Posted on 08/16/2008 9:21:42 PM PDT by calcowgirl
A federal appeals court Friday threw out the 22-year sentence imposed on Algerian Ahmed Ressam for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.
The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to U.S. District Court in Seattle to recalculate a sentence for his conviction on nine felony counts. It was the second time the appellate court has scrapped Ressam's sentence.
The San Francisco-based panel noted that the U.S. Supreme Court reversal of its first decision to vacate the term failed to take into consideration recent federal sentencing guidelines on what constitutes a reasonable sentence outside the preset range for criminal offenses.
Ressam was arrested Dec. 14, 1999, at a ferry terminal in Port Angeles, Wash., after crossing from British Columbia, Canada, in a rented sedan with explosives in the trunk. He had been under surveillance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for at least two years for known association with suspected Al Qaeda operatives.
(snip)
His 22-year sentence, including a 10-year minimum applied for carrying explosives during the commission of a felony, was imposed by District Judge John C. Coughenour in 2005. It was the middle ground between the 35 years requested by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the 12 1/2 years proposed by Ressam's federal public defenders.
Both prosecutors and defense lawyers appealed, leading to the 9th Circuit's initial ruling in January 2007 that the sentence should be vacated and recalculated because the sentencing guidelines requiring the aggravating multiplier were too open-ended.
The Supreme Court in May overruled the 9th Circuit, reinstating the full 22 years in an 8-1 ruling that the aggravating circumstance of carrying explosives was obviously related to Ressam's felonious action of trying to evade detection by U.S. Customs authorities . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The Circus Court is at it again.
Holy fing s.
You know, it’s a lot cheaper to just “dust” these terrorists when they are caught redhanded like this joker was. Also, cases like this really put a strain on those senile old bass turds in our Federal courts.
Boy that 2003 US invasion of Iraq even caused an Islamic nutjob to travel back in time in an attempt to wreck havoc at a millennium event...
Wasn’t this case cited by the Dims as the “proper” way to handle terrorism?
Wow! That is quite an archive of articles you have going there!
Nice work!
They also failed to sentence him to execution, which was the appropriate sentence.
I’m going to open a torch and pitchfork concession, I am.
Don’t know about that one. I didn’t follow the case that closely.
They should recalculate it to the maximum 35 years.
would have been different if he’d planned to bome something important, like the court house.
I think one of the last things dubya should do as president is fire the 9th circus judges. He can do that and it would really benefit the country and his legacy.
Something like that.
(Actually I was looking for the Larson cartoon with a guy holding a burned out torch and a thought bubble of the guy who sold it -with a guarantee- to him)...
That is me right about now. Quite the likeness.
I think the problem here is the federal sentencing guidelines, which unnecessarily intrude the authority of the trial courts for sentencing, making it difficult for everyone involved. The guidelines came about mainly in response to the courts’ reluctance to impose strong enough penalties (Congress felt) in support of the War on Drugs. State court judges and juries have much more freedom to arrive at a just verdict.
Thank you calcowgirl.
And the decision did stink. It threatened to throw out all existing state and federal sentencing guidelines, and require resentencing for almost all criminal cases on appeal. Just about every prosecutor in the country screamed, and Congress threatened to hold hearings about it.
So the Supremes did it over with the next sentencing appeal to come their way, and pretended the whole thing had never happened. Like a cat that does an accidental somersault off a piano and acts like, "I meant to do that."
Federal sentencing is complicated enough. The problem isn't the law. The problem is that the judges are incompetent and invent problems where none existed.
We don't need new sentencing laws. We need new judges that can count past five without taking off their belts.
FEDERAL JUDGES DO NOT HOLD LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS
* A. The Constitution says that judges hold their office only during “good behavior” (Art. III, Sec. 1).
* B. Federal judges may be removed by Congress for misbehavior, which, historically, did not include only criminal behavior but also other misbehavior.
* C. Historically, federal judges have been removed from the bench by Congress for contradicting an order of Congress, for profanity, for rude treatment of witness in a courtroom, for drunkenness, for judicial high-handedness and a variety of other reasons.24
* D. The Constitution provides six clauses on impeachment – the most often-mentioned subject in the Constitution.25
* E. The Founding Fathers and early legal authorities were clear about the ground for impeachment:
o 1. James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: “[I]mpeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.26
o 2. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “The offenses to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy. . . . are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.27
o 3. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: “[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.28
o 4. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “attempts to subvert the Constitution.29
o 5. Alexander Hamilton: “the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself.30
o 6. George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and Elbridge, signer of the Declaration and Framer of the Bill of Rights: “mal-administration.31
o 7. William Rawle, legal authority and author of early constitutional commentary: “the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice32 as well as attempts to “infringe the rights of the people.33
o 8. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.34
* F. Federalist #65: “[T]he practice of impeachments [is] a bridle in the hands of the Legislative body.35
* G. Justice James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution, placed on the Supreme Court by President Washington: “Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.36
I don’t think he can do that once they have been appointed. However, there is something that should have been done while the Republicans were in power (in the long long list of ‘should haves’). Congress sets the boundaries of the circuit courts. They should have shrunk the size of its jusisdiction down to the size of a single room -— the mens bathroom in the San Francisco Greyhound Bus Terminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.