Mr. DODD. Mr. President, about a month ago, the survivors of the Nuremberg Tribunal met here in Washington for their 50th reunion. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal holds a special significance for me because of the role my father, Senator Thomas Dodd, played as an executive trial counsel at the tribunal.

Those who participated in the Nuremberg tribunal deserve a special place in our Nation's history. At the end of World War II, when the heinous atrocities of the Holocaust were revealed to the world, the inevitable impulse to lash out in retaliation against those responsible would have been understandable.

But, in Nuremberg the hand of vengeance was steadied by the belief in the rule of law. Thus, our triumphs on the battlefield led to the ultimate triumph of our ideals in the Palais of Justice in Nuremberg. This is the legacy of Nuremberg and all those who participated in the tribunal. I ask to have printed in the Record a list of all those who were attended the recent reunion as well as my remarks at the 50th reunion celebration.

The material follows:

Remarks of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Third Nuremberg Reunion, March 22, 1996

Let me first say what a great pleasure it is to be here this afternoon and surrounded by so many people who played such an important role in my father's life.

My father often said that his participation in the Nuremberg trials was the seminal event of his public life. The fifteen months he spent in Germany, prosecuting Nazi war criminals, defined the type of lawmaker he would become and dictated the issues that he so passionately fought for throughout his career in the Senate.

My father came away from Nuremberg with a greater understanding and fervor for the need to uphold freedom and human rights and to speak out against intolerance, tyranny and violence wherever it may rear its head.

It's why he campaigned so vigorously to establish genocide and crimes against humanity as violations of international law. It's why, he was such a fervent advocate for the civil rights movement in this country. And it's why he fought so hard as a United States Senator to eradicate the scourge of gun violence and drug use from our nation's streets.

While I take great pride in the role my father played at Nuremberg, my appreciation for your efforts at Nuremberg is just as great. When the gas chambers, death camps and wanton destruction that Nazism had wrought on Europe was revealed, you were burdened with a grave responsibility. To not only punish the guilty but to reassure the world that future generations would never forget the horrors and atrocities of the Nazis.

It was no easy task, particularly when the weight of the living was compounded by the ghosts of history that stood behind you.

At Nuremberg, your voice spoke for the millions of innocents who drew their final breaths at Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau. At Nuremberg, your vigor and energy guaranteed that the millions, who suffered so egregiously--from London to Leningrad--would see justice prevail. And at Nuremberg you affirmed that those who committed the worst atrocities the world has ever witnessed would ultimately be held accountable for their crimes.

Reading through my father's letters the frustration and challenges that all of you must have felt at one time or another comes through clearly. But, what is even more apparent are the deep character, humanity and integrity of all those who toiled so emphatically in the name of justice and the rule of law.

I think my father sums it up best in one of his letters: `Sometimes a man knows his duty, his responsibility so clearly, so surely he cannot hesitate--he does not refuse it. Even great pain and other sacrifices seem unimportant in such a situation. The pain is no less for this knowledge--but the pain has a purpose at least.'

But as these words remain relevant and enduring today, so too are the legal doctrines and precedents that Nuremberg established.

Nuremberg enshrined into international law the principles that war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide would not be tolerated. It declared that respect for human rights was an international responsibility to be maintained and venerated by all nations of the Earth. And, it held that evil would not be faceless. Those responsible for crimes against humanity would be exposed to the world.

I think the words of the chief prosecutor in Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, are eloquent reminders of the goals of Nuremberg: The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.

However, while my father left Nuremberg with invaluable lessons that compelled him to fight for freedom and human dignity around the world, the international community largely ignored the lessons of Nuremberg.

My father, like many of you in this room, left Nuremberg envisioning a world in which the rule of law would deter future tyrants, and where international tribunals would mete out fair, yet swift punishment to those who would commit crimes against humanity. Sadly, that vision for the future remains unfulfilled.

If we had taken the lessons of Nuremberg to heart, the ghastly killing fields of Cambodia might have been averted. If the international community had forcefully enshrined the legal precedents of Nuremberg, the perpetrators of atrocious violence in the past half-century, from Idi Amin and Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein and Chairman Mao would have been forced to explain their behavior under the harsh spotlight of international jurisprudence.

Regrettably in 1996, the legacy of intolerance and hatred that was prosecuted at Nuremberg lives on in the smoldering suburbs of Sarajevo and in the mass graves of Kigali.

But, commemorating your accomplishments of the past gives us reason to redouble our efforts for the future. Now, just as at the end of World War II, we stand on the cusp of a new international era. We have the opportunity to make good on the lessons of Nuremberg and enshrine into international law the notion that those who violate the norms of basic human rights will not escape from the long arm of the law.

Today we can see those efforts take flight, as the international community is working to bring suspected war criminals to trial in Bosnia and Rwanda. These tribunals seek to punish those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity while at the same time begin the process of reconciliation for countries torn apart by violence.

Without justice in Bosnia and Rwanda the cycle of violence may only continue. Effective and fair tribunals will silence the calls for retribution and remove the heavy burden of collective guilt from entire communities.

Let us remember that not all Serbs or Hutus are murderers. Most seek only to enjoy the `quiet miracle of life.' They strive for simple normalcy. They want only to raise their children in peace, and make an honest living among neighbors in which they have only trust, and not fear.

These tribunals will punish those Serbs and those Hutus who are guilty. But, at the same time it will allow the vast majority of people, who have committed no crime, to work with their neighbors in beginning the national healing process.

Yet, these tribunals serve another effective role: Demonstrate to future criminals that ultimately they will be held accountable.

Some scoff at the notion that international tribunals can prevent future genocides. But, the Hutu murderers in Rwanda took inspiration from the failure of the international community to act after similar ethnic massacres in Burundi. Much in the same way that Hitler took inspiration from the world's failure to react to the Armenian genocide in 1915.

In 1993, 50,000 ethnic Hutu and Tutsi were savagely murdered while the international community did nothing to stop the violence. In addition, they failed to establish any system whereby the perpetrators would be brought to justice. The result was an emboldened Hutu majority, who had little fear of punishment from the international community.

There is no better way to make this lesson clear to all the world's would-be tyrants and murderers than through the establishment of an permanent international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

At the dedication ceremony for the Thomas Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut, President Clinton called for the creation of a permanent international tribunal. I commend him for his foresight. And I call on all of us, who understand so well the importance of international tribunals, to work with the President and other world leaders to permanently enshrine the legacy of Nuremberg into international law.

A permanent international tribunal would send a clear signal to those intent on committing terrible atrocities that they will be held culpable for their behavior.

Will an international tribunal stop all future atrocities? Regrettably, no. There will be more Yugoslavias, more Rwandas, and more Burundis.

But, a permanent international tribunal will create a lasting framework for the prosecution of war criminals. It will prevent justice from being contingent on ad hoc measures such as those we've seen in Bosnia. And it will quicken and normalize the implementation of humanitarian laws.

As I don t have to remind you, establishing an international tribunal and prosecuting war criminals can be a messy, patchwork operation.

In Nuremberg, there were few legal precedents by which to model the trial. In particular, new doctrines and concepts in international law had to be created. `War crimes, may be familiar to us today,' but in 1945 they were not defined in any international or even national legal sense.

The same can be said of crimes against humanity, which was a concept that remained untested in international law. In Nuremberg, you not only had to prosecute Nazi war criminals, but you had to establish the international laws under which they would be tried.

As Justice Jackson noted in his opening statement at Nuremberg: `Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole Continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events.'

But, the creation of a permanent tribunal would revamp the currently ad hoc nature of international tribunals. It would streamline the process of prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity. But most important, it would serve as an enduring tribute to your tireless labors at Nuremberg on behalf of the international rule of law.

In many ways the question of international jurisprudence and the rule of law, while maybe mundane to some is the embodiment of the spirit of Nuremberg.

After the surrender of Germany and once the ghastly atrocities of the Holocaust had been revealed to the world the impulse to lash out in vengeance at those responsible for these crimes would have been understandable. Some leaders echoed these thoughts. Winston Churchill, in fact, called for the execution of Nazi leaders, without trial.

But, the United States and its Allies ended this war the same way they had fought it, by embodying, as Abraham Lincoln once said, `the better angels of our nature.'

The struggle of World War II is as close as any civilization will find to a pure struggle between good and evil. And not only did the forces of good triumph on the battlefield, but they triumphed in the courtroom at Nuremberg as well.

When millions of innocent Jews stood on the railroad sidings at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Dachau to be chosen for the gas chambers they were unjustly stripped of their rights and their liberties.

They weren't granted the right of due process. They weren't given the right to defend themselves or speak on their own behalf. In the concentration camps, the only form of justice was down the barrel of a gun.

But at Nuremberg, the Allies recognized that the only antidote to savagery and inhumanity is justice. That s why defendants were given the right to defend themselves, that's why they were given the right to choose their own legal representation and that's why three of them were acquitted of all charges.

Whatever the legacy of Nuremberg on international law, my father and every person in this room can look back to Nuremberg and remember that when the deafening calls for vengeance were heard you silenced them with the sounds of justice.

Once again, I hark back to the words of Justice Jackson
in describing these actions: `That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.'

Looking through my father's letters, I came across a wonderful anecdote from his time in Nuremberg. After only a few weeks in the country he had the opportunity to go to a baseball game at the same Nuremberg stadium where `Hitler corrupted and misled the youth of Germany.'

But on that day the voices of evil that had once found shelter in Nuremberg were replaced by 40,000 Americans doing the `most American of things'; watching a baseball game and calling the umpires names and the players `bums.'

In many ways, something as wholesome and American as baseball is a wonderful metaphor for the triumph of American optimism, American ideals and American democracy over the forces of intolerance and depravity, represented by Nazism.

In Nuremberg, America's commitment to democracy and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution remained intact even in the face of unspeakable horror. In many ways this is the ultimate legacy of Nuremberg; that our triumph in arms led to the triumph of our ideals.

When historians look back at the events that unfolded in the Palais of Justice in Nuremberg 50 years ago, it is that proud legacy they will remember. And today it is our responsibility to make sure that heritage lives on for the next generation.

For the past 50 years, through wonderful books such as Telford Taylor's `The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials' and now the research facilities at the Dodd Center in Connecticut, you've kept the events of a half-century ago burning bright in the world's eyes. Tirelessly, you've worked to illuminate the lessons of those bygone days to a world that so quickly forgets the lessons of history.

Our duty today is to build on that proud tradition with the creation of a permanent international tribunal to prosecute war crimes. I can think of now better way to give your labors at Nuremberg a truly lasting, enduring, and tangible imprint on human history and all of mankind.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE NUREMBERG TRIAL AND THIRD NUREMBERG REUNION

Joan McCarter Adrian, John M. Anspacher, Esq., Beatrice Johnson Arntson, Marvin F. Atlas, Carrie Burge Baker, Ruth Holden Bateman, Henry Birnbaum, Esq., Dr. John Boll, Madelaine Bush, Helen Treidell Carey, Edith Simon Coliver, James S. Conway, Esq., Donald H. Cooper, Esq., Raymond D'Addario, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Vernon W. Dale, Christiane Deroche, Mary Turley Lemon Devine, Nicholas R. Doman, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Donovan, Esq., Allan Dreyfuss, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov, Mary Crane Elliott, Hedy Wachenheimer Epstein, Margo Salgo Fendrich, Theodore F. Fenstermacher, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin Ferencz, Dr. Paul G. Fried.

Miroslav Galuska, Anne Royce Garcia, William H. Glenny, Judge Cecilia Goetz, Greta Kanova Goldberg, Elisabeth Stewart Hardy, Professor Whitney R. Harris, Richard Heller, Esq., Mary Madelaine Trumper Husic, William E. Jackson, Esq., Peter & Annette Jacobsen, Arnold Joseph, Esq., Arthur A. Kimball, Henry T. King, Jr., Esq., Florence B. Kramer, Richard H. Lansdale, Esq., Prof. John K. Lattimer, MD, ScD, Jennie Lazowski, Jane Lester, Margot Lipton, Andy Logan Lyon, Herbert Markow, Esq., Maxine Martin.

Ralph S. Mavrogordato, Esq., Alice Blum Mavrogordato, Mary May, Alma Soller McLay, Pat Gray Pigott Mowry, Lady Marjorie Culverwell Murray, Gwen Heron Niebergall, Jeanette Stengel Noble, Betty Richardson Nute, Arthur L. Peterson, Esq., Mlle. Marta Pantleon, Joan Wakefield Ragland, Siegfried Ramler, Esq., William Raugust, Esq., Dorothy Owens Reilly, Jack W. Robbins, Esq., Walter J. Rockler, Esq., Robert Rosenthal, Esq., Phillis Heller Rosenthal, Howard H. Russell, Jr., Esq., Gunther Sadel, Esq., Mildred Clark Sargent, Walter T. Schonfeld, Julian R. Schwab, Victor Singer, Esq.

Vivien R. Spitz, Drexel A. Sprecher, Esq., Prof. Alfred G. Steer, Ruth M. Stolte, Joseph M. Stone, Esq., Annabel Grover Stover, Prof. Telford Taylor, Claire Bubley Tepper, Fred Treidell, Esq., Jean Tuck Tull, Lt. Col.(ret.) Peter Uiberall, Dr. Herbert Ungar, Patricia Jordan Vander Elst, Inge Weinberger, Lorraine White, Rose Korb Williams, M. Jan Witlox, David J. Smith, John M. Woolsey, Esq., Hon. & Mrs. Wiliam Zeck, Werner Von Rosenstiel, and Lawrence L. Rhee.

END