喬治‧J‧米切爾 (GEORGE J. MITCHELL)

在伊朗─反對派問題聽證會上的講話 The Iran－Contra Hearings

    雖然我們常常懇求上帝支援美國的策略，上帝卻不這麼做。

    兩個外交政策問題使雷根政府陷入窘境。第一，雷根政府無法使美國在中東的人質獲釋；第二，它想援助尼加拉瓜左派桑地諾主義政權的反對派(簡稱"反對派")。雷根政府不能為人質付贖金，因為它已公開發誓不與恐怖分子談判；它也不能公開支援反對派，因為國會於1984年停止了對他們的資助。所以制定了一個秘密計劃，把武器出售給伊朗，希望伊朗運用其影響讓美國人質獲釋，並且設法把武器銷售活動引向對反對派的支援。

    象徵伊朗─反對派問題的人物是奧利弗‧諾斯中校，他在國家安全委員會負責實施這一工作。1987年，諾斯在國會聽證會上作證時為自己的行動辯護，稱這種行動是出自一名軍人的愛國動機。

    1987年7月13日，喬治‧J‧米切爾(1933 ─ )與諾斯中校爭論。大眾傳播媒介和全國的注意力集中在聽證會上，而米切爾參議員給美國人民上了有關公民學的一課。

    諾斯中校，你常在這兒振振有辭地談論在尼加拉瓜實現民主的必要性。對這一點人們沒有異議。但對於如何以最佳方式達到這一目標，則存在著爭議。

    許多人贊同總統的政策，許多人反對。     許多強烈反對共產主義的，滿懷愛國熱忱的美國人認為，有一種更好的方式去遏制桑地諾主義者，在尼加拉瓜實現民主，給中美洲帶來和平。

    許多愛國的美國公民擔心，當我們在國外追求民主時，是否會在國內或多或少損害了民主。

    你和其他一些人極力主張我們的政策的連貫性。你曾說，假如我們前後不一致，我們的盟國和其他一些國家將對我們的可靠性表示懷疑。     這種擔心是很現實的。但是，如果說改變政策是壞事，那麼同時採用兩種不同的政策──公開奉行一種政策，暗中卻反其道而行之──則更不可取。

    很難設想能有比這種做法更加自相矛盾的了。很難想像有什麼比陰一套陽一套的做法使我們的盟國更有理由認為我們靠不住。

    而出售武器給伊朗作為釋放人質的交換條件恰恰正是這種做法。

    關於愛國主義和對我國的熱愛，你已說了很多。

    大多數國家起源於單一的部落或單一的種族。他們信奉單一的宗教。共同的種族、人種和宗教傳統是許多國家之所以成為國家的粘合劑。

    但美國則不然。我們有各種種族，各種宗教，一個很有限的共同傳統。我們美國的國家粘合劑是關於個人自由和公平的美國理想。

    法治乃是我國社會的關鍵問題。法律是最偉大的均衡器，因為在美國，法律面前人人平等。

    但凡涉及法律，我們決不容許用目的為手段辯護。不論目的多麼重要，多麼崇高──無疑國外的民主是重要而又崇高的──都不能以損害我國的法制為代價來達到。

    你談到你的經歷，確實令人感到欽佩。顯然這是美國人民被你所吸引的原因之一。

    讓我告訴你我自己經歷中的一個故事。

    在我進入參議院之前，我有幸擔任聯邦法官。在那個職位上，我擁有很大的權力。我最樂於行使的權力是讓人們成為美國公民。

    我一次又一次主持我們稱為加入國籍的儀式，即公民儀式。

    到此刻為止──到此刻為止這是我一生中做過的最激動人心的事情。

    這種儀式始終讓我感動，因為我母親便是個移民，而我父親則是一對移民留下的孤兒。我的雙親皆未上過學，他們在我們的社會中從事微賤的工作。但由於美國法律所賦予的機會和公正，我今天以美國參議員的身份坐在這個座位上。

    每一次公民儀式結束後，我都堅持同那些新入籍的美國人談話。我問他們為什麼來美國，怎樣來到美國。他們每個人的故事都是扣人心弦的。根據你所表述的對美國的觀點，我相信你對這些故事也會感興趣，也會受感動。

    當我問他們為什麼來美國時，他們提到若干原因，主要是兩點。第一，"我們來此，因為在美國這裏每個人都有一個機會，一個良機"。他們，特別是來自極權主義國家的人們還反覆說："我們來到這裏，因為在美國你可以批評政府而不用擔驚受怕。"在這裏我們有與政府持不同觀點的自由。

    現在我向你提出一個請求。

    在美國人民感到欽佩的你的品格中，最突出的是你對我國顯而易見的忠誠。請記住，別人也具有這一忠誠。請認識到，一個美國人不贊同你關於援助尼加拉瓜反對派的觀點，但他仍和你一樣愛上帝，愛祖國。

    雖然我們經常懇求上帝支援美國的策略，上帝卻不這麼做。

    而在美國，不同意政府的觀點並不證明一個人缺乏愛國主義。我想再說一遍：在美國，不同意政府的觀點並不證明一個人缺乏愛國主義。實際上，我們可以公開表示與政府意見相左而不必懼怕報復。這一點是我們自由的實質所在，而且它將使我們 永享自由。

    我還有最後一點請求。如同你已經做到並將一定會做到的那樣，奮力投入關於這一問題的辯論。但是請採取這種辯論方式，即尊重那些與你觀點不同的人們的愛國精神和動機，正如你希望他們尊重你的愛國精神和動機一樣。

Colonel North, you talked here often and eloquently about the need for a democratic outcome in Nicaragua. There is no disagreement on that. There is disagreement over how best to achieve that objective.

      Many Americans agree with the President's policy. Many do not.

      Many patriotic Americans, strongly anti-Communist, believe there's a better way to contain the Sandinistas, to bring about a democratic outcome in Nicaragua, and to bring peace to Central America.

      And many patriotic Americans are concerned that in the pursuit of democracy abroad, we not compromise it in any way here at home. You and others have urged consistency in our policies. You said that if we are not consistent, our allies and other nations will question our reliability.

      That's a real concern. But, if it's bad to change policies, it's worse to have two different policies at the same time, one public policy and an opposite policy in private.

      It's difficult to conceive of a greater inconsistency than that. It's hard to imagine anything that would give our allies more cause to consider us unreliable than that we say one thing in public and secretly do another.

      And that's exactly what was done when arms were sold to Iran, and those arms were swapped for hostages.

      Now, you've talked a lot about patriotism and the love of our country.

      Most nations derive from a single tribe or a single race. They practice a single religion. Common racial, ethnic, and religious heritages are the glue of nationhood for many.

      The United States is different. We have all races, all religions, a limited common heritage. The glue of nationhood for us is the American ideal of individual liberty and equal justice. The rule of law is critical in our society. The law is the great equalizer, because in America everybody is equal before the law.

      We must never allow the end to justify the means where the law is concerned. However important and noble an objective－ and surely democracy abroad is important and noble－ it cannot be achieved at the expense of the rule of law in our country.

      You talked about your background and it was really very compelling. It's obviously one of the reasons why the American people are attracted to you.

      Let me tell you a story from my background. Before I entered the Senate I had the great honor of serving as a Federal Judge. In that position I had great power. The one I most enjoyed exercising was the power to make people American citizens.

      From time to time I presided at what we call naturalization ceremonies. They are citizenship ceremonies.

     People came from all over the world, risked their lives, sometimes left their families and fortunes behind to come here. They had gone through the required procedures and I, in the final act, administered to them the oath of allegiance to the United States and I made them American citizens.

    To this moment－ to this moment it was the most exciting thing I have ever done in my life. The ceremonies were always moving for me because my mother was an immigrant and my father was the orphan son of immigrants. Neither of them had any education and they worked at very menial tasks in our society. But because of opportunity and equal justice under law in America, I sit here today a United States senator.

    After every one of these ceremonies, I made it a point to speak to these new Americans. I asked them why they came, how they came to this country. Their stories, each of them, were inspiring. I think you would be interested and moved by them, given the views you have expressed on this country.

    When I asked them why they came they said several things, mostly two. The first is that "We came because here in America everyone has a chance, an opportunity." They also said over and over again, particularly those from totalitarian societies, "We came here because in America you can criticize the government without looking over your shoulder." Here we have freedom to disagree with our government.

    You have addressed several pleas to this committee, none more forceful than when you asked that the Congress not cut off aid to the (contras, for the love of God and for the love of country.

    Now I address a plea to you.

    Of your qualities which the American people find compelling, none is more compelling than your obvious devotion to our country. Please remember that others share that devotion. And recognize that it is possible for an American to disagree with you on aid to the Contras, and still love God and still love this country as much as you do.

    Although He is regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics. And, in America, disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of a lack of patriotism. I want to repeat that. In America, disagreement with policies of the government is not evidence of a lack of patriotism. Indeed, it's the very fact that we can openly disagree with the government without fear of reprisal that is the essence of our freedom, and will keep us free.

      I have one final plea. Debate this issue forcefully and vigorously, as you have and as you surely will. But, please, do it in a way that respects the patriotism and the motives of those who disagree with you, as you would have them respect yours.