If "Herr Bush" Wants a Police State Then Why Is He a Supporter of Guns

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pabst, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. Actually there is a gentleman who owns several military jet aircraft including the ass kicking Mig-29. Although he says the weapons systems have been disabled.... I wonder. He flies them himself and rents them to movie production companies and private citizens.

    As I recall US citizens have the right to bear arms. If that is true (and it is) I believe it is my "inalienable" right to fly military aircraft over any country I wish (say Iran for instance). If during the course of my flight I happened to have an ACCIDENT, and Tehran was vaporized by a medium sized tactical nuke, well, it is "my bad" and I would certainly make sure to send them a Hallmark card with the appropriate sentiment as follows;

    "Dear Iranian Arabs:

    I regret that I accidently incinerated several tens of thousands of your most valued camel humping, goat loving terrorist comrades. It was an accident. I assure you that it will not happen again, as I have spent all my discretionary funds and currently I am out of ammo. I enjoyed my tour of your lovely sandpile and will make it a point to visit again when the radiation dies down sometime in the next 10,000 years.
    Your friend

    #41     Aug 14, 2006
  2. PABSTTTTTTTTT.... THEY WERE TALKING DIRTY BOMB WHEN THEY ARRESTED...OOPS.. I MEAN DETAINED HIM. this is not an internment issue... you can not be this stupid?

    anyone with an ounce of sense knew they made it all up. come on, you just cant keep buying this crap they keep serving you.
    #42     Aug 14, 2006
  3. By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue. In 2004, the justices took up the first round of cases stemming from the war on terrorism, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring, wrote, “A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

    Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School, said the Padilla indictment was an effort by the administration “to avoid an adverse decision of the Supreme Court.”

    Jenny Martinez, a Stanford law professor who represents Padilla at the Supreme Court, said, “There’s no guarantee the government won’t do this again to Mr. Padilla or others. The Supreme Court needs to review this case on the merits so the lower court decision is not left lying like a loaded gun for the government to use whenever it wants.”

    Padilla’s lawyers had asked the justices to review his case last month, and the Bush administration was facing a deadline of next Monday for filing its legal arguments.

    ‘Double, triple hearsay’ alleged by defense
    Padilla’s appeal argues that the government’s evidence “consists of double and triple hearsay from secret witnesses, along with information allegedly obtained from Padilla himself during his two years of incommunicado interrogation.”

    Gonzales said there no longer was an issue for the justices to resolve since Padilla would have his day in court. However, the attorney general would not rule out that Padilla could be reclassified as an enemy combatant at some point.

    #43     Aug 14, 2006
  4. I like this guy's sense of humor.....
    #44     Aug 15, 2006