Skip to comments.
Hillary Demonstrator gets jail time
©Finger Lakes Times 2002 ^
| December 08, 2002
| By: MATT REYNOLDS, Times Staff Writer
Posted on 12/08/2002 5:49:57 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
To: Behind Liberal Lines
btt
61
posted on
12/09/2002 10:32:57 AM PST
by
Cacique
To: SSN558
Both of the Toon's are Clear and Present Dangers.
Mustang sends.
62
posted on
12/09/2002 11:46:33 AM PST
by
Mustang
To: dirtboy
I did glean this much from the fatherland, oops, excuse me, the homeland security bill: I posted this earlier in the week:
Are you aware that part of the law has wording in it that restricts information on "critical infrastructure" issues?
The icing on the cake is that there is SEVERE punishment for federal employees who reveal secret information even if the public is at risk? Do you know what that means? If a federal employee knows of embarassing or even potential lethal information, they are prohibited from warning the public. Facilities subject to attack that could trigger a toxic release endangering nearby communitees have a green light to police their own security. If a community is affected by such toxic release(s), they can be kept completely in the dark under the "critical infrastructure" wording in the act. These communities might not know what is being mixed in the plant that could affect the water and air, thus, they won't have the opportunity to prepare for such an occurrence. I haven't received a complete copy of the entire act, but, this is what I've gleaned from it so far.
Thanks for the info re: Thomas.
FReegards
63
posted on
12/09/2002 7:09:29 PM PST
by
poet
To: poet
Are you aware that part of the law has wording in it that restricts information on "critical infrastructure" issues? The icing on the cake is that there is SEVERE punishment for federal employees who reveal secret information even if the public is at risk? Do you know what that means? If a federal employee knows of embarassing or even potential lethal information, they are prohibited from warning the public. Can you provide a section number for this?
64
posted on
12/10/2002 6:17:23 AM PST
by
dirtboy
Comment #65 Removed by Moderator
To: Jesus. Enough said.
I think you misunderstand me. People who are on drugs are not normal in any sense of the word. I am talking about people who are normal people, who become addicted to drugs. They aren't normal while on drugs, but when they aren't on drugs and before they tried drugs, they were as normal as anyone else.
To: dirtboy
67
posted on
12/10/2002 9:58:08 PM PST
by
poet
Comment #68 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson