你失去，是還有東西讓你失去

好吧，我是被貝美女騙進來的，要不然我不會在剛看完天安門之後看這樣一部大悶片。
差點嘔血。
瑪卡的紀錄片：http://www.youtube.com/user/dinzzz414#p/c/0938BF24000377A1/0/r7ou2-Kv4UA#p/c/0938BF24000377A1/0/r7ou2-Kv4UA
能上youtube的一定要看，國內能翻牆的儘量翻吧。有些事情不是藏就藏的住的，如果沒有理性，歷史會一而再，再而三的重演。
然後再看這片子，本來指著美式的驚險刺激平復一下心情，沒想到裡面的每一句台詞都像在暗指著這個國家發生過的事情。
在最高法院的一段台詞，來源：http://www.douban.com/subject/discussion/16396126/?post=ok#last（用樓里截下來的英文重新翻了一個中文版，主樓的中文太詩化了我看不懂）

 In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did.
1972年的BRANZBURG V.HAYES案中，最高法院駁回了記者在陪審團前保護他們線人，不說出他們名字的權利，同時，它給了政府監禁這些記者的權力。

It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his descent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive.
那是一個5-4的微弱差異。在STEWART大法官的反對意見中，他說，政府的權力變得越來越無孔不入，那些掌權者，不管他們持有何種政見，他們想做的只是讓自己永垂不朽，而受害者，是人民。很多年過去了，一切如他所料。

Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government-she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant.
ARMSTRONG女士本可以在政府的責難之下屈服，她可以因而拋棄她曾對線人許下的保密諾言，她可以因此輕而易舉的脫罪，回家。但是，這樣做的結果，是再也不會有任何線人給她提供資訊，再也不會有任何線人給她的報紙提供資訊。如此，當我們再次逮捕別的記者的時候，我們會讓整個出版界無關緊要，再然後，我們會讓第一修正案也變成一紙無關痛癢的空文。（關於第一修正案，傳送門：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution）
And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over-and what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shutter at the thought.
再然後，如果總統包庇犯罪，如果軍官虐囚，誰來讓我們知道？我們，這個國家的權力將再也不對那些賦予他們權力的人負責。如果它再也不需要畏懼這種責任的時候，政府是什麼？不寒而慄。

Imprisoning journalists-that's for other countries, that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them.

 Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.
監禁記者是別的國家做的事情，是那些，懼怕他們的國民的國家，而非珍視和護佑他們臣民的國家。
不久以前，我開始感覺到在RACHEL ARMSTRONG肩上的個人和家庭壓力，我說我只是在替她辯護而不是她的原則。但是，當我見到她的時候我意識到，對於偉大的人來說，她和她的原則是沒有區別的。

可惜，我們是「人民民主」「專政」我們沒有第一修正案。所以本質上，這是個和我們無關的片子，無關的原則，無關的感動。