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.'"
Latest in Media Criticism
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.
Is Dylann Roof being portrayed as a hater and not a terrorist because, based on the available evidence, he is a white supremacist and not a Muslim extremist? Or is it because his weapon of choice was a gun and not a bomb?
Charlie Savage of the New York Times reponded last week to my critique of his NSA cybersecurity surveillance article. I think he's kidding himself about how phrases like "warrantless surveillance" come off to a reasonable reader and that his article was more suggestive than he admits about Americans' being in the surveillance cross-hairs. Here's my response—complete with his thoughts at the end.