July 28, 2005
— 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.
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)
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)
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)
Posted by: Hubris at July 28, 2005 12:28 PM (oPB+M)
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)
Posted by: 72 pooters at July 28, 2005 01:35 PM (dhRpo)
Posted by: holdfast at July 28, 2005 01:41 PM (jvO9O)
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)
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)
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)
One can only hope...
Posted by: tony at July 28, 2005 02:46 PM (98ED/)
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)
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)
Posted by: UGAdawg at July 28, 2005 04:50 PM (alGm/)
Or maybe you all are just wrong about the law and the Constitution.
Posted by: vonKreedon at July 29, 2005 05:48 AM (u8Zgq)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:11 AM (m6OTa)
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)
Posted by: r at July 29, 2005 06:14 AM (m6OTa)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:15 AM (m6OTa)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 29, 2005 06:16 AM (m6OTa)
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)
Posted by: at July 29, 2005 06:32 AM (98ED/)
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)
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)
Wrong, but OK.
Posted by: Rocketeer at July 29, 2005 06:59 AM (F6QHz)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 29, 2005 07:03 AM (pzen5)
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)
Posted by: Paint Zoom at September 30, 2011 05:03 AM (NtCTh)
Posted by: er at November 14, 2011 09:55 PM (Dmya0)
62 queries taking 1.0483 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.