武装反共被判终身监禁

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

“……Chhun argues that the sentencing court did not adequately

address three specific issues:

1. the fact that the entire prosecution of Mr.

Chhun had been politically motivated; 2) the

failure of the government to charge any other

CFF officials for the failed overthrow of Hun

Sen proves that the incident was not believed

that serious by the federal government, and

the failure to charge others involved in the

coup d’état demonstrated sentencing

disparity; 3) the failure of the government to

take any action against Mr. Chhun until the

statute of limitations was about to run proves

that he was not considered a future threat.

The sentencing guidelines in this case recommended a

sentence of “life.” The sentencing judge stated that, in

deciding to sentence Chhun to life in prison, he considered

the § 3553(a) factors. The sentencing court, moreover,

implicitly addressed Chhun’s first and third issues—that his

UNITED STATES V. CHHUN                    25

prosecution was politically motivated and that the delay in

prosecuting him proves he was not a future threat—by

emphasizing the government’s prosecutorial discretion and

the government’s discretion in interacting with other

countries. The court also addressed Chhun’s second

issue—that he was the only CFF official prosecuted—by

noting that he was the leader of the movement. Thus, the

sentencing transcript suggests that the court specifically

addressed Chhun’s concerns, addressed the § 3553(a) factors,

and explained Chhun’s sentence.

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not

commit plain error in sentencing Chhun to life in prison.

VII.   Chhun’s Sentence          Was    Not    Substantively

Unreasonable

Chhun argues that his sentence was substantively

unreasonable because the sentencing court did not adequately

consider Chhun’s “[n]oble” effort to overthrow a “universally

despised despot,” it punished him only because his overthrow

effort “fail[ed] to succeed,” and it punished him for the

purpose of “send[ing] a message” to foreign governments.

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d

1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2010). The review must consider the

totality of the circumstances, while recognizing that the

“‘sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and

judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case.’”

Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).

We find that Chhun’s sentence was not substantively

unreasonable. The sentencing court gave numerous reasons

26               UNITED STATES V. CHHUN

to support Chhun’s sentence and thereby showed that it did

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Chhun. In addition to

those reasons discussed supra, in Part VI, the sentencing

court also explained that illegal conduct will not be shielded

from punishment just because it is “noble.” The court

rejected Chhun’s pleas for leniency because he caused the

deaths of innocent people. These reasoned justifications for

sentencing Chhun to life in prison show that the sentence was

not substantively unreasonable. Therefore, we hold that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Chhun

to life in prison.

VIII. Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we AFFIRM Chhun’s

convictions and sentencing in all respects.”

CFF 柬埔寨自由战士被美国政府定为恐怖组织。

“联邦检察官办公室发言人姆若泽克说，审判过程的证据显示，大约200名柬埔寨自由战士组织的成员参加了2000年的政变，他们有相当多的武器，包括AK47自动步枪、手榴弹和肩负式火箭发射器，但在几个小时内被柬埔寨政府军的坦克击退。-voa”

春（CFF领袖，美国籍，赤柬受害人，被联邦法院判终身监禁不得假释）
他遥控指挥CFF成员在柬埔寨对洪森政府发动多次武装袭击，飞去泰国建立组织营地。

我大概摘出报道没有提到的，上面上诉书中的几点讲一下：上诉称：“1: 美国政府起诉他是政治动机（柬埔寨政府要求美国行动；2: 所有CFF领袖只有他一人被起诉，说明联邦政府没有把这个事件视为极其严重的事件，只判刑春一人是选择性执法。；3: 在追诉期即满之时起诉，说明联邦政府不视其为“future threat” 未来的威胁。” 并且要求法庭注意到他尝试推翻一个“广为人知恶名昭彰的政府” 以及他尝试推翻洪森政府属于“高尚”的行为。“美国政府只是为了对外国政府释放信息” “恐怖行为…没有损害美国利益。”

以上，望联邦考虑是否量刑过重。

法院维持原判 理由其它点不相干，判决没有“实质不合理的”且 “其行为不能因“高尚”受到保护”。

我说实话看到这个记录挺失望的，以密谋罪，攻击与美国和平中的国家等起诉的。

“密谋在外国杀人、破坏财物、违反美国的中立法案、发动军事行动打击和美国处于和平状态的国家以及在外国使用大规模杀伤性武器。-voa”

判决法官说他不相信春是一个邪恶的人，但是行为必须付出代价。

春仍然在联邦监狱服刑。

想起我原来发的贴说要参加民兵对在美国的共产党家属，大五毛怎样怎样的，看到这个以后一声叹息。

只怕要是我因为这样进去了连个来探监我的华人“反共人士”都不会有，信不信？在美国的反共先锋民运领袖会速速与恐怖份子划清界限！可悲，可笑！

祝好吧 CFF领袖 春 你是英雄。我会记住你名字的意思：“柬埔寨摩西”。

品葱用户 江世俊 评论于 2020-09-26

判的比杀死美军的塔立班成员还重，确认法官没有被贿赂？看到最近的新闻我不再相信美国法律是净土了。

品葱用户 另类右翼AltRight 评论于 2020-09-26

非常新自由主义。

品葱用户 ScottY614869 评论于 2020-09-26

看来武装反共对武力和规模的要求不低。我觉得要是打出旗号加上做大就不会这样了。

品葱用户 李开复反攻大陆 评论于 2020-09-26

是不是因为美国想要把工厂搬到东南亚，所以打压支那共匪的同时支持东南亚共匪？
另外阿姨不是要核平桂枝，把9000万共产党员掉路灯吗？这样的话阿姨应该就是恐怖分子的头头了吧？难道要到关塔那摩去锻炼武德？

品葱用户 **范松忠

李开复反攻大陆** 评论于 2020-09-26

>>是不是因为美国想要把工厂搬到东南亚，所以打压共匪的同时支持东南亚共匪？另外阿姨不是要核平桂枝，把90…

扶中灭苏、扶印灭中、扶柬灭种、扶谁灭印、灭柬？

品葱用户 peacefulwaters 评论于 2020-09-25

这算啥，米国著名的白人至上种族主义者Don Black，后来创办了著名的stormfront
人家在1980年代密谋入侵多米尼克共和国，被美帝抓起来关了两年。

品葱用户 **白头山伟人金正恩

范松忠** 评论于 2020-09-25

>>扶中灭苏、扶印灭中、扶柬灭种、扶谁灭印、灭柬？

你给我一种推恩令的感觉

品葱用户 **范松忠

白头山伟人金正恩** 评论于 2020-09-25

>>你给我一种推恩令的感觉

不光是美国如此，以前英国也是联合老三打老二。

我的浅见，推恩令不是要求无限分裂么？习犬犬是“反推恩令”执行者吧？哈哈。

点击品葱原文参与讨论

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金