>there's no official "war" here. Just the US randomly killing people we don't like. Declare war and perhaps it's a different story. But we have not.
Really? That's what would make it ok to you? An official declaration? To me, the important criteria is that ISIS is on a murderous raping rampage specifically targeting civilians and we have the power to stop them.
>Either way, specifically targeting people for their speech, rather than their actions... you don't think that's problematic, even in war time?
I wouldn't use the world 'problematic'. I would simply say it requires caution. A person saying they think the enemy has valid points is not a legitimate target due to their speech. A person on a cell phone directing mortar strikes is, even though all he's doing is speaking. Remember, military officers rarely use their weapons, they're almost exclusively in the 'speech' camp.
Again, I think speech is important to protect, but "all he was doing was speaking" is not a get out of jail free card.
Under what justification is it legal for the police to remove *installed* security cameras in a business? How is that anything other than tampering with evidence and destruction of property? And yes, I know, they're above the law, but usually they have some thinly-veiled excuse, but I haven't even heard that yet.
The funny thing about these feeble attempts at propaganda is that they work. All you have to do to get nationalist fervor whipped up is give them a tiny little bit of what they want, and they'll supply the rest.