Finding Our Moral Conscience
By Larry Johnson on August 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C Johnson
If I could be king for a day I would like to compel George Bush and Dick Cheney to watch Stanley Kramer’s 1961 masterpiece, Judgment at Nuremberg. The truths in this movie would probably torture their souls, at least I hope so, and force them to reexamine their standard practice of justifying inhuman immoral conduct in the pursuit of national security. Their willingness to justify torture and secret detention, all in the name of protecting the “Homeland”, is neither new nor unique.
I hesitate to pull out the Nazi card but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it might be a duck. While I am not accusing Bush or Cheney of committing crimes on the scale of Hitler’s Germany, I am saying they have started this country down the slippery slope that produces the kind of evil displayed by the Nazis. This point is driven home during an exchange at the end of the movie between the German Jurist, Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster), and Judge Dan Haywood (portrayed by Spencer Tracy). Janning tries to persuade Haywood that he knew nothing of the final solution:
Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it “came to that” the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.
There are men, women, and children dead in Iraq, who were innocent of any crime, because of George Bush and Dick Cheney. This point is driven home in the following soliloquy by Spencer Tracy, who wrestles with the seeming contradiction of why civilized, ostensibly moral folks, do reprehensible things. As you watch this clip think of Alberto Gonzales and former Justice Department official John Yoo, who drafted the memo justifying the use of torture.

I would also encourage you to take time and read the review written by UCLA law professor Michael Asimow. Asimow’s observations remind us that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not just a fool and a pathetic mediocrity. Gonzales is the kind of man who has allowed his loyalty to a man to blind him to the morality of the law. Asimow writes:
The questions raised by Judgment at Nuremberg go to the core of what we do and what we are. What does it mean to be a lawyer, professor, or judge? Do we believe in positivism, natural law, legal realism? What do those philosophies require when one is a participant in the Nazi legal system? What if many judges had resisted the Nazis instead of pandering to them? Could the Holocaust have been prevented?
When should we follow the law and when should we resist it or twist it? When must a judge resign rather than carry out an immoral law? How about laws that require a life sentence for stealing a box of Pampers (like California’s three-strike law) or decades in prison for trivial drug offenses (like the federal law on crack cocaine)—are these as wicked and illegitimate as the German blood protection law? Every judge, lawyer, law student and law professor should see Judgment at Nuremberg. If you saw it years ago, see it again.






















