Millennium Bomber's Lenient Sentence Reversed . . . By the Ninth Circuit?

Via Michelle, it’s rare good news from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s the court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, is emptying California’s prisons, and never met a death sentence it liked. Yet even they couldn’t stomach the prospect of an Al Qaeda terrorist receiving a mere 22 years in prison after he was caught with powerful and deadly explosives that he planned to use to blow up LAX airport.

Especially after this turd thumbed his nose at a cooperation deal with the Government:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that Ahmed Ressam, a convicted terrorist arrested in December 1999 in Port Angeles with a car full of explosives, be sentenced again.

. . . .

He was tried in Los Angeles, where the proceeding had been moved.

After his conviction, he agreed to cooperate and help investigators on terrorism cases.

But he stopped cooperating in 2003 and claimed that he was “mentally incompetent” when he did cooperate, prosecutors say. Charges against two accused terrorists had to be dropped because Ressam recanted.

The court even ruled that the case will be returned to a different judge for sentencing. This surprising move becomes understandable indeed when you read the decision for yourself. Marvel as the Ninth Circuit recounts Ressam’s violent plans, and contrasts that picture of Ressam with the laughably naive assessment of the simpleton trial court judge:

Ressam targeted an airport, knowing that as a result, many civilians would die. Ressam attempted to rob a bank to obtain funds to carry out his mission and finance the attack in the United States. In the course of robbing the bank, Ressam planned to throw a live hand grenade at the police, and run, if he needed to do so in order to get away. These are only a few of the findings in the [pre-sentence report] that are in direct tension with the district court’s findings as to Ressam’s life history and personal characteristics, including the finding that Ressam is “a quiet, solitary and devout man whose true character is manifest in his decision to cooperate.”

No, his true character was manifest in his decision to plan the bombing of a major airport and slaughter countless innocent people. He cooperated only after he was convicted and looking at a life sentence. Then Ressam’s “true character” manifested itself yet again — when Ressam stopped cooperating, and recanted his previous statements, causing the dismissal of two cases against terrorists.

By the way, the Government described one of those terrorists, Abu Doha, as “a high-ranking al Qaeda member with close ties to Osama Bin Laden” who is “one of the most dangerous terrorists ever charged by the United States.” And where is Doha now? “After the dismissal of the charges against Doha in the United States, he was released from custody and is currently living in England.”

What could possibly go wrong?

The real lesson here is that when you put our country’s safety in the hands of grandstanding federal judges, we are not safe. What we really need is to try scum like Ressam in military tribunals, as warriors against our country. And then execute them.

But until we muster the will to do that, we need to keep him off the streets. And so I issue a rare kudos to the Ninth Circuit, for righting this wrong — and setting this scumbag on the road to what I hope will be a life sentence.