Which is good, in many respects. It prevents the prosecution from shooting for the moon by default when expectations are known, it also ensures that taxpayer money is spent on convictions rather than show trials where the results will be overturned upon later inspection.

It also means I’ve 10 years to plot, plan and otherwise figure out a way to mess with this man once he gets out. Which, had he walked free, would have seriously cramped my schedule. I mean, I’m swamped! I’m in the data center tomorrow, there’s the conference calls from 0800 until 1100 on Tuesday, Wednesday is no good, I’m up late on Thursday with applying scheduled changes and Friday? Well, who wants to work late on Friday?

No, 10 years is good. I can probably schedule that far in advance and all I want to do is beat the crap out of him (silly emotional response).

10 more years for the prosecution to firm up any holes in their case, perhaps have new cases that link this guy to other crimes?

Well, I’d rather him behind bars for 10 years on what we had than walking free on what we wanted.

Pretty sure that’s what the prosecution was thinking too.

– Max

Quartermaster, while I (again) agree with your emotional response, can a real-world lawyer, in a real-world situation, make the case that the miserable SOB in question fulfilled the definition in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution? Recall that “aid” is generally defined as active participation in an act of war against the United States. All (yes, I know, “all”) he did was publish movements of a specific fleet unit. If they did not attack that unit, then by definition he did not provide aid.

As for “comfort,” the bottom-feeder in question (to my knowledge) did not provide any sort of protection or shelter to AQ or affiliates, nor did he directly contribute (via money or munitions) to their operations. No direct support, no comfort.

What I respectfully request of the regulars here is the rational differentiation between our reaction of emotion; “this bastiche is a miserable traitor!” with which I agree; and our reaction of law; “this man must be charged with recognizable violation of the statues of the USA.”

Sometimes the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

Well, life is unfair.

Liberals like to bitch about “social injustice” when poor people aren’t as successful as (lucky) rich people. One may point out the converse complaint where conservatives complain about “social injustice” wherein criminals get “lucky;” that is, they do not suffer a just fate in the same way liberals believe that poor people do not suffer a just fate.

The key is here is the rule of law; something most of the world (including, in my opinion, most of Europe) with which is not familiar.

Alas, the rule of law includes the requirement that any given offense be adjudged according the statutes which exist at the time of the offense, not to mention that the accused must be treated justly. That is to say he must be charged with evidence gathered in a legal way, accused and tried according to the charges legally presented, then punished (if adjudged guilty) according to the specific statue in question.

I repeat: I (emotionally) agree that perp in question is a worthless turd. Yet we still must accord him the civil and legal rights recognized throughout the entire English-speaking world. If we don’t, we’re just as bad as those murdering bastiches in Tehran.

We’ve GOT to commandeer Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine to go and get THAT GUY and bring him back!

“You are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; for, while you are still living your bodies are to be taken down, your bowels torn out and burned before your faces, your heads then cut off, and your bodies divided into four quarters, and your heads and quarters to be then at the King’s disposal; and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls.”

Ah, the Good Ol’ Days.