Posted on 05/19/2008 10:39:24 AM PDT by SmithL
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against an Algerian convicted of conspiring to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millenium holiday travel rush.
In its 8-1 decision, the court upheld Ahmed Ressam's conviction on an explosives charge, one of nine convictions that resulted in a 22-year prison sentence. At issue was whether Ressam should be convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime, in Ressam's case, lying on a U.S. Customs form when he crossed the border in December 1999.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that "the most natural reading" of federal law goes against Ressam. Stevens said it is undisputed that Ressam was carrying explosives when he falsely identified himself on a U.S. customs form as a Canadian citizen named Noris. Ressam is Algerian. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the court's interpretation is too broad. Breyer said such a holding would permit conviction of anyone on an explosives charge, even if they were carrying explosives legally while engaging in a totally unrelated crime.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had set aside Ressam's conviction . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Knew it had to be either Breyer or Ginsburg dissenting.
In the dissent: “...would permit conviction of anyone...carrying explosives legally while engaging in a totally unrelated crime...”
That Steven Breyer is a genius.... a GENIUS I tell you!
“Pay no attention to that dynamite, I’m not using it as part of this bank hold-up.”
SORRY. StePHen Breyer.
Yep, Breyer, another person McCain voted to confirm. I’m shocked I tell ya!
What would his stance be if it was a gun (gasp!) instead of dynamite?
Man is this guy stupid!
Your example runs counter to his point. Do we want someone caught speeding who has explosives that they planned to use legally charged under this statute? I think Breyer is wrong here because lying to get into the US was a key aspect of what he illegally wanted to do with the explosives. He also carried explosives while conspiring to blow up a building if Breyer does not like lying to get into the US as the other crime.
But how would you like a prosecutor to find say one old shotgun shell in the car or jacket of an abortion protester who strayed to close to a clinic and charge him with carrying explosives while committing another crime?
Wasn't Breyer one of the justices singled out by Barack Hussein Obama as an example of a "moderate" jurist?
Or how about hitting you with a gun charge because you had a gun in your gun safe while taking a questionable deduction on your income tax?
Speeding is not a criminal offense. At least not here in Virginia (yet).
Ammunition is not legally classified as an explosive.
L
His rationale is a total break with reality. The guy was illegally carrying explosives when he illegally lied by identifying himself falsely, and so on.
Breyer is asking that we rule in terms of a guy legally carrying explosives while commiting another crime ~ and you'd do that how?
Typical 9th Circus thinking: if a terrorist isn't caught in the act of actually blowing someone up, there's no "proof" of a crime.
Dude... nobody is going to LEGALLY carry explosives in the LA airport. You need to back away from the crack...
OK, so to beat the terrorism rap, do the armed robbery BEFORE the bombing.
Argh. There is stupid and there is outright deliberately-dumb useless-idiot Breyer-stupid.
I say we have grounds for impeachment. All in favor say ‘aye.’
Actually this case shows there is grounds to commit Justice Breyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.