At 12:36 AM 2/13/96 -0800, jim bell 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. 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. 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. Bill