This is an opinion piece that argues that the United States is hypocritical in the conduct of war and at home is more interested in prosecuting those that reveal crimes of the state than in prosecuting the criminals themselves. While the outline of his case is is clear, the arguments -- at least to me -- are weakened by use of sweeping generalities, name calling and widespread hyperbole. It strikes me as more of a rant than a carefully argued editorial.

A different take on events not voiced inb MSM...USA as war criminal.

Very biased. Uses language not ideally suited for journalism. Makes very reasonable points.

The title is wrong for the article. It is an opinionated that is much too cynical. This a poor approach to advance journalism.

I think we need more of this kind of journalism. The language is harsh, but the point is well taken. Unfortunately, we see news judged by the level of language, ie. balanced vs unbalanced. But we don't usually see it evaluated based on the validity of the facts and reference to the real consequence of the broad view.

This article is both very 'biased,' and raises concerns I agree with very strongly. While not necessarily paradoxical, the fact the writer, Paul Craig Roberts, come from a somewhat politically conservative background, makes it compelling. Additionally, despite the apparent 'bias,' the article is very well 'sourced.'