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

Now do Obama's 473 strikes between 2009 and 2015 which killed an estimated 2,372–2,581 suspected combatants and 64–116 civilians on the other side of the planet.

quote:

---

Now do Obama's 473 strikes between 2009 and 2015 which killed an estimated 2,372–2,581 suspected combatants and 64–116 civilians on the other side of the planet.

---

This isn't a partisan issue with me.

I think they were ALL illegal (as was Obama's assault on Libya). The power to declare war is a nondelegable power which vests solely in the Congress under the Constitution.

Ultimately, none of this matters. Since the First War in 1801, Presidents have usurped Congress's war powers, without any consequences. The two threads I started today were just to make sure I understood what legal theory the Administration was using.

quote:

---

Would you please type the following phrase into your AI machine and share with us the results?

“Does the designation as a foreign terrorist organization legally justify the killing of all members of such FTOs by the United States military?”

---

ChatGPT:

quote:

---

“Does the designation as a foreign terrorist organization legally justify the killing of all members of such FTOs by the United States military?”

Short answer: No.
Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) does not itself give the United States legal authority to kill all members of that group. Both U.S. domestic law and international law impose significant limits.

Below is the clear breakdown.

1. What an FTO designation does do (U.S. law)

Designation under 8 U.S.C. §1189:

Makes it a crime to knowingly provide “material support” to the group.

Allows immigration removal and certain asset seizures.

Increases penalties for related offenses.

It does not create a military authority to kill members.
It is fundamentally a law-enforcement tool, not a war authorization.

2. What authorizes the U.S. to use military force?

Lethal military force requires separate legal authority:

A. Domestic law authority

AUMF 2001 – covers al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces.”

AUMF 2002 – Iraq-specific, rarely used now.

Article II powers – limited to self-defense of U.S. persons/interests.

Specific congressional authorization – for particular operations.

FTO status is not on this list.

3. International law limits (LOAC / IHL)

Even when the U.S. is in an armed conflict with a group:

Members may only be targeted if they are combatants (in an armed conflict)
or directly participating in hostilities (DPH).

Status as an FTO member does not automatically make someone a target.

Cooks, drivers, or peripheral supporters may not be targetable.

Some members may be in geographically separate areas with no active hostilities.

Targeting must comply with:

Necessity

Distinction (combatants vs civilians)

Proportionality

Humanity

A blanket “kill all members” policy would violate the law of armed conflict.

4. U.S. government’s own position

The U.S. has repeatedly stated:

FTO designation does not create a state of armed conflict.

Targeting decisions must rest on AUMFs or self-defense under Article II,
plus the law of armed conflict, not FTO status.

This has been affirmed in DOJ, Pentagon, and State Department explanations.

5. So what is allowed?

The U.S. may lawfully target:

Members of groups with which the U.S. is in an armed conflict
(e.g., al-Qaeda or ISIS under the 2001 AUMF as “associated forces”)

Individuals actively planning or conducting attacks
under self-defense authority

But it must be individualized and context-based, not “all members.”

Bottom Line

Designation as an FTO does NOT legally justify killing all members.

Lethal force requires:

Separate statutory authority (e.g., AUMF or self-defense), and

Compliance with international law (distinction, necessity, proportionality).

FTO designation alone is never sufficient legal basis for lethal targeting by the U.S. military.
---

If you want, I can explain how:

FTO designation differs from SDGT/Specially Designated Global Terrorist status

“Associated forces” is interpreted under the 2001 AUMF

Courts have reviewed U.S. targeting decisions (e.g., Al-Aulaqi)

Just tell me what angle you're interested in.

---

Thanks NC.

Are you a bleeding heart liberal who opposes the drug boat strikes?

Thanks so much. Enjoy your retirement:)

quote:

---

Try it. I'll wait. Phrasing matters.

---

Your suggested phrasing didn't seem to change the answer. Would you please try your phrasing and show us the results? Thanks.

Here was my query:

"Does the designation as a foreign terrorist organization legally justify the militarized response against any members of such FTOs while they are conducting illegal operations to the detriment of US National Security by the United States military?"

Here was the answer:

"Short answer: No.
The mere designation of a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) does not, by itself, create legal authority for the U.S. military to use force—militarized or lethal—against members of that organization, even if those members are engaged in illegal activity harmful to U.S. national security.

Below is the precise legal framework.


---

? 1. What FTO designation does under U.S. law (8 U.S.C. §1189)

The FTO list is a criminal and sanctions mechanism, not a war-authorization mechanism. It allows the government to:

criminalize material support to the group,

block assets,

impose immigration and financial penalties.


It does not authorize the military to target or kill members of the group.


---

? 2. What does authorize military force?

U.S. forces can use lethal force only if it is authorized by separate law, such as:

A. A valid Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

Examples:

2001 AUMF (al-Qaeda, Taliban, “associated forces”)

2002 Iraq AUMF (rarely invoked today)


Unless a group is covered by one of these, the military cannot target its members based solely on FTO status.

B. Article II self-defense

The President may authorize force only if:

a specific individual or group poses an imminent threat, and

lethal force is necessary and proportionate.


Even then, the target must be a threatening individual, not merely an FTO member.

C. Collective self-defense of partner nations

Requires a partner government requesting assistance and a clear armed-conflict or imminent-threat justification.

D. Congress could enact a new AUMF

But Congress has not passed a general AUMF for all FTOs.


---

? 3. FTO status does not create a “combatant” category

The U.S. cannot declare that every member of an FTO is a lawful military target.
To target a person under the law of armed conflict, the U.S. must show:

1. The U.S. is in an armed conflict with that group (a high legal threshold), and


2. The individual is a member of the enemy organized armed group (not just a supporter), or poses an imminent threat.



Simply committing illegal acts connected to national security (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, cybercrime) does not convert someone into a lawful military target.


---

? 4. Even “illegal operations to the detriment of U.S. national security” is not enough

Examples of “detrimental” but not war-triggering activities:

Drug trafficking

Smuggling

Human trafficking

Cybercrime

Sanctions evasion

Arms trafficking


These are crimes, not by themselves armed attacks.
The military cannot target people for crimes unless separate war authority exists.


---

? 5. Why this matters for current controversies (e.g., Caribbean boat strikes)

The U.S. has not asserted that all drug traffickers or criminal cartels are part of an “associated force” under any AUMF. Therefore:

FTO status does not authorize military strikes.

Illegal conduct does not convert the situation into an “armed conflict.”

Without a valid AUMF or imminent-threat self-defense justification, military force against individuals—especially lethal force—is legally vulnerable to being classified as extrajudicial killing or a war crime, depending on circumstances.



---

? Bottom Line

No.
FTO designation does not authorize the United States military to use lethal or militarized force against members of the organization—even if they are engaged in illegal activities harmful to U.S. national security.

To lawfully use force, the U.S. must rely on separate legal authorities, such as a specific AUMF or true imminent self-defense.

If you want, I can also explain:

what qualifies as “armed conflict” under international law,

when a criminal group becomes an “organized armed group,” or

how the U.S. legally targets ISIS, al-Qaeda, or other entities covered by past AUMFs."

He’s being obtuse as per usual.

quote:

---

“Does the designation as a foreign terrorist organization legally justify the killing of all members of such FTOs by the United States military?”

---

It laughed and told me to get that commie shite out of here.

We can end the thread now. Thanks. No more new threads from me for 5 days.

quote:

---

We can end the thread now. Thanks. No more new threads from me for 5 days.

---

Ehh... Make it 6 days...

quote:

---

No, designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. Department of State under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 does not, by itself, legally authorize the United States military (or any other U.S. entity) to kill all members of that organization anywhere in the world.Here is why, broken down by the relevant bodies of law:1. What an FTO designation actually does (domestic U.S. law)It triggers a range of civil and criminal sanctions inside the United States:Makes it illegal for anyone in the U.S. or subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to the group (18 U.S.C. § 2339B).
Allows freezing of the organization’s assets in the U.S.
Makes members of the FTO inadmissible to the United States and subject to deportation.

It does not create a “kill on sight” authority or remove any protections under U.S. or international law for members of the group.

2. Authority to use lethal military force comes from different legal sourcesLethal force against members of an FTO is governed by the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and specific congressional authorizations, not the FTO list:Legal Basis
What it authorizes
Key examples involving groups that happen to be FTOs
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, Pub. L. 107-40)
Use of force against those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the 9/11 attacks or harbored them, and associated forces
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS (later interpreted to cover “associated forces”)
2002 Iraq AUMF (less relevant now)
Original authorization for the Iraq War
—
Inherent Article II self-defense (executive branch view)
Strikes in self-defense or to prevent imminent attacks
Drone strikes in Yemen/Somalia against AQAP, al-Shabaab
Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC/IHL)
In an armed conflict, lawful combatants may target enemy fighters (unless hors de combat), but only based on their status or conduct, not membership alone
ISIS fighters in Iraq/Syria 2014–present

Being on the State Department’s FTO list is evidence that can help justify treating a group as a party to an armed conflict or as an “associated force” under the 2001 AUMF, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient by itself.3. Key limitations that still apply even against FTO membersDistinction and proportionality under LOAC: Civilians who only finance or propagandize for an FTO (but do not take direct part in hostilities) may not be deliberately targeted.
No “guilt by membership” rule in non-international armed conflict: Simply being a dues-paying member of an organized armed group does not automatically make someone targetable 24/7 unless the government adopts the controversial “continuous combat function” or “membership-based targeting” standard that the U.S. has sometimes used (e.g., against al-Qaeda and ISIS). Even then, it is justified under IHL interpretation, not the FTO designation.
Due process for U.S. persons: U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who join an FTO cannot be summarily killed by the military without violating the Fifth Amendment unless they are directly participating in hostilities in an active battlefield context (see the 2011 Anwar al-Awlaki case and the 2015 DOJ White Paper).

4. Real-world illustrationHamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, al-Shabaab, ISIS, and the Taliban’s Haqqani network are all on the FTO list. U.S. forces can (and do) kill ISIS fighters in Syria or Somalia under the 2001/2014–present legal framework.
The U.S. does not claim authority to drone-strike every Hamas member in Qatar or every Hezbollah supporter in Lebanon simply because they are on the FTO list.

Bottom lineThe FTO designation is primarily a diplomatic, financial, and immigration tool. It does not create a free-fire zone against every listed member worldwide. Lethal military force against members of an FTO is only lawful when additional conditions are met—typically an armed conflict plus the target’s status or conduct under the law of armed conflict, supported by an AUMF or Article II authority—not merely because their organization appears on a State Department list.

---