captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- [captioning made possible by fox news channel] sean: welcome to this special edition of "hannity." terror on trial. over the next hour i'll be joined here in studio by family members of some of those who were killed on 9/11. as well as some of the brave men and women who were first responders on that tragic day. now, all of them are here to call on president obama to reconsider his administration's controversial decision to try the 9/11 mastermind khalid shaikh mohammed and his co-conspirators in a new york city courtroom only steps away from ground zero. also tonight we'll hear directly from new york city mayor rudy giuliani, former u.s. attorney general michael

mukasey as well as many others. first let's take a closer look at exactly the type of evil we are talking about. khalid shaikh mohammed, known as k.s.m. is one of history's most brutal terrorists. he was the principal architect of the september 11 attacks as well as dozens of other plots against the u.s. and other targets worldwide. on february 26, 1993, a car bomb ripped through the parking garage of the world trade center in new york city killing six and injuring 1,042. k.s.m. provided the financing for the bombing and his nephew, ralmsy usive -- rahmsi yousef was also accused. they also were behind the bojinka plot to blow up jets flying from u.s. to china in 1994. the two flights detonated a

bomb in phillipine flight en route to tokyo killing one and injuring 10 more. but the bojinka plan was interrupted when the phillipine authorities stumbled upon their bomb-making operation. yousef was arrested in pakistan but mohammed escaped to afghanistan. in 1999, k.s.m. was working full time for al qaeda as their operations chief in afghanistan, together with bin laden he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, planning every detail of the attack that would kill 2,976 people. along with the 9/11 attacks, the self-proclaimed head of al qaeda's military committee admitted to being involved in the deadly 2002 bombings of nightclubs in bali and a hotel blast in kenya. according to guantanamo records, mohammed admitted he used his, quote, blessed right hand to personally behead "wall

street journal"ist daniel pearl, american and pakistani intelligence forces captured k.s.m. march 1, 2003 and is currently detained at guantanamo bay waiting to face justice and it now looks as if that day will soon come inside an american courtroom. now, you'll be hearing from the families and the first responders throughout the next hour but first my exclusive interview with the former mayor of new york city, rudy giuliani. k.s.m. we're going to bring him back to new york. what does it mean for new york? >> it means an additional security concern over and above all the rest that we have, and one that's unnecessary, which is the worst part of it because we don't have to have this trial in new york. it's one thing if the only place you could try him was in new york, of course we would then do it and new york city police department is the best at handling security, but why add this additional burden to a city that's already considered to be one of the prime targets

for islamic terrorists? sean: it puts the city at risk, you can't deny it. >> it's at risk anyway, why add a risk that is not necessary. it's one thing to add a risk that is necessary, it's the only place to bring him to justice would be here in a civilian court, fine. but when you've already created military courts, when they've been upheld now -- sean: by the supreme court. >> when they've been fixed by congress and you're going to try other people in those courts, how do you make the distinction between the ones you're going to try in civilian courts and the ones you're trying in military. this makes on a hundred different grounds, this is one of the more irresponsible decisions that i've ever seen made. sean: yeah, i think -- as a harsh critic of the obama administration, i think it's one of their worst decisions. here's my question, though, he already admitted a to z that he was the architect, that he helped plan all of this, and even was willing to accept the death penalty. we had the verdict. >> right. sean: now, is it possible --

you're a former prosecutor, is it possible that he goes into court and all the information that we gathered from him because he didn't have miranda rights, it's inadmissible. >> that's right. sean: all of it? >> that's right. what is the only justification for this? the justification for it is we're going to show the world we can give a fair trial. the reality is the president and the attorney general, as far as i can tell, already said he's guilty and they've already said he should have the death penalty. what kind of trial is that. this isn't like the o.s., you're guilty, you're going to be executed but now we're going to try you. sean: the dang ter seems to me is the precedent. going back to the supreme court, going back to world war i, world war ii, civil war, for crying outloud, we already had established for a reason, you think this is rooted in the idea this is a man-caused disaster and not a war on terror? >> yeah, i think it is, as i said before, i think this is a

going back to a pre-9/11 mentality. i think it's going back to the way we looked at terrorism in the 1980's and 1990's and ignoring all the history from 1993 up until the attack of september 11, the attacks in london and all the other things that have happened. we made the mistake in 1993 of thinking of it as a civil thing, as a criminal act. what we should learn from that mistake, instead of learning from the mistake we're not going to repeat it. sean: you think as i do, and we brought this up earlier in the week with former vice president cheney. do you think this is about putting george bush on trial, putting guantanamo bay on trial, putting the vice president on trial, putting the united states on trial, enhanced interrogations? you think there's a motivation here? >> i hope it's not but will result in that. whether that's the intention or not, the typical defense in any trial is to put the government on trial. and that is what the defense will be doing. the defense will be putting the

government on trial for their unfair methods, for alleged torture -- i don't think a lot of it is torture but they'll allege it's torture. a lot of it will be exaggerated and particular tashese and -- and fictitious and will focus on what america did wrong as opposed to the horrible acts of terrorism that were perpetuated on innocent new yorkers. sean: what will be the headline? as we pick up the newspaper every day, will the headline be khalid shaikh mohammed accuses the u.s. of water boarding me 180 times, is that what it will be? >> of course it will be. that will be a substantial part of the discussion, a substantial part of the whole scenario of the trial. and the reality is, the distinction makes no sense. i don't understand it. i don't understand what the attorney general is saying when he says, if it's a military target, we'll try them in a military court. but if it's a civilian target, we'll try them in a civilian court. sean: it doesn't make sense. >> first of all, they attacked the pentagon. as far as i can tell, that's a military torget target.

sean: you know their answer, there were more civilians killed. >> we'll count the number? since when is an attack on civilians an act of war? what was pearl harbor? sean: an act of war. >> that was an act of war. the fact is in many ways, a military action, an act of war against innocent civilians is even more heinous than an act of war against military compounds. sean: mr. mayor, this is a man-caused disaster. the war on terror apparently doesn't exist in this administration. >> that's part of the whole way that this administration is looking at things that i find very, very disturbing. this is not a man-caused disaster, it's coming out of a very specific philosophy. it's the philosophy that will underline the entire attack of 1993, the attacks in east africa, the attack on the cole, the attack on september 11, the attack in london, some of the things that have been planned for now. this is an ongoing thing that's

happened and in 1993, you can understand why it was tried in a civil court -- in a civilian court as a criminal act. we didn't understand it all at that point. we didn't have that full history. sean: but now we know it's a war. >> now we know what it is. bin laden since then has declared war on us. we've declared war on him. and why we're treating this as if it's some kind of a criminal act, and it has to be tried in a civilian court makes no sense at all. sean: thank you for being with us for our special tonight. we really appreciate it. thank you. coming up, a closer look at the legal hurdles facing k.s.m.'s prosecutors and the legal prosecutors in the world trade bombing trial and senator jeff sessions and our studio audience coming up right here. xs

sean: welcome back to the special edition of "hannity." the upcoming trial of k.s.m.

and his co-conspirators will raise a whole host of legal issues but it won't be the first time we've put terrorists on trial. in response to the first attack on the world trade center in 1993, we tried the mastermind of the bombing and several other jihaddists. so can those trials prepare us for what is to come? let's take a look. after the 1993 world trade center bombing, the perpetuators were rounded up and put on trial in manhattan. khalid shaikh mohammed's nephew, ralmsy yousef and five others were convicted and will spend the rest of their lives behind bars. now k.s.m. and his co-conspirators are headed to the same court but will this trial be anything like its predecessors? unlike 9/11, the 1993 world trade center bombing was never considered an act of war. >> it's not like a bunch of people sat around a table and said, war crime, war crime, which is it? the witnesses were lined up, the evidence was lined up.

sean: in addition, the trials themselves revealed the peril of prosecuting terrorists in civilian court. >> the government generally is required in conspiracy cases to turn over lists of -- a list of unindicted co-conspirators and was required to do that here. within days the list found its way to osama bin laden in khartoum. al qaeda tried to have an al qaeda central intelligence agency. they couldn't successfully gather the banquet of information that they get by undergoing trials in civilian court. sean: during the course of the trials, american officials also began to realize that the attack was not an isolated incident. it was apparently that these people were into something much bigger and much more widespread and much more deep-seed. sean: post-9/11 it became clear terrorism could not be combated effectively through the justice system. so enemy combatants were tried in military commissions. now attorney general eric

holder is moving to reverse this practice, in doing so, sending mixed signals to the u.s. military. >> there's going to be a great deal of confusion now about all the rules that they have to follow. they have to essentially operate like police officers at crime scenes rather than soldiers, intelligence officers on a battlefield. sean: also, the decision creates more legal hurdles for the prosecution. >> the evidence in connection with 9/11 plot was gathered in diverse parts of the world, in the belief that it would be able to be presented to a military tribunal. there was no gathering of evidence by police, there were no miranda warnings, none of that. sean: nonetheless, mr. holder's decision came to good news to at least one person, khalid shaikh mohammed. >> k.s.m.'s first response when captured was i'll see you in new york with my lawyer. he got instead a military commission. now of course he's getting the stage of his dreams, which is

criminal court in new york city. sean: joining me now with more on this is former assistant u.s. attorney and a senior fellow at the national review institute, andy mccarthy who led the prosecution against those involved in the 1993 world trade center attack. also with us is alabama senator jeff sessions. guys, good to see you. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> hi, sean. thank you. sean: andy, you led the prosecution, you've been writing in great stuff about how bad this is on national review online. explain to everybody what it was like back then. >> back then we were dealing with something we'd never dealt with before and it's not like it was a decision made to do it as a criminal justice matter rather than a war matter. we didn't know who had attacked us initially. but also, the way the system worked at that time, the police and the emergency rescue people, those were the people who actually drilled for big catastrophic even, so without really thinking about it, you're suddenly doing an

investigation and then people are in custody and the next thing you have to do is indict them. it wasn't really a conscious decision back then, sean, it was just really reactive. sean: in that sense i think rudy giuliani was right in our setup piece tonight in that he said in 1993 we didn't know but now we know. so the question is, why would we abandon, senator, the precedence from the civil war, revolutionary war, world war ii, why would -- and even the inconsistency in this administration, why would we do this? >> it's unthinkable to me. i've not been able to understand it. there's no doubt about it. all the nations of the world provide for these kinds of trials outside their normal system for people who are attacking them. war is unlawful combatants, people trying to destroy the very government of which they are a part. you can give people a fair trial. we don't want to treat anybody not fairly. but the different procedures are far more appropriate in military commissions, and i think that's a really big mistake. sean: the president said

something and then backed off of it, the president said, well, i think the american people will be happy after they're tried and convicted and i think he said put to death, then he backed off that pretty quickly here, but andy, is there a chance -- i was asking rudy giuliani about this, that because they didn't get their miranda reits that his confession that he was responsible for this attack from a to z will become inadmissible in the courtroom? >> there's absolutely a chance. in fact, i absolutely think it's a worse situation even than mayor giuliani suggested and that's because khalid shaikh mohammed was actually under indictment in the united states since about 1996 in connection with the bojinka case. as a matter of law, he's accused already even before we get to the point of custodial interrogation. he's entitled to have his lawyer present. sean: he'll have his lawyer. then how likely is it, senator, it's going to be our c.i.a., it's going to be dick cheney, it's going to be george bush that is on trial and not him or

maybe even a platform for his jihaddist extremism? >> as a prosecutor, and i've been through a lot of big trials, public corruption, white-collar imcrime and they raise misconduct. and it allows you to probe the prosecution in the case and why they were picked and how they came to be charged and could provide an incredible opportunity for them to attack the government for long periods of time, bringing out information that's not helpful, really, injustice to the defense but actually weakening the united states position throughout the world. sean: and maybe even send a message to the fellow terrorists, a possibility? >> that's what the trial is with. sean: the last trial you were involved, the last point on this, isn't it true that osama bin laden himself was tipped off that we knew his location and that he moved as a result of the first trial that you were involved in? >> well, he was certainly

tipped off about a lot of what we knew about al qaeda. in fact, the letter that judge mukasey talked about was the first document ever produced by the american government that was turned over to someone outside the government that had his name on it as a co-conspirator. sean: we'll have more with andy mccarthy and senator sessions. also, when we come back, the studio audience will ask questions and we have a look at the enormous security concerns surrounding this trial and a trial of this magnitude in new york. that's straight ahead.

sean: welcome back to "terror on trial." our focus is how putting khalid shaikh moment and -- mohammed and his co-conspirators on trial will affect the country.

we continue with andy mccarthy and senator sessions. we'll open it up to our audience to ask you questions. as i make my way over here, i know when i got started tonight a lot of you have a lot on your minds and a lot you want to say. we'll start with you tonight. >> my question is, i'm a lower manhattan resident and also was a first responder and a democrat and dare i say community organizer, but the question is, i talked to a lot of democrats, and you'll be surprised, and this is liberal lower manhattan, a lot of them saying this is a crazy decision, they're not happy with it. sean: liberal democrats saying that in new york, this is important, why, because they lived through everything? >> basically they don't want to relive it, sean. that's the thing. and you know, we have a congressman, jerry nadler, who doesn't seem to be in touch with us and you can hardly call these people facist because they're liberal democrats, i'm a democrat myself, so we're basically -- sean: i'll change that. >> ok. sean: your question. >> and like i said, many

democrats, tens of thousands of people where i live don't want this. and what would it take to have the trial changed to a different location, i was thinking of governor's island unless bin laden has a submarine, it might be a good location. sean: a good question. >> lindsey graham and joe lieberman offered legislation that would have prohibited this trial, in effect, from occurring in new york and basically required it to be done at guantanamo or a similar place. that was voted down. i think four democrats did vote with every republican for that but it was not enough to pass the legislation. jim inhofe, another piece of legislation failed, there may be some possibility that it could be changed legislatively, but the votes do not look like they're there. sean: can i just maybe if we can stand back and scan the audience here for just a second. could i have maybe a show of hands and we'll show both sides, how many of you want the president to change his

decision on this? is anyone not raising their hand? one person not raising their hand. everybody else in the back? everybody. except one. you're not raising -- your hand is up. ok. all but one person in the thing. andy, is it possible? >> it's certainly possible. you know, congress is the master of the jurisdiction in the federal courts. if they enacted a law saying enemy combatants had to be tried by a military commission they'd have to be tried by a military commission. even if you have a civilian trial there's no reason you couldn't have it at guantanamo bay. sean: let's get one more question in here. yes, sir. >> sean, i would like to request senator sessions to ask this attorney general for a complete explanation of an act that we're hearing from fellow citizens, this is not a liberal, this is not a conservative issue, this is a united issue. the lady to my left is also a democrat who voted for obama who is aghast at the insanity

of this decision, 75 billion alone for security that could go to covert proactive operations to protect the united states. the reckless endangerment of new york city, its residents and businesses. we have not yet had an explanation. sean: senator? >> i would agree the explanation given by the attorney general did not make sense to me. i do not think it was coherent. i don't think that he effectively answered that question. i think that's a fair question. i think i will go back and consider asking him for a full explanation of precisely how he went through this process and how he came to reach this decision. sean: last word, andy? >> i'd just remind people the last time al qaeda was here for trial, one of the defendants tried to attack the judge in the courtroom and another one maimed a prison guard during an escape attempt where they tried to break their al qaeda co-defendants out of jail. so this is not speculation. this is how these guys are, this is how they act.

sean: good to see you guys. thank you for being with us. appreciate it. >> good to be here. sean: and coming up, we examine the threats that this trial posed to new york city and new york city residents. that's straight ahead. ugcl) yeacl 's h fba icos y!tyft

juneck yno itft'sse sut'cu tyftef (ckicli so i got my nephew to build a website. i hired someone to make my website... five months ago. we are building a website by ourselves. announcer: there's an easier way. create your own small-business site with intuit websites. just choose a style that fits your business

and customize, publish and get found in three easy steps. sweet. all from just $4.99 a month, get a 30-day free trial at intuit.com.

sean: the trial of one of history's most dangerous terrorists is coming to new york city. >> those allegedly responsible for the attacks of seven -- of september 11 will finally face justice. they will be brought to new york to answer for their

alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. sean: eric holder's decision to bring the trial to a civilian court in new york city h has ma people wondering what was he thinking? >> good morning. >> it's a crazy idea to me to try this in new york city within feet of the place where the world trade center stood. it's hard on the city, it's enormously expensive and don't think it's in the national interests. sean: last month the attorney general defended his decision in front of the senate judiciary committee. >> can you give me a case in united states history where an enemy combatant cause on a battlefield was tried on civilian court? >> i don't know. i'd have to look at that. i think that, you know, the determination of -- >> we're making history here, mr. attorney general, i'll answer it for you, the answer is no. sean: trying k.s.m. in a civilian court and not a military tribunal will not only be a intelligence nightmare but

security nightmare as well. >> new york city is already the number one target and will make it tempting for a number of terrorists but new york city probably has the best security force of any city in the country. why make them roll it out? >> it makes me sick to my stomach to think that we're going to bring these people who murdered 93 of my friends to a civilian court to spew their hatred about america, the country i love. the people of new york have gone through enough. i mean, why expose their families to the repeat of the tragedy and this guy trying to be arrogant in front of the world. this is an evil human being. and it's going to be a trial like no other. sean: now there's no question about that. and here with more on how the k.s.m. trial will create very real security concerns for new york city and its residents, we're joined by former c.i.a. operative gary bernsten who

hunted al qaeda after the attacks and 9/11 commission member john layman is here. thank you for being here. >> appreciate it. sean: let me go first to the 9/11 commission report. you and i have disagreements and have discussed it a lot over the years but the one thing i repeat is often the conclusion. they were at war with us, we were not at war with them, now we have an administration that didn't even want to use the term war on terror. these are man-caused disasters. your reaction to that? >> one of the things we found in our investigations was that one of the things they teach in the al qaeda camps is law fare, how to use the obsession with legal process in the west against them. sean: sur. >> so this is a classic case of playing right into their hands. sean: we have a recent case with the navy seals we're follow and if you look at the al qaeda manual, it sullti -- it actually says to claim

abuse. what do we expect is going to happen? how dangerous is this for the people of new york? >> of course it is dangerous because i don't think the administration understands the size and scope of the enemy we face. we're over 900,000 people that have gone through terrorist training camps in pakistan the last 20 years. this is a war. al qaeda is working as a coordinating body now between these groups. al qaeda is doing less direct action and more coordination. the threat is greater now than it was on september 11. sean: why do you say this? >> because the number of people al qaeda is bringing together. they weren't tied into groups before but because they've been injured and attacked on many levels they've been forced to coordinate with these other groups. the threat is they're more dangerous now than 9/11. sean: can we get into the mind of our enemy which you on this 9/11 commission report and as navy secretary, i think you understand the enemy as well as

anybody, can we get into their mindset? how are they interpreting this? how do they interpret closing guantanamo, a president calming america arrogant, even though we got all this intelligence with enhanced interrogations, the bragging i stop torture. how is the enemy judging this in their view? >> it's totally inconsistent and are seeing it exactly as predicting our behavior would be. as you recall, osama issued fatwa after fatwa saying look at this attack, they lost 241 marines in beirut, they did nothing. look at when our righteous jihaddists blew up their people in saudi arabia barracks, they did nothing. look when we blew up two embassies in africa, they did nothing. so this further reinforces that al qaeda is the spokesman for the tide of history. we are doing everything that

osama said we would do. sean: if the secretary is right, then they're concluding that america is on a pre-9/11 footing. >> they interpret it as weakness, that simple. sean: that's what dick cheney said, america now to our enemies appears weak. the war continues but we're not fighting it any longer? these are man-caused disasters. this is not a war on terror, so we're not fighting this war anymore. we are now in a defensive posture, a pre9/11 posture. >> i would say maybe our political leadership is looking at it that way, men and women in the c.i.a. or f.b.i. or the armed forces don't see it that way and are trying to execute as best they can. sean: why would they put their necks on the line considering they're the ones being put on trial? >> because we've all taken an oath to the constitution that we will uphold and defend. sean: we'll come back and continue and have more with john layman and gary bersten. and we have more reaction from the 9/11 families and first responders as the special

edition of "hannity" continues. 8

if you have an accident, the last thing you want is for your insurance rates to go up. with accident forgiveness from nationwide insurance, they won't. after the first accident, your rates stay right where they are. kind of like it never even happened. i am lory rigsby, and i am on your side. switch to nationwide insurance now.

>> it will put him on the map and be more important than osama bin laden and we will have made it possible. we will have given him that platform, that opportunity to come here and there's absolutely no need to do that. . sean: that was former vice president dick cheney on how the terror trials will improve khalid shaikh mohammed's popularity in the eyes of our enemies. we continue now with 9/11 commission john layman and former c.i.a. operative gary bernsten is with us. we'll go to the 9/11 responders and those who lost family members on 9/11. we'll start with you. you were in the setup piece we had? >> i was in tower one prior to the second plane coming in. at that point we weren't sure if we were under attack or whether it was an accident. when the second plane hit, chief burns in the fire department, 40-year chief in the fire department and i were ordered to tower two. in that walk, chief burns and i talked about we were at war. we knew we were at war.

it was common sense. and i don't understand why now there's a question of that. chief burns died that day. i was lucky enough to get out. we talked about that. it's one of the last things he talked about before he died that we were at war. sean: yeah. and you know what, he was right then and the war continues. taken a burlinggame is with us and you might want to tell everybody about your brother. >> my brother was charles chick burlingame, flight of the plane that crashed at the pentagon, and all onboard, obviously, and 125 people inside the pentagon. i have a question for mr. bernsten. on november 18, our attorney general testified before the senate judiciary committee and he was asked if osama bin laden were captured tomorrow, would we turn him over to an attorney, mirandize him and read him his rights and set him

up -- let him lawyer up or would we interrogate him? he couldn't answer that question and finally when pushed said, we don't need to interrogate him, we have all the evidence we need to convict him. i'd like you to react to that. if we don't interrogate osama bin laden, is that a dumb thing, and what can we lose by not doing that? >> it would be a foolish thing not to interrogate him because he is very likely to know if he has in motion plans for catastrophic attacks on the u.s. of course we'd want to interrogate him because he would be the person planning those things or would be knowledgeable about them. of course during the war in 2009, my orders were to kill him immediately at that point because of the nature of the conflict and we had so few of us and there were so many of them, but now, under all -- we want to interrogate him. sean: mr. secretary? >> it's such a perfect example of this legal frame of mind,

this legalistic frame of mind that was one of the causes of 9/11. the director of c.i.a. told me during our investigation that he was not allowed to see any of the intelligence. this is the director of the c.i.a. and the president of the united states, were not allowed to see any of the intelligence gathered in the investigation to prosecute the blind sheik after the 1993 attack because the justice department after the attorney general just said, we have enough to convict, we don't want to pollute any of the evidence, it's all looking in the rearview mirror, all they care about is getting a conviction so that they can brag they got a conviction. and as a result, for five years while that process went on, this valuable pattern that was really the relationships of what we now know to be al qaeda

was kept by the justice department from the director of c.i.a., from the president so that they would -- it would not affect or endanger their ability to get a conviction. this is crazy. sean: all right. we've got one quick question here. sir? >> secretary layman, as a member of the 9/11 commission, are you disappointed to see how little progress our country has made in acting the recommendations that your commission recommended? case in point, we all know those 19 hijackers hid in plain sight and were able to secure driver's licenses. six of them were registered to vote. we're almost fully 10 years to the september 11 event, approaching the ninth anniversary and then the 10th anniversary after that, obviously. those recommendations are still being debated. can you comment on that. sean: we only have 30 seconds. >> it's a mixed picture. we've got some things done and broader spectrums so the police can talk to the firemen, the

first responders, the mccain bill got passed, we have legislation that has begun the process of sharing, but it just is infuriating to all of us on the commission to see the lessons of history that we illustrated so -- so, i think, effectively in the 9/11 report ignored by this administration, ignored as if they never happened. and those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. sean: what a frightening admonition. mr. secretary, good to see you. thank you. good to see you, gare any. thank you. and coming up, the father of one 9/11 victim says that president obama lied to him during a meeting at the white house. those details and more from the families and first responders coming up next on this special edition of "hannity." carol, when you replaced casual friday with nordic tuesday,

was it really for fun, or to save money on heat? why? don't you think nordic tuesday is fun? oh no, it's fun... you know, if you are trying to cut costs, fedex can help. we've got express options, fast ground and freight service-- you can save money and keep the heat on. great idea. that is a great idea. well, if nordic tuesday wasn't so much fun. (announcer) we understand. you need to save money. fedex the odds of the "big easy" winning the u.s. open twice? 1 in 1.2 billion. the odds of him having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism.

♪ sean: approximate 3,000 lives were lost on 9/11 at the hands of khalid shaikh mohammed. and although time has passed, the wounds of victims' families will never fully heal. >> people tend to romanticize people they've lost but i speak close to the truth when i say jamie was an extraordinary human being. sean: peter lost his 23-year-old son james that day. he was working on the 103rd floor of the world trade center for the financial firm canter fitzgerald. he, along with other 9/11 victim families and advocacy groups were invited to the white house for a personal meeting with president obama. >> i was among a group of people who met with the president february 6 of this year. and at the time, i was very

impressed by what he said. and he promised us swift and sure justice. sean: during the meeting the president told the group he had not made a decision on whether khalid shaikh mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists will be taken out of the military commission's process and tried in a civilian court. >> having said at the time he had not determined yet whether he was going to take this out of the hands of the military commission, i think that essentially he lied to us. lied repeatedly on major, pertinent points, number one, that he hadn't already made a decision to transfer this to the civil courts. i'm pretty confident in saying this man is a liar. sean: eight years later the memory of his son is with him every day. >> you know, you can look for cliches like there's a cloud in the sky all the time or something like that, but that doesn't do justice. i mean, you know, i guess there's a heaviness in the heart.

there's no getting away from it and there never will be. sean: and welcome back to this special edition of "hannity: terror on trial." we go to peter gaudiel who was featured in the piece we just saw. thank you for being with us. like so many here who lost family members, he would be almost -- >> 23 years old. sean: you think the president lied to you? >> i think he lied to us and he has an alarming history of helping terrorists. i think he and his administration, there was holder's dismissal of the charges against the black panthers in philadelphia, his involvement in the sentence of the puerto rican terrorist. obama refused to denounce the iranian government when it was shooting pro-democracy demonstrators, and now there's this where he provides the forum for the terrorists and the aclu to spew their hatred. sean: it may -- >> it may be pushing the envelope a little bit, but i

wonder, the constitution has provisions for people who provided aid and comfort for the enemy, and i just -- there's no exemption for high officials, including the president and the attorney general. i just wonder when it will be that people will decide or will there be people around who will be willing to point fingers if he crosses the line and when does he cross the line. sean: let me ask for a show of hands again. how many of you -- show of hands, high if you can. how many of you agree with what peter just said. turn it around. only one disagreer. we have a few minutes here so i wanted to maybe get your reaction and maybe give some of you lost family members, the worst attack in american history after pearl harbor, or pearl harbor, the worst attacks in american history. what do you want to say to the president? >> i lost my sister lorraine and the president and american people have to wake up. not only is the president

living with a from-9/11 mentality but the american people once again are sitting back and allowing this to happen. we have to stand up and we have to say "never again." sean: john lehman just said, hey, we're not listening to what they told us. we spent all the money on the commission report and we're not listening to it. >> i'm here today representing my son, bill, godshuck who was murdered in tower two. for the past eight years i tried to be an activist doing what i think he would have done because he was very active, he loved new york, he would be so against bringing that circus to new york. it's going to turn our city into a compound. you wonder whether the people that are in favor of it, like bloomberg and nadler, whether they're looking for the financial aspects, but this is going to hurt new york worse than 9/11. the city will be sealed off.

how many years is it going on for? sean: we don't know. yes, ma'am. you said you supported the president, you voted for obama. >> i was a mama for obama and i supported this president, in this case he's wrong and i'm here for my son joshua reese who also was at canter fitzgerald and also 23 years old. sean: unbelievable. >> this is an outrage. right now in supermax prisons we have organized crime and drug lords conducting business as usual. who doesn't realize that khalid shaikh mohammed is going to conduct his business as usual planning and carrying it out. sean: you, sir, seem to be getting upset. you're upset, obviously. you lost a family member. >> my son. sean: it says it all, it really does. yes, sir. >> world war ii, adolf hitler loved rockets at london -- launched rockets at london, in

2001 terrorists infiltrated this country and stole four aircraft and turned them into rockets. if we'd captured adolf hitler, would we have put him on civilian strile? -- civilian trial? sean: i doubt it. these are some of the brave first responders. >> i'm a survivor of 9/11, i have one question to ask, do the president and mr. holder suffer from stockholm syndrome where if they show allegiance to the terrorists maybe they'll leave us alone. they're disillusioned if they are. sean: ma'am, you're upset. you want to say something? >> it's just amazing to me this could even be going on with all the hurt and everything that happened to this city that this could even go on and that people aren't screaming in the streets in outrage. we can't do this again. and this president is going to let it happen. sean: thank you. feel better, ok. ladies and gentlemth