Debbie Schlussel: Sympathy for the Devil: Even More Outrageous Behavior By Bush's Liberal Padilla Judge; Gives Padilla Far Less Than Sentencing Minimum
Yesterday, I wrote about President George W. Bush's liberal judge, Marcia Cooke, who gave piddling sentences to three convicted terrorists, including Abdullah Al-Muhajir a/k/a Jose Padilla, after they were convicted by a jury. As I told you, Ms. Cooke went out of her way to issue sympathetic ruling after sympathetic ruling to Al-Muhajir/Padilla's defense lawyers, and I sadly correctly predicted she'd go soft on him.
Well, it's even more outrageous than I thought. Not only was she soft in sentencing the three terrorists, but she gave them LESS than the federally-mandated minimum sentence for the crimes for which they were convicted. And she made a statement at sentencing that she felt bad for the "inhumane" way this Islamic terrorist was treated by America and that she saw no evidence he and his defendants were terrorists because not one American was killed by them.
Um, hello . . .? If we would have caught Mohammed Atta before he got on that plane, would she say the same thing about him? Probably. No evidence? Yes, a lot of non-terrorists fill out Al-Qaeda job applications, right? (Al-Muhajir/Padilla's application was part of the evidence presented in court).
Read this absurdity:
In deciding against life sentences for the three men -- which prosecutors had sought -- U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said no evidence linked them to acts of terrorism."There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere," she said.
Cooke also said she arrived at Padilla's sentence after considering his long detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.
"I do find that the conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla ... they warrant consideration in the sentencing in this case," the judge said.
Um, isn't "I Feel Your Pain," a Clinton sentiment? This woman is nauseating. Incredibly, many Bill Clinton appointees are far tougher. Today's Wall Street Journal reports on how the judge significantly departed downward from the minimum sentence mandated by the federal sentencing guidelines, something that is usually reserved for cases in which the defendant helped the government with testimony or provided valuable information in another case, which Padilla and his defendants didn't do. The WSJ gets the gender of the judge wrong (it's a she, not a "he") and doesn't mention her sorry name (did the WSJ forget the first of the "five Ws" of reporting--"Who"?:
The sentence fell short of the life term prosecutors sought, and sentencing guidelines suggested a range of 30 years to life. The judge said her decision was intended, in part, to compensate for the "harsh conditions" Mr. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, endured during three years he was held without charge, as an "enemy combatant."
Gimme a Break!
The government can appeal her downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, which federal judges are required to follow by law, but as the wimps that they are at DoJ, they won't.
Desperate But Not Serious--America's War on Terror. The terrorists are laughing at us.
Posted by Debbie on January 23, 2008 10:43 AM to Debbie Schlussel