What do you think ?

[ledhed]

Sentence of Reid
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 or 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 stating, "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 consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an 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 an $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.

Now, 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 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 the officers of government do it or your attorney 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 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 have as honestly as I know how 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, 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. The 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

I thought this was relevant ..people tend to forget who and what we are dealing with .



****


Urban Legends Reference Pages: Reid My Lips - this is a true statement

 

[Danoff]

Nice speech.

My take on it:

- Americans are not about freedom. They say they're about freedom, but they vote against it time and again.
- Terrorists can very well be enemy combatants and soldiers. Not all are, but it is possible.

 

[Solid Fro]

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 the officers of government do it or your attorney 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 the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big deal."

You are no big deal.

Something the Mainstream Media and those on the Left forget.

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.

Americans don't stand for freedom? I am American, I stand for freedom.

 

[Danoff]

Americans don't stand for freedom? I am American, I stand for freedom.

Well me too. But if you do, you're in the minority.

Americans are in favor of:
- Public Education
- Universal Healthcare
- Welfare
- Social Security
- Gun Control
- Vehicle Safety/Mileage Requirements
- FDA

Americans are against:
- Legal Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Legal Prostitution
- Legal Gambling
- Market Oil Prices
- Flat Tax
- Legal Drug Use

If those aren't each majority opinions, then they're at least all heavily held opinions in this country... and each one is anti-freedom.

 

[Zrow]

Something the Mainstream Media and those on the Left forget.

Seems like the Right never misses an opportunity to tell how big of a deal terrorists are.

 

[Pupik]

What do you think ?

That's odd, it was news here in South Florida; not as "important" as Paris Hilton, but close. That's probably because it was flight from (or was it to?) Miami, which was a cause for a scare here. The other passengers restrained him and beat the snot out of him, the media had reported a few years back. Good for them.

So yeah, I'm surprised this wasn't bigger news to the rest of the nation. I suppose South Florida media groups will now celebrate by taking the rest of the century off, except when hurricanes hit us.

 

[Solid Fro]

Danoff: I did not know murdering unborn Humans and spreading diseases because you can't keep your legs closed is "anti-freedom"?

 

[Kylehnat]

If you'd quit watching Fox News Channel for 10 seconds, you'd realize that both are.

 

[Solid Fro]

No, Kylehnat. This is my own ****in' opinion, not a Fox News opinion. I believe that aborting your child is denying that child it's freedom to live. I believe that making prostitution illegal lowers the chance of a person becoming infected with a disease that will prevent them from living a normal life. That is what I'm questioning to Danoff.

 

[Kylehnat]

This is my opinion.

By definition, opinion cannot set the boundaries of freedom.

 

[Wolfe]

Cool it down a notch, guys. We're all friends here.

It's true that one's opinion cannot set the boundaries of freedom, but public opinion certainly does. Generally speaking, many of our laws and rights are determined by social mores and taboos, or by what (almost) everyone considers acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For an easy example, almost everyone can agree that, generally, killing someone is wrong.

The problem is that old laws can't always cover advances in technology and medicine -- the advent and growth of clean, professional abortion clinics for example -- and there are certain topics where there can be a clear difference in opinion between different religious groups and/or non-religious people -- like legal prostitution, to cover the other topic Solid Fro brought up. This is where disputes arise.

To answer Solid Fro's question, pretty much anything can be considered a freedom. For an extreme example, you could have the freedom to murder, but I don't think that'd be very popular. As I said above, the problem is that not everyone agrees on the topics Danoff listed. Danoff might not even agree that Abortion, Prostitution, and Gay marriage should be legalized (I don't spend enough time in this forum to know), but he still knows that the motion to deny those things is anti-freedom.

 

[Tornado]

Danoff: I did not know murdering unborn Humans and spreading diseases because you can't keep your legs closed is "anti-freedom"?

By definition, the limiting of rights of an individual or group is a restriction of freedom (or a certain freedom, if you will). Just because the issue being limited (or not) strikes a chord with you personally doesn't mean that (for example) banning abortion is not a limit of freedom of an individual. It just means that your beliefs are of that the limiting of a freedom in that particular case would be justified for whatever reason.
For example, I believe the Trans Fat ban in NYC is a justifiable limit of freedom, but I don't think gun control is justified.

 

[niky]

We (or you... I haven't voted for years, being overseas) do have that freedom... the freedom to choose. Unfortunately, that freedom is bound to the wishes of the masses, whether or not you agree with them.

Of course, there's always the freedom to defect to another country... I hear Amsterdam is nice.

Danoff does have a point, though. If it's all about freedom, why do people vote that way? Prostitution is a social problem, but between consenting adults, what's the problem? You can get sexually-transmitted diseases by being promiscuous, and that's not a crime. Many post-911 laws act more to restrict freedom (of individuals) than to create it.

I think the theme Danoff is trying to point out is that America is pro-security. Not pro-freedom. Of course, that probably doesn't have much to do with the terrorist in question, who's gotten his just desserts. Would have been nice if they gave him forty lashes, too, though.

Hey, Public Education doesn't count against Freedom... I do believe it is a right, in that it empowers people. Welfare and Universal Healthcare... well, I know your beef with those, and you do have points there... but if Public Education empowers people to the point that they don't need either of the other two, how can it be anti-freedom?

And no, banning transfats is an affront to freedom! You can make restaurants label items with transfats, but banning them is... meh. Excuse me while I go out for a heart-attack inducing burger.

 

[Sage]

... but if Public Education empowers people to the point that they don't need either of the other two, how can it be anti-freedom

What if you don’t want to be formally educated? (Honestly, for a lot of people, high school is a complete waste of time.) Or what if you do want a formal education, but you don’t want it done by a public school? People who got to private schools still must pay for a public school education through their taxes.

 

[Omnis]

Well me too. But if you do, you're in the minority.

Americans are in favor of:
- Public Education
- Universal Healthcare
- Welfare
- Social Security
- Gun Control
- Vehicle Safety/Mileage Requirements
- FDA

Americans are against:
- Legal Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Legal Prostitution
- Legal Gambling
- Market Oil Prices
- Flat Tax
- Legal Drug Use

If those aren't each majority opinions, then they're at least all heavily held opinions in this country... and each one is anti-freedom.

I agree with you so far in this topic, with the exception of Abortion. It's difficult to put a clear-cut label of anti-liberty on it when the life that would otherwise enjoy freedom is being voluntarily destroyed.

I am against flat tax too, but don't deny it being pro-freedom.

Anyway, about public education: I can't stand the bureaucracy of it. Schooling taxes should not be collected and the money should instead go straight towards paying schools directly. Most efficient school wins. Most serious students pay and, therefore, attend.

 

[niky]

See, that there's an argument of the way it's done... (which, being a part-owner of a private school, I completely agree with, and I'm hoping the public-private model locally goes beyond experimental to actual) not the idea of "education for everyone"...

Yeah, for many jobs, formal education is a waste... but there's always technical/vocational courses.

But this is way OT... don't want to get into that kind of argument in this thread...

 

[Famine]

Danoff: I did not know murdering unborn Humans and spreading diseases because you can't keep your legs closed is "anti-freedom"?

You can't murder an unborn human, because it's not classed as human so not classed as murder. Otherwise a miscarriage would be classed as manslaughter.

Opening your legs or not is choice, choice = freedom.

 

[Omnis]

See, that there's an argument of the way it's done... (which, being a part-owner of a private school, I completely agree with, and I'm hoping the public-private model locally goes beyond experimental to actual) not the idea of "education for everyone"...

Yeah, for many jobs, formal education is a waste... but there's always technical/vocational courses.

But this is way OT... don't want to get into that kind of argument in this thread...

Yes, but, if nobody is forced to pay for public school through taxes, the availability of education is not affected. They will still be paying for the same school with the same money, but the government will be out of the picture. This is better for the people because the government poses no threat to us for not paying, yet our dissatisfaction (and subsequent lack of payment) threatens schools which must respond by raising the quality of the education they provide. Again, availability of education is still there for everyone. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should have access to education. Some people don't belong in the school system, though. If they don't want to be there, they don't have to be. If they decide later that education is important to them, that's also fine. They'll just go to school again. Maybe if education isn't taken for granted, it will create more of a push, not to mention the much-needed parental involvement in the lives of "problem-students" or "-kids". I'm sick of people being raised and educated as the children of the state instead of the children of the citizen.

Being quasi-OT is interesting.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Americans don't stand for freedom? I am American, I stand for freedom.

Please cite an example of you 'standing' for freedom.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Abortion denies men the choice to be a father while on the other hand banning it would deny a woman the choice not to be inconvenienced to give birth.

Denying a man's choice to be a father lasts a lifetime, while denying a woman's choice not to give birth effects her, what, 10 months? (9 months caring for the unborn child, plus 1 month recovery after giving birth).

And yes, our rights in this country are being picked-off one by one, and that's the way they (those in control) want it.

 

[Famine]

Abortion denies men the choice to be a father while on the other hand banning it would deny a woman the choice not to be inconvenienced to give birth.

Denying a man's choice to be a father lasts a lifetime, while denying a woman's choice not to give birth effects her, what, 10 months? (9 months caring for the unborn child, plus 1 month recovery after giving birth).

Giving birth can, physically, cause death. Not being a father cannot.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Giving birth can, physically, cause death. Not being a father cannot.

While that might be true, more women die after having abortions than after having given birth.

 

[Famine]

While that might be true, more women die after having abortions than after having given birth.

And it's their choice to risk either.

 

[Wolfe]

Abortion denies men the choice to be a father while on the other hand banning it would deny a woman the choice not to be inconvenienced to give birth.

Denying a man's choice to be a father lasts a lifetime, while denying a woman's choice not to give birth effects her, what, 10 months? (9 months caring for the unborn child, plus 1 month recovery after giving birth).

No offense, Solid, but that sounds awfully misogynistic.

It also ignores the fact that a man can go around impregnating whoever he wants, whenever he wants. He can even go back and impregnate the woman who had an abortion -- after she's recovered from it, of course. In order for what you said to be true, a man would have to have only one chance in his entire life to ejaculate.

Plus, there are situations where the man wants the abortion to be done just as much as the woman does, and even situations where the man wants the abortion to be done and the woman does not. For a responsible and communicative couple, the decision to have an abortion is often made by both parties.

 

[Omnis]

This very debate is the exact reason why this matter should be decided on locally.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, didn't mean to hijack ledhed's thread quite THAT much. I was just commenting on the speech the judge gave (which talked about Americans being a people of liberty and freedom) while I think that many Americans no longer think about what that means.

But since we're here, I'll make a comment:

The notion that abortion limits the rights of the father is similar to the notion that murder laws limit the rights of the murderer. Your rights cannot conflict with someone else's. If they do, you don't have them. Fathers do not have the right to force mothers to carry a baby to term (because it infringes on the mother's rights to her body), babies do not have the right to be brought to term (again, overruled by the mother's rights), and murderers do not have the right to rob others of their right to life.

Now, I know some of you are pro-life. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one (at least in this thread). My point was simply this - try to think about what you mean when you say that Americans are a people of freedom and liberty.

 

[Solid Lifters]

And it's their choice to risk either.

Yet statistically, the woman, the baby and the man would all be better off if she didn't have this choice. Of course, that's if the man cares to want the child.

No offense, Solid, but that sounds awfully misogynistic.

Really? Because I remove a choice, which isn't really much of a choice if you look at the end results, I therefor hate woman? Come, that's just too silly.

So with this logic, women who have abortions suffer from misopedia and misandry? I mean, they must really hate children if they don't mind having its head cut off, its arms cut off, its legs cut off and then yanked out of their bodies, right?

It also ignores the fact that a man can go around impregnating whoever he wants, whenever he wants. He can even go back and impregnate the woman who had an abortion -- after she's recovered from it, of course. In order for what you said to be true, a man would have to have only one chance in his entire life to ejaculate.

Plus, there are situations where the man wants the abortion to be done just as much as the woman does, and even situations where the man wants the abortion to be done and the woman does not. For a responsible and communicative couple, the decision to have an abortion is often made by both parties.

You're telling me just because a man can ejaculate more than once, he doesn't need to be concerned for a child he conceived? That's even more silly than what you said before!

Please, take this a bit more seriously.

 

[Wolfe]

Really? Because I remove a choice, which isn't really much of a choice if you look at the end results, I therefor hate woman? Come, that's just too silly.

It's the fact that you said the choice to abort or not abort is "only" a matter of 9-10 months for the mother (bearing the child), while denying the man his child would affect him "for life."

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. What if the woman knew she could not afford to raise a child, or was forced by her boyfriend/spouse to get the abortion? Then she'd be the one affected "for life" by your terms. There are also women who willingly get abortions and then regret them later. Are they not affected for life?

At the same time, a man who is indifferent to the idea of having a child (like the hypothetical woman you're describing seems to be) would "only" be inconvenienced by taking care of the mother during the pregnancy and then raising the child. He could also choose to leave the woman he impregnated and have a child with someone else. Biologically, this is very easy to do.

The bottom line is that it all goes both ways, and the male side of the relationship does not get "jipped" in the whole abortion process.

So with this logic, women who have abortions suffer from misopedia and misandry? I mean, they must really hate children if they don't mind having its head cut off, its arms cut off, its legs cut off and then yanked out of their bodies, right?

You're assuming that everyone believes unborn humans count as children. I don't.

You're also assuming that abortions are an affront to the male side of the relationship. See above.

You're telling me just because a man can ejaculate more than once, he doesn't need to be concerned for a child he conceived? That's even more silly than what you said before!

Please, take this a bit more seriously.

It may not surprise you that I have zero religious background, and that my only exposure to religion has been through extended family, friends, school (last semester I took a neat and interesting class that covered most of the major eastern and western religions), and the media.

No. I don't think a man needs to be concerned for a child he conceived. He should, especially when the woman can't take care of it by herself, but I don't think he has to. I have no right to make that kind of judgment.

Sorry, I'm as serious as can be here, and there's no silliness that I can see. My beliefs are just (apparently) far different from yours.

 

[niky]

Yes, but, if nobody is forced to pay for public school through taxes, the availability of education is not affected. They will still be paying for the same school with the same money, but the government will be out of the picture. This is better for the people because the government poses no threat to us for not paying, yet our dissatisfaction (and subsequent lack of payment) threatens schools which must respond by raising the quality of the education they provide. Again, availability of education is still there for everyone. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should have access to education. Some people don't belong in the school system, though. If they don't want to be there, they don't have to be. If they decide later that education is important to them, that's also fine. They'll just go to school again. Maybe if education isn't taken for granted, it will create more of a push, not to mention the much-needed parental involvement in the lives of "problem-students" or "-kids". I'm sick of people being raised and educated as the children of the state instead of the children of the citizen.

Being quasi-OT is interesting.

That's an internet rule.

Correct on points:
* Some people don't belong in the school system, if they don't want to be there, they don't have to be. - A liberal arts education is utterly useless for those who aspire to many blue collar jobs... or who aspire to no jobs.

* Maybe if education isn't taken for granted,... - yeah... I wish. But yes, a lot of people could stand to take it more seriously. One possible model for public education that does work is to force government service for those who benefit from government sponsored education. I think military service is required of all students in Israel. Maybe if the government required participation in either military or civil service of all college students participating in subsidized programs, (and extended service in others... if the government pays for you to become a doctor, you owe them a few years of your life in return) the system would start to make sense from an economic standpoint.

Of course, what government ever makes sense from an economic standpoint?

But again we come to the divide of where the poverty line is in your country and who can afford it. A factor which affects our views on this issue, even if we basically see it the same way.

But of course, if we could restrict people's liberty to have kids, that wouldn't be a problem... ...Maybe we shouldn't just stop at abortion. What would happen if you limited people's ability to conceive? Meaning, if you can't feed or educate the little one, don't bother having it.

It protects the rights of the unborn. You are taking away the right of the mother to bear children, but you are protecting the right of the child not to be born into abject poverty, or to crackhead parents, or with birth defects... or... is somebody going to mention Beethoven now?

 

[Gonz013]

Nice speech.

My take on it:

- Americans are not about freedom. They say they're about freedom, but they vote against it time and again.

Your idea of 'freedom' might constrain other's liberties (see below)

- Terrorists can very well be enemy combatants and soldiers. Not all are, but it is possible.

True. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Sometimes, like in this case, it's pretty clear cut that the guy is simply a terrorist with wishful fantasy of fighting for a real cause.

Americans are in favor of:
- Public Education
- Universal Healthcare
- Welfare
- Social Security
- Gun Control
- Vehicle Safety/Mileage Requirements
- FDA

Americans are against:
- Legal Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Legal Prostitution
- Legal Gambling
- Market Oil Prices
- Flat Tax
- Legal Drug Use

If those aren't each majority opinions, then they're at least all heavily held opinions in this country... and each one is anti-freedom.

Sounds like you are pro-anarchy more than pro-freedom.
Even the most individualist and 'free' of places would require limits, laws, co-operation, secuity etc.

So you are advocating a country where there is no:
Public Education, Universal Healthcare, Welfare, Social Security, Gun Control, Vehicle, Safety/Mileage Requirements, FDA etc.
but there is lots of/ freely available:
Legal Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legal Prostitution, Legal Gambling, Market Oil Prices, Flat Tax, Legal Drug Use

Imagine living in a place like that. Would anyone reading this feel any more free/ safe/ happy than they would in the current situation?

I don't think I'd feel 'free' enough to even walk down the street, knowing that anyone is much more likely to be (legally) high, have a (legal) gun, be desperate for $'s (because of no welfare or is addicted to gambling for example).

There has never been true 'freedom', and there never will be. As long as you are human, you will be limited and restrained in some manner.

Wouldn't it better to not take the notion of 'freedom' so literally, but instead see it as freedom from care/ worry/ danger? - This requires controls and limitations to be placed on everyone, to ensure no-one can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Danoff, where exactly would you draw the line? True freedom for an individual would by necessity impact on another's freedom, would it not?

On another tack... If the terrorist is effectively going away for the rest of his life, and is unlikely to contribute to society in any way whatsoever: why no death penalty? What point is there in keeping him in jail, being a burden, costing hundreds of thousands to the very people he was trying to kill?