Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

[Petro]

On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 07:53 PM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

> Petro wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>>>> What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
>>>
>>> Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US
>>> government and al-Quaeda in the same category.
>>
>>         How about Criminal Conduct meaning "Actions violate the laws".
>>
>>         The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as
>> baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so.
>
> Okay, let's try a concrete example:
> A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his
> automobile.
> B commits murder.
>
> Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the
> argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do,
> however, make a distinction.
	
	If A is actually a crime (instead of an "infraction"), then yes, both 
are in the set called "criminal". It is a large set and includes most of 
the people in this country.

	What is the difference between murdering 50 people and murdering 3000?

--
Crypto is about a helluva lot more than just PGP and RSA...it's about
building the I-beams and sheetrock that will allow robust structures to be
built, it's about the railroad lines and power lines that will connect the
structures, and it's about creating Galt's Gulch in cyberspace, where it
belongs.--Tim May