playing nice with Air Force One

Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in
:

Then a grimy gray airliner took off on 34, the usual runway because it
leads away from Portsmouth. Shortly thereafter a voice on the radio
says "We are conducting a sweep of the runway at this time." Gotta
love it: at this time! What were they looking for, debris from the
airliner's tires.

No - they're sweeping up all the bulls&*^% left behind by the Bush Family
loose lips.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Mike Schumann writes:

National Security!

Cite the actual law that allows people on rooftops to be shot.


Why, looking for an excuse, postal bankrtuptcy boi?


Bertie

Judah writes:

They may not be able to shoot people off the tops of buildings (yet). But
I bet the SS could certainly arrest them, and detain them indefinitely as
terrorist suspects.

Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest them?
Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

The "perpetrators" sat in positions that might be
used by sniper terrorists to execute an attack on the President, and were
therefore an obvious threat to National Security.

How much of a threat are they with no weapons?

It was the private security force of another historic leader that started a
similar trend in the 30's and 40's. They even used the same initials. But
their camps weren't in Cuba, and I don't think we're using our detainees as
slaves. It seems like we get closer and closer every day.

If nobody objects, the evolution in that direction is natural.

Terror is a powerful force. More powerful than airplanes.

Goering agreed.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

They may not be able to shoot people off the tops of buildings (yet).
But I bet the SS could certainly arrest them, and detain them
indefinitely as terrorist suspects.

Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest
them? Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

Camping on the roof again after your eviction, bankruptcy boi?


Bertie

The "perpetrators" sat in positions that might be
used by sniper terrorists to execute an attack on the President, and
were therefore an obvious threat to National Security.

How much of a threat are they with no weapons?

It was the private security force of another historic leader that
started a similar trend in the 30's and 40's. They even used the same
initials. But their camps weren't in Cuba, and I don't think we're
using our detainees as slaves. It seems like we get closer and closer
every day.

If nobody objects, the evolution in that direction is natural.

Terror is a powerful force. More powerful than airplanes.

Goering agreed.


Aww, nazi argument.

Yer so kwt!


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest
them? Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute without
ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point becomes
irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated already.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatr...cts.html#eight

Judah writes:

They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute without
ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point becomes
irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated already.

Is it Constitutional?

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Judah writes:

They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute
without ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point
becomes irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated
already.

Is it Constitutional?

Exactly.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Judah writes:

They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute
without ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point
becomes irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been
demonstrated already.

Is it Constitutional?


Why you gonna blow then up if it ain't terrorist boi?

Bertie