> > JUDGE WILLIAM YOUNG, SENTENCES THE SHOE BOMBER - A MUST READ I hope you
> > will read every word! Pray for more Judges like this one.
> >
> > US District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in
> > sentencing “shoe bomber” Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy,
and
> > deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to
you
> > and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.
> >
> >
> > January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid.
> >
> > Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court
> > imposes upon you.
> >
> > On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
> > custody of the United States Attorney General.
> >
> > On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison
on
> > each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the
other.
> > That’s 80 years.
> >
> > On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive
> to
> > the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight
> > counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.
> >
> > The Court accepts the government’s recommendation with respect to
> > restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre
> > Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
> >
> > The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.
> >
> > The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because
> the
> > law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I
need
> > go no further.
> >
> > This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair
> and
> > just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.
> >
> > We are not afraid of any of your terrorist coconspirators, Mr. Reid. We
> are
> > Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much
war
> > talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in
> this
> > court, where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for
> > individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice,
you
> > are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier
in
> > any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a
> > soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of
> > government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be
> > your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists.
> We
> > do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and
> > bring them to justice.
> >
> > So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But
> you
> > are not that big. You’re no warrior. I know warriors. You are a
terrorist.
> > A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.
> >
> > In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were
> > taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press
and
> > where the TV crews were and he said you’re no big deal. You’re no big
> deal.
> >
> >
> > What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able
United
> > States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I
know
> > how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What
was
> > it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened
respectfully
> > to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask
> > yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are
guilty
> > and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may
> not
> > satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to
> > understanding as I know.
> >
> > It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate
our
> > freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we
> > choose, to come and go as we choose, and to believe or not believe as we
> > individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry
freedom.
> > They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize
> > individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful
courtroom.
> > So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly,
> > individually, and discretely. It is for freedom’s sake that your lawyers
> > are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will
go
> > on in their representation of you before other judges. We are about it.
> > Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure
of
> > our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will
> bear
> > any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.
> >
> > Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long
> > remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be
forgotten.
> > But this, however, will long endure Here in this courtroom and
courtrooms
> > all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice,
> > individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact
being
> > done.
> >
> > The very President of the United States through his officers will have
to
> > come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can
be
> > judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that
evidence
> > democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
> >
> > See that flag Mr. Reid? That’s the flag of the United States of America.
> > That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag
> stands
> > for freedom. You know it always will.
> >
> > Custody Mr. Officer. Stand him down.
> >
> > How much of this Judge’s comments did you hear on our TV sets? ZERO!
> >
> > Please pass this around. Everyone needs to hear what the judge had to
say.
> >
> >
That is simply not done here, ya know.
Hm, yes, interesting.
Hm, also breaking the rules.
> > > > > Also, cutting and pasting from an e-mail
> > > > > message that has been mindlessly forwarded
> > > > >
> > > > >by hundreds of people, without so much as bothering
> > > > >to clean up the text and remove the line breaks,
> > > > >is something that makes otherwise friendly, reasonable
> > > > >people want to do terrible things to your face with a fork.
> > > > >(This is meant as friendly and useful advice-- I hope you
> > > > >get the feel for the way things work around here and
> > > > >decide to stay!)
> > > > >
> > > > >
Hi, kirkdevlin. Welcome to SDMB.
Larry and green_bladder are right about the way to post something of that nature.
Those are powerful words, certainly. It was interesting to see how he worked in bits and pieces of other famous oratory into this decision.
At the end you say:
How do you know that these comments or parts of them were not discussed on television? How do you know what we heard? Did you (or the originator of this email) monitor all networks and broadcasts since January? All over the world? Of course not.
But even if all channels were monitored, it is very possible that television cameras were not allowed in the courtroom. That might be one reason for not broadcasting them.
It seems like the person who originated this email wanted to make it look like there was some sort of anti-American conspiracy in the media not to broadcast this decision. Do you really believe that? What is there in that piece that anyone would want to censor?
How did the originator of the email find a copy of it? It must have been made available through the media after all. You have a copy. I have a copy. Thousands can read it here. It is not a big secret. It is public information.
Why would you want someone else to think for you and speak for you without your thinking it through?
kirk, you could have left off the spam and just directed us to Snopes.
They did give this particular spam the green light, though.
Oh, except for those last three lines, of course.
Not really against the rules, although a little formatting would have been nice. It’s barely readable like this.
Perhaps I’m the only one, so tell me when I’m overreacting. As you all know, I’m not American, and might perceive this differently. With that said: is anyone else slightly disturbed by this speech? The man’s a judge, not a politician. Trias Politica, and all that, right?
Don’t get me wrong, Reid is a shitstain of the highest (lowest?) order, and the sentence he received is just, IMHO. But the judge should have refrained from making this an anti-terrorism/pro-America speech.
Am I overreacting, or are there Americans here who’d agree that the judge was slightly out of line? Does this sort of thing happen often, where a judge essentially delivers a political speech, rather than a cold, rational verdict?
I could be wrong, but I think judges frequently make statements like this from the bench in America.
Some judges in America are elected, not appointed, so they would have need of a political platform. I would guess that judges are overwhelmed occasionally by the ridiculous arguments and justifications of people that commit crimes and walk into their courtrooms. I think occasionally they would feel the need to vent that anger and feeling of frustration.
I don’t personally have a problem with judges stating their opinions at the time of the verdict, as long as they ruled on the points of law ethically.
~J
oops
again
Just caught my eye so I posted it here. Judges like to spout off here.
My thinking was that it was a made up speach though. Not the judges words at all. I don’t know though and don’t know how to verify it either.
A good rule of thumb is to check every email with multiple forwards against Snopes. I provided a direct link to what they have on your OP earlier in this thread.
From reading the linked partial transcript on the Snopes page, it appears the judge’s “speech” was a response to Reid’s oratory prior to his sentencing. Reid disregarded his actions as inconsequential, and declared “I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country.” Judge Young’s response is, IMHO, a denouncement to inform Reid that, in the long run, he is not a soldier, martyr or hero; but a minor distraction.
And if you watch american judicial tv programs (Judge Judy, Judge Brown, The People’s Court), belittling stupid people in court is a perk of wearing the robe. 
snopes,
thank you.
Now I have another tool in my repetoire.
Yes, Wang-Ka, you did tell me about this once before but I forgot. It was a long time ago.
Betcha wont forget AGAIN, now will ya, kirkdevlin?!
They have RULES here.
Rules and Regulations!
You must abide by them or suffer the consequences of appearing to be a poster with a 25 IQ.
That’s right. You heard me.
This might even require some sort of double penalty.
We’ll see about that later, though;)
Double-Secret Probation?
[mouthing] Double-Secret Probation? [/mouthing]
Damn the people at Fox News for keeping this important information from us!
What? You mean Ashcroft and Co. don’t want al Qaeda related trials televised because they’re concerned that the tapes could be used to send messages to sleeper cells or be used to make martyrs of the defendants and provide propaganda? Damn that Ashcroft and his minions for keeping these secrets from the American people!
Thank goodness the good people at CNN saw fit to print the exchange between Judge William Young and Reid in it’s entirety. At least there is one responsible, conservative News agency out there that is willing to shine a light on the truth.
Coldfire, I think little*bit most clearly answered your question. Well at least until the part about Judge Judy and her ilk, who are more entertainers than judges. 
William Young is a federal judge in the US District Court. Federal judges are not elected, but they are political appointees. The President appoints judges, who must be confirmed by Congress. This is usually a formality, but partisan politics can come into play if the nominee has made controversial rulings in the past. Once appointed they serve until death or retirement, so can in theory be above politics at that point.