How is this guy a pile of shit judge? I guess I don't get where you're coming from. Should the prosecutor have charged him with murder, rape, burglary, and kidnapping, too? Just because he's a bad guy doesn't mean we should charge him with things he didn't do. The law as I read it seems pretty vague. It was originally written for railroads only, which is obvious from the fact that it is in a chapter of the U.S. Code that is titled "Railroads". Everything else in this chapter is about railroads only, but for this one section they have expanded it to include ferries and other "mass transportation". I don't think they did a very good job of writing the law, and I think the judge is right to throw out it out in this case.
The language they use implies that they are talking about land and sea transportation, too. I assume he was charged under Title 18, Section 1993(a)(2) of the U.S. Code, which reads as follows:
"Whoever willfully -- places or causes to be placed any biological agent or toxin for use as a weapon, destructive substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, without previously obtaining the permission of the mass transportation provider, and with intent to endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, if such act is committed..."
And the definition of "mass transportation", from Section 1993(c)(5):
"the term `mass transportation' has the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code, except that the term shall include schoolbus, charter, and sightseeing transportation"
If you go to Title 49, Section 5302(a)(7), you read the following:
"The term ''mass transportation'' means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or sightseeing transportation."
That makes it sound like it would include airplanes, which might be what Congress intended, but almost everything else in the chapter implies that it doesn't. When they talk about mass transportation facilities, they only mention things like bus terminals and railyards and don't talk about airports. When they talk about disabling a mass transportation vehicle, they talk about wrecking or derailing it, not crashing it. Several places they talk about "bus, rail, or other." Is the judge supposed to assume that "other" means airplane? Congress should have been clear if they wanted to apply this to airplanes since nothing else in the surrounding sections applies to airplanes.
He still has eight charges against him. It's not like he's going to go free.