| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Outrage As Feds Curb Shoe Bomber Prison Rules |
| 2009-09-20 |
| HT to Weasel Zippers. Your Obama/Eric Holder corrupt DOJ in action again. *spit* Airplane shoe bomber Richard C. Reid no longer faces severe limits on his prison activities or communications after the Obama administration quietly ended years of hard-nosed curbs against the British-born al-Qaeda terrorist. This summer the Justice Department halted six years of measures that kept Reid from associating or praying with fellow jailed Muslim terrorists, and limited his access to the news media and pen pals. That move has outraged victims of al-Qaeda and security experts. The recommendation to lift the restrictions was made with input from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, which prosecuted Reid in 2002, federal officials said. "Terrorists should be held as incommunicado as possible," said Howard Safir, a former New York City police commissioner and CEO of Safir Rosetti, a division of Global Options Inc., a security consulting firm. "If they can communicate with the outside world, they can direct other people to commit terrorist acts." An emotional Hermis Moutardier, one of the flight attendants who thwarted Reid's botched shoe bombing and was injured by the hulking terrorist, reacted with anger upon learning the news from the Herald by phone Friday. "What's wrong with our system?!" cried Moutardier, 54, who lives in Florida and still works as a flight attendant. "I am concerned about the safety of my country, my fellow citizens, my children, the public buildings, that's my concern." Life term in supermax On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid tried to blow up a Miami-bound American Airlines [AMR] flight from Paris by igniting a fuse connected to powerful explosives stashed in his left shoe. The flight was diverted to Boston, where Reid - who was subdued by crew and passengers - was tried and convicted in federal court. His failed terror bid led to the much-bemoaned rule requiring airline passengers to remove their shoes at security checkpoints. Reid is serving life in a federal supermax in Florence, Colo., that is home to fellow terrorists Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Yousef is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Over the last six years, the U.S. Justice Department annually renewed special restrictions on Reid, including limits on who he could call and write to and on the kinds of articles he could read or TV channels he could watch. They also banned him from group prayers. Reid, 36, appealed the restrictions within the federal Bureau of Prisons several times, to no avail. In 2007, the London-born terrorist filed a lawsuit against the government alleging the restrictions violated his First Amendment rights. On June 17 - after two years spent fighting Reid's lawsuit - federal prosecutors notified the courts that the restrictions, called "special administrative measures," or SAMs, would not be renewed. The decision to let the SAMs lapse was based on a "collective assessment of the potential threat posed by Reid's communications and contacts," said Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd. That assessment was made by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, the FBI and the DOJ counterterrorism section, Boyd said. Pressed repeatedly for more details, he would not say why those agencies came to the new conclusion. Christina DiIorio-Sterling, spokeswoman for the Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston, Michael K. Loucks, who was appointed in April, said the Boston office would not comment on the matter. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #12 Who among us will die when another terrorist attack occurs? I am always amazed how so many Americans just seem to think that a terrorist attack, though unfortunate, will happen to someone else. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-09-20 22:41 |
| #11 Can we at least throw our shoes at him? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-09-20 18:25 |
| #10 "it will drive him mad" That's not a drive, that's a two-inch putt. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-09-20 17:58 |
| #9 I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one (shudder), but I've read enough law to stay on the right side of trouble. Basically, our Constitution is a contract. The government will guarantee our rights, protect and defend us from foreign powers, and establish an infrastructure that will allow us to meet our basic needs: physical, educational, social, religious, and mental. In return, we will respect the government and obey its laws. A person who tries to blow up an airplane full of people has rejected that contract, whether it applied to him originally or not. Since he's rejected that contract, he is no longer protected by its provisions. Anything that happens to him is the result of his behavior, and our rights and privileges as law-abiding citizens don't apply to him. The rest of the crap foisted upon us by people like ACORN and the ACLU is just bullsh$$ to try to expand the rights of law-abiding citizens to those that reject the rule of law. The people pushing this garbage should receive the same treatment as those that try to undermine our basic government/citizen contract. Hanging's too good for them. We need to find something nastier, slower, and far more painful. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-09-20 17:02 |
| #8 So when is he diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and is flown home to a hero's welcome? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-09-20 16:54 |
| #7 That gives me a better idea, Fly him halfway and throw him out, but give him a parachute so he'll drown slowly. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-20 13:51 |
| #6 What 1st Ammendment rights? He is not a US citizen, he was born in England. Fly him half way to Paris and throw him out, its what he wanted when he tried to blow a hole in the plane... |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-09-20 13:41 |
| #5 I think he should be taken to the highest Buildding we can find and thrown off. Let him scream all the way down. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-20 13:07 |
| #4 First Amendment rights? Anyone who tries to murder a plane load of innocent bystanders should be stripped of those rights. Who gives a shit if he goes mad in solitary confinement? He wasn't all that sane to begin with. |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-20 13:00 |
| #3 it will drive him mad, literally It seems like that is a short walk not a drive for him. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-09-20 12:50 |
| #2 While on the surface this may seem tame, the reality is that he is still at the ADX Florence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence So any lifting of his restrictions still amounts to severe imprisonment, just not so severe it will drive him mad, literally. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-09-20 12:35 |
| #1 We can thank those that never try or will defend, you, me, and the country, because they are philosophically superior to the rest of us (you know, the failures, mouth breathers, the racists, gun-clinging, god loving, family respecting redneck retards) |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-09-20 11:52 |