Attempt To Blow Up US Passenger Jet

are the times set forth on the posts accurate ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

are the times set forth on the posts accurate ?

They are if you have the time zone offset configured properly in preferences.

The cool detachment that was so attractive when political opponents were trying to rile Obama is suddenly becoming annoying. Preternaturally unflappable, his demeanor in these circumstances borders on inappropriate.

What does it take to get a rise out of Barack Obama? Not that we need bombast and flared nostrils. Calm in the face of potential disaster is laudable, but it's a fine line between executive tranquillity and passive nonchalance. Like a tone-deaf disc jockey, Obama plays elevator music when the crowd wants John Philip Sousa.

But action is being taken, we're told. Investigations are underway and reports are being tabulated. Soon decisions will be forthcoming as to whether we bomb al-Qaeda outposts in Yemen or insist that travelers liberate their inner Britneys and go panty-free through security checkpoints.

Full-cavity searches can't be far from the minds of bureaucrats looking for ways to create a faux sense of security rather than figuring out how to draw simple inferences from red flags, recently in numbers sufficient to spell out "Allahu Akbar" on a halftime football field.

that can be said of all suicide bombers, though

Non-citizens don't enjoy the full range of constitutional protections.

Herein lies the true peril of the 21st Century: Intelligent people allowing poltical orthodoxy to overwhelm their ability to reason.

The cool detachment that was so attractive when political opponents were trying to rile Obama is suddenly becoming annoying.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Non-citizens don't enjoy the full range of constitutional protections.

"Not the full range of constitutional protection" is very different from "no rights" -- which is what David had claimed, and what I responded to.

What specific protections do you claim he was lacking, and an American citizen would enjoy?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Non-citizens don't enjoy the full range of constitutional protections.

"Not the full range of constitutional protection" is very different from "no rights" -- which is what David had claimed, and what I responded to.

What specific protections do you claim he was lacking, and an American citizen would enjoy?

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. We hold that it does not.

The Fourth Amendment provides: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Thomas, it has been well established law
that aliens not in America have no rights
under the US Constitution. JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER 339 US 763, (195O);

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thomas, it has been well established law
that aliens not in America have no rights
under the US Constitution. JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER 339 US 763, (195O);

Eisentrager, Schmeisentrager! It is also a well-established fact that been a well-established fact that Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab was on a Northwest Airlines plane when he put his pants on fire. Hence, under the Warsaw Convention (PDF), he absolutely was on US territory as far as the law is concerned. Eisentrager, by contrast, was on a US army base in Germany, and consequently under the jurisdiction of West Germany. Johnson v. Eisentrager simply doesn't apply to the Detroit case.