Trump gives CIA authority to conduct drone strikes - WSJ

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Langley, Virginia U.S. January 21, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing U.S. officials.

 

The move would be a change from the policy of former President Barack Obama's administration of limiting the CIA's paramilitary role, the newspaper reported.

 

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-14

these drone strikes are turning Muslims into radicals. actually i would probably become radicalized if my kids were killed in a drone strike.

Given his accusations against the CIA, oughtn't Trump be afraid that the first target of the drones would be himself?

9 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

these drone strikes are turning Muslims into radicals. actually i would probably become radicalized if my kids were killed in a drone strike.

I think I would too or at the very least support the radicals.   It looks like the authority has been given against Militants without definition of what or which groups.  As there are militants within the US also  what is his plan ?

So you would do nothing ? 

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

these drone strikes are turning Muslims into radicals. actually i would probably become radicalized if my kids were killed in a drone strike.

His plan is always to make people as afraid of him as he showed during the debates. Pity goes a long way for him. 

        One day, a drone will fly over Trump's property taking photos.  Trump will then hate drones.  It will fit with his love/hate love/hate love/hate relationship with everyone and everything: women, the CIA, Wikileaks, judges, the media, film stars, etc.   ....what we'd expect from a man with the maturity quotient of a 5 yr old brat.

Now if Donald has issued orders to "kill the enemies of the American people", I can see Congress, the Senate and White House all reduced to rubble.

32 minutes ago, silent said:

His plan is always to make people as afraid of him as he showed during the debates. Pity goes a long way for him. 

hard to make people fear something when they are prepared to die for their cause.

6 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

hard to make people fear something when they are prepared to die for their cause.

That might account for the enormous costs of security to proect he and his family, but I understand he's also he's learning as he goes along

3 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

these drone strikes are turning Muslims into radicals. actually i would probably become radicalized if my kids were killed in a drone strike.

These drones minimize collateral damage greatly as opposed to any other way of killing the bad guys. They can put a small bomb right on the top of your car. No need for the big bomb. I hate to think of the collateral damage in Musil and Syria going on as we speak though.

4 minutes ago, Grubster said:

These drones minimize collateral damage greatly as opposed to any other way of killing the bad guys. They can put a small bomb right on the top of your car. No need for the big bomb. I hate to think of the collateral damage in Musil and Syria going on as we speak though.

it is not just being killed or injured it is the stress of living under the drones knowing any building and blow up at any time. hard for us to comprehend what that must be like. i really dont understand how they can 100% identify their targets. of course they cant.

2 hours ago, muffy said:

So you would do nothing ? 

I did not read anyone say they would do nothing.  However, I did not read anyone suggest anything else.

 

That is the real problem, it is much easier to complain than to take action. Drone strikes keep our boots off the ground and may be less likely to result in the collateral damage numbers that will result from conventional air strikes. Even if the collateral damage is the same, not having our troops in harm's way is preferable; is it not?

 

Let's face it, any type of ordnance action will likely result in civilian deaths--collateral damage--and I see no success with any verbal negotiation, do you? 

 

So, I will modify muffy's question; what do you suggest? 

9 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

it is not just being killed or injured it is the stress of living under the drones knowing any building and blow up at any time. hard for us to comprehend what that must be like. i really dont understand how they can 100% identify their targets. of course they cant.

Of course, they cannot be 100% sure--where do you think we are, with Alice in Wonderland? However, being under that stress may drive some of them to want to negotiate a settlement. The point is, you complain, but offer no better solutions.

3 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

these drone strikes are turning Muslims into radicals. actually i would probably become radicalized if my kids were killed in a drone strike.

Actually it is turning Muslims into DEAD MUSLIMS.Bleeding hearts need to go hide under your rocks until we clear the world of radicals for all others to safely live in.Then you may emerge with your alms bowl in your hand for your hand out.

What I suggest is to not give the CIA unfettered permission to use drones or any other action as a para military group.  that is not the mission of the CIA. That mission belongs to the US military and its leadership who gets the intelligence from the CIA and then the military either acts on it or does not.

This expands the role of the CIA in a way that is a threat to command and control in certain situations. Who decides now when the CIA should use drones and why the US military is excluded.  It's time for the US Congress to start doing its job and reign in Trump before he destroys America's reputation -what is left of it- around the World.

IMHO the best way to ensure peace in the Middle East is to disengage; force a settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian issue; cut aid to Israel and Egypt; and engage with Iran diplomatically. The more the Middle East becomes radicalized- the more it is going to cost America in both lives and money.

Bring the troops home and let the Arab governments handle the area and spend their money and lives.

The intelligence agency that Trump ridiculed when it revealed links between Trump's election campaign and Russia has been given authorization to kill "suspected militants".  Aren't people who work with a hostile foreign power to undermine democracy in the US militants?

 

Another matter Trump clearly has not thought through.

14 minutes ago, sanukjim said:

Actually it is turning Muslims into DEAD MUSLIMS.Bleeding hearts need to go hide under your rocks until we clear the world of radicals for all others to safely live in.Then you may emerge with your alms bowl in your hand for your hand out.

drone strikes dont work. for every one that gets killed many more rise up to try to get revenge. only thing drone strikes are good for is selling military hardware.

19 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Of course, they cannot be 100% sure--where do you think we are, with Alice in Wonderland? However, being under that stress may drive some of them to want to negotiate a settlement. The point is, you complain, but offer no better solutions.

you think they want to negotiate? your the one in wonderland.  the west needs to get the hell out and stop screwing up the middle east. 

"new authority">>>key word; a mere continuation of the status quo, nothing changes; keep the drones rollin.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump has given the Central Intelligence Agency new authority to conduct drone attacks against suspected militants

What's new?

The covert CIA program involving the targeted killing of “suspected terrorists” by unmanned aerial vehicles often far outside of immediate war zones — began under President George W. Bush and was dramatically expanded under President Obama.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surveillance-trump

Clarification is needed about Trump's authorization to know what's changed. Maybe Trump will allow the CIA to conduct drone strikes in non-Muslim nations, ie., in Africa or Asia?

Killing foreign nationals who are non combatants (aka collateral damage) can not be condoned on the basis of being for the greater good of America.  This is not just a mistake it's morally wrong.

He has just removed transparency from the program by placing back in the CIA's hands instead of with the President as had been under Trump. I think not a good example to set and now if anything goes wrong, he can remove himself from the blame. A good leader must be able to accept the consequences when wrong or when something goes wrong.

30 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

Killing foreign nationals who are non combatants (aka collateral damage) can not be condoned on the basis of being for the greater good of America.  This is not just a mistake it's morally wrong.

Is it morally correct for IS to hide among civilians?  War is morally wrong, but no one has found an alternative other than surrender to anyone threatening violence.

 

The allied bombing as part of the Normandy landing in World War II caused tens of thousands of French civilian casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Normandy .  That's because "dumb bombs" were used instead of precision guided bombs.  Was the Normandy landing and defeat of Hitler morally wrong?

 

If you can convince IS, Al Qaeda, and others to stop hiding among civilians, I'm sure I can convince the US to stop using drones against targets in civilian areas.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Is it morally correct for IS to hide among civilians?  War is morally wrong, but no one has found an alternative other than surrender to anyone threatening violence.

 

The allied bombing as part of the Normandy landing in World War II caused tens of thousands of French civilian casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Normandy .  That's because "dumb bombs" were used instead of precision guided bombs.  Was the Normandy landing and defeat of Hitler morally wrong?

 

If you can convince IS, Al Qaeda, and others to stop hiding among civilians, I'm sure I can convince the US to stop using drones against targets in civilian areas.

 

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Is it morally correct for IS to hide among civilians?  War is morally wrong, but no one has found an alternative other than surrender to anyone threatening violence.

 

The allied bombing as part of the Normandy landing in World War II caused tens of thousands of French civilian casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Normandy .  That's because "dumb bombs" were used instead of precision guided bombs.  Was the Normandy landing and defeat of Hitler morally wrong?

 

If you can convince IS, Al Qaeda, and others to stop hiding among civilians, I'm sure I can convince the US to stop using drones against targets in civilian areas.

 

OK, how about this as an alternative to drones?  The US gets out of Iraq and Syria and lets them sort out their own problems.  No drones and no civilian deaths at the hands of the US.  Please don't suggest that a ISIS can't be beaten without a US presence and drones.  BTW just to continue the WWII line of thought, lots more civilians were killed in Japan by the two atomic bombs.  I presume you are well read enough not to believe the post bomb propaganda that the US had no choice.

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

These drones minimize collateral damage greatly as opposed to any other way of killing the bad guys. They can put a small bomb right on the top of your car. No need for the big bomb. I hate to think of the collateral damage in Musil and Syria going on as we speak though.

American lives matter others not so much. 

8 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

 

 

OK, how about this as an alternative to drones?  The US gets out of Iraq and Syria and lets them sort out their own problems.  No drones and no civilian deaths at the hands of the US.  Please don't suggest that a ISIS can't be beaten without a US presence and drones.  BTW just to continue the WWII line of thought, lots more civilians were killed in Japan by the two atomic bombs.  I presume you are well read enough not to believe the post bomb propaganda that the US had no choice.

For every person I find advocating US isolationism I can find another (or sometimes the same person) advocating greater US military involvement.

 

It's well off topic, but I do think using the atomic bombs against Japan was the correct thing to do.  The casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were comparable to, and in some cases less than, the casualties inflicted on other Japanese cities using conventional bombs.  Estimates of US casualties in a invasion of Japan ran into the hundreds of thousands, estimates of Japanese casualties into the millions.  An alternative was a total economic blockade of Japan for as long as it took to force a surrender, this would have resulted in fewer US casualties but more Japanese starved to death, and a generation stunted by malnutrition.

 

Back on topic, drone strikes are generally directed against people planning attacks against the US or US allies, or the leadership of these people.  I have no problem with using precision munitions against these people.

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

you think they want to negotiate? your the one in wonderland.  the west needs to get the hell out and stop screwing up the middle east. 

Pay attention george, I said, " . . . being under that stress may drive some of them to want to negotiate a settlement . . ."  So, your solution is for the west to get out. What about all the terrorist activities in the West; you think our leaving them alone will stop that; if you do, have another cup of tea with the mad hatter.

17 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Pay attention george, I said, " . . . being under that stress may drive some of them to want to negotiate a settlement . . ."  So, your solution is for the west to get out. What about all the terrorist activities in the West; you think our leaving them alone will stop that; if you do, have another cup of tea with the mad hatter.

you need to do some research. look up some stats on how many people in the west are killed by terrorists.  its almost none. the media just hypes it up to fool simple people into buying their newspapers.  over a million people die on the roads every year. here is a real problem that is largely ignored because it does not make good news. 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Is it morally correct for IS to hide among civilians?  War is morally wrong, but no one has found an alternative other than surrender to anyone threatening violence.

 

The allied bombing as part of the Normandy landing in World War II caused tens of thousands of French civilian casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Normandy .  That's because "dumb bombs" were used instead of precision guided bombs.  Was the Normandy landing and defeat of Hitler morally wrong?

 

If you can convince IS, Al Qaeda, and others to stop hiding among civilians, I'm sure I can convince the US to stop using drones against targets in civilian areas.

But unlike Normandy, we are NOT at war with the countries we are using drones in. A blanket 'war on terror' does not mean you have permission to conduct air strikes in other sovereign territory that we are not at war with. There are still dangerous terrorists living in Belfast, Northern Ireland, does your precedent make it ok for us to carry out a 'precision' drone strike in the middle of Belfast to try and kill the terrorist when we know we will kill innocent women and children? There are dangerous terrorist groups in most major cities world-wide. We use policing NOT indiscriminate drone strikes. Terrorists DO hide amongst normal population. They are not sovereign armies. You cannot apply fighting techniques used on one against the other. Just sayin'. 

 

You say in a post up above that you have no problem using drones for precision attacks against possible terrorists. You WOULD have a problem if one of those precision attacks also took out your wife and kids, and they were labeled 'collateral damage'. If there is no possibility of taking out civilians then do it, but face the consequences - for every civilian you kill you create 10 more people intent on killing you or not co-operating with you in trying to catch the bad guys.

Edited March 14, 20179 yr by Andaman Al