[QUOTE=Iknewit]
[/QUOTE]
I don’t get why you posted that link.
So is it a crime for our government to propose a plan that would involve the killing of civilians in other countries? As far as I know, Northwood didn’t call for any killing of US citizens/residents.
[QUOTE=CurtC]
I don’t get why you posted that link.
So is it a crime for our government to propose a plan that would involve the killing of civilians in other countries? As far as I know, Northwood didn’t call for any killing of US citizens/residents.
[/QUOTE]
It was at least conspiracy to commit fraud.
.
Could be. IANAL, my only strength is business law. But Conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime. Evidence of planning can be used as evidence of conspiracy, but to my understanding is not sufficient.
'Course, I guess you’d also have to argue that any military contingency plans including illegal activities, no matter how far-fetched or abstract–invading Canada, say, or plans for the implementation of martial law in case it’s ever declared–would also be illegal?
.
[QUOTE=andros]
.
Could be. IANAL, my only strength is business law. But Conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime. Evidence of planning can be used as evidence of conspiracy, but to my understanding is not sufficient.
'Course, I guess you’d also have to argue that any military contingency plans including illegal activities, no matter how far-fetched or abstract–invading Canada, say, or plans for the implementation of martial law in case it’s ever declared–would also be illegal?
.
[/QUOTE]
The troubling part was not a planned invasion of Cuba. That would be OK I guess. The entire purpose of this was to subvert the American people. It was a plan to commit fraud.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It was at least conspiracy to commit fraud.
[/QUOTE]
You were the one who posted legal definitions before - can you find a definition of “fraud” that would include Operation Northwood?
What I’ve seen is that fraud, the crime, is deception for personal gain. I can’t see how deception to keep the commies at bay could in any way be considered as personal gain.
“Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba—reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document’s first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed…”
“We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also** would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government**.”
The conspiracy included a plan to kill US Navy personal. I also like the boled part. This is one of the most irresponsible plans I ever saw and part of it’s stated plan was to make someone else look irresponsible.
The possibility of staging “Cuban” terrorist attacks in Miami and Washington was discussed.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
“Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba—reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document’s first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed…”
[/QUOTE]
(The bolding is mine)
That’s what the Wikipedia article says, but that’s not what the actual document says. It says “We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.” Since the rest of the document spells out how to avoid any US casualties, I have to assume that the ship blown up in Guantanamo Bay would be unmanned.
There isn’t a mention of blowing up a “ship at sea,” unless you’re referring to blowing up a ship in Cuban waters near Havana or Santiago, and those are explicitly described as “unmanned,” with plans to “‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew.”
Please don’t get the impression that I’m supporting or defending the plan, but I think it’s been overblown, and I’m contesting your assertion that criminal prosecution could have been conducted. The plan obviously reads like the product of a brainstorming session, with explicit instructions to the reader that all the suggestions should be considered as preliminary, and other agencies would also submit their ideas as a basis for someone else developing a plan.
[QUOTE=CurtC]
(The bolding is mine)
That’s what the Wikipedia article says, but that’s not what the actual document says. It says “We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.” Since the rest of the document spells out how to avoid any US casualties, I have to assume that the ship blown up in Guantanamo Bay would be unmanned.
There isn’t a mention of blowing up a “ship at sea,” unless you’re referring to blowing up a ship in Cuban waters near Havana or Santiago, and those are explicitly described as “unmanned,” with plans to “‘evacuate’ remaining members of the non-existent crew.”
Please don’t get the impression that I’m supporting or defending the plan, but I think it’s been overblown, and I’m contesting your assertion that criminal prosecution could have been conducted. The plan obviously reads like the product of a brainstorming session, with explicit instructions to the reader that all the suggestions should be considered as preliminary, and other agencies would also submit their ideas as a basis for someone else developing a plan.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. I found the actual document and read it. It only mentions killing a boat load of Cuban refugees.