between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization — messages that could have had "potentially lethal consequences" for citizens of the United States. She was given a whopping 28 months for these treasonist activities.
The judge on this case is John G. Koeltl and he was appointed by President Bill Clinton in April, 1994. If the democrats take power this November, will this be how terrorists and their sympathizers will be treated? Why wasn't the book thrown at her?
2006-10-17 06:24:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Tham - there is an old saying - if you are willing to do the crime, you better be willing to do the time. She knew this was illegal and did it anyway
2006-10-17 07:06:20 · update #1
Alexg - if you listen to most of the people on Yahoo who are liberal then the world would be a more quiet and peaceful place. Bush is wrong for even taking a breath, while Clinton's legacy is giving us this crap!
2006-10-17 07:36:35 · update #2
Oh come on people, where are all of the liberals who like to bash Bush on the answers here. If you really think Bush is so bad, lets look at what your liberal policies are doing here.
You have to show an id to get on a airplane, but not to vote. Terrorist sympathizers are given a break before the go to prison. Is this what the democratic party stands for? Or are the Neocon's right?
2006-10-18 01:34:38 · update #3
Well it definitely was a stupid act on her part but that's what you get when you feel sorry for the so called down trodden dogs of the world. Did you really expect a liberal judge to sentence her to a long period of time? Heck she's already walking the streets until the appellate court looks at the case by the time she actually even gets a date for jail she'll beyond the hands of any court of law.
2006-10-17 07:13:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The tactics folks use on this site to discredit other people's belief is far from Christlike. It is also far from maturity. If someone says "it is a cult because it is not a main stream religion", or some other erroneous reason, they are just reflecting the mentality of those who rejected Jesus and his followers in the first century. Those early Christians were the minority, and were referred to as a sect which at that time had the same negative connotation as the word cult. They were also falsely accused many times. Jesus warned his disciples that they would be no part of the world and hated by the world. You can't get passed the fact that this was prophesied. Thus in actuality it would be a mark of true Christianity. But the fundies that are the most reprehensible are so far from what Christian means. If someone spends time on this site using false propaganda and slander they are so far removed from what the Bible says; which condemns such actions, God in no way approves of such despicable tactics. How dare they use the Bible as an excuse! These very ones will be rejected by Christ for their lawless deeds!!! People misuse the Bible as an excuse to hate!
2016-05-22 08:55:53 · answer #2 · answered by Liana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the dems were in power when 9/11 happened they would have invited the terrorists over for tea and asked them how else they could help them destroy the USA!
2006-10-17 06:39:09 · answer #3 · answered by Princess of the Realm 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I thought Clinton was the greatest President when it came to fighting terrorists ....
Don't you know muslims have the right to kill Americans.. Why do you want to stomp on their civil liberties.. We need to separate Church and State.. they Kill Americans for religious reasons.. we shouldn't stop them.... We can't put our beliefs on them.. that's why they hate us.. Once they kill all of us Americans then they won't bomb us anymore.. That's how you win the war on terrorism,, Bush is just a hate monger who would rather have our enemies dead and not Americans.. Man he is so selfish.,... I can't wait till we are all dead so this war for oil stops..
2006-10-17 06:42:12 · answer #4 · answered by alexg114 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Throw the book at her? How cruel! She might have received a bruise & filed suit under the 8th amendment.
2006-10-17 06:54:08 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
She should have been given a life sentence. Judge J.G. Koeltl, should also be prosecuted, for not giving her more time.
2006-10-17 06:48:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You answered your own question. She said she could do this sentence standing on her head. I say we impose that caveat on her.
2006-10-17 06:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by Answergirl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
and they wonder why we get so disgusted with the whole political corrupt process?
2006-10-17 08:04:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
she should have been tried for treason,aiding and abetting the enemy during wartime,found guilty and executed.
2006-10-17 06:35:00 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Money talks!!
2006-10-17 06:34:09 · answer #10 · answered by alfonso 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋