>> the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence > within the maximum described above [of 15 years] ... in exchange for the

>> the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence > within the maximum described above [of 15 years] ... in exchange for the concessions > made by the United States >Maybe I'm missing something, but the only concession made by the United States in the "plea agreement" sees to be a vague promise not to prosecute the defendant again. Given that the government should already have this restriction thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, is this even a concession by the government? Seems to me like the government concedes that they wont demand a higher sentence than agreed to. >> The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in any terrorism-related asset that > the defendant owns or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, > as well as any property that is traceable to, derived from, fungible with, or a substitute for > property ... involved in the offense. >That could be almost anything. That's what he agreed to, why does it matter? And in any case it's not very broad, it's just stuff related to the crime. > ... including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment. >How is it even legal? Why not? That essentially means that he agrees that the punishment isn't excessive.