Subtle Judicial Activism

A sentence was handed down today in the case of  Ahmed Ressam who was convicted of plotting the LA International Airport bombing on the eve of the millenium.  Read here an article from the Seattle Post citing the Honorable U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour's remarks during the reading of the sentence.

As much as I liked his resolve about America and where we stand regarding terrorism, it's not lost on me the number of subtle digs at Gitmo, and other "enemy combatant" confinement centers we manage around the world.  Now, to me this is subtle activism.  Being a conservative, I'm sure my lefty friends would disagree, citing that he is right right right to be firm on terrorism without abandoning the Constitution.  I, for one, don't care about applying OUR Constitution to non-citizens, but that attitude dismays my lefty pals.  

To be fair, I offer this as a contrast.  During the sentencing of Robert Reid (aka shoebomber), Judge William Young equally stood firm on where we, as a country, stand on terrorism.  So if you want to say Judge Young's comments are equally subtle Judicial Activism go ahead...you won't convince me though.

See, the difference is we have Judge Young, on the one hand, who hammers a terrorist and tells him he cannot win against us and we don't fear him, and God Bless America.  Meanwhile, on the other hand we have Judge Coughenour saying we stand firm on terrorism and going on to use his 5 minutes of fame to speak out against a policy the Libs are all fired up against.

Is it just me?  Judges need to apply the law in the cases before them.  They have earned the right I suppose to add editorial comment to perps (terrorists in these cases) during the delivery of the sentence.  Do they also have the right to apply this editorial comment against aspects of the very Government whose laws they have sworn to protect and defend?