Have I said anything that implies in any way I do not appreciate the evil of the acts perpetrated on 9/11? No.
Your response is therefore irrational. I will do you the courtesy of assuming you cannot control your emotions on this issue. That someone does not cater to your emotional needs apparently makes them a liberal, which is also irrational. And I have bled for my country on the battlefield, where I saw man's capacity for inhumanity to man on obscenely graphic display, so don't presume to lecture me about your superior insight into evil.
Articles to date indicate the 9/11 families are split. Some don't want the trial in New York; some do. That is to be expected for any highly emotional issue. But it's not a test of virtue. How to try the 9/11 conspirators is a legal and policy question, nothing more. Other countries routinely try major terrorists in normal court venues in major cities, so it's hardly unprecedented. Holder's judgment may be flawed in this case, but if so, he has simply made a mistake. It is not proof that he is evil, and decent human beings do not presume it as such.
Again, humility. It's the key to virtue itself. I have no problem assigning the label evil to the 9/11 conspirators; their intent was to do harm to innocent people. That is not Eric Holder's intent, and it is ignoble to imply he is evil for stepping up to the plate and making a tough call. He wouldn't be my choice for attorney general, but nobody made me God; I'll vote against the man who nominated him, but I won't do the damage to my own soul of spewing hate at either for the imaginary sin of disagreeing with me.
We're a strong country with much to be proud of. We're better than this. Real conservatives know that.