Fwd:Re: Non-lethal weapons acting via external manipulation of the Central

[kkollins at pop3.concentric.net]

Not only do I Agree, with all my "Heart", to what you say... I've done a
=Detailed= Analysis of how "non-lethal" weapons have been used to
Dictate events large and small.

One of the main targets of such has, in fact, been Journalism, as a
whole.

Use of "non-lethal" weapons leave "Life", but they don't allow Life.

I'm Happy to, =at least=, have "Life" left within me. (I'm deliberately
"treading-gently", here... if no one will meet with me in-person, I
Must.) ken collins

Allen L. Barker wrote:
> 
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> 
> > Allen L. Barker wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > > "Non-lethal" weapons in the hands of barbarians are torture implements.
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > I Agree... it's "just" that they're a bit better than Murder. ken
> > collins
> 
> This is getting a little off-topic for the newsgroup, but I will add one more
> note.
> 
> I understand the argument above, and it is one that has often been put forward
> in defense of non-lethal weapons.  In some sense it assumes that everything
> stays the same but that safer weapons are available for carrying out violent
> actions.  What it does not take into account is that non-lethal weapons lower
> the threshold of use for such devices.
> 
> Take a political demonstration as an example.  An administration or regime
> opposed to that demonstration formerly might have had a few options.  The
> police could have opened fire on the demonstrators, used tear gas, or perhaps
> clubbed the demonstrators.  In all these cases it is clear what has happened.
> The press knows it, the police know it, and the demonstrators know it.  So such
> a regime is hesitant to escalate to such tactics for fear of the resulting exposure.
> 
> Now suppose there is another option.  There are secret weapons that can be
> employed to influence the crowd, which will probably not permanently harm anyone.
> Their use can be denied, and they will probably break up the demonstration.  In
> this case there is much more of a temptation to use the technology.  The press,
> if it knows what has happened, will be less likely to report it.  The result is a
> mechanism for a repressive government to better stay in power and to control
> both its citizens and the perceptions of its actions.
> 
> --
> Allen L. Barker
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb