http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/13/mohammed.critics/index.html

"Politicians Rip Decision On Terrorism Trials"

Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided Friday to try five suspected 9/11 terrorists in civilian court. Many members of congress opposed this type of trial. Many accused Holder of risking American security by treating the suspects as "common criminals." This type of treatment would entitle the suspect to greater constitutional liberties than they would if the case was tried as a military trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack who confessed, as well as five Guantanamo Bay detainees with supposed ties to the attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. Some argue that this type of trial is too lenient on the alleged terrorists. "These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans. Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable." This statement by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn supports the opposing side of the argument: These suspects did something horrible and do not deserve to be treated as common criminals. John Cornyn also stated that Eric Holder only put this decision into action, and endangered the security of Americans to fulfill a campaign promise. Democratic opposition also came along with Holder's proposition; Moderate Virginia Sen. Jim Webb stated he is "very concerned about the wisdom" of holding civilian trials instead of military ones. He also opposed Holder's proposal by saying the trial of these suspected terrorists in civilian court will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive. Some also argue that the families of the 9/11 victims deserve the opportunity to see justice served against those who caused them grief. Clearly, there is a wide range of beliefs on this subject. However, opposition or support for this decision is not divided by Democratic beliefs or Republican views. It is divided by a sense of morality. This issue has been the cause of much controversy within congress.