Why We Love the Judicial Branch
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Law — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today, it's because they take the occasion of sentencing LAX bomber Ahmed Ressam to lecture us all about the evils of Bush administration policy regarding detainees. Oh, and also, Ressam stands a very good chance of leaving prison before Lynndie England.
More outpouring of love below the fold:
While sentencing Ressam to a ridiculous 22 years for attempting to blow up hundreds of Americans, Federal District Judge John Coughenhour decided to pat himself on the back for his incredible fairness, and in a moonbat tour-de-force, also chimed in with a not-veiled-at-all slap at Bush Administration detention policy:
"Okay. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.
"I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely
How very courageous of Judge Coughenhour. We ought to see if a medal exists (or can be invented!) for courage and principle beyond the call of duty. If anyone is deserving of the medal, surely it is Judge Coughenhour, for having the sheer bravery - nay, heroism to set an attempted mass murderer free before he turns 53.
But Judge Coughenhour is not yet done looking out for us all!
The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:
"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.
Oh, and we got that message loud and clear! Why, considering that most suicide bombers are in their early to mid-20s, they will surely quake in fear at the notion that if they are caught trying to kill hundreds of our citizens (for which they are told the reward will be numerous virgins awaiting them in the afterlife), they will be forced to remain in jail until they are over the hill! Can you imagine the horror of working out a midlife crisis in federal prison? They'll never have the opportunity to get a ridiculously undersized sportscar, or date someone half their age or any of those wonderful things before they are set free to try it all again! What a strong message, indeed!
But wait! Judge Coughenhour has more strong messages!
"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.
"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.
"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.
"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."
What heroism. I think I speak for most ordinary Americans when I say, if this is the system working, somebody needs to break it. And further, Judge Coughenhour has just strengthened my resolve to support the Bush administration in keeping the homicidal maniacs we have in detention as far away from Heroes of Judicial Integrity like Judge Coughenhour, who will frown and fret and deliberate with great difficulty before sentencing 20 year olds to 22 years in prison (minus time off for good behavior!), and further making sure that they have adequate access to information from other terror cells - er, I mean, consultation with their lawyers.
As a matter of perspective, this same judge sentenced the Montana Militiamen to 22 1/2 years for conspiring against the nation's banking system.
One wonders how Judge Coughenhour's brains have become so addled that he doesn't realize that the average American, upon reading this story, is going to suddenly feel a lot more warm and fuzzy about the "secret, evil military tribunals" and the concept of "indefinite detention." His entire speech reminds me of a self-righteous petty dictator lauding his ignoble accomplishments to an audience that grows more hostile and dedicated to resistance by the minute.
Let me reiterate: Confirming conservative judges to the Supreme Court is only the first step. Meaningful judicial reform, including some reasonable method of removing delinquent judges, must be undertaken if the United States is to continue to thrive.
H/T: Hugh Hewitt.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Supersized Nonsense — Comments (22) »
Why We Love the Judicial Branch 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Unfortunately, this paragon of judicial virtue was appointed to the bench by President Reagan. 24 years of living in Seattle has definitely addled his mind. Or was this just a moonbat in conservative clothing that slipped in under the radar during the Reagan years?
Here's a legal question and a problem. Considering that this case pre-dates much of the GWOT (or whatever we're calling it today), I wonder what the double jeopardy problems are with additional charges against this guy.
Full disclosure - I am completely ignorant of the facts and circumstances of this sentencing other than the media reports. That said, it indicates he had cooperated, and then stopped. It makes another investigation possible, if there are additional conspiracy charges available, or if he could be roped into some sort of illegal combatant status and shifted over to military justice as well. Odds are, someone at Gitmo is connected to this guy in a legally liable way.
Anyway, all that is likely to require a whole lot of effort by legal and intelligence staff which could have been avoided with a doubling of the sentence here.
Seems a waste any way you look at it.
I thought that your views on the judge's statements would be more widely accepted among the users of this board, but apparently, most members are voicing their approval over the judges statements.
While I certainly don't advocate light sentences for terrorists, you did leave out this part, which is one of the first few paragraphs of the story you linked:
Ahmed Ressam got a lighter sentence than prosecutors had requested, reflecting his cooperation in telling international investigators about the workings of terror camps in Afghanistan.
Meaningly he basically copped a plea bargain, albeit through an entire trial process.
Additionally, the prosecuters were only asking for 35 years, so its not like "life without parole" was an option
Also, side joke: Since this Reagan appointee is clearly not working out, maybe its time to try out some liberals to the bench. What say you, Bush? ;)
And your diary got trolled. I don't know what else to say.
I was looking at the word and it just didnt look right. couldnt figure out why. Sorry for the mispell - thanks for pointing it out.
Because a few of his points about the accused receiving a fair trial in this country were quite appreciated, but then he had to go and take lame and irrelevant potshots at the administration.
Quoting from a Reuters story on Yahoo:
Ressam will get credit for the more than five years he already has spent in jail. Thomas Hillier, the public defense lawyer representing Ressam, said that Ressam could be out of prison in as early as 14 years with good behavior in prison and including time already served.
Ressam was convicted in 2001. He initially provided testimony that was used in the briefing paper "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," which was given to President Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, ahead of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Yes! Let's impeach him! I'm not sure how or why or on what basis, but he said something that didn't ring the patriot bell in my heart, so he's got to go! Reagan appointee? Well, he just doesn't pass today's litmus test of conservativism--the ph level required of judges today to satisfy conservatives is an order of magnitude lower than 20 years ago.
Ressam cooperated, provided valuable intel, and flipped on co-conspirators, identifying 120 covert Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. He did this despite receiving the "excessive" due process our judicial system demands and without being tortured. Locking him up for life would ensure that the next Ressam sees no reason to similarly cooperate. And Coughenour's point is well-taken and well-made; there are reasonable, predictable and just alternatives to simply locking these fools up forever without any due process.
The readership of Redstate.org that has voted in that poll agrees with you. We need just thirty Kossacks and dissenting RedStaters to get your result.
I voted high horse, because that's fairly clearly what this was, but I'm open to the idea that only our dissenters voted. Unlikely, though.
Redstate.org has taken no such position.
We all feel the heat.
The judge was tilting at windmills to make himself feel better. One hopes you similarly feel well now, too.
wears his robe just a little too tight.
First of all 22 years (minus time served) is hardly a stiff sentence-not even sure if it is a deterrent sentence.
Secondly, his commentary on the WOT and military tribunals is out of line. Who appointed this moonbat (or did I miss it somewhere along the way)?
Even if he is strongly opposed to the WOT and how captured terrorists are dealt with, the place for his commentary is not from the bench when sentencing another would be terrorist.
don't you think it is reasonable to point out that our system of justice is strong enough to handle these thugs in the light of day? There has been a lot of discussion that our court system can't handle these sob's. We can debate if he got enough time, but it seems like the system worked in this case.
They caught a guy, got a lot of info out of him, and sentenced him when he stopped cooperating. That seems like a decent result.
But when that judicial back-patting is actually a shot aimed across the bow of the other two branches, it's probably best handled in a different context.
What other context does a judge have?
From the article http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050728/D8BKE0R80.html
"U.S. Attorney John McKay said he agreed with the judge's comments that U.S. courts are equipped to handle terrorism cases. He would not comment on the judge's criticism of military tribunals and the handling of enemy combatants."
When did reasonable people stating reasonable opinions become unpatriotic or inappropriate?
I bow to no one on questions of errant judges and judicial reform. And I think this judge is wrong in his sentiments: The Rasul and Hamdi cases illustrate to me, at least, that terrorists can game the U.S. judicial system.
Having said that, here's a judge who saw a terrorist's trial through to a conviction; who in the meantime allowed the prosecution to obtain apparently valuable intelligence from the defendant; who imposed a not-inconsequential penalty.
He's unhappy that Americans (and the Executive Branch) hold the judiciary these days in such low regard. But he did his job and served his country. If we had judges like him in every federal courtroom, Guantanamo might not in fact be necessary.