To well understand this text it's important to know the context. Effectively, at that time we are after the WWII, and the political climax is very tense, this is the periode of the cold war, and in america, there is a sort of national fear of Communism. This fear which was well used by McCarthy. In the famous McCarthyism periode, also referred
as the second RED SCARE. At that time there is also the rising of the civil right movement which ironically benefited of the cold war. Here The question is why? Just Because america could hardly pretend to be the leader of the free world and condemn the denial of human right in the soviet sphere while practicing segregation in their own floor.
So we can say that this text is in some extend the reflection of what was america at that time. A mix-up of different things and fights
First of all
What can be surprising in this text are the paradoxical elements. On one hand we have law men, from who we expect a strong interest in facts. But we can see that in the text they are not referring to facts but only to HEARINGS. That well illustrated the problem of that time in termes of accusations. Many lives where destroyed because of accusations of this kind. Based on nothing else but hypothesis and suspicions. What can clearly be seen in the way the speaker Arens asks his questions to Robeson : I mean his questions are not on a accusing tone but more vague as if he was not...