1. What do you think about this. I mean do we let out a sigh of relief, or wonder if it is all made up just to make us feel safer at home..
2. What @!#$ attorney sticks up for a mother @!#$ like this. I mean I know he needs a fair trial...but come on...shorter sentence??? If he wanted to kill us now, he will def still want to when he gets outta prison..

4 plead guilty in terror plots
Britain had accused men of conspiring with convicted al-Qaida operative
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:50 p.m. ET April 25, 2007

LONDON - Four men pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring with an al-Qaida-linked operative convicted of plotting to bomb the New York Stock Exchange and other targets in the United States and Britain.

The men pleaded guilty in a London court to plotting to cause explosions with Dhiren Barot, who was sentenced to life in prison in November for planning attacks on several U.S. financial targets, London hotels and train stations.

Authorities did not specify which targets the four men — Junade Feroze, 31; Mohammed Zia Ul Haq, 28; Abdul Aziz Jalil, 34; and Omar Abdul Rehman, 23 — were accused of plotting to blow up.

A fifth man, Qaisar Shaffi, 28, denied the charge and will stand trial next week.

The sentence against Barot, a 34-year-old Muslim convert, was one of the toughest punishments ever handed down in a British court. He was convicted of planning to use limousines packed with gas tanks, napalm and nails in the attacks. Prosecutors said the targets included the International Monetary Fund in Washington, the Citigroup headquarters in New York and London railway stations such as Waterloo, Paddington and King’s Cross.

Attorneys have appealed Barot’s punishment — life in prison without the possibility of parole for 40 years — arguing that he deserved a shorter sentence after pleading guilty.

A sixth defendant in the case, Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 27, pleaded guilty last week, and another, Nadeem Tarmohammed, 28, has yet to be arraigned.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

1. What do you think about this. I mean do we let out a sigh of relief, or wonder if it is all made up just to make us feel safer at home..

I won't be losing any sleep over it .

2. What @!#$ attorney sticks up for a mother @!#$ like this.

They're called " Land Sharks " and they'll eat anything that's bleeding or looks weak and frail.

I mean I know he needs a fair trial...but come on...shorter sentence???
If he wanted to kill us now, he will def still want to when he gets outta prison..

First off, if it was all made up and i was on the receiving end of that lenghty conviction
i would want somebody's pickled head in a jar on my mantle regardless.

As for wanting to kill us all still, even when he gets out ... The list of targets suggested
a more tactical attack other than wanting to kill us all.

Well, any good attorney will argue for a shorter sentence. Otherwise he could be disbarred for not giving a client the best representation that he could. It's the same thing that happens if a cop beats a child molester into a coma, he'll get suspended and he'll get fired. Never mind that we all agree that it's a good thing. It's still not a LEGAL thing and our whole country and way of life is held up by laws and rules.

The reasoning behind this is simple. If we start making exceptions we're giving permission to other cops/attorneys/judges to do their own "creative justice" and that just causes a kind of chain reaction within the system where a kind of arms race of intolerance begins. It'd start with particularly nasty criminals being denied rights and it'll end with black judges giving white defendants stiffer sentences because they feel that "too many fine young african american men are sent to jail." After all, everyone else is doing it and not getting punished. Why couldn't they do it?

Justice and the law is an either/or proposition. There isn't much gray area on how you can handle it. Just like there aren't exceptions made to let people go free even if they're guilty but really sorry, there aren't any exceptions to really stick it to nasty unrepentant assheads.

The world isn't perfect. You can have too much justice or not enough justice. Which one do you prefer?

Rosario wrote:1. What do you think about this. I mean do we let out a sigh of relief, or wonder if it is all made up just to make us feel safer at home..
2. What @!#$ attorney sticks up for a mother @!#$ like this. I mean I know he needs a fair trial...but come on...shorter sentence??? If he wanted to kill us now, he will def still want to when he gets outta prison..

1: You take it with a grain of salt, and continue on with your life.
2: A lawyer that wants to keep eating. They're required to give you a zealous defence no matter what. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to justify their fees. There are greater socio/psychopaths getting paroled daily. Just the way it is.

As much as you find it repulsive that someone would do that, you want a person that is going to do that when YOU'RE the one accused wrongly. Much as it sucks, it's like the Death Penalty, discussion is all academic until its you that's in the Hot-Seat (per se). Disgusting acts like looking for a reduced sentence are part and parcel of mounting a zealous defence...




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.