Comments on: Open justice for terrorists http://www.martinstabe.com/blog/2005/07/28/open-justice-for-terrorists/ A UK-centric look at new media and online journalism Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:45:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jim Rockford http://www.martinstabe.com/blog/2005/07/28/open-justice-for-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Jim Rockford Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://martinstabe.com/blog2/?p=890#comment-106 The Judge doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Proof positive that lifetime appointments can lead to total idiocy. The guy, Ressam, was caught only by good luck and sharp eyes by a US Customs agent on the Canadian border. Barring that Ressam would have killed dozens and perhaps hundreds. He briefly co-operated then ceased. He will spend less time in prison and will get out before Lynndie England, who merely participated in humiliation of Abu Grhaib detainees led by her superior and illicit lover. Current law does NOT work for terror cells, operating under the knowledge of law enforcement. It most CERTAINLY falls apart with the capture of hostile terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other foreign countries intent on killing Americans. Example: bin Laden in Pakistan. Please explain how current law excluding the Patriot Act or Gitmo handles Bin Laden taking refuge in Waziristan province in Pakistan? For the limited set of people apprehended in this country by law enforcement officials, the law provides an appropriate avenue of handling. It fails completely with terrorists apprehended by the military in foreign countries, or terrorist threats capable of killing perhaps even millions in this country that do not rise to the level of anything more than minor misdemeanors under criminal law. The Judge is basically begging for terrorists to be allowed to kill millions perhaps, THEN be futilely prosecuted after they have scooted to other countries. I'll note that the 1993 WTC bombers and the follow-on plot against NYC subways and tunnels by the "Blind Sheikh" were handled in this manner, and resulted eventually in ... 9/11. The criminal justice system is totally unable to handle terrorism. That much is abundantly clear and has been since 1993. The Judge doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. Proof positive that lifetime appointments can lead to total idiocy.

The guy, Ressam, was caught only by good luck and sharp eyes by a US Customs agent on the Canadian border. Barring that Ressam would have killed dozens and perhaps hundreds. He briefly co-operated then ceased. He will spend less time in prison and will get out before Lynndie England, who merely participated in humiliation of Abu Grhaib detainees led by her superior and illicit lover.

Current law does NOT work for terror cells, operating under the knowledge of law enforcement. It most CERTAINLY falls apart with the capture of hostile terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other foreign countries intent on killing Americans. Example: bin Laden in Pakistan. Please explain how current law excluding the Patriot Act or Gitmo handles Bin Laden taking refuge in Waziristan province in Pakistan?

For the limited set of people apprehended in this country by law enforcement officials, the law provides an appropriate avenue of handling. It fails completely with terrorists apprehended by the military in foreign countries, or terrorist threats capable of killing perhaps even millions in this country that do not rise to the level of anything more than minor misdemeanors under criminal law.

The Judge is basically begging for terrorists to be allowed to kill millions perhaps, THEN be futilely prosecuted after they have scooted to other countries. I’ll note that the 1993 WTC bombers and the follow-on plot against NYC subways and tunnels by the “Blind Sheikh” were handled in this manner, and resulted eventually in … 9/11.

The criminal justice system is totally unable to handle terrorism. That much is abundantly clear and has been since 1993.

]]> By: ATM http://www.martinstabe.com/blog/2005/07/28/open-justice-for-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-107 ATM Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://martinstabe.com/blog2/?p=890#comment-107 It is easy to try and convict terrorists when you catch them red handed on your own territory with weapons and/or explosives. It is far harder when they carry out the planning in foreign territory that is under the control of a hostile or noncooperative allied or neutral government, as your police and investigative bureaus won't have the ability to gather evidence needed to gain a conviction. That is why cross border terrorism is a significant problem, because terrorists know that they can hide out in another country and use its laws or government as a shield. I would argue that lower evidenciary standards should be used to convict a person engaged in any sort of violent or other criminal enterprise that plans operations outside of the targeted country. It is easy to try and convict terrorists when you catch them red handed on your own territory with weapons and/or explosives. It is far harder when they carry out the planning in foreign territory that is under the control of a hostile or noncooperative allied or neutral government, as your police and investigative bureaus won’t have the ability to gather evidence needed to gain a conviction. That is why cross border terrorism is a significant problem, because terrorists know that they can hide out in another country and use its laws or government as a shield. I would argue that lower evidenciary standards should be used to convict a person engaged in any sort of violent or other criminal enterprise that plans operations outside of the targeted country.

]]>