American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
June 10th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

We Listen!

American Morning’s Wednesday audience was horrified to see the alleged killer of Dr. Tiller being given prominent coverage for his views.

  • Gabe: Why is the media bothering to pay attention to Dr. Tiller's killer? He is only a murderous, unrepentant fanatic, a man who thinks he's God. To shower him attention is to fan his self-importance and troubled views. It also comes as a moral slap to the memory of the man he killed in a temple of God. Why don't you try interviewing some of the women whose health and even life Tiller may have saved? In highlighting this murderer you are only pandering to pro-life views. Get your priorities straight. PS. I'm against abortion as such but support it when necessary.
  • Carla: You really need to quit glorifying the terrorist Roeder and his terrorist agenda. Why don't you instead do some research and reporting on why women seek abortions, and/or why our society puts such shame and scorn on unwed mothers. I'm really sickened by seeing and hearing this deranged zealot murderer. The Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist Organization is alive, well, murdering, and still planning in America. Beware!
  • Paul: I don't know about you're sentiment, but, as far as I'm concerned, life under those tali-baptist religious fanatics that killed Doctor Tiller would likely be no better than life under the murderous tali-ban. Damn all fanatics!!

What do you think about Dr. Tiller’s alleged murderer being given media attention? Would such an action trigger “copy-cat” murders? Should the alleged killer be considered a “terrorist” as suggested by one viewer? Should he be given the right to voice his opinion or should others who are official “spokespersons” be the ones to express themselves?


Some were perplexed by the controversy surrounding the Gitmo detainees being house in a U.S. prison, noting that some of the most notorious prisoners of all time have been safely secured in maximum security centers in the U.S.

Del: This is the silliest controversy yet! The only problem with incarcerating Gitmo detainees in US Prisons is the extra cost of solitary confinement. They will not convert Americans to terrorism because they will not meet them. IF they are put in the general population, they will not survive 48 hours! Think Jeffrey Dahmer. Prisoners are lawbreakers, not traitors. For that matter, what would happen if they were released in the US? I'm sure we'd be glad to come welcome them with shotguns in hand.

What do you think about the Gitmo detainees being incarcerated in U.S. prisons? With so many dangerous criminals successfully housed in such facilities, is this a non-issue as the viewer suggests, or something more serious that needs further examination?


Filed under: We Listen
soundoff (4 Responses)
  1. Ted

    Ms. Taylor, calling Baptists terrorists is inexcusable and you have no basis for this. You have no idea what you are talking about and you should take back your comments. Your post is as graphic an example of hate speech as I've seen on such a forum.

    June 11, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  2. Mrs.Lou Taylor

    The Southern Baptist Convention fundamentalist and other fundamentalisst groups have been on radio and T.V. for years dehumanizing gay people and trashing women for abortion then their nuts go out and kill innocent people.
    These Baptist fundamentalist should be put at the top of the terrorist list.

    June 11, 2009 at 8:32 am |
  3. A. Nonymous

    Remember earlier this year when the DHS warned of growing right-wing extremism?

    Yeah, it's here. Just as warned. You (CNN) should follow up on this.

    http://gawker.com/5286144/the-rise-of-right+wing-violence?skyline=true&s=i

    Terrorists aren't always brown and Muslim. They're just as capable of being white and Christian or black and Jewish or purple and Subgenii.

    June 11, 2009 at 6:39 am |
  4. Mitchel

    The bottom line is this: We label people and these labels are not even accurate labels. Labels are truly limiting and not reflective on us as complex human individuals, and how we apply those same labels. This is why I don't like using labels for other people and even myself. I am conservative on some things, and more liberal on other things...it depends on the issue. But sure, I am a conservative /libertarian when it comes to fiscal responsibility. The point is this: George W. was not a conservative, except on social issues. If you like to spend money and not worry about how much you have to spend in a budget, then you are a fiscal liberal. If you don't like to spend money, or spend in a wise, efficient way, then you are a fiscal conservative. We must not label people in such a large way that we ignore reality.

    June 11, 2009 at 12:59 am |