9th Circuit vacates LAX Millennium Bomber sentence
…just the latest example of how a powerful segment of society does not take the existential threat of Islamic terrorism seriously.
AP: Appeals court vacates sentence of ‘millennium bomber’ Ressam
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.
Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.
The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.
Now, I don’t know why or how this sentence was vacated as the 9th Circuit website is crawling at the moment, but I am willing to bet that it was some non-substantive technical issue. It can’t be any more ludicrous than reversing the conviction of a murderer because the victim’s family wore buttons of the murdered man during the trial. Can it?
I just hope that the 22 years is extended to life when it goes back to the lower court…but of course, that wouldn’t guarantee that the 9th Circus wouldn’t get it again and overturn the conviction altogether, just because.
Update: From the 9th Short Circuit opinion
Ahmed Ressam trained with members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and hatched a plot to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the days before the 576 UNITED STATES v. RESSAM new Millennium. He was charged with, and convicted of, nine counts of criminal activity connected to this plot. Ressam challenges his conviction on one of these counts, Count 9, for carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony — making false statements on a customs declaration — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2). The issue is whether § 844(h)(2) must be read to include a relational element such that the crime is carrying an explosive during and in relation to commission of a felony. We previously construed the statute upon which § 844(h)(2) was modeled, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), to require this relational element, United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 539-40 (9th Cir. 1985), even though it, too, lacked the phrase “and in relation to.†We are constrained to follow Stewart’s analysis here and conclude that § 844(h)(2) requires a relationship between the underlying crime and the act of carrying an explosive. As the jury was neither instructed that such a relationship was a required element of the offense, nor did the government offer evidence that Ressam’s explosives were used to facilitate his false customs declaration, his conviction on Count 9 must be reversed. Ressam was exposed to a sentence of some 65 years, but after trial entered into a cooperation agreement with the United States according to which he would not seek, and the government would not recommend, a sentence of less than 27 years. Although he provided testimony and participated in numerous debriefings, Ressam ultimately stopped cooperating. As a result, the government recommended a sentence of 35 years. Ressam argued for a sentence of 120 months, and the district court imposed a sentence of 22 years. The government appeals this sentence as unreasonable in light of Ressam’s failure to continue to assist the government and the district court’s lack of explanation for what the government believes is an extreme departure. Given reversal of the conviction on Count 9 and its corresponding mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, we vacate the entire sentence so that the district court can resentence in light of this decision and developments in the law of sentencing in the meantime.
I would find it hard to believe that the 9th Circuit vacated the ENTIRE conviction sentence based on one of nine counts for the purpose of giving the district court the chance to slap this guy with a lengthier stint in the tossed salad wing of the clink, so I will chalk it up to this radical court’s tendency to side with the bad guys. (Note: it has been pointed out that someone on another site has criticized this post and my “ignorance” based on the word “conviction” in this paragraph. The correct word is “sentence.” No “ignorance,” only an error.)
The opinion goes on to explain that this guy is an Algerian citizen. This brings me to the obvious question: why does a foreign terrorist have the same access to our court system and constitution as an American citizen? He shouldn’t, should he?
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on January 16, 2007 1:22 pm
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL:
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Court throws out bombing sentence
Comments
10 Responses to “9th Circuit vacates LAX Millennium Bomber sentence”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
yeah it was a technicality, but at least they didnt just overturn the conviction.
I get a little upset when people make accusations against the courts in the manner that you have.
People fail to understand the purpose, the very idea of, the court. The court should by no means be concerned with the physical security of Americans from Islamic terrorism. The SOLE concern of the courts is to ensure that the law is enforced correctly at all times, it is to be devoid of all biases, and those biases include practicalities and legislative goals such as protection from Islamic terrorism. If Congress made a decision such as this one, then it is valid to criticize. But criticism of courts in a manner like this is unreasonable and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the most basic function of the American justice system.
as for Kevin W comment:
During the 2003-2004 term, the Supreme Court reversed 76 percent of the cases that it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, and your telling us not to question their decisions? Your a complete and utter fool or a ACLU member which adds up to the same, your kind of liberal thinking that people should except all court decisions without question will be the death of America, and we’re not going to let that happen, sell your crap to the kos kids.
Mack
“It can’t be any more ludicrous than reversing the conviction of a murderer because the victim’s family wore buttons of the murdered man during the trial. Can it?”
Dude. It’s the NINTH. Of COURSE it can be more ludicrous. They are dedicated to the project of identifying the ludicrosity value that approaches infinity as closely as humanly possible.
Why, because they believe the district court made a significant error on one of the counts? C’mon, they even vacated the entire sentence, which is a gift-wrapped opportunity for the district judge to impose the exact same (or even higher) sentence based on the remaining 8 convictions.
The terminology is important. They reversed one conviction and vacated the entire sentence. Reversing the one conviction is a win for the criminal, but vacating the sentence is a win for the prosecution. The original sentence was far below the minimum, so the district court still has all sorts of latitude when they re-sentence him.
It turns out your bet was wrong. An element of the crime wasn’t even discussed at trial, let alone demonstrated. Even if their assertion is wrong, the issue in question isn’t “non-substantive”.
1) Our courts have jurisdiction over acts committed on our soil by anyone with a few exceptions for diplomatic and military status.
2) He’s not a “terrorist” in legal terms until he’s been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction
By citing that statistic without comparing it to other circuits, you’re implying that SCOTUS largely disagrees with with the 9th Circuit. I don’t have any stats handy, but i’m going to assume that SCOTUS’s caseload is distributed evenly among the 12 circuits. I’ll further assume SCOTUS hears the same number of cases as any individual circuit. With those assumptions in mind, we can conclude that SCOTUS only reviews 1/12 (8.3%) of the 9th Circuit’s decision and thus (assuming your stat is accurate) only overturns 6.3% of their cases. That tells me that SCOTUS implicitly agrees with the vast majority of the 9th Circuit’s decisions.
Feel free to question their decision, but make sure you do it on the merits of the opinion, not whether or not you happen to agree with the end result.
Mack, I don’t usually call people out like this, but Kevin made a factually accurate statement. You then twisted his words and proceeded to the ad hominem attacks, so I’m going to take the time to explain a few things about our language:
- “Your” is a possessive pronoun
- “You’re” is a contraction for “You are”
- The article “an” is used if the following word starts with a vowel.
- “Except” means “With the exclusion of; other than; but”
- “Accept” means “To endure resignedly or patiently”
I point this out because your mistakes can’t even be attributed to poor typing or spelling. You spelled everything properly, you just don’t know which words to use. Leave the ad hominem attacks on the playground, especially if your act isn’t up to snuff.
Once again the LeftJudiciary manufactures power to assualt the war on our enemies Bush is fighting, finding invisible meanings in thin air of federal statutory language.
Jeff Molby: Spoken like a true ACLU lawyer,attack my grammar and spelling! Typical liberal response, misdirection is the heart of a great illusion, And playground pal you couldn‘t play on my playground, All I’m saying is why do people hold judges up as gods? Are you saying they don’t make mistakes? Terri Schindler Schiavo found out different, a judge sentenced that poor women to death on hearsay testimony, I don’t trust a judge anymore then I trust a lawyer, after all most judges were lawyers and lawyers lie.
Judges are suppose to be bipartisan, if that’s the case why does it matter to a specific political party who gets appointed? If the appointment didn’t favor their parties’ beliefs? Do you really believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decisions are not in line with the demoncrats and the ACLU? If you do you’re a fool and a fool is dangerous to himself and to the rest of the country.
Mack
You are complaining about how the 9th Circuit vacated a sentence because it was too short? What kind of terrorist-coddling site is this anyway?
Did you notice who asked for the sentence to be vacated? The government! They wanted 35+ years! Why do you hate the USA?
Somebody said: The opinion goes on to explain that this guy is an Algerian citizen. This brings me to the obvious question: why does a foreign terrorist have the same access to our court system and constitution as an American citizen? He shouldn’t, should he?
And somebody else responded: Our courts have jurisdiction over acts committed on our soil by anyone with a few exceptions for diplomatic and military status.
I’d like to see them lock this guy up and throw away the key, but the answer to the question is that our Constitution doesn’t GRANT us rights, it merely RECOGNIZES our natural or God-given rights. Those rights are inherent in EVERYONE, not just US citizens. When the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights, it doesn’t specify that these restrictions are only for citizens.
Yes, I did. I also pointed out that I rarely do it and I explained why I made an exception in this case.
There was no misdirection. I addressed the content of your argument and the manner in which you presented it. You didn’t respond to my 5th and 6th paragraphs, which were direct responses to the heart of your argument, so if there is any “misdirection”, it is not on my part.
Of course they’re fallible. No one said otherwise. If you think they erred in this case, please point out the error in their reasoning. Stating that you don’t like the outcome is not sufficient.
Because different judges have different perspectives about how the constitution and other laws should be interpreted. Those differing perspectives can lead to differing conclusions on particular issues and the parties are smart enough to know which perspectives they favor. The symptom you point to is a matter of politicians meddling with the judiciary, not the judges aligning themselves with any particular party.