Editor's Note: Attorney General Eric Holder’s appearance on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee generated strong opinion and questions for Thursday’s "American Morning" audience. While the majority supported a trial in New York City at the federal court level, some wondered if alternative courts would be more appropriate.
- Bill: I don’t believe the terrorist should be tried in NYC. Are we going to try every one we capture in the U.S. Why should the tax payers have to pay for this trial. We have been hurt enough already. Holder is an idiot.
- Sue: Regarding trying terrorists in civilian court. I am a mental health professional and believe that trying the terrorists in New York would stimulate an adverse response for those who suffer from PTSD related to Twin Tower Attacks. No terrorist should be afforded the rights of an American to be tried by a jury of their peers. If that were the case you would have to round up peers (terrorists) in order for him to get a "fair" trial. Let the military handle this, they are much better equipped to do so!
- Mark: Why can't we ask the World Court at the Hague to hold a trial for the terrorists? Do they do that anymore? Wasn't 9/11 a crime against all humanity?
- David: If the trial of the sheik is done in either court system and he is found guilty with the death penalty, where would he be housed while all the appeals are used, which more than likely would take years? I also understand that the military has not executed anyone in years. So where is the justice?
- Lee: Why is no one talking about the right of the terrorists to a speedy trial? I am sure any defense attorney will file a motion to dismiss based on the denial of a speedy trial. Why would that motion not succeed?
What is your opinion on where the trial of the accused 9/11 conspirators should be held?