That begs too many questions, and, unless you are advocating vigilante action, you're talking about censorship and or penalties imposed by the government.
Twist it how ever you wish. The meaning of what I said was clear.
Those in the press who have acted in the best interests of our enemy, by law and tradition, are considered equally as enemy.
There are laws on the books that forbid and give guidance on the punishments appropriate for such crimes...
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter115_.html
But the powers that be refuse to adhere to them and they go unenforced.
This allows the bad actors to drift farther and farther from any real constraints on their behavior and as such things go, they never end well.
I am not advocating anything. I am only attempting to describe a possible outcome, much deserved btw, for those who have worked to force the US into a defeat that no armed military force on this planet can achieve.
Why you continue to stand up against all who express outrage at the long and deep track record of outrageous acts and actions by the press does beg the question of you, sir.
Why?
There has been no force available to the jihadi that is as effective in assisting them in reaching their goals as our own industry of journalism.
why are you so strident in their defense?