« Cashing out our Knowledge Tradition | Main | The Ashamed Republican: Give them a Penny »
July 28, 2005
Judicial Idiocy and the War on Terror
During the last presidential campaign, John Kerry stated that he hoped that terrorism would be reduced to a nuisance and treated as a police situation instead of war . He used the trial of millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam as an example of how military tribunals were not necessary. Here is the end-result of his thinking. The terrorist (Ahmed Ressam) who was convicted of plotting to kill hundreds of innocents by exploding a bomb at LAX was sentenced to only 22 years, or about 60% of the maximum sentence. With time served and good behavior, he may be able to continue his plans against innocent Americans by the year 2017.
One amazing aspect of this story is that the terrorist has refused to cooperate since early 2003 and will not testify against his fellow co-conspirators . Despite the fact that this man may still have information that could help save innocent lives, he was not given the maximum sentence by Judge John Coughenour. Even worse, the sermon this judge gave as he handed down this weak sentence reeks of the arrogance that we have come to expect from our judicial branch:
"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.
"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.
This light sentence for someone who was caught bringing materials into this country in order to murder hundreds of innocent Americans argues for military tribunals. If one needed evidence that our court system is ill-prepared and too weak knee-ed to effective deal with the terrorist threat, you need not go any further than this sentence and this judge.
Hugh Hewitt has been leading the way with this story, and Michelle Malkin and the Captain's Quarters also have excellent commentary.
Posted by OMFSerge | July 28, 2005 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342034c553ef00d83459bae753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judicial Idiocy and the War on Terror:
Comments
The man was given credit for cooperation he gave prior to 2003. That's why his sentence was reduced.
Do you propose to punish those who cooperate to provide information to stop more bombings? I'm not sure what your complaint is -- that the judicial system was unable to screw the man to satisfy your pique? Or that it worked at all?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Jul 31, 2005 3:41:42 AM
It is interesting that you would consider a sentence longer than 22 years as "screwing the man". This is only someone who had plotted and would have carried out an act of terrorism that would have killed hundrends of innocent human beings. I can understand being somewhat lenient if he was fully cooperative, but he is not.
Do you really believe that it is a deterent to would-be terrorists to know that if they are caught and tried in a US court, a "harsh" sentence would allow them to return to their homeland and continue their efforts while they are still middle aged?
Yes, I believe the basic sense of justice and our judicial system has failed miserably in this case.
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jul 31, 2005 9:09:09 PM
Serge, please reread what I wrote. You complain about the 22-year sentence. I suggested that such a complaint was that the judge did not sufficiently screw the guy, not that the sentence itself was unjust. I asked why you or anyone else would consider it unjust, in light of the fact that the man DID cooperate by providing information.
What incentives do you propose to offer to captured terrorists to get them to spill the beans?
You don't answer. I doubt that you've thought this one through.
On the other hand, the federal sentencing "guidelines" are rather hard and fast. Judges don't have discretion anymore. The sentence was dictated by the new, harsher sentencing rules (that among other things have eliminated parole).
So it seems to me that the complaint is out of line with the facts. And considering that neither you nor anyone else has any proposal for how to get the guy to talk -- and especially for how to make an example of him to get others to talk, later -- any better than the present system, the complaints are so much rattling of an empty jug.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | Aug 6, 2005 9:34:47 PM
