Amusing on so many levels:
https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lax-bomb-plotter-20120313,0,795680.storyA 22-year sentence was unreasonably lenient for Al Qaeda-trained terrorist Ahmed Ressam, who drove a trunk full of powerful explosives into the United States from Canada with the intent of bombing Los Angeles International Airport, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The 7-4 ruling by the full U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to a Seattle federal judge for resentencing with the recommendation that the Algerian-born prisoner be given a term more in line with federal sentencing guidelines that call for 65 years to life for the offenses for which Ressam was convicted.
Disputes over the appropriate punishment for Ressam have roiled the federal courts for more than a decade, as the young Algerian, who was intercepted as he entered Washington state on a ferry from Canada, initially cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism agents, exposing the inner workings of the global terror network and helping identify and convict other extremists.
But Ressam ceased cooperating with national security agents after two years, citing a fading memory and mental trauma from his harsh confinement at a federal detention facility in Seattle.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who oversaw Ressam's 2001 trial and conviction on nine criminal charges, sentenced Ressam to 22 years in 2005, rejecting the government's urging of at least a 35-year term. Coughenour said the need to balance the severity of Ressam's planned attack and his contributions to the fight against terror was the most difficult decision he faced in 24 years on the federal bench. Ressam had identified 150 jihadists to U.S. intelligence agents and testified in two trials that resulted in convictions, the judge noted.
The government appealed, and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit struck down the sentence on procedural grounds in 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit, sending the case back to Coughenour, who again imposed the 22-year term. A 9th Circuit panel vacated that sentence two years ago and ordered that a different judge decide how much time Ressam should serve.
That order was put on hold when the appeals court agreed to reconsider the case with a full 11-judge panel last year, leading to Monday's ruling that 22 years was too light a sentence for the serious terrorism offenses for which Ressam was convicted.
The 11-judge panel said a more appropriate sentence would be in the range set by federal guidelines, suggesting that Ressam remain in prison for what may be the rest of his life. The four dissenting judges, all appointees of Democratic presidents, said the district court's judgment should be respected.
Ressam would be 51 when released from prison if the 22-year sentence were left in place, the appeals court majority pointed out. The judges agreed with the government that national security could be in jeopardy if Ressam were freed at that relatively young age.
When the full 9th circuit overturns your decision as being too soft on crime, you've done something that violates the metaphysical laws of the universe.
The guy was inept enough to get nabbed almost immediately, and chickenshit enough to roll over on all of his friends over a two year span. It seems to me that the risk of his someday being released is mitigated by the benefit of his someday being released.
This is why you never tell a detective anything other than "I'd like to speak with my attorney" and "go fuck yourself!" They used him as a rat for two years, promising him a lenient sentence, and then spent 6 years appealing his sentence because it was lenient. Don't cooperate with people who can't be trusted!
Bing, what are you doing here? I thought I told you to go fuck your mother!
Is 22 years in a federal super-max really lenient? The risk of the guy being released after that long is that you'll have to support his non-functional ass for the next 22 years in the federal loony bin. That's right about the time that they'll be wheeling Hinkley's dead ass out, so they can give him his room.
It seems to me that there are really only two sentences here. The rest of your life in prison, or half of your life in prison. Is there any way for the former to be considered lenient?
What's the point of allowing a judge to issue a sentence if you can overrule it on the basis that you don't like it? This isn't a matter of being procedurally or factually wrong. They just don't think it's cool. The Man seeks to take a decision made by a person charged with rendering it, who used his professional judgement to mitigate punishment and reward, and toss it in lieu of an arbitrary one. Not cool.
Investigators found powerful explosives hidden in the wheel well of the rental car "capable of producing a blast 40 times greater than that of a devastating car bomb," court records show.
WTF does this mean!
Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2 (Read 339569 times)
