Readers of the Washington Post can see this headline in today's edition (4/25/11) about the U.S. drone airstrikes:

Debates Underway on Combat Drones

But there is no actual debate in the article. Reporter Walter Pincus cites a British military study that calls the use of missile-firing drones "a genuine revolution in military affairs," adding that the "use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified."

Pincus goes on to explain:

At a Washington conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last week, the issue of drones was also widely discussed.

That "wide discussion" would seem to have involved drone proponents from the CIA and the military. Those quoted by the Post were:

--"Lt. Col. Bruce Black, program manager for the Air Force Predator and Reaper aircraft."

--"former CIA director Michael V. Hayden," who explained that drone pilots "can call up computer maps that show the potential effects of each weapon." Hayden explained that teams can ask for an attack's likely impact on the ground--which is apparently called "the bug splat."

--"Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," who apparently talked about "potential problems with public perceptions."

--"Col. Dean Bushey, deputy director of the Air Force Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center," who explained that drone pilots train like conventional pilots.

There are plenty of questions to ask about a government policy of assassination by remote-controlled drone aircraft--including whether or not this is even legal. The Post's "debate" would seem to exclude anyone who doesn't think this is a sound policy.

The independent website Raw Story (5/6/09) recently summarized the human toll of the U.S. government's torture program.  Approximately 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to human rights investigators, with 34 of those deaths officially classified as homicides; at least eight individuals were tortured to death.

Yet somehow, when corporate media report on the torture program's victims, they focus on the CIA, the agency that designed and helped implement the array of torture techniques known as "enhanced interrogation."  A  May 19 article by Walter Pincus, intelligence correspondent for the Washington Post, is a particularly gross example.

Pincus described the CIA as "battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques," and "girding itself for more public scrutiny."  The article presented the agency's view that "it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor."

"Fallen into disfavor"--that's one way to describe it.  Another way would be to say that these actions were violations of U.S. and international law, not to mention the Constitution, all of which clearly prohibit torture.

Usually when people are "forced to take the blame" for criminal actions, they are put on trial.  But Pincus notes that President Obama has promised that CIA torturers will not face punishment if they followed the Bush administration's torture guidelines.

But, writes Pincus, "agency personnel still face subpoenas and testimony under oath before criminal, civil and congressional bodies." His example: A grand jury investigation into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes.  So even though CIA officers been effectively pardoned for the crime of torture, they still may have to answer for destroying the evidence.  Life can be so unfair sometimes.

Pincus cites a CIA officer's anguished plea, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?" In Pincus' world, the idea that a spy could commit a crime and not get away with it is a sign that something is very wrong.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald has an explanation (3/23/09, ad-viewing required) for why he thinks that Howard Kurtz's belief that the image of corporate reporters as "just a bunch of cozy Washington insiders" is not "that big a deal"--because "there's such a built-in adversarial relationship between the press and the pols"--constitutes "an extremely funny joke today, showing why he is the 'media critic' for both the Washington Post and CNN":

That is some very penetrating media criticism there. The media and political leaders are at each other's throats so viciously, they have such sharply conflicting interests, that it's a wonder they can even be in the same room together without physical confrontation. For instance, it was the same Howie Kurtz who, in 2004, wrote this about what happened at his own newspaper:

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

Kurtz's own paper also reported Tim Russert's policy of refusing to report anything said by government officials unless explicitly authorized by them to do so.

Buttressing his condemnation with many more examples of such "adversarial" reportage, Greenwald also updates his post with grim video footage of "the ugly weekend riot that nearly erupted as a result of the intractable media/politician animosity" on display at presidential candidate John McCain's barbecue for his "base."

Read the recent FAIR Media Advisory: "The Short, Happy Iraq War of Howard Kurtz" (3/20/09).