text:
Talk:Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"

Email from Laetitia
"Hi Brian,

Yes, you have made it clear and I appreciate you being upfront on the matter. You can e-mail publicrelations@scientology.net.

Best, Laetitia"

"Dear Brian,

Yes -- I do have a problem with you quoting this. You are writing on a help website and it isn't the right source or the "Scientology opinion". Call (323) 960-3500 for information to quote as a journalist -- this is the reception for Church of Scientology International and you can get full information and quotations. I can help you get an appointment or the likes if needed. I definitely want to help you get what you need, but you should get it from the right people, not write in on a help line, which is not the public opinion. Let me know if you want me to make an appointment for you or direct you to someone who can give you information for your report.

Best, Laetitia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFire1024 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dear Brian,

The activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware.

So, we do not concentrate or put all our efforts onto handling Anonymous; as that is not our purpose and else all we would be doing is fighting someone against us to the detriment of people in the Society who need help and would be being neglected due to our energies being diverted.

So, yes, we are taking action, Anonymous will be handled and stopped, but not to the detriment of us stopping all community outreach activities. We've had people throw attacks at us in the past as they do not agree with the betterment of people. History is strewn with such people who start wars, wreak havoc etc. and they never continue to exist in the long run as their purpose is one of destruction. That's a statistical and historical fact.

Laetitia"

Email from operator of "Operation Clambake" (xenu.net)
"From: Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net

Sent: 29 January 2008 19:28 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Protest link down

Brian,

Very busy times, but I'll of course do my best to assist you.

I created Operation Clambake in 1996 as a direct result of seeing CoS succeeding in removing criticism from the Internet. I believe strongly in freedom of speech and, living in the best country in the world (IMHO), I came to the conclusion that I had to help protest this cult. To me CoS was then, and still is, a fascistic organization and a real threat to our democratic principles.

In the mid nineties the Internet wasn't so easy to navigate and common as it is today. CoS had a scare factor and most ISP's and media channels were very reluctant to challenge them. Almost all ISP's were better safe than sorry and indulged all legal complaints from the cult. This resulted in critical information dissapearing almost as soon as it appeared - and many critics crushed and ruined in the path. I was then an IT professional and made a web page to offer an index to all the key information. The strategy was to disarm the cult; if they took down something I linked to, I had made preparations to link to another copy or host it myself. The more they resisted it the more attention we got, the more the information was spread and the more people got involved. It felt like a cat and mouse game for many years. What for me started as a weekend stunt grew far beyond my initial scope and Operating Clambake became the site most critics linked and referred to.

Ten years later and a lot of amazing changes has occurred:

1. The cult has been forced by courageous individuals (often free speech advocates from the Internet), who dared to go head to head with them in court, to stop their very litigious strategy. While the critics often lost personally, they proved to the cult that if they crushed one critic on the 'Net it would only make ten more stand up. The cult technically won many fights, but the Internet definitely won the war! There are today no major lawsuits ongoing or pending.

2. Media finally understand their tactics. A fancy and threatening letter from a lawyer is usually laughed at. As an example all media, even those not very critical, now mention Xenu - this was unheard of only a few years back.

3. The cult "Orgs" are "dead". Recruiting in most western countries were they once experienced a healthy organic growth is very hard.

4. All their most secret documents are spread beyond recall and easily available for anybody interested.

5. More people than we ever dreamed now know about Scientology and at least that it "smells fishy".

6. All the information we once fought day and night to protect is now easily available for free and on the top of Google. The cult has even given up threatening us.

To mention a few I like...

You ask me to introduce myself. Well, I'm a 43 year old Norwegian, work as a Managing Director in Norway for a huge American corporation. Also been active in ecumenical dialog work where I live, active in local secular humanist organization where I perform humanist marriages and work with youth. Single, so life consists basically of those three things plus friends. That's the simples introduction I can make.

You let me know if any of this triggers more questions. Please forgive my crappy English.

Take care.

Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund"

E-mail from 711chan.org
"Jason Safoutin wrote: > Also...do you have any evidence that "The Regime" is or is not affiliated with connected to or working for Scientology?

They aren't. g00ns have a long history with "immortal", and what "immortal" is trying to do is get at g00ns by using 711chan. It's nothing against us." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Got more news. The g00ns, one of our allies, are working on getting "the regime" and told us to get right back into the CoS scene -- which means as soon as 711chan is back online, we will be re-entering raid mode."

Correspondence is from 'Plasma', owner of 711chan.org. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 2 protest in Orlando, FL
Working on a story about the Feb 2 protest in Orlando, Florida. 2 separate news sources already confirmed that 100 people showed up. I think there will be enough info, not to mention that this article is already comprehensive, to put this into a separate article. Cirt 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

217 protests...
This text in the article links to a Wikinews.org subpage, User:Skenmy/APC. Is that appropriate? Cirt 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? you can add the external link if you wish. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean add the external link as a source? Cirt 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Leititia or Laetitia ?
Spelling differs in text of email on talk page, and in the article. Cirt 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah...whatever the e-mail says is the correct spelling. Our mistake. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Publish
I would like this to get published at February 4, UTC. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Looks ready now.  Cirt 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because come the 4, this will be yesterdays news if published on the 3. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cirt 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinion
Well this was a last minute response to an e-mail I sent to an expert on Scientology and who was also a former CoS member. Sorry folks, all quotes and observations are anonymous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If they're Anonymous, can we really call it an expert opinion? Sure, we can say the person is a former Scientologist, but "experts" really need to be verified as such. I only mention this since I just noticed the changes the article and thought it might actually be a good idea to remove the "expert" statement. I won't edit it, though, since although the source might have wanted to remain Anonymous, they may well have given you [Dragonfire] their identity which was then verified before posting or something similiar. Fallen-Griever 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Forget that, just read the comments properly. Fallen-Griever 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll
This is a poll from the Wikinews Reports blog, which I will leave on the blog's mainspace for reference for now.

"The internet VS. The Church of Scientology: Being dubbed the 'first great internet war', who do you think will win?

The Internet - 660 (80%) The Church of Scientology - 63 (7%) Neither side will win - 66 (8%)

I don't care - 27 (3%)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFire1024 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How long did the poll run for? (From what date to what date?) Cirt 13:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists conspiracy theories
Should there be any comment about the Scientology conspiracy theory that Anonymous is an agent of German secret service, Scientology has alerted the Department of Homeland Security, Anonymous is going to be sent away for a very long time for treason, etc http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/04f6d981e166e564/1d2287689758524d#1d2287689758524d LamontCranston 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a "Scientology conspiracy theory", just a conspiracy theory of one individual poster to alt.religion.scientology. I would suggest googling the screenname of that individual poster for more information...  Cirt 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Internet Vs. Scientology
The graphic needs some sort of explanation of the different shades of blue with corresponding figures. It just doesn't make sense. Zidel333 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Click on the image. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Site taken down by FBI
A spin-off of the original 2chan, http://www.futabachannel.org/, seems to have been "BEEN SHUT DOWN BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR CONSPIRACY TO BREAK AND ENTER AND CAUSE BODILY HARM." (all caps, as per source). Original source is here: www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Futabachannel

ED has a tendency to... sensationalise events. But I think it could be relevant to this article since it mentions Scientology getting Government agencies involved. Could also warrant a seperate article if it can be confirmed as true, and not just a publicity stunt or hackers etc. Fallen-Griever 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, would need more outside sources, preferably at least one or two secondary sources, to confirm. Cirt 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I wouldn't exactly trust ED to give me the news. Just thought it would be a good point to highlight, just in case something develops. Fallen-Griever 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 711chan comments
These comments are innappropriate in an article which is supposed to be about the Church's reaction to Anonymous rather than 711chan. Also, burying them in the middle of this article does not give them the attention they deserve since they are essentially a retraction of an earlier article on Wikinews. Since they should be considered a retraction to the earlier article, they deserve their own article so people can keep up to date with the event as it happens instead of having to look through this (largely unrelated) story in order to find something which seems to have been buried in order to hide the original reporters mistakes. Fallen-Griever 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it reads fine. Could add a Please note: or "addendum" or something, to the bottom of the older story, with a one-sentence clarification and link to this article though.  I'll let someone else do that if they wish to.  Cirt 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This new article the above user speaks of, is just copy and pasted text from this one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because I intend to get the 711chan in this article removed, thus meaning it wouldn't be a copy. Also, the story was expanded to show the reactions given from 711chan/Anonymous users of the website and was put into better context. Equally, I believe you're trying to hide the fact your original article was incorrect by burying the comments in this one - where they have no place being in the first place. Fallen-Griever 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of anything like that. News is what it is when its reported. Whatever happens days after is new news. The quotes and or statements are not going to be removed from this article as they are relevent to the current news, in this article. The new article you speak of is not sourced, and is a 100% copy and paste of this article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not directly relevant to the news in this article. This article is about the CoS supposed response to the "threat" from Anonymous, whereas the comments have nothing to do with that. The new article is, mostly, a copy and paste because - as I have already explained - I believe those particular comments deserve their own article and do not deserve to be buried here. Also, I'll accuse you of whatever the hell I want. Fallen-Griever 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One...this is an OR article that we went through great lengths to get the info for. They are not buried. And if you want to take on this attitude with me or anyone else, then you will be blocked for personal attacks. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it is OR doesn't mean two completely seperate subjects should be glued together for no apparent reason. The Church's response to Anonymous and 711chan's status are two different subjects, yet you've bundled them together simply due to their association via Anonymous. That's like bundling all the Economics news into one article just because it's tied together by Economics - ergo it's non-sensical. Also, if you can't handle personal criticism, don't become a writer. Besides, criticism is not the same as flaming or trolling, learn the difference. Fallen-Griever 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said above by, both regarding the inappropriateness of these statements and bad faith assumptions made by , and the inappropriateness of a new article as described above. The information is fairly presented in this article accurately, and should remain here. Cirt 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The comments from 711chan have nothing to do with the article title or the rest of the article. They are extremely out of place. It's like reporting on a Manchester United game and sticking in a random comment about Oldham Athletic just for the sake of it. Still, if you so wish to make the article whole again, at least use the edits I made in the seperate article because I didn't just copy and paste what was written here. If your response to this is "this article is too old to be edited" then my changes are "new" and deserve a new article. If this article isn't too old then the edits should be used because they expanded the subject at hand. Your choice.Fallen-Griever 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't start telling us what we have a choice with and what we don't. If you don't want to follow the way we do things here, despite several attempts to inform you, then that is not our problem. You can either choose to follow guidelines, or you can choose not to edit. The quotes are in the order they are in according to the articles flow and WN:SG. There is no need for a new article for developments that are not new. I spoke with 711chan owner and still do. This is what they chose to tell me and that is how much they told me. If you cannot accept that, then you contact them and get new quotes for a new article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is what they chose to tell me and that is how much they told me. If you cannot accept that, then you contact them and get new quotes for a new article." What the hell are you talking about? I didn't add new quotes from the Admins and never climed that I did. I also wasn't changing the quotes you got from the original source, and I have no absolutely no quarrel with those. What I did was add comments and reaction from members of 711chan to the situation, as well as from members of Anonymous in general, and change the wording to make it read better. Please check what you are arguing against before posting a reply, thanks. Also, "we"? Admin solidarity is such an annoyance. Fallen-Griever 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We meaning the community accepted guidelines and such. We is everyone who is part of the Wikinews community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, whatever. /eyeroll. The new article I made wasn't intended to change the quotes you got from your source or to edit the order in which they were shown, it was intended to make them more obvious to those who might have been following the 711chan developments specifically, rather than the entire "War on Scientology" - those interested in The Regime and not Scientology, for example. Either way, I've edited the article with my expanded text, none of which seems to be against any policy. I still thoroughly expect it to be reverted back, though, so if someone does revert it back at least give me a good reason why. Fallen-Griever 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: This article has been cited by a secondary media source
According to website WikiNews, the Church of Scientology has reported the web attacks to authorities. "Activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware. ... yes, we are taking action," said one Church of Scientology representative contacted by WikiNews.
 * Good job to and .  Cirt 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro text is fine
Intro text was reviewed by both and, and is worded appropriately and should not be changed. Cirt 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "should not be changed" Now that is rich. This is a wiki, Cirt. --JustaHulk 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "should not be changed" because the version published by and  is worded appropriately.  Cirt 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe these gentlemen and/or ladies would appreciate my editing the article to make it consistent with their sources. That makes them and the project look better, you know. --JustaHulk 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It says "a person", not "a representative", or - as would be more appropriate - "an employee". --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where can I view the entire email exchange, please. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian. I have limited time available right now to review this but I appreciate the effort. I still think that you need to make it very clear that this was just a person trying to help and answer questions, not any official outlet. Best. --JustaHulk 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of questions sent to knowledge@lrh.org
"Laetitia,

Wikinews has some coverage on the recent attacks on several of the Church of Scientology’s websites, see the following:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hackers_attack_Church_of_Scientology_website

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Anonymous%22_releases_statements_outlining_%22War_on_Scientology%22

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%27The_Regime%27_hacks_711chan.org_in_response_to_%27Anonymous%27_attack_on_Scientology%3B_takes_web_site_off_line

The whole series of incidents appear to have been provoked by the posting of a Scientology video featuring Tom Cruise which was initially taken down – I believe – following a DMCA action or similar from the Church. What has not been done to date in Wikinews’ coverage is any official Scientology comment on the whole debacle. I would like your assistance in getting that.

Firstly, can you explain what your position with the Church is? Are you in their employ or simply a volunteer? In addition a surname for use in attributing your remarks would be appreciated, although if you would rather not then just say.

Can you specify when your website first came under attack? What form does the attack take, I’ve heard reports that it is UDP flooding, and other reports that it is flooding with image requests and malformed page requests.

How many of the Church’s websites are currently under attack?

What measures has the Church taken to mitigate the attack and deal with the associated spike in traffic?

The attack group claims to have compromised Church servers and retrieved confidential documents; can you comment on this claim and the material currently being put on torrents?

Long-term critics in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup have condemned the DDoS attack on free speech grounds. Does this surprise you?

The video “Message to Scientology” featuring Tom Cruise has been viewed over a million times. Do you believe this has any influence on public perception of the Church of Scientology?

The initial DDoS was claimed by a group calling themselves “Anonymous” and “Project Chanology”. A number of other measures including faxing black pages to Church numbers were mooted. Have these tactics been employed to disrupt Church business?

Has any peaceful protesting been carried out at or near Church premises by “Project Chanology” members? What is the Church’s position on this?

Does the Church make any distinction between the various disruptive acts? Are any legal actions planned against members of “Anonymous”/”Project Chanology”? If so, what acts do you consider actionable?

What is the Church’s position on the allegations made by “Anonymous” that their attack is due to the Church’s Internet censorship?

Have any contacts with law enforcement been made to lodge complaints? If so, which agencies?

Have you, or are you, considering any legal action against ISPs hosting “Project Chanology”?

In response to “Project Chanology” a previously unheard of group calling themselves “The Regime” hacked the 711chan.org site. Do you have any comment on these actions?

There is a video purporting to be from “The Regime” on YouTube. Do you have any comment on this?

There is no certainty that the video was produced by the same group as performed the hack; does the Church have any association with either group?

Do you have any figures on the costs associated with the Church websites coming under attack?

Sorry the list of questions got so long, there is quite a bit of interest in the issue from my fellow reporters.

Regards,

Brian McNeil Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter"

Forwarding of statement from 711chan
"Just to try and keep you in the loop here, we at Wikinews have received a statement from 711chan.org regarding the attacks against your websites. Their administrators have denounced the attacks with the following statement:

“It has been said before that this raid would fail, and although we do not see that happening at this moment, we as a network have taken a vote and decided that this raid on Church of Scientology was not done correctly. It has come to our attention that this raid has evolved into more than Anonymous attacking Co$, the raid has turned into namefagging, giving people an area to attack. This is not what the raid originally started as. Partyvan declares this as a threat to the network, and Anonymous alike. We have been under constant botnet attacks, 711chan hacked, and tons of drama over this. You guys did a very poor job of staying Anonymous. It's obvious that a lot of you broke rules 1, and 2. We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on.”

Personally I suspect this means the attack will continue, but with an ever-diminishing number of participants. In addition to the questions I sent earlier I would appreciate your feedback on this development.

Regards,

Brian McNeil

Wikinews Administrator & Community Accredited Reporter."

Initial email to Church "PR" address - unanswered
"To whom it may concern…

I am trying to progress the below chain of conversation which is aimed at getting the Church of Scientology’s position on the leak of a video featuring Tom Cruise; the removal of this video from certain sites - per copyright law; and the apparent backlash in the form of attacks on Church of Scientology websites including alleged plans to employ measures such as faxing all black pages to Church numbers.

I attach two emails from my earlier discussion with Laetitia, and would appreciate any and all comments you can give on these issues. I have personally criticised my colleagues for not making earlier attempts to obtain a statement on the Church’s position regarding the attacks. Should such a position not be currently well formulated I would appreciate you reviewing the questions posed in my attached emails and giving the most considered response you can.

Regards,

Brian McNeil

-Original Message- From: Int'l Basics Project [mailto:knowledge@lrh.org] Sent: 29 January 2008 01:12 To: Brian McNeil Cc: publicrelations@scientology.net Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Hi Brian,

Yes, you have made it clear and I appreciate you being upfront on the matter. You can e-mail publicrelations@scientology.net.

Best, Laetitia

- Original Message - From: "Brian McNeil"  To: "Int'l Basics Project"  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 2:09:40 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

At all times I have tried to make it clear I am a journalist. I am community accredited on the Wikinews website (http://en.wikinews.org), a sister site to the WMF Wikipedia project; as well as being an administrator with extended privileges on the project.

If you cannot provide me with quotable material I would greatly appreciate providing me with the email address of someone who can. At the moment it is nearly 11pm here and I am working on my own time. The time difference between Belgium and California makes telephone contact problematic.

The email address knowledge@lrh.org is not obvious as one specific for initiates into Scientology and I have – as already said – been totally up front about who I am and the fact that I am a journalist. Since you now claim not to be qualified to answer my questions please either forward this email conversation on to someone who can make official, quotable, answers to my questions; rr provide me with the address of someone who can and I will do so.

I do apologise from distracting you with this issue where you have made it clear the address was inappropriate. At the time I initiated email contact this was one of the few Church of Scientology websites I could get to load that had an email contact. My personal preference is for conducting the majority of my investigative journalism work by email. It gives a second – and possibly third – opportunity to review what is written before clicking send.

Regards,

Brian McNeil Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter -Original Message- From: Int'l Basics Project [mailto:knowledge@lrh.org] Sent: 29 January 2008 00:56 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Dear Brian,

Yes -- I do have a problem with you quoting this. You are writing on a help website and it isn't the right source or the "Scientology opinion". Call (323) 960-3500 for information to quote as a journalist -- this is the reception for Church of Scientology International and you can get full information and quotations. I can help you get an appointment or the likes if needed. I definitely want to help you get what you need, but you should get it from the right people, not write in on a help line, which is not the public opinion. Let me know if you want me to make an appointment for you or direct you to someone who can give you information for your report.

Best, Laetitia

- Original Message - From: "Brian McNeil"  To: "Int'l Basics Project"  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:08:55 PM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Thank you for your email,

I assume you do not have any issues with me quoting this as I have made it clear I am a journalist.

I would greatly appreciate though if you could answer some of the more specific questions I posed earlier. In particular, can you specify what – if any – law enforcement agencies are involved in tracking down with a view to prosecution the group known as “Anonymous”.

Regards,

Brian McNeil

-Original Message- From: Int'l Basics Project [mailto:knowledge@lrh.org] Sent: 29 January 2008 00:31 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Dear Brian,

The activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware.

So, we do not concentrate or put all our efforts onto handling Anonymous; as that is not our purpose and else all we would be doing is fighting someone against us to the detriment of people in the Society who need help and would be being neglected due to our energies being diverted.

So, yes, we are taking action, Anonymous will be handled and stopped, but not to the detriment of us stopping all community outreach activities. We've had people throw attacks at us in the past as they do not agree with the betterment of people. History is strewn with such people who start wars, wreak havoc etc. and they never continue to exist in the long run as their purpose is one of destruction. That's a statistical and historical fact.

Laetitia

- Original Message - From: "Brian McNeil"  To: "Int'l Basics Project"  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:24:14 AM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

I am neither. As I stated, I am a community accredited reporter for the Wikinews website. I.e. a journalist. Personally I do not approve of the attacks mounted by “Anonymous”, but that is more due to my beliefs in free speech and opposition to vigilante justice than holding any position in favour of the Church of Scientology.

As a journalist I want to see all sides of the story presented and am disappointed my colleagues have not made efforts earlier to contact the Church about the attacks.

-Original Message- From: Int'l Basics Project [mailto:knowledge@lrh.org] Sent: 28 January 2008 22:48 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Dear Brian,

Tks - I don't understand why you are writing to me. Are you part of Anonymous or are you pro-Scientology?

Laetitia

- Original Message - From: "Brian McNeil"  To: "Int'l Basics Project"  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:51:17 AM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Just to try and keep you in the loop here, we at Wikinews have received a statement from 711chan.org regarding the attacks against your websites. Their administrators have denounced the attacks with the following statement:

“It has been said before that this raid would fail, and although we do not see that happening at this moment, we as a network have taken a vote and decided that this raid on Church of Scientology was not done correctly. It has come to our attention that this raid has evolved into more than Anonymous attacking Co$, the raid has turned into namefagging, giving people an area to attack. This is not what the raid originally started as. Partyvan declares this as a threat to the network, and Anonymous alike. We have been under constant botnet attacks, 711chan hacked, and tons of drama over this. You guys did a very poor job of staying Anonymous. It's obvious that a lot of you broke rules 1, and 2. We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on.”

Personally I suspect this means the attack will continue, but with an ever-diminishing number of participants. In addition to the questions I sent earlier I would appreciate your feedback on this development.

Regards,

Brian McNeil

Wikinews Administrator & Community Accredited Reporter.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean."

Broader Content Than Title Suggests?
This article has a pretty wide scope of content - perhaps a more generalised title should be considered? The current title only accounts for less than 1/3 of the article. Also, this is more a continuation of the whole "Internet/Scientology" saga than simply an article focused on Scientolgy's response as the current title heavily suggests. Fallen-Griever 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Pope John Paul II dies

Bias
Doesn't someone think this article is biased? Editorofthewiki 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Comments:Pope John Paul II dies


text:
Talk:Wikinews interviews U.S. Libertarian presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root

Here is the complete transcript of the interview I did with Wayne Allyn Root:

show details Feb 2 (1 day ago) Reply

Joe,

Forget "staff"...this is Wayne Allyn Root himself. I'll be happy to do the interview. Fire away. Kep it short though- I have a busy schedule with Super Bowl tomorrow (my "other" career).

WAR Wayne Allyn Root, Chairman & CEO Winning Edge International Cool Hand ROOT Productions WinningEDGE Television Direct OFF PH (702) 737-7668(ROOT) CELL (702) 296-7668(ROOT) FAX (702) 407-5188

Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548) Reply Forward Joseph FordThank you for your time, Mr. Root. Below are a short list of questions I'd li... 9:42 PM (23 hours ago)

Joseph FordLoading...9:42 PM (23 hours ago)

Joseph Ford to ROOTINTL show details 9:42 PM (23 hours ago) Reply

Thank you for your time, Mr. Root. Below are a short list of questions I'd like you to answer. The interview should be up on WikiNews by tomorrow.

Q: Why do you want to run for president? How would you help your fellow Americans if elected?

Q: You were a Republican until not too long ago. Why the sudden switch to the Libertarian Party?

Q: There are thousands reading this right now, many of which may not have decided who they are going to vote for. What could you say to encourage them to give you their vote?

Q: How would you handle the situation in Iraq?

Q: Do you believe that it is really possible for you to win the 2008 election, being a third party candidate and all?

Thanks again, Mr. Root. - Show quoted text -

On Feb 2, 2008 8:02 PM,  wrote:

Joe,

Forget "staff"...this is Wayne Allyn Root himself. I'll be happy to do the interview. Fire away. Kep it short though- I have a busy schedule with Super Bowl tomorrow (my "other" career).

WAR Wayne Allyn Root, Chairman & CEO Winning Edge International Cool Hand ROOT Productions WinningEDGE Television Direct OFF PH (702) 737-7668(ROOT) CELL (702) 296-7668(ROOT) FAX (702) 407-5188

Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548)

Reply Forward ROOTINTL@aol.comSend me LINK to interview when it's up: I decided to run for President of the... 2:20 PM (7 hours ago)

ROOTINTL@aol.comLoading...2:20 PM (7 hours ago)

ROOTINTL@aol.com to me show details 2:20 PM (7 hours ago) Reply

Send me LINK to interview when it's up:

Q: Why do you want to run for president? How would you help your fellow Americans if elected?

I decided to run for President of the United States because the same people keep running (and being elected) who have screwed everything up in the first place! Every recent President or Presidential candidate falls into one of these same categories: lifelong government bureaucrat or politician (people who have never started a business, funded a business, created jobs, paid health insurance for employees, paid millions in taxes, fought through government regulations, or added millions of dollars to the American economy)…or lawyer (same lack of qualifications…but worse- they make their living by suing the people and companies that create jobs)…or big businessman (out of touch millionaires or billionaires like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot)…or spoiled brats who have never experienced pain, failure or adversity like the rest of us. I break that mold. I'm a small businessman (I built a company with 35 employees) and self-made son of a butcher. The entire U.S. economy is fueled by small business. Small businesses now create the majority of jobs in the USA. Small business creates the jobs, pays the taxes, pays the health insurance, makes the U.S. economy go and grow.

Politicians are always far behind the curve. They fawn over big business, big unions, huge corporations, like GE, Microsoft, Exxon or Halliburton. They ignore a small businessman like me with 35 employees. I can't afford lobbyists or huge campaign contributions. So we're left out of the national political dialogue. But guess what? Put all of America's small businessmen together and we're far more important than GE or Microsoft or Exxon or Halliburton. America is a nation of small business owners (and the tens of millions of people that we employ). Small business owners are the heroes of the American economy- we are the risk takers and daring innovators and business leaders. We risk our own money on our own ideas, putting everything we own on the line. We are the CEO's and Generals of our own small worlds- we have no Board of Directors, Ivy League lawyers, layers of big shot executives, or highly-paid lobbyists and consultants to assist us. We make decisions all by ourselves on pure gut instinct- and either hit a homerun or strikeout. We're the last of the rugged individualists. We are like the Wright Brothers or Lewis & Clark. Small businessmen are the courageous explorers who tamed the Wild West on sheer guts, instincts and chutzpah. We are what America is all about.

I'm proud to be the FIRST small businessman running for President. Who better to lead a country of small business owners, small investors, entrepreneurs, independent contractors (commissioned salespeople) and the people they employee? Who better than a small businessman to cut the size of government? I've lived my whole adult life on my wits, gut instincts and a small budget. What a perfect business experience as a model to run the U.S. government. Far better to put a small businessman in charge who has always made do with less money…than some out-of-touch, spoiled-brat, big business CEO, used to spending billions of dollars and delegating authority to a staff of thousands. If you agree that it's time for a big change- I'm your guy. I'm the guy George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were thinking of when they founded America and created the greatest document ever-the U.S. constitution. I'm a part-time politician who also runs his own small business. I'm the quintessential Citizen Legislator.

As far as how I'd help my fellow Americans, my answer is simple. Get the government out of their lives and out of their business as much as possible. Cut government, cut the bureaucracy, cut the entitlements, and dramatically reduce the tax burden. Get government out of the way and allow small business and small investors to lead the way- to grow, prosper, flourish and thrive. You'll see the greatest economic explosion in world economic history.

Q: You were a Republican until not too long ago. Why the sudden switch to the Libertarian Party?

I didn't leave the Republican Party- the GOP left me. The first problem with the GOP is that they talk a great game- smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, reduced bureaucracy. It sounds great. But it's only talk. They only use that talk to get elected. It's just a sales job. However, Republicans are at least slightly better than the Democrats when it comes to fiscal policy. At least Republicans want to cut taxes. But they have no interest in cutting government. They love earmarks, giveaways and spending as much as their Democrat brothers. I call the 2 parties big and bigger, dumb and dumber! Both parties want to make government bigger so they control more power, more money, more spoils to handout to their voters. It's outright bribery- and it's disgraceful.

The second reason for my switch is that I'm a fiscal conservative in the mode of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul. But when it comes to social issues, I'm a pure Libertarian. Unfortunately the GOP has morphed into Big Brother when it comes to social issues and personal freedoms. They have decided it's okay to use big government to force religion and morality on the American people. I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Third, while I believe the war on terror is real and I strongly support it, I believe Bush and the GOP have completely screwed it up. The Dept of Homeland Security is just a new bungling bureaucracy. Making me take off my shoes and getting rid of my toothpaste won't prevent terrorism. Neither will hiring hundreds of thousands of new government employees- most of whom could never find a good job in the private sector. The people that work for Homeland Security are for the most part bungling idiots. So is the Bush administration. They are so busy fighting the wrong war in Iraq, that as a recent study proved, we are completely unprepared, in case of national emergency or terrorist attack here at home. Very little of our weaknesses and vulnerabilities to terrorism have been dealt with- our port security is lax, cargo on airplanes goes virtually unchecked, and seven long years after 9/11 we have only 50 FBI agents out of 10,000 who speak Arabic. How could that be possible? Worse, we've used the war on terror to justify taking away our own civil liberties in America. Winning the war against terrorism is not a victory if we give up freedom in our own country to achieve it.

And finally, the war on terror should be fought NOT by invading entire countries, but through the use of specially trained rapid-strike teams and special forces taking out terrorist leaders wherever they may be hiding. Spending a trillion dollars on occupying Iraq was a costly mistake. It's been a disaster in terms of money wasted, lives lost and instability at home. The military forces of the United States are stretched to the brink. The National Guard has been plundered- it is now virtually useless to defend our homeland. I've come to realize that Bush and this entire administration are incompetent “Keystone Cops.” I believe in the war on terror- but not the way it's being run right now.

Fourth, I'm a spiritual person. I love God. I believe in the power of prayer. I've seen the studies that prove the healing power of prayer. I've seen the studies that prove religious people are happier and healthier. So I pray every day. My kids start and end every day with prayer. I believe that America has been blessed by God. But God and religion are personal issues made by each individual. I don't want politics to be used as a tool by religious people to stuff religion down our throats. I would fight to the death to protect your right to be religious, to practice any religion of your choice…or to practice no religion at all. I'm a great believer in personal freedom. Your choices are your choices- and none of the government's business.

I happen to not smoke, drink or do drugs of any kind- EVER. That's my choice of lifestyle. On the other hand, I love to gamble. I'm a risk taker- whether it's betting on a business idea, a stock, a million dollar real estate investment, or the Dallas Cowboys. That's my chosen form of entertainment. It's none of your business- and it's certainly none of the government's damn business. I would never try to force my choice of lifestyle or my definition of morality upon anyone else. Today's GOP disagrees. They are a big government party playing Big Brother. They spend their time like the busybody old lady peeking out the window to spy on her neighbors. Today's GOP wants to define morality, legislate it and throw people in jail who disagree. I find this disgusting and offensive. It's just plain wrong. It's anything but conservative. It's the Nanny State. I want to lead the battle to stop it- forever. What Americans do in their homes, in their bedrooms, on their computers, watch on their TV sets is none of the government's damn business. The job of government is to protect us from others, NOT to protect us from ourselves. And the job of government is certainly not to criminalize moral behavior. That's why our ancestors left England and fought a revolution. We didn't want the King of England telling us what to do, what religion to worship, or to tax us heavily without representation. But all of that is happening today. It's our own government taxing us to death, wiretapping our phone calls and emails without warrants, and putting Americans in jail for minor offenses, choices of morality and victimless crimes.

Q: There are thousands reading this right now, many of which may not have decided who they are going to vote for. What could you say to encourage them to give you their vote?

Barack Obama (my college classmate Columbia University Class of '83) talks nonstop about change. So do Hillary and McCain. None of them are agents of change. They are longtime politicians (and lawyers). They are the problem- not the solution. Barack was just named as the single most liberal member of the entire U.S. Senate. That's based on facts- his voting record. Is that the change we want? That's not change- that's the same old “soak the rich,” “redistribute the wealth,” “spend like a drunken sailor,” and “spend trillions on a failing war on poverty” philosophy of big government, out-of-touch, bleeding heart liberals like Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Is this what America calls change? While China and Russia turn unabashedly capitalistic, do we want to move towards Socialism?

McCain is another big government conservative. He's been collecting government checks in D.C. for 25 years. Hillary wants Universal Healthcare- so we can bankrupt America and throw Americans in jail for trying to choose the doctor of their choice. Scary. That's what happens in UK and Canada- if you're sick you wait in line for weeks or months to see a doctor- who is forced upon you by the government. You don't like that doctor-too bad. He's an incompetent doctor- too bad. You're out of luck. You need a hip replaced right away? Too bad- you'll have to sit in a wheelchair for 18 months until it's your turn. Anyone want that system?

Who wants to vote for “the same old, same old.” The D.C. insiders are the ones who have ruined things. Our country is in trouble. It's time for a dramatic change; a non-violent revolution. Who better to lead that revolution than a son of a butcher. I say “THROW THE BUMS OUT.” A perfect example is found in the final 3 contenders for the major party Presidential nominations- Clinton, Obama, and McCain are people that have been agents of big government their whole lives. Always collecting government checks. Always voting against tax cuts (even though it's our money in the first place). Always feeding off taxpayers. Always bribing the voters to stay in office- thereby increasing government spending and running up a huge deficit. But here's the worst thing of all- all 3 are sitting U.S. Senators. They collect a 6-figure income from the taxpayers. Being a Senator is a full-time job, isn't it? But these 3 are spending every waking hour campaigning for President. How are they earning their $175,000 U.S. Senate salaries? They're not even present to vote on important bills. They are cheating the citizens of New York, Illinois and Arizona. It's, in my opinion, fraud to run for higher office while collecting a check for another political office. The rules should be changed- if you want to run for President, you have to step down from your present office. Why should taxpayers pay the cost for absent politicians who ignore the job for which they are being paid?

If what I'm saying strikes a chord- it's time to vote for a complete outsider. A rebel with a pitchfork and musket. A citizen legislator. A small businessman, S.O.B. (son of a butcher) and Las Vegas oddsmaker. I am the perfect “OUT OF THE BOX” candidate. Some people are scared of Vegas. Religious people think it has a negative connotation. You know what the difference is between Las Vegas and Washington D.C.? In Vegas the drunks gamble with their own money! It's time to shake things up in Washington. Put the rebel and maverick small businessman from Las Vegas in charge. I could certainly do a better job than the fools, hypocrites and greedy thieves that have run this country for the past 50 years.

Q: How would you handle the situation in Iraq?

There are no good or simple answers for Iraq. It's a tough situation. We shouldn't be there. It was the wrong war. We won Afghanistan- then we made a big mistake by adding Iraq to the equation. Now we're losing ground in Afghanistan too. We should have stayed focused on the only true enemy- the Taliban, Al Queda and the terrorists. We should have won big in Afghaistan and then gone after the remaining terrorists- not Saddam. He was just a distraction. An evil, cruel, murdering dictator who bragged of having weapons of mass destruction- so it's good he's gone. But nonetheless Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. Now we've spent a trillion dollars and lost thousands of lives on a big mistake. But we're there. I believe it would e a mistake to turn tail and run. I agreed with the recommendation of the Generals on the ground- to build up a troop surge. We did and it's been a great success. The enemy is on the run. I'm proud that even though I didn't support the war, I supported the surge. We were correct. It worked. Now let's use the success to declare victory and get out as soon as possible. That won't be tomorrow, but it can realistically be 12 to 18 months from now. Let's give the Iraqi government time to build up its own security, police and military- and then “get the hell out of Dodge.” That's the best answer I can come up with for a difficult, disastrous and complicated problem with no easy way out. I think my support of the surge was reasonable, fair and commonsense. My compromise solution above is reasonable, fair and based on commonsense. It's about the best choice we have right now.

But there are some important lessons to be learned here. All is not lost. A tragedy becomes a positive if you can learn from your mistakes. I call it “The Black Box Theory.” What good could come f a plane crash where 100 passengers die? Actually, a lot of good. If we recover the “black box” and study it, we can learn from the tragedy and prevent millions of future deaths. Those 100 victims suddenly become heroes. They didn't die in vain. Their deaths will save many others in the future. We can turn Iraq into a “black box.” I've learned that “Nation Building” is a failure. We can't force Democracy down the throats of other countries. We should mind our own business. Most importantly, we can't afford to be the world's policeman.

Further, I've learned we spend far too much time, effort and money interfering in the business and politics of others. Ron Paul is a bit extreme and he scares a lot of Americans by demanding a complete end to foreign aid and American military bases all over the world. But he's certainly brought up a good point that should lead to a serious discussion. I believe he's on the right track. We need to look at what we're spending and what we're accomplishing. I think it's time to cut foreign aid dramatically. I think it's time to eliminate many U.S. military bases around the world. It's time to let Japan, South Korea and Western Europe defend themselves. It's not our job to pay to protect the entire world. And it's time to cut the waste out of defense spending and the Pentagon- just as we should do with all government spending. If it's okay to criticize entitlements and welfare waste, why is it not okay to seek out waste in the defense budget too? If we can call for an end to welfare, I think we should end corporate welfare and national defense welfare too. I think it's obvious that defense contractors and security firms are ripping off he American taxpayer. Why is that acceptable? Because we're at war? Because Haliburton and Blackwater are close friends with the Bush Administration? Theft is theft. Waste is waste. It doesn't matter if those ripping off the taxpayer wear pinstripe suits or military uniforms. I will root out waste EVERYWHERE.

Perhaps most importantly, I don't think it makes sense to fight for freedom and civil rights in Iraq, while we take away freedom and civil liberties in our own country. No war is worth fighting if it results in reduced freedom and liberties for our own citizens. Those are the lessons I've learned from Iraq.

Q: Do you believe that it is really possible for you to win the 2008 election, being a third party candidate and all?

First of all, YES, it is possible. I'll report the findings of two recent polls. The first poll reported that a majority of Americans would consider voting for a third party candidate. The American people are getting screwed by the 2-party system, and they know it. They are desperately looking for a reason to vote for a credible alternative. The second poll found that a large swath of Americans describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” otherwise known as Libertarian. So there is hope. One of my heroes Ronald Reagan took 16 years to be elected President. I'm starting a 16 year campaign to win the Presidency and reduce the size, scope and power of government. It'll be a battle- but who better to win hat battle than a guy named W.A.R. Ron Paul (Republican candidate) is 72 years old right now. I'll still be younger than Ron Paul a quarter of a century from now! I've got time on my side.

By the way, third party politics is far from hopeless. I have personal experience proving that third party politics can produce victory. I started my political career in 1964 at the age of 3, handing out campaign literature for Barry Goldwater, in my father's arms outside a supermarket in Mt. Vernon, NY. My father was a butcher and small business owner (he owned a 2 man butcher shop). My father was one of the people who answered a newspaper ad in the early 1960's to start a new political party- The Conservative Party of NY State. By 1971 they had elected a third party United States Senator named James Buckley. By 1980 they helped little known Al D'Amato defeat powerful incumbent U.S. Senator Jacob Javits. They were also instrumental in supporting a much-maligned B-movie actor who later became President (Ronald Reagan). Not bad for a blue collar Jewish butcher from Brownsville, Brooklyn. I'm a political leader in my father's image. I'm a strong fiscal conservative who stands for fiscal discipline, smaller government, reduced government spending, reduced taxes, reduced entitlements, reduced powers for the federal government, elimination of the IRS, elimination of entire government cabinet departments (like the Dept of Education), and more personal responsibility and rights for the individual.

But I'm not your “classic conservative.” I'm a social Libertarian. I will end the Nanny State. It's none of government's business what I do with my body or my computer in the privacy of my home. I believe issues like abortion, gay marriage, online gambling, right to die, medicinal marijuana are all up to the states. Leave people alone. As long as you're not violating my rights, I believe you can do whatever you want without government interference. I want Big Brother out of our lives. A true conservative could not possibly believe in Big Brother telling us how to live our lives. I am a true conservative. Barry Goldwater and my father would be proud.

Will I win the Presidency in 2008? Highly unlikely, but not impossible. Ladbrokes of UK, the largest legal oddsmaker in the world, has set the odds- they make me a prohibitive favorite to attract he most votes in Libertarian Party history. That will be a nice start. I fully expect this to lead to victory in 2012, 2016 or 2020. The battle has just begun! ROOT for Liberty. ROOT for Freedom. ROOT for America.

WAR Wayne Allyn Root www.WayneROOT.com

Comment
As a new user to Wikinews and an un-accredited reporter how did you contact this person and conduct this interview? If this interview is true then please email the original unedited email to an admin for verification as this is needed for interviews.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply emailed Mr. Root from his campaign website and asked for an interview. Which admin should I send the email to? Thanks. --WNewsReporter 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just send it to me at .  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The email is already on its way. --WNewsReporter 02:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a more thorough transcript of the email interview. It proves that it actually did take place. Now can this please be taken out of 'Development'? Thanks. --WNewsReporter 12:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I am not sure what is going on with the verification through FellowWikiNews, but I (independently) sent an e-mail to the main e-mail (WAR@WayneRoot.com) on the official site asking them to confirm that the interview is valid. It included a link to the developing story. All they have to do is reply yes or no. I realize that the e-mail address I sent to is not Mr Root's personal e-mail and that a staffer might receive it first, but that is part of the confirmation process. If FellowWikiNews is trying contact via the address WNewsReporter provided in the interview notes, it is possible that is a personal account that only Root himself answers, and he may be busy. Therefore, I sent the "work-around" e-mail to the campaign site. If the campaign acknowledges as legitimate then we can "run" with it. --SVTCobra 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SVT, we contacted Root's email and he said the interview did happen. But I would like verification from his campaign office too. After, if they say yes or no, we will take the appropriate steps.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He answers the campaign mail himself, though from the aol account. So the fact that he got my mail is good enough. I will publish. --SVTCobra 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I personally do not think interviews should be conducted by anyone but accredited reporters. The time to draw up interview guidelines is long past. --David Shankbone 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with anyone asking for an interview, but I think that anyone making such an approach needs to clearly state their position - either they are an accredited reporter for WikiNews, or they are freelance, with the intention of posting their interview here. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The interviewer clearly stated to the interviewee that it would be posted on Wikinews (see the above correspondence). --SVTCobra 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
You'll give this guy an interview and not me? What's with this site?--Uga Man - (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he has a Wikipedia article, a website, and is a notable person. You do not appear to have any of the three.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews interviews U.S. Libertarian presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root

February 6, 2008

Wikinews held an exclusive interview with Wayne Allyn Root, one of the candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination for the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Root is the founder and chairman of Winning Edge International Inc., a sports handicapping company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition, he is an author and a television producer, as well as an on-screen personality both as host and guest on several talk shows.

Root, a long-time Republican, declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party on May 4, 2007.

He says he is concerned about the qualities of many who run for president, and fears that they do not know the needs of American citizens. He also says that they cater to big businesses instead of small ones.

He has goals of limiting the federal government and believes that the US went into Iraq for wrong reasons. A strong supporter of the War on Terror, he feels that it was mishandled. He has conservative values and came from a blue collar family in New York. He graduated from Columbia University with fellow presidential hopeful Barack Obama in 1983.

Root believes that America is in trouble and hopes to change that if elected.

Interview

 * Why do you want to run for president? How would you help your fellow Americans if elected?

 * Mr. Root: I decided to run for President of the United States because the same people keep running (and being elected) who have screwed everything up in the first place! Every recent President or Presidential candidate falls into one of these same categories: lifelong government bureaucrat or politician (people who have never started a business, funded a business, created jobs, paid health insurance for employees, paid millions in taxes, fought through government regulations, or added millions of dollars to the American economy)…or lawyer (same lack of qualifications…but worse- they make their living by suing the people and companies that create jobs)…or big businessman (out of touch millionaires or billionaires like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot)…or spoiled brats who have never experienced pain, failure or adversity like the rest of us. I break that mold. I'm a small businessman (I built a company with 35 employees) and self-made son of a butcher. The entire U.S. economy is fueled by small business. Small businesses now create the majority of jobs in the USA. Small business creates the jobs, pays the taxes, pays the health insurance, makes the U.S. economy go and grow.

 * Politicians are always far behind the curve. They fawn over big business, big unions, huge corporations, like GE, Microsoft, Exxon or Halliburton. They ignore a small businessman like me with 35 employees. I can't afford lobbyists or huge campaign contributions. So we're left out of the national political dialogue. But guess what? Put all of America's small businessmen together and we're far more important than GE or Microsoft or Exxon or Halliburton. America is a nation of small business owners (and the tens of millions of people that we employ). Small business owners are the heroes of the American economy- we are the risk takers and daring innovators and business leaders. We risk our own money on our own ideas, putting everything we own on the line. We are the CEO's and Generals of our own small worlds- we have no Board of Directors, Ivy League lawyers, layers of big shot executives, or highly-paid lobbyists and consultants to assist us. We make decisions all by ourselves on pure gut instinct- and either hit a homerun or strikeout. We're the last of the rugged individualists. We are like the Wright Brothers or Lewis & Clark. Small businessmen are the courageous explorers who tamed the Wild West on sheer guts, instincts and chutzpah. We are what America is all about.

 * I'm proud to be the FIRST small businessman running for President. Who better to lead a country of small business owners, small investors, entrepreneurs, independent contractors (commissioned salespeople) and the people they employ? Who better than a small businessman to cut the size of government? I've lived my whole adult life on my wits, gut instincts and a small budget. What a perfect business experience as a model to run the U.S. government. Far better to put a small businessman in charge who has always made do with less money…than some out-of-touch, spoiled-brat, big business CEO, used to spending billions of dollars and delegating authority to a staff of thousands. If you agree that it's time for a big change- I'm your guy. I'm the guy George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were thinking of when they founded America and created the greatest document ever-the U.S. constitution. I'm a part-time politician who also runs his own small business. I'm the quintessential Citizen Legislator.

 * As far as how I'd help my fellow Americans, my answer is simple. Get the government out of their lives and out of their business as much as possible. Cut government, cut the bureaucracy, cut the entitlements, and dramatically reduce the tax burden. Get government out of the way and allow small business and small investors to lead the way- to grow, prosper, flourish and thrive. You'll see the greatest economic explosion in world economic history.

 * You were a Republican until not too long ago. Why the sudden switch to the Libertarian Party?

 * Mr. Root: I didn't leave the Republican Party- the GOP left me. The first problem with the GOP is that they talk a great game- smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, reduced bureaucracy. It sounds great. But it's only talk. They only use that talk to get elected. It's just a sales job. However, Republicans are at least slightly better than the Democrats when it comes to fiscal policy. At least Republicans want to cut taxes. But they have no interest in cutting government. They love earmarks, giveaways and spending as much as their Democrat brothers. I call the 2 parties big and bigger, dumb and dumber! Both parties want to make government bigger so they control more power, more money, more spoils to handout to their voters. It's outright bribery- and it's disgraceful.

 * The second reason for my switch is that I'm a fiscal conservative in the mode of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul. But when it comes to social issues, I'm a pure Libertarian. Unfortunately the GOP has morphed into Big Brother when it comes to social issues and personal freedoms. They have decided it's okay to use big government to force religion and morality on the American people. I couldn't disagree more strongly.

 * Third, while I believe the war on terror is real and I strongly support it, I believe Bush and the GOP have completely screwed it up. The Dept of Homeland Security is just a new bungling bureaucracy. Making me take off my shoes and getting rid of my toothpaste won't prevent terrorism. Neither will hiring hundreds of thousands of new government employees- most of whom could never find a good job in the private sector. The people that work for Homeland Security are for the most part bungling idiots. So is the Bush administration. They are so busy fighting the wrong war in Iraq, that as a recent study proved, we are completely unprepared, in case of national emergency or terrorist attack here at home. Very little of our weaknesses and vulnerabilities to terrorism have been dealt with- our port security is lax, cargo on airplanes goes virtually unchecked, and seven long years after 9/11 we have only 50 FBI agents out of 10,000 who speak Arabic. How could that be possible? Worse, we've used the war on terror to justify taking away our own civil liberties in America. Winning the war against terrorism is not a victory if we give up freedom in our own country to achieve it.

 * And finally, the war on terror should be fought NOT by invading entire countries, but through the use of specially trained rapid-strike teams and special forces taking out terrorist leaders wherever they may be hiding. Spending a trillion dollars on occupying Iraq was a costly mistake. It's been a disaster in terms of money wasted, lives lost and instability at home. The military forces of the United States are stretched to the brink. The National Guard has been plundered- it is now virtually useless to defend our homeland. I've come to realize that Bush and this entire administration are incompetent “Keystone Cops.” I believe in the war on terror- but not the way it's being run right now.

 * Fourth, I'm a spiritual person. I love God. I believe in the power of prayer. I've seen the studies that prove the healing power of prayer. I've seen the studies that prove religious people are happier and healthier. So I pray every day. My kids start and end every day with prayer. I believe that America has been blessed by God. But God and religion are personal issues made by each individual. I don't want politics to be used as a tool by religious people to stuff religion down our throats. I would fight to the death to protect your right to be religious, to practice any religion of your choice…or to practice no religion at all. I'm a great believer in personal freedom. Your choices are your choices- and none of the government's business.

 * I happen to not smoke, drink or do drugs of any kind- EVER. That's my choice of lifestyle. On the other hand, I love to gamble. I'm a risk taker- whether it's betting on a business idea, a stock, a million dollar real estate investment, or the Dallas Cowboys. That's my chosen form of entertainment. It's none of your business- and it's certainly none of the government's damn business. I would never try to force my choice of lifestyle or my definition of morality upon anyone else. Today's GOP disagrees. They are a big government party playing Big Brother. They spend their time like the busybody old lady peeking out the window to spy on her neighbors. Today's GOP wants to define morality, legislate it and throw people in jail who disagree. I find this disgusting and offensive. It's just plain wrong. It's anything but conservative. It's the Nanny State. I want to lead the battle to stop it- forever. What Americans do in their homes, in their bedrooms, on their computers, watch on their TV sets is none of the government's damn business. The job of government is to protect us from others, NOT to protect us from ourselves. And the job of government is certainly not to criminalize moral behavior. That's why our ancestors left England and fought a revolution. We didn't want the King of England telling us what to do, what religion to worship, or to tax us heavily without representation. But all of that is happening today. It's our own government taxing us to death, wiretapping our phone calls and emails without warrants, and putting Americans in jail for minor offenses, choices of morality and victimless crimes.

 * There are thousands reading this right now, many of which may not have decided who they are going to vote for. What could you say to encourage them to give you their vote?

 * Mr. Root: Barack Obama (my college classmate Columbia University Class of '83) talks nonstop about change. So do Hillary and McCain. None of them are agents of change. They are longtime politicians (and lawyers). They are the problem- not the solution. Barack was just named as the single most liberal member of the entire U.S. Senate. That's based on facts- his voting record. Is that the change we want? That's not change- that's the same old “soak the rich,” “redistribute the wealth,” “spend like a drunken sailor,” and “spend trillions on a failing war on poverty” philosophy of big government, out-of-touch, bleeding heart liberals like Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Is this what America calls change?  While China and Russia turn unabashedly capitalistic, do we want to move towards Socialism?

 * McCain is another big government conservative. He's been collecting government checks in D.C. for 25 years. Hillary wants Universal Healthcare- so we can bankrupt America and throw Americans in jail for trying to choose the doctor of their choice. Scary. That's what happens in UK and Canada- if you're sick you wait in line for weeks or months to see a doctor- who is forced upon you by the government. You don't like that doctor-too bad. He's an incompetent doctor- too bad. You're out of luck. You need a hip replaced right away? Too bad- you'll have to sit in a wheelchair for 18 months until it's your turn. Anyone want that system?

 * Who wants to vote for “the same old, same old.” The D.C. insiders are the ones who have ruined things. Our country is in trouble. It's time for a dramatic change; a non-violent revolution. Who better to lead that revolution than a son of a butcher. I say “THROW THE BUMS OUT.” A perfect example is found in the final 3 contenders for the major party Presidential nominations- Clinton, Obama, and McCain are people that have been agents of big government their whole lives. Always collecting government checks. Always voting against tax cuts (even though it's our money in the first place). Always feeding off taxpayers. Always bribing the voters to stay in office- thereby increasing government spending and running up a huge deficit. But here's the worst thing of all- all 3 are sitting U.S. Senators. They collect a 6-figure income from the taxpayers. Being a Senator is a full-time job, isn't it? But these 3 are spending every waking hour campaigning for President. How are they earning their $175,000 U.S. Senate salaries? They're not even present to vote on important bills. They are cheating the citizens of New York, Illinois and Arizona. It's, in my opinion, fraud to run for higher office while collecting a check for another political office. The rules should be changed- if you want to run for President, you have to step down from your present office. Why should taxpayers pay the cost for absent politicians who ignore the job for which they are being paid?

 * If what I'm saying strikes a chord- it's time to vote for a complete outsider. A rebel with a pitchfork and musket. A citizen legislator. A small businessman, S.O.B. (son of a butcher) and Las Vegas oddsmaker. I am the perfect “OUT OF THE BOX” candidate. Some people are scared of Vegas. Religious people think it has a negative connotation. You know what the difference is between Las Vegas and Washington D.C.? In Vegas the drunks gamble with their own money! It's time to shake things up in Washington. Put the rebel and maverick small businessman from Las Vegas in charge. I could certainly do a better job than the fools, hypocrites and greedy thieves that have run this country for the past 50 years.

 * How would you handle the situation in Iraq?

 * Mr. Root: There are no good or simple answers for Iraq. It's a tough situation. We shouldn't be there. It was the wrong war. We won Afghanistan- then we made a big mistake by adding Iraq to the equation. Now we're losing ground in Afghanistan too. We should have stayed focused on the only true enemy- the Taliban, Al Queda and the terrorists. We should have won big in Afghaistan and then gone after the remaining terrorists- not Saddam. He was just a distraction. An evil, cruel, murdering dictator who bragged of having weapons of mass destruction- so it's good he's gone. But nonetheless Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. Now we've spent a trillion dollars and lost thousands of lives on a big mistake. But we're there. I believe it would e a mistake to turn tail and run. I agreed with the recommendation of the Generals on the ground- to build up a troop surge. We did and it's been a great success. The enemy is on the run. I'm proud that even though I didn't support the war, I supported the surge. We were correct. It worked. Now let's use the success to declare victory and get out as soon as possible. That won't be tomorrow, but it can realistically be 12 to 18 months from now. Let's give the Iraqi government time to build up its own security, police and military- and then “get the hell out of Dodge.” That's the best answer I can come up with for a difficult, disastrous and complicated problem with no easy way out. I think my support of the surge was reasonable, fair and commonsense. My compromise solution above is reasonable, fair and based on commonsense. It's about the best choice we have right now.

 * But there are some important lessons to be learned here. All is not lost. A tragedy becomes a positive if you can learn from your mistakes. I call it “The Black Box Theory.” What good could come f a plane crash where 100 passengers die? Actually, a lot of good. If we recover the “black box” and study it, we can learn from the tragedy and prevent millions of future deaths. Those 100 victims suddenly become heroes. They didn't die in vain. Their deaths will save many others in the future. We can turn Iraq into a “black box.” I've learned that “Nation Building” is a failure. We can't force Democracy down the throats of other countries. We should mind our own business. Most importantly, we can't afford to be the world's policeman.

 * Further, I've learned we spend far too much time, effort and money interfering in the business and politics of others. Ron Paul is a bit extreme and he scares a lot of Americans by demanding a complete end to foreign aid and American military bases all over the world. But he's certainly brought up a good point that should lead to a serious discussion. I believe he's on the right track. We need to look at what we're spending and what we're accomplishing. I think it's time to cut foreign aid dramatically. I think it's time to eliminate many U.S. military bases around the world. It's time to let Japan, South Korea and Western Europe defend themselves. It's not our job to pay to protect the entire world. And it's time to cut the waste out of defense spending and the Pentagon- just as we should do with all government spending. If it's okay to criticize entitlements and welfare waste, why is it not okay to seek out waste in the defense budget too? If we can call for an end to welfare, I think we should end corporate welfare and national defense welfare too. I think it's obvious that defense contractors and security firms are ripping off he American taxpayer. Why is that acceptable? Because we're at war? Because Haliburton and Blackwater are close friends with the Bush Administration? Theft is theft. Waste is waste. It doesn't matter if those ripping off the taxpayer wear pinstripe suits or military uniforms. I will root out waste EVERYWHERE.

 * Perhaps most importantly, I don't think it makes sense to fight for freedom and civil rights in Iraq, while we take away freedom and civil liberties in our own country. No war is worth fighting if it results in reduced freedom and liberties for our own citizens. Those are the lessons I've learned from Iraq.

 * Do you believe that it is really possible for you to win the 2008 election, being a third party candidate and all?

 * Mr. Root: First of all, YES, it is possible. I'll report the findings of two recent polls. The first poll reported that a majority of Americans would consider voting for a third party candidate. The American people are getting screwed by the 2-party system, and they know it. They are desperately looking for a reason to vote for a credible alternative. The second poll found that a large swath of Americans describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” otherwise known as Libertarian. So there is hope. One of my heroes Ronald Reagan took 16 years to be elected President. I'm starting a 16 year campaign to win the Presidency and reduce the size, scope and power of government. It'll be a battle- but who better to win hat battle than a guy named W.A.R. Ron Paul (Republican candidate) is 72 years old right now. I'll still be younger than Ron Paul a quarter of a century from now! I've got time on my side.

 * By the way, third party politics is far from hopeless. I have personal experience proving that third party politics can produce victory.

 * I started my political career in 1964 at the age of 3, handing out campaign literature for Barry Goldwater, in my father's arms outside a supermarket in Mt. Vernon, NY. My father was a butcher and small business owner (he owned a 2 man butcher shop). My father was one of the people who answered a newspaper ad in the early 1960's to start a new political party- The Conservative Party of NY State. By 1971 they had elected a third party United States Senator named James Buckley. By 1980 they helped little known Al D'Amato defeat powerful incumbent U.S. Senator Jacob Javits. They were also instrumental in supporting a much-maligned B-movie actor who later became President (Ronald Reagan). Not bad for a blue collar Jewish butcher from Brownsville, Brooklyn. I'm a political leader in my father's image. I'm a strong fiscal conservative who stands for fiscal discipline, smaller government, reduced government spending, reduced taxes, reduced entitlements, reduced powers for the federal government, elimination of the IRS, elimination of entire government cabinet departments (like the Dept of Education), and more personal responsibility and rights for the individual.

 * But I'm not your “classic conservative.” I'm a social Libertarian. I will end the Nanny State. It's none of government's business what I do with my body or my computer in the privacy of my home. I believe issues like abortion, gay marriage, online gambling, right to die, medicinal marijuana are all up to the states. Leave people alone. As long as you're not violating my rights, I believe you can do whatever you want without government interference. I want Big Brother out of our lives. A true conservative could not possibly believe in Big Brother telling us how to live our lives. I am a true conservative. Barry Goldwater and my father would be proud.

 * Will I win the Presidency in 2008? Highly unlikely, but not impossible. Ladbrokes of UK, the largest legal oddsmaker in the world, has set the odds- they make me a prohibitive favorite to attract he most votes in Libertarian Party history. That will be a nice start. I fully expect this to lead to victory in 2012, 2016 or 2020. The battle has just begun! ROOT for Liberty. ROOT for Freedom. ROOT for America.


text:
Egypt seals border with Gaza after 11 days

February 3, 2008

Egypt has closed the border with the Gaza Strip, ending 11 days of unrestricted movement for Palestinians.

Egyptian security forces used barbed wire and metal barricades to seal the last remaining gaps in the barricade along the border.

Egyptians who were in Gaza are being allowed to return home, and Palestinians on the Egyptian side of the border are still able to go back to Gaza. But no new crossings are being permitted.

Hamas-affiliated militants on the Gaza side of the border have been turning people back and telling them it is closed. There were reports of scuffles with Gazans who still wanted to cross into Egypt, but most reports said the situation remained fairly calm.

A senior Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, said Saturday there had been an agreement between Egypt and Hamas to control the border, and suggested that the closure might be temporary. Egyptian officials have not commented on the existence of any deal with Hamas, but have repeatedly vowed to regain full control of the situation at the border.

Local resident Ibrahim Mohammed Ahmed owns a small grocery shop in Rafah. He spoke to VOA by telephone from the nearby town of Sheikh Zuwayad.

He said the situation is tight and controlled now. The government has closed the entire border in Rafah and all the roads. Every 100 meters there is a checkpoint.

A Palestinian who crossed into Egypt to visit relatives, Essam Ibrahim Issa, spoke to VOA by phone from another small community near Rafah.

He said all the roads are blocked and Egyptian security forces are making Palestinians return to Gaza. He said, They put them in trucks and take them back to Rafah.

Issa said Hamas has indicated that the border will re-open in about a week, and he is hoping for a new agreement that will let him cross into Egypt legally.

He said he would be heading home to Gaza later in the day, but once the border crossing is officially reopened, he wants to return to Egypt legally, allowing him freedom of movement.

The border closure ends 11 days of unrestricted movement across the Egypt-Gaza border. Gunmen in Gaza blew open sections of the border barricade on January 23, days after Israel began imposing a near-total blockade on the territory. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians crossed into Egypt to buy food and other supplies that had become scarce or expensive in Gaza.

Egyptian security forces set up a cordon around the border town of Rafah, trying to keep Palestinians from moving further into Egypt. Egypt says at least 17 Palestinians have been arrested in Sinai carrying weapons and explosives since the crisis began.

The international community and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority have objected to any border deal involving Hamas, which violently seized control of Gaza in June.

Egypt, however, views the open border as a serious security risk and has pressed Fatah to accept some kind of deal with Hamas in order to see that it remains under control.


text:
User talk:68.12.77.186

Spam
Hi, please do not place any kind of on our website - it will be  so no-one will ever see it. If you do want to contribute to Wikinews, see the introduction. Adambro 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.12.77.186


text:
Tadić re-elected President of Serbia

February 3, 2008

Incumbent Boris Tadić has narrowly defeated nationalist candidate Tomislav Nikolić in the second and final round of Serbia's presidential election.

Tadić received 50.5% of the vote and Nikolić garnered about 47.9% according to CeSID, a vote monitoring organization. The voter turnout was projected to be 67.7%, the country's highest turnout since the 2000 election.

The second round of the election was a runoff that occurred nearly two weeks after the first round on January 21. None of the candidated secured a high enough vote total to be declared President. Nikolić won the first round with about 40% of the vote, while Tadić came in second with 35%.

"Serbia has shown its great democratic potential," Tadić said in a victory speech.

At his party headquarters, Nikolić conceded defeat in the race. "Tadic won, my congratulations," Nikolić said, adding, "We will be a strong opposition both to the authorities and the president."

Tadić is the leader of the Democratic Party. He holds pro-Western attitudes and supports Serbian membership into the European Union.

Nikolić, leader of the nationalist Serbian Radical Party, supported closer ties with Russia, Serbia's historical ally.

Both candidates were opposed to independence for Kosovo, although the province is expected to declare independence within the month.

title: Tadić re-elected President of Serbia


text:
Tribunal considers role of Canadian minor in alleged war crimes

February 4, 2008 A military tribunal at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is hearing arguments today over the legality of trying Canadian Omar Khadr for alleged war crimes, given his status as a minor at the time of the incident.

Khadr is charged with the murder of Sgt. Christopher Speer, in addition to attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. The charges stem from a 2002 incident in which the 15-year old allegedly threw a grenade at U.S. troops after they directed an air-strike at the Afghan compound he was sharing with Mujahideen insurgents.

A number of groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have sent a letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates alleging that the military tribunal is "not equipped to meet juvenile justice standards" and that Khadr should either be tried before a civilian court or repatriated to Canada. Jennifer Daskal, senior counter-terrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch explained that the United States "should not make matters worse by prosecuting him before an unfair military tribunal."

Khadr's lawyer Dennis Edney challenged the attempts to label the 21-year old as a war criminal asking "...Why is he not being treated as a child soldier?" Lt Cdr Bill Kuebler, the American military commissions counsel in the case, agreed that the charges should be dismissed since the tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute minors.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper however, has said that his country will not intervene in the case to seek extradition of Khadr, re-affirming Canada's status as the only Western country who has not demanded the release or extradition of their citizens held in Guantanamo.

Claiming to have been abused, threatened with rape and forced into painful positions since his arrival in Guantanamo in 2002, Omar Khadr has been the subject of two psychiatric assessments that claimed he suffered from mental disorder as a result of his imprisonment, and was at risk of suicide.

Khadr was previously charged by the Guantanamo military commission in November 2005, before the judicial body was ruled "unlawful" by the Supreme Court. Last June, a military judge dismissed a second series of charges against Khadr because his 2004 Combatant Status Review Tribunal had classified as an "enemy combatant" rather than an "illegal enemy combatant", meaning that he did not qualify under the Military Commissions Act. Three months later, however, the Court of Military Commission Review ruled that the Commission would be allowed to make its own determination of the legality of a combatant.


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/February 04, 2008

Introduction
[Opening music] This is Wikinews News Brief, summarising the current news on the 4th of February 2008 at 03:31 hours UTC. I’m Nicholas Turnbull.

Tribunal considers role of Canadian minor in alleged war crimes
A military tribunal at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp heard arguments today over the legality of trying 21-year-old Canadian citizen Omar Khadr for alleged war crimes despite his status as a minor at the time of the incident. Khadr is charged with the murder of Sgt. Christopher Speer, in addition to attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and espionage. The charges stem from a 2002 incident in which the 15-year old allegedly threw a grenade at U.S. troops after they directed an air-strike at the Afghan compound he was sharing with Mujahideen insurgents. Khadr's lawyer Dennis Edney has challenged the attempts to label him as a war criminal, arguing that he be treated instead as a child soldier. The legal counsel of the American Military Commission has agreed with the assessment that the charges be dismissed, on the grounds that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to prosecute minors. The case continues.

Tadić re-elected President of Serbia
In Serbia, the current president and Democratic Party leader Boris Tadić has won a further term of presidency in the second and final round of the country's presidential election. Opposing candidate and leader of the Serbian Radical Party Tomislav Nikolić was defeated by a narrow margin, receiving 2.6% fewer votes than Tadić, who holds pro-Western attitudes and is in support of Serbia joining the European Union. Nikolić, leader of the nationalist Serbian Radical Party, supported closer ties with Russia, Serbia's historical ally. Independence of Kosovo is supported by both candidates, the province being expected to declare independence by the beginning of March.

Egypt seals border with Gaza after 11 days
Egypt closed its border with the Gaza Strip yesterday, ending 11 days of unrestricted movement of Palestinians to and from Egypt. Barbed wire and metal barricades have been used to seal the remaining gaps in the existing barricade across the border. Egyptian citizens in Gaza are being allowed to return back to Egypt, and Palestians on the Egyptian side of the border are being permitted to return to Gaza; the Egyptian government is, howeer, allowing no new crossings. On the Palestinian side of the border, militants affiliated with Palestinian Islamist militant organisation Hamas have been turning people back, telling them that the border is closed; despite reports of altercations with Gazans who still wanted to cross into Egypt, most reports have described the situation as fairly calm.

Sentences handed down over Paraguay's worst fire
In Paraguay, a court has completed its trial over the worst fire disaster that has affected the country, the Ycuá Bolaños supermarket fire in Asuncion. The fire, which broke out on the 1st of August in 2004, left 374 dead and 450 others injured, with nine missing and presumed dead. Approximately 2,000 people were inside the supermarket when the fire broke out, including many families with young children; fire doors were shut to prevent looting, worsening the situation by trapping customers inside. The investigation has shown that the blaze started in a badly-built chimney because of inadequately maintained equipment; a lack of fire escapes, fire detection systems and fire suppression systems all contributed to the death toll. Most of the deaths occurred due to asphyxiation from the smoke. Store owner Juan Pio Paiva, aged 64, was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment, whilst his son Daniel Paiva, aged 40, was given a ten-year sentence, both convicted of manslaughter and exposing people to danger within the workplace. This retrial followed protests by friends and relatives of the deceased after a court had previously been in favour of more lenient five-year sentences.

At least 30 killed by earthquakes in Rwanda and Congo
At least 30 people have been killed by two earthquakes in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The magnitude of the earthquakes was thought to be between 5.0 to 6.0 on the Richter scale. The Deputy Police Chief of Rwanda, Mary Gahonzire, told Reuters that the death toll has increased to 25 in the earthquake; in Congo, Bernard Watunakanza, acting governor of the Bukavu region, has stated that five people were killed and 149 were seriously injured. This brings the total death toll to 30, and a total of 350 injuries. The earthquake could be felt in nearby Burundi, but no reports of damage or injuries there have been issued.

Drug-resistant flu rising, says WHO
Some influenza viruses in the United States and Canada have shown increased levels of resistance to the antiviral drug Tamiflu, the World Health Organization reported on Friday. Similar trends were reported earlier in Europe. Tamiflu is currently the recommended treatment for humans infected with influenza, including the H5N1 strain, commonly referred to as "bird 'flu". Governments worldwide have been stockpiling the drug in case of a 'flu pandemic. The drug resistance appears to be limited to the H1N1 variant which causes seasonal flu, while H3N2 or influenza B strains and the H5N1 strain that causes bird flu did not show increased resistance. Interestingly, resistance to the medication has not been observed in Japan or Hong Kong, despite Tamiflu being widely prescribed for seasonal 'flu in Japan.

Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"
In the ongoing battle between the Church of Scientology and the nebulous Internet group known only as "Anonymous", a representative of the Church of Scientology has responded to inquiries by Wikinews reporter Brian McNeil over the recent attacks on the Church of Scientology's web sites in e-mail correspondence. The representative, signing the messages as "Laetitia", ignored the specific questions put by Wikinews over the damage inflicted on the Church and what action the Church intends to undertake, replying only in general terms. The representative stated that the Church of Scientology has reported the activities of "Anonymous" to the authorities, adding that the Church considers their activities to be illegal and that Anonymous "will be handled and stopped", although specific information on what this action entails was not forthcoming in the correspondence. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the creator of Operation Clambake, a website that seeks to expose Scientology, considers that Scientology's efforts to have criticisms against it and confidential information removed from the Internet are failing. An anonymous expert on the Scientology religion who is a former member of the Church told Wikinews that Laetita may have slipped by providing information that she had not been authorised to provide, and that the lack of concrete answers given in response to the questions are part of Scientology's codified techniques for dealing with news reporters.

Fall '08 styles at New York Fashion Week: the miniskirt is back again
In fashion, the first two days of the New York Fashion Week have debuted fashions that are similar to those in past years. Many designers have shown off their newest creations, including a return of turtleneck sweaters and miniskirts. The ubiquitous fashion staple of the miniskirt has been incorporated into designs that are even shorter than in the past; and if the first two days of the Fashion Week are any indication, another year of miniskirts being in vogue is forthcoming, partnered with tights which were widely expected to go out of fashion for 2008. Major labels Nicole Miller, Lacoste, BCBG and Baby Phat showed off their styles in the first two-days of the week-long event. Talk of the beginnings of an economic recession in the United States has sparked fears in the fashion industry, in which a lackluster fashion scene an make or break both established brands and up-and-coming new designers. The New York Fashion Wek runs until Friday.

Footer
Thank you very much for joining me, Nicholas Turnbull, for this Wikinews News Brief. [Intro music] Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be accessed at the following URL: http://en.wikinews.org. This recording is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/. Goodbye. [Outro music] [END]

title: Wikinews:Briefs/February 04, 2008