[Anteneprorid]

I agree that killing a designated enemy "under the laws of a given nation" for reasons "within that nation" of self defence can be legally and morally justified. However; I disagree with the notion that we can extend that law to include "our" right to legally and morally assassinate any one any place at any time without CONGRESS ITSELF declaring ourselves at war with the country from whence an attack or justifiable danger originated warranting such action. The right to declare war (or act of) simply cannot be passed from one to another or it would have IMO been so written in our constitution.

A declaration of war is not a prerequisite to killing assailants in self-defence. Even international treaties for international law purposes recognise such a right. Even general US laws allow such killings as do the laws of most other societies except where the government itself is the one doing the assailing, a point I'll address below to your last one. Obviously, to be a self-defence killing, it must actually be in self-defence on the merits.

It's also my opinion--and this is where reasonable minds differ--that AQ is not a war combatant group, but a criminal conspiracy no different in categorisation than Tim McVeigh, drug gangs, etc.

AQ is not akin to a nation in a declared state of war, or a bona fide group in rebellion in a recognised civil war, or a group of bona fide partisans or rebels seeking to oust a tyrannical invader or occupier. They are also likewise not 'unlawful combatants' given the nature of AQ as stated, nor are their action akin to what 'unlawful combatants' have been viewed in the past. 'Unlawful combatants' were categorised as spies and saboteurs violating rules of engagement in bona fide wars and insurgencies. Men caught in non-uniformed spy status like Nathan Hale of the American rebels and Major John Andre of the British during the American Revolutionary War were 'unlawful combatants.' The German non-uniformed saboteurs who were Abwehr (German military intelligence) agents and were landed by U-boat in the US during WWII to conduct sabotage operations were 'unlawful combatants.'

Those men and others like them were tried in military tribunals and executed for being 'illegal combatants.' However, the standing, rationale and purposes of such men in a bona fide war/insurgency situation were fundamentally different than AQ. They were not terrorists, common criminals or otherwise dishonourable. Nathan Hale and John Andre were involved in activities requested by and on behalf of their respective side in a bona fide rebellion of the residents of the American colonies against their sovereign. The German saboteurs were performing acts requested by and on behalf of their nation against another during a state of declared war between them. Their missions were legitimate military objectives in nature; they just weren't in uniform as required, which made them illegal combatants. As for AQ, however, IMO they are no different than Tim McVeigh, the KKK when they oppressed, intimidated and attacked minorities, etc. Such people are not war combatants but simply notorious criminals.

We seem to be in the middle of the development of a world wide "insurrection" (the weak against the stromg) (impoverished against the wealthy) (the ownership of crucial natural resources) (the value of and need for man's labor in a perhaps static sytem requiring adjustment.

The US has certainly done its fair share of wrongdoings against others too. But, each case stands on its own merits and shouldn't IMO be conflated with legitimate actions of self-defence. The US can be in the wrong in one circumstance and be in the right in another.

Here, this thread focuses on actions taken against AQ. What's applicable for addressing AQ is not transferable to other actions and motivations that are not substantially similar. The best course IMO is to not choose to forgo self-defence in legitimate situations for fear that the precedent will become a twisted citation by wrongdoers. That's suicidally self-destructive. There will always be sinister people who look to misapply a righteous cause to justify a bad one, but the distinguishing facts will speak for themselves for which they bear accountability.

Education may sometimes work against one. Why do you think the English prevented educating (at all cost) the Irish ?

They did it for the same reasons the whites outlawed black slaves from learning how to read and write, learn geography, learn the local and regional road systems, etc, in the American South before the American Civil War and punished them with whipping, selling their kinfolk off and whatever else worked to intimidate them into remaining as ignorant as possible. By keeping them as ignorant as possible about such things, in conjunction with instilling the worst fears in them for non-compliance with the non-education policies, it made the slaves far less likely to escape or rebel and/or have the means and mindsets to successfully do so. Once an Irishman educated himself enough on the natural rights of man against his oppressor, this was all too common the result, e.g.,:

Speech from the Dock (Emmet) - Wikisource

And I cite that for the point I said I would elaborate above: the right of self-defence against a wrongdoer is a natural right of humans IMO. Sometimes laws themselves can be the vehicle of wrongdoer. For example, the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws and all sorts of laws and decrees that constituted atrocities against people, violations of treaties, committing wars of aggression, etc. In the end, the main protagonists of those things wound up at the end of a hangman's rope once they lost the war for being deemed not 'illegal combatants' but actual criminals.

The entire issue of who is right and wrong can be a complex one and certainly involves subjectivity as well as objectivity. After all, AQ often claims they do what they do as a rightful response against what others do in their opinion. But wrongdoers as well as the righteously aggrieved have their excuses to claim a 'just cause' for what they do all the time. What needs to be examined is the entire set of circumstances: laws, causes, actions, etc. In the case of AQ, I don't find what they stand for and do as a whole to be anyway realistically debatable as being wrong in the scope, manner and means of what they seek to accomplish and do. It's also no secret and and openly stated goal what they wish to do to Americans and by what means. IMO, the US can fairly target AQ members under the category of self-defence.