Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview With Scott Silliman, Anne Coulter

Aired December 01, 2001 - 08:14   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.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: There is growing debate over President Bush's plan to create military tribunals to try international terrorism suspects. Adding their voices to the debate this morning, Scott Silliman, Executive Director of the Center for On Law Ethics and National Security at Duke University. He's also served as senior Air Force attorney for Tactical Air Command during the Persian Gulf War. And also with us is Anne Coulter. She is the lawyer, a lawyer and author of the "New York Times" bestseller, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton."

Good morning to both of you. Thanks for being with us this morning.

SCOTT SILLIMAN, DUKE UNIVERSITY: Good morning, Marty.

ANNE COULTER, LEGAL REPORTER, "HUMAN EVENTS": Good morning.

SAVIDGE: Let's find out where we stand on this.

Scott, what do you think of the whole idea here the president's putting forward?

SILLIMAN: Marty, my biggest concern is with the possible use of military tribunals in this country dealing with resident aliens. I concede, and I think it's very appropriate, to use these tribunals overseas, particularly for those that may be captured on the battleground.

But moving them into this country and dealing with resident aliens is a different matter. And I think we should be proceeding very cautiously as far as the level of due process that are going to be in these commissions.

SAVIDGE: All right, Anne, let me ask you the same thing. Your thoughts?

COULTER: Oddly enough, my biggest complaint is that they are not being applied to citizens. It's only non-citizens that they'll apply to. FDR, of course, or under FDR during WWII it was applied to citizens if they were spying on the country, planning on destroying military munitions. And, incidentally, that was just army material. It wasn't Americans they were planning on killing. And two of the eight Nazi saboteurs who were tried by military tribunals were American citizens. The Supreme Court found that fine. One of them was executed.

SAVIDGE: Why is this a big debate? I mean we seem to talk about it more in the media than they do on the street. Overwhelmingly, public support very much in favor of the president of the United States, about 70 percent...

COULTER: And that...

SAVIDGE: Why are we talking about this?

COULTER: And that's with the media lying about it, if I can say. I mean I think it's not very well known that citizens are not subject to these military tribunals. I think it's not very well known that these have been used in every war going back to the Revolutionary War. They were used in the Civil War, the French-Indian War, WWII. It's a common procedure. It's provided for by law and even with, you know, these facts not coming out, overwhelmingly Americans support these military tribunals.

SAVIDGE: Scott, let me ask you this. We know that it is not going to be used for American citizens. It is going to be used against people who are suspected terrorists. That's have declared war against this nation, thereby why not use a military tribunal?

SILLIMAN: Well, Marty, I think when Anne was referring to the widespread support in this country, I believe there's a fundamental misconception about what we're talking about. Even the White House counsel in a talk yesterday referred to the military justice system. We've heard other references to the 50 years of military justice and if it's good enough for our servicemen, it should certainly be good enough for terrorists, and, as Anne would suggest, even American citizens who are terrorists.

I disagree. We're not talking about...

SAVIDGE: The law doesn't cover American citizens, though.

SILLIMAN: No, the order does not cover American citizens. But I do think there's a misconception about the type of due process that's involved here. Military justice under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a totally different system from what we're talking about and I don't think the American people really perceive the difference.

SAVIDGE: But do we want to have a trial in public where terrorists could get up on a soap box? We've seen other cases that have grabbed notoriety in this nation turn into a circus. Wouldn't it truly be a better area to conduct a trial of this nature, especially when we are talking about crimes of war?

SILLIMAN: Marty, I would suggest to you that although none of the options available for the prosecution of terrorists is optimal -- I think all of us concede that -- nonetheless, federal prosecutors, if you go with the federal district court option -- have the tools. They have the Classified Information Procedures Act. They have other means to keep sensitive information out of the hands of the public and certainly out of the hands of the criminal defendants. You also, obviously, have the possibility of international tribunals, either an ad hoc one or amendment of a currently existing charter.

But I maintain, again, that if we are going to go with military commissions in this country, I think it would behoove us all if the secretary of defense, who is charged with prescribing the regulations, builds in as much due process as possible so that we will not be subject to a charge of hypocrisy from those countries that we've charged with exactly the type of drumhead justice.

SAVIDGE: Anne, are we basically saying that if you're not a U.S. citizen then you have no constitutional guarantee?

COULTER: Oh, no. Not at all. I mean as you say, we're at war. And if I could mention two other things. I mean I strongly disagree with Scott, thinking that Americans do not realize what a military tribunal consists of. I think it's quite the opposite. The way it's being described in the media as ooh, secret tribunal, secret tribunal. I mean you get the idea that it would be in some sort of star chamber dungeon that's going on. It's quite -- I mean a lot of things are secret. All that means is the press isn't allowed in.

And moreover, Marty, I mean to support your question earlier, not only does it give terrorists a soap box to give them some huge O.J. trial with, you know, Alan Dershowitz as the lawyer, but in one of the terrorist's cases, I think it was the embassy bombing, the information came out that we had gotten information from cell phones.

Instantly Osama bin Laden stops using his cell phone. I mean we also have to protect classified information. But I mean the main point is we're in a war. We have an ethnic fifth column living right here in this nation and military tribunals are appropriate.

SAVIDGE: Well, you both have good points, but we're out of time.

Thank you very much for joining us, Scott Silliman, who is with Duke University, Anne Coulter, who is an attorney and a legal reporter. Thank you very much for joining us this morning.

SILLIMAN: Thank you, Marty.

COULTER: Thanks.

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