Liberal 9th Circuit Court With Another Outragious Liberal Discision

T

toby

Junior Member
>On 16 January 2006, the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco shielded a convicted terrorist behind its robes when it reversed the sentences and conviction of Ahmed Ressam, who came to this country to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

On 16 January 2006, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of the nine convictions, that of transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. The Ninth Circuit judges contend that Ressam’s conviction of the charge had to be overturned because the statute did not require that the explosives had to be linked to the act of terror. Thus, the prosecution proved that Ressam possessed explosives while involved in a terrorist act, but the Ninth Circuit holds that the prosecution must further prove that the explosives Ressam were carrying were the ones that he intended to use in the bombing plot that he confessed to. On the basis of that absurd technicality, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of nine convictions, and sent the entire case back to the lower court for re-sentencing, with the requirement that the court justify the rationale behind the sentence

So they need to show that these specific explosives where the ones he was going to use??? WHAT A JOKE!!!!

http://lowdowncentral.townhall.com/g/2bcb29f4-2004-4cd6-a3b9-a5095fbd89d0
 
Tobes! My man! Good to see you. I was just telling uscitizen that my foot's getting itchy and I need to kick some butt. :D

Hey, kiddo: what do you suppose that "re-sentencing" means?
 
The point is that they need to prove that these particular explosives where the ones intended to blow up LAX. That is just plain silly.
 
toby said:
The point is that they need to prove that these particular explosives where the ones intended to blow up LAX. That is just plain silly.
Click to expand...
That would depend on the exact charges of which he was convicted, now wouldn't it? What tends to happen, especially in these high profile cases, is that the prosecution piles on every charge they can possibly come up with, in hopes of getting convictions on at least one. Some of the charges themselves can get pretty silly, come to that.

He was convicted on nine counts, one of which was transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. Clearly, the prosecution would have to prove that the explosives were transported for such a purpose, yes?

In reality, the only thing at issue is the length of his sentence.
 
toby said:
He was planning a terror attack, he had explosives............duhhhhhh!
Click to expand...
The law is against transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. It isn't against transporting explosives, nor is it against planning a terrorist act while transporting explosives. Those things may ALSO be illegal. Probably are. That's beside the point, however.

It's the one specific conviction alone that's at issue. Your quibble is with the law, not the appeals court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top