Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets

[frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)]

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