Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

On Phil Hallam-Baker's rejoinder to Paul Bradley' defense of AP:

Virtually all of Phil's charges against AP apply equally well to
state-sponsored killing in the natonal interest, including that
arranged by highly educated, cultured, philosophical, nuclear 
physicists and electrical engineers.

That's the issue. Who gets to decide who lives and who dies, and
how close the killer is to the slaughter, unprotected by law, by
public consensus, by popular will, by apologetics for the security
of national interest.

Jim Bell is hardly the first to articulate this challenge to the grand
tradition of the majestic state and its precursors -- the king, the 
bandit, the tribal bully, the strong -- all sanctioned beasts taking what 
their trainers want by force, while being excused and celebrated by 
fey intellectuals and balladeers of all craven submissive dress.

Rushdie, hmm. Phil what mind-swill you elbow-tipping? Is Rushie not
closer to Jim Bell than he is to you in challenging the arrogant mullahs
of highly sophisticated armed thuggery. Who you shillinging for these 
days, Crispin's bandits of the NLs?