kack911

You might want to take a look at the rules governing the denaturalization process. Membership in subversive groups such as al-Qaeda or Caucasus Emirate, or failing to testify regarding suspected subversive activities is grounds for USCIS to revoke one's naturalization. So perhaps you should drop the faux-outrage and gain a better understanding of immigration law. I recommend you start with 8 U.S.C. § 1451 which states, in part: "If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship..." Now, maybe the "within five years" part will be his saving grace, but that doesn't change the fact that naturalized citizens can indeed have their citizenship revoked for gross buffoonery. Edited to add the citation.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm dense, but what's the BFD about not reading him his rights? Mirandizing someone doesn't magically confer any rights to the individual; it simply advises one of his rights. If LE isn't concerned about the admissibility of his statements in a court of law, then it doesn't f'n matter if they read him his rights or not. I don't think we need dickface's confession, so who cares? Seriously? I remember a time when mother######ers didn't move to America, get subsidized education at prestigious schools, become naturalized citizens, and then blow up American civilians in the name of Allah. He willingly forfeited his Consititutional rights as an American when he dropped that IED at an 8 year old kid's feet.

Not that this will end well, but how does one watch that video and come to a conclusion other than the tanker being at "fault"? The horizon and ground movement seem to indicate an aggressive pitch-over by the tanker, and if you look a bit closer, you can even see the AWACS' wings flex as he unloads to avoid to the tanker. Is there an AIB that offers better information? Is the argument that the AWACS' bow wave at the upper/inner limit caused the tanker A/P to disconnect, therefore it's the AWACS' fault? I don't fly 325,000lb airplanes within 20ft of each other, so I don't know. Is it common for the tanker to fly in an out-of-trim state such that if the A/P takes a shit, the jet moves around like that?

Goes without saying. Nothing was omitted, intentionally or otherwise. Rather, a credit report contains outdated information that contradicts the SF-86. Like I said, clear documentation exists that the issue was satisfactorily resolved. Yet, the investigator is acting like a douche. It seems prudent to have another pair of eyes and ears in the room during the meeting, but I don't know if the rules provide for that?

Scenario: Individual is a government contractor who has an interim secret clearance. During processing of the paperwork to complete the final clearance, an investigator uncovers what he thinks is an intentional omission/misrepresentation in the paperwork. Feathers are ruffled; panties bunched; teeth gnashed; hands wrung, etc... Said individual has original documentation that proves the issue in question was suitably resolved. Meetings are scheduled with the investigator who, naturally, thinks the individual must be a son/daughter of bin Laden. The individual is not particularly worried, since the facts are easily provable. Yet, the atmosphere is decidedly unfriendly and unkind accusations have been made. Question: Is the individual entitled to any sort of representation, an advocate, or simply a witness to the proceedings? Do such entitlements vary based upon the organization one is in? The agency in question is USCIS. The same question will be posed to the security manage on Monday, but I'm just looking for a cranium's up from those who have BTDT... Thanks.

This 'DO' tail-coded jet was with the 89 TFS, 906 TFG at WPAFB, which unless I'm mistaken, was an AFRES unit.

We decided that intercom antics are fair game, right? From the jumpseat: Captain - "Gear down, Flaps 45." F/O - "Drop it like it's hot!"

Unless things have changed in the last year or so (and that's a real possibility), then TCAS is not required for RVSM certification or operation. No precoordination with TMU necessary. However, if you do have TCAS installed, it MUST be version 7 (or later) software to operate in RVSM airspace. The v7 software reduces the sensitivity (sts?) of TA/RA envelopes to account for the "Reduced" part of RVSM.