At 01:34 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Phill wrote:
[AP drivel deleted]
If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now. It can't because it is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be.
It's perfectly doable, it's just not politically expedient. One reason is that if they kill Saddam, they no longer have an excuse to keep threatening and attacking Iraq and making themselves look good. Another is that National Leaders have a tacit understanding between themselves never to assassinate other politicians [well, hardly ever....] If you break the taboo, you're implicitly inviting everyone else to go gunning for you, and it's too easy to do if there are enough people who really want you dead, especially well-organized people like a foreign army or spy service. If the US _had_ really wanted to assassinate Saddam, they could have hired professionals to do the job (like Mossad.) Instead they killed 200,000 other Iraqis, including civilians, draftees, and a few tens of thousands of real soldiers.
In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I* would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules
Yup.
I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone is going to act on it.
I think a more realistic danger is that the government will use it as an excuse to attack all the techniques for private communications that cypherpunks have been suggesting will make AP possible.
PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder.
Nonsense. It certainly _is_ censorship, and it's hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. You can argue whether it's _justified_ censorship, just like the AP advocates argue whether assassination is justified murder, but censorship it is. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto