I hardly know where to begin . . .
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Robert Parry, the author of the aforementioned book, is quoted as writing in consortiumnews.com [Hot Type by Michael Miner, October 18] that “If the Times is correct that ‘this law does not apply to American citizens,’ why does it contain language referring to ‘any person’ and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting ‘in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States?’”
I guess Mr. Miner also failed to read this part of his own article: “Near the beginning of the 38-page act is this language about jurisdiction: ‘A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.’”
But I also expect any media outlet that wishes to be considered a reputable source to hew closely to the words of the immortal Joe Friday: “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Asked about President Bush’s duty to obey federal laws, Michael Mukasey replied at his confirmation hearing last week, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.” Here was the president’s nominee for attorney general unwilling to say categorically that the president must always observe the law. Bill, is it beyond the realm of possibility that a president willing to flout a law “to defend the country” would be willing to read a law selectively “to defend the country”?
