From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:10:15 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: in defense on Lon Horiuchi
Message-ID: <199709121201.OAA03505@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Zooko Journeyman blathered:

> There are many issues one could legitimately argue regarding
> a policeman who accidentally kills a non-combatant bystander
> during a fight.  But comparing such a policemen to a 
> terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb
> is beyond the pale.  That, but for my interruption, this
> comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks
> crowd is damning.

As Tim and others have noted from time to time, one man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter.  A corollary to this is that one
man's policeman is another man's terrorist.  Calling Horiuchi - a
//trained sniper// - a policeman is stretching credulity.  Consider
too that the Weavers weren't threatening anyone when they were
initially attacked/ambushed by the Feds - so in what way were the 
Feds fulfilling a "policeman" role?

In any case, it wasn't really my intention to "compare" the deeds of
Horiuchi and McVeigh.  I was merely noting that the defense of
Horiuchi by Herr Direktor Freeh could have been used nearly
verbatim in McVeigh's behalf.  As you've pointed out, though, there 
/is/ that crucial difference though, isn't there?  One of them has a 
badge and gets paid by the taxpayers, which makes him a "policeman."