An eloquent argument James!

Also you see that those who do certain evils are deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they sit on death row and undergo execution. (Even if you reject capital punishment it is still law in many states)

Now, I am in possession of an individual who planted an IED that killed 3 GIs (hypothetcal).

Your contention is to bring said individual back to the US for trial while the IED maker continues to make his toys and kill others?

Should he be interrogated before or after being mirandized?

Did said individual commit a federal crime or a state crime based on the states of origin of the victims?

Should he be tried in the US or in the land where the crime took place.

Here's another thought, in a declared war, is the killing of the enemy a crime for either side? Maybe not!

So if said individual committed no crime when he killed my three buddies with the IED - then I will commit no crime if I kill said individual since he is the enemy.

In a way that is strange to comprehend, the information my enemy possesses gives me pause on the battlefield. Should I spare his life for the intel or just kill him now?

These are questions that haunt me.

It's called "in-bed-with-journalism...". I've noticed that being practiced more and more by NPR, especially as it relates to compromising to the new administration's policy agendas.

However, I think it's a good thing that the establishment media institutions, remain dogmatic and loyal supporters of the political and corporate establishment. It is critical to "transformation", that these media institutions incrementally loose their credibility and be seen at the tipping point, for what they are. This is a nation of people governed by a King who's name is "The Law".

There is no question that the empire is spiraling downward, the election of Barrack Obama should only be viewed as a "Dead Cat Bounce".

Best regards,

Econolicious

By this I simply mean that one of her roles, when faced with those challenging some element of coverage, is to convey the editorial reasoning behind it. She then has the independent standing to take the side of management, or of those raising the concerns. But I still don't see the point of making this about her. Instead, you should be able to make your argument on Talk of the Nation, with an NPR decision-maker also invited.

In other words, NPR News should absolutely be accountable, but it is not a fair automatic expectation that Glenn Greenwald, in an adversarial stance, should control the venue. (In Firing Line debates, for example, the moderator was Kinsley, not Buckley.) Your position should be aired today, in your voice if possible; the issue has escalated well beyond the ombudsman, who I think is entitled to her options as to direct confrontation.

...well, not just on NPR, I'd imagine, but it was there too: the story about the cheating governor of South Carolina. WHO GIVES A FUCK!?

I wish the media would just die.

I suggest you listen to the Shepard interview that GG links to. The linguistics professor (names escapes me) eliminates the distinction that it seems you are trying to make.

He said (and this is a rough estimate). "If I torture you and don't torture you, for example, I pull out your fingernails and then send you to bed without dinner, I STILL tortured you."

Far too many real journalists, investigative reporters, have been forced out of their profession or have left on their own volition because they want to continue to help their community and improve lives. They have found jobs where they can still do that and we are left with the stenographers who make our lives worse, not better.

Investigative Reporters Move Outside Newsrooms(see sig)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106168383

Good job! The only weak part was this:

Here is my answer to the problem of interrogation of young jihadists (they can't be called terrorists or enemy combatants since that might revive the hated term "war on terror")

where you left out the fact that approximately 90+% of those we have captured had nothing to do with any of the bolded actions above.

Good going.

My condolences to your siblings' children.

Now, I am in possession of an individual who planted an IED that killed 3 GIs (hypothetcal).

Your contention is to bring said individual back to the US for trial while the IED maker continues to make his toys and kill others?

No one has advocated or suggested that. Why not respond to what people are saying, rather than arguing with straw men of your own creation? It would certainly advance your argument more effectively... as well as connote a certain confidence in your position.

As far as the "questions that haunt" you... professional soldiers and spooks know that the intelligence value of tortured confessions is nil. Do you wish to put Americans' lives at risk with crap intel?

If American troops are captured by anyone anywhere on the battlefield (also referred to as "earth"), by virtue of being uniformed soldiers fighting a global war, they will be deemed entitled to the protections properly afforded them by the Geneva Conventions.

Anyone opposing American troops, or captured anywhere on this global battlefield, are neither criminals nor uniformed soldiers, but 'terrorists', a broad if undefinable category that includes people defending their country against foreign invasion (also referred to as 'insurgents' and 'militants'), former government bureaucrats (also referred to as "Taliban" and "Ba'athists"), anyone who was ever in the same country as Osama Bin Laden (also referred to as "Al-Qaeda", "persons or groups affiliated, associated or linked to Al-Qaeda" or "Muslims") and the citizens of the various countries that comprise the global battlefield called earth (also referred to as "collateral damage" or "terrorists in the making").

Terrorists are a reasonably new and heretofore unprecedented phenomena (circa 2001). Hence there are no rules or laws that govern their treatment, other than those made up since the advent of terrorism (also referred to as "the dark side" or "taking the gloves off").

However, there is general agreement that terrorists may be killed on the orders of, or indefinitely detained at the pleasure of, whomever Americans elect to be their commander-in-chief (also referred to as the "wartime president").

Many tout the success of the global war which has prevented further acts of terror in the homeland of the perpetrators of this war. with the result that the many thousands of terrorists killed or captured are, at worst, conspirators (occasionally referred to as "pre-crime").