Another Terrorism-Prosecution Setback for the Government. A Trend?

[WSJ_law_blog]

Ahmed Ressam, seated next to Federal Public Defender JoAnn Oliver, listens as U.S. District Judge John Coughenour presides at the court session in which Ressam was convicted, April 6, 2001. Ressam was found guilty of nine federal charges, including an act of terrorism transcending a national boundary, for bringing a car loaded with explosives into the United States in what authorities said was a global plan to bomb buildings at the time of millennium celebrations. (AP/Sketch by Bill Robles)


Last month we took a look at a few government defeats in white collar cases and asked whether 2008 would be remembered as the great summer of vindication. But when it comes to terrorism cases, recent news seems to suggest that both plaintiffs and the government are having a rough go of things in that area, too.

Let’s review: The SDNY’s Judge Alvin Hellerstein strikes his orders approving settlements for plaintiffs in the In Re September 11 Litigation. The Bush administration hands Libya a waiver from terrorism-related litigation. The government largely strikes out in the Salim Hamdan trial. The Second Circuit immunizes a group of Saudis from a lawsuit filed by victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families.

Now, the L.A. Times is reporting that the Ninth Circuit tossed out the 22-year sentence imposed on Ahmed Ressam, the so-called millennium bomber, who allegedly planned to set off explosives at LAX airport. Ressam was convicted of carrying explosives into the United States from Canada in 1999 on an alleged mission to bomb the airport. The Ninth Circuit order to vacate and recalculate Ressam’s sentence.

Because Ressam cooperated with the feds in tracking down other terror suspects, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour pegged his sentence between the 35 years recommended by the prosecution and the 12 1/2 years sought by defense lawyers.

But the Ninth Circuit challenged the inclusion of an aggravating circumstance of Ressam’s felony convictions that applied an extra 10-year prison term for anyone who carries explosives when committing a serious crime. It was the second time the appellate court scrapped the 22-year term for its inclusion of the extra 10-year prison term.

This is a lot to handle on a Friday afternoon, so here’s a less-weighty issue to ponder going into the weekender. In vacating Ressam’s sentence, was the Ninth Circuit behaving like a sword-wielding Mongol horde, a flag-waving company of 1950’s-era Boy Scouts, or a band of hippies?