Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

The Big Question: Should the Moussaoui Trial be Televised?

Aired January 09, 2002 - 08:42   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: What if we had the next trial of the century and nobody tuned in because they couldn't, because cameras aren't allowed in a federal courtroom? Just in a few hours or so, a hearing will be held to determine whether the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, should be televised. Court TV and Moussaoui himself want you to see it. Prosecutors don't.

CNN's Susan Candiotti is in Alexandria, Virginia this morning with more.

Susan, good morning.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.

Frenchman Zacarias Moussaoui is expected to attend these hearings, and presumably is inside the courthouse. He arrived here about an hour ago, we presume. We say presume because security is tight and his movements restricted, although a motorcade arrived under escort of the U.S. martials not long ago.

The trial, you'll recall, is to be held in October, but the issue here today, very simple: Should cameras be allowed to televise this federal trial? The cable channel Court TV wants them, for obvious reasons. The government is opposed, and attorneys for Zacarias Moussaoui want cameras, not for the pretrial motions, but only for the trial.

In papers filed with a federal judge, Court TV argued there is a constitutional right to cameras in federal trials, but beyond that said that the public would be better served by having a camera inside, instead of resorting to secondhand summaries.

The government, in a 21-page argument, said it opposes cameras, that the public does not have a constitutional right to them, and that there is a difference between an open trial and a televised trial.

Now, for its part, defense attorneys for Zacarias Moussaoui issued its own argument and said in part, "Televising will ensure that the entire world is able to watch the proceedings, and will add an additional layer of protection to see that these proceedings are fairly conducted."

Now, it's very unlikely that Zacarias Moussaoui would address the court this day. The attorneys will be doing all of the talking. And it will be up to the judge to either issue her judgment this day from the bench, or she could take the matter under advisement -- Paula.

ZAHN: So, Susan, is there any kind of precedent for cameras in a federal courtroom?

CANDIOTTI: Not in the federal courtroom. In fact, there is a rule of procedure that is opposed to such a notion, and those rules are set by what's called the judicial conference, and who's the chairman of that? Well, the Supreme Court chief justice himself.

Now, in states around the country, all 50 allow cameras in state trials at one time or the other; 37 states allow them for state criminal proceedings. Very unlikely, many experts say, that the judge here would break precedent, but she could make an exception. We'll find out.

ZAHN: We'll be counting on you to keep us posted. Thanks so much, Susan.

That brings us to this morning's "Sound Off." Should the terror trial be televised? In the court of public opinion, feelings are mixed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As for being a national issue, we are the nation. We are the issue. We need to see it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don't think it should be televised.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it would be very important to a lot of people if it was televised.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think our justice system is really set up to deal with this kind of international terrorism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So many people are affected by what happened on September 11th, so I think it should be.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't any it should be televised, because it's a trial , and it should stay in the courtroom, and the whole world doesn't need to know about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And joining us now to sound off from Washington, syndicated radio talk show host Armstrong Williams.

Happy New Year, Armstrong.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Happy new year, Paula.

And Emmett Tyrell, editor-in-chief of the "American Spectator." Good to see you as well, sir.

EMMETT TYRELL, "AMERICAN SPECTATOR": Nice to be with you. ZAHN: All right, gentlemen, I know you've just been listening to Susan Candiotti's report. We've heard the arguments. On one hand, Court TV says it has the constitutional right to have a camera in the courtroom, that the public shouldn't have to rely on secondhand summaries of the action, and you heard the government's reaction that the public doesn't have the constitutional right to have cameras in the courtroom.

Armstrong, where do you fall on this one?

WILLIAMS: Well, I just think this is quite different from the earlier trial of the century with O.J. Simpson, where it just turned into a media farce, and I do think because it was publicized that the verdict turned out the way it was. Had it not been televised, I think it would have been different.

ZAHN: Wait, wait. How can you say that? Why would not televising it made any difference? Because it polarized public opinion?

WILLIAMS: The lawyers were playing to the cameras. They were not playing to the courtroom; they were playing to the cameras, and plus, O.J. Simpson knew he was playing to the court of public opinion outside the courtroom, and because he was television savvy, he knew just how to play it, and he played it very well.

ZAHN: Wait, wait a minute. Wasn't it the jury that made the final decision on whether this man was guilty or not?

WILLIAMS: They all were affected by public opinion. They were all affected by what went on in that courtroom. It was embarrassing. If the glove don't fit, then you must acquit. Then Johnnie Cochran talking about after the trial, he wanted to become an actor. It was a joke.

But even deeper than that, Paula, let me just make this point, even deeper than that for me is this: With the Moussaoui trial, let me just tell you, I think that these terrorists think about us every second, every minute. We can go back to 1993, from the World Trade Center. We can go back to 1998 in the two embassies that were bombed in Africa, because I think that's when they declared war on the United States.

ZAHN: All right, make your point.

WILLIAMS: The point is this: I don't think you want this guy, who I think was just more than some terrorist operative, I don't think you want this guy through his lawyers or through his own testimony sending signals to other cells to continue disrupting American lives and carrying out more terrorist attacks. I think that's very dangerous for us.

ZAHN: Let's give Tyrell a chance to jump in here. Tyrell, what about the point that Armstrong just made, that if you give Moussaoui the platform, in fact, he can communicate a series of messages to secret cells or whoever he wants to communicate to? TYRELL: Paula, I can't read his mind. I doubt he's that high level an operator. I just know that this is America's moment. The efficiency of our arms has been on display to the world, to the awe of the world. Now let the fairness of our courtrooms be on display to the edification of the world.

ZAHN: You have no problem with the idea of cameras in this courtroom?

TYRELL: No. The only -- look, as soon as it was decided that this would be a public trial, not a military trial, it is important for the fairness and the decorum of an American courtroom to be on display. And I might point out that one of the matters that addles the Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists is their claim that we're not an open society, we're not a free society, we don't have the rule of law; now we have an opportunity to show it to them. That, it seems to me, is the overriding issue here.

ZAHN: What is the downside of televising this, Armstrong? I know, besides you feel that Moussaoui will be given the platform to spew his venom, which you made abundantly clear.

WILLIAMS: You know, I don't where the media will be on the offensive or the defensive in this matter. I just see this as being plain stupid, because as far as I'm concerned, I don't think we as Americans want to risk any further terrorist attacks on our soil. I think giving this guy a forum to further humiliate and say the things they believe and carry out the kinds of things they carried out in the past, I think is ultimately dangerous.

And also, let me make this point, I think the other important issue with this Moussaoui trial is that Moussaoui -- I saw a report earlier when you were introducing the segment, when he talked about how the FBI on September 9th, federal authorities stopped possible terrorists attacks but they did not realize who they were. One of these guys went on to carry out the attack in Pennsylvania. These people, we don't know where they are. We don't want to unite them and energize them again.

ZAHN: All right, we got to give Emmett 10 seconds here for the final thought. Why wouldn't this be dangerous then, given what Armstrong said, to televise what Moussaoui might have to say?

TYRELL: Well, look, for one thing, the judge will run the courtroom. The judge will make decisions. If American intelligence operators feel something is amiss, we can turn the cameras off, but even if you turn the cameras off, his message will be on the public record, and the message will be out there. So I'm not afraid of that at all.

What I'm afraid of is that America will not take advantage of its moment in the world to show what a great and free society we have.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen. We'll have to leave it here this morning.

WILLIAMS: We have changed forever. We have changed forever. Please don't forget that.

ZAHN: Thank you both for joining us this morning.

We'd like to have you come back when a judge makes a final decision so we can continue...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Paula.

TYRELL: Nice to be with you, Paula.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com