Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties

[Nickdfresh]

Bush calls surveillance bill inadequate

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent1 hour, 9 minutes ago

President Bush said Thursday that the House Democrats' version of a terrorist-surveillance bill would undermine the nation's security and that if it reaches his desk, he would veto it.

Ratcheting up his rhetoric, Bush said, "The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror."

The House is expected to vote on the measure later Thursday. Bush went before cameras on the South Lawn before the vote to encourage Democrats to drop their effort and, instead, support a Senate-passed version.

Replying to Bush, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the president was trying to bully Congress and mislead the people.

"He refuses to accept that under our system of government, neither the president nor the telecommunications companies gets to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore," Kennedy said in a written statement.

"The president wants Congress to pretend that his administration did not conduct a massive, illegal, domestic warrantless surveillance program that was one of the most outrageous abuses of executive power in our nation's history. Rather than accuse Congress of playing politics, the president should stop playing politics with our national security," he said.

The law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States. The law expired Feb. 16 after Congress did not quickly renew it. Bush opposed a temporary extension and has warned that failure to renew the law would put the nation at greater risk.

Bush said the House bill "could reopen dangerous intelligence gaps by putting in place a cumbersome court approval process that would make it harder to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists."

"Their partisan legislation would extend protections we enjoy as Americans to foreign terrorists overseas," the president said. "It would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats, and it is a risk that our country cannot afford to take.

The Senate-passed version would grant legal immunity to the telecommunications firms. Bush said lawsuits against telecommunications companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said it would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the government in trying to track down terrorists.

Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."

He said the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and even if the Senate did, he would veto it.

Nineteen Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Wednesday challenging the administration's arguments.

"We have concluded that the administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill," they said in a statement issued by the committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

They said they have seen no evidence that lawsuits have harmed the telecommunications companies' reputations or finances, or that intelligence gathering has been compromised.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance

[Deklon]

"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties. What part of that don't you foolish liberals get? Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program? As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

The following is a hypothetical that you should be quite fearful of...

"President Obama/Clinton, we have strong reason to believe that person X is talking to someone overseas about an impending terrorist attack on our country, we need to set up a wiretap immediately."

President Obama/Clinton responds, "Well, I just can't take away this suspected/known terrorists civil liberties, let's send this through the court system"

You may call this exploiting fear. Well, the fear is factual and real. I, for one, am glad we have a president who is doing everything he feels necessary to protect my wife and two young boys.

Read the following quotes and tell me honestly that our President needs to be more concerned with civil liberties of suspected terrorists with known connections than with protecting the citizen's he is responsible for...

"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children."
-Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

"If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible."
-Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

"The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction."
-Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

[kwame k]

I have no problem with using every available tool to fight the people who want to do us harm but that includes President Bush Inc. and his disregard of the Constitution. One liberty try about 20 that this fucking crook has slowly tried to take away from us.

Yes, terrorists are using our system against but as Ben Franklin said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The framers of the Constitution put safeguards into the Constitution to protect us against terrorist like Bush Inc. Asking for a warrant to go after a known terrorist will not hinder anyone from doing their jobs. A warrant for a wiretap can be obtained quickly, if they show cause. Checks and Balances. No President or Organization should have unfettered access to spy on private citizens, period. They need every tool necessary to stop terrorism but protecting the phone company from lawsuits and no oversight for the people listening in on people’s conversations is bullshit.

When you give a President that kind of power and blanket it under national security you get the same scenario that Nixon used to black mail potential political rivals. It’s not national security to abuse the laws of our land. Hiding behind national security is a lame ass excuse for giving People, Elected by The People, For the People the keys to the kingdom. We are a country of free people and that freedom has a high price. Using fear to take away liberty is Constitutional Terrorism!!

Do you realize that Bush Inc. could be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s an election year and The Democrats are too fucking scared to do it. It would bog down the machine and take focus away from the election.

I ran across this online:

"We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws…. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. -- American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

Over one thousand lawyers – including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein – have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.
In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: "The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights." Ratner said he was "dismayed" that a Democratic majority has failed "to push on key illegalities… the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal…. The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what."
Ratner noted that even with regard to the US attorney's investigations, where Congressional committees held Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove in contempt, leadership has failed to enforce these actions by bringing the resolutions to a vote. "Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations," Ratner said. "Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive. Issuing contempt citations against Bolten, Miers, and Rove should be Congress's first order of business in 2008."
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, discussed the administration's torture program violating three US-ratified treaties and the US torture statute; the illegal War in Iraq violating the US-ratified UN Charter as a war of aggression; and Attorney General Michael Mukasey's conflict of interest in overseeing investigations into the torture program and the destruction of the CIA interrogations tapes.
Also speaking with reporters was Jesselyn Raddack, a former Justice Department ethics lawyer who served as an advisor during the interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). Raddack said, "My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy…. " Raddack pointed to the Department of Justice's investigations of Enron and Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and the need for the same aggressive oversight and legal proceedings in these scandals.
This is a vital effort by those charged with defending our constitution, as Ratner said, "This lawyers' letter and the growing number of signatures we'll have on it, and prominent people – it's a way of saying to Congress, ‘You need some backbone. You need to have a serious investigation, wherever it might go, on these issues that really have taken the United States out of the mainstream of human rights.' It's absolutely critical… We've opened up the door to illegality…. Unless we have accountability on those illegalities, we're going to be facing a very bleak future in which fundamental rights will not really be obeyed."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=262693

Now I agree that we should kill all the lawyers but every now and then they come in handy.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties.

Um, no. They can open up any email, intercept ANY call they want. The Justice Dept. has revealed that the FBI is wantonly abusing the powers of the National Security Letters and probably doing so in violation of peoples' civil rights, and as a means to harass legitimate dissenters, not violent terrorists or criminals:

From the Washington Post:

Report: FBI Misused Information-Gathering Powers

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008; 3:49 PM

The FBI continued to improperly obtain private telephone, e-mail and financial records five years after it was granted expanded powers under the USA Patriot Act, according to a report issued today.

In a review focusing on FBI investigations in 2006, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found numerous privacy breaches by the bureau in its use of national security letters, or NSLs, which allowed the FBI to obtain personal information on tens of thousands of Americans and foreigners without approval from a judge.

The findings mirror a report issued by Fine's office last year, which concluded that the FBI had improperly used the letters to obtain telephone logs, banking records and other personal data for three previous years, from 2003 to 2005.

The pattern persisted in 2006, Fine concluded in the report issued today, in part because the FBI had not yet halted the shoddy recordkeeping, poor oversight and other practices that contributed to the problems. He also said it was unclear whether reforms enacted by the Justice Department and FBI last year will address all the issues identified by his investigators.
...


With the domestic surveillance program, there is no known set of protocols as to whether someone is suspected of being involved in terror or not simply because they have refused access of members on the intelligence committee. And the problem is the Bush Administrations "fuck you, take that bitch!!" attitude whenever somebody tries to modify these programs to insure civil liberties are not being illegally shat upon while secrecy laws are abused as blanket protection --and the corporate communications hubs that potentially illegally gave information to the gov't under pane of not getting contracts are given blanket immunity..

Jesus Christ! Some of these companies would have built gas chambers in 1942 with their servile, mindless and spineless obedience to the corporate state...

And if there was no real wrongdoing, then they have nothing to fear in court, don't they?

What part of that don't you foolish liberals get?

The part about the retarded, pseudo-conservatives that disregard any pretensions of libertarianism ideals that their supposed to believe in and just blindly trust the gov't, unless of course it comes to taxes or Democrats being in power. Whatever happened to the true Goldwater conservatives that questioned ALL authority, not just bitched about having to pay taxes?

Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program?

No. I wasn't. Name ONE!!

Are you aware that before in the period of June to August of 2001, the "9/11 Commission Report" indicates that the terrorist chatter was "blinking red," and that the domestic spying program Bush had already enacted, illegally, didn't do a damn fucking thing to stop them?

As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

Wow, you mean he gave some bullshit answer that never indicates specifics, nor does it have any actual evidence of a terror cell being rounded up in the continental US that had any tangible plans to launch attacks here...

The following is a hypothetical that you should be quite fearful of...

Be afraid! Fear! Fear!

"President BUSH/Cheney, we have strong reason to believe that person X is a member of a politically active group peacefully exercising their rights to free speech."

President BUSH/Cheney responds, "Well, lets harass them by issuing FBI 'National Security' letters and see if we can get them fired from their jobs and call the IRS to audit their taxes. He he he!"

You may call this exploiting fear. Well, the fear is factual and real. I, for one, am glad we have a president who is doing everything he feels necessary to protect my wife and two young boys.

LMAFO!! He's the president that ignored a CIA briefing stating that al Qaeda intended to attack the US using hijacked airliners in August of 2001...

Read the following quotes and tell me honestly that our President needs to be more concerned with civil liberties of suspected terrorists with known connections than with protecting the citizen's he is responsible for...

"Liberties of SUSPECTED terrorists?"

So, whenever a murder-rape happens, we should round up all of the men in the town between the ages of 13 and 65 until we catch the murder?

"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children."
-Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

It's a good thing that right wing idiot sites are so concerned with reprinting terrorist propaganda...

"If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible."
-Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

Gee --what have American Nazis said?

What about mouth breathers on this site that advocate murdering innocent Muslim women and children as revenge for 9/11? Are they terrorists too? I'm supposed to let some babbling idiot terrorize me?

Good bitches! Way to cave in!

"The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction."
-Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

Funny, but why did we invade Iraq is we're so worried about the Taliban and what members of al Qaeda say?

While your peeing your pants over the empty, bellicose rhetoric of some idiot living in a cave and being supported by our "allies," I'm going to wave my middle finger at him by viewing pornography and drinking a beer...

Peace out.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

While your peeing your pants over the empty, bellicose rhetoric of some idiot living in a cave and being supported by our "allies," I'm going to wave my middle finger at him by viewing pornography and drinking a beer...

Peace out.

You might as well this is what Bush is doing.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Deklon
"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties. What part of that don't you foolish liberals get? Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program? As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

What is this moronic shit?

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.

But the proposal from the white house doesn't say "known terrorist." It doesn't say anything. It's just up to the sole discretion of a bureaucrat to surveil whoever they feel like.

For that matter, if somebody were a "known" terrorist - then they would have zero difficulty getting a warrant, would they? Then why not? Why not follow the Fourth Amendment as it's written?

Because they're not limiting themselves to "known" terrorists.


Congratulations - you're an ignorant ass. How does it feel?

[bueno bob]

In a nutshell? Bush's rhetoric and anti-civil liberties policies have saved Americans here and far from THOUSANDS, AND I DO MEAN THOUSANDS, of terrorist attacks! It's true!

Well, that's what he says, anyway.

Of course...mentioning anything SPECIFIC among those thousands of attacks would jeopardize the nation, so I guess it's just a guessing game. But fuck, I mean, he's been so HONEST up to this point, why not believe him?

[Nickdfresh]

Praise Jesus! the children are safe from the Islamofacists.

If only the gov't would actually show evidence of this by actually breaking up a cell that was actually planning something, and not a bunch of loud-mouthed lunatics incapable of planning a bake sale, much less a terror attack in CONUS...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.

So by your fuzzy logic Osama bin Laden is a.........

But the proposal from the white house doesn't say "known terrorist." It doesn't say anything. It's just up to the sole discretion of a bureaucrat to surveil whoever they feel like.

Kind of a good reason to have some over-sight there, Skippy.

For that matter, if somebody were a "known" terrorist - then they would have zero difficulty getting a warrant, would they? Then why not? Why not follow the Fourth Amendment as it's written?

Ask Bush why he doesn't.

Because they're not limiting themselves to "known" terrorists.

No shit! You're getting there!

Congratulations - you're an ignorant ass. How does it feel?

Oh so close! You were actually going to make some sense. Then you blew you're wad too soon.:eek:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Blackflag

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.

Hooray! This is tremendous news for the people held at Guantanamo!

[vh rides again]

the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.
talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

making plans on going over to your best freinds house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by vh rides again
the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

Says the police as the round you up.

You trust all police? You mean there are no innocent people in jail or that have been executed?

And what if you're not violating any laws -- but become the subject of political and economic harassment? What is your recourse?

if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.

Um, you would have gotten caught even without this policy as one would have to be a retard to even bother...

talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

What if it were kids pranking? Should they be arrested for conspiracy then? How many resources were wasted in busting them?

And are real terrorists/bank robbers stupid enough to talk about their plans over an open line? Most, the ones that are actually competent and a threat, would never use the phone. Even Bin Laden doesn't use his phone...

BTW, this program is only supposed to be against national security threats. But already it's okay by you if they listen to everyone?

making plans on going over to your best friends house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

Says you. What if the Christian Right fully realizes their agenda of a more "moral" America and creates a morality police?

I think many in Wiemar Germany felt that way in 1932...

Where does it stop? At which laws are okay for the gov't to discard "in the name of security," and which are okay?

Is it okay to then call someone a "terrorist," then summarily execute them. Bury their body at Area 51 (a test range so secret, it's not clear if anyone in the FBI could actually even investigate the crime scene).

It's a slippery slope to fascism. And it begins with an ignorant citizenry willing to give up their rights for some false perception of safety. And it also begins by turning a blind eye to law violations by the executive branch, which inherently leads to the lawless state. Which is the basis of a dictatorship...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by vh rides again
the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.
talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

making plans on going over to your best freinds house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

I’m not going to cut and paste each part of your post and make snide comments.

Truly, I’m not being a smartass, if the sentiments in your statement are what the vast majority of the voting public believe our country is ruined. Democracy will be a failed experiment. There is nothing I can say to convince you how dangerous your views are, to the American way of life.

PLEASE read up on McCarthyism here’s a quick link http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

Please read up on Presidents Nixon and Johnson and how they hid behind National Security.

Do an internet search about the Constitutional Violations that George W. Bush has committed but swore to defend.

U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As Nickd has pointed out read about the Nazi’s and how they rose to power. If you substitute “Terrorist” for “Jews” you’ll see that the current administration is similar to the Nazi’s of the 1930’s. Using a group of boogey men Nazi’s=Jews, Bush=Terrorist as a fear tactic to erode civil liberties.

Read Bush’s statements about the bill he is threatening to veto. He wants to protect the Phone Companies from being sued from Sept 11, 2001 to now. Why is he so worried about giving immunity to the Phone Companies if they are only spying on criminals?

I’ll never change your mind about what you believe. We can disagree about Politics, Religion, and even the weather but that is only because we have Constitutional Rights. Those rights are being taken away. It’s not only one right, it’s many that are slowly being taken away bit by bit.
One Constitutional right taken away is one too many. You are not any safer. It’s just that the fear of the unknown has made you think you are safer.

Here are some definitions of terrorism

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS212US212&defl=en&q=define:terrorism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

The terrorist are winning because they are destroying our freedoms by using fear to intimidate us into submission. The statements you are making fall right into the terrorist’s goal for America. George W Bush and his Administration are Constitutional Terrorist!

The views I have and the statements I make will not be considered an American’s right to Free Speech but subversion. I will, if things keep going the way they are, be considered a Traitor to my government. Even though speaking out against our government was one of the safe guards that every Founding Father wanted to guarantee.

Read what the founders of our country said about situations like we are facing right now. They set up our system to safe guard us from Presidents like George W Bush.

Please read what Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other Traitors said about people like George W Bush.

I honestly feel sorry for you if you are buying into this Administration’s lies.

[Deklon]

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

Right out of the gate! Jesus, you didn't even make it past number one.
The US Government didn't do shit about that it was the passengers and flight attendants.
What law or government agency stopped that??? He made it on the plane. Da plane, boss, da plane!!!!

Next!