On Phil Hallam-Baker's rejoinder to Paul Bradley' defense of AP: Virtually all of Phil's charges against AP apply equally well to state-sponsored killing in the natonal interest, including that arranged by highly educated, cultured, philosophical, nuclear physicists and electrical engineers. That's the issue. Who gets to decide who lives and who dies, and how close the killer is to the slaughter, unprotected by law, by public consensus, by popular will, by apologetics for the security of national interest. Jim Bell is hardly the first to articulate this challenge to the grand tradition of the majestic state and its precursors -- the king, the bandit, the tribal bully, the strong -- all sanctioned beasts taking what their trainers want by force, while being excused and celebrated by fey intellectuals and balladeers of all craven submissive dress. Rushdie, hmm. Phil what mind-swill you elbow-tipping? Is Rushie not closer to Jim Bell than he is to you in challenging the arrogant mullahs of highly sophisticated armed thuggery. Who you shillinging for these days, Crispin's bandits of the NLs?