2006-10-17 15:03:23 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Not even close.
2006-10-17 15:10:25 · answer #1 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think an ordinary person would have gotten more. First she was a lawyer. Second, she was well liked in the legal community--even by those who oppossed her. I saw an article by the former US Attorney for New York in the "National Review" and he said how he liked her personally--even though he abhored her behavior. This all played into the result she got.
There is also the factor she has cancer. It is my understand she would be unlikely to survive any type of lengthy sentence.
I heard Bill O'Reilly say he would have given her 5 years. The judge gave her a little over two and a half years. The prosecutors request for 30 years was just posturing.
These things are never cut and dry--it is always simple to be far removed from the case and say in the abstract that with something like this massive penal punishment should be imposed.
2006-10-17 22:11:18 · answer #2 · answered by beckychr007 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not by half. But what do you expect from a liberal judge in charge? I think she's out while appealing the sentence. If they ever catch Asama and try him in a court like that he will either beat the case or get a suspended sentence. They would probably bring Saddam over as a character witness lol
2006-10-17 22:18:07 · answer #3 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not fair but they can't back down, two years I think, now they have to think of a way to keep jon stewart from becoming president!!!
2006-10-17 22:12:07 · answer #4 · answered by Michael S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. She should have been shot for aiding and abetting an enemy of the USA in time of war like any other ----ing traitor.
2006-10-17 22:29:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋