http://statenews.com The word “terrorist” is a loaded one. And for a generation that has experienced the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a war on terror and the Virginia Tech massacre, “terrorism” is not a term we easily can shrug off or ignore. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:52:47 -0500 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47526 I’m still waiting for FOIA (judge redacted) details on the Hubbard Hall bottle of gasoline case. We still really don’t know the full details with which students could have used from that incident to protect ourselves. Once again, the details they have are being withheld from the public (the public needs information in order to protect ourselves), even with an FBI file on the kid! Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:26:51 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47526 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47532 “We live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty, but the police certainly haven’t done Aslam any favors by effectively labeling him a ‘terrorist’.” We also have the right to be told the charges against us. Are you saying the police should have arrested him and not told anyone why? It’s not like the police have a magic 8 ball they can ask, ‘is he a real threat’? If he made threatening statements that were brought to the attention of law enforcement then they have to act even if it turns out he was just spouting off. It will take time for the police to interview him and others who knew him for them to get a fuller picture of what was actually going on here. That is why they’re not going to say anything until that process is complete. Otherwise, they’d be guilty of prejudging the situation without all the facts. And then you’d write an editorial blasting them again (that time rightfully so). Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:32:00 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47532 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47544 Police SHOULD handle terror suspects differently. They should punch the shit out of them while in custody as a small “F You” from the USA. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:02:52 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47544 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47649 I wonder if it ever occurred to the SN editorial staff that giving out details during an investigation might hamper exposing a larger threat? Sleeper Cell I say Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:56:33 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47649 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47699 On the other hand, the law is sufficiently broad, so that investigators sometimes pursue suspects who “terrorized” someone in a fairly normal way. We do not know at this point. At one state university, pranksters placed firecrackers inside horse droppings to “scare” a good friend. Funny? Or use of a bomb to disperse biologically active materials? (By the way, those perps were expelled, but avoided jail.) Another group caused widespread panic when they were seen to dump unknown white powder out of a moving car. (They were cross-country runners, and the powder which marked their route was ordinary flour.) When somebody yelled, anthrax, the government came down in force. Real threats exist. Every accusation is worth some official attention. But many accusations, fortunately, do not uncover any serious threat. Wait for the facts. Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:52:47 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/47699