You're not going to believe this. How in the world did THIS not get on TV!?



The press did not report much on this trial. They are focusing on Michael Jackson and Amnesty International.
***************************************
Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?
Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?
Didn't think so!


Everyone should hear what the judge had to say. Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below: January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6, the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed.

The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.

The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.

To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big deal." You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with, and what I, as honestly as I know how, have tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing.

And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know. It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom.

Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.


The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.


See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will. Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down."

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets?

We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say.
***************************************

We salute you Judge Young! :usa:

Well Said. I agree with what he said entirely.

http://forums.ancientclan.com/images/icons/elite/clapping.gif http://forums.ancientclan.com/images/icons/elite/clapping.gif That was a Job well done by the judge. He will is now serving 110 years.X'D And the Judge taght him a lesson on Patriotism.http://forums.ancientclan.com/images/icons/elite/clapping.gif

heres the link too:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/

go judge young!

Nice :)

Looks good to me.

Kind of a contrast .... Judge Young gives a penalty of 110 years to this guy, who'll trun old n older n wither n whatver *is losing it today hehehe*

i knew he was caught, but wasnt this a year ago-ish? and hes just now getting tried?

$298.17 to Andre Bousquet

who is that?

I guess I'm the only one who feels it wasn't the judge's place to lecture the defendant--his job is to sentence criminals, not preach personal feelings at them. Keep the propaganda where it belongs.

I think the should be flown back into the air and thrown out of an airplane without a parachute. I hope big bubba rips him 3 new ones as he rots.

I guess I'm the only one who feels it wasn't the judge's place to lecture the defendant--his job is to sentence criminals, not preach personal feelings at them. Keep the propaganda where it belongs.

Agreed.

I thought Judge Young's outlook on the principles of our judicial system and freedom were inspiring. Considering how few people actually have these principles nowadays, I say let them rise where they want, despite who's responsibility it my be to state these facts. Who is any better qualified to inspiringly educate a criminal on the principles of freedom than a decision-maker who helps defend it?

Courtroom judges are unbiased individuals put in their place to interpret the law and see that justice is done. As Judge Young stated, the people are watching to see it done. With that in mind, they must account for every decision they make and must be able to justify why they made it the way they did. It's a job of VERY high integrity and honesty. Offering the defendant his own interpretation of freedom and law enforcement to me seems to be a perfectly legit way to justify himself to the criminal. Joe and Judith Sheindlin, Ed Koch, Joe Brown, Glenda Hachett; all were very preachy in their own courtrooms and stand for no nonsense like what the defendant tried to bring up about war. Judges are very preachy and while it is not their responsibility to be that way, they are highly encouraged to be that way.

i found no insipration in this at all...i think this judge is a godamn blowhard and basically just puts out every REASON that makes the world already think that american is completely and utterly arrogant and full of themselves this is my opinion as a HUMAN BEING not a godamn "american"

I've read alot of those types of speeches made by different people, and I have to say they're not impressive at all. What this guy said wasn't original or deep, its just more propaganda, as Saiel said. (I'm not American, by the way. Just in case you were wondering.)

I just thought the punishments were amusing. *shrugs*

If I was the judge, i would have said "you're a peice of shit, and I hope you die"

its what the guy deserves, if he didnt wanna be bored out of his mind with a speech then he shouldnt have put a bomb in his shoe.

if he didnt wanna be bored out of his mind with a speech then he shouldnt have put a bomb in his shoe.

indeed


and judges are allowed to make a final statement in an effort to enforce their sentance, so he had full right to say whatever he wanted

I've read alot of those types of speeches made by different people, and I have to say they're not impressive at all. What this guy said wasn't original or deep, its just more propaganda, as Saiel said. (I'm not American, by the way. Just in case you were wondering.)

Pretty agreed....I mean....Ignoring what may be thought of what he actually said, and focusing on his motive for this speech: sure he may be allowed to say what he said, but...i don't think there was any point nor real gain from him saying that other than getting a personal weight off his chest or a PR "stunt."

I don't think it really matters. To me, Judge Young's ideals, though utopian, were a great highlight of what many of us believe in America and what should've been said to this guy and his ideals. Judge Young is very patriotic and you can't blame a man for loyalty to his country.

Respectfully, Akira, as you say you're not an American, does this mean that voicing patriotism to your own country, or anything else, is nothing more than propaganda? If not, please explain why Judge Young's opinion is nothing more than propaganda where anyone else's opinion would not be. I don't understand what makes it "propaganda."

You know what? I've got a better question! What is "propaganda" and what is wrong with it? Let's take a look at the dictionary definition of it.

Propaganda: noun; "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect" reference Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Ideas, facts, or allegations spread to further one cause or damage another? That's a very cut and dry definition. There were only two causes involved in Judge Young's statement: the free American way of life AND terrorism. Are you agreeing that it was wrong of Judge Young to offer his opinions in his own court to further the concept of freedom and patriotism for his country or to verbally unjustify terrorism? It seems perfectly appropriate to me. Who in their right mind would not support freedom and smite terrorism, especially while staring a terrorist in the eye? Given the right words, I would've done the same.

Well, if you're going to open up the dictionary, then let's have a look at the word Warrior, which the judge stated the defendant wasn't.

One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
Look at the second one especially. This perfectly describes what this guy is doing, like it or not: engaged aggressively in an activity, cause, or conflict.
See also the definitions of soldier:
One who serves in an army.
An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization
The third one describes they guy.

And not an enemy combatant? Sure he is. He's fighting for the enemy. So, we've established that technically, going by the dictionary (which, don't forget, you brought into this), the defendant is in fact every single thing that the judge stated he wasn't. Now let's look at the word terrorist.
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

While what the media/government declare "terrorist" acts may often be for the purpose of spreading terror, whose to say the everything done by "terrorists" is for that purpose? So the word is pretty vague.

Now, as for when you asked if voicing patriotism to my country (Canada, for the record), would be propaganda? Sure, if voiced in those same conditions. See what Eppy said to get the jist of how I feel. Also, one more thing: I can't help but notice how every time someone like this gets busted, people ALWAYS give out the type of response DX did her, which is the typical "He should die/be castrated/be shot/be killed in some clever, ironic way that relates to his crime/e.t.c". Those kind of knee-jerk responses really don't make you look any more loyal/intelligent.

It is propaganda. That judge's words were not meant for the defendant: America understands by now that these peoples' ideals will not be changed in any way by threats or reprimands. The audience for that speech was the surrounding courtroom--a room full of people who've been hearing the same spiel for the past three years, every time Bush or any of his subordinates open their mouths. This is an audience who doesn't need to hear another copy-cat speech, doesn't need a reassurance of 'hope'. We get it. Therefore, the judge was speaking to further himself, make himself look good: his 'cause' was his own stature.

Second of all, though judges do have the right and option to address those sentenced before they're taken away, he was in the wrong to do so in this fashion. He himself said the defendant was being treated as an individual criminal--then his address should have been to an individual criminal, not to a terrorist organization. He could have stated how disgusting and awful it was of him to attempt to kill so many innocent people, etc. The huge terrorist spiel was unnecessary propaganda.

And by the way...if America was as worried about proper use of terms as you are, Tanoro, this whole 'Terror' thing would be dropped immediately. 'War on Terror', 'Terror in America', etc. But that's another subject for another time.

I can't help but notice how every time someone like this gets busted, people ALWAYS give out the type of response DX did her, which is the typical "He should die/be castrated/be shot/be killed in some clever, ironic way that relates to his crime/e.t.c". Those kind of knee-jerk responses really don't make you look any more loyal/intelligent.

But unlike some people... I really mean it. Just be happy I am not the ruler of this world. :p things would be much different. There are some things I have very radical veiws on... things that would really offend people if I where to talk about them X'D. so I dont. I don't say it just to look "loyal" I say it because I would honestly have him thrown out a plane without a parachute if it was up to me.

You're an exception, then.

Yes I know. I dislike the whole saying things to sound cool. Don't say it if unless you really mean it. One of the best policies to have in life.

I guess I'm the only one who feels it wasn't the judge's place to lecture the defendant--his job is to sentence criminals, not preach personal feelings at them. HA!! Personal feelings? Far from it he was voicing the ideals of our country. Some people as i can see may not agree with was was said and may even call it propaganda but it was voicing our countries beleifs.

The building blocks of our nation was built upon what the Judge said. If we all went around saying patriotic speakings were propagandy we might as well have never been a nation. If you dont beleive in the American basic principles then why be here? (excludes akira.)

HA!! Personal feelings? Far from it he was voicing the ideals of our country. Some people as i can see may not agree with was was said and may even call it propaganda but it was voicing our countries beleifs.

The building blocks of our nation was built upon what the Judge said. If we all went around saying patriotic speakings were propagandy we might as well have never been a nation. If you dont beleive in the American basic principles then why be here? (excludes akira.)

Countries cannot have ideals. Only individual people can. So those were indeed personal feelings.

Also, nice blanket statement. I highly doubt each and every person in your country feels that way, and what you seem to be saying is that anyone who deviates idealogically doesn't belong in the country. That's ignorant and rather close-minded.

Countries cannot have ideals. Only individual people can. So those were indeed personal feelings.

Also, nice blanket statement. I highly doubt each and every person in your country feels that way, and what you seem to be saying is that anyone who deviates idealogically doesn't belong in the country. That's ignorant and rather close-minded.:banghead: Read it again and use a little more sense. I didnt mean the country itself. Nor Every Citizen. Those were the ideals which built the country. I also said if you dont beleive in the American principles and beleive its propaganda and crap. Why the hell stay? Makes perfect sense not to live somewhere you dont agree with does it not?

Heres and Example and dont anyone flip it into a religious debate. If you do not beleive nor agree in christianity would you go to a christian church evert sunday?

You keep referring to "the principles". Whose to say exactly what these are? Also, saying you should just up and move away if you don't agree with these "principles" is incredibly stupid. Why should a person feel they have to leave just because they have different beliefs? If thats the case, then everyone else has a problem, not that person.

Lastly, your church example is pointless. Clearly you wouldn't waste your time going to the events of a religion you weren't involved in. However, thats completely different from leaving a country based on "ideal" or "principles" that are most likely different depending on who you ask.

DAMN Stop button didnt react fast enough sorry for the DP.^_^;

You keep referring to "the principles". Whose to say exactly what these are? Also, saying you should just up and move away if you don't agree with these "principles" is incredibly stupid. Why should a person feel they have to leave just because they have different beliefs? If thats the case, then everyone else has a problem, not that person.

Lastly, your church example is pointless. Clearly you wouldn't waste your time going to the events of a religion you weren't involved in. However, thats completely different from leaving a country based on "ideal" or "principles" that are most likely different depending on who you ask.


The Principles are what our forfathers............Anyway they are to say what the principles are. I never said to up and leave i'm asking why stay? You dont care for what the country stands nor the country hten why stay. The Church thing was a prime example! If your not into the religion then why go to the curch or if you were born intu the religion and dont agree then why stay?! Just like if you dont beleive in the states then why stay? Or Why Come? Answer me that.

I could probably answer that for you, Kuwa. If you consider why many illegal aliens appear in America to find work and what not.

Also, with no intention to generalize against all Christians, Christianity has it's share of people who don't share the belief system, but they stick around because they think others want them to. I recall a work of literature that I once read where a banker makes a deal with the devil to make himself rich. Afterwards, he attends church hoping that no one would discover his deal beneath his religious appearance.

Immigrants are here illegally to find work and don't care about the ideals. They are here for the easy path. The banker also wanted the easy path. People, in my opinion, who remain on U.S. grounds and don't care about the good of the country in any way just want the easy path. To not care about the ideals of the group in which you have joined, YOU have brought in the propaganda. That's how I see it.

By the way, Akira, I find it fascinating that you whipped out a dictionary in response to my last post, but you neglected to answer the question I asked. You, instead, avoided it and began defining other terms with no real point. Therefore, I'll ask again. Even if what the judge said was mere propaganda, does that mean it was meaningless. If so, how to WE know whether or not the judge feels these words in his heart? In my poetic experience, it's REALLY hard to come up with words this deep without reaching straight to the heart.

It is propaganda. That judge's words were not meant for the defendant: America understands by now that these peoples' ideals will not be changed in any way by threats or reprimands. The audience for that speech was the surrounding courtroom--a room full of people who've been hearing the same spiel for the past three years, every time Bush or any of his subordinates open their mouths. This is an audience who doesn't need to hear another copy-cat speech, doesn't need a reassurance of 'hope'. We get it. Therefore, the judge was speaking to further himself, make himself look good: his 'cause' was his own stature.

Maybe I'm just being empathic here, but it sounds like your position is based on how much these political speeches annoy you and you personally feel that all of them are propaganda. I would think if that speech were meant for the public, it would've been televised or broadcasted in some way. Why put on a show for just the courtroom? The advertising of this statement doesn't really support your opinion all that much, Saiel. Incidentally I really think this was all aimed at the defendant and NOT the public because the Judge kept saying "you," "your," and calling the defendant by name. Many judges have these types of statements following their sentencing, especially when they have a defendant as cocky as Reid.

You mean the last question? If it was wrong for him to "verbally unjustify" terrorism? I suppose it wasn't morally wrong, but once again, I do think it was completely unnecessary and done for the wrong purpose. Not meant for the public? Well, we're having this discussion, aren't we? Lastly, you were the one who started off defining terms, and in all actuality, my use of the dictionary made perfect sense. I showed that all those things the judge claimed this guy wasn't, he actually was, which once again proves the point that everything was based on personal feelings for no real cause other than, as several people here have said, his own stature.

This is going nowhere except straight into political flamewar territory. There is no need to keep this going. I'm having this thread locked now. I'm still leaving a few cool points with Judge Young. His statement, in my opinion, was commendable.

:rolleyes: Not even willing to put in closing points against my arguments? Hmmm.. I seem to remember you copping out like this before. And I doubt this would have scaled up to a flamewar.... I fully intended to keep my posts civil.

That's correct. I don't intend to offer any closing points because there is no closing a debate that is carried this way. It's going nowhere and you can call it "copping out" if it makes you feel happy. However, I seem to remember being one of very few who don't try to insult other people's dignity by accusing them of "copping out." It shouldn't have even become a debate in the first place.

You shouldn't have to close it, though. Even if no one ever won, what would be so bad about carrying this on until this thread just fades away? And I call it copping about because you up and decide to quit right after I've posted. If you put the last of what you had to say in, and then chose to leave, that would be different.

You shouldn't have to close it, though. Even if no one ever won, what would be so bad about carrying this on until this thread just fades away? And I call it copping about because you up and decide to quit right after I've posted. If you put the last of what you had to say in, and then chose to leave, that would be different.

I'm still leaving a few cool points with Judge Young. His statement, in my opinion, was commendable.

THAT is as much a closing as I was willing to leave. But it doesn't really matter, does it? I will not be led into a childish exercise like continuing this debate because I'm afraid of you thinking I'm "copping out." THAT is what makes it a shot to my dignity, childish, and uncalled-for.

Ok guys. Tanoro's right. This is very close to being flaming. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so in PM.

http://ancientclan.com/forums/images/cranpics/blame_canada.jpg

this isn't meant as being offensive, i just thought about it and it cracked me up. X'D