Clinton appointed Federal judge Throws Out Piracy Charges Against 6 Somalis

[Capitalist]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – A judge on Tuesday dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men accused of attacking a Navy ship off the coast of Africa, concluding the U.S. government failed to make the case their alleged actions amounted to piracy.
The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.
Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.
Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government “failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations.”
​

 

[ConHog]

This judge did this just to get votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whew, I was channeling truthdoesn'tmatter there for a minute. scary stuff.

 

[Modbert]

Why does it matter if Clinton appointed him?

Also:

Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.

Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations."

Jackson, who issued the ruling from Norfolk, wrote that the government was attempting to use "an enormously broad standard under a novel construction of the statute" that would contradict a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court decision, United States v. Smith.

 

[ConHog]

Why does it matter if Clinton appointed him?

Also:

Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.

Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations."

Jackson, who issued the ruling from Norfolk, wrote that the government was attempting to use "an enormously broad standard under a novel construction of the statute" that would contradict a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court decision, United States v. Smith.

It doesn't.

 

[rightwinger]

Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.

If you have to actually take command of a ship, it does not look like it meets the definintion of piracy regardless of who appointed the judge.

Attempted piracy looks like what they are guilty of.

We need to change our laws regarding piracy. You need to stop these guys before they board a ship. If they attack, they should be considered pirates

 

[The Rabbi]

If these guys aren't pirates, I don't know who is.
This decision bodes ill for any attempt to try al Qaeda terrorists in civilian court. I don't know why there isn't more screaming about it. I guess not enough Americans were killed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson is an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson is an idiot.

Is he the idiot or the prosecutors who brought the case? He can only rule on what they've presented.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson is an idiot.

Is he the idiot or the prosecutors who brought the case? He can only rule on what they've presented.

If he based his judgment on the fact that the ship was never took command of and robbed the vessel he's an idiot. The fact is these Somolians are pirates and were engaging in piracy. They refer to United States v. Smith to justify the ruling. Where in that case it was deemed not piracy because the pirates were not operating under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. IMO the judge fucked up.

 

[jillian]

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson is an idiot.

Is he the idiot or the prosecutors who brought the case? He can only rule on what they've presented.

If he based his judgment on the fact that the ship was never took command of and robbed the vessel he's an idiot. The fact is these Somolians are pirates and were engaging in piracy. They refer to United States v. Smith to justify the ruling. Where in that case it was deemed not piracy because the pirates were not operating under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. IMO the judge fucked up.

that's nice.

the Smith decision did not explore the issue of control of the ship. the argument in that case was whether Congress could legislate on a topic covered by the 'law of nations'. the issue of 'robbery on the high seas' was incidental to that question.

incidentally, you do realize they face other charges, right?

 

[jillian]

Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.

If you have to actually take command of a ship, it does not look like it meets the definintion of piracy regardless of who appointed the judge.

Attempted piracy looks like what they are guilty of.

We need to change our laws regarding piracy. You need to stop these guys before they board a ship. If they attack, they should be considered pirates

That might well be the case. But if that's so, it needs to be addressed by the legislature. They can't be convicted of an act if they don't meet the definition of that act.

 

[WillowTree]

Librul judges seem to have brain damage.

 

[del]

Librul judges seem to have brain damage.

only because they have brains to damage.

you're safe, apparently

 

[WillowTree]

Librul judges seem to have brain damage.

only because they have brains to damage.

you're safe, apparently

you laid a egg. so what the fuck are you talking bout?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is he the idiot or the prosecutors who brought the case? He can only rule on what they've presented.

If he based his judgment on the fact that the ship was never took command of and robbed the vessel he's an idiot. The fact is these Somolians are pirates and were engaging in piracy. They refer to United States v. Smith to justify the ruling. Where in that case it was deemed not piracy because the pirates were not operating under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. IMO the judge fucked up.

that's nice.

the Smith decision did not explore the issue of control of the ship. the argument in that case was whether Congress could legislate on a topic covered by the 'law of nations'. the issue of 'robbery on the high seas' was incidental to that question.

incidentally, you do realize they face other charges, right?

The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.

The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.

Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.

 

[jillian]

If he based his judgment on the fact that the ship was never took command of and robbed the vessel he's an idiot. The fact is these Somolians are pirates and were engaging in piracy. They refer to United States v. Smith to justify the ruling. Where in that case it was deemed not piracy because the pirates were not operating under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. IMO the judge fucked up.

that's nice.

the Smith decision did not explore the issue of control of the ship. the argument in that case was whether Congress could legislate on a topic covered by the 'law of nations'. the issue of 'robbery on the high seas' was incidental to that question.

incidentally, you do realize they face other charges, right?

The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.

The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.

Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1941306&nid=600

 

[Lonestar_logic]

that's nice.

the Smith decision did not explore the issue of control of the ship. the argument in that case was whether Congress could legislate on a topic covered by the 'law of nations'. the issue of 'robbery on the high seas' was incidental to that question.

incidentally, you do realize they face other charges, right?

The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.

The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.

Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis - wtop.com

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

 

[rightwinger]

The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.

The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.

Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis - wtop.com

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

Good information..

Can you cite the actual law as it applys to Piracy and show where the judge wrongly interpreted the existing law?

 

[jillian]

The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.

The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.

Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis - wtop.com

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

you didn't read the decision. I don't even trust headnotes in case books. i certainly wouldn't trust some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said.

and i certainly wouldn't trust your judgment as to the judge being correct or incorrect.

if the 4th circuit reverses then they reverse. that's life. unlike the rightwingnuts, i don't have a vested interest in this particular count of the indictment. that's what appeals courts are for.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well if they didnt have parrots and eye patches were they really pirates?