Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIA may target Syrian extremists with drones
France 24 ^ | 3/16/2013

Posted on 03/15/2013 11:09:55 PM PDT by bruinbirdman

The US Central Intelligence Agency is collecting information on Islamic radicals in Syria for possible lethal drone strikes against them at a later stage, The Los Angeles Times reported.

Citing unnamed current and former US officials, the newspaper said President Barack Obama had not authorized any drone missile strikes in Syria yet, and none were under consideration.

However CIA's Counterterrorism Center, which runs drone programs targeting militants in Pakistan and Yemen, had recently shifted several targeting officers to improve intelligence gathering on militants in Syria.

The targeting officers have formed a unit with colleagues who were tracking Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

Veteran militants from Iraq are believed to have moved to Syria and joined anti-government Islamic militias there, the report said.

The targeting officers focusing on Syria are based at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, the paper said.

But the agency is working closely with Saudi, Jordanian and other regional spy services active in Syria, according to The Times.

The preparations come as radical Islamic fighters have won a growing share of rebel victories in Syria, the paper said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; US: Virginia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cia; freesyrianarmy; iran; iraq; israel; jordan; langley; lebanon; pakistan; saudiarabia; syria; turkey; virginia; waronterror; yemen

1 posted on 03/15/2013 11:09:55 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
They are not going to read them their rights under some UN Charter, International Court, or the US Constitution?

I'm ..shocked

But I have no doubt many here will offer their support to those poor victims of US Aggression..

2 posted on 03/15/2013 11:20:19 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Be cool if they targeted the CPUSA as well.


3 posted on 03/15/2013 11:22:37 PM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Syrian Terrorists shot down a SAA military helicopter
4 posted on 03/15/2013 11:36:24 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (http://userstyles.org/users/180132)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
Do not mistake what I'm about to say for support for these Islamists.

Drone attacks on foreign soil are an act of war. There can be no doubt about that. You won't see Syria declaring war on the U.S. in return -- but, that's only because they don't all have a death wish. However, you can count on the fact that millions of Syrians will see the drone attacks as an act of war. They will silently seethe in anger at the U.S. for many years. If they ever get a chance to retaliate, they will retaliate.

If you doubt that drone attacks are an act of war; try this simple mind experiment: imagine that some foreign government (or terrorist organization) develops the capacity to launch drone attacks on the U.S. -- perhaps targeted attacks against U.S. officials that they see as as enemy commanders. Would you consider those drone attacks to be acts of war?
5 posted on 03/15/2013 11:41:09 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

I’m going to assume that you’re not serious.

Otherwise, you should have a talk with Rand Paul. STAT!


6 posted on 03/15/2013 11:43:22 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

I consider Islam to be an act of war.


7 posted on 03/15/2013 11:45:01 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (http://userstyles.org/users/180132)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
The CPUSA and its supporters meet the definition of domestic enemies.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

8 posted on 03/15/2013 11:50:26 PM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

‘CIA may target Syrian extremists with drones’ but for whatever reason targets any other group in Syria with Islamic terrorists.


9 posted on 03/16/2013 12:06:50 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

The only thing I see in this world anymore is extremists.


10 posted on 03/16/2013 12:09:38 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Where’s the part about due process?

Have Senator Paul explain the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to you.

Have him explain to you how even the President is constrained by the Constitution.


11 posted on 03/16/2013 12:09:39 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
I'm uncomfortable with the extremist label.

Obama considers me an extremist.

12 posted on 03/16/2013 12:23:16 AM PDT by right way right (What's it gonna take? (guillotines?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Optics.

The US is switching sides?

Just to show how grateful the US is for radical terrorist rebels going after Assad's legal Syrian government, the US will pop 'em as soon as they drive Assad out, or kill him? LOL

What the US has accomplished is ensuring the entire world knows it is completely untrustworthy by anyone, even by it's own Ambassadors and military personnel.

The game now is: who is better at planning and executing the double cross.

13 posted on 03/16/2013 12:46:48 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Obama is working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in having the CIA take out anybody they see as competition to taking over the Syrian Government after Assad leaves or is killed.
14 posted on 03/16/2013 3:45:53 AM PDT by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

I didn’t realize we had declared war again.


15 posted on 03/16/2013 5:27:21 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ( EVERY DIME Obama Spends is given to him by the Republicans in the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Does anyone believe this idea just came up in the minds of CIA gaents without any guidance from the White House?

I don’t.

This is an Obama operation.


16 posted on 03/16/2013 6:30:46 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Obama will do anything to help Assad/Iran...


17 posted on 03/16/2013 7:06:16 AM PDT by rrrod (at home in Medellin Colombia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

‘CIA may target Syrian extremists with drones’.....

Who are these extremists and how did they get these drones?


18 posted on 03/16/2013 7:24:38 AM PDT by Donkey Odious ( Adapt, improvise, and overcome - now a motto for us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
If you doubt that drone attacks are an act of war; try this simple mind experiment...

I agree with you. Here's another, and perhaps better, analogy: Suppose Putin has identified some criminals residing in the US as serious threats to Russian security.

And let's even suppose Putin was right.

How would the average American feel if Putin sent drones to kill those criminals? How would the average American feel if, while sitting in traffic, a car ahead of him was hit by a Russian drone?

And what about the innocent Americans that would get hurt because just they happened to be a bit tooo close? Would the average American be very understanding of Putin's actions?

This is not to argue against drone strikes, necessarily. But the US had better carefully think this thing through.

19 posted on 03/16/2013 8:32:55 AM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks bruinbirdman.
The US Central Intelligence Agency is collecting information on Islamic radicals in Syria for possible lethal drone strikes against them at a later stage... the newspaper said [Zero] had not authorized any drone missile strikes in Syria yet, and none were under consideration.
This story is probably one of those rare pieces of anti-Obama agitprop, sourced in either the hard left in the US or from one of the various foreign enemy regimes. However, it would figure that drones will be used to support the FSA which is being trained in Jordan (mainly because our "allies" in Turkey won't permit it to be done there).


20 posted on 03/16/2013 9:16:28 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


21 posted on 03/16/2013 9:17:08 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
"[Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' . . ."

Once a commie always a commie.

Ever the ratings loser, Rivers gropes for relevance.

yitbos

22 posted on 03/16/2013 11:40:16 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
It is a better analogy, especially in the sense that it's not at all unlikely that Russia could have drone technology in a very few years. They already have advanced aerospace technology, and they have their own GPS.

The one key difference between Putin, and (say) a terrorist organization is that Putin not only knows that a drone attack on U.S. soil would be a declaration of war -- he would also prefer not to have that war.

It's better for Putin to stick with the tried-and-true cloak and dagger technology -- e.g. send in an assassin armed with an umbrella and ricin. That maintains both a low profile, and deny-ability -- neither of which can be said of a drone attack.

To reverse your scenario, if the U.S. ever tries a drone attack over Russian or Chinese territory; it's time to bend over and KYAGB.

Just to clarify, I'm also not opposed to all drone strikes. My main point was that a drone strike over foreign soil is an act of war. Obviously, if a de facto state of war already exists, then that's a moot point. (It almost seems like it's too much to expect a de jure declaration of war anymore -- especially one with proper authorization.)
23 posted on 03/16/2013 11:59:55 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right; USFRIENDINVICTORIA

“Here’s another, and perhaps better, analogy...”

The problem with your analogies is that you pre-suppose that the enemy, al-queda in this case, is not already at war with us. I suppose Iran and North Korea are the most fitting analogies that fit into your mind experiment since both are at war with the US, Iran having declared it numerous times since the revolution.

I don’t disagree that it will be spun as evil zionist America attacking Islam, but most Syrians already believe that, right?


24 posted on 03/16/2013 12:06:59 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Owl558; Leaning Right
Neither I, nor Leaning Right denied that al-queda is at war with the west. Nor, have either of us expressed any sympathy whatsoever with the Islamists. What we've said is the simple truth -- a drone attack is an act of war.

When the much-maligned President G.W. Bush decided to take the war to the terrorists -- he got Congressional and international approval to open up the Afghanistan theatre of battle. Then, he did the same things again, before opening up the Iraq theatre of battle.

Where's the Congressional authorization for war on Syria? Where's the Congressional authorization for war with Pakistan? Where was the Congressional authorization for the war with Libya. Oh, I forgot, that wasn't a "war", because there were "no boots on the ground". Even if you believe there were no boots on the ground -- when and how did that become the new standard to determine whether a state of war exists?

You may agree with Obama on this -- and the U.S. has the might to do what it will (for now) -- but, do not mistake the silence of the rest of the world for acquiesce. Drone warfare is warfare.
25 posted on 03/16/2013 12:23:15 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA; Leaning Right

“Where’s the Congressional authorization for war on Syria?”

None of us are expressing sympathy with the Islamists. This is a mind-experiment and friendly discussion, right? We also agree about Libya and that drone strikes in general are an act of war.

You are right to point out that President Bush secured proper Congressional approval (this is where the problem lies, see below) while President Obama did not in Libya. He is a war criminal (Clinton in Bosnia was a war crime as well). I rub my liberal relatives faces in this fact on a regular basis. Anyway, here’s the discussion part:

The ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’ passed by Congress in 2001 authorizes the president...

“[quote]...to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

We are at war with al-queda, its affiliates and ANY country harboring them with a goal of preventing, “any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

President Bush used this authorization to use drones or cruise missiles in Yemen, Somolia and possibly the Philipines along with Pakistan against Al-Queda affiliates, which sounds authorized by my read, unless one denys there are al-queda affiliates in Pakistan or Yemen?

One problem is the authorization itself. It pretty much says the president can attack al-queda and affiliates anywhere in the world we find them. Congress has the power and responsibility to change this, but does not.

A second problem is the nature of the enemy. Your mind-experiment assumes our enemy is a nation state. It is not and does not conform to the “rules” governing national militaries. It is more like a spy war that trancends national boundries.

OK...Re: drones in Syria. If al-queda or its affiliates are present in Syria, the president has “Congressional authorization” to use military force. The real question is should he have this power or have it to this extent? Are we being smart about how we are conducting ourselves?

You ended with a warning:

“...the U.S. has the might to do what it will (for now) — but, do not mistake the silence of the rest of the world for acquiesce.”

To quibble a little, I don’t know if I accept this. What rest of the world? The Europeans are complicit. They happily intervene when their interests are at stake (Libya on behalf of Italian and British and French oil contracts. And Mali). The Turks and Sunni oil states are on our side in Syria. Is India really going to protest the killing of Islamists after the agony of Mumbai? China - Our rivals may oppose us out of politics, but are you argueing that they won’t use drones in Tibet or Uthgar once they have the capability? Russia - Chechnia, Dagastan - Putin has an interest in siphoning off his own islamist extremeists, but a counter interest in supporting Syria. That leaves Africa and the usual suspects - Iran, North Korea and leftists - who will be against it.

For the record, I do not think the US should be intervening whatsoever in Syria. Let them fight it out and hope both sides lose. Let it become an islamist graveyard.


26 posted on 03/17/2013 12:28:47 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Owl558; Leaning Right
You make a lot of good points -- especially regarding how comprehensive the Congressional approval was regarding the President's authority for engaging Al-queda et al. It still leaves the question of whether there is sufficient "proof" than any particular nation is "harboring" them. Recall how high the leftists raised the standard of proof regarding WMD in Iraq. Who's monitoring this to determine whether Obama is acting within his mandate? Regardless, for the sake of this discussion, I'll concede that point. It's a moot point anyhow, so long as Congress isn't raising any objections. (Which they should be.)

I'll also concede your point about the enemy not being a nation. However, that brings us back to whether the nations hosting the drone attacks are actually complicit. If they are -- then, ipso facto they have declared war on the U.S. A state of war exists. If not, then the U.S. was the aggressor, and a state of war exists. This sort of argument could go on forever, without resolution, as it has between Israel and Arab states. Regardless of who was the initial aggressor; a state of war exists. That brings us back to my original point -- a drone attack is an act of war (whether or not it is the initial act of war). Drone warfare is warfare, regardless of how painless and antiseptic it seems (to the U.S.).

Regarding the "rest of the world"; you've made some good points -- but, I still stand by mine. You've even extended my original point, when you mention China and Russia using drones. Drones have the potential to become as powerful as nuclear weapons as a means of projecting power. However, unlike nuclear weapons, drones don't seem to come with the deterrent of MAD. You rightly point out that other countries are also invading where it suits them (Lybia, Mali, etc.) Yes, the U.S. isn't the only one in the game -- however, that doesn't change the fundamental issues.

Britain once used gunboats to project power in the colonies. In some ways, these gunboats were the drones of the day -- they achieved Britain's military objective without the necessity of a lot of boots on the ground. Then, one day, the gunboats were no longer sufficient -- the Empire collapsed. (I know I'm grossly oversimplifying things here.)

We're in complete agreement on Clinton and Obama being war criminals. It's maddening to reflect on how the leftists label Bush as a war criminal -- even though he followed all domestic and international laws of warfare. Meanwhile, Clinton is considered a world statesman, and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize. If you consider every nation that Obama has sent drones into to be a theatre of war; then Obama has opened up more fronts than any President since WWII. At the very least, this fact needs to be acknowledged -- otherwise, U.S. citizens are seriously deluding themselves.

We're also in complete agreement regarding intervention in Syria.
27 posted on 03/17/2013 1:56:17 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

How pleasant, cheers


28 posted on 03/17/2013 2:56:27 PM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"When the much-maligned President G.W. Bush decided to take the war to the terrorists -- he got Congressional and international approval to open up the Afghanistan theatre of battle. Then, he did the same things again, before opening up the Iraq theatre of battle. "

One of the international approvals came from Pakistan who also let GW drone its territories.

Pakistan went so rar as to tell inhabitants in various Afganistan/Pakistan border areas to clear out. Anyone remaining in these areas were considered terrorists and their sympathizers. It was at this time that the MSM had to quit refering to civilian casualties, as everyone was the enemy.

Pakistan had created virtual "free fire" zones.

I note that the press has started once again to "civilian" deaths along with drone reports.

They are not refering to civilian casualties for individual strikes, but the "total civilian" casualties as a result of drone strikes.

29 posted on 03/18/2013 12:49:16 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

The “approval”, you surmise, did not come from the Pakistani. What are you talking about?


30 posted on 03/18/2013 1:17:51 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson