American Traitor convicted.. gets slap on wrist

[imind]

yes it was intentional, she said she wanted to "establish her client in egyptian politics"

is that code for 'kill people'?


i've been looking for other sources for this, including several columns on findlaw.com, and while none of them paint a very rosy picture of her, none of them speak of any treasonous offenses.

apparently, her 'message delivering' was actually allowing her client to speak of things unrelated to the case with an interpreter who was supposedly an underling of the accused she was defending.

again, i see nothing specifically treasonous, nor anything that would evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that her acts were carried out with the intent for people to die.

i don't know yet that i agree with the 'slap on the wrist', but to call for her death? not with the limited information i have been presented.

[phreak]

Originally Posted by Kytro

In any case I wouldn't support the death penalty (I oppose in virtually all cases) as it isn't really a penalty at all.

you can't be serious.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by phreak

you can't be serious.

About opposing the death penalty?

Or that I don't see it as a penalty?

Dead people don't care, hence it isn't reallt penalising them.

I oppose the death penalty as I'd prefer that some good be gained if possible. There a number of ways to achieve this, depending on the circumstance.

If nothing else those who cannot be reformed could be used for experimental trials (of course attempting to avoid unrequired suffering).

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by imind

is that code for 'kill people'?


i've been looking for other sources for this, including several columns on findlaw.com, and while none of them paint a very rosy picture of her, none of them speak of any treasonous offenses.

apparently, her 'message delivering' was actually allowing her client to speak of things unrelated to the case with an interpreter who was supposedly an underling of the accused she was defending.

again, i see nothing specifically treasonous, nor anything that would evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that her acts were carried out with the intent for people to die.

i don't know yet that i agree with the 'slap on the wrist', but to call for her death? not with the limited information i have been presented.

Her most "potentially lethal" action, Judge Koeltl said, was in June 2000, when she read a press release to a reporter indicating that the sheik was withdrawing his support for a "cease-fire" or cessation of attacks against the Egyptian government.

The New York Law Journal - Lynne Stewart Gets 26-Month Sentence

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

About opposing the death penalty?

Or that I don't see it as a penalty?

Dead people don't care, hence it isn't reallt penalising them.

I oppose the death penalty as I'd prefer that some good be gained if possible. There a number of ways to achieve this, depending on the circumstance.

If nothing else those who cannot be reformed could be used for experimental trials (of course attempting to avoid unrequired suffering).

Those sentenced for life in prison cant really gain anything either.

[imind]

Her most "potentially lethal" action, Judge Koeltl said, was in June 2000, when she read a press release to a reporter indicating that the sheik was withdrawing his support for a "cease-fire" or cessation of attacks against the Egyptian government.

the operative word being 'potentially'.

[DosEquis]

Traitors to the country, those who aid the enemy against us, should have their citizenship stripped away and jailed. Once their prison sentence is over, if ever, they should be deported.

[R-Type]

wow..so many posts in here sound exactly like the 'terrorists' they purport to hate so much.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm tired of hearing the argument for rapists, murderers, traitors, etc that "they have cancer, don't put them in jail." Don't be a criminal and you won't have to worry about it. It doesn't fly with me, no sympathy for them here. The only people I have sympathy for are the familes of the people dead because of her.

This woman is a terrorist. She supports terroristism and has made a career out of defending them. She aided them in killing over 100 people in Egypt. She deserves to die for her crimes. George Soros is a peice of shit for spending millions defending her.

Yes, DEATH TO THE UNBELIEVERS AND NONCONFORMISTS WHO DARE QUESTION AUTHORITY!! THEY HATE AMERICA!! THE RULE OF OUR LAW IS ALL!! ...oh wait.. that sounds familiar. Your radical ranting makes you sound just like them. Dont worry, though, when no one is left and they come for you, you can go quietly in the knowledge that you tried your best to be a True American Patriot.

1. 9/11 WAS part of a protracted struggle. If you don't see that, go study modern history.
2. If george bush can lock up american citizens and supposed terrorists indefinitely without trial and torture them, then why is not ok for mao, stalin or the taliban to do the same with their citizens and enemy combatants?
3. She 'fooled' prison guards? who cares?? seems like there's a lot of ambiguity in this case.. and I'm not sure I'd trust the media on its coverage. It's a bit like a black man getting a truely fair trial for 'crimes' in an all white court circa 1860..
4. 'voracious' capitalism can be just as detrimental to free society as voracious communism...or any other form of extremist philosophy.

In short, despite any other faults she may have, those ARE valid points.

Originally Posted by JaJae

No it's not illegal, but it makes you a complete peice of shit. It's one thing for the ACLU to defend someone who can't get proper legal defense. It's another if you're a big time businessman with huge political standing to defend her. Soros defended her because she was radically left.. just like him.

yes and right wingers never ever EVER defend their own like that, nevermind whether her arguments have any merit or not.. get real.. Whatever happened to the right of private organizations to fund who they wish? Or does that go out the window when it's a 'leftist' organization?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well you have to remember, only Republicans and Christians are expected to have personal accountability and morals. Everyone else is a lost cause, so we can't expect anything of any worth from them.

Well, hey your holier-than-thou christian republicans are the ones running their election campaigns and restricting freedoms based on their supposedly pure, objective moral standings.. then they turn out being the biggest hypocrites of them all. Oops.. am I a terrorist for saying that? Should my words be rated EC-10:Condemned for being 'unamerican'? Should I go report myself to the Homeland Security office for Unamerican Activities?

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

She is a 60's child who enjoys civil disruption. A hippy who never grew up and may be quite dangerous if she helps those who would attacks us if they can worm their way out of prison!

Yes... DEATH to the rebels who HATE AMERICA!!! MARCH TO THE DRUM OF CAPITALIST FREEDOM™ AS DEFINED BY YOUR RIGHTWING OVERLORDS OR DIE!! THE FAT GRAYING OLD UGLY BIDDIES ARE THE MOST DANGROUS OF ALL!!!1

So tell me, when will the New American™ (wo)man look like the New Soviet (wo)man and we finally see the utopia that will ensue once we silence all opposing opinion?

---

Yay, lets all join the extremist party and kill each other in the name of arbitrary philosophies!! What the hell, people.. what's with all the emotionalism? Seriously, if she truely committed a treasonous crime, she should be punished appropriately, but the reverse-extremism in this thread forces me to defend her (yuck) out of spite for it. Beware that you do not become what you all hate so.

[kinggovernor]

I would support a censuring or removal of this judge

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Those sentenced for life in prison cant really gain anything either.

I was talking about gain for society. Killing people is primarily motivated by the idea or revenge making sure someone gets "what they deserve".

While I understand why people support this, I can't condone the behaviour on the basis that it makes people feel better.

There may be, in some circumstances some reasonable arguments in favour of execution, but I would be surprised if the primary motivation isn't something listed above.

[imind]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I would support a censuring or removal of this judge

why?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Traitors to the country, those who aid the enemy against us, should have their citizenship stripped away and jailed. Once their prison sentence is over, if ever, they should be deported.

Deported to where?

Also is that constitutional? (Don't know, just asking)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by imind

why?

for totally throwing out sentencing guidelines

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

for totally throwing out sentencing guidelines

Guidelines are not binding, and the judge did give a reason for departing from the guidelines.

Obviously you will not agree with those reasons. Censure is a political thing and hence the judge could be censured because politicans didn't like the outcome regardless of the basis in law.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Guidelines are not binding, and the judge did give a reason for departing from the guidelines.

terrorist organizations will commonly build schools/hospitals, does that make terror leaders good guys? Of course not.

Obviously you will not agree with those reasons. Censure is a political thing and hence the judge could be censured because politicans didn't like the outcome regardless of the basis in law.

sure they can, and they could try to impeach if they wanted to.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

terrorist organizations will commonly build schools/hospitals, does that make terror leaders good guys? Of course not.

I'm not saying that it does. In fact I would expect those building schools etc are probably not the same people commiting terrorist acts in most cases even if they are in the same group.

What I think the judge was saying is that doing her previous behaviour indicated that in the past she had done a number of good things and this was taken into account when deciding punishment. This is typical in so far as people with histories of crime tend to get treated more harshly

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

sure they can, and they could try to impeach if they wanted to.

That would be somewhat harder than censure, I very much doubt it will happen in this case.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

wow..so many posts in here sound exactly like the 'terrorists' they purport to hate so much.

Really? Which ones are those? The ones who place blame on the individuals for their actions and not an entire society and culture?

Yes, DEATH TO THE UNBELIEVERS AND NONCONFORMISTS WHO DARE QUESTION AUTHORITY!! THEY HATE AMERICA!! THE RULE OF OUR LAW IS ALL!! ...oh wait.. that sounds familiar. Your radical ranting makes you sound just like them. Dont worry, though, when no one is left and they come for you, you can go quietly in the knowledge that you tried your best to be a True American Patriot.

Radical huh? I guess it is radical to say someone reasonable for the deaths of over a hundred people should be behind bars. Who knew? This went on for months. She knew her messages were getting people killed and she defended it in court by stating:
“I don’t believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.”
and
“To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don’t think that can come nonviolently.”
She basically admitted she knew of the violence and she agreed with it. She played her part in making sure it happened.

1. 9/11 WAS part of a protracted struggle. If you don't see that, go study modern history.
2. If george bush can lock up american citizens and supposed terrorists indefinitely without trial and torture them, then why is not ok for mao, stalin or the taliban to do the same with their citizens and enemy combatants?
3. She 'fooled' prison guards? who cares?? seems like there's a lot of ambiguity in this case.. and I'm not sure I'd trust the media on its coverage. It's a bit like a black man getting a truely fair trial for 'crimes' in an all white court circa 1860..
4. 'voracious' capitalism can be just as detrimental to free society as voracious communism...or any other form of extremist philosophy.

1. 9/11 was conducted by radical Islamics with a perverted sense of their religion and murdered thousands of Americans in cold blood.
2. George Bush is not on trial here
3. Who cares whether or not you care? She admitted she was acting and was caught on tape saying so. If that's not an admission of guilt...
4. Yes, and you left out the part where she feels the only reasonable response is to murder as many capitalists as you can.

In short, despite any other faults she may have, those ARE valid points.

If you say so

yes and right wingers never ever EVER defend their own like that, nevermind whether her arguments have any merit or not.. get real.. Whatever happened to the right of private organizations to fund who they wish? Or does that go out the window when it's a 'leftist' organization?

Two wrongs don't make a right. This isn't an issue of Left vs Right. I don't understand why you are making it out to be such. This woman is an admitted wackjob and the fact that Soros publicly supported her makes him a first rate jackass. When someone you are paying to support makes the above claims at her trial and you're the face of multi-billion dollar political organizations it would seem to make sense to cut funding or receive criticism.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not saying that it does. In fact I would expect those building schools etc are probably not the same people commiting terrorist acts in most cases even if they are in the same group.

What I think the judge was saying is that doing her previous behaviour indicated that in the past she had done a number of good things and this was taken into account when deciding punishment. This is typical in so far as people with histories of crime tend to get treated more harshly

if you commit a crime where hundreds of people die because of what you did, I don't really care what else you did in your life. Your life is over and you will be in jail until you die.

That would be somewhat harder than censure, I very much doubt it will happen in this case.

I am hoping the 2nd circuit corrects this unbelievable ruling