Judges Comments in Ahmed Ressam's Sentencing:
By dlieb Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today Ahmed Ressam was sentenced to 22 Years for plotting to blow up Los Angeles airport. At his sentencing, the judge said the following regarding our judicial system: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.
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. {emphasis switzer's}
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.
I know how tempting it is to create a "push poll" in order to steer readers into a particular direction to force them to pick a choice that they don't really agree with. You did an excellent job of giving your readers a fair representation of different opinions and I look forward to seeing this in the future.
BTW: I voted for "high horse" because even though I agreed in principle with most of what he said, it came across to me like someone editorializing from their soap box.
Actually, I disagree. THe only two negative options he provides are:
- No, because the guy's on a high horse
- No, and he should further go to jail
Which doesn't leave me with a negative response I feel comfortable with (and I think I am pretty much on the record as being against these comments).
I doubt you will find too many juries in America sympathetic to an alleged terrorist. Even with circumstantial evidence alone, it would likely be a prosecutorial slam dunk in most cases.
For those picked up on US soil (citizen or not) there's no reason an open court and real defense representation can't work.
I guess I thought that the choices were pretty fair but in retrospect, I could see adding a couple of more options to fill in the "gaps" between the two negative/positive choices.
from them is a major goal. And from what I know, that is one of the best means to prevent future attacks. We need information/intelligence. We don't put POWs on public trial, we don't put military soldiers on public trial, why would we generally put terrorists on public trial?
The argument boils down to a War vs. Criminal viewpoint on terrorism. After 9/11, the national policy shifted from a Clintonian criminal viewpoint to a Bushian war viewpoint. You arrest criminals; you kill or capture enemies. I think it is generally accepted in America now that these are enemies, not mere criminals.
and pretty successfully, too. Granted, your average mobster is more likely to respond to FBI threats moreso than your average terrorist. But in this case, IIRC, the would be terrorist was offered incentives to provide intel in return for a sentence reccomendation-- and suprisingly, he initially complied, although eventually resisting in 2003. Thus, the 22 year sentence vs. one that would have likely been more severe.
is full of criminals, but not sworn enemies. They do not intend on destroying our way of life nor indiscriminately killing masses of people to provoke terror in our cities. I truly believe that the leftist wing of the Democratic Party will have to recognize terrorists as our enemy, not merely criminals, before they are trusted with our national security in the near future.
We treated Ressam like a criminal, and it worked perfectly. We got intel (his cooperation after arrest led to the infamous Aug 8 2001 memo) for 4 solid years before getting a conviction. What is it about this scenario that you find troubling?
It seems troubling to me that you would seek to define a new classification for people (they're not criminals, they're not POWs) who are arrested on US soil. The members of this new classification have no due process and there is no burden of proof to detain them people indefinetly. Could a US citizen be classified like this? What about an illegal Mexican immigrant?
Why go through all the trouble when we have demonstrable proof in this case, that the system set up by our founding fathers works very well?
I appreciate your feedback - I guess I could have been more inclusive on the negative opinions. I know its not entirely scientific (tried to keep it somewhat like a 5 point Likert and still keep it fun).
The judges comments are admirable, but I wonder if it isn't a little anachronistic. Given the current threat, and given that various rights of enemy combatants were suspended in previous US wars, I am not sure he is right.