Even though he acknowledges that he is not an attorney, Austin Hill makes the ridiculous statement that Eric Holder is dangerous because he wants to try the 9/11 conspirators in a civilian court in the United States.  In fact, Hill makes the even more audacious claim that lawyers and others in the legal profession should be embarrassed.  Why?  Because we have faith in our legal system and institutions.  It just goes to show how much "conservatives" believe in our nation's institutions.  (Well, they did love the courts when it handed Bush the election in 2000.)

Why is it so horrible and/or dangerous to try the 9/11 conspirators in civilian courts?  Well, the only reason these people come up with is that they might be found innocent.  I do not mean to get into circular logic here, but if there are found innocent, might that not mean that they are actually innocent?  If they are guilty, they will be found as such.  If you believe that guilty people are frequently found innocent in federal courts, you are as delusional as "conservatives."  Usually, the opposite is true.  And, just in case you are wondering, 80% of criminal cases that go to trial in federal courts end in conviction, excellent odds unless you believe that 100% of all people put on trial are guilty. 

Now, Hill demonstrates his lack of understanding of this country's institutions and legal system when he tries to explain that the alleged 9/11 conspirators are a special class of individuals:

In the interest of “fairness”- and hopefully as a means of bringing clarity to the situation - let’s get some things straight from the get-go. The five 9-11 conspirators in question have been held all these years in a facility known officially as the “Guantanamo Bay camp.” And the use of the word “camp” matters profoundly.

If the Guantanamo Bay facility were, for example, a “prison,” then it follows that those being held there would be “criminals.” If, on the other hand, the Guantanamo Bay facility were defined as a “POW camp,” then those being detained there would be “enemy soldiers,” and would be subject to “rules of war” set forth in international law.

So, let me get this straight - what we name the facility where we hold individuals determines their status for enforcement purposes?  How can that be?  I mean if I call a dog a cat, it does not make it a cat. 

If I, as an American citizen, was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 acts, would I not be tried in civilian courts in this country?  Timothy McVeigh was.  So, is the difference is that they are foreigners.  So, if I go to another country and commit a crime in the United States, civilian courts in the United States are unable to try me.  That makes no sense either. 

Why can't we either label these individuals as criminals (to be tried in civilian courts) or military enemies (to be tried before military tribunals).  Just because neo-cons decide to classify them as some amorphous third does not make it so.  The only reason why they want this third classification is that they do not want trials at all.  They just want to state people are guilty and make it so.  A trial might actually prove that the neo-cons and the Bush Administration lied to us - again. 

What exactly does Hill and his cohorts want, to have the 9/11 conspirators shot behind some shed?  At least say so.  They make no sense.  The only reason they are complaining is that it is a decision by Obama.  Hell, I am sure they would find a way to complain even if they were tried before a military tribunal, or if he just had them killed.

Finally, Hill also makes a complaint about the possibility of a "show trial":

And then there was our President, Barack Obama, who also stated that KSM will be convicted and executed. But what did that mean? Was this the President merely expressing confidence that his vision would become reality, as politicians so often do? Or was this the Executive Branch of our government pr-determining what the judicial branch will and will not do?

To those in the legal profession – where are you at with all of this? Are we talking here about a mere “show trial?” Is the American Bar Association okay with the Executive Branch running over the top of the judiciary?

First of all, Hill does not understand what a "show trial" is.  The trial will not be aired live and I am more than positive that the 9/11 conspirators will not be forced by the Executive Branch to lie and claim to be traitors to the United States.  What Americans would a "show trial" against these conspirators fear?  Are Americans going to be shocked and disappointed because these men admit their guilt and complicity before an open court. 

More importantly, it is the job of the Executive Branch to try criminals.  They are not some neutral arbiter in the judicial process.  They are the prosecution.  The whole point of this trial for the Executive Branch is to prove that these men are guilty.  Of course they are going to say they are guilty beforehand.  So, if you follow Hill's logic, every time a District Attorney or prosecutor states the a criminal defendant is guilty, that is a "show trial", or that the trial is tainted.  What a moron?

When will these "conservatives" actually think things through before making stupid arguments and complaints.   There must be more to life than Obama=bad and wrong.  But, I have to give Hill credit.  He does claim to be ignorant of the legal system of the United States and then goes on to prove it.  Such acknowledgement is refreshing in the "conservative" movement.