July 28, 2005

Milennium Plot Terrorist Gets 22 Years; 13 Short of the Max
— Ace

And he could be out by 2020.

The arrogant liberal judge (a Regan appointee, I have to note) said he "wrestled" with the proper sentence, balancing the harm intended (mass murder) against... something else. "Cooperation," which the terrorist cut off after at time.

Wrestled with it?

Wrestled with what, exactly?

The man planned to murder scores of innocent civilians. He has absolutely nothing to mitigate his guilt. Why was he not sentenced to the absolute maxium?

What would it take to get a tough sentence out of this judge?

Oh yeah: Hugh Hewitt tells us. Montana Militiamen -- nasty pieces of work, no doubt, who conspired against the nation's banking system -- got a longer sentence (by one half a year) than this guy.

As if that isn't bad enough, this strutting peacock of a softheaded jackass then goes on to lecture us about military trials and the need to bring terrorists into civilian courts.

Uh-huh. You certainly made a point about civilian courts, though not the one you intended.

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "He has absolutely nothing to mitigate his guilt."

I'm having trouble navigating Hewitt's mess, so excuse me for asking, but where did you hear that he *stopped* cooperating? All the news stories I read on this only talked about his cooperation in return for leniency.

I would assume that you're not advocating the abolition of plea bargaining, as long as it's of value.

Is the guy filth? Of course. Would I be happier if he was away for good? Of course. Would I still rather have him singing and out in two decades than have him in life clammed up? Yes-- given that his plot failed. Had it succeeded, I'd feel differently-- but then again, one would assume the judge would too.

Oh, and yeah, the judge is a real douchebag for invoking politics in his decision. But that doesn't make the sentence wrong.

Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at July 28, 2005 11:36 AM (mrpxK)

2 Oh, okay, saw it in the judge's statement.

Still, it depends upon what he gave up before he stopped cooperating. I must assume there is a somewhat linear scale here-- give me 10 tips, you get 10 years; give me 20 tips, you get 5 years, etc.

Then again, perhaps I'm giving them too much credit.

Anyway, in the end, we can all agree: contrary to the Judge's comments, this sort of thing really is better left to military tribunals. It is, after all, a *war* (recent spin from the Bush White House to the contrary).

Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at July 28, 2005 11:39 AM (mrpxK)

3 Dave -

What I gathered from the news last night was that his ceasing to cooperate pretty much resulted in a bunch of investigations grinding to a halt.

If the judge wants to look at this as "well he did help us out a little, so we'll take that into consideration", that's fine, there's no law against being a retard.

As far as I'm concerned, this fuckstick was plotting mass-murder. He wanted to kill Americans. Why at least a life sentence was never even considered is beyond me.

Posted by: Chad at July 28, 2005 12:11 PM (S3d+z)

4 I could be wrong, but it looks like the "max" sentence may have been 130 years. If that's true, the prosecutors were already recommending a reduced sentence because of the cooperation they got, and it was just a matter of picking the right reduced number. Again, could be wrong.

Posted by: Hubris at July 28, 2005 12:28 PM (oPB+M)

5 He was facing a max 130 years. The piece of shit stopped cooperating in 2003 because of the 'stress of solitary confinement'.

There are at least two extradition proceedings that have been halted because of his decision not to cooperate any longer. I'm sure one is in Canada, the other might be in England.

You shouldn't be allowed to take your marbles and go home midway in the game; you stop helping you should go back to square one.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at July 28, 2005 01:02 PM (Pt3Le)

6 This sends a srong message to terrorists everywhere, unfortunately not the right one. What is it that makes fucking morons of judges once the get on the bench? The explaination I keep hearing is that Liberal parties are way more fun and the women easier and less clingy than are conservative women who might expect a sticky "involvement." As they say, we don't pay whores to have sex with us, we pay them to shut up and go away after it.

Posted by: 72 pooters at July 28, 2005 01:35 PM (dhRpo)

7 Well, I suspect he'll have less fun in prison than Martha Stewart. And once he's released, there's always Gitmo....

Posted by: holdfast at July 28, 2005 01:41 PM (jvO9O)

8 Still, it depends upon what he gave up before he stopped cooperating.

That was not the deal. He cooperates until they say stop. He should have been maxed out. Hopefully, in 22 years minus time off for Superior Program Achievement he'll be begging that they don't release him when he finds out release will be to the custody of the Algerian secret police.

Posted by: at July 28, 2005 01:45 PM (TIDzr)

9 "The piece of shit stopped cooperating in 2003 because of the 'stress of solitary confinement'."

Criminals sure are a friendly bunch. If I somehow found myself in prison I'd be sure to find out what would get me into solitary, and then I'd do it. But I'm not a "people person."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 28, 2005 02:26 PM (+9eSi)

10 he'll be begging that they don't release him when he finds out release will be to the custody of the Algerian secret police.

I saw on a documentary recently that after nothing at all had worked, one of our interrogators threatened to send them back their countries and let it be known they had talked. They sang like canaries! Just shows you how much they fear our "torture" and our justice system.

PS - I'll bet this guy stopped cooperating because they got to 'em.

Posted by: 72 VRIGINS at July 28, 2005 02:27 PM (dhRpo)

11 Maybe he'll get the dude(s) who did Dahmer for cellmates. If he survived that "attention", he'd sing like a canary and beg for solitary.

One can only hope...

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2005 02:46 PM (98ED/)

12 Exactly. Does he really think he wants to be in general population?

Hello, dickhead! You're a fucking terrorist, you idiot! You'd better pray that they have enough guards to protect while you're walking from your cell to the exercise yard and back.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at July 28, 2005 03:27 PM (Pt3Le)

13 "...the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement..."


What makes THESE terrorists so dangerous is their willingness to sacrifice the "entire portion" of their lives to kill American civilians. The only message this poltroon sent is one confirming the terrorists beliefs that America lacks the resolve to defend itself, that our post modern vacillation in the face of ancient evil makes us vulnerable.

They can't beat us. We might beat ourselves.


Posted by: rcl at July 28, 2005 04:05 PM (XvSfi)

14 This is horseshit. Once he ceased cooperating, that should have nuked whatever plea bargain he had. Cooperating defendants, especially if they are trying to get reduced sentences, can't just decide they've "done enough." It doesn't work that way. You agree to a deal, the prosecution should own you. And then for this hump of a judge to give him a lighter sentence than many armed robbers get is a total crock. Judge fuckpants can also shove his ideas of jurisprudence for terrorists right up his skinny sanctimonious ass.

Posted by: UGAdawg at July 28, 2005 04:50 PM (alGm/)

15 Ace - You berate people on the left for silly conspiracy mongering yet you continue to monger several silly conservative conspiracies. The current example is that the Federal judiciary is a nest of liberal activist judges doing the bidding of the Liberal establishment. This is fascinating given that Republican Presidents have been nominating judges for 16 of the last 24 years, and Republican Senates have been consenting to Federal judiciary nominations for 17 of the last 24 years; 22 of the last 24 years had a Republican President and/or Republican Senate! Indeed, 57% of the currently sitting judges were appointed by Republicans. And yet the judiciary remains a festering nest of liberal advocacy!

Or maybe you all are just wrong about the law and the Constitution.

Posted by: vonKreedon at July 29, 2005 05:48 AM (u8Zgq)

16 Whooboy, war must REALLY be bad!!

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:11 AM (m6OTa)

17 vK, straw man argument.

It's been pointed out a couple of times this asshat was a Reagan appointee. The argument is over their idiotic rulings, and therefore why it's important to make good appointments, not REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE=EVERYTHINGHUNKYDORY

The jerk's political speech ought to be enough to make the points (which you didn't bother to address) which are 1) it's a pussy sentence for a terrorist who planned to kill hundreds or thousands to make a political point, and 2) Bush is wrong on military tribunals.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 29, 2005 06:13 AM (pzen5)

18 Actually my comment was supposed to go in the pud post.

Posted by: r at July 29, 2005 06:14 AM (m6OTa)

19 Further proof of how bad war really is.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:15 AM (m6OTa)

20 The pics shocked me. They shocked me. I was hipmotized.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:16 AM (m6OTa)

21 Dave - I was addressing the broader issue of the conservative whine about the Federal judiciary being a festering nest of liberal activitists, of which this Reagan appointed judge appears to be one.

Oh, and the judge is right about the tribunals. Star Chamber tribunals and a free society simply don't mix, pick one.

Posted by: vonKreedon at July 29, 2005 06:18 AM (u8Zgq)

22 The Nuermberg trials seemed to have left no unpleasant effects on society - some of those defendents even beat the rap.

Posted by: at July 29, 2005 06:32 AM (98ED/)

23 And my point is you didn't address it at all, you danced around it with your typical lefty rhetoric. We aren't complaining about whether they are Republican appointees, we're complaining about their shitty jurisprudence. And I was complaining about his politicking from the bench.

And I pick military tribunals for enemy combatants, terrorists, saboteurs and traitors in a time of war. No Constitutional conflict at all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 29, 2005 06:32 AM (pzen5)

24 Von Kreep,

Your argument about the judges on the federal bench is insufficient for many reasons.

Primarily because you chose an arbitrary point in time to run your numbers. Doing so ignores the fact that judges serve lifetime appointments and that many judges currently serving on the Federal Bench are still remnants of the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton Administrations.

In fact, that is one of the reasons the 9th Circuit is so far out of whack. If you look at the members of the panel, you will find that despite the GOP having had the institutional power you cite, the majority of the Judges on the 9th are Kennedy/Carter/Clinton appointees. (Yes, a Kennedy appointee still serves on the 9th).

Carter had a particular influence on this Circuit as it was expanded during his presidency, allowing him to pack it with Liberal judges.

So unless you are willing to look at the federal bench in its entirety, you are leaving out data which contradicts the reference points you use.

Posted by: Jack M. at July 29, 2005 06:39 AM (5hVbJ)

25 Easy on the "Von Kreep" type stuff, man. I disagree with vonKreedon, too, but he's OK.

Wrong, but OK.

Posted by: Rocketeer at July 29, 2005 06:59 AM (F6QHz)

26 yeah, I agree - he ain't a bad guy

Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 29, 2005 07:03 AM (pzen5)

27 Rocket/Dave - Thanks for the love [;-}

Jack - If you re-read my comment you'll notice that I actually do take the Federal judiciary as a whole, a whole of which ~57% were appointed by Republican Presidents. Of course I chose an arbitrary time, one has to pick some time and 1981, the inauguration of Reagan and the Repubs taking control of the Senate, seemed a good time given that the specific judge in question was nominated by Reagan and that was the beginning of the Republican dominance of US politics.

Posted by: vonKreedon at July 29, 2005 07:53 AM (u8Zgq)

28 As far as I'm concerned, this fuckstick was plotting mass-murder. He wanted to kill Americans. Why at least a life sentence was never even considered is beyond me. Richard from paint zoom on sale

Posted by: Paint Zoom at September 30, 2011 05:03 AM (NtCTh)

Posted by: er at November 14, 2011 09:55 PM (Dmya0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
87kb generated in CPU 0.09, elapsed 1.1047 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0483 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.