From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 22:53:13 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQacww20750.199602141437@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 09:55 AM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:

>>You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my 
>>idea.   Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me.
>>
>>How so?, you ask?  Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be 
>>interested in this "contract."  Aside from the obvious moral issues involved 
>>here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth 
>>is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would 
>>strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie.
>>
>>1.  There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award 
>>anonymously.  His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be 
>>subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for 
>>Rushdie's death.
>>
>>2.   There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the 
>>award.  (How would he prove HE did it?)
>>
>>3.  That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should 
>>the offerer refuse to pay.
>
>These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem.  To him the death
>warent has already been issued by legitimate authority.  It is not even
>clear that money would be his princple motivator.

Which simply proves my point;  money is not the limiting factor, here.

>I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case.  I believe that
>Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to
>repel the potential assassins.  Note that he has an advantage over the US
>president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does
>not need to make public appearences.

But remember, Rushdie is merely ONE PERSON.  And keeping him safe has 
consumed a lot of resources.  You don't think the government could protect 
each of their most publically hated employees to a similar level if a reward 
of, say, $20,000 were put on each of their heads.  How much could we collect 
to "get" Lon Horiuchi, for example?  Or the hundred or so agents immediately 
participating in the initial Waco incident, or the dozen or so decision 
makers immediately above them?   Etc.

The Rushdie incident is simply so far removed from "Assassination Politics" 
that it can't possibly be used to refute it; I still believe it actually 
demonstrates how much effort somebody has to go to, to protect a targeted 
person.  One targeted person is easy to protect.  10,000 would be FAR 
harder.  And the moment a few of those guys got "whacked," the rest would 
want to resign their jobs and hope they would be allowed to retire in peace.


>Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will
>then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes
>getting caught or killed.  It seems to me that Secret Service levels of
>protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics.

In a sense, qualitatively you absolutely correct, but (quantitatively) 
you're wrong.  

I think the problem is that when most people hear the term "Assassination", 
they think of only the highest-level targets.  Quite the contrary; I think 
this system will get the medium and even the lower-level people FIRST, 
de-populating the government primarily by hurried resignations of worried 
people.  The remaining  people would be terrified to actually make anybody 
angry, and they wouldn't have a paycheck because they couldn't collect any 
taxes.  The whole system would collapse in a heap.

Jim Bell

Klaatu Burada Nikto

Something is going to happen.   Something...Wonderful!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMSDmO/qHVDBboB2dAQFeOgP/bpXFbTfw1R/iTRsWOrEZJI22N4nFPWX3
XBN2dx106jTdx/eoYz1rhjiaeZt/FzB83DABj34HuVPkws1OPEQ2e6Dneva5RjHK
QJFN4Po9SN03fb+7l3yp5Axr/1P4j4eiao4t0oAF+NPNk2FzU2LvHEMpbIawme0B
AC6Uv4nR8hc=
=9lr1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----