Must've had a good lawyer....

The prosecutors case was weak and hinged on a police statement from a witness who refused to testify at the trial.

No real surprise then that he got a light sentance.

"I hope I haven't offended anyone."

What makes you think you might have offended anyone? ;-)

I don't necessarily think this is harsh enough, but I would imagine 2 years in Indonesian prison isn't quite as comfortable as in our prisons.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

add to the fact that maybe a family member of one of those killed in that blast might be in there waiting for him...or get checked in for the occasion. My guess is he'll end up getting his once on the inside. To the original poster..I agree...sentence in pointless at that length

I agree with your view that the sentence is way to light, but how long did OJ get?

~Matt

Then he should have been found not guilty.

The Mossad would know how to handle this.

Monk, what case is the closest to being the diametric opposite to this? For instance, dude kills a neighbors pet rodent and gets 7 years for animal cruelty. I'm sure you've seen some ridiculous stuff go down. Do tell.

What's you point? That we should cut off Tsunami aid to OJ? I'll support that.

Point is cutting of Tsunami aid for a piss poor legal desicsion would be similar to cutting off federal funding to South Central because of the OJ verdict.

At least we can take solice in the idea that there was even a trial. Hey mabey the glove did not fit...we must acquit.

~Matt

That's a different argument. If OJ had been found guilty and gotten 2.5 years there would be more of a similarity. The LAPD's incompetence is to blame for the OJ fiasco.

I think by saying that, you acknowledge that there is strong country-wide support for terrorism. When you say that, you are acknowledging that this is a religious war. OK, now you can tell me what a peaceful religion it is and how it is just a few crazies give it a bad name.

And yeah, cut off the aid. A peaceful protest, wouldn't you say?

What exactly are you rambling about now? A guy gets a less than ideal sentence, so we should stop helping the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who need help because of a natural disaster? And exactly how does suggesting that it's a good thing that this guy at least went through a legal system lead to any kind of statement about there being country-wide support for terrorism, or any statement at all about Islam? I think you've gone off the reservation,...again.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"I think by saying that, you acknowledge that there is strong country-wide support for terrorism."

I think by saying that I mean that in a country that had really strong country wide support for terrorism there probably wouldn't be a trial at all.

Has there ever been a trial in palestine for similar circumstances? Don't know just asking.

~Matt

Since I disagree with you and hence can go fU(# myself, I am inclined to respond.

You're a moron. Agree?

hope you're not offended either. dumbass.

---

Josef
-------
blog

JoB: Monk was being facetious (well, maybe not the part about going and fucking yourself ;-). Lighten up.

Tony

Monk was being facetious.

-- Dear Tony: I am sorry if I offendend you by talking back to MONK. I will carefully consider your instructions next time I post should you allow me. BTW, do you think I was joking as well?

Facetious? How do you know - you guys been hanging out together? Because he backed up his statement with 'the Mossad would have known how to handle this'? IF it was a joke - which it wasn't - it sucked A$$. And his political convictions nonwithstanding, Monk is probably the funniest guy on this forum. There, I said it.

Dude: > 100000 people dead, I don't see a reason for jokes. You may disagree.

===
(well, maybe not the part about going and fucking yourself ;-)
-- What was that part about lightening up again? BTW, including a ;-) doesn't make it any less insulting. Have a good one.

---

Josef
-------
blog

I dont think Monk was being facetious. I think it was a visceral, angry response (sort of like one I had after 9/11 where I wanted to carpet bomb Kabul). Neither idea makes for very good policy though.

---

_______________________________________________