but when asked by president harold truman, he willingly took on the task of organizing them. he saw it as a unique opportunity to develop new international laws that would outlaw war once and for all. jackson hears from all of his peers and friends and contacts in the government in the bar, even colleagues on the supreme court. and he encounters a lot of skepticism from all of those people, skepticism about the precedent and the law on which this task can occur. skepticism about the time and difficulty of accomplishing this skepticism about the benefits at the end of the process. in terms of justice, in terms of deterrents. for jackson, the focus wasn't on the crime of the holocaust, but on the military, aggression of hitler and his accomplices. in his view, the attacks on poland and the soviet union made a mockery of the principle that so from states have the right to wage war. the war making was not illegal justified in making. and jackson felt that this was a woman that the time had come for the law to take a step forward. this was the right time and the right place for pe

but when asked by president harold truman, he willingly took on the task of organizing them. he saw it as a unique opportunity to develop new international laws that would outlaw war once and for all. jackson hears from all of his peers and friends and contacts in the government in the bar, even colleagues on the supreme court. and he encounters a lot of skepticism from all of those people, skepticism about the precedent and the law on which this task can occur. skepticism about the time and difficulty of accomplishing this skepticism about the benefits at the end of the process. in terms of justice, in terms of deterrents. for jackson, the focus wasn't on the crime of the holocaust, but on the military, aggression of hitler and his accomplices. in his view, the attacks on poland and the soviet union made a mockery of the principle that so far in states have the right to wage war. the war making was not illegal justified in making it. and jackson felt that this was a woman that the time had come for the law to take a step forward. this was the right time and the right place f

but when asked by president harold truman, he willingly took on the task of organizing them. he saw it as a unique opportunity to develop new international laws that would outlaw war once and for all. jackson hears from all of his peers and friends and contacts in the government in the bar, even colleagues on the supreme court. and he encounters a lot of skepticism from all of those people, skepticism about the precedent and the law on which this task can occur. skepticism about the time and difficulty of accomplishing this skepticism about the benefits at the end of the process. in terms of justice, in terms of deterrents. for jackson, the focus wasn't on the crime of the holocaust, but on the military, aggression of hitler and his accomplices. in his view, the attacks on poland and the soviet union made a mockery of the principle that sovereign states have the right to wage war. the war making was not illegal justified in making war. and jackson felt that this was a woman that the time had come for the law to take a step forward. this was the right time and the right place

but when asked by president harold truman, he willingly took on the task of organizing them. he saw it as a unique opportunity to develop new international laws that would outlaw war once and for all. jackson hears from all of his peers and friends and contacts in the government in the bar, even colleagues on the supreme court. and he encounters a lot of skepticism from all of those people, skepticism about the precedent and the law on which this task can occur. skepticism about the time and difficulty of accomplishing this skepticism about the benefits at the end of the process. in terms of justice, in terms of deterrents. for jackson, the focus wasn't on the crime of the holocaust, but on the military, aggression of hitler and his accomplices. in his view, the attacks on poland and the soviet union made a mockery of the principle that sovereign states have the right to wage war. the war making was not illegal justified in making. and jackson felt that this was really a man that the time had come for the law to take a step forward. this was the right time and the right place

but when asked by president harold truman, he willingly took on the task of organizing them. he saw it as a unique opportunity to develop new international laws that would outlaw war once and for all. jackson hears from all of his peers and friends and contacts in the government in the bar, even colleagues on the supreme court. and he encounters a lot of skepticism from all of those people, skepticism about the precedent and the law on which this task can occur. skepticism about the time and difficulty of accomplishing this skepticism about the benefits at the end of the process. in terms of justice, in terms of deterrents. for jackson, the focus wasn't on the crime of the holocaust, but on the military, aggression of hitler and his accomplices. in his view, the attacks on poland and the soviet union made a mockery of the principle that so far in states have the right to wage war. the war making was not illegal justified in making. and jackson trial to this was well known that the time had come for the law to take a step forward. this was the right time and the right place fo

harold, why did you -- i mean, you actually have chapters devoted to any number of presidents, not all of them. so you had to pick and choose. for instance, you don't write about eisenhower and trumancan you pick out-- why did you pick out the presidents to talk about their relationship with the press? >> in the process, i guess mike ted, in a world without editors i might have written a two-volume book with a chapter for each of the presidents because there are things to say and in the case-- here is what i decided to do, for the 19th-- 18th and 19th centuries i basically limited the chapters to those presidents who had the most consequential impact on relationships between the presidency and the media, if i may call it that. so washington, obviously, because he set the tone for everyone, adams because he was as sour with the press as he was with his political enemies. ... i thought it was a remarkable story. he's one of the great apostles of a free press famously sang if we had to choose between an effective government and free press we should always choose the press. but in effect was quite manipulative, quite denounced the tory about critical journalists and, in fact, while the

truman? >> that's a great question. i have no idea but i can tell you this, there are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks after 1948 so richard nixon firmly believed harold staton was the candidate he would have wanted a lot of people said if taft would have been a candidate he would have won because there would have been a clear division between them. it's a very interesting question that obviously we don't know and along those same lines is the question of often asked what would have happened if do we one and two republicans in this election and i honestly think do we would have been a terrific two-term president. he would have been a wonderful president and things might not have been that different in many ways than they turned out. just would have been a different person ministering to him. one thing that came up recently in conversation is where the whole mccarthy era would have happened if do we was president enough senators to question. it came out and he talked to had a couple of weeks ago with the great router for with that wonderful new biography of mccarthy and that's a critical issue because truman, everybody had a hard time standing up to mc