A Quote by Joan Rivers

You've gotta understand - when you interview someone, it's not an interrogation. It's not the Nuremberg Trials. — © Joan Rivers
You've gotta understand - when you interview someone, it's not an interrogation. It's not the Nuremberg Trials.
I have never worked on interrogation; I have never seen an interrogation, and I have only a passing knowledge of the literature on interrogation. With that qualification, my opinion is that the point of interrogation is to get at the truth, not to get at what the interrogator wants to hear.
During the Nuremberg trials, Oswald Pohl, an SS Lieutenant General,...is shown here explaining how Farben operated such concentration camps as Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
It's about the climate-change "denial industry", ...we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, in open court before an international tribunal, had a profound long-term effect in bringing Germans back to democracy and humanity.
The idea of accountability in Vietnam, Nicaragua and now Iraq - the media never has that in its quiver. When you see time after time there is no possibility of Nuremberg [war crime trials], we're doomed to have it repeated.
It is generally not known in the world that, in the years preceding 1916, there was a concerted effort made to eliminate all the Armenian people, probably one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell any group. And there weren't any Nuremberg trials.
When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards-some sort of climate Nuremberg.
Since Franklin Roosevelt's leadership in setting up the United Nations and the Nuremberg trials, the U.S. has promoted universal legal norms and the institutions to enforce them while seeking, by hook or by crook, to exempt American citizens, especially soldiers, from their actual application.
If someone is brought in for an interview, for example, and is asked about their views on things, but has posted things that are completely contrary to the interview, frankly I have much more faith in what they posted than what they say during the course of an interview.
It's probably odd for someone to read an interview where the interviewee is worried about exposure while they're talking in an interview.
My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.
One of the first things I did was interview the President of the United States. Some people work their whole lives and can't interview someone of that stature.
We've committed many war crimes in Vietnam - but I'll tell you something interesting about that. We were committing war crimes in World War II, before the Nuremberg trials were held and the principle of war crimes was stated.
My kids gotta understand: they gotta make a sacrifice, having a superstar dad.
Pummeling an answer out of someone never works. You cannot intimidate someone with aggressive language and think they'll be more forthcoming... that's a caricature of interrogation, part of the TV culture of what it looks like.
In my book, I detail the critical information we obtained from al Qaeda terrorists after they became compliant following a short period of enhanced interrogation. I have no doubt that that interrogation was legal, necessary and saved lives.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!