I can't always follow the details of the insanities you document, but I fully understand and deplore the implications of your conclusion in this statement:
"While the Intellipedia entry doesn’t mention WikiLeaks, its placement of legal and political challenges to drone strikes on a ***continuum with warfare*** is of a piece with how U.S. intelligence can also view journalism on a ***continuum with espionage.***"
One outcome of GWOT is the "enemy-ification" of those who challenge the legality of what our government does in our name and the "treason-ification" of journalists and whistleblowers who reveal what that government does not want us to know. I'm not into Q or conspiracy theories, but I no longer believe much of what our government actors say about what they are doing and why. Sad.
On U.S. Intelligence’s Wiki, Anxiety About Legal Challenges To Drone Strikes
I can't always follow the details of the insanities you document, but I fully understand and deplore the implications of your conclusion in this statement:
"While the Intellipedia entry doesn’t mention WikiLeaks, its placement of legal and political challenges to drone strikes on a ***continuum with warfare*** is of a piece with how U.S. intelligence can also view journalism on a ***continuum with espionage.***"
One outcome of GWOT is the "enemy-ification" of those who challenge the legality of what our government does in our name and the "treason-ification" of journalists and whistleblowers who reveal what that government does not want us to know. I'm not into Q or conspiracy theories, but I no longer believe much of what our government actors say about what they are doing and why. Sad.
It should be "enjoin" rather than "injunct."