Spirit of Christmas request to check ChatGPT's variance among users

quote:

---

Your prompt has a finger on the scale.

---

I am here to learn. How so, Bass?

What answer do you get of you put in that prompt? Thx

quote:

---

Spirit of Christmas request to check ChatGPT's variance among users

---

More

quote:

---

2. The 2001 AUMF's Role in Authorizing Lethal Strikes

Core Link: The administration invokes the 2001 AUMF (50 U.S.C. § 1541 note) to claim strikes against FTO-designated cartels are part of the "global war on terror." The AUMF authorizes force against 9/11 perpetrators, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces"—interpreted broadly to include any group the president "determines" aids terrorism.
Expansion to Narcoterrorists: In a March 2025 notification to Congress, the administration declared a "non-international armed conflict" (NIAC) with these cartels, labeling members "unlawful combatants" targetable under the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This mirrors the "associated forces" doctrine used for al-Shabaab or ISIS-K.

---

quote:

---

Legal Rationale: Strikes are framed as self-defense against "imminent threats" (e.g., fentanyl as a "chemical weapon" killing Americans). The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in pre-strike memos that Article II powers plus the AUMF allow lethal action against 24+ cartels posing threats.

---

how many threads are you going to start on this crying about the narcos getting turned into fish chum?

Orange Man Bad!

quote:

---

Thanks, Bug. Since it was so long a response, I will count it as two days.

---

You don't have to leave. I find self-banning and ban-betting to be counterproductive to debate.

quote:

---

Digesting it now, but it seems to say what my ChatGPT said: that the FTO designation by itself doesn't confer the lethality authorization.

---

Correct, the FTO by itself does not meet the standard.

Here’s what I got. Not sure I agree with it, but this is a copy/paste:

Short answer: No.
Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) does not by itself provide the United States with legal authority to kill all members of that organization.

Below is the breakdown of why:

?

? 1. What FTO designation actually does

Under U.S. law (Immigration and Nationality Act §219), an FTO designation mainly:
• Makes it a crime to knowingly provide “material support” to the group
• Bars members from entering the U.S.
• Allows asset freezing and financial sanctions

It is a domestic legal tool focused on criminal and financial restrictions.
It does not create a blanket authorization for lethal force.

?

? 2. When the U.S. can lawfully use lethal force

Lethal force by the U.S. military requires separate legal authority beyond FTO status. These can include:

A. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

For example:
• 2001 AUMF ? Al-Qa’ida, Taliban, and “associated forces”
• 2002 AUMF ? Iraq (still partially relied on but largely not needed now)

Under an AUMF, the U.S. may conduct armed conflict operations—including lethal force—against covered groups. But:
• The target must be part of or substantially supporting the hostile force
• The operations must comply with the law of armed conflict

AUMFs are what authorize combat operations, not FTO designation.

?

B. International law: Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

Even with an AUMF, the U.S. cannot lawfully kill every member of an adversary group.

Under LOAC:
• Force must be directed at combatants or individuals directly participating in hostilities
• Distinction, proportionality, and military necessity rules apply
• Members not actively participating (e.g., cooks, propagandists, recruiters) may not be lawful targets unless clearly combatants under the conflict’s legal framework

Membership alone is not always enough to make someone a lawful target.

?

C. Self-defense (imminent threat standard)

Under Article II authority, the U.S. may strike individuals posing an imminent threat.

Again:
• This requires an imminent threat
• Not blanket targeting based on group membership

?

? 3. What the U.S. cannot legally do

The U.S. cannot:
• Declare all FTO members targetable simply because of FTO membership
• Conduct “status-based killing” outside a legally recognized armed conflict
• Kill individuals who do not pose a threat and are not lawful military targets under LOAC
• Treat an FTO designation as a substitute for an AUMF or self-defense justification

In short: FTO designation is a criminal law tool, not a war authorization.

?

?? 4. Summary

Question Answer
Does FTO designation allow killing all members? No.
What authorizes lethal targeting? AUMFs, self-defense authority, and LOAC.
Must the U.S. follow LOAC targeting rules? Yes.
Can noncombatant FTO members be targeted? Generally no.


?

If you want, I can also explain:
• How “membership” is defined under LOAC
• The distinction between combatant and non-combatant members of non-state armed groups
• Why U.S. counterterrorism operations use an “affiliated force” framework rather than FTO membership

Just let me know.

quote:

---

Here’s what I got. Not sure I agree with it, but this is a copy/paste:

---

Thanks so much 9Fiddy.

Are you a bleeding heart that cares about the drug runners whose boats we are blowing up?

Here’s the clear, legally precise answer you need:

No.
The designation of a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) does not legally justify killing all members of that group. FTO designation itself creates no standalone authority for the U.S. military to kill anyone.

Below is a breakdown of the legal framework so you can see exactly why.

What FTO Designation Actually Does

Designation under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act mainly triggers:

Material support prohibitions (18 USC §2339B)

Asset freezes and financial restrictions

Immigration consequences

It is not an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF).

What Does Authorize Lethal Force

Lethal force by U.S. military forces must be grounded in:

Statutory authority

e.g., the 2001 AUMF, which authorizes force against those responsible for 9/11 and their “associated forces.”

A separate congressional authorization (declaration of war, specific AUMF).

International law

Armed conflict: Targeting must follow the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Only individuals who are combatants, continuous combat function members, or directly participating in hostilities are targetable.

Outside armed conflict: Lethal force is governed by human rights law and is far more constrained.

Executive orders and rules of engagement

These further restrict, not expand, authority.

Key Legal Point

Membership in an FTO alone does not make someone targetable under U.S. or international law.

Targetability depends on:

Their role in the organization

Whether the United States is in an active armed conflict with that organization

Whether the individual is engaged in hostile or combat functions

Passive membership, sympathizing with the group, or providing minor support does not make a person a lawful target.

A Simple Analogy

Designating a drug cartel as a criminal organization doesn’t authorize shooting all cartel members; it just criminalizes support and triggers law-enforcement actions. Same idea.

So the bottom line

FTO designation does not equal kill authority.
Only an AUMF plus LOAC criteria can justify lethal targeting.

If you'd like, I can help you turn this into:

a legal memo-style answer

a simplified version for non-experts

or a version tailored for your justice studies coursework

Just let me know.

Hal

(I named mine Hal after Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey)