The CIA now authorized to make drone strikes without oversight

The CIA now authorized to make drone strikes without oversight



Good move or bad move?





Seems like an interesting move to make when claims that there is a "shadow government" in the CIA.

no oversight is always bad if you want a free country.

"without oversight" WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overstates the change.



Under Bush, the CIA was allowed to independently authorize drone strikes on militants abroad. Obama narrowed that to a pre-approved hit-list -- the CIA could only make strikes on White House approved targets. Trump has rolled back White House involvement and put it back on the CIA to make their own judgment calls within set parameters.



The CIA is always subject to White House oversight, and the White House and the CIA always remain subject to Congressional and judicial oversight the same way they were before the change.



In short, Trump has just stopped micro-managing the CIA like Obama was doing.

snoscythe wrote:
"without oversight" WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overstates the change.



...



The CIA is always subject to White House oversight, and the White House and the CIA always remain subject to Congressional and judicial oversight the same way they were before the change.

I don't think so. The congress doesn't even know what questions to ask and the FISA courts never turn down CIA requests. When someone in Congress does ask a probing question, they get lied to about it, the guy caught lying gets a medal, promoted, works on a lobbyist for a few years, and then elected to congress a few years later. There's your oversight.

jvquarterback wrote:

"without oversight" WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overstates the change.



...



The CIA is always subject to White House oversight, and the White House and the CIA always remain subject to Congressional and judicial oversight the same way they were before the change.

I don't think so. The congress doesn't even know what questions to ask and the FISA courts never turn down CIA requests. When someone in Congress does ask a probing question, they get lied to about it, the guy caught lying gets a medal, promoted, works on a lobbyist for a few years, and then elected to congress a few years later. There's your oversight.

I get you point, and it is valid, but I would argue that it would be more subject to scrutiny as the Obama administration was able to foil attempts at oversight by asserted executive privilege, which will no longer be the case as Trump reverts to the Bush-era program.

What is the CIA's prime mission--gather and analyze intelligence or kill bad people? Seems simpler to me to let DOD do the killing, as authorized by DOD rules etc. and the CIA do the gathering and analyzing. Every time the CIA gets involved in killing it has been a fiasco, whether Bay of Pigs, Chile, Central America.

If you want to know why nothing has changed, just ask yourself what happened to the last sitting president who wanted to take away the CIA's operational role.

jvquarterback wrote:
If you want to know why nothing has changed, just ask yourself what happened to the last sitting president who wanted to take away the CIA's operational role.

Did Kennedy want to do that as a result of the Bay of Pigs? I have not heard this before.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

If you want to know why nothing has changed, just ask yourself what happened to the last sitting president who wanted to take away the CIA's operational role.

Did Kennedy want to do that as a result of the Bay of Pigs? I have not heard this before.

You haven't heard the CIA wanted to (and did) take Kennedy out conspiracy theory?

BlueK wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
If you want to know why nothing has changed, just ask yourself what happened to the last sitting president who wanted to take away the CIA's operational role.

Did Kennedy want to do that as a result of the Bay of Pigs? I have not heard this before.

You haven't heard the CIA wanted to (and did) take Kennedy out conspiracy theory?

http://i.qkme.me/3p6soh.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BlueK wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
If you want to know why nothing has changed, just ask yourself what happened to the last sitting president who wanted to take away the CIA's operational role.

Did Kennedy want to do that as a result of the Bay of Pigs? I have not heard this before.

You haven't heard the CIA wanted to (and did) take Kennedy out conspiracy theory?

Yes, but I never heard why. All I ever heard was the CIA did it stuff. Of course, that doesn't meant they actually did it, but what would be verifiable is if Kennedy planned to remove the operations arm of the CIA. I am not big on conspiracy theories, but I do find that fact interesting. It shows that way back then there were concerns over how the CIA conducted business...and it was relatively new at that time.