At 07:36 PM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 8:15 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
That may well be true, but speaking as someone who's worked on U.S. Presidential campaigns, that kind of protection is expensive, time-consuming, intrusive, and unlikely to be extended.
I assume that both Declan and Jim Bell agree that people high in the government will be immune because they already enjoy this level of protection (limitation one). So the only people we can hit are the cannon fodder, not the ones who gave the orders. It has always been this way with war.
Actually, I think the primary targets will be either the middle level manager types, or the ones who have attracted a substantial amount of bad publicity by "following orders." Lon Horiuchi (the sniper who shot Vicki Weaver) for example, would be a excellent example of a person who'd try to claim, "I was just following orders." Okay, maybe he was, but so was Adolph Eichmann. Once the tax collectors/enforcers were targeted, the rest of the government wouldn't be able to operate, and would collapse.
If, after a couple of the Waco people had been hit, I was given the responsibility to protect them I would proceed as follews:
(1) Gather them and their families onto some Army base and step up the patrols. Now I have them safe.
And, of course, you've just ruined their lives. Think about it. By doing this, it is made absolutely, completely, and abundantly clear to them that THEY are considered "the enemy" and that their lives are forever put at risk. Previously, government employees could hold their heads up high and be proud of their "public service." Now, if they're discovered, they have to disappear. Does this treatment sound familiar? Their job description and circumstances will more closely resemble that of a Mafia enforcer than a proud public servant. They'll have to teach their children to lie about what their parent does, rather than risk getting exposed. Who, exactly, would want to work for the government under such circumstances? Remember, we're not just talking about a tiny fraction of their number; if the most egregious ones were hidden the ones that were less secure would be killed in their place. Remember, the only reason the government can even afford so many employees is because taxes are collected; what happens when literally every IRS agent resigns to avoid the bullet or bomb? The remainder, the "less bad" ones, couldn't be paid. At that point, government collapses.
(2) Train and release them thru the witness protection program. Cost $20,000/person (if I remember the article John Young posted a pointer to correctly. (Thanks John)) This is probably about the same as the cost of their training, so it makes economic sense.
Except that you can't do this for every government employee, and who's going to want to work for the government if it is made clear to them that someday they'll either be killed, or discovered, or they will have to "go underground" to survive. Not a very good prospect. And what happens if they think there's a fairly good chance that my system will succeed? Most people want to be able to retire with a pension; what's the prospect for collecting a pension from a demolished government?!?
(3) Make sure that the names/faces of the cannon fodder in future actions are not available to make it harder to target the guilty.
Bill
Then they'll target the "names," the ones who show their faces. See how this works? If the only way you can maintain the government is to keep them all absolutely anonymous, then that government has FAILED. Furthermore, this system's anonymity allows disgruntled public employees the chance to collect money by "turning in" their bosses to the public's ire; if the personnel list for the government is nominally a secret, it will "leak" eventually and those on the list will be followed, confirmed, and targeted. I'm not a betting man, but if I were forced to place a bet, your position doesn't have a prayer.