2種原則夾擊下的杯具

************這篇影評可能有雷************

真的應該真相至上嗎？涉及的國家安全保密原則可以被打破嗎？也不計個人的任何代價，只為了保守與一個小女孩之間的約定？

如果你是這個記者，你怎麼做？

反正於我而言，只求此生絕對不要陷入如此夾縫中。

感覺此片最精彩的片斷是大律師在最高法院上的辯護陳詞：

尊敬的首席大法官 庭上 請允許我...
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court.

在1972年的"布萊茲伯格訴海斯案"中
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes,

本法庭違背了保證記者
this court ruled against the right of reporters

在大陪審團前拒絕透露其情報人姓名的應有權利
to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury,

而是賦予政府權力
and it gave the power to the government

監禁了所有這些不肯透露資訊的記者
to imprison those reporters who did.

裁決結果是以5:4 的微弱優勢得出
It was a five-four decision. Close.

在"布萊茲伯格案"中 斯圖爾特法官曾說
In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said,

"時光流逝
"As the years pass,

"政府手中的權利滲透到了各個角落"
"the power of government becomes more and more pervasive."

"這些當權者" 他說 "不管用什麼政策手段"
"Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics,"

"只想永久地存在"
"want only to perpetuate it"

"而人民才是最終受害者"
"and the people are the victims."

這麼多年過去了 這樣的權利繼續存在著
Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive.

阿姆斯特朗女士
Ms. Armstrong could have

與政府做出了鬥爭
buckled to the demands of the government.

她本可以放棄她所做的承諾
She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality.

本可以簡簡單單地回家 跟家人團聚
She could have simply gone home to her family.

但是如果這樣做了
But to do so

那就意味著 再也不會有人會給她提供任何情報
would mean that no source would ever speak to her again,

沒有人會給她的報社提供情報
and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again,

然後明天
and then tomorrow

當我們逮捕了其他的報社記者時
when we lock up journalists from other newspapers,

我們會讓這些報社最後也毫無來源
we'll make those publications irrelevant as well,

那這樣就等於我們無視了第一修正案的存在
and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant.

我們要如何才知道 總統是否隱瞞了自己的罪行
And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes?

或者一名軍隊軍官是否進行了虐囚行為?
Or if an army officer has condoned torture?

作為一個國家
We, as a nation,

我們不再有能力約束當權者
will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable

手中權力的時候
to those whom they have power over.

那麼當國家政府不再害怕任何責任的時候
And what then is the nature of government

它的本質成了何種國家
when it has no fear of accountability?

我們要好好考慮一下
We should shudder at the thought.

監禁記者? 那是針對別國的
Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries.


是針對那些害怕受到指責的國家
That's for countries who fear their citizens,

不是那些願意接受指責國家所為
not countries that cherish and protect them.

不久前
Some time ago,

我因為瑞秋·阿姆斯特朗的案件
I began to feel the personal human pressure

開始感覺到個人壓力
on Rachel Armstrong,

我告訴她 我會代表著她本人
and I told her that I was there to represent her

而不是她的原則
and not a principle.

直到我見到她
And it was not until I met her

我才意識到 對於真正了不起的人來說
that I realized that with great people,

人與原則是沒有區別的
there's no difference between principle and the person.