posted
Remember this guy, the one who tried to sneak the bomb on the plane in his shoe? Well, I don't really remember hearing much more about the whole thing and then my dad sent me this. Regardless of your political views and feelings towards the whole war on terror, I found the comments of this judge to be pretty powerful. Definately a man who believes in our system of justice and the power of freedom.
Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.
His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."
Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below, a stinging condemnation of Reid in particular and terrorists in general.
January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:
Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other.
That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.
The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist coconspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.
You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said you're no big deal.
You're no big deal.
What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?
I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.
We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.
posted
That judge should be given some sort of medal. It's too bad that many people will never have the chance to read this wonderful statement.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He echoed Lincoln in a few lines there. "The world will not long remember..."
And I have to say, that was a very good speech. And I'm glad I live in a country where someone can make a speech like that and have it really be true.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt he composed it in his head. He probably wrote it all down and revised it time and time again.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea.
Ugh. Call me a cynic, but I don't think Al Quaida hates the United States because its citizens are free.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but saying terrorists hate us because we support ruthless dictators to stabilize oil prices just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
sigh... The real reason that terrorists hate the US is cuz they are cowards afraid to attack their own corrupt governments cuz they know that they and their supporters will be stomped on. HARD !!! Hating the US is just a safe way of chest-thumping without risking anything: the US doesn't care.
Simple fact is their own governments squash any dissent in their direction. And have a 50year record of both initiating and condoning black-propaganda attacks against the US in government-controlled national media to redirect/misdirect public anger.
Spain has the same problem with Morrocco. Israel has the same problem with various Arab countries.
posted
Beren, are you saying that governments trying to strangle the US economy or manipulate the US into doing their bidding with high oil prices are not being ruthless dictators--just of our country instead of theirs?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is certainly true that a lot of anger against the United States is misdirected, not all of it is completely baseless:
quote:Indeed, the catastrophe of Sept. 11 is the heavy price we pay for our dependency on the kingdom's oil, asserts Baer, because that dependency keeps Washington entrenched in a tainted, decades-long deal: We arm the Saudi rulers in exchange for guaranteed cheap and free-flowing crude, and we let them turn a blind eye to malignant Islamic militancy within their borders.
quote:From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair. "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum
posted
Hi Mabus, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Could you elaborate on that, I'm very slow, especially on Saturday mornings. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, but saying terrorists hate us because we support ruthless dictators to stabilize oil prices just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I basically said--a little flippantly--that the alternative was rulers who used high oil prices to force America into doing what they wanted, and that such rulers would in effect be dictators as well, only of America instead of their own country.
I should be in bed now, and I would, except that I have a more serious answer to Beren's subsequent post that I couldn't stop thinking about.
Sometimes as Americans we forget how lucky we are that our revolution worked. Beren's source speaks of "intolerable" regimes--perhaps trying to catch an echo of the "Intolerable Acts" that provoked the American Revolution. But Louis the 16th was still more intolerable than George the 3rd, and so were the Romanovs in Russia. In each case revolution led not to better conditions but to a bloodbath followed by an even more oppressive ruler than the one removed. It would not be so far-fetched to imagine that the American Revolution could have followed the same path--or that other well-meaning revolutionaries in the modern world could produce such results as well.
Moreover, we know for certain that throughout much of the period Beren's source described, Soviet and Chinese Communists were actively co-opting revolutionary movements, regardless of their original good intentions. (Vietnam is one such example.) The argument that many petty dictators were a lesser evil than totalitarian regimes backed by a single superpowerful dictator, while moot today, is worth considering for the roughly 45-year time period between the end of WWII and the end of the Cold War. In essence, every revolutionary movement during that time was a potential knife at the throat of the "First World". Imagine what might have happened if the Soviets had managed to take over the Middle East, or conversely ask whether we'd have come to the brink of nuclear war in the 60's if Batista had still been ruling Cuba.
That the CIA would continue to suppress revolutions and support dictators after the Cold War ended is more difficult to understand--but the danger of "failed revolution" is still real, and the negative Democratic response to the attempted dismantling of some of our former "allies'" dictatorial regimes now that the Cold War is over is at least as hard to figure out.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
We supported Osama Bin Laden when he fought against the Soviets and gave weapons to Saddam Huessein when he fought the Iranians. Who cares that they were monsters who abused their own people. After all, Bin Laden wasn't killing Americans and Saddam would never use the weapons we gave him against us right?
Maybe you're right. Maybe we had to ally ourselves with monsters to fight the Soviets. But that doesn't change the fact that our choice of friends has given a lot of people plenty of reason to hate Americans.
To say that terrorists hate us because they hate freedom is a gross oversimplification.
edited: toned down for Saturday viewing.
[ August 28, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a great speech but I'm concerned about the lax sentancing...
That man needs to be put to death and as quickly as possible. And he needs to be kept in solitary confinement till his appeals run out and the deed can be done.
Alive, he will be placed in a cage full of people just as angry at American society as he was. He can spread islamic propaganda and recruit more "martyrs". I believe Mr. Ried was recruited in prison himself.
He can still do Al Qaida's work in jail and he doesn't even have to die to do it.
posted
Given what Pix said, emphasizing to someone in a public forum that "you are no big deal" may not be such a hot idea. Satisfying, yes, but helpful? I don't know.
I have an uneasy sense that the judge may have been playing to the press and the greater audience rather than just addressing the matter at hand, and that makes me uncomfortable.
But heck, most thong underwear makes me uncomfortable, as does the heat of most chili varieties ... actually, a lot of things other people enjoy make me uncomfortable. Like all-terrain vehicles, soap operas, dinner reservations, and weddings. So, take it for what it's worth.
(Where was I, again?)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most thong underwear? Imaginations are wandering.
However, the judge's options for sentencing are relatively limited - unless Dag cares to correct me, I don't think he could have imposed the death sentence.
And no matter what sentence was passed, you'd have people complaining on either side of the fence.
posted
TMedina: I'm sure he couldn't. It seems to me he gave the maximum sentence he could.
That law needs to be changed.
And yes, there will always be people who will do all in their power to defend and protect the enemies of the US. People who don't realize they're fighting for their own death or enslavement (No, I'm not being dramatic. That's what Al Qaida wants to do to us.) And those people would scream and yell if we put this attempted-mass-murderer/potential-terrorist-recruiter to death. And that's fine. They have a right to speak just as we have a right not to listen.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the judge's options for sentencing are relatively limited - unless Dag cares to correct me, I don't think he could have imposed the death sentence.
In the U.S., it's unconstitutional to sentence someone to death if no one died as a result of the crime. And not all homicides qualify, although the Civil Rights acts can be read to allow death for negligent homicide committed in the course of violating someone's civil rights. Such a death sentence has not been tested in SCOTUS.
The Truth in Sentencing act means this guy is not getting out short of escape, pardon, or successful appeal.
posted
I thought treason was still punishable by death, not that anyone's been executed for it in a while. Maybe I'm wrong on that and they changed the law or the USSC issued a opinion when I wasn't looking.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the US had declared war on Terror. I thought it was not a wise declaration. I do think America would be less hated if its citizens weren't free.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
However, Enmund v. Fla., 458 U.S. 782 states:
quote:Although the judgments of legislatures, juries, and prosecutors weigh heavily in the balance, it is for us ultimately to judge whether HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.the Eighth Amendment permits imposition of the death penalty on one such as Enmund who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed. We have concluded, along with most legislatures and juries, that it does not.
As far as I can tell, the non-homicide federal capital crimes have yet to be tested. So I should have said that non-death-causing capital crimes haven't been upheld as constitutional yet.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I thought it was not a wise declaration. I do think America would be less hated if its citizens weren't free.
