Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
November 16th, 2009
08:58 AM ET

9/11 suspects to be tried in a NY civilian court

The Obama Administration is defending the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9-11 conspirators to trial in federal court in New York.

Do you agree with the decision or believe they should be tried by a military commission?

Post your comments here, and Heidi will read some of them in the Newsroom, from 9-11am ET.


Filed under: Heidi Collins
soundoff (127 Responses)
  1. Shirley

    I do not care if they get a fair trial or not, It should be done the cheapest way possible for us the tax payers, these people have already cost us enough both emotionally and financially.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:14 am |
  2. mari

    If I were a citizen of New York I would want the chance to see these defendants tried in my city. The crime was committed against our country but especially against the citizens of New York and they should have the chance to watch this trial and hopefully find closure if not vengeance.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:14 am |
  3. Dan Leahy

    It's a disgrace that so many, mostly Republican, "leaders" don't have enough confidence in our great judicial system to trust that we can handle trying a few more terrorists. Since we've done it hundreds of times already, why is it such a bad idea now? Even more pathetic is their fear that we can't deal with a few thugs in our prison system. If we no longer trust our own system, it would seem that the terrorists have gotten their way.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:15 am |
  4. Phil

    Good idea-
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants to be remembered as a courageous martyr. After this trial in New York he will be remembered as a common criminal, a thug, a mass murderer who needs to learn and accept the consequences of his misguided actions.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:15 am |
  5. Steven P

    What a sham. Anything that will undermine what the last administration did, huh?

    Independents, such as myself, are disgusted with the partisan tit-for-tat that Washington engages in. The president's decision, however, may well prove to cost us blood in the long run. It certainly will cost us the treasure and time spent by giving secrets to the defense that they have no business having. What must our men and women think on the battlefield? When confronting a combatant, our commander in chief sees a criminal? Are you serious?

    What a sham.

    Steven P.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:15 am |
  6. Al

    The New Yorker in me says bring it on. We need to show the world we will never be afraid of terrorist, regardless of who they are. But, common sense does dictate that the trial should NOT be held in New York for security reasons and the plain fact that this city has had more than of its share threats and actual attacks. Our government should foot the security bill and not the people of NY.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:15 am |
  7. Ralph Thompson

    If so many want the terrorist tried by a military commission then why were'nt they under Bush/Cheney? They had plenty of time to do it. I hear that after 8 years they only tried 3. Only 3? What a joke. I would have had every terrorist tried, convicted and hung before the 2008 election.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:16 am |
  8. Mark

    Its a message to the world and consistent with new American policy, that America and democracy is rightous, and does not simply act in its own self interest to the exclusion of all others.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:16 am |
  9. jeramy townsley

    The United States' global isolationism and lack of engagement with international organizations (such as the International Criminal Court and the Conventions on the Rights of Children) only affirms what terrorists believe–that the US is still engaging in the imperialistic policies Europe abandoned 100 years ago. Terrorists gain power when US citizens let militarism win and abandon one of civilization's core innovations–the rule of law. Putting the terrorists on trial in criminal court not only emphasizes the importance of rule of law, but finally undercuts terrorist claims that they are "war martyrs" and names them for what they are on the international stage: criminals.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:16 am |
  10. shameika

    I agree with the federal court decision since it includes a jury and seems more fair than the military commission. Also, we don't know for sure if these alleged 9/11 conspirators are just that.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:17 am |
  11. Gary

    Yes, those accused of the 9/11 terrorist attacks should be tried in a federal court in NYC, the scene of the horrible crime for which they are accused. It has been an embarassment that these men were held for about 8 years without charges being filed. I think the USA will gain the respect of the world by at last providing justice for these alleged terrorists.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:18 am |
  12. mary

    These crimes were committed against the American people on our own soil.I appreciate the fact that we get the right to sit on a jury ourselves. Terroists are in our country running free anyway. why not keep them in a prison where we know where they are.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:18 am |
  13. Jim Delricco

    Just what this country needs.
    Spending tens of millions of dollars to put these dogs on trial,, giving them more publicity to recruit more terrorists. Risking more information on how we gather intelligence information, and finally giving some clow of a lawyer to get some fame.

    Is this attorney general and the OBAMA adminstration NUTS..........
    Give it to the military...........they do work better than the idiots in congress...............or CIVILIANS.

    Warm Regards
    Jim

    November 16, 2009 at 9:20 am |
  14. Bill Ramsay

    Politicians continually play games with us, both sides. This is a military situarion. Bringing it public only continures the admins. campaign and stirs up past Republican struggles, move on. Let the military tribunals deliver justice without ooening up wounds,

    November 16, 2009 at 9:21 am |
  15. Richard

    Are they insane? No, not he terriorists – but the people in the administration who think this is a good idea. (Oh, it's a trick; we'll be able to attack and execute them them by crashing an airplane into their jail cells unexpectately)- maybe that was why Air Force One took the photo op flight over the NYC a few weeks ago? Practice...

    November 16, 2009 at 9:22 am |
  16. Norman L Wiechnick

    The "supposed" terrorist should be given a trail in the state that the supposed crime was commited. If this be the suspected 9/11 terrorist, those and only those should be put on trial.
    I suspect that the Republican opposition is base on just how many Republicans will be exposed using the 9/11 attack as a means to attack Iraq and all their lies involved that fiasco.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:23 am |
  17. Rich, Kankakee, IL.

    Yes bring them to IL. we have a prison that has barely anyone in it which is a total waste, plus those 3k jobs would be a great boom to many towns and villges in the area that are closing or closed becuase they have no customer base to speak of!

    I am so tired of people like Rudy Giuliani who first argued for them to be brought to justice in our courts in the past, but now speaks with a fork tongue and says that our courts are not good enough to bring them to justice. If they are not good enough to bring them to justice in them, how can anyone in America be brought to justice in them!

    November 16, 2009 at 9:24 am |
  18. Jane

    I live in New York City. I think it's annoying that all these politicians who supported George Bush–the man who let Osama bin Laden get away–are now getting all hysterical that we're one of the 9/11 killers on trial at the scene of his crime.

    New York deserves to bring someone to justice for 9/11. It's ridiculous that we invaded Iraq before we captured bin Laden. Why are Republicans outraged that we're putting someone on trial? Shouldn't they be outraged that we let the ringleader get away? Doesn't letting the bad guys get away make us less safe than putting them on trial?

    I'm tired of politicians romanticizing Al Quaeda and pretending they're as powerful as the Soviets or the Nazis.

    These guys are a ragtag bunch of cultists with delusions of grandeur. These are open-and-shut cases. I say we put 'em on trial and when they evidence inevitably proves them guilty, hang 'em at Ground Zero. We're not a Banana Republic–even the guilty get a fair trial.

    They don't deserve tribunals. They aren't soldiers. They're terrorists. Treat 'em like Timothy McVeigh or like the DC shooter.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  19. Jon

    I feel that the that they should be tried Militarly and in another Country why bring them back to where the crime was committed even though we may not show it as a country we still feel the pain in loosing family and friends during the 911 attacks. They should pay for their crimes. Consider other cases that were tried as war crimes such as Germany in WW 2 would this be any different, I don't think so.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:25 am |
  20. Ancel Irby

    As a former military person and also forty years as a Police Officer, I have seen how the courts deal with cases. This is strictly a military case as they committed an "Act of War" on this country, therefore they should go before a military tribunal.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  21. joan, Michigan

    I think that it is stupid to bring these terrorists here at our expense. Why?
    Just because Obama made another promise that was not very well thought out. He seems to make quick rash decisions and then we have to pay for them. When are the American people going to wake up and think of the safety of our own country. These prisons will not be giving jobs since they will need to be run by professionals in the military not locals! Another concern I have is that the prisons are so lax today that these people will network and set off another attack. They are extremely smart and have a goal to kill us. Don't we see that?

    November 16, 2009 at 9:27 am |
  22. Patrick Pettengill

    On September 11th, 2001 a bunch of evil people took the lives of over 3000 innocent civilians. Since that moment we as a country have lived in fear. We have sent our troops to root out the sources of this evil and then detoured that effort for an easier target.
    It is time to stop living in fear of these people. They killed civilians using civilian aircraft as their weapons and civilian buildings as their targets. It is time, as Rudy Guiliani himself proclaimed; to show the world how our the greatest country with the most mature judicial system works. Bring these bastards to justice in open court with civilians judging them. We can and must handle this properly – in a court of law. We are a country of laws and not a country of aggressors as these people want the world to believe. Let them look into the eyes of the victims and the eyes of the fallen's families!

    November 16, 2009 at 9:28 am |
  23. Bill

    It really matters not whether or not you agree or disagree. Think about this; if France capture pirates in the Indian ocean, they do not hold them indefinitely without charge. They take them back to France and hold a trial. The same goes for the rest of the civilized international community.

    There are widely accepted international practices and it would pay you to remember this.

    Why do the hyper partisan Republican'ts insist on a military trial? They are so contrary to common sense at this point that they are in essence unAmerican. Every time these 'rogues' take the White House they darn near bankrupt you and in the case of Guantanamo, disgrace America in the eyes of the world. They are bitter disciples of a world gone by and not to be taken seriously.

    Listen to how flippantly the Republican'ts want to dispatch 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Do you have any idea what this will cost? They claim the high ground fiscally and yet the opposite is clearly the case. Disregard them.

    Get your house in order an be a good player who follow the rules of the world.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:29 am |
  24. Charlotte Prow

    I do NOT believe that any war criminal should be tried in a civilian court.
    1. War criminal terrorists should be tried in a military tribunal as there acts are specifically acts of war.
    2. Holding the trial in New York City may very likely result in another act of war on this city.
    3. The expense of holding the trial in NYC will place an unnecessary financial burden on local, state, and federal govenments.
    4. Why should our country grant his wish to be transferred to NYC? Why make him a world wide martyr?

    November 16, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  25. Nancy

    It disturbs me that we, as a nation, are constantly touting the benefits of a democracy, but are only willing to trust that democracy in certain situations. The CIVILIAN court systems are a huge part of a democracy and if we truly believe a democratic system is the best then we should have faith that they will work the way they are supposed to. Yes it is scary to have terrorists on American soil, but don't we as a nation deserve justice and shouldn't that justice come from "we, the people" instead of the military?

    November 16, 2009 at 9:32 am |
  26. Roger, Iowa

    President Obama decision setting trials for terrorists is right for our country. Our country was built on the belief every person has the right to their day in court. The people whom disagree to trials for terrorists are afraid the truth about the Bush administration my come out.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:37 am |
  27. Dan Nelson Lafayette,IN

    No the terrorists should not escape our military court system! We are at war with them and the military should hold tribunals for them! The terrorists should not be paraded around the world as some kind of jihadists that the extremists would hail them as God's warriors!

    November 16, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  28. Bill

    Good day Heidi
    Yes I do agree that the terrorist should be tried in a military commission. Our justice system lacks the comprehension of the inner workings of the military. This was a violent crime against our country, and we are talking about people are ruthless lawless people that do not deserve any rights afforded by our civilian justice system. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other are found guilty, they should be put to death. They should not be given the chance to live in our country burdening our tax payers. This will provide some closure to the people of the United States.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  29. laura from willis

    Mary, SO VERY WELL PUT. My sentiments , exactly. We weren't at War, literally, when the Terrorists committed their Crimes against us.

    Seems to me that anywhere these trials take place,no one will ever be satisfied.

    For once, I wish those on the opposite side of Obama's fence, would just give the Administration a chance.

    If we were to spend as much time TRYING to open our minds, as we do, CLOSING THEM to everything that the President does...this would be a closer nation.
    Now, more than ever, we need to be UNITED!

    November 16, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  30. Bjorn Nilsen

    The manner, not venue, of this trial may very well be a HUGE mistake. A media 3-ring circus will only serve to further draw attention to the agenda of these criminals and extremist Muslims. A public trial, and subsequent punishment process, will likely render them as martyrs thus creating a powerful motivator and recruitment tool for those who would want to do harm to the US and others in the West. A closed, non-publicized, trial and punishment process may be the wisest, yet least likely, path to take.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  31. Andre Marshall

    This is great! We need to handle our on problems and "not" dump them in other countries. Great job, Mr. President! Thanks!

    November 16, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  32. Charles Bentley

    I do not agree. I can't imagine if a similar attack as 9-11 took place on soil of any other country, the alleged foriegn (terrorists) perpetrators would be served in any court other than military convened. The time and expense involved and hopefully resulting in justice will be enormous. Where do you find an acceptable jury of peers? How do you guarantee other U.S. civilians won't be harmed or killed. Our government's current administration is creating additional and unnecessary risk to promote a political agenda.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  33. Kathy Robbins

    The Nuremberg trials, dealing with war crimes, were conducted in a civilian court. I see no reason why the 9/11 trials should be conducted any differently. The purpose of military tribunals is to deal with violations of military code by members of the military.

    November 16, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  34. vic nashville tn

    I agree with this administration. By this time these terrorist should have punished

    They did the crime at New York they have to put to death at New York

    Those who criticizes this move they don’t believe our system that is sad

    November 16, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  35. jesse h

    the attacks on 9/11 were against civilians, not the military. they should therefore be tried by the people, not the military.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:00 am |
  36. Ralph

    This is another bad decision, another mistake by pro-terrorist president.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  37. steve

    It was an act of WAR against the US. It should not be tried in a Civil court system. Thank God, Obama was not president when Pearl Harbor got bombed.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  38. Ken Avedisian

    I disagree with the administration's decision to try war criminals in a Federal US Court. Our judiciary system is reserved for US citizens... duh! Giving radical Muslims and terrorists a world stage is ridiculous or perhaps it's naive politics 101 meant to keep BO on page one of his fav media...

    November 16, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  39. Jay

    The Justice Dept. doesn't want these terrorists going free. They are doing what they think is best in order to convict and punish them. I believe that our system will do just that.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:05 am |
  40. John

    They need a change of Venue. They can't get a fair trial in New York. How about some Middle East Country such as Sudi Arabia where they can convene jury of their peers. Better yet , let Eric Holder give them a pardon like he did during the Clinton Administration similar to the terroist group Boricua Poplar Army. Maybe this would help seal a peace treaty with the terrorist oops, I mean the would be "man made disaster folks". How absurd can the Justice Dept. be giving these murderers an open forum for their warped ideolgies. When will we get some common sense back into our federal judical system?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  41. Dan B.

    The Bush Administration significantly damaged the way the world views the U.S. justice system. Opening Gunatanamo and denying fair trials to the prisoners there in the first place was the root of this problem. President Obama and his administration are trying to restore the American value of "justice for all". If we don't set an example to the world of how fair justice is administered, other countries will feel justified when deciding how to administer justice to our citizens when captured by foreign powers (like the hikers in Iran). The republicans that criticize this decision should remember that they had the power to deal with this problem years ago but just ignored it. The damage that the Bush Administration did to the reputation of America in the eyes of the world was a major factor in why Americans chose to elect Barack Obama to office. Now, Obama and his administration are doing exactly what "we the people" sent him to Washington to do. I think they are doing it well!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:08 am |
  42. Mat

    I think it is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous to bring the alleged 9-11 terrorists to the United States in general. To bring them to the very place of their crime against America in an attempt to offer a "fair" civilian trial is even worse. First, they're going to have a tough time keeping the terrorists safe from the American resolve. Second, I believe the risk of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil during the incarceration and trial of these guys will increase exponentially.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:11 am |
  43. Jon

    This attack was on more than just a federal level. This was an attack on America as a nation. They made there judgment on the citizens of America and only deserve the same treatment. Public Trial.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:11 am |
  44. Bob Landdeck

    The detainees are not US citizens and should not be tried in US courts. The only people benefiting from the trials in New York are the attorneys, who stand to make millions.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  45. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    The democrates are wrecking a judicial system that has been used since the history of war The U.C.M.J. was set in place by our fore fathers for a reason these war criminals do not deserve the American rights that come along with a civilian court.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  46. Gayle in New York City

    There are decidedly opposing views on this: as a New Yorker I absolutely understand the concerns about the inevitable disruptions to life in the city. But I also feel that these folks should be tried as the common criminals they are. The conservative right has made much of the "war on terror" as political hyberbole, but that language only serves to elevate these common, albeit prolific, thugs to far more than they warrant. There has, for many years, been an attitude that "We the People" must be sheilded from the truth about these master terrorists. That's condescending in the extreme: they ought to be treated like the drug cartels, ie "the WAR on drugs. We try them in a court of law because that is what makes us a civilized people. Not hapless children who need Bush/Cheney to protect us from ourselves.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  47. kathy

    I agree with Norman!!

    "how many Republicans will be exposed using the 9/11 attack as a means to attack Iraq and all their lies involved that fiasco." So many of our troops were killed needlessly to fight this unwarranted war in Iraq. No we are faced with more bloodshed in Afghanistan because of the decision to invade Iraq and not fight the real terrorists who were in Afghanistan.

    I trust in the President and his administration and they should be tried in NYC. I also commend him and his cabinet for thinking it through with Afghanistan ... we had a President and his administration just decide to go to war (Iraq) and forget about Afghanistan totally. No we are paying the price. We have lost valuable time in the war against terrorism and we are seeing our men and women killed. The Republicans made a mess and they want to blame the Democrats for it. How about the information that sat on Bush's desk for over 8 months to supply more troops when they were asked for. They forgot so easily and think they do not wrong.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  48. Jay

    I get so tired of hearing comments from people saying "pro-terrorist" president, and refering to him as "Bo". Could you be any more racist Ken Avedisian? Why not just come right out and say the word you really want to say? People like Charles Bentley say "If similar attacks took place on foreign soil ...." blah blah blah. Hey Charlie, this ain't Iran or North Korea. This is the US. The fact that we try these people fairly is one of the reasons we are the greatest country on the planet.

    The true threat to this country is the Republican party, the teabaggers and the close-minded, bigoted fear-mongering fools out there like Limbaugh, Beck, Bachman and that whole parade of idiots.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  49. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    The downfall of the U.M.C.J. will result from decisions such as this one.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  50. Amos Annan

    YES, give them every possible ability to defend themselves and show the world that the U.S. is the kind of place that offers EVERYONE a fair trial.

    The idea that they should not be brought to the U.S. is ridiculous.

    Why didn't the Bush administration take care of this during the last 8 years?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  51. Mike Bates

    Will any Democrat politician favoring the NY trial for terrorists want to have his or her own family members serve on the jury?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  52. LAURA WEBB

    Yes, I think they should be tried in NY and be judged by the people. However, if Americans check out some global newspapers, they might see that some parts of the world see Americans as terrorists, just as bad as these people. Could you remind me of the date the US declared war on Iraq?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  53. Don Richesin

    I respect and trust our American legal system. I think they should be tried, in open court, in the state of New York. I am not afraid of their rhetoric of hate. Don (Arizona)

    November 16, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  54. kathy

    If the U.M.C.J. was so great why haven't these terrorists been tried ... its only been 8 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  55. Patricia Baughn

    Yes I believe they should be tried in the US and in New York.. Regardless of where the trial takes place wounds will be opened. Who can ever forget that day? Security risks would exist in any trial location and having them tried by Military Tribunal wouldn't change that.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  56. Stephon R. Rhone, Sr.

    I support having the trial in a federal court. This crime was commited on american soil and the trial should be in a civilian court. I am concerned about the security.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  57. barbara bradley

    Why have an additional platform to air their evil views. Are we placing a large bulls eye target on N.Y.C.? A military trial is the way to go. No special status for this terrorist.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  58. Carl B.Laking

    Top of the Morning to you – Heidi!
    Being a retired military person, well read/studied in foreign affairs, strong supporter of Western Christian values; I strongly believe that detainees who are "prisoners of war" must be dealt with in the Military courts. Civilian courts are full of bleeding hearts, sympathetic to human rights and so on.
    War Criminals should never be honored with the benefit of any priviledges awarded the general citizens. War criminals do not belong in civilian courts, in my opinion, because:
    1) it gives them a chance to walk free or at least receive less than adequate sentence.
    2) It gives them the opportunity (at the tax payers expense, no less) to promote their cause or ideologies in the media for free.
    3) Military tribunals are more trained in the dealing with war crimes than the civilian court systems are (in my humble opinion)
    4) The military systems operating costs are much less expensive than the civilian system. Our military courts have a lesser work load and therefore a speedy trial and swift action to penalties are more likely.
    And there are other issues as well but we won't clutter your page with them all at this time.

    Thanks Heidi, Luv ur show!
    Carl

    November 16, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  59. Kathy McDonald

    They should be tried with the military, a fair and balanced jury would not be found in New York. No matter if I feel they are guilty or not it would cause more problems then anything.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  60. John

    The idea that these terrorist will escape is nonsense, escape and go where. They have no clue where they are. Compared to local prisoners they are less likely to escape and if they do they are more likely to be noticed and recaptured right away.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  61. Ann

    These men are not US citizens, and therefore should not be granted the legal rightsof US citizens. They have already spent too much time on American soil. Their crimes are acts of war. Had we been able to arrest the Japanese bomber pilots responsible for Pearl Harbor, would they have been afforded the rights that the Obama Administration wants to give these criminals?!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  62. Michael Hite

    We pay a lot of lip service in this country to winning "hearts and minds". Trying the 911 conspirators in New York is a step in that direction. It's time we put our money where our mouth is and show the world that we hold ourselves accountable to our own principles.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  63. ken

    The crime was commited in ny city so the trial should take place in ny city. The military has had 8 years to start. a trial, but they have failed. Why is gouliani afraid of having the trial in ny city. Maybe because he destroyed the crime scene to show the terrorists how fast we could rebuild the towers. Well why don't we have new twin towers after 8 years. The city is losing 350 million a year on real estate taxes alone.. The city spent a billion on yankee stadium but gouliani had no money for radios or personal protective equipment for the emergency response personnel. Good luck having gooliani as the ny governor.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  64. Dena Henry

    I'm concerned that holding trials in New York, while seemingly appropriate, will be viewed as not being "fair". I would want no way for legal loopholes to taint these proceedings. Military trial is an option as long as the Commander in Chief stays out of it.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  65. Tom Windwillow Lampasas, TX

    The greatest implication of a civilian constitutional trial in New York is that these jihadists are reduced in status to common criminals. They will be put to death as common criminals and will not go to paradise as holy warriors. To allow these thugs to claim the status of warriors is to profane the memory of every American soldier illegally tried in some foreign kangaroo court throughout history.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  66. Betty Hollingshead

    Stop the insanity! These terrorists are war criminals and have NO RIGHTS to a trial in an American court. Years have been spent already in preparation for a military tribunal, which is the appropriate venue for their trial. Now that they could be tried, the Obama administration turns it all upside down to start all over with a trial on American soil. The Obama administration, I believe, is providing a stage for the terrorists to vent their rage and hatred. Moreover, it is providing the Obama administration a stage in which to "try" the Bush administration for alleged abuse of the Gitmo prisoners – at a horrific risk to American citizens' security.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  67. Amos Annan

    The U.S. was not at war with anyone called "terrorists".

    Military trials are jokes. That is the way dictators try their enemies.

    We house the worst kind of criminals in this country, why not terrrorists?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  68. Allen

    Heidi, Mr. Pearl's interview added an excellent perspective on this puzzling issue. Between lawyers and the media this case will not only give a platform to terrorists, but will give it to them for weeks. And by the way, who's paying for their defense?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  69. Taz Rolain

    I feel, three crimes against the US. The 9/11 New York, the plane in Pa., The third plane is an attach against the US Government.. The American public should be the jurors for the two crimes against the US, The third should be tried by the military.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  70. L.Ross

    I do not understand America's attitudes, if the upcoming trial were held in secret then we would be complaining that we have a right to know what is going on. We are becoming more and more a country that just can not be satisfied. If we do not have something to complain about on a daily bases we act like a person that missed their morning cup of java. We elect our officials and then we assume our positions of sitting back to complain as they do what we already know they are going to do. This is a sick dance that we American's seem to enjoy.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  71. Pamela Jones

    For reasons of security, this trial should not be held in N.Y.C. Put this trial where it belongs, in a controled military environiment. For the people of New York this trial would put them at a very high risk for some sort of
    "show of power" by terrorist groups. They have been through enough. This is a "double-edge sword" situation. As for the millions(and I'm talking millions) of tax payer dollars spent on this trial it would be awful. And who would tale the hit for the millions? The people of New York. Let the military handle it. Take the millions of dollars and give it to the survivors of 9/1/1, and those that were left behind. Obama is "grandstanding" at the risk of the American people. Justice will be served,without Obamas "histronics." And just a note, if you break down the word justice, it is "just us." How ironic is that?
    Pamela Jones

    November 16, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  72. Joseph

    The terrorists are not American criminals. They deserve only a trial before a military tribunal and swift justice. We do not need to give them a forum in which they can announce their their sick, demonic views while they languish for years on appeal spreading their evil among inmates.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  73. LAURA WEBB

    Yes, they should be tried in NY by the people to decide their fate as this is where the crime took place and the people most effected, other than family members. In the same note, this is emotional for the people, however, if you read global news, Americans are considered terrorist and occupiers of a tyrant regime. Can you please remind me when the US declared war on Iraq? How is it going to be reflected in the history books? as an assaut on the US who replied or an occupation?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  74. Kelly

    Instead of an apartment-like cell and a high profile platform, these 5 jihadists should be left at Gitmo while streaming live to New York City to take part in their trial, saving everybody the expense of added security, added press coverage, and added anxiety of moving them to New York. As long as we have the technology to use this we should do it.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  75. Steve Armes

    I absolutely disagree with this decision, which is unbelievably irresponsible in that it gives terrorists a platform to rant, forces the victim's families to suffer humiliation, and transmits weakness to our enemies. I predict this decision wll be reversed by the end of this week.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  76. Mitch Dworkin - Dallas, Texas

    They should definitely be tried by a military commission in my opinion!

    I watched Jeffrey Toobin on CNN all day last Friday and he mentioned so many possible things that could go wrong and how long that a federal court trial could take. I am a very pragmatic person and I am definitely against a federal trial in New York. The 9/11 terrorists do NOT deserve the same legal rights that all U.S. citizens are entitled to!

    A federal 9/11 trial in New York is divisive even among Democrats and pragmatic thinkers, Obama will lose all of his credibility and his political capital if any one serious thing goes wrong with the trial, and it will be a constant distraction from health care and from other important issues!

    I definitely want Obama to succeed but he is taking a very huge, a very dangerous, and a very unnecessary risk by having the 9/11 trial in a federal court in New York. I really hope that he changes his mind on this VERY quickly!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  77. Bettye

    We must maintain a system of justice that is open and complies with rules of law. The abuse of power that Guantanamo encouraged cannot be allowed to exist in civilized society. The accused must be tried in a court where real evidence can be presented, and this should have happened long ago. I'm glad Obama has the courage to bring these men to trial.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  78. John

    The notion that these terrorists will use this "opportunity" to advance their propaganda doesn't make sense, unless we believe that they have some substance. The more they talk the more chance the world will see that they have no substance, and the hate agenda they try to promote will have a chance to be rejected by all. Secrecy is not a solution, openness will show who they are.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  79. Frank Devine

    All of the legal rights that would be given to these "alleged" mass murderers are provided for in our Constitution, which applies only to CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA. None of these people are, and to give those rights to people who attacked us, in an act of war, is an insult to every citizen of The United States, by birth or naturalization.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  80. Tom Strang

    What a bunch of cowards....we brag that we are the strongest nation on earth and yet we are afraid to bring to trial and imprison a handful of terrorists. Politicians are quick to vote for the war on terror as long as it doesn't hit too close to home. Stop sending our kids overseas to do the hard and dangerous work if you can't tolerate a little risk yourself.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  81. B. Sidiq

    Hey Heidi, I believe that they should be tried here. I would like to know, from their own mouths; Why, they are trying to kill me! Also a better understanding of there rederick, on record, to study, and use to protect us. We are the leaders of the free World, FREE WORLD! Transparency is knowledge.

    Thanks
    Sidiq

    November 16, 2009 at 10:41 am |
  82. Steve Armes

    I absolutely disagree with this decision, which is unbelievably irresponsible in that it gives terrorists a platform to rant, forces the victim's families to suffer humiliation, and transmits weakness to our enemies. I predict this decision will be reversed by the end of this week.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:41 am |
  83. Rubbie

    Why is it just now an issue! Since 2006 when the horrible MCA (Military Commissions Act) was passed these people could have been tried. – I support the President, however I do not like the fact that they could appeal the verdicts. Besides the fact is if those speaking out now had rushed the MCA authorized trials we would not be having these discussions.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  84. Amos Annan

    Yes, the U.S. is not at war with "terrorists".

    There have been no declarations of war, so it is a civilian matter.

    Just because someone was "detained", does not make them guilty.

    Iran just detained 3 people who crossed the border accidentally calling them "terrorists". Would we want them tried in an Iranian military court?

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  85. Al

    As a country that is based on the rule of law these crimes should be heard in the propper place some civillian some military. I have yet to see a declration of war signed againest anybody. This has all been done before so stop crying about it. Just shows how dumb the American people are!!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  86. Jim Leach

    What's frightening to me is not that we're going to bring these guys to justice in a US court. What's frightening to me is that so many people are perfectly willing to abandon our system of justice in the name of "not opening up old wounds." Our justice system is what makes this country what it is in many ways and to abandon it is to allow the terrorists to win.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  87. Carl B.Laking

    Heidi,
    sorry for this second piece. I read some of the other submissions after I wrote in.
    I would like to note to all those who claim these acts were against civilians and thus should be tried in civilian court; you need to look at the fact that the acts were against "citizens" of USA as well as many other countries. Therefore, I maintain the swiftness of the military system will bring rapid justice to all citizens of all countries involved. I cannot see the need for the New York peoples to shoulder the burden of sitting on juries, etc.

    Carl

    November 16, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  88. Rob Lewis

    Hello Heidi,

    I believe that having the Guantanamo terrorists on trial in NY may provide some temporary solace for those who lost someone in 9/11 and other Americans and Canadians, however it will cause serious long term repercussions.

    Since it will obviously be televised around the world, it will give these criminals a perfect soap box in which to preach their jihadist retoric. There are already radical Muslim provocateurs on the streets of NY, as shown on CNN and other stations.

    The NY trials will only incite those demonstrators more by helping them to stir up the young Muslims who already sit on the fence about to whether to join their jihadist movement against America.

    Please enter some discussions on your program regarding the long term ramifications of these trials, and not just the momentary media and revenge-driven implications. They should not have an opportunity to gain a forum within the U.S. and should be judged in the military forum in which they committed their acts. They were soldiers of war, not American citizens, and they should be treated as such.

    Sincerely,

    Rob Lewis
    Richmond, B.C. Canada

    November 16, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  89. Nancy

    These people should be tried in a military court and not on American soil. They hate us and will use a civilian trial in our courts as a platform to spread their message. If they manage to be acquitted, they will be set free to kill Americans again, and make no mistake, they will kill as many as they can. They do not deserve a civilian trial.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:46 am |
  90. Anthony Marine

    I believe we are at war with Muslim terrorism across the world and these detainees were captured for either being caught in the act or believed to be actively supporting terrorist organizations. The key is we are at war with them. So in other words, they are prisoners of war and if their suspected of crimes (suspected or actual) should be tried by a Military Tribunal. They are not civilians, they are combatants. If in the proceedings of the Tribunal, they are determined to be not guilty of war crimes, then they should be set free. If they are convicted of being terrorists or supporting terrorists, then they should receive the appropriate sentence, in accordance with the crime or crimes they were convicted of. Just one more point, there have been detainees that were set free and later killed during attacks on American forces or Iraqi people. I also believe that if they were allowed to be tried in American civilian courts, that would lead to more terrorist attacks on our forces and country. We must show strength in our dealings with Fundamental Extremists because only strength is respected. Weakness is not.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:46 am |
  91. Don

    As long as we "get-er-done" and the out come is the same...or is everyone trying to be "policitally correct"

    November 16, 2009 at 10:46 am |
  92. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Why are we putting the U.C.M.J. in question for there ability to give a free and fair trial to these criminals of the free world some people ask the question of why eight years later the reason is answers you cant get information from a dead man plus there's the Democratic road block.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:46 am |
  93. Jay

    Are you people that think we are going to give this terrorist a "world stage" to spread his garbage sharing the same brain cell? Do you think he'll be conducting interviews with Larry King or conducting press conferences every day? And the likelihood of escape, are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how stupid that argument sounds? W. had 8 years to bring these people to justice and didn't do anything except torture and taint the US image. He and Dick need to be put on trial as well.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  94. Bret

    They had no right to kill innocent people, therefore should have no rights!

    November 16, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  95. Charlie Hart

    Religion has brought great benefits to humanity over the centuries spreading the concepts of God, Love, Charity, and Respect but the radical thought in any religion is a deadend for humanity. Airing these religious fanatics and there vile hate, to all the world, is the way to gain understanding and good from there pus filled hate that fuels all religious fanatics. Sweeping it under the rug in secret tribunals only delays the day when the world will become wise to this terrible cancer that is once again stalking the world like the Spanish inquisition/ witch burning and other "Holy Wars" of the past.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  96. John

    We should not change our values and do what these terrorists want us to do in the first place, be like them. If we change our values, i.e. due process, uphold the justice system, no one is above the law no matter what etc, then we became just like them. We have to trust and uphold the justice system, if we can't or won't who can or will? We should not be changed (or should not change our values) by these terrorists act. We should not allow ourselves to be like them.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  97. Liz Lowe

    KSM was captured in 2003; why is no one asking why this man and others have not already been tried and recieived their punishments; this should not have even been a question for this administration. Instead, it's just another piece of unfinished business left by the previous administration. We are willing to send thousands more of our fighting men and women into battle to possibly die for their country but many are unwilling to bring these terrorists to justice. If military courts are/were the answer this would and should have been accomplished a long time ago.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  98. Coralie Schepansky

    I do not agree, this should be a military tribunal.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  99. Richard Mahoney

    Arguing that a federal trial creates a forum for radical ideology ignores the rules of evidence. How does ones political ideology support or detract from evidence of culpability? Let's have a little confidence in the acumen of our federal justices. Although I feel for Judea Pearl's loss, typically a computer science professor is not an expert either in civil procedure or the federal rules of evidence. Let's consult a legal scholar.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  100. Gordon M. Labuhn

    Yes, in federal court because if we separate anyone from the protections guaranteed by our Freedom – we destroy the concept of freedom.

    November 16, 2009 at 10:57 am |
  101. kathy

    Those disgusting creeps attacked us on Civilian turf, so why not
    have them tried by the very civilians they attacked. Those low-life
    deserve to be hung right in public. They are a disgrace to their own
    people.

    November 16, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  102. Albert Steinloff

    Heidi, most Americans would like to ask General McCrystal who already has access to 68,000 troops, why he wants an additional 40,000 for a problem that cannot be solved. Why not ask for 1,000,000 troops?
    By observation the Afghanistan people we are defending do care about the own lives, why are we depending these suicidal type people who strap bombs to themselves to kill innocence civilians? Our lessons should be Viet Nam! The war we could not win no matter how many troops, equipment and other resources required to win a war.

    Again, we as American people want a new President less that two years in office to correct all of the mess the Bush Administration created in 8 year. Think about where were the chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why do we think a wrong will fix a wrong.

    Why do we openly protect known political criminals that had their hand in the prison at Guantanomo, Cuba? The same savage criminals would do the same thing to the average America if they could get away with it.

    No Brainer: What makes anyone think we as American, which have been active as a government for less then (3) centuries are going to change cultures that go back (35) centuries?

    Believe it or not went to money and troops leave the war areas the Afghanistan and Iraq will go back to living tents. Example: What are the great things Viet Nam is doing without our money?

    November 16, 2009 at 11:05 am |
  103. Marvin Henry III

    ....With the recent annoucement to put suspected 9/11 Terror Suspects on trial in New York City, is just another failure of the Liberal Policies of Barack Hussein Obama. He has opened the flood gates for terrorism on U.S. soil and given them a "stage" to perform on. The lights will be on, the camera will be rolling and the background provided. If these men are brought into a environment where they can be paraded, easily accessed adn readily available to groups that herald them as heroes, do u think for one moment they will not take the opportunity to act accordingly. The only reason terrorist groups have not tried to free them, as they have done so in Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq, is because while they were in Gitmo, there was no possible way to get to them. Now that they are being brought to a country is that is embracing their ideology, I stand up and applaud Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder and the Democratic Party for what is sure to be a public forum for Islamic extremists to make a mockery of not only the American judicial system, our failed foreign policies and our false sense of security. In final, I say to America, "Lights, camera, action now roll."

    November 16, 2009 at 11:10 am |
  104. Walter

    As we have not enough terror in NY. Lets bring them to Ny so they can enjoy being in the middle of the people who they terrorized. Our US people deserve to be left alone. LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE !!!

    November 16, 2009 at 11:12 am |
  105. Dianne

    Logic has been lost in America favoring political parties. America has stood for fair and equal. That evidently is over. This President is never right and elections donot mean anything in this democracy. If my party does not win let us do everything to make this country fail and be divided. China is not the the problem. We are. All races and religious beleivers of all faiths and non beleivers have died for the USA. Basically, China is more united than the USAin certain ways. From history we know that a super power decines through divisions, as America is now. The world watches us decline from fear, lies, and racism. We prove to the world by our actions, and deeds that disrespecting our President, looking for reasons he should not hold office, and total outright disrespect. We show the world that we are hypocritical and that democracy does not work well when a man of color is the head of state. It is understandable to disagree with somethings, but everything that President Obama does? First and foremost, we Americans need to take a long truly honest look at ourselves and our reasoning and question what America is really about. It seems that democracy is not actually in America, just the preaching of it.

    November 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
  106. Mary Ann

    They are FOREIGN terrorists, not U.S. citizens and do NOT deserve tax-payer lawyers to DEFEND them. Will they get off because of because they weren't given their Miranda rights? How could you find an un-prejudiced jury? Even Holder said he is confident they will be found guilty. I just think this administration wants to be in the press and put down the previous administration. I doubt other terrorists will think better of the U.S.

    November 16, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
  107. Mary Ann

    Just wondering, does N.Y. allow the death penalty? That's why they tried Malvo, the D.C. sniper in Va. They allow the death penalty. Hope this trial doesn't take as long as that one did. Took a year before he went to trial, then trial dragged on for ever, then he was on death-row for 5 or 6 years. They finally executed him last week. I'd like to know how costly that was for the taxpayer. This one will cost even more, and at a time when state and federal budgets are ballooning, not very fiscally responsible. For what, to show how Americans are fair? Highly doubtful that any minds will be changed. Total waste of taxpayer money. The only ones who will benefit from this are the lawyers.

    November 16, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  108. Dianne

    The other administration could have taken care of this and not worry about embarrassment. When a nation states that it is a democracy to the world and fight war in that very word -democracy-, the world will judge you by what yopu do. You are no different frpom those who lie-go back on their word. We donot live in this world alone. We cannot police the world aqnymore-alone. We need allies and the past administration ignored the world stage. This is not the 19th or 20th century, the world has moved on and this administration get that fact. There is different world and one should read and learn more than taught in school. See the world and it is not just the US anymore.The past administration found this out the hard way and we are in these situations now, though they would never admit it. We need allies to share the burden of policing the world financially and with human soldiers. There isnot a draft. Have you thought about if we can spare 40,000 soldiers? The rich use patriotism as a cry for war. Where are their sons and daughters? Is patiotism as important to them as sending our children into harms way? Romney talks and talk and disrespects President Obama, where are his six sons? The poor fight for and lose their lives for these so called high minded speeches for war. While the rich sons attend the colleges, run Fortune 500 companies, live to ripe old ages while working and poor children give up their dreams and lives because they cannot find jobs that these people have made exorbent fortunes. War is financially profitable for them. Since their wealth is so great, show your patroitism. Make war the absolute last option and then let all rich or poor fight for the country and get no special deals to get out.

    November 16, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
  109. Ben

    So let's think about this. Terrorists want to disrupt our ability to live our lives according to our own societal and legal standards. By giving into the unreasonable fear of jailed suspects, we only give them power over us while they are locked in a cell, and we are not.

    November 16, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  110. David

    What are the charges they will be charged with in civilian court or in a military tribunal? It's hard to give accused terrorists status as combatants when they are only criminals. There are lots of things to think about here, but isn't it the case that terrorists are most often prosecuted, around the world, in criminal courts? The military courts do provide a layer of security that particular district courts do not, that has to be considered because these terrorists are so violent, but the federal courts can handle prosecution of all the crimes committed. And maybe the layer of security comes now in working through issues and better foreign policy.

    November 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  111. Dr. Jim

    If the end results of a trial either in civilian court or the military tribunal is a just punishment fitting the crime, then the only reason I see for the civilian trail by jury is purely public relations and I don't belive the 9/11 attack was a public relations stunt. This decision, to bring the terrorists to New York, by our President is another nail in his re-electilon campaign coffin.

    November 16, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  112. John

    Giving th 9/11 suspects a trial in a NY civilian court? NEVER!!!! What are these people thinking who make these decisions for us? This would be a slap in the face to all the victims, survivors and their loving families affected by the horrendous attacks of 9/11 !!! The rights we Americans have to receive as a free nation should not be granted to these suspects in a civilian court. Its about time we quit freely providing the means whereby national security could be compromised in a civilian proceeding when a military court could be used to prevent such a travesty. Let's stand up for OUR rights for a change !!

    November 16, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  113. Michelle

    When a police officer in the US apprehends a suspect, the first thing they're trained to do is give suspects their Miranda rights. When a soldier or soldiers apprehend a terrorist on the battlefield, Miranda and legal rights are not part of the process . Normally the soldier or soldiers are trying to deflect rocket attacks, IEDs, small arms fire, etc. or some life-threatening event, trying to get fellow soldiers as well as the terrorist(s) away from an immedeiate risky situation such as being blown up.

    It's obvious that all of you calling this a criminal situation have no clue about the real world of battle.

    For those who keep saying this will show what a perfect justice system we have, it's almost comical to hear, as we can all recant legions of trials over the decades in this country where the bad guys have either gotten off, or not gotten the full sentence.

    Which leads me to the next logic hole in the left's argument. If our civilian courts are supposed to assume a suspect is innocent until poven guilty, then why has Holder and a whole host of lefties gotten on TV and said, "oh, we're sure they'll be convicted. We're sure they won't get off. We already weighed all the evidence and for those worried they could get acquitted, we can assure that won't happen." I was like WHAT? Even my 7 year old nephew could see the contradiction in THAT.

    Then of all the things that make me sick when ANY terrorist – who is typicallynot a US citizen – gets the same rights as US citizens, is when we watch them get to ask for access to intelligence, which they are then granted in the name of their defense. As a former intelligence practicioner, watching a terrorist get to compromise sensitive information and put those who give us that intel ...put their lives at risk ....is like the ultimate stupid act in this country.

    I have to assume our forefathers assumed the average citizen would be a lot more informed, well-read, worldly, knowledgeable about history, possess common sense, possess reasoning skills, etc. then in fact a number of citizens are. Our forefathers must roll in their graves.

    November 16, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
  114. Charlie Hart

    For a democratic and free country to remain that banner of human success that slaves and forlorn people look to for hope, the citizens of that nation must be strong and brave in their belief in the rule of law. Let us stand on the hilltop and shout to the dictators, whether civil or religious, "Follow Me" for we are brave and resolute in our commitment to justice for all. Bring on those criminals to meet American justice!

    November 17, 2009 at 8:21 am |
  115. Eric

    I find it disturbing that Christine Romans feels the need to be a cheerleader for the Obama administration and it's policy of holding these trials in New York. Right after CNN runs the piece about Governor Paterson's objections, Romans said "Some family members of 9/11 victims are already on record saying a trial will help them heal if they can witness it in person in New York." OK, that's true, but why not mention all of the family members who agree with Paterson. Romans' bias made it appears that 9/11 families are almost universally supportive of Obama and disagree with Paterson. Typical incomplete, partial, biased reporting by media figures with an agenda.

    November 17, 2009 at 8:21 am |
  116. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    The civilian courts are playing a dangerous game with dangerous people the chances of these detainees gaining freedom thru the civilian court system with the shyster lawayers is to great these people needs a low cost trial for there low life deeds let the military do its job.

    November 17, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  117. Michelle

    Richard,

    You say that Daniel Pearl's father is not a legal scholar. But I know of no legal scholars that are expert in foreign policy and national defense, or are experts in the execution of those policies. This is much bigger than the debate that goes on in comfy law offices, court rooms, or law schools about legal precedent and legal strategy. I've been on the frontlines of foreign policy a lot in my life and not once did I see a guy there in a bowtie have a clue or push the ball forward. They are good at pushing the ball backward when it comes to the final outcome though. Current administration case in point. I call them the bow-tie crew. Have any of them ever been on the frontlines of ANYTHING, other than politics or a courtroom?

    November 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  118. Carol

    NO I DO NOT. The military should try them and after they are found guilty they should be executed! What is our government trying to prove. It seems that they only care about how it looks to the rest of the world. What about what happened here in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001!!!! New York City would be put at risk having these TERRORISTS tried there.

    November 17, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  119. Lori C.

    I think the Attorney General of the United States is right! right! right! in this decision. What good do it do to leave these criminals at gitmo to rot? They should be tried in an American court of law and get what's coming to them after all, the United States is where they commited their crime and that's where they should face justice.

    November 18, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  120. Gayle in New York City

    I am a New Yorker and it just sickens me that Senator Shadegg OF ARIZONA, no less, is giving protracted comments about putting New Yorkers "at risk." This New Yorker wants these fools treated like the thugs they are and tried in our system of justice. If the military could handle it they would have done so by now, and frankly, I am starting to take exception to all these politicians telling we "New Yorkers" what is best from us. I have much more confidence with the Obama Administration's ability to dispense with this matter than what has gone before. We are not children, we can handle it.

    November 18, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
  121. eugebe thomas

    i think 911 attack most definitely an miltary act not the publics,we r not trained in war as the military is its main focus,how ungrateful its is to our military let them do theerrre job

    November 18, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  122. Mike

    I think anyone who has committed a crime of war has no civilian rights. These people have waged a war against the nation and the people of the United States of America. They have been proven to have commited these crimes they should face the firing squad. I think Obama it seriously jepordizing the safety of this country and its people. I wonder whos side he is on. Maybe he is a sleeper that will wake one day and turn our weapons upon ourselves.

    November 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  123. Meredith

    There is no information here in the news article describing any real information that would be helpful in me or anyone giving a thoughtful and constructive criticism on the issue one way or the other.
    Being tried in the Federal court what does that mean?
    Is it the same as being tried in the state's courts? Is it there a difference between the Federal, state, civil courts? Just what does it mean?
    In the Federal court if someone committed mass murder, can they be given the death penalty no matter what state they are tried in? Or does the Federal court have to abide by the death penalty laws in that state?
    Long before gitmo existed, how did we try and convict a mass murderer who was not in a country's military but was a civilian terrorist from another country but who declared war against us and pushed us into war by their action?
    Long before gitmo existed, how did we try and convict a mass murderer who was not in any military but who was a civilian terrorists from another country and who fought against our soldiers during time of war?
    Is there a difference between prisoners from another country and a civilian terrorist mass murderer who are not in any military of a foreign country, but who forced our hand to go to war in another country but committed their crime before the war?
    Is there a difference between war time prisoners from another country and a civilian terrorist who killed and fought against our soldiers during time of war and who engaged others to do the same but who are not in any military of any country?
    Were the prisoners given a military trial and what is the difference between all the different court systems we have in our system?
    Do we only have one type of court system in the USA and one kind of military court system?
    Just what are all of the different type of court systems that exist in our country?
    Just what are the laws regarding the different type of court systems that we have in our country?
    I believe we have more that 2.

    November 18, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  124. Dianne

    It's unreasonable to argue that civilian trials of a terrorist is a "perversion of the Justice System", as Senator Graham states, when we try serial killers, mass murderers and American terrorists.
    If the American justice system shouldn't have to, or is ill equipped to, try terrorists how can we expect Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country who struggles daily with suicide bombers and extremists to implement due process and civil rights?

    November 19, 2009 at 9:33 am |
  125. Greg

    Why would we push to take to trial a criminal that has already pleaded guilty. There isn't anything to gain form it. This is just a chance for the Attorney General Holder to try and gain favor by the American People and keep his face in the news. It's a selfish and senseless act.

    November 19, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  126. John, Illinois

    So, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder stated that this is his decision alone (apparently he does not consider them as "War Criminals"). Well, I do and I don't know what else you can call what occurred on September 11, 2001. Apparently that did not affect him the way it did most citizens.

    A Country (U.S.), State (NY) and City (NYC) already financially burdened and Holder decided "by himself" because "he can." How arrogant. Now what? Appropriate unused "stimulus monies" to finance the upcoming circus this will create? Eons of continuing appeals would follow.

    Not to mention that the News Media apparently does not want to say or print that this might be the extremist's excuse to commit more "Jihad" attrocities in the U.S.

    Bring the "GITMO" detainees to the Ilinois prison? What a suicide truck bomber's paradise that would create.

    A Military Court, leathal injection (beheading would be even more appropriate than hanging or a firing squad). No eons of appeals! Let them achieve the "martydom" they so dealy want. Their 7 virgins are waiting.

    John

    November 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  127. Jessica

    Though such ghastly contributors to 9/11 ought to be held accountable for what they have done to this country, we stand strong, able to show that even a recovering, Democratic society can overcome and provide proper court procedures. What better way to show the rest of the global community out ability to stand bigger than those who seek to harm us.

    November 20, 2009 at 10:16 am |