Between Friday’s New York Times story and other earlier material, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation.
Latest in New York Times
In “'Okay, Let’s Go': Watching the New York Times on Trump” Benjamin Wittes largely extols Liz Garbus’s new documentary series, "The Fourth Estate" which chronicles the New York Times in the Trump era.
In a scathing New York Times op-ed today, Micah Zenko lays into the Trump administration both for maintaining the “counterproductive” and “immoral” counterterrorism policies of its predecessors (particularly those involving the use of military force), and for making the situation worse for noncombatants.
I've gotten a few questions the last couple of days about why Lawfare has had nothing to say about that big story Reuters ran the other day on Yahoo, the intelligence community, and the scanning of all those email accounts.
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 under the alarming headline, “Iran Tests Long-Range Missile, Possibly Violating Nuclear Accord.” The article references the testing of Iran’s new Emad long-range ballistic missile system, and explains that “The missile launch may have violated the terms of the agreement, reached in Vienna with six world powers” because “[a]ccording to some readings of the deal, it placed restrictions on Iran’s ambitious
On Wednesday, SDNY Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on the New York Times’ and DOJ’s cross-motions for summary judgment in a FOIA suit seeking documents related to federal prosecutor John Durham’s 2008 to 2012 investigation of the CIA’s detainee interrogation program.
In August, Fox News reported that two Army soldiers, Captain Daniel Quinn and Sergeant First Class Charles Martland, faced repercussions for allegedly beating up an Afghan police commander accused of raping a boy and beating the boy’s mother in 2011.
I normally don't write about the substance of New York Times editorials, prefering to keep my role pure as the Grey Lady's unofficial—and lamentably unpaid—fact-checker on national security legal matters. But Sunday's editorial on "How to Close Guantanamo" requires brief comment.
The New York Times earlier called on the Pentagon to “repeal” “guidelines on the treatment of journalists covering armed conflicts that would make their work more dangerous, cumbersome and subject to censorship.” The editorial board here referred to three aspects of the Department of Defense's nearly-1200 page Law of War Manual.