Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (105895)	12/29/2009 4:55:24 AM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>> Haskell said that a second Indian (appearing) man on the flight was taken in handcuffs from the plane after landing in Detroit after a "hit" from a bomb-sniffing dog, and that he (Haskell) was surprised this had not been reported in the news. << THe "hit" could be from the PETN splashing on him. Was he sitting close to the terrorist ("alleged bomber")? Or was he a passenger who wrestled him to the ground?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (105895)	12/29/2009 10:01:54 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I find this story that a passenger on an international flight boarded without a passport hard to believe. Airlines are responsible for immediately transporting back any passenger arrives without a passport. Even refugees cannot be transported until they have been issued passports. .

To: John Metcalf who wrote (105895)	12/29/2009 12:11:16 PM
From: fishweed	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

Just curious, is routine for al qaeda to claim responsibility for botched operations?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (105895)	12/29/2009 2:54:56 PM
From: Yulya	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.... Former Guantanamo Prisoners Believed Behind Northwest Airlines Bomb Plot; Sent to Saudi Arabia in 2007 abcnews.go.com Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, wrote a blistering dissent (beginning at page 110 of the opinion)in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Boumediene case, in June 2008, in which the Court, by a one vote margin, held that Gitmo detainees had a right to petition U.S. Courts for a writ of habeas corpus. "Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.... I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.... The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.... These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, the Court today raises the bar, requiring military officials to appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions under procedural and evidentiary rules that go beyond what Congress has specified.... Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of- powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.... scotusblog.com