In light of the sickening yet unsurprising revelations in today's Times that further bolster the case against top level officials of our government as war criminals, I remembered a quote that I filed away not too long ago.
I'd just recently seen the excellent film Judgment at Nuremberg, and so much of it resonated with me. Spencer Tracy, as the hard-headed conservative Judge Haywood, has this to say about the tribunal's "guilty" verdict in the case of German judges who enforced the twisted and perverted justice of the National Socialist regime:
There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country"--of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient--to look the other way.
Well, the answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!
Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.
As I heard these words, I felt I could articulate for the first time the basic evil of the Bush-Gonzales torture policies: the "expedient" way is not always the right way (and not always expedient either), and anything that deprives even a single human being (even a "bad guy") of basic human rights is against what this country stands for. In 1961, the enemy was Communism; after the end of the Cold War, Bush and his ilk needed a new enemy, and conveniently, history provided them with one. But what was said over 45 years ago still holds true: our nation does stand for "justice, truth, and the value of a single human being," and especially when standing for these things is most difficult. Or at least that is what we used to stand for.
I highly recommend Judgment at Nuremberg, because it manages to take a moral stance without turning the gray areas into black and white, without oversimplifying the concepts of good and evil. From it I gain hope that it's still possible to do this in our world.
--divageek
2 comments:
Thank-you for sharing that. At times it seems like everyone except Russ Feingold and perhaps Chris Dodd have gone over to the dark side. Perhaps you could e-mail that post to every member of Congress.
Thanks, Diva. Judgment at Nuremburg remains one of my all time favorites. Spencer Tracy is as good in this film as he was in Inherit the Wind. I'm proud to say that I have my own copy.
But it was Judgment that helped me understand the basic principle that rights (to a fair trial, a jury, to express oneself) must be afforded to ALL people or they mean NOTHING. If those who are in power can decide who is granted rights and who is not the system is at that moment compromised.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, black sites, lawlessness in Iraq, etc. have shown that our system is now terribly compromised. I don't know what it will take to get it back again.
Post a Comment