I have no objection to closing Guantanamo. But the latest New York Times editorial on the subject is a face-palmingly bad argument that will convince nobody who has not already bathed in, let alone drank, the Kool-Aid.
Latest in Media Criticism
Deception and the Iran Deal: Did the Obama Administration Mislead America, Or Did the Rhodes Profile?
Much of what ought to be said about Sunday’s New York Times Magazine profile of Ben Rhodes has already been said, including by Rhodes himself. But the article’s substantive claims, particularly regarding the Obama administration’s approach to Iran, are serious enough to warrant yet another response.
What is the New York Times saying about Julian Assange?
From my piece Friday on Shaker Aamer: "Aamer was 'cleared for transfer,' after all, and that translates in a lot of people's minds and in a lot of news stories to 'cleared,' which translates in turn in a lot of people's minds to 'innocent.'"
Last week, the New York Times ran a story on Iran's recent long-range missile test. The launch—and especially the Times’ fumble of the relevant facts—raise a number of serious questions.
A Response to the “Drone Papers”: AUMF Targeting is a Deliberate Process with Robust Political Accountability
The Intercept’s “Drone Papers” leaker “believes the public has a right to know how the U.S. government decides to assassinate people.” But the documents themselves are hardly as damning as the breathless tone of the reporting suggests.
The dumbest NSA story in a long time comes not from The Intercept and not from the Guardian but from NBC, which is shocked to find the US spy agency watching the Iranian president.
The New York Times editorial page makes closing Guantanamo easy. Just assume away all the hard questions.
Does military aid to Egypt obviously violate federal law, as the newspaper's editorial suggests?
The newspaper's editorial seems to misunderstand both positions taken in the Department of Defense's tome, as well as the law of war itself.