. This distinction would be laughed at by a terrorist as pure sophistry.
  - _djo_ 3y ago
    How is that relevant, and why would we care about how a terrorist would view it? By definition they're intentionally targeting civilians rather than military targets anyway. Where the distinction matters is both in terms of international law and the comment I replied to calling it a 'US military intelligence office'.
    - skulk 3y ago
      Why are terrorists bound by these international laws when the CIA clearly isn't?
      - _djo_ 3y ago
        Is that a serious question? There’s nothing illegal in terms of international law for the CIA to have had a small office in the WTC towers.
        Thiez 3y ago
        The CIA has toppled foreign governments, for instance that of Iran. If you don't want to count them as part of the US military, what should the rest of the world call them instead? Terrorists?
        _djo_ 3y ago
        The question wasn’t about whether the CIA were the ‘good guys’, nor did I claim anything like that. As an organisation they done horrible things and seldom been held accountable. The question is whether the phrase ‘US military’ includes the CIA and, secondarily, whether a small CIA office in the WTC towers would’ve made them a legitimate target in international law. For both of those the answer is ‘no’. First, the CIA is a civilian intelligence agency and so not considered part of the military. It doesn’t fall under the military hierarchy, and it does not report to either the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary of Defence. In the same way the Russian SVR and FSB are not military institutions either, for what it’s worth. Second, for the WTC towers to have been a legitimate target they would’ve had to have met the standards of “nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”, be justified by immediate military necessity, and be proportional in terms of the harm caused to civilians or civilian property. None of that was true in the case of the WTC towers, even with a small CIA office inside one of them. I genuinely don’t understand why this is a controversial point.

_djo_ 3y ago

The CIA is not the US military, so saying the towers 'had US military intelligence offices as well' is not an accurate statement. Further, a tiny office with a handful of intelligence personnel would not make the entire facility a legitimate target.

skulk 3y ago
> The CIA is not the US military. This distinction would be laughed at by a terrorist as pure sophistry.
- _djo_ 3y ago
  How is that relevant, and why would we care about how a terrorist would view it? By definition they're intentionally targeting civilians rather than military targets anyway. Where the distinction matters is both in terms of international law and the comment I replied to calling it a 'US military intelligence office'.
  - skulk 3y ago
    Why are terrorists bound by these international laws when the CIA clearly isn't?
    - _djo_ 3y ago
      Is that a serious question? There’s nothing illegal in terms of international law for the CIA to have had a small office in the WTC towers.
      - Thiez 3y ago
        The CIA has toppled foreign governments, for instance that of Iran. If you don't want to count them as part of the US military, what should the rest of the world call them instead? Terrorists?
        _djo_ 3y ago
        The question wasn’t about whether the CIA were the ‘good guys’, nor did I claim anything like that. As an organisation they done horrible things and seldom been held accountable. The question is whether the phrase ‘US military’ includes the CIA and, secondarily, whether a small CIA office in the WTC towers would’ve made them a legitimate target in international law. For both of those the answer is ‘no’. First, the CIA is a civilian intelligence agency and so not considered part of the military. It doesn’t fall under the military hierarchy, and it does not report to either the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary of Defence. In the same way the Russian SVR and FSB are not military institutions either, for what it’s worth. Second, for the WTC towers to have been a legitimate target they would’ve had to have met the standards of “nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”, be justified by immediate military necessity, and be proportional in terms of the harm caused to civilians or civilian property. None of that was true in the case of the WTC towers, even with a small CIA office inside one of them. I genuinely don’t understand why this is a controversial point.