08-03-2024, 12:37 AM
This post was last modified 08-03-2024, 12:38 AM by Maxmars. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: grammar
I ran across a headline to an article which I could not read...
But the particulars don't really speak to this thread anyway...
A short while ago, we receive word that the person they are calling the "9/11 mastermind" has reached a plea agreement with the US government to avoid the death sentence.
It was understandably politicized, of course. But I found myself wondering about the timing... wondering if the 'deal' wasn't meant to provide an "appearance" for some end unrelated to criminal justice. I hesitated to comment on the subject until now because....
Biden-Harris administration backtracks, revokes plea deal for 9/11 terrorists
As this is a FoxNews story, I expected it to be brimming with personal criticisms, conservative pandering, and other such 'political' garbage. But I couldn't read it, as it was one of those many articles that Big Media places behind a "give us your identity, and we'll let you read it" ploys.
But I noticed a few things...
Suddenly it is the "Biden-Harris" administration... not the Biden administration...
The benign term "backtrack" makes it seem the previously accepted plea deal was nothing more serious than a pinky-swear...
And the association of the "mastermind" is being offered to terrorists, not just him.
I don't profess to being a law professional... so I may be wrong... but most frequently, it is the defendant who rescinds the plea deal*... after all, an 'accepted' plea deal was already "accepted" by the Judge... it was an agreement of the legal variety. For the sate to rescind an already accepted deal, I would have assumed a legal "justification" is in order for the judge to refuse or acquiesce to.
I think the embarrassment of the deal, and the emotional fallout that might befall voters was too costly to the political game. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever reason the government moved to accept the deal in the first place was not exactly kosher.... but... once again... maybe I'm wrong... what do you think?
(* pleas usually get rescinded after "new" facts about the prosecution's case come to light. It's up to the judge. PS - I'm not a lawyer.)
But the particulars don't really speak to this thread anyway...
A short while ago, we receive word that the person they are calling the "9/11 mastermind" has reached a plea agreement with the US government to avoid the death sentence.
It was understandably politicized, of course. But I found myself wondering about the timing... wondering if the 'deal' wasn't meant to provide an "appearance" for some end unrelated to criminal justice. I hesitated to comment on the subject until now because....
Biden-Harris administration backtracks, revokes plea deal for 9/11 terrorists
As this is a FoxNews story, I expected it to be brimming with personal criticisms, conservative pandering, and other such 'political' garbage. But I couldn't read it, as it was one of those many articles that Big Media places behind a "give us your identity, and we'll let you read it" ploys.
But I noticed a few things...
Suddenly it is the "Biden-Harris" administration... not the Biden administration...
The benign term "backtrack" makes it seem the previously accepted plea deal was nothing more serious than a pinky-swear...
And the association of the "mastermind" is being offered to terrorists, not just him.
I don't profess to being a law professional... so I may be wrong... but most frequently, it is the defendant who rescinds the plea deal*... after all, an 'accepted' plea deal was already "accepted" by the Judge... it was an agreement of the legal variety. For the sate to rescind an already accepted deal, I would have assumed a legal "justification" is in order for the judge to refuse or acquiesce to.
I think the embarrassment of the deal, and the emotional fallout that might befall voters was too costly to the political game. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever reason the government moved to accept the deal in the first place was not exactly kosher.... but... once again... maybe I'm wrong... what do you think?
(* pleas usually get rescinded after "new" facts about the prosecution's case come to light. It's up to the judge. PS - I'm not a lawyer.)
