story good...war means that people get killed and things get broken...don't hamstring our men and women on the front lines with worries about legality and whether or not we are 'morally equivalent'.

Only the 2nd half of this article qualifies as "journalism". The first half is a red herring. US GI's Sandoval & Hensley killed a Iraqi who was cutting the grass with a rusty sickle, and they planted a spool of wire in his pocket to make it look like they shot an insurgent. Even for the Pentagon, that's murder. The "baiting" operation is described in this story to throw you off the scent of the actual events: Two American soldiers murdered an Iraqi gardener in cold blood. The WAPO ... More »

A difficult story to report on. This piece is successful in using the details of the case against US soldiers to present the problematic techniques the military is using in Iraq.

This is good journalism because it presents several perspectives regarding the theme. There are few anonymous sources; and I believe that is one of its strongest attributes.

The “tactic” described in this story—killing anyone who picks up the “bait” of detonation cords, plastic explosives, ammo, etc.—seems like one of those plausibly credible cover-up justifications that ultra conservatives love to use, but actually makes no sense. In a land full of civil war—everyone attacking everybody else—initiating such a shoot-anyone-gathering-bait policy that’s so secret almost no one knows about is exceedingly, unbelievably stupid—even for Bush’s pentagon.

This story is well sourced and seemed supported factually. I would like to see more information on who determined this technique to be utilized.

This is an important article that draws on many sources, however, one CRUCIAL observation, in my opinion, is left out: these classified programs that target civilians are a form of 'collective punishment' condemned under the Fourth Geneva Convention. These are patent war crimes. The authors turn to E. Fidell, president of the National INstitute of Military Justice, who says this baiting program should be examined '"quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities.' If ... More »

It's speculative and intentionally tendentious. Real people's lives are at stake and the WaPo once again conflates advocacy with journalism.

Yes. You have all the elements: sources with names, officials involved in the issue and background.