Thing that bothers me most about this deal was that the Hammonds were tried twice for the same crime. First, they were tried for arson, convicted and served time, then later for ‘terrorism’ for which they are now supposed to go back and serve more time. Really not many legal details about this, best I could find was here:
From what I understand (so far; and that’ not a good deal with all the incorrect facts “out there” at this point) one hammond served 2 months, the other 12 under a deal. The minimum for what they did is supposedly 5 years. So, yes, they did their time and got out then the judge said, but “wait, there’s more” and they claimed BS and that it was un-consitutional. THEN came the terrorism charges and they claimed double jeopardy.
I’ve been trying to understand all this as it is turning into a firestorm on the ‘net, but, who to believe? It is a flat out mess at this point. (And, now some people are claiming the “arson” was to cover up poaching on that land.(??)
I think Laz wrote something up about this earlier (and brought up a good point, they still have due process, although it may not be to their liking time wise) however the link escapes me; maybe he’ll see the pong and post.
The “double jeopardy” and “tried as terrorist” claims are both false. They are the type of lies I usually expect from the Left.
They were tried once and convicted of using fire to destroy Federal property.
This carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years (max of 20 years).
The trial judge thought this was too harsh and violated the law by sentencing the son to 11 months and the father to 3 months.
The government appealed and the court of appeals ruled that the 5 year minimum must be imposed.
They were not tried as terrorists. The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act increased the penalty for destruction of Federal property by fire to a minimum of 5 years in prison, regardless of whether any act of terrorism was involved.
They were tried and convicted as arsonists. Unfortunately for them an act aimed at preventing terror increased the penalty for their crime. So, they could be considered collateral damage in the war on terror, but they were not “tried as terrorists”.
Now I don't know if the Hammonds had any criminal intent, or whether they were just negligent in how they set fires. What I do know is that the EPA dumped millions of gallons of mining waste into a river in Colorado. What charges are being filed there? Elliot Spitzer committed multiple crimes of tranporting prostitutes across state lines and structuring payments to avoid federal banking reporting guidelines. In that case in "wasn't in the interest of justice" for him to be charged.