American Traitor convicted.. gets slap on wrist

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes she's allowed to appeal all she wants and she's allowed to run free while the appeals process takes place. She'll likely never see the inside of a prison cell.

ridiculous

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes she's allowed to appeal all she wants and she's allowed to run free while the appeals process takes place. She'll likely never see the inside of a prison cell.

I was talking about the government appealing because it wasn't harsh enough for thier liking.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I was talking about the government appealing because it wasn't harsh enough for thier liking.

No, the government can't appeal a case where they were the prosecutor. You can't be tried for the same crime twice. Whatever you get you get. You can generally appeal your decision if you wish. But the government or state can't come after you for a new verdict once a judge rules.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes she's allowed to appeal all she wants and she's allowed to run free while the appeals process takes place. She'll likely never see the inside of a prison cell.

that is where I think the judge can be found at fault. How many people are convicted of a crime, sentenced to jail and then allowed to be free

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is where I think the judge can be found at fault. How many people are convicted of a crime, sentenced to jail and then allowed to be free

Ted Kennedy..

In all seriousness... people who worked with her on this got over 20 years. Her sentence is a disgrace to the justice system.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, the government can't appeal a case where they were the prosecutor.

2-4.110 Criminal Cases -- Appeal by Government

Criminal appeals by the government under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 must be taken within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from. See F.R.A.P. 4(b). If the government seeks reconsideration of the adverse ruling within the 30-day period after the entry of the judgment or order, the 30-day period for filing the notice of appeals runs from the date of the entry of the order denying reconsideration. See United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (1976).

2-4.112 Criminal Cases -- Appeal by Defendant

Appeals by a convicted defendant must be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment appealed from, unless a timely motion for new trial has been made -- in which case an appeal may be taken within 10 days after entry of an order denying the motion. This time may be extended up to 30 days on a showing of excusable neglect. See F.R.A.P. 4(b).

2-4.113 Criminal Cases -- Rehearing In Court of Appeals

Time to petition for rehearing in courts of appeals is 14 days. If it is desired to seek a rehearing en banc, a 30-day extension beyond the 14-day period should be requested in order for the request to be considered in the Department and for the Solicitor General to authorize the seeking of a rehearing en banc. See F.R.A.P. 26(b); 35; 40(a).

USAM 2-4.000

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In all seriousness... people who worked with her on this got over 20 years. Her sentence is a disgrace to the justice system.

that is what smacks of a gross violation by the judge

[6SpeedTA95]

Any chance the prosecution will appeal that sentence?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Any chance the prosecution will appeal that sentence?

It seems they are considering it for both of the people.

I think she is facing other charges though so they may focus on them.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

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

honestly, it can be hard to tell because so many posts in political forums are purposely loaded to say the former while implying the latter.

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

How can we complain about violence if we're the ones doing the majority of the invading? The middle east (yes, even those countries who purport to be allies) sees us as the 'great satan,' partly because of their propagandists using what is important to their citizens (islam) to justify war, and mostly because we won't let them alone. They aren't the ones sending huge organized armies, navies and specops forces to our shores, covertly and overtly, to destabilize our civilization so they can set up one like their own. By and large, we are the ones doing the bullying. Why is that? Gee, I don't know, maybe because we have a voracious appetite for petroleum? ..and the republicans' wealthiest supporters are members of OPEC? If it's truely the 'moral' fight the republicans are making it out to be, then why aren't we also in africa, in south america, in korea? I don't mean just a base or two, but there en-force, like we are in Iraq. The answer is simple: it doesn't benefit us economically. That is what she was referring to most likely.

Was she right in aiding this sheik? No. Why? because all she did was enable the violence for yet another round, and that is just as offensive as any other attack in the name of some random philosophy, religion, or political rhetoric. Does her argument defend her actions? No. Was her argument used in court correct on its own merit? Probably. I'm tired of hearing how america is supposed to be this holy beacon of freedom that can do no wrong when our gov't plays the same dirty political, economic, and military games the islamic militants do, at the expense of the philosophies that our vaunted morality is supposedly based on.. It just has bigger guns so it doesn't need to resort to guerilla warfare. When we ask it to be more accountable, more transparent, we are told to sit down, shut up, and tow the line 'for national security.' We are told to hand over civil liberties, due process, and privacy 'for national security.' We are told to inform on our fellow citizens for 'national security.' ..all of this while we try to fight 'islamofacists' and 'evildoers.' Yuck. I see no morality in any of this. From anyone.

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

1. True, but it seemed you were ignoring the external causes that led up to it.

2. Yes he is...or should be, or maybe we should ALL be since he is supposed to be our elected representative. If we're going to put her on trial for her acts, saddam on trial for his, and, if we ever catch him, osama for his, then we should put ourselves on trial for the same misdeeds we have committed over there..us, the soviets, and who knows who else are just as guilty...and you wonder why islamic countries hate the west so much? Why did we hate the british? The spanish? What did the american indians think of us after we conquered them for their land? it's the same old story really.

3. It's a technicality when we're really talking about her intentions, not whether she's 'guilty'. The court decided that already.. You're just pissed because you don't think the sentence was strong enough.

4. ..and we didn't have the same views towards communists? towards non-christians? towards blacks..towards the spanish? towards the british? pick a timeline..

Originally Posted by JaJae

If you say so

If you're incapable of seeing that your eye-for-eye justice towards 'terrorists' stoops you to their level, I'm not sure what else to say. Because we are the stronger, our rabid response just helps justify their acts..if not to themselves, then to the world. It was also the reason I worded my post the way I did.

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

If two wrongs don't make a right, then why are we still messing around in the middle east, upping the ante? Lets take the moral highground and leave them to their own devices (see up top). Those countries cultures have made it clear they dont' want us there. They don't like our style of government, our culture, or our 'values.' We never listen to them. Our culture keeps thinking they want 'freedom' because it seems we can't or don't want to see outside our own ideals..or maybe it's because we're being fed the same kinds of propaganda as the middle east, except that it's cloaked in 'patriotism' and 'freedom' instead.

Maybe he wasn't fighting for HER necessarily.. maybe he was fighting for the justifications I made above. Was that political? Definitely. Was it wrong? meh. I think it was tactically stupid. He could've chosen a better candidate to build a launchpad from. The fact that she's a whackjob doesn't help his cause at all. It was a dumb move on his part.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

1. True, but it seemed you were ignoring the external causes that led up to it.

I can sum up your entire post with this one line.

Regarding this traitor, I don't care why people attacked us on 9/11. I don't care about Bush. I don't care about the GOP. I don't care about Democrats. I don't care communism, Christians, non-Christians, blacks, OPEC, Africa, Iraq, British, Spanish, American Indians, armies, navies, special ops, the economy... all the things you listed in your post. I don't care about any of them here. In regards to this woman, I just simply don't care. And I have no intentions of bringing any of it into this conversation.

All I care about is her crimes and what she was found guilty of coupled with the fact that her punishment is so light. That's it. All the extra non-related details that don't matter I could care less about. The fact is simply that she was found guilty for very serious crimes that resulted in the deaths of over 100 people. She has no remorse and no sympathy for her actions. She belongs behind bars. And she deserves no long winded justifications for her actions.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I can sum up your entire post with this one line.

Regarding this traitor, I don't care why people attacked us on 9/11. I don't care about Bush. I don't care about the GOP. I don't care about Democrats. I don't care communism, Christians, non-Christians, blacks, OPEC, Africa, Iraq, British, Spanish, American Indians, armies, navies, special ops, the economy... all the things you listed in your post. I don't care about any of them here. In regards to this woman, I just simply don't care. And I have no intentions of bringing any of it into this conversation.

All I care about is her crimes and what she was found guilty of coupled with the fact that her punishment is so light. That's it. All the extra non-related details that don't matter I could care less about. The fact is simply that she was found guilty for very serious crimes that resulted in the deaths of over 100 people. She has no remorse and no sympathy for her actions. She belongs behind bars. And she deserves no long winded justifications for her actions.

If you're just going to focus on the one issue without regard for other causality, then I can sum your post up with one line as well: your argument for violence is no better than hers.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

If you're just going to focus on the one issue without regard for other causality, then I can sum your post up with one line as well: your argument for violence is no better than hers.

I don't care why she committed her crimes. That's like saying a child molester committed his crimes cause he was abused as a kid. Means absolutely nothing to me. Sucks for him. But he committed a crime, was convicted and deserves to be behind bars for it.

We can sit back here and find "causality" for any criminal. It doesn't excuse them and certainly shouldn't give them a get out of jail free pass after they've been convicted for a crime. Even if that jackass is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Ya know what, he goes to jail anyway. I just simply don't care. Criminals responsible for the deaths of over 100 people or molesting children do not belong on the streets for medical reasons. That's ridiculous. I don't care about her well being and I don't care about her safety. She didn't care and still doesn't care about the victims of her crimes.

If you're going to compare my view with hers... she was found guilty of a crime that resulted in the deaths of over one hundred INNOCENT people. She is not innocent. It doesn't matter what "causality" you can come up with. She is guilty and directly responsible for the loss of over one hundred lives. She admits she knew what she was doing and she did it anyway. She deserves punishment for that. Whether it be a suitable jail term or capital punishment.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't care why she committed her crimes. That's like saying a child molester committed his crimes cause he was abused as a kid. Means absolutely nothing to me. Sucks for him. But he committed a crime, was convicted and deserves to be behind bars for it.

This is the kind of thinking that keeps crime on the streets...and international tensions high. People want vengeance for some act, but don't want to solve the systemic problems that lead up to it. It's too easy to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Originally Posted by JaJae

We can sit back here and find "causality" for any criminal. It doesn't excuse them and certainly shouldn't give them a get out of jail free pass after they've been convicted for a crime.

well should the british have hung our 'freedom fighters' during the revolutionary war? I agree on the get out of jail free concept though.. as long as the result will be a reformed citizen, not someone who will just go back to the old behavior again (or worse) after the term expires. Like it or not, that's what prison does to most people.

*edited for oops

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

This is the kind of thinking that keeps crime on the streets...and international tensions high. People want vengeance for some act, but don't want to solve the systemic problems that lead up to it. It's too easy to be judge, jury, and executioner.

No, this is the kind of thinking that keeps criminals off the streets. See I want the criminals behind bars. You want the criminals on the streets. Hence you're of the thinking that keeps crime on the streets. I want them removed.

How can we solve racism? How through this case and letting her go free can we solve Islamo-fascism? How in the world am I being the judge, jury and executioner here? She had her judge and her jury. I'm just pissed off that her punishment was a disgrace to our judicial system. The difference here is you're talking about the judge, jury and executioner (justice). Well guess what, criminals need these things. That's why we have judges and juries and criminal punishments. You seem to think any warped individual responsible for the deaths of all these people should walk free because ... well why????? I have no idea. She essentially admits to her crimes. Has no remorse. Why are you willing to throw out the judge, jury and executioner?

well should the british have hung our 'freedom fighters' during the revolutionary war?

Are you calling this woman a freedom fighter?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't care why she committed her crimes. That's like saying a child molester committed his crimes cause he was abused as a kid. Means absolutely nothing to me. Sucks for him. But he committed a crime, was convicted and deserves to be behind bars for it.

Discarding information and not taking into account certain factors creates injustice. There is no reasonable arguemtn in favour of doing this.

That said factors can be weighted badly.

Originally Posted by JaJae

We can sit back here and find "causality" for any criminal. It doesn't excuse them and certainly shouldn't give them a get out of jail free pass after they've been convicted for a crime.

I don't think that anything should give people a "free pass" but things do influence people, and sentancing is hardly ever done purely on outcome.

Originally Posted by JaJae

She is guilty and directly responsible for the loss of over one hundred lives. She admits she knew what she was doing and she did it anyway. She deserves punishment for that. Whether it be a suitable jail term or capital punishment.

Actually the militants are directly responsible. She is indirectly responsible along with a number of other people.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Discarding information and not taking into account certain factors creates injustice. There is no reasonable arguemtn in favour of doing this.

That said factors can be weighted badly.

Mitigating factors are taken into account during her trial. Are you saying that because you disagree with our nation's foreign policy this woman's actions are somehow mitigated in any way, shape or form?

I don't think that anything should give people a "free pass" but things do influence people, and sentancing is hardly ever done purely on outcome.

Sure it is.

Actually the militants are directly responsible. She is indirectly responsible along with a number of other people.

No, she purposely delivered messages that she knew would result in the loss of life. And after it did, she continued to release more messages. And she goes on to say agrees with it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

This is the kind of thinking that keeps crime on the streets...