In an opinion (which I'm having a lot of fun reading) by a three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]] striking down the use of mass metal-detector searches at protests, Judge Tjoflat referenced [[Homeland Security Advisory System]].
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
From page 16:
"Although the threat level was 'elevated' at the time of the protest, '[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange (high) six times.' Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System (last referenced Aug. 16, 2004)."
Nicholas Knight wrote:
In an opinion (which I'm having a lot of fun reading) by a three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]] striking down the use of mass metal-detector searches at protests, Judge Tjoflat referenced [[Homeland Security Advisory System]].
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
From page 16:
"Although the threat level was 'elevated' at the time of the protest, '[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange (high) six times.' Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System
(last referenced Aug. 16, 2004)."
Wow. *That* seems pretty irresponsible on their part. We're no authority on the homeland security advisory system, and there's no guarantee that our statement there is true, and I notice our statement isn't sourced. They ought to have cited some primary sources if they're going to be basing a legal opinion on this.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Wow. *That* seems pretty irresponsible on their part. We're no authority on the homeland security advisory system, and there's no guarantee that our statement there is true, and I notice our statement isn't sourced. They ought to have cited some primary sources if they're going to be basing a legal opinion on this.
Except of course that they of all people realise that primary sources written down in books are quite often biased and unreliable (meaning untrue). The fact that they quoted it means that they've done their homework (lawyers ALWAYS do their homework) and that this was not the first wikipedia article they have ever read.
Finally, how is wikipedia not a primary source? How do you know that the people who entered the information in the Wikipedia in the first place don't have personal knowledge of this? Maybe they do work for the Department of Homeland Security.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Finally, how is wikipedia not a primary source? How do you know that the people who entered the information in the Wikipedia in the first place don't have personal knowledge of this? Maybe they do work for the Department of Homeland Security.
It wasn't sourced as such, so the logical thing is to presume it isn't. It was a statement with no attribution, which gives me no reason to believe it's true. I can assume it's probably true, as it doesn't seem like something anyone would lie about, but there's no evidence given in the article that would lead me to that conclusion, or that would allow me to follow it up to more authoritative sources. For all I know, the judge could have inserted that information himself before quoting it!
-Mark