The Senate did vote.
Not on the impeachment.
They voted to acquit during the trial. Sorry, I said they voted he was guilty in the last post, which was just plain stupid of me.
The impeachment was decided by a vote in the House of Represenatives. The result of the trial begun by the impeachment was voted upon by the Senate.
He was impeached by the the House, or they "charged (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal." The Senate voted he was guilty, which is not impeachment.
Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law.
"Voted to impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury." Published in 2003 by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston under the name "World History: The Human Journey."
My high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. In reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It was made by the company that produces nearly all of Nashville's schools' textbooks, with CNN contributions, but unfortunately, I cannot edit it. More ironically, if I crossed "Senate" out and wrote "House" above it in a library book, it might be considered vandalism.
How 'bout that?
When you donate to Wikimedia, the non-profit organization that owns Wikipedia, please do not just do it for Wikipedia.
Do it for Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, and Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource aims to be a library of all public domain and GFDL texts, like a wiki Project Gutenberg. Wiktionary is a wiki dictionary and Wikibooks is for educational textbooks.
Wikimedia Commons, however, is a database for public domain and GFDL images. Like Wikipedia or not, that is where a wiki shines. If you go to the trouble to take a picture of Wikimedia and upload it, odds are it's not going to be vandalism. The entire works of Picasso and Vincent van Gogh, for example, at your fingertips. These are lesser known than Wikipedia, but in the eyes of Wikipedia dissidents, some, especially the last, might be more useful.
On the subject of accuracy, my high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. Unfortunately, in reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It is made by the company that has distributed all science, math, and history-related books every school I've gone to has ever used, but unfortunately, it cannot be edited.
Here's a very long list of articles for you to write. Actually, it's a list of lists of articles for you to write. The Main Focus section covers articles other encyclopedias have, but not Wikipedia. Completing them all might put Wikipedia at around 1,300,000.
Good luck Googling.
You can always donate at any time. They have a small, obscure link to the sidebar for donations. They only put a site notice on the top of every Wikipedia page up during the fund raisers. They only have them up for fundraisers which usually only last 21 days because otherwise people would get tired of the notices and learn to ignore them, like they do banner ads.
The fundraiser started at the 19th of December, I believe. This was because they believed that people would be motivated to donate because it was the holiday season, the season for giving, but actually, the real reason was because it was the end of tax season. Unfortunately, the fundraiser was not Slashdotted until Wikipedia's founder put out a personal appeal. Three days after the personal appeal even. After the 2005 tax season ended. As a Wikipedia edit myself, User:Toothpaste, I would have tried to send in the story myself, but I didn't think Slashdot would take such a thing.
The last fundraiser raised $250,000. I would like for this fundraiser to cover Quarter 1 2006 in addition to Quarter 4 2005 as intended. This would mean that, since the budget for Quarter 4 was about $320,000, I would hope for the fundraiser to reach $650,000 as a bare minimum. Wikipedia has had tremendous growth that really started taking off in August 2005, doubling, tripling, and nearing quadroupling, perhaps, page hits. I'm a Wikipedia edit, User:Toothpaste, and if this fundraiser does not hit $650,000, then we would have to do yet another fundraiser before Quarter 1 ends, that soon. I would not think it would look good to have another fundraiser in mid-February so soon after this one.
Throughout all this low turnout, I've seen many methods administrators used to entice people to donate. First, they tried using no bar graph and had no set fundraiser goal on their donations page, unlike their past fundraisers. As an administrator explained to me, after a goal has been met, people feel less obligated to donate, feeling Wikimedia will be alright on its own after that, with the same feeling being evoked from a viewing of a mostly filled bar graph.
I explained to them that with me, and most people I've talked to, seeing a bar graph that has not reached its goal adds more incentive for people to donate and help fill it up, but to know visible avail. About two days later, they had begun using the bar graph on their donations page, but without a goal. Within a week, they had put the bar graph on top of every page, with a daily report, as never done before. I asked in #wikipedia on the Freenode server, and they explained they planned to empty the bar graph after it becomes full. If you observe the bar graph they've put on every page, you'll seen it's divided into $100,000 segments, with a full graph being $500,000.
I do not think it would be wise to empty out the bar graph after it fills up. People would be very disappointed to see it be emptied, going back to the beginning, leaving a feeling of being deceived inside. Silly, yes, to be concerned over a graphic like that, but I believe people are silly like that. I hope when they empty it and begin to refill it, they at least use a different color for a "progress" feeling. Yellow, then orange, then red, then purple.
The personal appeal, though, is the most effective "marketing" tactic they've used. Wikipedia just can't survive for long unless they get those donations. Most Wikipedia users would rather have Wikipedia die than see a banner ad anywhere on Wikipedia, as would I. People would not want to contribute, they would think, to put money in the pockets of Wikipedia's sponsors. AdSense would not work either, because to have a campaign ad or political mudslinging brought up when you look up John Kerry or George W. Bush is just plain wrong for an encyclopedia. The closest Wikipedia has ever come to advertising, or even proposing advertising, is the Answers.com scandal. You see how well that turned out!
Some people have been concerned about the budget and how things are being spent. As my fellow Wikipedia editor, Brian, has pointed out, there is a link to the quarterly budget at the top of every page. It is here if you can't find it.
Do they include Wikipedia in "web sites that challenge government authority, or distribute content that the government considers to be detrimental to society"? Because all of Wikipedia has been blocked in Mainland China since October 2005, before which only certain articles, such as the one on propaganda, and Taiwanese independence, were blocked.
Hi, I'm the writer of the History of Alaska article on Wikipedia, which appeared on Wikipedia's main page on September 27th. Wikipedia's Director of Featured articles, Raul654, who decides what featured articles go on the main page, has a policy of not using protection on featured articles on the main page. I'm not sure about semi-protection, but when History of Alaska was on the main page, it received a lot of vandalism.
On one occasion, someone replaced the Prehistory section with obvious vandalism. I think it might have been something like "native americans suk and brains mom's a whore," and rather than reverting to the last version, another Wikipedia user instead removed the comment, and this went unnoticed for several hours! When I awoke that afternoon, I had to readd the entire prehistory section! This made me wonder how much content is lost, temorarily or permanently, for a time through errors when reverting vandalism in a hurry without checking through the edit history.
With vandalism not occuring as often, people will have more time to look through the edit history, I would hope.
As long as there's no chance you'll be wiretapping on a U.S. person, in which case you're fined $10,000 and you spend 5 years in prison if found guilty. "Procuring" someone to wiretap under Title 18 of the U.S. legal code also gets you the penalty, of course, which GWB is guilty of.
There is another exception that gives the President to authorize electronic surveillence, searches, and seizures, without warrants, on any U.S. person or U.S. citizen anywhere at any time, with (each) authorization lasting no longer than 15 days, after which I suppose it'd be renewed.
Pen registers and trap and trace devices record the telephone number of who you're calling, and who's calling you, respectively. Normally you'd go to jail for a year for using one without a warrant.
This exception can ONLY be used if Congress has declared war. We haven't declared war since World War II. Everything we've done since then have been, starting with Korea, I think, have been "police actions." Congress has approved "military intervention" in Iraq, but not declared war.
Bush went to Judge John Yoo, who told him that Congressional approval of the war on terror constituted a declaration of war. The Washington Post and most places I've read don't buy that crap. Thus, Bush's claim to freedom is rendered invalid.
Now, aside from FISA, here is a second place Bush could be jailed.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication...
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
He was correct in explaining that Bomis isn't a porn website. It's in actuality a search engine, which, as I've read, displayed adult advertisements in an AdGooglesque style. A portion of this website had a section called Bomis Babes, with layouts of women in skimpy thongs, bikinis, lingerie, and what have you. Like Google if it was a horny, slutty teenage girl whose favorite activities included drinking and entering wet T-shirt contests.
Intelligent design supporters comment God could have created the fossil record, and the carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14) and the telltale carbon dating it shows along with it. A fallacy in this arguement is that God could have easily, under that notion, created the world five minutes ago, with the sights, the sounds, the smells, the textures, the tastes you remember all planted inside your memories to fool you into thinking the world is older than it is. I would hold that arguement just as credible as the one they argue.
I'll repeat the main point. Because of the provision of the USA Patriot Act, specifically Section 209, Subsection 1, Paragraph A of that Act, yes, he does currently have a ground for it. That provision expires December 31. He said in his radio address he intends to wiretap past that date. My arguement has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act itself, but you wouldn't know that, not having read it.
Sorry, I didn't take into account the 4th Amendment into my post because courts haven't decided if the provision of the USA Patriot Act I describe in the beginning of my post violates the 4th Amendment yet, which I'm certain it does. No, a Presidential Order cannot override the U.S. Constitution.
I will examine the part of the USA Patriot Act that deals with extending warrant time and FISA warrants tomorrow. I spent 9 hours today researching what I already posted.
Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.
However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication
...
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to
suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in
subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.
Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.
The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:
In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.
A few of Wikipedia's users sound like they aren't playing according to the founding rules here.
Blogs, slanted editorials, and message board posts are absolutely not ever supposed to be sourced, unless their message board post, perhaps, could be traced back to their IP, I theorize, or instances where the posts themselves are the subject, as is the case of notable self-described "time traveller" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor, or, say, if someone publicly announces they have a blog, that could be used to source their opinions.
On Wikipedia, administrators are not allowed to use their administrative powers for conflicts they have participated in, and for closing Articles for Deletion pages and taking the action desired by the community, if they have participated in that Articles for Deletion session, to prevent a conflict of interest.
I don't participate in current event articles, because I find it much harder to edit them. If someone else makes an edit while you are editing an article, and you still have the edit screen up, when you press the Save button, that edit will not go through. You are now presented with two versions, your latest version, and the last version, to choose from, and it is nearly impossible to pick from one set of work without losing the other, unless you spend a wasteful amount of time trying to merge the edits together. On high profile articles like the article of the United States, edits tend to come in every five minutes.
This may sound odd as a wiki editor, but I prefer to work alone on state history articles and articles on chemical compounds because they're less hectic. Therefore I have not encountered the fights that you describe and have no answer for that, though it wouldn't happen if the earlier described rules were being followed.
Another thing that has bothered me personally editing Wikipedia is a problem concerning books. When I wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska, in addition to the websites, I used seven books and a two hour documentary in my research. Someone asked about a claim I had made regarding the position of a part of the Battle of the Aleutian Islands as the second bloodiest. They removed, "The taking of Attu was the second bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater. Only [[Iwo Jima]] was more costly in terms of human lives," stating in the edit summary, "i don't understand this...attu was quite small compared to some battles."
They did not have my books. I could not show him them. They might not be available at his library, or even his entire town. The same claim was already made in another article, but self-referencing is not allowed on Wikipedia, either, for obvious reasons. I decided to let that sentence be removed and not even try to consult him, realizing it perhaps to be futile.
Also, you may be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz as an example of why some people shouldn't have much control over their articles.
I am contacting the people on Daniel Brandt's talk page, asking them if they can maybe trace Everyman's IP to Daniel Brandt's area at the least, or else get it removed entirely. Also, if you want to get in contact with Wikipedia administrators, the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode server of IRC has about 20 online at any given time. Thank you.
Hi, writer of History of Alaska on Wikipedia here, User: Toothpaste. Daniel Brandt wasn't banned for Wikipedia Watch, which he had created a few days before he was banned, if I recall correctly. Wikipedia had an article on him because he was notable for Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch, perhaps slightly more so today, due to a bit more media attention from all this. Brandt had tried to edit out parts of his article that were true and sourced, but that he did not like, and repeatedly tried to hold a vote for the article to be deleted, and started to do so under a false username after the first one had been banned.
Predictably, Brian Chase was one of those people, that upon discovering Wikipedia, think, "I'll just replace 'Jesus' with 'vagina' and see how long that lasts, because that's how I get my shits and giggles." This, of course, constitutes most of all Wikipedian vandalism, with the rest being people that think Wikipedia is for spamming their GIF-laden Geocities website. Of the two types of these "experiments" I have seen, with the former being replacing George Bush's picture with a clown. The latter is subtly changing things around, so that Bush's article says "In the years of 1987 to 1989, George Bush worked mostly as an investor in the Texaco company," when he did not. I find the latter more annoying as a vandalism reverter.
I hope this incident scares vandals into knowing they could be held accountable, as it's only a matter of time before someone actually does try to sue. However, what constitutes this libel Siegenthaler is sueing for? What makes this sneaky vandalism more annoying than earlier examples? Because it could be more easily mistaken for truth, is all, but I'm sure that would not hold up.
I am most shocked that within all this, this Daniel Brandt has media attention due to tracking down the IP address, and the media, the Seattle Times for goodness's sake is not getting it right at all, which says something about the creditbility of non-Wikipedia sources, too.
Slashdot Mirror
But not to impeach as the textbook said.
The Senate did vote. Not on the impeachment. They voted to acquit during the trial. Sorry, I said they voted he was guilty in the last post, which was just plain stupid of me. The impeachment was decided by a vote in the House of Represenatives. The result of the trial begun by the impeachment was voted upon by the Senate.
He was impeached by the the House, or they "charged (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal." The Senate voted he was guilty, which is not impeachment. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law.
No, the House voted to impeach him, or charge him with the crime. The Senate voted on whether to convict or acquit for the crime.
"Voted to impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury." Published in 2003 by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston under the name "World History: The Human Journey."
http://www.wikinews.org/
My high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. In reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It was made by the company that produces nearly all of Nashville's schools' textbooks, with CNN contributions, but unfortunately, I cannot edit it. More ironically, if I crossed "Senate" out and wrote "House" above it in a library book, it might be considered vandalism. How 'bout that?
Then look at this list, personally compiled by me, mostly consisting of former American and Canadian politicians of the legislative branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject _Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Misc
Do it for Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, and Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource aims to be a library of all public domain and GFDL texts, like a wiki Project Gutenberg. Wiktionary is a wiki dictionary and Wikibooks is for educational textbooks.
Wikimedia Commons, however, is a database for public domain and GFDL images. Like Wikipedia or not, that is where a wiki shines. If you go to the trouble to take a picture of Wikimedia and upload it, odds are it's not going to be vandalism. The entire works of Picasso and Vincent van Gogh, for example, at your fingertips. These are lesser known than Wikipedia, but in the eyes of Wikipedia dissidents, some, especially the last, might be more useful.
On the subject of accuracy, my high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. Unfortunately, in reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It is made by the company that has distributed all science, math, and history-related books every school I've gone to has ever used, but unfortunately, it cannot be edited.
Please mod up for Wikimedia.
Here's a very long list of articles for you to write. Actually, it's a list of lists of articles for you to write. The Main Focus section covers articles other encyclopedias have, but not Wikipedia. Completing them all might put Wikipedia at around 1,300,000. Good luck Googling.
You can always donate at any time. They have a small, obscure link to the sidebar for donations. They only put a site notice on the top of every Wikipedia page up during the fund raisers. They only have them up for fundraisers which usually only last 21 days because otherwise people would get tired of the notices and learn to ignore them, like they do banner ads.
The fundraiser started at the 19th of December, I believe. This was because they believed that people would be motivated to donate because it was the holiday season, the season for giving, but actually, the real reason was because it was the end of tax season. Unfortunately, the fundraiser was not Slashdotted until Wikipedia's founder put out a personal appeal. Three days after the personal appeal even. After the 2005 tax season ended. As a Wikipedia edit myself, User:Toothpaste, I would have tried to send in the story myself, but I didn't think Slashdot would take such a thing.
Throughout all this low turnout, I've seen many methods administrators used to entice people to donate. First, they tried using no bar graph and had no set fundraiser goal on their donations page, unlike their past fundraisers. As an administrator explained to me, after a goal has been met, people feel less obligated to donate, feeling Wikimedia will be alright on its own after that, with the same feeling being evoked from a viewing of a mostly filled bar graph.
I explained to them that with me, and most people I've talked to, seeing a bar graph that has not reached its goal adds more incentive for people to donate and help fill it up, but to know visible avail. About two days later, they had begun using the bar graph on their donations page, but without a goal. Within a week, they had put the bar graph on top of every page, with a daily report, as never done before. I asked in #wikipedia on the Freenode server, and they explained they planned to empty the bar graph after it becomes full. If you observe the bar graph they've put on every page, you'll seen it's divided into $100,000 segments, with a full graph being $500,000.
I do not think it would be wise to empty out the bar graph after it fills up. People would be very disappointed to see it be emptied, going back to the beginning, leaving a feeling of being deceived inside. Silly, yes, to be concerned over a graphic like that, but I believe people are silly like that. I hope when they empty it and begin to refill it, they at least use a different color for a "progress" feeling. Yellow, then orange, then red, then purple.
The personal appeal, though, is the most effective "marketing" tactic they've used. Wikipedia just can't survive for long unless they get those donations. Most Wikipedia users would rather have Wikipedia die than see a banner ad anywhere on Wikipedia, as would I. People would not want to contribute, they would think, to put money in the pockets of Wikipedia's sponsors. AdSense would not work either, because to have a campaign ad or political mudslinging brought up when you look up John Kerry or George W. Bush is just plain wrong for an encyclopedia. The closest Wikipedia has ever come to advertising, or even proposing advertising, is the Answers.com scandal. You see how well that turned out!
Some people have been concerned about the budget and how things are being spent. As my fellow Wikipedia editor, Brian, has pointed out, there is a link to the quarterly budget at the top of every page. It is here if you can't find it.
Please mod me and all parents up. For Wikipedia.
Do they include Wikipedia in "web sites that challenge government authority, or distribute content that the government considers to be detrimental to society"? Because all of Wikipedia has been blocked in Mainland China since October 2005, before which only certain articles, such as the one on propaganda, and Taiwanese independence, were blocked.
Hi, I'm the writer of the History of Alaska article on Wikipedia, which appeared on Wikipedia's main page on September 27th. Wikipedia's Director of Featured articles, Raul654, who decides what featured articles go on the main page, has a policy of not using protection on featured articles on the main page. I'm not sure about semi-protection, but when History of Alaska was on the main page, it received a lot of vandalism. On one occasion, someone replaced the Prehistory section with obvious vandalism. I think it might have been something like "native americans suk and brains mom's a whore," and rather than reverting to the last version, another Wikipedia user instead removed the comment, and this went unnoticed for several hours! When I awoke that afternoon, I had to readd the entire prehistory section! This made me wonder how much content is lost, temorarily or permanently, for a time through errors when reverting vandalism in a hurry without checking through the edit history. With vandalism not occuring as often, people will have more time to look through the edit history, I would hope.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
u sc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
u sc_sec_50_00001811----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001829----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001844----000-.html
...
This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act. Long story short, you always have to apply for a court order to wiretap. You can, however, do it without a warrant under the conditions provided here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
As long as there's no chance you'll be wiretapping on a U.S. person, in which case you're fined $10,000 and you spend 5 years in prison if found guilty. "Procuring" someone to wiretap under Title 18 of the U.S. legal code also gets you the penalty, of course, which GWB is guilty of.
There is another exception that gives the President to authorize electronic surveillence, searches, and seizures, without warrants, on any U.S. person or U.S. citizen anywhere at any time, with (each) authorization lasting no longer than 15 days, after which I suppose it'd be renewed.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
Pen registers and trap and trace devices record the telephone number of who you're calling, and who's calling you, respectively. Normally you'd go to jail for a year for using one without a warrant.
This exception can ONLY be used if Congress has declared war. We haven't declared war since World War II. Everything we've done since then have been, starting with Korea, I think, have been "police actions." Congress has approved "military intervention" in Iraq, but not declared war.
Bush went to Judge John Yoo, who told him that Congressional approval of the war on terror constituted a declaration of war. The Washington Post and most places I've read don't buy that crap. Thus, Bush's claim to freedom is rendered invalid.
Now, aside from FISA, here is a second place Bush could be jailed.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to
suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in
subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
He was correct in explaining that Bomis isn't a porn website. It's in actuality a search engine, which, as I've read, displayed adult advertisements in an AdGooglesque style. A portion of this website had a section called Bomis Babes, with layouts of women in skimpy thongs, bikinis, lingerie, and what have you. Like Google if it was a horny, slutty teenage girl whose favorite activities included drinking and entering wet T-shirt contests.
Intelligent design supporters comment God could have created the fossil record, and the carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14) and the telltale carbon dating it shows along with it. A fallacy in this arguement is that God could have easily, under that notion, created the world five minutes ago, with the sights, the sounds, the smells, the textures, the tastes you remember all planted inside your memories to fool you into thinking the world is older than it is. I would hold that arguement just as credible as the one they argue.
I'll repeat the main point. Because of the provision of the USA Patriot Act, specifically Section 209, Subsection 1, Paragraph A of that Act, yes, he does currently have a ground for it. That provision expires December 31. He said in his radio address he intends to wiretap past that date. My arguement has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act itself, but you wouldn't know that, not having read it.
Sorry, I didn't take into account the 4th Amendment into my post because courts haven't decided if the provision of the USA Patriot Act I describe in the beginning of my post violates the 4th Amendment yet, which I'm certain it does. No, a Presidential Order cannot override the U.S. Constitution. I will examine the part of the USA Patriot Act that deals with extending warrant time and FISA warrants tomorrow. I spent 9 hours today researching what I already posted.
Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.
Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."
Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.
However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.
Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.
The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:
http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/
In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.
I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)
If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to
And together, they make the word for Earth. In the planet sense.
A few of Wikipedia's users sound like they aren't playing according to the founding rules here. Blogs, slanted editorials, and message board posts are absolutely not ever supposed to be sourced, unless their message board post, perhaps, could be traced back to their IP, I theorize, or instances where the posts themselves are the subject, as is the case of notable self-described "time traveller" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor, or, say, if someone publicly announces they have a blog, that could be used to source their opinions. On Wikipedia, administrators are not allowed to use their administrative powers for conflicts they have participated in, and for closing Articles for Deletion pages and taking the action desired by the community, if they have participated in that Articles for Deletion session, to prevent a conflict of interest. I don't participate in current event articles, because I find it much harder to edit them. If someone else makes an edit while you are editing an article, and you still have the edit screen up, when you press the Save button, that edit will not go through. You are now presented with two versions, your latest version, and the last version, to choose from, and it is nearly impossible to pick from one set of work without losing the other, unless you spend a wasteful amount of time trying to merge the edits together. On high profile articles like the article of the United States, edits tend to come in every five minutes. This may sound odd as a wiki editor, but I prefer to work alone on state history articles and articles on chemical compounds because they're less hectic. Therefore I have not encountered the fights that you describe and have no answer for that, though it wouldn't happen if the earlier described rules were being followed. Another thing that has bothered me personally editing Wikipedia is a problem concerning books. When I wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska, in addition to the websites, I used seven books and a two hour documentary in my research. Someone asked about a claim I had made regarding the position of a part of the Battle of the Aleutian Islands as the second bloodiest. They removed, "The taking of Attu was the second bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater. Only [[Iwo Jima]] was more costly in terms of human lives," stating in the edit summary, "i don't understand this...attu was quite small compared to some battles." They did not have my books. I could not show him them. They might not be available at his library, or even his entire town. The same claim was already made in another article, but self-referencing is not allowed on Wikipedia, either, for obvious reasons. I decided to let that sentence be removed and not even try to consult him, realizing it perhaps to be futile. Also, you may be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz as an example of why some people shouldn't have much control over their articles. I am contacting the people on Daniel Brandt's talk page, asking them if they can maybe trace Everyman's IP to Daniel Brandt's area at the least, or else get it removed entirely. Also, if you want to get in contact with Wikipedia administrators, the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode server of IRC has about 20 online at any given time. Thank you.
Hi, writer of History of Alaska on Wikipedia here, User: Toothpaste. Daniel Brandt wasn't banned for Wikipedia Watch, which he had created a few days before he was banned, if I recall correctly. Wikipedia had an article on him because he was notable for Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch, perhaps slightly more so today, due to a bit more media attention from all this. Brandt had tried to edit out parts of his article that were true and sourced, but that he did not like, and repeatedly tried to hold a vote for the article to be deleted, and started to do so under a false username after the first one had been banned. Predictably, Brian Chase was one of those people, that upon discovering Wikipedia, think, "I'll just replace 'Jesus' with 'vagina' and see how long that lasts, because that's how I get my shits and giggles." This, of course, constitutes most of all Wikipedian vandalism, with the rest being people that think Wikipedia is for spamming their GIF-laden Geocities website. Of the two types of these "experiments" I have seen, with the former being replacing George Bush's picture with a clown. The latter is subtly changing things around, so that Bush's article says "In the years of 1987 to 1989, George Bush worked mostly as an investor in the Texaco company," when he did not. I find the latter more annoying as a vandalism reverter. I hope this incident scares vandals into knowing they could be held accountable, as it's only a matter of time before someone actually does try to sue. However, what constitutes this libel Siegenthaler is sueing for? What makes this sneaky vandalism more annoying than earlier examples? Because it could be more easily mistaken for truth, is all, but I'm sure that would not hold up. I am most shocked that within all this, this Daniel Brandt has media attention due to tracking down the IP address, and the media, the Seattle Times for goodness's sake is not getting it right at all, which says something about the creditbility of non-Wikipedia sources, too.