https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/US_Govt_Signal_leak_screenshot_5.png
That item:
During the Obama administration, proposed U.S. drone strikes in locations outside active war zones (i.e., in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) required high-level approval.[24][25] The Obama administration process for approving drone strikes in such locations featured centralized, high-level oversight, based on intelligence about individuals suspected of terrorism activity.[25] Obama's approval was required for every strike in Yemen and Somalia, as well as "the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan" (about one-third of the total as of 2012), and insisted on deciding whether to approve a strike unless the CIA had a "near certainty" that no civilian deaths would result.[24] The process, formalized in a 2013 Presidential Policy Guidance document, was intended to reduce civilian casualties and blowback risks by requiring the targeted person to present a "continuing and imminent threat" to Americans.[25] The process often required multiple interagency meetings to decide whether to go forward with a strike.[25] However, some U.S. military and intelligence officials opposed the restrictive nature of the system,[25] and some Republicans criticized it as too cautious.[24] However, in the pre-strike review, Obama "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" that effectively counted "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."[24] Counterterrorism officials defended this approach on the idea that people located in close proximity to known terrorists were likely combatants; some Obama administration officials were critical of this approach, who said that it led to implausibly low official counts of civilian deaths, with one administration official telling the New York Times that it amounted to "guilt by association."[24]
In October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system in favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the military and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch drone strikes against targets without White House approval.[25] This policy reduced accountability for drone strikes.[26] After Joe Biden took office, he halted counterterrorism drone strikes without White House approval and initiated a broad review of U.S. policy on drone use.[25]
So the leaked SIGNAL chat group chat targeted an individual and "the building collapsed." That leaves open the question of collateral damage. Civilian death.
It is an item ripe for reevaluation that Trump should address because of the wanton way Israel has attempted ethnic cleansing (indiscriminate bombing) on a scale that has led into ICC questions of war crimes.
Somewhere between Biden ceasing drone killings, and Israeli grotesque conduct is the U.S. resumption of targeted drone strikes (recall, Trump45 drone killing of an Iranian general which this latest action resembles).
If Trump/Hegseth/chat crowd has any defined protocol for authorizing killings, it should be disclosed to Congress, even made public in detail. If it is discretionary to Hegseth or any of the other chat crowd to pin the tail on a donkey, fine, but say so.
Crabgrass honestly believes nobody, not Hegseth nor any others, intends a death vendetta on the scale of Israel in Gaza against Hamas, or likely not the lesser level of Israel in Lebanon against Hezbollah. But the fact that this blown chat expressly indicates a target individual (possible several) makes headlines that have yet to be published among other widespread outlets as a part of their reporting and attention the situation earned.