Mr. Sites wants to portray himself as a "down-the-middle" objective journalist. It's quite possible that he is, but what I've seen of his work is blatantly anti-American.
If Mr. Sites wants to prove his bona fides, he ought now to attach himself to the terrorist side for a fair and balanced report on their tactics and execution. An honest portrayal of their atrocities would be very interesting and newsworthy.
It is doubtful that Mr. Sites would survive such an engagement, but that is what it will take for me to believe he's not more concerned with bashing America than he is in objective journalism.
They would not allow an honest reporting of their deeds, so the journalists embed with those who don't commit atrocities and are relatively free to report at will, for we are not ashamed of our tactics and have nothing to hide.
Mr. Sites overlooks that fact and it is the very reason he is allowed to embed. But he took advantage of an anomolous or unclear situation and spun it as an 'atrocity' -- and the norm.
Yes, let him imbed with the enemy for a while. Let him see what the enemy's 'norm' is.