Huh? Allow me to expound.
I just listened to my 5 min. allotment of little Sean's show I allow each day. He had his diatribe against Durbin's comments which naturally did not include the context nor the whole speech. He was in a rage, as was I as I listened to him. But he did make one point that I agree with 100%.
This is a dividing line for America!
This is a dividing line. It's between people that believe torture is an abomination and those who think it's fine and dandy. It's between those who think chaining a man in the fetal position and making him shit & piss themselves is not an American value and those who don't.
It's between people who think The Nuremberg Trials were a good thing and those who don't.
I've made this point before but it bears repeating. After WWII the West was faced with a chance to show it's true values. We had every excuse in the world to execute the Nazi animals on the spot. I'm not sure anyone would have cried many tears over it. It was a choice given to President Roosevelt among others. But it was not the
choice he took.
In 1944, when eventual victory over the Axis powers seemed likely, President Franklin Roosevelt asked the War Department to devise a plan for bringing war criminals to justice. Before the War Department could come up with a plan, however, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau sent his own ideas on the subject to the President's desk.
Morgenthau's eye-for-an-eye proposal suggested summarily shooting many prominent Nazi leaders at the time of capture and banishing others to far off corners of the world. Under the Morgenthau plan, German POWs would be forced to rebuild Europe. The Treasury Secretary's aim was to destroy Germany's remaining industrial base and turn Germany into a weak, agricultural country.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson saw things differently than Morgenthau. The counter-proposal Stimson endorsed, drafted primarily by Colonel Murray Bernays of the Special Projects Branch, would try responsible Nazi leaders in court. The War Department plan labeled atrocities and waging a war of aggression as war crimes. Moreover, it proposed treating the Nazi regime as a criminal conspiracy.
Roosevelt eventually chose to support the War Department's plan. Other Allied leaders had their own ideas, however. Churchill reportedly told Stalin that he favored execution of captured Nazi leaders. Stalin answered, "In the Soviet Union, we never execute anyone without a trial." Churchill agreed saying, "Of course, of course. We should give them a trial first." All three leaders issued a statement in Yalta in February, 1945 favoring some sort of judicial process for captured enemy leaders.
We were faced with a decision and huminity won out. And because of this I frmly believe we were able to stamp out what was left of the Nazi movement because people saw not only what they did but saw the West's ideals in all their glory.
Is terrorism a massive danger to the world? Are terrorists an example of disgusting people who have no respect for lives not presumed equal to their own. Absolutely. But are they any worse than people who would inflict this kind of horror on their fellow humans?
Or this?
You'd have a hard time convincing me that they are. They may be equal but they aren't more horrific.
We had a great opportunity to show the world our true humanity and commitment to our ideals. We took that opportunity, ran with it and passed with flying colors. We showed the Nazis for what they were and we showed the world what we were.
More important, perhaps, is the question of whether Nuremberg mattered. No one could deny that the trials served to provide thorough documentation of Nazi crimes. In over half a century, the images and testimony that came out of Nuremberg have not lost their capacity to shock. The trials also helped expose many of the defendants for the criminals they were, thus denying them a martyrdom in the eyes of the German public that they might otherwise have achieved. There are no statues commemorating Nazi war heroes. The revelations of Nuremberg may also have contributed to building democracy in Germany.
So Sean Hannity is right. This is a dividing line. A dividing line between people who want to save the soul of our country and those who would sell it to the devil.
Which side are you on?