Several months ago, an Al-Qaida supporter was charged with helping terrorists attack non-muslim tourists in the muslim country of Indonesia. (Indonesia is the same country that Borak Obama spent a large portion of his childhood). That one attack left 88 Australians dead. A total of over 160 tourists were killed.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_08_03_abdhir.indicted.press.html
http://asp.usatoday.com/community/utils/idmap/28352021.story
Photos of the terorrist attack.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0806/csmimg/p10a.jpg
http://samizdata.net/~pdeh/Bali_survivors_13oct02_sml.jpg
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/uploads/621bali-attack.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing
2007-10-18 14:08:52 · 8 answers · asked by a bush family member 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Also, wiretaps led to the arrest and conviction of other islamofacists in the U.S..
"Padilla convicted of terrorism support.
MIAMI - Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism. " http://news.public.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/08-17-2007/87ba002e322b1890.html
2007-10-18 14:09:42 · update #1
Liberals tried to block the trial of Padilla and other Al-Qaida.
"Judge rejects Padilla acquittal motion." [Padilla is A.K.A. Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah]
"MIAMI - A federal judge refused Tuesday to acquit Jose Padilla and two co-defendants on terrorism support charges, clearing the way for defense lawyers to begin presenting their case this week. "..."Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face possible life in prison if convicted of being part of a support cell that provided recruits, money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups around the world, including al-Qaida. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-17-2070374513_x.htm
2007-10-18 14:09:58 · update #2
No they are not, they would rather protect the rights of the terrorists and see thousands of American civilians dead. It worked for them in the 90s.
2007-10-18 14:12:59 · answer #1 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yep - would be happier if they were done legally with a warrant.
Please explain to me how having to get a warrant would have stopped this - that is all Dems are asking for.
Just out of interest - what is the relevance of Obama spending some of his childhood (4 years is hardly a "large portion") in Indonesia. About a quarter of a billion people live in Indonesia - are all of them tainted in your mind?
2007-10-18 21:27:57 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wiretapping without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional. If you're willing to surrender the rights and privileges this nation is supposed to be about then I guess you also won't protest when they come to arrest you without charges too. Think it's ridiculous? They thought so too in 1932 Germany.
2007-10-18 21:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by douglas l 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Whether or not they are working is irrelevant, they are a direct violation of the Constitution. To use the now famous quote: Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
2007-10-18 21:16:50 · answer #4 · answered by ethericat 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am an independent, but regarding the wiretaps...I just wish people wouldn't use the phrase "you know..." so much, after the first two hours it drives me nuts!
2007-10-18 21:16:26 · answer #5 · answered by in pain 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its because demorats have phone sex with the Ayatollah in their spare time.
2007-10-18 21:16:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i don't care what they stop. they're unconstitutional regardless.
as someone just posted, "anyone who gives up essential liberty for extra security deserves neither liberty nor security" - b. franklin
2007-10-18 21:13:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
where's the part where you provide evidence that the wiretaps "work"?
2007-10-18 21:26:14 · answer #8 · answered by brian 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋