Corrente has brought to light an important statement by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in the case against the Algerian immigrant to Canada who was caught on the eve of 2000 by several alert officials at the Canadian/US border, as he tried to cross, heading south with a car loaded with explosives and a plan to blow up LAX. Corrente already has an excellent post on the subject, so I'll simply quote the judge's statement (emphasis mine) as I think it asks the question we should all be asking: If the fundamental tenets of our judicial system were robust enough to survive the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War and the two World Wars, why abandon it now with the Patriot Act and the so-called "War on Terror."
Judge Coughenour had this to say about the implications of the Ressum case: (Link courtesy of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer via Corrente).
"Okay. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.
"I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely.
"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:
"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.
"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.
"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.
"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.
"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.
"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."
3 comments:
Well said.
I think the guy was just trying to make a name for himself and he used the bench to go on a political rant. It wasn't appropriate and it demeans his position, which is supposed to be non-political.
The statement was certainly political. On the other hand, in the face of administration policies that essentially grant the Executive those powers that belong exclusively to the Judiciary, somebody had better say something. We can dismiss the judge's comments as inappropriate, but how about the President and his staff ignoring orders from judges to either charge American citizens being held or let them go? The Executive, by refusing to accept the checks and balances provided by the judicial branch, has taken the gloves off.
Post a Comment