Articles liés à Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of...

Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice - Couverture souple

 
9780307381170: Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice
Afficher les exemplaires de cette édition ISBN
 
 
Book by Dodd Christopher

Les informations fournies dans la section « Synopsis » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.

Extrait :
Chapter 1

Nuremberg, Undermined

In early september 2006, a tense crew of Senate Democrats gathered in S-211—the Lyndon Baines Johnson Room—at the U.S. Capitol. In all, there were fifteen of us, senior members of various committees, addressing difficult and timely issues during our monthly lunch meeting. In a few weeks, Americans would go to the polls and our party seemed to have a reasonable chance of regaining Congress for the first time in a dozen years. But no one seemed overconfident, and for good reason.

Room S-211 has a sense of seriousness and timelessness. It features marbleized walls, period window cornices, a chandelier installed during the Grant Administration, and the elaborate ceiling fresco of caryotid figures that it took the Italian artist Constantino Brumidi a decade (from 1857 to 1867) to complete. In that place of serious appointments, many heavy decisions have been made.

It is where LBJ, as Senate majority leader, twisted arms of fellow Democrats until they came around to his viewpoint. It is the venue where in 1959 Johnson promised my father, newly elected to the Senate, a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Forty-seven years later, in that historic room, I would try a little arm twisting of my own.

When Carl Levin’s turn to speak came, we prepared for the inevitable. Carl, one of the most respected members of the Senate and the highest- ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, addressed our political bind. But there were certain facts he didn’t need to review— we knew them too well.

President George W. Bush was looking for a way around his legal roadblock. Before the Supreme Court ruling that summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, he had seized unprecedented war powers, deciding that the Administration alone had the authority to determine how to treat prisoners in the war on terror.

He rejected domestic law and international treaties on methods of interrogation—a policy that led to allegations internationally that Americans endorse torture.

The president has maintained that the United States is in a state of war against terrorism, and therefore he has the authority to hold enemy combatants indefinitely without trial, formal charges, or revealment of evidence against them. For those detainees that he decided to try, he established military commissions. Appeals could not be made through the court system. There was no significant challenge to them until the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reached the Supreme Court.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a native of Yemen, had been captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and then shipped to Guantánamo Bay, where he was held along with several hundred others. Hamdan was suspected of delivering weapons to Al Qaeda and charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. Hamdan brought suit, arguing that the military commission formed to try him was illegal and that, as a defendant, he lacked the protections specified by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva conventions. The argument persuaded the lower court but not the federal court of appeals.

In its ruling, which by a 5–3 vote overturned the appeals court, the Supreme Court said among other things that the president needed the approval of Congress to pursue measures other than those expressly dictated by existing U.S. laws and treaties. The president’s quick response was to propose legislation that would have Congress rubber- stamp his initial practices—reinstating the commissions as originally structured and redefining the Geneva conventions by weakening its protections. He demanded a free hand in interrogations—a free hand, we knew from the examples of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and secret prisons around the globe, that was deeply troubling.

As the fifth anniversary of September 11 approached, the country was once again reminded of the treachery that can come from any direction at any time. Since that dreadful day in 2001, many Republicans have tried to paint Democrats as weak on defense. Any objections to the Iraq policy were portrayed as cowardly or even treasonous.

In a speech to the Republican National Committee in January 2006, Karl Rove offered advice similar to what he delivered four years earlier in advance of the 2002 midterm elections: proclaim the Democrats weak on protecting America. Indeed, when Democrats pointed out, correctly, that National Security Agency warrentless wiretapping was illegal, Rove and his crowd twisted this fact for political advantage. The president was soon saying that Democrats were “opposed to listening in on terrorists.”

Sloganeering against the “cut-and-run” Democrats became a more reliable policy than any actual foreign policy. Starting the war in Iraq, as time proved, was a mistake, but the president stuck by his guns. I had been among those who voted to give him authorization, because at the time I believed the Administration’s characterization of the intelligence that raised the specter that Saddam Hussein already possessed or was actively pursuing a deadly stockpile for imminent use. I hoped that with my vote, the Administration would be able to present a strong case to the UN to aggressively support the UN inspections of Iraq in order to fully determine whether Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. The Administration chose not to do so but instead went to war in Iraq. It soon became clear that the intelligence—hence, the primary reason to go to war—was wrong. And as the war became a heavy burden on America— drawing us, as it did, from a more sensible and effective strategy against worldwide terror—I and others worked to find ways to end it.

The president, however, tried to turn the Supreme Court defeat in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld into an offensive maneuver. As he saw it, it was a chance to solidify the Republican stance on terror. Carl Levin and others concluded that the best we as Democrats could do—with the elections so imminent—was to support a new compromise measure. The senatorial trio of John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, all of them experienced in military matters, seemed to favor a reasonable plan for treatment of prisoners and retain elements of habeas corpus— a basic right that our justice system, and the international community of civilized countries, have held dear.

None of us thought the compromise suggested by the three senators was perfect, but the group as a whole seemed content to let the issue rest. This is the nature of politics: You push until you can push no further, and at the close of the Senate day, you are at least satisfied that you have helped steer the body from a ruinous course.

I had not, after all, parachuted into this fray. I had been involved in the fight for human rights ever since, as a freshman senator, I became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1981. This was a natural extension of my father’s legacy at Nuremberg and of his priorities in the U.S. Senate. It was a result, too, of my Peace Corps service in the 1960s, when, in the Dominican Republic, I saw firsthand the results of oppression and became committed to addressing such issues.

The big human rights debates of the early 1980s centered on Latin America, where I focused much of my work. I developed relationships with key figures in hot-spot countries—Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. The U.S. political landscape at the time was charged in a way similar to what would happen years later in relation to Iraq.

President Reagan reduced the many volatile political situations in Central America to what he saw as a worldwide Communist plot, making the region a major focus of his foreign policy. The Soviet Union funneled arms and other resources to certain parties, and in President Reagan’s view, it was necessary to back those who stood against Communism, no matter their own records on human rights.

President Reagan, for example, wanted to send support to the government of El Salvador, led at the time by a civilian/military junta, which was fighting leftist guerillas. The government’s notorious death squads also targeted those who opposed its power. The archbishop Óscar Arnulfo Romero, three American nuns, and a lay worker —all of whom supported economic and political reform—were gunned down. This was in an era of high political crimes throughout the region, from Argentina, where in the “Dirty War” thousands of dissidents disappeared, to Chile and to small villages of Central America.

I had seen all of this from a quite different perspective from President Reagan. To him, Communism was the issue. In American politics, such broad stances continued to play well with a significant segment of the public. Phil Gramm, the senator from Texas, weighed in during the debate on Nicaragua and whether to aid the contras in their rebellion against the leftist Sandinista government. To paraphrase my former colleague, he would often say that Nicaragua is only ten days by tank from Texas.

My own investigations made it clear to me that the excesses of power transcend political labels. The rule of law, on which my father’s stance was always firm, is the ultimate standard. Murder, in short, is still murder. The idea of simply sending unrestricted funding to anyone fighting Communism was, as Senator Edward M. Kennedy said, “giving a blank check to death squads and despotism.”

My view on Communist influence differed from that of my father’s—he had firmly believed in the domino theory, so prevalent in regard to Vietnam. But I recalled that in his later years he understood that there were ominous forces quite apart from anything supported by the Soviets.

In the case of El Salvador in the early 1980s, it was clear to me that the wisest stance for the United States was to send aid to that country’s government only if certain conditions were met. And so, as a freshman senator, I introduced an amendment to a foreign appropriations bill that tied such support to measures of human rights.

Political opponents called this effort naïve, particularly in that it was the idea of a Senate newcomer. But my experiences in Latin America had taught me otherwise, and I pressed on. A report in the New York Times on February 28, 1982, revealed the results: “In approving aid last fall, Congress, under Mr. Dodd’s prodding, made support for El Salvador conditional on a Presidential certification that the junta was making progress on human rights.”

This policy was not only correct for us but, moreover, proved useful to some of those in power in Central America. I remember my conversations with El Salvador’s leader, José Napoleón Duarte, who had come to Washington to lobby for support. In the years before his ascension to high office, he too had been victimized, imprisoned by a military dictatorship. Once in power, he had initiated land reforms and other progressive policies. Even so, death squads were still prevalent. He told me that my efforts to tie aid to human rights measures had actually helped him against his political opponents. There was now a standard that had to be met if the political power structure in the capital of San Salvador hoped to survive.

I thought of all this as the 2006 debates on President Bush’s tactics intensified. I recalled that although Democrats did not hold the White House or the Senate during the debates on Central America, they had still made a significant difference in foreign policy. I was determined to make that happen again.

During our lunch in the LBJ Room, I argued that if we were to go along with the compromise plan, and therefore lend our support to a policy that undermined the rule of law, we would one day regret our actions.

We were, in effect, rolling back the Magna Carta and undermining the Geneva conventions, the dramatic and humane precedent of Nuremberg.

We could regret such a move even more than we regretted our original support for the war in Iraq. I was concerned about the welfare of our own soldiers—what it would mean to those fighting this war and future wars—if we abandoned humane treatment. I was concerned, too, that information gained from unlawfully cruel treatment is not reliable. Even John McCain, whose patriotism has never been in question, admits that when things got bad enough during his more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese he would tell his captors anything they wanted to hear.

My colleagues around the table did not dispute my points. They nodded approvingly. Patrick Leahy argued eloquently in support of them, saying that the Administration’s policy was “flagrantly unconstitutional.” But we were in a box. The election was coming up, and the Republicans would no doubt transform any reasonable defense of human rights into thirty-second spots that played to the fears of voters. We all knew this from painful experience.

I thought of my friend Max Cleland. In 2002, the senator from Georgia was ambushed by the lowest kind of political attack. Max was a Vietnam hero—a triple amputee in the war. He served with distinction in Congress, but just before the 2002 election he expressed opposition to labor restrictions in the president’s Homeland Security bill that unduly restrained the rights of U.S. citizens.

Though Max voted in favor of the bill, Republicans painted Max as a man who lacked the courage to be a leader in a time of crisis. In one television spot, images of Max and Osama bin Laden were presented in the same grainy way. The Republicans did this even though Cleland had certainly demonstrated his courage on the battlefield. That such a tactic worked disheartened us. I remember the reaction of Robert Byrd to the disgraceful campaign. The very senior senator from West Virginia had an incredulous look on his face and said, “Have they no shame? Have they no shame?”

I had no doubt that if we, as a group, had the audacity to take a firm stance against the commander in chief on the interrogation issue we’d get the same treatment.

But we also knew there was another side to this that transcended politics as usual. The stakes had become very high. What looked like a mere compromise was something else—an abandonment of principle.

In all of my time in Congress, I have been influenced by the lessons of what my father did in Nuremberg—and by his defense of principle. The trial that consumed him in 1945 and 1946 was the most important work of his life; he knew this even at the time, as he expressed in his letters.

He was among those who stood firmly on the side of the rule of law—of giving even the world’s most notorious criminals the right to examine fully the evidence against them and to defend themselves with every possible legal tool.
Revue de presse :
“In researching my book on Nuremberg, the trial sprang to life when I encountered the role of prosecutor Thomas Dodd. Fortunately, in hundreds of letters home, Dodd recorded an unvarnished insider view of the tribunal. Today the outcome of Nuremberg may seem foregone. But Dodd’s vivid account reveals how feuds among allies, prosecutors and judges nearly sank the world’s first trial in which the rule of law triumphed over a reign of barbarism.”
—Joseph E. Persico, author of Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial

“Tom Dodd was not only a most competent pretrial interrogator and courtroom prosecutor, but was admired and liked by me and all others who worked with him. LETTERS FROM NUREMBERG shows how much that famous trial still affects us today. Tom Dodd’s letters have the immediacy and emotional power of a novel. This book is a terrific addition to the Nuremberg legacy.”
—Richard W. Sonnenfeldt, Chief Interpreter for the American Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials and author of Witness to Nuremberg

“At times anguished and stimulating, always informative and insightful, Thomas Dodd’s personal letters from the Nuremburg trial to his wife as presented by his son, Senator Christopher Dodd, constitute an important contribution to History. All those interested in the events resulting from the darkest zones of humanity will find this volume of great value.”
—Elie Wiesel

“This book is a tour de force–a gold mine for historians, an intimate love story, and a compelling portrait of key Nazi figures. Splendidly edited, the letters capture as never before the intrigue, the infighting, and the daily drama of one of the most important trials in history.”
—Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of Team of Rivals

“Thomas Dodd’s letters from Nuremberg illuminate the most important trial of the 20th Century through the moving and insightful reflections of a husband, father and patriot as he made history. Chris Dodd places his father’s letters and the trial in context brilliantly, contrasting America’s deep commitment to the rule of law at Nuremberg with our unfortunate abandonment of that commitment at Guantanamo today. The publication of these letters is especially timely now, as we struggle to regain the respect we so justly earned 60 years ago when we demonstrated to the world the immense power of the rule of law.”
—Senator Edward Kennedy

“LETTERS FROM NUREMBERG is actually two important and absorbing books in one. Thomas Dodd’s letters take us into the emotional heart of that complex trial that established Nazi crimes for all future generations of humankind. Christopher Dodd’s meditations on them show us the compelling importance of his father’s experience at Nuremberg to our own world sixty years later.”
—Michael Beschloss, author of Presidential Courage

“The content of LETTERS FROM NUREMBERG represents an insightful, very personal perspective into the daily workings of the Nuremberg trials. Chris skillfully extrapolates this historic chapter of European history from the loving correspondence between his father, abroad in a war-torn land, and his mother, coping with the demands of a young family remaining at home. This book, written by my valued friend and colleague, will rightfully take its place on the shelf of history.”
—Senator John Warner

Les informations fournies dans la section « A propos du livre » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.

  • ÉditeurCrown
  • Date d'édition2008
  • ISBN 10 030738117X
  • ISBN 13 9780307381170
  • ReliureBroché
  • Nombre de pages400
  • Evaluation vendeur
EUR 16,59

Autre devise

Frais de port : EUR 8,32
De Etats-Unis vers France

Destinations, frais et délais

Ajouter au panier

Autres éditions populaires du même titre

9780307381163: Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice

Edition présentée

ISBN 10 :  ISBN 13 :  9780307381163
Editeur : Crown Pub, 2007
Couverture rigide

Meilleurs résultats de recherche sur AbeBooks

Image d'archives

Christopher Dodd
Edité par Random House (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : 1
Vendeur :
Books Puddle
(New York, NY, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : New. pp. 384. N° de réf. du vendeur 26702686

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 16,59
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 8,32
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd Christopher
Edité par Random House (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : 1
Vendeur :
Majestic Books
(Hounslow, Royaume-Uni)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : New. pp. 384. N° de réf. du vendeur 8193793

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 14,90
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 10,33
De Royaume-Uni vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image fournie par le vendeur

Dodd, Christopher J.
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Paperback or Softback Quantité disponible : 5
Vendeur :
BargainBookStores
(Grand Rapids, MI, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Paperback or Softback. Etat : New. Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice 0.65. Book. N° de réf. du vendeur BBS-9780307381170

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 20
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 11,56
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd, Christopher
Edité par Crown (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : > 20
Vendeur :
California Books
(Miami, FL, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur I-9780307381170

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 26,67
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 5,55
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

District Judge Christopher Dodd
Edité par Random House USA Inc (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Paperback / softback Quantité disponible : > 20
impression à la demande
Vendeur :
THE SAINT BOOKSTORE
(Southport, Royaume-Uni)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Paperback / softback. Etat : New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days. N° de réf. du vendeur C9780307381170

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 26,57
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 8,11
De Royaume-Uni vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd, Christopher
Edité par Crown (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : 1
Vendeur :
Ebooksweb
(Bensalem, PA, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : New. . N° de réf. du vendeur 52GZZZ00HUUF_ns

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 28,19
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 7,39
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image fournie par le vendeur

Christopher Dodd
Edité par Crown (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : > 20
Vendeur :
moluna
(Greven, Allemagne)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : New. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, son of the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd, is a U.S. senator from Connecticut. He is chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Labor and Human. N° de réf. du vendeur 897692481

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 23,75
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 11,99
De Allemagne vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd, Christopher
Edité par Three Rivers Pr (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Paperback Quantité disponible : 2
Vendeur :
Revaluation Books
(Exeter, Royaume-Uni)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Paperback. Etat : Brand New. reprint edition. 384 pages. 8.00x5.25x1.00 inches. In Stock. N° de réf. du vendeur x-030738117X

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 25,32
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 11,67
De Royaume-Uni vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd, Christopher
Edité par Crown (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Paperback Quantité disponible : 1
Vendeur :
GoldBooks
(Austin, TX, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Paperback. Etat : new. New Copy. Customer Service Guaranteed. N° de réf. du vendeur think030738117X

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 26,37
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 28,67
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais
Image d'archives

Dodd, Christopher
Edité par Broadway Books (2008)
ISBN 10 : 030738117X ISBN 13 : 9780307381170
Neuf Couverture souple Quantité disponible : 1
Vendeur :
Front Cover Books
(Denver, CO, Etats-Unis)
Evaluation vendeur

Description du livre Etat : new. N° de réf. du vendeur FrontCover030738117X

Plus d'informations sur ce vendeur | Contacter le vendeur

Acheter neuf
EUR 28,86
Autre devise

Ajouter au panier

Frais de port : EUR 28,21
De Etats-Unis vers France
Destinations, frais et délais

There are autres exemplaires de ce livre sont disponibles

Afficher tous les résultats pour ce livre