Supreme Court takes case of man in LA airport terror plot

AP vis SFGate ^ | 12/7/7

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON, (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider reinstating part of the conviction of the man who planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, case the government says will greatly affect terrorism prosecutions.

Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian national, was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2005 after being convicted on nine counts for plotting to bomb the airport around Jan. 1, 2000. Customs agents in Port Angeles caught him with explosives in the trunk of his rental car when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia in December 1999. The ensuing scare prompted the cancellation of New Year's celebrations at Seattle's Space Needle.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out one count, in which Ressam was convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime.

The appeals court said the law required prosecutors to show the explosives were carried "in relation to" the felony, which in this case was lying on a Customs form.

The government argued it would be much harder to prosecute terrorists if that interpretation of the law is allowed to stand.

[SmithL]

Of course it's the 9th Circus.

[weegee]

We should’ve just sent him packing to Canada I guess.

And the Clintons owe the Branch Davidians an apology. Posession of explosives is only a crime if you can show intent to use them for a specific crime I guess.

[untrained skeptic]

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out one count, in which Ressam was convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime.

The appeals court said the law required prosecutors to show the explosives were carried "in relation to" the felony, which in this case was lying on a Customs form.

While I wish they could have charged and convicted this guy for more than lying on a customs form, I have to agree with the 9th Circus that you shouldn't be able to charge someone with possessing something while committing a felony unless that item is related to the felony.

[TrueKnightGalahad]

Work with me here:

One states that one does NOT possess explosives;

and then is subsequently found to be in possession of explosives;

and then is convicted of the felonious act of lying about the possession of the explosives;

and also is convicted of possessing the explosives at the time of the lie, the possession of which was the germ of the lie.

Just HOW is the possession of the explosives NOT related to the felonious lie?

[Mr Rogers]

He wasn’t in possession of the explosives. The car was.

It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.