Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dinasour
"She is knowingly covering up for a terrorist."

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

She might have been told a threat was generated from one of the library computers, but from the article, I can't say she knew it was a terrorist.

Go read the DOJ page I linked in #58. It's obvious it difficult to get a good handle on this.

65 posted on 01/25/2006 1:39:43 PM PST by randomnumber (I have no excuse for my behavior; do you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: randomnumber
You're assuming facts not in evidence.

This is the court of public opinion, the rules of evidence are different :-)

Go read the DOJ page I linked in #58

A bit over my head. I am not sure that the fact that these are computers is essential.

Let's say that they found a bomb and there was evidence that the bomb was made in the library's bathroom. Such as, they found a trash can labeled "property of...", in the dumbster outside, with residue on it.

If the police then went to the library and said, "we'd like to look at your facilities". Do you think the library should try to stop them?

75 posted on 01/25/2006 2:09:54 PM PST by dinasour (Pajamahadeen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson