Coughenour & The Ressam Case

Jihadists v. fools on the bench from the Washington Times.

"The Ressam case shows what is wrong with a strategy of using the courts as our primary means of fighting terror -- as the Clinton administration did for eight years.

In sentencing Ressam, Judge Coughenour rejected the government's request for a 35-year sentence."

Ressam, who was a thief on the Canadian dole and attended training camps in Afghanistan, could serve as little as 14 years.

Fighting terrorists in court entails huge risks for American security -- too much information must be disclosed to the defense.

"Judge Coughenour's implicit suggestion is that these decisions are little more than morality plays involving good and evil: On one side are the enlightened, virtuous progressives like the judge who understand that trying terrorists in open court is always the right way to go. On the other side, as the judge frames the issue, are backward people like President Bush and many of those who voted for him, who believe that fighting the current war will require us to 1) kill as many terrorists as possible on the battlefield, and 2) capture the rest of the jihadists and interrogate them for as long as necessary at facilities like Guantanamo Bay in order to gain intelligence about future terrorist attacks."

Related:
Judge Coughenour's Little Lecture
-- LynZee