Moran Frets Saddam Trial Will Embarrass
U.S., Nazis “Railroaded”
<font size=4>
ABC’s concerns: A Saddam Hussein trial could embarrass the U.S., it will be hard to find “impartial judges in Iraq” and Nazis were “railroaded” at Nuremberg. Barely an hour after Paul Bremer had announced the capture of Saddam Hussein, ABC’s Terry Moran, at the White House, reminded viewers how for many years the “United States had an interesting relationship, to say the least, with the Iraqi government” as “Secretary Rumsfeld was over in Baghdad meeting with Saddam Hussein years ago” and “there are allegations that the United States provided weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Iran-Iraq war. And all that could spill out in a big show trial.”
A few minutes later, Moran fretted about the inequities awaiting Hussein as he lamented how the Nuremberg trial of Nazis was “not considered to be a model of legal niceties. They railroaded, in some respects, those defendants through, in the eyes of many jurists today.” (In an e-mail to National Review Online later in the day, Moran conceded that saying the Nazis were “railroaded” was “foolish and wrong.”)
In between Moran’s two 8am EST hour comments, anchor Charles Gibson worried about how to find “impartial judges in Iraq” to try Hussein.
At about 8:10am EST, Moran checked in from a snowy White House lawn: “What happens to Saddam Hussein now becomes an international political problem for this administration in two ways: First, Saddam Hussein was at the heart of Iraqi politics for 30 years really. He was President since 1979, but really in power before then. And for about 15 of those years the United States had an interesting relationship, to say the least, with the Iraqi government. Secretary Rumsfeld was over in Baghdad meeting with Saddam Hussein years ago. There are allegations that the United States provided weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Iran-Iraq war. And all that could spill out in a big show trial. The other problem they have, although I should also say other countries will have problems there as well, France and Russia, who apparently were telling Saddam Hussein, on the eve of this war, to hang on, will also have some embarrassments in that trial.
“And then finally, Charlie, the problem with putting Saddam Hussein on trial internationally, is that that would occur before the International Criminal Court, that’s that new international war crimes court. This administration opposes that. Tony Blair and the British government supports it and so after the Iraqis get done with him what happens to him next is an international problem for this administration.”
Gibson next turned, by phone, to Kanan Makiya of the Iraqi National Congress. Gibson’s first concern: “The only problem that occurs to me is how do you find impartial judges in Iraq? Saddam Hussein terrorized the country for so long, it seems to me it would be difficult to find judges that you could call impartial.”
A few minutes later, at about 8:25am EST, Moran recalled how “I have covered the international war crimes trials in the Hague” of Bosnian leaders. He rued: “Just a couple of points in the war crimes trials. It will take a long time. The great Nuremberg trial, as it’s called, the big one -- of Hermann Goering and the other top Nazi leaders who survived that regime -- that took nine months. And that is generally not considered to be a model of legal niceties. They railroaded, in some respects, those defendants through, in the eyes of many jurists today. So this would take a long time.”
On Sunday afternoon, the MRC’s Tim Graham informed me, Moran wrote a mea culpa e-mail to Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online, which had reported Moran’s comments about how a trial could embarrass the U.S. and concern about how Nazi’s were “railroaded.” Moran took back the latter, but not the former:
“Kathryn....I see I've been nailed for my comments on the Nuremberg trial--and properly so. 'Railroaded’ was foolish and wrong. It just popped out.
“What I was trying to say was that -- in the eyes of many lawyers today, and not just liberal human-rights activists but conservative scholars, too -- the Nuremberg trial was a flawed model for dispensing this kind of justice. The Soviet Union sat in judgment on the Nazis. The main indictment concerned not the Holocaust, but the 'waging of aggressive war’ -- a vague concept that gave rise to charges of 'victors' justice.’ There was no right for defendants to confront their accusers -- in other words, hearsay was allowed. The law applied in Nuremberg was ex post facto (necessarily, but problematically).
“Don't get me wrong. The trial accomplished a great deal, punishing several of those who bore most guilt for the Holocaust and enshrining the principle that genocide and other crimes against humanity cannot be committed with impunity without some international response and consequences. Justice was done at Nuremberg, albeit rough justice. The defendants were NOT railroaded.
“But the trial wasn't pretty. And that's what I was trying -- and failing -- to say.”
That’s posted at: www.nationalreview.com
For National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog: nationalreview.com
If only Moran would be so eager to retract more of his biased nightly output.
<font size=3>
mediaresearch.org |
