一位參加過兩次原子轟炸飛行員的證言 (中譯)

這篇是上次提到,美國退休空軍將領 Charles Sweeney 在 1995 年國會聽證上準備的稿子,他也是唯一一位參加了兩次對日本轟炸原子彈的飛行員。在二次大戰結束 50 週年的時刻,他出席聽證會呼籲大眾重視二戰當時的歷史背景與戰爭結束的正面意義。這些話語在 20 年後的今天,依然發人深省。

二次大戰結束 70 週年將屆,週末抽點空檔,把聲明稿譯為中文。希望世人能夠不要忘記歷史,不讓前人的鮮血白流。否則,遭殃的只是自己,或是自己的下一代。譯文若有疏失,還請方家不吝留言批評指教。


 

我是美國退休空軍少將 Charles W. Sweeney。我也是唯一一位出過兩次原子彈轟炸任務的飛行員。當准將 Paul Tibbets 在執行轟炸廣島任務時,我飛在他的右翼;三天後的 1945 年 8 月 9 日,我指揮了轟炸長崎的任務。第二次轟炸的六天之後,日本軍方投降,第二次大戰也就此結束。

一個國家的靈魂、精義,存在於它的歷史當中。藉由所有人的共同記憶,才能決定每個世代的信念、以及他們對國家的信仰。

一個像我們的自由社會當中,隨時都會有各種議題在論證,討論我們國家的定位、價值和應該扮演的角色。這種開放式的討論,對於保護我們的自由來說至關重要。但是討論的前提是,作為一個整體社會,我們應勇於面對所有既存的事實。我們也必須有勇氣主張,在所有的事實列舉詳盡以前,不應該產生任何定論。

當廣島長崎的原子轟炸時屆 50 週年的現在,我們應該可以心平氣和的討論杜魯門總統下令轟炸的決策是否允當。對於這點,你我可能意見相左。但是在討論之前,請讓我們至少先誠實面對當時的一些基本事實,一些杜魯門當時決策前,必須要直接面對的東西。

作為唯一一位親身參與兩次任務的飛行員,我希望針對這些討論提供一些我的親身見證。我將陳述的是毋庸置疑的事實。當然我完全明白,有些人會忽略這些事實,因為那些人已經心有成見,而這些不可爭辯的事實和他們腦海中的偏見不符。

今晚,作為當時歷史的參與者,我希望提供我自己的觀察、思考和結論。我相信杜魯門總統的決定不僅符合當時的情況,而且在道德意義上,完全壓倒性的勝過任何其他選項。

就像和我同時代的絕大多數人一樣,我非常不希望打仗。我們並不是好戰的戰士,我們也不追求那種輝煌。我們沒有戰士階級、沒有武士這種職業,也不認為哪個民族比其他民族更優秀。

這在今天,就像和五十年前一樣,都是事實。

當我們國家在大蕭條中苦苦掙扎的時候,日本開始了對她鄰國的征伐 ─ 想要打造一個「大東亞共榮圈」。法西斯總是以冠冕堂皇的口號來掩飾最卑劣的陰謀。

他們的「共榮」是透過對中國和滿州地區發動無情而殘酷的整體戰來進行的。日本當時認為自己命中註定要統治亞洲,也因此她可以支配亞洲所有的天然資源和廣大的土地。日本在毫不猶豫和憐憫的情況下,屠殺了許多無辜的男女和孩童。在著名的南京大屠殺中,約 30 萬手無寸鐵的平民百姓被像畜牲一樣屠宰。這是犯罪的行為。

這些是事實。

日本認為,唯一阻擋她實現自己統領亞洲的神聖使命的絆腳石,就是美國。於是日本對駐於珍珠港的太平洋艦隊發起了精心策劃的偷襲行動。這個偷襲被安排在星期天早上執行,以求極大化的摧毀船艦以及海軍人員,以達到對太平洋艦隊的致命打擊。

1700 名美國水手的英靈,至今依然埋沒在亞歷桑納號中,沈睡在珍珠港的海底。他們絕大部分人在臨死前都不知道為什麼死的。當時,戰爭是這樣被強推到美國身上的。

如果當時還有人對於日軍的獸性抱持懷疑,柯雷希多島的陷落以及後續對盟軍戰俘的處置驅散了他們的最後一絲期望。即使以戰時的標準來說,這些殘暴的行為都是令人髮指的。巴丹的死亡行軍讓人驚怖不已。日本人認為投降對於自己、家族、國家以及神明來說都是污辱。因此他們對俘虜毫不留情。7000 名美國和菲律賓的戰俘被毆打、槍擊、刀刺,或是在無糧無水並且疫病蔓延的環境下讓他們自生自滅。

這些是事實。

當美國在廣大的太平洋上,向日本展開緩慢而艱辛的反攻時,日本人證明自己成為極端無情且倔強的殺人機器。不管戰情有多麼絕望、獲勝機會多渺茫,結局如此明顯的情況下,日軍都堅決戰鬥至死。為了達成他們自己的榮耀,他們總是盡可能的多殺一些美國人。

隨著美軍越接近日本本土,日本人的戰鬥就變得越瘋狂。

塞班島 ─ 3100 名美軍陣亡,其中在最初幾個小時內就死了 1500 人。
硫磺島 ─ 6700 名美軍陣亡,25000 人受傷。
沖繩島 ─ 12500 名美軍陣亡,總傷亡 35000 人。

這些只是由墓園白十字架所標記出來的簡單事實。

Kamikaze – 字面意義上譯為神風。駕駛者自願滿載炸彈撞往美國軍艦,他們認為這是轉化為神性的方式。無論在天上人間,都是至高無上的榮耀。這些自殺攻擊,奪走了 5000 名海軍士兵的性命。

日本人誓言,如果美軍有任何一人踏上日本國土,他們就會處決所有的盟軍戰俘。日本人也為戰俘的屠殺做好準備,他們甚至要求戰俘挖好自己的墳墓。即使在投降之後,他們還是處決了一些美軍戰俘。

這些是事實。

《波茨坦宣言》要求日本無條件投降。日本人認為這個要求太離譜根本不值得考慮。我們從破譯的密電中得知,他們準備盡可能拖延時間,來逼迫盟軍談一個他們可以接受的投降條件。

在 8 月 6 號之前的幾個月中,美軍飛機開始轟炸日本本土。轟炸和風勢引發的火災把一個個都市化為火海。數十萬的日本人因此喪命。但是日本軍方依然誓言決不投降。他們為了得到自己眼裡的光輝和榮耀,不管犧牲再多子民也在所不計。

即便是我們事先空投傳單,警示著即將來臨的大轟炸,他們甚至拒絕疏散自己的平民百姓。在一次為期三天的轟炸中,東京、名古屋、神戶、大阪有 34 平方英哩的區域化為灰燼。

這些是事實。

而且即使在廣島的原子轟炸之後,東條英機、繼任的鈴木貫太郎以及大權在握的日本軍部仍然堅信美國只有一枚原子彈,日本依然可以堅持犧牲下去。他們有三天的時間可以用來投降,卻沒有這麼做。內閣內的討論越來越激烈。

只有在長崎的原子轟炸之後,日本天皇才終於投降。

而即使是在那一刻,日本軍方依然堅持他們可以,也應該繼續戰鬥。一些軍官甚至發起政變,試圖在投降詔書尚未公布給日本人民之前截下並銷燬。

這些是事實。

這些事實,有助於理解當時我們面對的敵人的本質,有助於釐清當時杜魯門總統決策時,所需要考慮的背景,也有助於明白為什麼原子彈的轟炸是必要的。

和每一個服役的男女軍人一樣,杜魯門總統明白這些事實。傷亡人數不是抽象的統計數字,而是令人哀痛的真實。

兩顆原子彈是否結束了這場戰爭?是的…  他們結束了二次大戰。

這兩顆原子彈是必要的嗎?嗯,這就是爭議產生的地方了。

50 年的迷霧,遮掩了我們國家的記憶。對一些人來說,日本人成了受害者,而我們美軍成了貪婪好戰的侵略者,為了復仇和征服而投擲了原子彈。他們認為我們對核子武器的使用,是核武時代不道德、非正義的起點。當然,為了支撐這種曲解的悖論,他們必須故意忽略這些明顯的事實,或是編造一些新的材料。最令人震驚的,恐怕就是他們否認日本曾經進行大屠殺。

事情怎麼會變成這樣子的?

答案可能藏在最近發生的一些事情當中。

最近關於杜魯門總統下令轟炸的爭論,在某些時候已經變成數字遊戲。史密森尼學會在準備 Enola Gay 展覽會的時候透漏一些令人恐懼的翻案論調,引起史學界的憤怒浪潮。

那個展覽會想紀念一個虛構的事情 ─ 日本人是受害者,我們是邪惡的侵略者。想像一下,你帶你的孩子、或是孫子去參觀這些展覽。

他們會得到什麼樣的訊息?

這樣的展覽還殘存多少真相?

他們會認為自己的國家代表什麼價值?

而這一切,是由一個無論在章程和名義上,都應當保存重要美國價值的半官方美國機構所進行的。

現在,取消了計畫中的展覽,單純只展示出了 Enola Gay 這台轟炸機。真相是否終於呈現在世人眼前?

未必盡然。

在一場全國廣播的電視節目討論中,一位所謂歷史學者聲稱原子彈並非必要的。他說日本已經準備投降了,杜魯門投擲原子彈只是為了震懾俄國人。

日本人真的準備投降了嗎?他怎麼知道了?他憑什麼這樣說?

也有一些論點說,艾森豪將軍在戰後多年曾經說日本即將垮台,無力再戰。然而,艾森豪也曾經嚴重低估德國繼續戰鬥的意志和能力。1944 年的年底,他曾經總結認為德國已經無力再進行攻擊作戰。

結果這是個悲劇性的誤判。結果在巴登戰役中,數萬盟軍毫無必要的犧牲了,也讓戰事冒著繼續延長、讓德國有可能談條件的風險。

因此,他認為日本當時即將垮台的說法,應該說是事後諸葛,而非先見之明。

根據日軍在太平洋戰爭的表現,判斷日軍將會戰鬥的比德軍更為激烈瘋狂,應該是相當公允的合理判斷。

最後,近日有個理論表示,即使我們進攻日本本土,美軍的傷亡不會是一般預期的一百萬人,而僅僅只是 46000 人而已。

僅僅只是 46000 人!

你能聽出這種言論的冰冷荒誕嗎?僅僅只是 46000 人 ─ 彷彿這只是微不足道的美軍性命。

也許這些所謂的歷史家只想賣書。

也許他們真的相信如此。或是他們只是覺得我們打贏戰爭很不高興。

不管它們的理由是什麼,這都是個充滿瑕疵的論點。這種推論只挑選適合自己理論的事實進行推演而已。

今天,讓我在這裡大方的承認,我不知道如果進攻日本本土,會有多少美國人傷亡 ─ 然而他們跟我一樣毫無概念!

我確知的是,根據日軍戰時行為,可以合理推斷針對日本本土的進攻將會曠日廢時而且遍地血腥。日本當時根本不會無條件投降 ─ 這個判斷是根據我們掌握的事實,而不是某些人的幻想。

在硫磺島的戰爭中,一個太平洋中僅佔 8 平方英哩的石塊、彈丸之地 ─ 就犧牲了 6700 名美國士兵,總傷亡數超過三萬人。

但是即使退一萬步說,假定這些人說的是對的,攻擊日本本土僅僅只會犧牲 46000 人,我想問:

是哪 46000 人該死?
誰的爸爸該死?
誰的兄弟該死?
誰的丈夫該死?

是的,沒錯,我這裡只針對美國人的性命在討論。

因為日本人的性命掌握在他們自己手上,而不是在我們手裡。侵略戰爭並不是我們發動的。當時數十萬美軍在陣營內焦躁的等待,不知道是否必須發動對日本本土的進攻。日本人的決定,也將左右他們的命運。日本人可以在任何一刻結束這場戰爭。但是日本決定繼續等待。

而當日本繼續拖延的時候,隨著戰事的持續,平均每天都有超過 900 名美軍傷亡。

我也曾經聽過另一種說法,說我們應該與日本談判,協調一個日本可以接受的投降條件。我從來沒聽說過,有誰主張和納粹德國談投降條件的。這是一個極端荒謬瘋狂的想法,任何一個有理性的人都說不出這種話。要和這樣邪惡的法西斯談判,即使你獲勝了,你也承認了他的正當性。這不是那個時代某種空洞虛無的哲學爭論。我們必須確保這種邪惡勢力被清楚、明確、不容置疑、不可復原的擊敗、打倒。這些法西斯的領導者,已經耗盡了任何外交上可能的善意。那麼,為什麼太平洋戰爭的歷史,這麼輕易的就被遺忘了?

也許,原因就存在於現在正持續進行的:針對歷史和我們共同記憶的扭曲。

日本戰敗五十年後的今天,日本官員輕率的以受害者自居,聲稱廣島長崎與大屠殺並無二致。

不管你信不信,有一些美國學者也支持這種類比,也由此使日本更有動力去繼續他們已經花費 50 年去改寫的歷史。在這個過程中,連我們的歷史也都被改寫了。

於是有一整個世代的日本人完全不明白他們國家在二次大戰中到底都幹了些什麼。

這也是為什麼,他們不能理解日本為什麼要對這些事情道歉:

  • 韓國的慰安婦
  • 針對戰俘進行的人體實驗
  • 計畫在美國西岸針對平民百姓進行生化攻擊
  • 有計劃、大規模的屠殺平民百姓
  • 以及其他許許多多的罪行。

在這種邪惡的顛倒是非之下,當我們忘記了自己的歷史,我們也在協助讓日本「失憶」,這對彼此兩個國家都是不利的。

和德國的認罪不同的是,日本堅持虛構的幻象,認為自己沒做錯任何事情,他們只是受限於當時局勢的必然反應。這種態度,擊碎了任何歷史傷痕癒合的希望。

只有認清事實才能夠真正原諒。而當我們遺忘了基本的事實,我們就冒著重複這段悲慘歷史的危險。

日本進行了一系列的精密公關宣傳和政治活動,建議使用「太平洋勝利日」來取代「對日戰爭勝利日」。說的比唱的好聽。

他們說,這種說法會讓太平洋戰爭「不那麼針對日本」。

一篇 4 月 5 號登載在華爾街日報的文章很精確的描述了這種離譜的現象:

根據的理由是,有些日本人覺得不太舒服 ─ 這也不難看出為什麼。畢竟「對日戰爭勝利」的「日」字,就是在提醒大家,1945 年 8 月,全世界的人們是在慶祝哪個國家被打敗。針對日本官員要求的退讓,一個美國官員(他很聰明的保持匿名)甚至提議:我們這些慶祝活動並不是要慶祝一場勝利,而只是慶祝一個事件。

有些人可能會說,這只不過是一些話術嘛 ─ 對日的勝利、在太平洋的勝利….  我們就慶祝一個事件就好了,不需要慶祝一場勝利。

我會說,話語就是一切。慶祝一個事件!?

講的好像慶祝一個百貨賣場開幕一樣,而不是一場席捲全世界戰爭的結束。這場戰爭讓世界以千萬計的人數死亡,更多人身心受創,無以計數的人流離失所無家可歸。

這種對話語的攻擊是很奧威爾式的,也讓歷史和記憶變得愈加模糊不清。語言文字常常比任何武器都更具破壞力。

上即是下。

奴役即是自由。

侵略即是和平。

在很多方面上,這種對話語的攻擊、抹除精準描述語句的作法,比 50 年前日本對我們展開的侵略更具危險性。至少當時,敵人是誰大家都很清楚。

今天日本人很技術性的打起了種族主義牌,來表示他們戰時行為的正當性。他們聲稱自己並不是在進行侵略罪行;而是從白人帝國主義之下解放大批的亞洲人民。

解放!!是啊,他們殺了超過兩千萬亞洲人,只是為了把他們從帝國主義中解救出來。我很確定,這兩千萬人、他們的家人、以及勢必絕後的後代,都對日本人高尚的情操心懷感激。

我經常被詢及,用原子彈轟炸日本是否為了報復。史密森尼學會展覽裡面的一份草稿也是這麼認為的。認為我們是為了摧毀一個古老而光榮的文化才投擲原子彈。

這裡我要說一些令人不快的事實。

第一,在最初的轟炸清單上,包含了京都。雖然京都也可以成為一個合法合理的轟炸目標,之前的空襲也未予轟炸。然而國務卿 Henry Stimson 把它從清單上劃掉了。因為京都是日本傳統的古都,也是日本的文化宗教中心。

第二,我們戰時被嚴格下令,不准在任何情況下轟炸位於東京的皇居。儘管我們可以輕易的把它夷為平地,也可能在這種情況下殺死日本天皇。我們真的是為了報仇嗎?

我經常忍不住想,如果日本有機會轟炸美國白宮,是否也能夠像我們這樣自我克制?我想未必吧。

在這裡,請讓我澄清另一個謠言,指稱我們故意選擇人口密集的都市投擲原子彈。每個我們轟炸的目標丟有重要的軍事設施 ─ 廣島是日軍南方司令部的所在地,集結了重兵,並且一旦展開登陸作戰,他們也將負責本州的防禦。

長崎則是一個工業中心,有兩個大規模的三菱兵工廠。無論是廣島或是長崎,日本都把這些工業中心和軍隊佈署分配在都市的核心。

就如任何一場戰爭的目標一樣,我們的目標,理所當然是獲勝。失敗的結果太可怕、難以想像。

我經常被問到,是否會心懸那些死於廣島和長崎原子轟炸的日本人們?

這場極為恐怖的戰爭死了很多人,在兩邊陣營都是如此。我並不因此而感到歡欣雀躍。我也不因為戰爭的殘酷而感到驕傲或喜悅,無論受害的是我國或是他國人民。每條性命都是十分寶貴的。

但是在我看來,這個問題更適合拿去問那些日本戰犯,他們毫不遲疑的願意以日本人民的生命做代價來換取自己眼中的偉大。是他們發動了侵略戰爭,然後在情勢十分明朗的時候依然頑固的不願意放棄戰鬥。是他們必須要負責。難道他們不應該為這些犧牲的日本人民負上最終的責任嗎?

也許當日本人能夠真切的了解過去,清楚明白日本在這場戰爭中做過的事情,他們將會發現日本軍部應該要負上責任。這個讓東亞許多國家飽受苦難、最後也把苦難帶給自己人民的日本軍部,也應當給日本人一個答覆。當然,如果我們繼續幫助日本人抹清歷史真相,這些都不可能會發生。

如果日本不能要求、理解並接受真相,他們怎麼能和美國、和自己相安共處?

我和我的隊員在執行這些飛行任務的時候,我們的信念是:這將為這場戰爭劃上句點。我們並不感到高興。我們當時心中想的是,必須完成任務的使命,以及自己必須回到家人、所愛的人身邊的決心。

今天,以百萬計的美國人和東南亞人之所以活著,是因為戰爭在當時就劃上了句點,沒有繼續拖延下去。

我並不是想站在這裡,慶祝我們用過了核子武器。其實剛好相反。

我希望我飛的原子轟炸任務是最後一次,世界上再也不要有類似的任務發生。

我希望我國人民都能夠厭惡棄絕核子武器的存在。

我衷心這樣盼望著。

但是這並不代表著,在 1945 年的 8 月,當時的時空背景、敵人的頑強抵抗之下,杜魯門總統沒有義務使用一切可能的武器來結束這場戰爭。

我當時贊同杜魯門總統的決定,今天依然如是。

多年以後,有人問及杜魯門總統,他是否後悔當時的決定。杜魯門總統加重語氣的回應:「不。」他同時也提醒提問者,珍珠港事變的死難英靈,連後悔的機會都沒有。

戰爭總是可怕而代價高昂的。就像南北戰爭的 Robert Lee 所說,「還好戰爭這麼可怕,不然肯定會有人愛上它。」

我深深感謝上帝,是我們擁有了這些武器,而不是日本人和德國人。科學發展事實上已經準備好了。遲早會有人把它開發出來。你沒辦法否定科學;最後原子彈總是會有的。

關於開發原子彈是否明智的問題,已經早已被拋棄了,因為必定會有人把它開發出來。蘇聯想當然耳的必將開發自己的核子武器。我們別忘了,史達林並不比東條英機或是他的前盟友希特勒善良。就我們所知,史達林治下屠殺了超過兩千萬他自己的國民。

因為德國和日本的法西斯份子被擊敗而無法征服世界,所以這個世界變得更美好了。

由於我們勝利之後的寬仁處置,日本和德國也都變得更美好了。

年輕一代的日本人和美國人,因為戰爭的結束而免於不必要的屠戮,他們有機會長大、成家、終老。

作為 10 個孩子的父親、21 個孫子的爺爺,我可以說,我很高興戰爭在當下結束了。

我當然不能代表所有的二戰老兵發言。但是我相信,在所有的老兵心中,都有一層驕傲,在那場重大的戰事當中,我們能夠為國家服務。這是為什麼我需要出來保存戰事的真相。我們老兵並非不敢挺身而出。我們的責任感也不會被繁複的討論所瓦解。我們挺的住。

但是我們不會、也不能允許一些不切實際的傢伙們,藉由隱藏一些重要的事實、不讓美國人民和全世界知道真相,意圖形塑這場論證的結果。

我非常相信,當美國人民明白到所有的事實,他們對於戰爭結束的判斷就能有正當公平的結論。

這是非常重要的辯證。我們國家的靈魂、精義以及歷史,都在最緊急的關頭。

一位參加過兩次原子轟炸飛行員的證言

這是美國退休空軍將領 Charles Sweeney 在 1995 年國會聽證上準備的稿子,他也是唯一一位參加了兩次對日本轟炸原子彈的飛行員。在二次大戰結束 50 週年的時刻,他出席聽證會呼籲大眾重視二戰當時的歷史背景與戰爭結束的正面意義。這些話語在 20 年後的今天,依然發人深省。

我大概是沒有空把它翻成中文了。也許改天時間衝動兩者兼具的時候再來試試看吧…

[Update: 中譯在此]

(原文取自 archive.org,因為出處的排版比較粗糙,在這裡略作排版上的更動以符合一般閱讀習慣。)

[Statement of Major General Charles W. Sweeney, U.S.A.F. (Ret.) delivered before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration—hearings on the Smithsonian Institution: Management Guidelines for the Future, May 11, 1995.]

I am Major General Charles W. Sweeney, United States Air Force, Retired. I am the only pilot to have flown on both atomic missions. I flew the instrument plane on the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on the Hiroshima mission and 3 days later, on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomic mission over Nagasaki. Six days after Nagasaki the Japanese military surrendered and the Second World War came to an end.

The soul of a nation, its essence, is its history. It is that collective memory which defines what each generation thinks and believes about itself and its country.

In a free society, such as ours, there is always an ongoing debate about who we are and what we stand for. This open debate is in fact essential to our freedom. But to have such a debate we as a society must have the courage to consider all of the facts available to us. We must have the courage to stand up and demand that before any conclusions are reached, those facts which are beyond question are accepted as part of the debate.

As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions approaches, now is an appropriate time to consider the reasons for Harry Truman’s order that these missions be flown. We may disagree on the conclusion, but let us at least be honest enough to agree on basic facts of the time, the facts that President Truman had to consider in making a difficult and momentous decision.

As the only pilot to have flown both missions, and having commanded the Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate my own eyewitness account of the times. I underscore what I believe are irrefutable facts, with full knowledge that some opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss them because they are so obvious — because they interfere with their preconceived version of the truth, and the meaning which they strive to impose on the missions.

This evening, I want to offer my thoughts, observations, and conclusions as someone who lived this history, and who believes that President Truman’s decision was not only justified by the circumstances of his time, but was a moral imperative that precluded any other option.

Like the overwhelming majority of my generation the last thing I wanted was a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We are not hell-bent on glory. There is no warrior class — no Samurai — no master race.

This is true today, and it was true 50 years ago.

While our country was struggling through the great depression, the Japanese were embarking on the conquest of its neighbors — the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It seems fascism always seeks some innocuous slogan to cover the most hideous plans.

This Co-Prosperity was achieved by waging total and merciless war against China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as a nation, saw itself as destined to rule Asia and thereby possess its natural resources and open lands. Without the slightest remorse or hesitation, the Japanese Army slaughtered innocent men, women and children. In the infamous Rape of Nanking up to 300,000 unarmed civilians were butchered. These were criminal acts.

THESE ARE FACTS.

In order to fulfill its divine destiny in Asia, Japan determined that the only real impediment to this goal was the United States. It launched a carefully conceived sneak attack on our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. Timed for a Sunday morning it was intended to deal a death blow to the fleet by inflicting the maximum loss of ships and human life.

1,700 sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, died without ever knowing why. Thus was the war thrust upon us.

The fall of Corregidor and the resulting treatment of Allied prisoners of war dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumanness of the Japanese Army, even in the context of war. The Bataan Death March was horror in its fullest dimension. The Japanese considered surrender to be dishonorable to oneself, one’s family, one’s country and one’s god. They showed no mercy. Seven thousand American and Filipino POW’s were beaten, shot, bayonetted or left to die of disease or exhaustion.

THESE ARE FACTS.

As the United States made its slow, arduous, and costly march across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the Japanese proved to be a ruthless and intractable killing machine. No matter how futile, no matter how hopeless the odds, no matter how certain the outcome, the Japanese fought to the death. And to achieve a greater glory, they strove to kill as many Americans as possible.

The closer the United States came to the Japanese mainland, the more fanatical their actions became.

Saipan — 3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the first few hours of the invasion.
Iwo Jima — 6,700 Americans killed, 25,000 wounded.
Okinawa — 12,500 Americans killed, total casualties, 35,000.

These are facts reported by simple white grave markers.

Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINE WIND. To willingly dive a plane loaded with bombs into an American ship was a glorious transformation to godliness — there was no higher honor on heaven or earth. The suicidal assaults of the Kamikazes took 5,000 American Navy men to their deaths.

The Japanese vowed that, with the first American to step foot on the mainland, they would execute every Allied prisoner. In preparation they forced the POW’s to dig their own graves in the event of mass executions. Even after their surrender, they executed some American POW’s.

THESE ARE FACTS.

The Potsdam Declaration had called for unconditional surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. We know from our intercepts of their coded messages, that they wanted to stall for time to force a negotiated surrender on terms acceptable to them.

For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began dropping fire bombs upon the Japanese mainland. The wind created by the firestorm from the bombs incinerated whole cities. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died. Still the Japanese military vowed never to surrender. They were prepared to sacrifice their own people to achieve their visions of glory and honor — no matter how many more people died.

They refused to evacuate civilians even though our pilots dropped leaflets warning of the possible bombings. In one 3-day period, 34 square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka were reduced to rubble.

THESE ARE FACTS.

And even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Tojo, his successor Suzuki, and the military clique in control believed the United States had but one bomb, and that Japan could go on. They had 3 days to surrender after August 6, but they did not surrender. The debate in their cabinet at times became violent.

Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperor finally demand surrender.

And even then, the military argued they could and should fight on. A group of Army officers staged a coup and tried to seize and destroy the Emperor’s recorded message to his people announcing the surrender.

THESE ARE FACTS.

These facts help illuminate the nature of the enemy we faced. They help put into context the process by which Truman considered the options available to him. And they help to add meaning to why the missions were necessary.

President Truman understood these facts as did every service man and woman. Casualties were not some abstraction, but a sobering reality.

Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes… they… did.

Were they necessary? Well that’s where the rub comes.

With the fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our country, to some, the Japanese are now the victims. America was the insatiable, vindictive aggressor seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of these weapons was the unjustified and immoral starting point for the nuclear age with all of its horrors. Of course, to support such distortion, one must conveniently ignore the real facts or fabricate new realities to fit the theories. It is no less egregious than those who today deny the Holocaust occurred.

How could this have happened?

The answer may lie in examining some recent events.

The current debate about why President Truman ordered these missions, in some cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its proposed exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems the rage in certain historical circles.

That exhibit wanted to memorialize the fiction that the Japanese were the victims — we the evil aggressor. Imagine taking your children and grandchildren to this exhibit.

What message would they have left with?

What truth would they retain?

What would they think their country stood for?

And all of this would have occurred in an American institution whose very name and charter are supposed to stand for the impartial preservation of significant American artifacts.

By cancelling the proposed exhibit and simply displaying the Enola Gay, has truth won out?

Maybe not.

In one nationally televised discussion, I heard a so-called prominent historian argue that the bombs were not necessary. That President Truman was intent on intimidating the Russians. That the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based on what?

Some point to statements by General Eisenhower years after the war that Japan was about to fall. Well, based on that same outlook Eisenhower seriously underestimated Germany’s will to fight on and concluded in December, 1944 that Germany no longer had the capability to wage offensive war.

That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle of the Bulge, which resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties and potentially allowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations.

Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the benefit of hindsight rather than foresight.

It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans based on the history of the war in the Pacific.

And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds espouses that even if an invasion had taken place, our casualties would not have been a million, as many believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead.

ONLY 46,000!

Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000 — as if this were some insignificant number of American lives.

Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books.

Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing occasioned by the fact that we won the war.

Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates events ideologically, grasping at selective straws.

Let me admit right here, today, that I don’t know how many more Americans would have died in an invasion— AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!

What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during the war, it is fair and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland would have been a prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know — not what someone surmises — the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender.

In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the ocean, 6,700 marines died — total casualties over 30,000.

But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been ONLY 46.000 I ask:

Which 46,000 were to die?

Whose father?

Whose brother?

Whose husband?

And, yes, I am focusing on American lives.

The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not . Hundreds of thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in the Pacific dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what the Japanese would do next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They chose to wait.

And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more Americans were killed or wounded each day the war continued.

I’ve heard another line of argument that we should have accepted a negotiated peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found acceptable. I have never heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a peace with Nazi Germany. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human being would utter the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow it even in defeat a measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical principal of the time — it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly and irrevocably defeated — their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had forfeited any expectation of diplomatic niceties. How is it, then, that the history of the war in the Pacific can be so soon forgotten?

The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history, of our collective memory.

Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the temerity to claim they were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of the Holocaust.

And, believe it or not, there are actually some American academics who support this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process.

There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know the full extent of their country’s conduct during World war II.

This explains why they do not comprehend why they must apologize —

  • for the Korean comfort women,
  • for the Medical experimentation on POW’s which match the horror of those conducted by the Nazi’s,
  • for the plans to use biological weapons against the United States by infecting civilian populations on the West Coast,
  • for the methodical slaughter of civilians,
  • and for much more.

In a perverse inversion, by forgetting our own history, we contribute to the Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both our nations.

Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the Japanese persist in the fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were trapped by circumstances. This only forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both nations can be closed and healed.

One can only forgive by remembering. And to forget, is to risk repeating history.

The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public relations campaign have now proposed that the use of the term “V-J Day" be replaced by the more benign “Victory in the Pacific Day". How convenient.

This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of the war in the Pacific less “Japan specific."

An op-ed piece written by Dorothy Rabinowitz appearing in the April 5 Wall Street Journal accurately sums up this outrage:

The reason it appears, is that some Japanese find the reference disturbing — and one can see why. The term, especially the “J" part, does serve to remind the world of the identity of the nation whose defeat millions celebrated in August 1945. In further deference to Japanese sensitivities, a U.S. official (who wisely chose to remain unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies, that “our whole effort in this thing is to commemorate an event, not celebrate a victory.

Some might argue so what’s in a word — Victory over Japan, Victory in the Pacific — Let’s celebrate an event, not a victory.

I say everything is in a word. Celebrate an EVENT!

Kind of like celebrating the opening of a shopping mall rather than the end of a war that engulfed the entire Earth — which left countless millions dead and countless millions more physically or mentally wounded and countless more millions displaced.

This assault on the use of language is Orwellian and is the tool by which history and memory are blurred. Words can be just as destructive as any weapon.

Up is Down.

Slavery is Freedom.

Aggression is Peace.

In some ways this assault on our language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words is far more insidious than the actual aggression carried out by the Japanese 50 years ago. At least then the threat was clear, the enemy well defined.

Today the Japanese justify their conduct by artfully playing the race card. They were not engaged in a criminal enterprise of aggression. No, Japan was simply liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from WHITE Imperialism.

Liberation!!! Yes, they liberated over 20 million innocent Asians by killing them. I’m sure those 20 million, their families and the generations never to be, appreciate the noble effort of the Japanese.

I am often asked was the bomb dropped for vengeance, as was suggested by one draft of the Smithsonian exhibit. That we sought to destroy an ancient and honorable culture.

Here are some more inconvenient facts.

One, on the original target list for the atomic missions Kyoto was included. Although this would have been a legitimate target, one that had not been bombed previously. Secretary of State Henry Stimson removed it from the list because it was the ancient capital of Japan and was also the religious center of Japanese culture.

Two, we were under strict orders during the war that under no circumstances were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, even though we could have easily leveled it and possibly killed the Emperor. So much for vengeance.

I often wonder if Japan would have shown such restraint if they had the opportunity to bomb the White House. I think not.

At this point let me dispel one of many longstanding myths that our targets were intended to be civilian populations. Each target for the missions had significant military importance — Hiroshima was the headquarters for the southern command responsible for the defense of Honshu in the event of an invasion and it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mount the initial defense.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with the two large Mitsubishi armaments factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had integrated these industries and troops right in the heart of each city.

As in any war our goal was, as it should be, to win. The stakes were too high to equivocate.

I am often asked if I ever think of the Japanese who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I do not revel in the idea that so many on both sides died, not only at those two places but around the world in that horrible conflict. I take no pride or pleasure in the brutality of war whether suffered by my people or those of another nation. Every life is precious.

But it does seem to me such a question is more appropriately directed to the Japanese war lords who so willingly offered up their people to achieve their visions of greatness. They who started the war and then stubbornly refused to stop it must be called to account. Don’t they have the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of their countrymen?

Perhaps if the Japanese came to grips with their past and their true part in the war they would hold those Japanese military leaders accountable. The Japanese people deserve an answer from those that brought such misery to the nations of the Far East and ultimately to their own people. Of course this can never happen if we collaborate with the Japanese in wiping away the truth.

How can Japan ever reconcile with itself and the United States if they do not demand and accept the truth?

My crew and I flew these missions with the belief that they would bring the war to an end. There was no sense of joy. There was a sense of duty and commitment that we wanted to get back to our families and loved ones.

Today millions of people in America and in southeast Asia are alive because the war ended when it did.

I do not stand here celebrating the use of nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary.

I hope that my mission is the last such mission ever flown.

We as a nation can abhor the existence of nuclear weapons.

I certainly do.

But that does not then mean that, back in August of 1945, given the events of the war and the recalcitrance of our enemy. President Truman was not obliged to use all the weapons at his disposal to end the war.

I agreed with Harry Truman then, and I still do today.

Years after the war Truman was asked if he had any second thoughts. He said emphatically, “No." He then asked the questioner to remember the men who died at Pearl Harbor who did not have the benefit of second thoughts.

In war the stakes are high. As Robert E. Lee said, “it is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it."

I thank God that it was we who had this weapon and not the Japanese or the Germans. The science was there. Eventually someone would have developed this weapon. Science can never be denied. It finds a way to self-fulfillment.

The question of whether it was wise to develop such a weapon would have eventually been overcome by the fact that it could be done. The Soviets would have certainly proceeded to develop their own bomb. Let us not forget that Joseph Stalin was no less evil than Tojo or his former ally Adolf Hitler. At last count, Stalin committed genocide on at least 20 million of his own citizens.

The world is a better place because German and Japanese fascism failed to conquer the world.

Japan and Germany are better places because we were benevolent in our victory.

The youth of Japan and the United States, spared from further needless slaughter, went on to live and have families and grow old.

As the father of ten children and the grandfather of 21, I can state that I am certainly grateful that the war ended when it did.

I do not speak for all veterans of that war. But I believe that my sense of pride in having served my country in that great conflict is shared by all veterans. This is why the truth about that war must be preserved. We veterans are not shrinking violets. Our sensibilities will not be shattered in intelligent and controversial debate. We can handle ourselves.

But we will not, we cannot allow armchair second guessers to frame the debate by hiding facts from the American public and the world.

I have great faith in the good sense and fairness of the American people to consider all of the facts and make an informed judgment about the war’s end.

This is an important debate. The soul of our nation, its essence, its history, is at stake.

闢謠: 加拿大外交部關於「台灣是中國一部分」的神回覆

加拿大,全球政治最清廉的國家之一,加拿大外交部的回答讓我們不得不佩服….
長久以來,中華人民共和國一直堅持台灣是中共的一部份,但是中共便為此鬧了個國際笑話。中國外交部要求加拿大承認台灣是中國的領土。加拿大提出5點理由反駁﹕

  1. 台灣並非加拿大所擁有之領土,所以加拿大沒有權利承認台灣主權歸屬於誰。如果是加拿大所擁有的北極圈諸小島與中國有爭議,加拿大才有權利承認其歸屬。這是從羅馬法以來的所有權法理。國際法當然也依此原則適用。
  2. 沒有任何國際法理論使加拿大有「權利」承認、或有「義務」承認與它無任何關係的台灣的主權歸屬。中國要求加拿大做這種承認毫無道理。
  3. 即使加拿大承認台灣是中華人民共和國一部份,實際上並無任何法效果或意義。因為加拿大國民、飛機、船舶要進入台灣,拿北京政權所發簽證根本無效,還是要向台灣當局申請簽證。承認其對台灣實效統治,這等於是立刻又以具體行為否認台灣是中國的一部份。
  4. 加拿大若在國際條約中承認台灣是中華人民共和國的一部份,依條約必須履行原理,加拿大勢必派兵攻佔台灣,負責把台灣交給中國以履行條約。這是多麼荒謬的一件事。
  5. 台灣如果的確屬於中華人民共和國,則北京政權又何必要求各國承認。例如,海南島是中國領土不可分割的一部份,中國根本不必要求他國承認。反之,台灣若非中國領土,中國即使到處去要求他國承認,實際上也沒有國際法效果。如果台灣是有紛爭的領土,中國也應該去找與該領土有關的當事國交涉及承認才有國際法效果。強迫無關的第三國承認是毫無意義。

說得中國外交部啞口無言,『十三億』口莫辨。自此之後,中國只能嘴巴嚷嚷,不敢再要求加拿大承認台灣是中國的領土。
論理充分…提出理由的加拿大老兄顯然受過嚴謹邏輯訓練

實在沒想到有一天會來寫這種闢謠文章,更沒想到這麼明顯的謠言居然可以流傳這麼廣,最近越傳越兇,在 ptt 上一堆腦殘狂推,連同學的圈子都傳進去了。

這篇文章最早是 2010 年左右看到的。或許可以參看這裡這裡。大致上是說,中共外交部行文給加拿大外交部,要求他們承認台灣是中國的領土,結果被加拿大外交部打臉打很腫。

我能夠理解台灣人看到這篇文章的反應都是「好爽」、「加拿大不愧是已開發國家,太屌炸天了」云云。問題是這根本是很明顯杜撰出來意淫的而已,現實中根本不可能發生。

你問我怎麼證明沒這回事?

道理很簡單。簡單到簡直像是 1+1=2 一樣,寫文章說明我都覺得浪費時間。之所以這麼多台灣人看不出來,是因為幾十年來的政治人物和媒體都在欺騙你們。

先回顧一下加拿大和中華人民共和國是怎麼建交的吧。加拿大是 1970 年和中共建交的。請注意這個年代,雖然才 45 年前,許多人卻已經完全沒有記憶。那是光復大陸、反共復國的年代,那是風雨飄搖、精誠團結的時代,那是蔣介石還在當國家領袖、民族英雄的年代,那是看電影要起立唱國歌的年代,那是連電視上放個廣告都還要新聞局批准審核的年代。最重要的是,那是全世界大部分西方國家都跟「中華民國」還有邦交的年代。當時國際上大部分國家都承認整個「中國」是我們「中華民國」的,這個「中國」當然包括台灣。雖然當時整片中國幾乎都在共產黨統治之下,但是以當年國際間的反共氣氛,大部分國家還是願意認可台灣 (或者準確的說,中華民國) 是中國的合法政府,而共產黨代表的政府則成為中國的叛亂團體。以當年的標準用語來說,就是「匪」。

然後就在 1970 這一年,有一個西方國家開當時風氣之先,率先打我們的臉。那就是謠言中大家以為「把中國打臉打很腫」的加拿大。加拿大承認了共產黨的中國政府是中國唯一的合法政府,台灣既然是中國的一部分,那麼加拿大當然也承認中華人民共和國是台灣的合法政府。盤據在台灣的「中華民國」,由九天之上被打落凡塵,從合法政府變成「叛亂團體」。當然也就在這個時候,加拿大跟中華民國斷交了。加拿大不只不是「中華民國」的好朋友,正好相反,是率先踢你一腳棄你而去的見風轉舵者。今天台灣人卻在造謠,幻想說加拿大是你的好朋友、幫你打中國的臉。這豈止是無知腦殘,簡直就是下賤。

從加拿大開始,1970 – 80 年代,許許多多的國家都開始與「中華民國」斷交,轉而與「中華人民共和國」建交,承認他們是中國唯一的合法政府。

因此之故,大陸外交部自然不可能行文加拿大,如這篇謠言所說的,要求他們「承認」台灣是中國的一部分。因為這個「承認」早在 1970 年代他們建交的時候就承認了,45 年來從來沒有變過。大陸外交部怎麼可能去要求加拿大變更他們的承諾?

真正的事實是,大部分的台灣人只會該該叫自己「國際地位不明」、「國際地位特殊」,很渴望一堆什麼「台灣之光」、讓「全世界都看見」。但是媒體和政治人物都在騙你,沒人敢告訴你,在大部分國家的正式定義裡面,台灣的「中華民國政府」就是個盤據在幾座島上面的「叛亂團體」,要怎麼處理只看中國政府決定怎麼對待他的叛亂組織罷了。其他國家不會承認台灣的統治合法性,就好比如果 Florida 出現民兵叛變,你究竟是會承認 Florida 的民兵政府組織?還是華盛頓代表的美國政府有統治權力?如果你要承認 Florida 以前,會不會擔心華盛頓不高興?

對現狀可能很多人不滿。不過散佈意淫的謠言,對現狀一點幫助都沒有。千里之行始於足下,連自己站在哪裡都不曉得,怎麼知道往哪裡走?

Welcome to the real world.

查理週刊槍擊背後的深層問題

Je_suis_Charlie-24
巴黎的槍響,吸引了全球的目光。隨著傷亡者的姓名和生活瑣事逐一曝光,無不繫動著關懷者的心腸。媒體大篇幅的報導,高聲譴責對言論自由的暴力威脅;巴黎民眾自發走上街頭,高舉著「Je Suis Charlie」(我們都是查理) 的標語,捍衛自己的生活方式和報刊嘲諷的權利。兩日後的今天,隨著逃亡者逐一被擊斃,事件彷彿告一段落,生活將恢復正常的平靜。

這種感覺無疑是錯誤的。查理不是開始,也不會是結束。

查理週刊因為刊登嘲諷伊斯蘭教先知的漫畫而受到攻擊。如果大家不健忘的話,英國人魯西迪曾經因為寫作《魔鬼的詩篇》而受到伊朗宗教領袖何梅尼的追殺令。魯西迪本人雖然未曾受傷,卻有多國的翻譯人員、出版人員因此受傷甚至喪命,甚至曾使英伊兩國斷交。

我要強調的,並不是「伊斯蘭教好可怕」,也不是支持槍擊者。受到攻擊的週刊、被槍殺的工作人員,無疑都值得同情,槍擊者也應當受到譴責與追捕。但是法國人與世界主流媒體的第一反應:「我們應當捍衛我們的自由和生活方式,在這一刻,我們都是查理!這是對言論自由的最嚴重暴力!」恰恰正是事情的根源。

大部分國家都保持有言論自由,並且受到法律的規範與保護 – 通常在公益與私益方面各有一些界定。例如無視事實的傷害他人名譽,顯然不受言論自由的保障。每個國家對這些的界線各自有一些劃分方式。

如果一個報社漫畫畫上某知名人物的雙親,不堪入目的淫穢畫面,大部分人應該都可以同意,不能允許這種下流行為,以世界大部分的國家法律標準來說也不被容忍。那麼,如果把這個對象換成宗教領袖呢?換成基督、穆罕默德、佛陀、媽祖,是否就成為可以允許的範圍了呢?

隨著歐洲來自中亞和非洲的移民日益增多,法國的穆斯林數目也與日俱增,類似的議題可以想見未來只會層出不窮。

europe_muslim
因此,從深層來看法國的槍擊事件的話,問題有兩個根源:

  1. 言論自由保障的界線到什麼程度?是依據既有的歐洲文化標準,還是應該依照人口不斷變化的現在而有所調整?是「老」法國人應該適應、尊重新移民的文化,還是新移民應該要「融入」法國文化?
  2. 現存既有的言論自由規則,以及相關的保障,制定之時是由歐洲文化所主導。伊斯蘭文化並沒有參與制定。因此對部分激進的穆斯林來說,現存的規則是保障強者欺負他們的規則 – 他們無意、也沒有能力透過現行規則來保護自己的權利。因此他們能夠採取的手段,就變成世所難容的極端暴力。

當巴黎人們高喊「Je Suis Charlie」的時候,對這些激進者而言,這正好是「我們堅決捍衛侮蔑你們的權利」。如果以目前法國以及主流媒體的應對方式來看,將來出現類似的攻擊事件只是時間早晚的問題而已。

問題的解決,需要仰賴雙方的包容 – 法國的舊勢力需要能夠接受新移民的文化和觀念,新移民也需要尊重法國的基本規則,並且雙方重新架構彼此都能接受的社會規範。

當然我知道,這條路還是長夜漫漫。不然就不會有 2005 年的大暴動2013 歷史家溫那自殺的事件了。不過,如果法國真的有意追尋更和平美好的明天,捨此別無他途。

司法追殺的下場

最近因為某候選人被查稅的事情引起鄉民熱議,讓我想到 2008 年美國參議員選舉的案子。

2008 年美國阿拉斯加州參議員選舉前幾天,追求連任的參議員 Ted Stevens 被法院定罪。數日後,Ted Stevens 以不到四千票的些微差距敗給競爭對手 Mark Begich。然而,就在選後不久,其中一位控方證人出面表示他做了偽證,而且公訴人在明知他的證詞有問題的情況下依然讓他出庭作證。

隨後的調查更被發現,當初公訴人刻意隱匿了對辯方有利的證人和證據。

Ted Stevens 的案件,後來在 2009 年被撤銷起訴。但是當然參議員席位不可能重選,他本人後來也於 2010 年的空難喪生。

至於起訴他的公訴人呢?其中兩位在 2012 年被懲處。兩人的處罰分別是停職 15 和 40 天。是的,只罰停職這麼幾天就沒事了。

政治追殺、司法迫害並不只有鬼島會發生。判決並不總是準確而公正。正義更往往來的並不及時。

We live in an imperfect world. We can improve it by stop pretending it is.