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

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.