general public. Court-TV asserts that televised coverage for this trial is clearly warranted to ensure fair trial and to promote confidence in the justice system. While I find both sides have persuading and relevant arguments, I find that my opinion seems to fall in the middle of the road. I agree that cameras should be allowed in the courtroom for the pre-trial and trial of Zacarias Moussaoui for a variety of reasons. I feel the Governments position that such coverage would taint potential jurors is completely inconsequential. Due to the outstanding amount of publicity, not only of the event itself, but also of Mr. Moussaoui, I dont see how covering the trial itself could put him in a worse light. The events of September 11, 2001 are forever embedded in every Americans mind. No amount of time or publicity will change most of the publics perceptions of the issue. The sheer magnitude of the events, paired with Mr. Moussaouis public statements, ensures that finding a completely unbiased jury will be near-impossible at best.I also agree with Court-TV in that the victims of September 11 are not all contained in the few cities granted closed circuit broadcast. The aftermath spreads far and wide, across boarders and seas. Many people continue to suffer the effects of losing loved ones, their belief that America is safe from terrorist attack, and their faith. This trial is the closure that so many of these people desperately need. Once they receive this closure, the healing process can begin. The U.S. Government also raises valid points. Witnesses, jurors, and justices may be put in danger by being broadcast for all to see. The al-Qaida actively seeks out those who testify or act against them, and the Government feels that making witness identities accessible is too great a threat to their lives. Jurors voting to convict, and justices presiding over the trial would then also be at risk. Although Court-TV affirms that they will take measures ...
