Nuremberg counsel ponders terror tribunals

In the midst of the current political turmoil and upheaval, SMU students are wondering “How will this all end?” One possible scenario allows for the capture of Osama bin Laden and his followers, then placing them on trial for war crimes. Someone might ask, “But how would we go about preparing for and presenting such a trial?”

This issue was discussed in an interview with Whitney R. Harris Thursday at Storey Hall.

Harris was an executive trial counsel to Chief of Counsel Robert H. Jackson during the trials for major German war criminals at the end of World War II, also known as the “Nuremberg Trials.” He was responsible for preparing and presenting the case against Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the chief of the Gestapo, Reich Main Security Office (RHSA) and other agencies. He also interrogated other prisoners and assisted with different cases due to his knowledge of German intelligence.

After Nuremberg, Harris was sent to Berlin, where he was the chief of the Legal Advice Branch, Legal Division, United States Office of Military Government. At the end of the war, he was invited by Robert Gerald Storey of SMU to teach at the Dedman School of Law.

Storey, a former dean of the graduate school of law (1947-1959), had been Harris’ superior officer during the Nuremberg Trials. “Colonel” Storey was part of the prosecution counsel and had been Executive Trial Counsel serving immediately under Jackson.

Jackson and his staff were responsible for accumulating and sorting the massive amount of data in the various cases, the restoration of the Hall of Justice, coordinating the services of people from around the globe and prosecuting the accused war criminals.

“If we were to capture high ranking members of al-Qaeda and try them in a manner similar to Nuremberg, we would have to have an agreement in the establishment of a tribunal. This tribunal would contain those countries engaged from a military standpoint. It would need to contain the United States, Great Britain, and possibly Pakistan. I don’t know who else would be included. That decision would have to be made by America, and it would be very hard,” said Harris.

Harris felt that The Hague, Netherlands, would be the best place to hold the trial due to the non-partisan position held by its host country.

The Hague now holds the position as the center of courts as a result of Nuremberg.

“The main thing for America to do at this time is to gather their supporting evidence together for trial,” said Harris. “The Hague could rule that the organization (al-Qaeda) is a criminal organization based on evidence. Then the individual members of the organization could be brought to trial in courts of the various nations. Guilt would be overcome by [the criminal’s] membership with the group provided he had knowledge of any of the crimes being committed. It is important for people to understand that we are facing great difficulties because of the uniqueness of these events.”

Harris said that Kaltenbrunner was tried more for his position as the chief of the RHSA than for any evidence that he had committed crimes.

During Nuremberg, the Germans were allowed to have German defenders.

When asked if al-Qaeda members should have attorneys from Afghanistan, the Taliban or someone sympathetic to their cause, Harris was most emphatic.

“The al-Qaeda should have the counsel of their choice, so long as that defender was not a member of the same criminal group,” Harris said.

Harris was asked if he saw comparisons in the attitudes of people after the Sept. 11th attack and the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“I see many of the same feelings of shock, anger and fear, but it does not seem as powerful as the feelings people felt after the Japanese attack,” Harris said. “You have to remember the significant differences here. Following Pearl Harbor, we were at war with a specific enemy, Japan. We could focus all of our anger, frustrations and hostilities on Japan.

“We don’t have one enemy in our current situation. There is no one enemy to focus on.”

The thing that struck the most forcefully in Harris’ mind during his time in Germany was when the “the Final Solution of the Jewish Question” was disclosed to him.

“I was interrogating Rudolph Hess when he told me of the plan to exterminate the Jewish race,” Harris said. “I was overwhelmed by this. As I uncovered the proof of this, it was so shocking and horrific to me that it was beyond my ability to grasp the full scope of this … until I witnessed the proof with my own eyes.”

During the trial, a report to Heinrich Himmler was presented dated Oct. 15, 1941. In the report, the statement was made, “Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourselves of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and whenever it is possible, in order to maintain there the structure of the Reich as a whole…” This was the attitude of the men being tried at Nuremberg, according to a book written by Harris.

When Harris taught at SMU, he was one of three former prosecutors to do so. Walter W. Brudno and Storey were the others.

SMU is the only university to have this many Nuremberg prosecutors on its teaching staff at one time.

“I was in Berlin working for Lucius D. Clay when Storey contacted me and invited me to teach at SMU,” Harris said. “Now I’m retired! I write books and lecture.”

Harris’ book was printed by the SMU press and is titled Tyranny on Trial. It is available at the SMU Bookstore for students who wish to learn more about the Nuremberg trials.

Harris ends his book with an appropriate sentiment from the book of Revelation:

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.”

Nuremberg counsel ponders terror tribunals

Nuremberg counsel ponders terror tribunals