MooPig FWD Email :: Miserable Terrorist

Snagged from email by Pat Darnell  |  June 18, 2013

[Picture LINK]

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:

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 bear 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."

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young. Pass this around. Everyone should, and needs to, hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.

Please SEND this----so that everyone has a chance to read it.

PART ONE: Libidinous -- Something will always be be Fundamentally Wrong with the Internet

"Spread Out" ... Larry of the Three Stooges
by Pat Darnell

Does anyone remember why Ulysses, by James Joyce was not allowed in the USA back when? I know, you say, just another rhetorical device by me to coax you and others into thinking about what I'm thinking about.

Today I am obsessing over Perception.

In 1920, a literary magazine published the “Nausicaa” episode of Ulysses, in which the hero Leopold Bloom masturbates while watching a young woman display a bit of undergarment. The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice initiated a prosecution under the state’s obscenity law.

The trial judges were not impressed by expert testimony that described Ulysses as a brilliant work. One of the judges refused to allow passages to be read aloud in court because there were females present (including the magazine’s editors). “Nausicaa” was ruled obscene, and Ulysses was banned in the United States. ... Read More HERE ...

That was 1920, everything was eat up with bad press. Oh, but wait, in 1933 "Random House challenged" the first ruling, brought the book in to the USA and those books were "seized by US Customs." This led to a second "trial" over the "obscenity value" perception of Ulysses to its readers:

"The bans were usually based on state or federal obscenity law. But what was “obscenity,” and how were prosecutors, courts, and publishers to identify it? An English judge defined obscenity in 1868 as material that tends to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to ... immoral influences” and that suggests to “the young of either sex ... thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character.” [this three-elephant elephantine subject] Courts in the U.S. followed this test for most of the next century.

This is a hidden element of literature, which requires deliberate planning to achieve a deadline of publication. Readers have a choice to purchase, to read, to discard... and to meet in drunken symposiums for a beer and robust coffee, and some brisk critique of the future of Obscenity. One hundred years to diffuse a vaporous arguments, and emit cross cultural support or disapprove discussions and challenges by large company's, like Random House, from 1868 to 1968:

But the problem of shielding minors remained. In 1968, the Supreme Court attempted to resolve it by inventing a “variable obscenity” rule under which “girlie magazines” and similar materials, even though protected by the First Amendment, lost that protection if distributed to minors.

1968 -- Variable Obscenity: is that like asking at the end of the battle: "General, Sir, do we kill all the prisoners?"

By careful planning, initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1969 the USA conquered a myth about our closest satellite -- the moon -- by landing on it and returning with materials ... :: Did those materials make it through customs, or were they tagged as obscene to young minds? Moon rocks... not only foreign material on earth's soil, but unattainable by young minds. Or as unattainable as the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Ulysses is attainable to young minds?

Am I losing my mind over my own entire lifetime -- or did Eisenhower have the best interest at heart when he left his plans up to my generation to act on them? Regardless of our particular orthodoxies and Protestant meanderings, our path to wisdom lies in manipulation of the current or "state of the art" medium used i freedom of speech. Besides there is no present like the future... eh?

Again quoting The Free Expression Project:

The opinion in Burstyn v. Wilson first did away with the archaic ruling that cinema was not protected by the First Amendment; then ruled that “sacrilege” was not a permissible censorship standard. The word is too vague, the Court said, setting the censor “adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies.” But the Court left open the question whether states could impose prior censorship under a law designed “to prevent the showing of obscene films.”

NEXT: Part Two, "What are we doing with the Internet that makes all this discussion MOOT?"

FaceBook puts a Face on intent behind attempted involuntary Manslaughter

It is a growing source of personal information, our internet. The Judicial system is leap-frogging in attempt to get at least up to speed with Internet Technology. And by the number of reports it is closing the tech gap rapidly. Governors on booty lists, Mayors closing their sites due to "misconstrued" verbiage, kids getting the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter plus juvenile delinquency, Teddy Kennedy dumping diesel in Nantucket Bar Harbor... it is a Fantasmagorical event in human endeavors.

Recently the judicial system required Google to turn over its login information. A judge said "it can be downloaded on four terrabyte storage units." I suppose this means anyone with four terrabytes storage could swipe the information anyway.

MooPig has several articles from publishers about how Human Resources uses the internet to further fact check its applicants. Ignoble ranting in blogging, as it is, can be interpreted however one wants because it still is the public forum it was designed to be.

It is just now, 2008, that the Supreme Court will become a Supreme User in the system as it cleans up all its messes. Meanwhile current supreme users will find a web 2.0 to keep their public forum "private," ..no? Should be fun to watch it develop.

That is why this article does not surprise anyone here at MooPig HQ in sunny Bryan, TX.

Welcome the New Lexicon, Check Mate on the Internet
"[Prosecutor] Sullivan used the pictures to paint Lipton as an unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital. A judge agreed, calling the pictures depraved when sentencing Lipton to two years in prison.

Online hangouts like Facebook and MySpace have offered crime-solving help to detectives and become a resource for employers vetting job applicants. Now the sites are proving fruitful for prosecutors, who have used damaging Internet photos of defendants to cast doubt on their character during sentencing hearings and argue for harsher punishment.

"Social networking sites are just another way that people say things or do things that come back and haunt them," said Phil Malone, director of the cyberlaw clinic at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The things that people say online or leave online are pretty permanent."

Web Photos Come Back to Bite Defendants, By ERIC TUCKER, AP

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (July 19) - Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunken driving crash that seriously injured a woman, the 20-year-old college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner. Pictures from the party showed him in a black-and-white striped shirt and an orange jumpsuit labeled "Jail Bird."

In the age of the Internet, it might not be hard to guess what happened to those pictures: Someone posted them on the social networking site Facebook. And that offered remarkable evidence for Jay Sullivan, the prosecutor handling Lipton's drunken-driving case.

A judge gave Joshua Lipton a two-year prison sentence over a drunken driving charge after the prosecutor uncovered this image of Lipton dressed up in a "Jail Bird" costume two weeks after his accident that nearly killed a woman...."

Read the rest at this LINK, Retrieved here for critical review.. and to be lampooned.