From NBC4, with thanks to Two Stellas.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A judge reduced the sentences of three U.S. Muslims convicted for their roles in a conspiracy that began with paintball games in the woods and evolved into a plan to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops. Two of the three still will serve life sentences.A federal appeals court ordered the new sentencing hearings for Masoud Khan, of Gaithersburg, Md.; Seifullah Chapman, of Alexandria; and Hammad Abdur-Raheem, of Falls Church; following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reduced the role of federal sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory.
Khan had been sentenced last year to life plus 65 years in prison, while Chapman had been sentenced to 85 years.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said at the time she imposed those sentences that they were "draconian" and "sticking in my craw" but that she had no choice because of congressionally mandated minimum sentences for certain firearms convictions...
As a result, Khan's sentence was reduced only to life plus 45 years. Chapman, 32, had his sentence reduced from 85 years to 65 years. There is no parole in the federal system, so both will have to serve the vast majority of their terms.
"I have a limited ability to impose what I consider to be an appropriate sentence," Brinkema said. "These statutes are really draconian. I've said it before and I'll say it again."
The sentence reductions could be useful to Khan and Chapman only if the firearms convictions are overturned on appeal. If that occurs, each would serve only a 10-year sentence, which Brinkema said she considered appropriate...
Some group members turned their attention against the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At a meeting on Sept. 16, 2001, the group's spiritual leader, a Fairfax Islamic scholar named Ali al-Timimi, warned that an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and nonbelievers was at hand and urged the group to engage in holy war. He specifically said fighting for the Taliban against U.S. troops was a legitimate jihad, according to some witnesses who struck plea bargains.
Khan spoke briefly, urging those in the courtroom to fear God.
"Through trial and injustice one comes to know and love his creator," Khan said. "Those who have brought upon this injustice have only hurt themselves."
In all, 10 men were convicted for their roles in the conspiracy, including al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life in prison for soliciting treason and other counts. Two who were charged were acquitted.
Obviously she needs some education. However, is she among those that "have ears but will not hear," or is this judge infected with the virus of multiculturalism or the meme of political correctness. It is sad when to view power wielded with so little real judgment.
Hi Robert S
Have you seen the USA story re CAIR getting some radio jock kicked off the air for speaking the truth about Islam - the whole story on JWR...
http://jewishworldreview.com/0705/graham_booted.php3
"http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Yesterday Michael Graham wrote in his column: "I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a terror organization."
And then his fears came true.
Hours after his column appeared here, Graham, a mid-morning talker at WMAL in Washington, D.C., was suspended without pay pending an investigation."
I have been busy earning taxes to support "my" Muslim Dhimmi taxes, so I have only been skim reading DW & JW - so maybe you have reported it already. It might be something you Americans are interested in..
"I have a limited ability to impose what I consider to be an appropriate sentence," Brinkema said. "These statutes are really draconian. I've said it before and I'll say it again."
This is a clue that this issue is not really about dhimmitude, it's about judges not liking being told what to do. When it comes to gun crime, I'm with Congress: let people own guns subject to sensible controls, but those who abuse that right should be punished severely.
What's the point of this story? One man had his sentence reduced from life plus 65 years to life plus 45 years. The other had his sentence reduced from 85 to 65 years. Since there is no parole in the federal system these criminals will serve life.These sentences send a message to people who would commit treason against the United States.Judges are upset because descretion in sentencing is being taken out of their hands.
The big question is: what sentence would this judge have passed if she had had the discretion ??? From what I have learned about US judges the past few years you can't give them too much discretion because they're simply too lenient. After all it's the people through their representatives who make laws, not the judges.
This story is surely connected to the story below about the Saudi who raped his slave (sorry, domestic servant) in Colorado. In the case of the paint ballers and the Saudi in Aurora, CO, the guilty are Muslims with hatred for Western values who will most likely get off with light sentences, thanks to leninent federal judges. In fact, the judge in Colorado, by his statement, seems to be inviting the Saudi to jump bail and leave the country. I realize that many judges resent mandatory sentences but many citizens resent judges who turn the bad guys loose after a short time to terrorize and/or kill again. Judges should be much more accountable to citizens, and certainly, in my view, no one should be a judge for life. Too many innocent people die because of the judge-for-life system.
Viking5:
>>This is a clue that this issue is not
>>really about dhimmitude, it's about
>>judges not liking being told what to do.
You are correct. Somebody should tell this judge that it isn't her job to make policy. If she doesn't like the guidelines, she should step down from the bench and either run for office or become a lobbyist.
Unlike the US, in Australia Judges are appointed by polititians not the people.Just because they have gone to law school dosn't make them gods and I am tired of "discretion" because we know that they give crims light sentences just type 'Critical Legal Studies' in your browser and find out what is being taught at Law Schools.Also maryrose is right while judges have jobs for life and not being held accountable for thier rulings they don't give a damn.Mandatory sentencing is the only way to go and don't forget the slimy defense lawyers that lie and decieve the Jury so they can get thier client off to the extent of blaming the victim .I have always wondered why such high ranking PUBLIC SERVENTS never serve the public just thier own agendas but then again why do we let it happen?
If judges had no discretion in sentencing, why have a judge at all? Just enter all the "facts of evidence', into a computer and let the machine decide. The same with a jury...if jurists must follow the judges directions and decide a case on facts only, why have a jury at all? A computer will do. In the US there is this bothersome concept...jury nullification...Did you know, you can ignore the judges directions and cast your vote according to your conscience. You may, without penalty, vote to aquit an obviously guilty defendant, if you dont like the law he is charged with, or you dont like the way it was applied in this case. In the US, jury nullification is a check against gov abuses. If they cant get a conviction because jurists continually refuse to support certain laws or how they are applied, the authorites will abandon that law or change it. It is your right to vote your conscience, but judges and lawyers dont want you to know about it. Jury nullification takes the power of the court and gives it to the people (jurists). While it is your right to know this, there is no law that says judges must inform you, so most of them dont. If they find out that you know your rights as a juror, you will not be selected for jury duty. Nullification has been described as a chance for anarchy in the courtroom...The people (jurists), asserting their lawful will in court, is so threatening to the power that they call it anarchy. This is why judges should be elected to terms and not forever. If a judge continually uses poor judgement in sentencing, or legislates from the bench, that judge should be removed...
In the case cited, since the reduced sentences still amount to life in prison, her actions appear to be more of a protest, or attention getting mechanism. Niether of these have a place in the US legal system...Going easy on terrorists is a good reason to fire any judge...
Thanks duh_swami I will check to see if that is in our legal system although I would be surprised if it is.Judges need guide lines because they DO create laws by using precedence and I know because the filthy,slimy defense lawyers tried in my daughters case even though the precedence wasn't relevent.The contempt shown by Judges here is a worry and I know from asking our Crown Prosecutor that Judges really want to rid the system of Juries also.Strange how we can be charged with contempt of the court yet Judges can't be charged with contempt of the public!As I said law school doesnt make you a GOD,too much time ,too much power and no accountability = arrogance.
It was Chief Justice Marshall, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which said that juries have the right and responsibility to rule on law as well as facts (jury nullification) and for good reason, because the new country had experience with Kings Law, and the irrational and harsh laws. Some laws just don't make sense, others are there to protect the power and privilege of the ruling elite.
Until rather lately jury nullification was rather unknown, it isn't taught in Law Schools and if a Juror even hints that he knows about it, he will not be seated.
Jury nullification is like everything man touches, a double edge sword, it can cut both ways, both for and against.
There are a lot of laws in this country which are outdated, irrational or on the books because of the needs and clout of this or that powerful person or group.
A cop in Podunk could arrest you for spitting on a sidewalk or dropping used gum on the grass, and a jury could (and should) nullify that law.
This judge's name ...Brinkema... wasn't she the same person who tried to get the jihadist "20th hijacker" determined as "incompetent to represent himself", and denied his original plea of guilty for a year?
Whose side is she on?
The law may be blind, but the judges needn't be.
Until rather lately jury nullification was rather unknown, it isn't taught in Law Schools and if a Juror even hints that he knows about it, he will not be seated.
It was not unknown in the old South, where juries regularly used nullification to acquit whites who murdered blacks. You are very right about it being a double-edged sword, because it was also used to acquit people who violated the fugitive slave laws by helping escaped slaves.
Pardon me in advance for being so long winded, but jury nullification is something about which I care deeply:
Oh, there was some jury nullification going on in the ['juice' case, the Blake case; those are just some modern cases - even the billionaire who admitted to murdering his friend was found not guilty - and he said he did it] so some BAD nullification has been going on, but for the most part, nullification is a wonderful thing. It puts the power back into the hands of the people; the jurors send a message when they nullify, saying, "HOW you went about this case was wrong." You know the old saying, "Better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be sent to jail" [paraphrased].
Then again, some jurors do it, nullification, for the wrong reason "we'll convict and let some other jury or appeals court over-turn on appeal." I've sat on too many juries to see how they work, but mostly, how they think - they recall things for consideration which are not in evidence, not fact, old t.v. shows, ["you remember what they did in that one episode?"]. All illegal.
Then you have the judges who quit being a judge because the conscience can't take it anymore [such is the case of the single mom who was sentenced to 20 years for her BOYFRIEND and his friends using drugs] - she knew nothing about it -nothing about them - didn't even know their names - he did not even live with her - but she answered 1 phone call at her home, of a friend asking for her boyfriend and she relayed the message, "so and so called for you." - well, so and so got thrown in jail along with the rest and the mother was convicted because she received the proceeds of illegal activity [occasionally he'd pay her electric bill]...she knew the least and got sentenced to the most - the prosecutor, in that case said, when I am through with you, you'll wish you did know all these people [the other defendants]. She served 7 years and was pardoned when a President usually does his pardoning, in January - not mentioning the President, because it's not about him. it's about the judge who say, oh my god, I have to give this woman 20 years and she didn't do drugs, buy them, know these people - nada.