Mr. Lorrey invoked the Laws of Land Warfare in his post. I was merely pointing out that his understanding of them was lacking. I did not mean to imply any sort of moral or ethical judgement, just a narrow legalism in his chosen arguement. Perhaps I should have put "legitimate insurgency" in quotes.
Nevertheless, McVeigh deserves to hang.
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > If I remember the Laws of Land Warfare correctly, to be considered a
> > legitimate insurgency and to be afforded the priveledges of a POW, there
> > must exist a well defined command structure, there must be at least
> > partial control of some territory, soldiers in combat must wear uniforms
> > or some other form of identification, and probably several other criteria
> > I don't remember. By those criteria, McVeigh is a common criminal who
> > deserves to hang.
> Argument-from-dictionary holds no water with rational people. The
> terms "rebel" and "terrorist" are logically equivalent; it is only
> the emotional baggage they carry that distinguishes them. Such
> people should not be judged by their clothes, or by their success,
> or by their choice of organization, but by the justice of their
> cause and the rationality of their actions.
> If McVeigh had broken into the office of the BATF official who
> led the Waco raid and shot him, or planted a bomb in his desk, I
> would be first in line to applaud him, regardless of whether he held
> any territory or wore a uniform. But to indiscriminately kill
> people who had nothing to do with the raid, and in a way unlikely
> to have any positive effect on the despotism he allegedly opposed,
> makes his act a crime rather than legitimate defense.
> Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
> are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
> for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC