On terrorism and gun control

This week the BBC published a piece about an ongoing discussion between Piers Morgan and a Texan who has called for his deportation. The Texan says that Piers is fighting against the constitution by fighting for gun control (and therefore should be deported as non-national fighting to undermine U.S. laws). Piers responds saying that his voice should be protected under freedom of speech. I want to ask: But should it? I guess there are several ways this could be interpreted. One of them would be to consider if Piers is a British subject and not a citizen of the US and therefore because he is not a U.S. Citizen that U.S. laws do not apply to non-citizens and therefore he is not protected by U.S. freedom of speech protections. At which time, if he were deported he could continue his propaganda media campaign from the UK and be just as vocal and active because his role is and instrument and visibility is global in nature not geographically bound - he is a voice of internet proportions. But deportation is an official statement, not just by the institution of government but also by the current ruling party in the U.S. Piers' position seems to be in line with that party's position. So, expecting actions like a deportation from the current party would probably not be an expectation well rewarded. If Piers is indeed a US citizen then his personal voice is protected by the first amendment.
However another way to look at the situation is: is he in this capacity speaking from his personal capacity? Or is he speaking from the capacity of the organization from which he is hired? If he is hired to say these things, that is speaking from his professional capacity, then is he still protected under the first amendment, if the corporation is a US corporation? For that matter is anything said using a US company's communication platform a US concern. --> so a use of Twitter or YouTube is that freedom of speech even if it is used by a person of non-US citizenship?

Special ops pretending to be humanitarian aid…

So, missionaries (like those with SIL International) and NGOs have been accused of being affiliated with the CIA beforeCitations 1 and 2 are from Wikipedia article on SIL International.. But the recent announcement that a doctor helped the CIA has some serious implications, what about his Hippocratic oath? Doctors and humanitarian aid workers build trust with people. In some places this trust is hard earned and much unappreciated when someone (or organization) piggy backs on these relationships without consent, as was recently reported in The Atlantic. It would seem that for all the cries for ethics that academics make that this issue should be more in uproar than it currently is. I understand that war is war and that in war trust is just another item to be taken advantage of, but that is what terrorists do. Isn’t the difference between peace keeping and terrorism a matter of ethics?