At last month's sentencing, [U.S. District Court Judge John C.] Coughenour said the successful prosecution of Ressam should serve not only as a warning to terrorists, but as a statement to the Bush administration about its terrorism-fighting tactics.
"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," he said at the time. "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."
The appeal briefs have not yet been written, so it isn't certain whether federal prosecutors will make Judge Coughenour's remarks an issue or not. Right now, their public claim is that the 22 years was significantly less than the 35 year sentence asked for, and that 65 years would be the usual punishment for crimes like those committed by Ressam. He could have faced as many as 130 years in prison, but Ressam began cooperating with authorities and revealing information about terrorist cells and camps.
When asked whether he considered the judge's remarks at sentencing appropriate, [U.S. Attorney John] McKay said: "We haven't written the briefs yet, we're leaving all of our options for the appeal open, and that may well be one of them."
Ressam's lawyers from the U.S. Public Defender's Office were not available to comment on the issue.
Right now, their public claim is that the 22 years was significantly less than the 35 year sentence asked for, and that 65 years would be the usual punishment for crimes like those committed by Ressam. He could have faced as many as 130 years in prison, but Ressam began cooperating with authorities and revealing information about terrorist cells and camps.
in other words, the feds are upset because the judge didn't stab the guy in the back after he agreed to give information that will lead to more arrests, in exchange for a lighter (but still 22 years!) sentence.
we'd rather extract unreliable and possibly false information gained by using torture on someone who may or may not have done anything.
bones_708 said:
If we condone bias then where the hell are we left?
But we do condone bias, all the fucking time. It's just bias towards neo-americanism, a.k.a. neo-conservatism. Similar, but not to be confused with neo-nazi...ism
bones_708 said:
If we condone bias then where the hell are we left?
But we do condone bias, all the fucking time. It's just bias towards neo-americanism, a.k.a. neo-conservatism. Similar, but not to be confused with neo-nazi...ism
bones_708 said:
If we condone bias then where the hell are we left?
But we do condone bias, all the fucking time. It's just bias towards neo-americanism, a.k.a. neo-conservatism. Similar, but not to be confused with neo-nazi...ism
don't even try, it's not worth it. he'll just change the subject, then point at it screaming "see? see what i was talking about?"
bones_708 said:
I think the problem would be if the judge is showing bias. If we condone bias(which I don't agree that was) then where the hell are we left?
That's kind of a moot point, since you already acknowledged that his comments don't show bias. It's about as meaningful a question as "If we give up on flight (which I don't agree we're doing) then where the hell are we left?"
Nobody is saying condoning bias is a good thing. The question is whether his comments show bias, and they'd have to really pull out some much more damning evidence than those words to prove that.
bones_708 said:
I think the problem would be if the judge is showing bias. If we condone bias(which I don't agree that was) then where the hell are we left?
That's kind of a moot point, since you already acknowledged that his comments don't show bias. It's about as meaningful a question as "If we give up on flight (which I don't agree we're doing) then where the hell are we left?"
Nobody is saying condoning bias is a good thing. The question is whether his comments show bias, and they'd have to really pull out some much more damning evidence than those words to prove that.
I'll just say that it's a legal point and if it does show bias it's not extream. That doesn't mean the lawyers won't or shouldn't pursue it because it is important point.
bones_708 said:
If we condone bias then where the hell are we left?
But we do condone bias, all the fucking time. It's just bias towards neo-americanism, a.k.a. neo-conservatism. Similar, but not to be confused with neo-nazi...ism
Do you feel it's exceptable in "neo-conservatism"? If not then it shouldn't be OK with a liberal agenda.
Well I think it's nice that a judge wants to reach out to the terrorist community.
I mean - all they need is trust, love, understanding....
....and the involuntary establishment of a global empire under a harsh strictures of islamic jurisprudence.
Speaking of which, if Judge Coughenour REALLY wanted to bring our nations closer together maybe he should have cited "Rainy Day Women" (#12 & 35) and tried this guy under Shariah law.
misstyrios
NEWSWIRE
Allston, MA
AUG 28, 2005 04:15 PM